Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget About Elizabeth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason she had kids was her hope to delay/shorten the sentence. She is a psychopath.

Exactly. This was total manipulation and now two kids have to pay for it. No honest and sane person would have two kids in quick order when facing a lengthy sentence unless she was hoping people would take sympathy.

She should have more time added for this bs.

Hopefully they end up with a nice step mother in a couple of years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did walk away from the piece with a lot of sympathy for her children and the cruelties of the American justice system in separating mothers from their children, it's wrong when it's poor women of color, and it's wrong when it's a privileged white women. And you can't have sympathy for children, maybe you are also a sociopath. She's also a rape victim who was clearly under the thumb of a much older, abusive dude. Again, if you can't have sympathy for that, maybe you are a sociopath. Should she go to prison? Yes. Should be separated from her children for 12 years? No. To me it is interesting that she never sold her shares. She didn't make any money. She went down with the ship. A true sociopath would be in the Caymans right now.

What? The punishing force of incarceration is literally being separated from the things you love, from normal life. That's why it counts as punishment. I have sympathy for her babies but no one put a gun to her head to have them.

No. The point of incarceration is to rehabilitate. No civilized country in the world puts a woman in jail for a crime against property for 12 years in this matter. It's appalling when poor drug mules go to jail for 12 years and are separated from their children. It's appalling that we put people in prison (not immigration prisons, but actual prisons) for immigration violations and separate them from their children. Rapists and child molesters get less time in prison for a first offense. She may be an odious person and I wouldn't be friends with her, but her sentence is ridiculous.

No it isn't.

It's to punish.

Call it rehabilitation through pain if you must.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. aThen 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.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong on this point. Ask anyone who was parented by a true narcissist- they are not capable of love. They do not love their children, their children are possessions to control and abuse and manipulate and exploit and throw away when they grow tired of it all. They make protestations of love but they are all empty and manipulative. All relationships are transactional.

Elizabeth Holmes does not love those children. Thank goodness they are going to have a decade free of her to develop their minds without the daily toxic abuse that a narcissistic mother inflicts. I hope their father chooses a better stepmother for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. aThen 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.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong on this point. Ask anyone who was parented by a true narcissist- they are not capable of love. They do not love their children, their children are possessions to control and abuse and manipulate and exploit and throw away when they grow tired of it all. They make protestations of love but they are all empty and manipulative. All relationships are transactional.

Elizabeth Holmes does not love those children. Thank goodness they are going to have a decade free of her to develop their minds without the daily toxic abuse that a narcissistic mother inflicts. I hope their father chooses a better stepmother for them.

It’s pretty heinous to asset that she doesn’t love her children - do you love your children? Where’s the proof? See how easy it is to degrade your parental bond? Criminals are capable of love. It’s why we encourage visitation time during incarceration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. aThen 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.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong on this point. Ask anyone who was parented by a true narcissist- they are not capable of love. They do not love their children, their children are possessions to control and abuse and manipulate and exploit and throw away when they grow tired of it all. They make protestations of love but they are all empty and manipulative. All relationships are transactional.

Elizabeth Holmes does not love those children. Thank goodness they are going to have a decade free of her to develop their minds without the daily toxic abuse that a narcissistic mother inflicts. I hope their father chooses a better stepmother for them.

It’s pretty heinous to asset that she doesn’t love her children - do you love your children? Where’s the proof? See how easy it is to degrade your parental bond? Criminals are capable of love. It’s why we encourage visitation time during incarceration.

NP, and the proof is that (A) I live my way in a life that regularly puts other people's needs ahead of my ambition, (B) I have some semblance of integrity, (C) I do not trot out my status as a mother for sympathy when I am faced with the consequences of my actions, and (D) I had my children when I was in a position to meet their fundamental human needs

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2000/11/01/lawyer-pleads-guilty-to-hit-run/5189c0be-88f8-441a-bad8-ffa809426629/

What about my baaaaybee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did walk away from the piece with a lot of sympathy for her children and the cruelties of the American justice system in separating mothers from their children, it's wrong when it's poor women of color, and it's wrong when it's a privileged white women. And you can't have sympathy for children, maybe you are also a sociopath. She's also a rape victim who was clearly under the thumb of a much older, abusive dude. Again, if you can't have sympathy for that, maybe you are a sociopath. Should she go to prison? Yes. Should be separated from her children for 12 years? No. To me it is interesting that she never sold her shares. She didn't make any money. She went down with the ship. A true sociopath would be in the Caymans right now.

