Search
Close this search box.

Some quick thoughts on Elizabeth Holmes’ conviction on four counts of fraud

Picture of Justice News Flash Report

Justice News Flash Report

Some quick thoughts on Elizabeth Holmes’ conviction on four counts of fraud

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

[ad_1]

Although many observers do not seem to be completely satisfied with the blood test liar Elizabeth Holmes, the short-lived billionaire on paper, yesterday received the so-called mixed verdict (four of the eleven counts were guilty and three were suspended, so the second trial It’s fair game), which is much better than the result expected by a best-knowing observer. Wall Street Journal reporter Jon Carryou defeated Theranos through ruthless reports. He expressed his fear that the jury would acquit Holmes because she was such a charismatic self-defendant.

Some comments: So far, there are not many good comments, maybe because the authority needs more thinking. Perhaps Holmes’ downfall has been so well concealed that it takes some work to come up with a new spin. But if you want to do some great one-stop shopping during this period, please visit the Daily Mail directly: The world of Elizabeth Holmes: How the disgraceful founder of Theranos imitated the image of Steve Jobs, spoke in a false baritone, and told people that her husky was a wolf, and An elderly powerful man who invested millions of dollars before her empire collapsed.

She faces up to 20 years in prison for each crime, but it is expected that her sentence will be executed at the same time.

Disappointingly, Holmes was found guilty of financial fraud only and did not harm the patient (two of the eleven charges).

Although Theranos provided apparently inaccurate results to thousands of patients, and the Medicare Service Center closed its Newark laboratory for failing to accurately test the level of warfarin (a blood thinner), Holmes still The reason for the bad test results is that compared with their nerves and wallets, there are obviously not enough people to cause real harm to their health. It is not difficult to imagine that if a patient suddenly gets a test result that is clearly inconsistent with their medical history, their doctor will perform a new test. But what is still disturbing is that, according to the following story, she was not punished for the risk she took to the patient’s health:

Before and during the trial, the reason why Holmes was singled out caused a sensation. Prosecuting a woman was obviously a prejudice. Of course, this argument ignores that Ramesh “Sunshine” Balwani, the president of Theranos and Sherlock Holmes’s former lover, will soon be prosecuted.

It’s hard to regret when rich people and companies who should be able to conduct due diligence like Walgrens are looted. But the prosecutor did a good job of demonstrating how Holmes’ ability to distort Theranos far exceeded Silicon Valley’s standards of tolerance. A convincing piece of evidence from the trial was restated in ars technica in November:

The jury of the Holmes criminal trial learned yesterday that when Theranos burned out the cash, founder Elizabeth Holmes was obviously eager to get a large investment from Walgreens—so desperate that she sent two copies to the pharmacy executives. False pharmaceutical reports.

A few weeks ago, the court heard how Holmes had sent a report to Walgreens executives with the Pfizer logo in a prominent position. But Pfizer did not authorize its use. Yesterday, the court heard that Holmes had done so again, and the report sent highlighted the Schering-Plough logo…

Constance Cullen was the director of the Schering-Plough Bioanalytical Laboratory in 2009, when her company asked her to help evaluate the medical diagnostic tests developed by Theranos… Cullen and other Schering-Plough scientists evaluated three different tests …

As part of the evaluation, Cullen and her colleagues met with Holmes and other Theranos employees at the company’s Palo Alto headquarters. Schering-Plough scientists prepared technical questions, but did not get technical answers. “Honestly, I am very dissatisfied,” Karen said…

“There are some attempts I would describe as cautious responses or attempts to redirect to other topics of discussion… Almost only Ms. Holmes is the answerer, no matter who the questions are addressed to,” she said.

Theranos later sent a report to Cullen, stating that Theranos’ technology “has been proven to provide accurate and precise results.” Karen told the court that she had not discussed the statement with Theranos, and she disagreed.

However, in the spring of 2010, Holmes sent this report to Walgreens executives and made some small but important changes. The top of the report now has the Schering-Plough logo, and a key line has been adjusted. Now it says that Theranos’ diagnostic technology “has been proven to provide more accurate and precise results”-note the addition of the word “more”. Karen confirmed in court that no one in her company approved the statement.

This video is another piece of evidence that observers believe will help influence the jury:

The key piece of information is the $7 billion valuation claim, which was false at the time. But I was shocked by the ritual invocation of managing buzzwords, as if Holmes knew exactly how to measure them to stun listeners.

Although this is not the focus of the experiment, it is important to understand another reason why Holmes has achieved such an achievement. Although every venture capital firm with biological science capabilities refuses to provide her with funds, because she refuses to hand over the data, and generally does not It is possible that her technology and she have achieved any major biological science leap in any form without any meaningful history of experimental research or even serious training. “Innovators” in the life sciences are never self-taught.

Theranos, like Madoff, is an affinity scam. Holmes is very close to George Schultz, who has joined the Theranos board of directors, and often eats dinner with his family. Schultz played an important role in introducing other super blue chips such as Henry Kissinger as investors. There are a large number of military-industrial complex figures among the company’s supporters…They will also conveniently try to evaluate this technology at sea. But they have a lot of company:

This vignette is priceless:

I am glad that I am not the only one thinking along these lines:

I can only guess that she did get pregnant on a planned basis because she did almost everything else (read the Daily Mail’s story about the extent of her Steve Jobs behavior) to win the sympathy of the jury and make sure Her new husband did not fall if she was sent to prison. Of course, there is no guarantee that his relationship with her will not be as dishonest as her relationship with her investors and employees.



[ad_2]

Source link

More to explorer

Keep in touch