Yes, it was a stage in the making. The media painted every railing in immaculate white. The media made sure that she always looked her best but last week the hammer fell down and 4015 days in Hotel Penal became her new lodgings. Yet the stage was for a lot not that clear was it?
So let do some recap (my way). First there is the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901) with ‘Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology’, the headline avoids a few terms and gives us “company founder Elizabeth Holmes holds up a tiny vial to show how the startup’s “breakthrough advancements have made it possible to quickly process the full range of laboratory tests from a few drops of blood.”” It also gives us the fact that the firm was at some point valued at 9 billion dollars. USA Today (at https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/03/15/behind-theranos-rise-and-dramatic-fall-powerful-backers-money-tech-and-politics/426364002/) gives us ‘Behind Theranos’ rise and dramatic fall: The powerful backers in money, tech and politics’ and there we get “Theranos raised money on the strength of Holmes’ ability to pitch her vision, whose reality often didn’t match up. But there were plenty of takers. Theranos’ fundraising resulted in a valuation of $9 billion — half of which belonged to Holmes, making her one of the youngest billionaires on the planet, at least on paper.” This article leads to “Shultz quit, and despite warnings from Holmes — she allegedly called the elder Shultz to warn him about his grandson’s threats to expose the company — decided to contact New York state’s public-health lab and alleged Theranos had manipulated its test results. This was the first known regulatory complaint about Theranos, whose issues would soon grow exponentially.” As such Tyler Shulz was the first brick that decided that the wall did not make sene, the wording “she allegedly called the elder Shultz to warn him about his grandson’s threats to expose the company” making the words ‘intent’ finally float to the top and an issue was finally raised. As stated the first. So how long was she out and about with this at present? Then we get the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63672103) where we are given ‘Theranos: Silicon Valley holds breath for Elizabeth Holmes sentencing’, the article also gives us “In January a jury concluded she had deliberately misled investors. She was convicted of four counts of wire fraud – with a maximum sentence of 20 years. However, it has taken an eternity to get this point – sentencing. Her legal team is arguing for 18 months of house arrest. The prosecution wants her to serve 15 years in prison and to pay back the best part of a billion dollars to investors.” So one side wants her to bake in sing sing for 15 years and the other side want to give her house arrest for 18 month a sway of no less. A mere 10% for the fraudster with nice tits. You think this is crude? How about the investors? So we get things like the dozens of letters have been submitted vouching for Holmes’ character. Character of a Fraudster? “one from Cory Booker, a US Senator for New Jersey, who wrote to the judge.
The Democrat said they’d bonded over vegan food at a dinner six years before she was charged with fraud, and they had remained friends. He appealed for clemency.” This can be seen in two ways. One is what we read, the other one is the one where the Fraudster is setting up a hedge fund of good calls, at the expense of other people. You decide.
Last there is the BBC again (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63685131) where we see ‘Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes jailed for fraud’ it is here that we get “Once hailed as the “next Steve Jobs”, she was at one time said to be the world’s youngest self-made billionaire. She launched Theranos after dropping out of Stanford University at age 19, and its value rose sharply after the company claimed it could bring about a revolution in disease diagnosis.” And how did faking test results help there? How do we get “Holmes, 38, who is pregnant, tearfully told the court she felt “deep pain” for those misled by the scam”? I am of the mind that she got pregnant to soften the blow of punishment, but that might merely be me. And how can she feel deep pain? The actions against Tyler Shulz seem to indicate that, I feel for Tyler Shulz who is the one setting this in motion. I cannot state that others were aware, well one other seemingly was. But he is the one who stopped it, but the Wall Street Journal wrote that away in an epitaph easily enough. It seems that only NPR took a better look in appreciation of what he did, what he found and how the ball got rolling. The Wall Street Journal went straight for daddy.
NPR gives us “he was the first to report troubling findings at the company to regulators. At the time, it was a risky and bold move, but it helped accelerate scrutiny that would ultimately end in the company’s implosion.” I have two issues here. The first I why only NPR is taking that stand, the second one is seen with “it was a risky and bold move” it was risky to warn the SEC for fraud events? In addition we get “Shultz had worked countless hours in labs. Armed with this scientific know-how, he quickly realised something was amiss when he looked inside of the Edison device.
“There is nothing that the Edison could do that I couldn’t do with a pipette in my own hand,” he said. Then he discovered another alarming thing: When Theranos completed quality-control safety audits, it was running tests not on the Edison, but on commercially available lab equipment. That did not seem right. “It was clear that there was an open secret within Theranos that this technology simply didn’t exist,” Shultz said.” The article (at https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1070474663/theranos-whistleblower-tyler-shultz-elizabeth-holmes-verdict-champagne) gives a rundown that none of the papers hd and NPR had it in January 2022. It seems that the media is all very forgiving towards fraud, it implies that fraud is applauded as long as you get away with it. So how come NPR has what the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and the BBC do not? In addition the fact that the hard and ‘risky’ choices that Tyler Shulz made, not his father are seemingly ignored all over the place. And you wonder why I do not trust people with my IP? You have got to be joking. In the end we have a much larger problem, the media! They have gone out of their way to give space to a fraudster and only now, only after the verdict of 11 years is passed do we see the rundown, but till to the smallest degree and that is proven with the NPR article that was given to us 9 months earlier. Hell, a woman can get pregnant in that time. The fact that most media steps largely over Tyler Shulz might be seen as additional evidence.
Was it a simple story, or have they all been compelled by a vampire? I reckon someone has to ask the expert witness Sarah Michelle Gellar for insights.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 