What? The punishing force of incarceration is literally being separated from the things you love, from normal life. That's why it counts as punishment. I have sympathy for her babies but no one put a gun to her head to have them.

No. The point of incarceration is to rehabilitate. No civilized country in the world puts a woman in jail for a crime against property for 12 years in this matter. It's appalling when poor drug mules go to jail for 12 years and are separated from their children. It's appalling that we put people in prison (not immigration prisons, but actual prisons) for immigration violations and separate them from their children. Rapists and child molesters get less time in prison for a first offense. She may be an odious person and I wouldn't be friends with her, but her sentence is ridiculous.

A crime against property? You are paid to print this crap. The way you manipulate the truth makes it clear. You are as bad as a Russian troll. Her stupid equipment was used on people and gave them incorrect, dangerous results. You go ahead and collect your $ and try to make her seem like a poor soul who was manipulated by others. Let's talk about her vile intimidation tactics that pushed a someone to commit suicide. We know who she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason she had kids was her hope to delay/shorten the sentence. She is a psychopath.

Exactly. This was total manipulation and now two kids have to pay for it. No honest and sane person would have two kids in quick order when facing a lengthy sentence unless she was hoping people would take sympathy.

She should have more time added for this bs.

And this is why the U.S. is content to let children be shot en masse. The "she should have more time added" are just as devoid of a moral compass as any fraudster. Either getting off on human suffering or just missing any empathy chip. Really scary stuff.

Manipulative drivel from a paid reputation manager. GTFOOH. Creep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. aThen 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.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong on this point. Ask anyone who was parented by a true narcissist- they are not capable of love. They do not love their children, their children are possessions to control and abuse and manipulate and exploit and throw away when they grow tired of it all. They make protestations of love but they are all empty and manipulative. All relationships are transactional.

Elizabeth Holmes does not love those children. Thank goodness they are going to have a decade free of her to develop their minds without the daily toxic abuse that a narcissistic mother inflicts. I hope their father chooses a better stepmother for them.

It’s pretty heinous to asset that she doesn’t love her children - do you love your children? Where’s the proof? See how easy it is to degrade your parental bond? Criminals are capable of love. It’s why we encourage visitation time during incarceration.

You are just exhibiting a broad ignorance of well established psychology.

I’ve worked in the criminal justice system and also family (including child dependency /neglect) and juvenile courts for decades, I have SEEN IT ALL.

Certain personality disorders manifest in such a way that no, those people are not capable of anything approximately healthy love and nurture of a child. There is so much scholarship on this you could get buried alive, please do educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. aThen 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.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong on this point. Ask anyone who was parented by a true narcissist- they are not capable of love. They do not love their children, their children are possessions to control and abuse and manipulate and exploit and throw away when they grow tired of it all. They make protestations of love but they are all empty and manipulative. All relationships are transactional.

Elizabeth Holmes does not love those children. Thank goodness they are going to have a decade free of her to develop their minds without the daily toxic abuse that a narcissistic mother inflicts. I hope their father chooses a better stepmother for them.

It’s pretty heinous to asset that she doesn’t love her children - do you love your children? Where’s the proof? See how easy it is to degrade your parental bond? Criminals are capable of love. It’s why we encourage visitation time during incarceration.

You are just exhibiting a broad ignorance of well established psychology.

I’ve worked in the criminal justice system and also family (including child dependency /neglect) and juvenile courts for decades, I have SEEN IT ALL.

Certain personality disorders manifest in such a way that no, those people are not capable of anything approximately healthy love and nurture of a child. There is so much scholarship on this you could get buried alive, please do educate yourself.

