Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this in Entertainment?

It's true crime.

[Anonymous]

I think "Liz" did believe she could invent this technology. That's fine. The issue is that she lied to investors and regulators to pretend she was further along than she was.

But this "fake it til you make it" attitude pervades Silicon Valley so it's not shocking a 19 year old didn't understand why you can do this in biotechnology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you stop posting links that require a paywall. Gift link.

DP - but this should be a gift link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=C5ejc5SHP4-Db-EzJaelrMYv0HRTZFVZH6NpUwND95_0rzOi6q2h2ZIUi-o-LQtjWU--VettprlF8k7NM4WSuWcgcSHt46hBsLVLea9JfzJN7Vkr_qir_uCK_VBxPAX3kIXFrs9Ag-14MkWnm_USZcEqYOLyRcP8pcu7P3gaC1WwoDNCma_fqF9AtbKPldO6YB5kY-xtQ0nIJePbhu2WJdMVuvdstIYusXC1_LCbOQfOwCProT1a3CVBZsj5EadFxIr0XDaT7yhiJXlpIxybt1_5X4YiROsh6aJkpwZsi47PxgY_T8wGTHgZTRBsJ3JM69CtY3ZmZFXQWNEC2EOZKL8fYf9Pi1YvMStfboY&smid=url-share

[Anonymous]

I read it, I just don’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
She is going to prison for her crimes - she cannot delay for ever. I am sure she feels greatly bonded to her kids, even more so with the impending separation. Who wouldn't?

The author feels surprise that she's a normal person. Of course she's a normal person! People tend to label criminals with all sorts of disorders to make themselves believe they would never do the same thing, but the reality is, no one can be 100% sure that they wouldn't commit a crime given the right environment. In that knowledge, it's a little immature to have a mob revilement session where we all dump on the convicted people. We're not so far apart as we might like to think.

She bullied one of her employees so badly that she drove him to suicide. She defrauded people out of millions of dollars and put people's lives at risk. She lied to people suffering from cancer, FFS. If she had not been stopped, she would have surely killed people, and SHE KNEW THIS THE WHOLE TIME. She spied on her enemies and threatened to tried to destroy their careers. Then she used her ill-gotten gains to live lavish lifestyle. This woman is a straight up sociopath. I can absolutely assure you that I would not "do the same thing" in any environment.

What in the world is wrong with you, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting is that the author fell for her. She knew it was all fake, but Holmes is one of those people who can captivate an audience

None of it is fake. People are complex, that's all. Elizabeth Holmes did her best to attract investments (Steve Jobs turtlenecks, etc), which was very business savvy. She then lied to investors and went entirely over the legal line. It doesn't mean she does not have a motherly side.

I find this entire discussion to be actually very demeaning to women in high-powered careers: they need to project a certain way at work. Then they go home and enjoy a warmer aspect of their personality with their kids. It's entirely NORMAL.

But here this article, and this discussion, will associate such a dichotomy with criminality and possible psychopathy. It's incredibly damaging to working women to question why they behave differently at work than at home with their kids. Because essentially, this is what OP and the author are trying to do.
Have articles been written about males behaving differently at work and with their kids? Whether or not they are criminals? NO!

You can criticize this woman all you want for her crimes. But don't claim that just because you're seeing another side of her now, it's all put on and fake.

There will always be gullible people like you that allow con artists like “Liz” to keep going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you stop posting links that require a paywall. Gift link.

DP - but this should be a gift link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=C5ejc5SHP4-Db-EzJaelrMYv0HRTZFVZH6NpUwND95_0rzOi6q2h2ZIUi-o-LQtjWU--VettprlF8k7NM4WSuWcgcSHt46hBsLVLea9JfzJN7Vkr_qir_uCK_VBxPAX3kIXFrs9Ag-14MkWnm_USZcEqYOLyRcP8pcu7P3gaC1WwoDNCma_fqF9AtbKPldO6YB5kY-xtQ0nIJePbhu2WJdMVuvdstIYusXC1_LCbOQfOwCProT1a3CVBZsj5EadFxIr0XDaT7yhiJXlpIxybt1_5X4YiROsh6aJkpwZsi47PxgY_T8wGTHgZTRBsJ3JM69CtY3ZmZFXQWNEC2EOZKL8fYf9Pi1YvMStfboY&smid=url-share

WOW she is unrecognizable in that headline photo. Almost looks like a normal person. Too bad she isn’t one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you stop posting links that require a paywall. Gift link.