And just to clarify, of course many criminals are capable of love. Many criminals do not have personality disorders. Many criminals have psychiatric issues that do not include personality disorders. It is a small but significant subset of criminals and the general public who suffer from the kind of personality disorders that prevent them from embodying and exhibiting anything close to healthy parental love.

[Anonymous]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8979578/#:~:text=Theranos%27%20equipment%20provided%20inaccurate%20results,the%20890%2C000%20results%20each%20year.

"By exploiting gaps in regulatory policy, Theranos brought its panel of laboratory tests to patients without pre-market review or validation from peer-reviewed scientific research. "

" Theranos’ equipment provided inaccurate results for an estimated one out of ten tests, resulting in thousands of unnecessary and negative experiences for patients. Patient anecdotes of emotional trauma following false cancer diagnoses from Theranos tests were not uncommon among the 890,000 results each year."


Holmes deal with Walgreens allowed them to open 40 wellness centers in stores in Az. They sold 1.5 million blood tests to 176,000 people. People's lives were changed when they got ridiculous incorrect results from the tests Holmes KNEW did not work. One woman received results that she was miscarrying when she was not. One person received results that said he should stop taking blood thinning meds when he should not. One woman's tests indicated testicular cancer.

She even took her garbage equipment to 27 late stage cancer patients to conduct a 15 month study using equipment she knew did not work.


Property crime my a@@.

[Anonymous]

+1 million to 12:14 who posted about the actual use of these wildly inaccurate blood tests which EH knew were faulty & still allowed to be used on real people. That is the difference here. I read Bad Blood, watched the Dropout, & have read a lot of coverage. EH is a bad person who is not just like a bunch of the blowhard tech bros -- she is WORSE because her blowhard tech persona resulted in real harm to people and she will not admit that. The reporter got snowed, the editor called it out, & the NYT should be ashamed to have published this whitewashing PR shill job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1 million to 12:14 who posted about the actual use of these wildly inaccurate blood tests which EH knew were faulty & still allowed to be used on real people. That is the difference here. I read Bad Blood, watched the Dropout, & have read a lot of coverage. EH is a bad person who is not just like a bunch of the blowhard tech bros -- she is WORSE because her blowhard tech persona resulted in real harm to people and she will not admit that. The reporter got snowed, the editor called it out, & the NYT should be ashamed to have published this whitewashing PR shill job.

and that poster who referred to this as a property crime needs to be shamed off of dcum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. aThen 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.

You seem confused. You can present professionally at work, climb the corporate ladder, and what have you, without being a pathological liar, committing fraud, and hurting innocent people. You can be a pathological liar and narcissist and also love your own children--this is the dichotomy of Liz Holmes.

No, I’m sorry, but you are wrong on this point. Ask anyone who was parented by a true narcissist- they are not capable of love. They do not love their children, their children are possessions to control and abuse and manipulate and exploit and throw away when they grow tired of it all. They make protestations of love but they are all empty and manipulative. All relationships are transactional.

Elizabeth Holmes does not love those children. Thank goodness they are going to have a decade free of her to develop their minds without the daily toxic abuse that a narcissistic mother inflicts. I hope their father chooses a better stepmother for them.

It’s pretty heinous to asset that she doesn’t love her children - do you love your children? Where’s the proof? See how easy it is to degrade your parental bond? Criminals are capable of love. It’s why we encourage visitation time during incarceration.

She had two babies knowing that she wouldn't be there for them from infancy though their teenage years, assuming that she ever gets visitation when she gets out. To me it's more knowing that this was her last chance to have children and making it happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 million to 12:14 who posted about the actual use of these wildly inaccurate blood tests which EH knew were faulty & still allowed to be used on real people. That is the difference here. I read Bad Blood, watched the Dropout, & have read a lot of coverage. EH is a bad person who is not just like a bunch of the blowhard tech bros -- she is WORSE because her blowhard tech persona resulted in real harm to people and she will not admit that. The reporter got snowed, the editor called it out, & the NYT should be ashamed to have published this whitewashing PR shill job.

and that poster who referred to this as a property crime needs to be shamed off of dcum.

Yes, but here in America she did not get convicted for any of that. Stealing money from rich people is what did her in.