Not op, but it's a subscription with paying for f you value journalism or want to keep up with the DC water cooler conversations.

It's an interesting attempt at a rebrand for sure!

If you're going to post a link that you are encouraging people to read it should be a free link.

[Anonymous]

OMG. This writer got rollllllllllled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you stop posting links that require a paywall. Gift link.

DP - but this should be a gift link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=C5ejc5SHP4-Db-EzJaelrMYv0HRTZFVZH6NpUwND95_0rzOi6q2h2ZIUi-o-LQtjWU--VettprlF8k7NM4WSuWcgcSHt46hBsLVLea9JfzJN7Vkr_qir_uCK_VBxPAX3kIXFrs9Ag-14MkWnm_USZcEqYOLyRcP8pcu7P3gaC1WwoDNCma_fqF9AtbKPldO6YB5kY-xtQ0nIJePbhu2WJdMVuvdstIYusXC1_LCbOQfOwCProT1a3CVBZsj5EadFxIr0XDaT7yhiJXlpIxybt1_5X4YiROsh6aJkpwZsi47PxgY_T8wGTHgZTRBsJ3JM69CtY3ZmZFXQWNEC2EOZKL8fYf9Pi1YvMStfboY&smid=url-share

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

I'm with the crowd decrying the NY Times doing this profile at all. I get there haven't been many (well, any recent) interviews with her, she's clearly news, and a media outlet would be nuts to turn down the chance to interview her. And I think the author of this piece thinks she covered Holmes's ability to be duplicitous. But this is simply too close to a celebrity profile - no meat to it at all.

I also think it's possible to hold many ideas at once - she did bad things. She was probably naive when it started but at some point needed to own up to her management. She is likely extra vilified because she is a woman, and started this as a young woman who relied on her weirdly fake image.

But she's a fraud, she defrauded investors and broke the law, and she is going to jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whenever I think about how she harmed people, and that so many other narcs almost completely let her get away with it, I truly feel steam coming out of my ears.

Can you imagine someday when her kids learn who she really is. I feel like that would mess with your head.

[Anonymous]

Holmes knew her technology was scientifically impossible when a female mentor professor told her so at Stanford. She deliberately misled everyone from the word go.

She is a malignant narcissist, if you needed no other proof the fact that she intentionally brought two children into the world knowing full well she was likely headed to prison for a decade is all the evidence you need. She could have waited. If she cared about the well being of her children, she would have waited.

She refuses to be accountable and shows no remorse. Malignant narcissist, possibly a sociopath. She belongs in prison where she cannot run another grift for a decade or so.

[Anonymous]

Her father was a VP at Enron. So maybe there's a genetic component to being a sociopath and maybe that's the way she was raised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She is going to prison for her crimes - she cannot delay for ever. I am sure she feels greatly bonded to her kids, even more so with the impending separation. Who wouldn't?

The author feels surprise that she's a normal person. Of course she's a normal person! People tend to label criminals with all sorts of disorders to make themselves believe they would never do the same thing, but the reality is, no one can be 100% sure that they wouldn't commit a crime given the right environment. In that knowledge, it's a little immature to have a mob revilement session where we all dump on the convicted people. We're not so far apart as we might like to think.

She bullied one of her employees so badly that she drove him to suicide. She defrauded people out of millions of dollars and put people's lives at risk. She lied to people suffering from cancer, FFS. If she had not been stopped, she would have surely killed people, and SHE KNEW THIS THE WHOLE TIME. She spied on her enemies and threatened to tried to destroy their careers. Then she used her ill-gotten gains to live lavish lifestyle. This woman is a straight up sociopath. I can absolutely assure you that I would not "do the same thing" in any environment.

What in the world is wrong with you, PP?

I find that people who defend sociopaths as “complicated” or criticize labels like personality disorders and psychopathy are often questionable with morals themselves. They see people like Holmes and in some way identify with her and it strikes a nerve when people see through her to who she really is.

Another explanation is that they are just the very naive type who has a Pollyanna view of the world. These are the very people sociopaths can take advantage of.