Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

Inside Elizabeth Holmes's Chilling Final Months at Theranos (vanityfair.com) 250

In the final months of Theranos, before the blood testing start-up was debunked and its founders charged with fraud, then-CEO Elizabeth Holmes brought a puppy, who she insisted was a wolf to others, with a penchant for peeing into the mix, according to Vanity Fair, which has detailed the chaos that ensued in the waning days of the startup, once valued at $9 billion. The 35-year-old Stanford University dropout has also met with filmmakers who she hopes would make a documentary about her "real story," the outlet reported. She also "desperately wants to write a book." An excerpt from the story: Holmes brushed it off when the scientists protested that the dog hair could contaminate samples. But there was another problem with Balto (name of the dog), too. He wasn't potty-trained. Accustomed to the undomesticated life, Balto frequently urinated and defecated at will throughout Theranos headquarters. While Holmes held board meetings, Balto could be found in the corner of the room relieving himself while a frenzied assistant was left to clean up the mess. [...]

By late 2017, however, Holmes had begun to slightly rein in the spending. She agreed to give up her private-jet travel (not a good look) and instead downgraded to first class on commercial airlines. But given that she was flying all over the world trying to obtain more funding for Theranos, she was spending tens of thousands of dollars a month on travel. Theranos was also still paying for her mansion in Los Altos, and her team of personal assistants and drivers, who would become regular dog walkers for Balto. But there were few places she had wasted so much money as the design and monthly cost of the company's main headquarters, which employees simply referred to as "1701," for its street address along Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. 1701, according to two former executives, cost $1 million a month to rent. Holmes had also spent $100,000 on a single conference table. Elsewhere in the building, Holmes had asked for another circular conference room that the former employees said "looked like the war room from Dr. Strangelove," replete with curved glass windows, and screens that would come out of the ceiling so everyone in the room could see a presentation without having to turn their heads.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inside Elizabeth Holmes's Chilling Final Months at Theranos

Comments Filter:
  • by kelarius ( 947816 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:05PM (#58165204)
    next you're going to tell me that sharks with frickin laser beams on their fricken heads is a bad investment.
  • by Crash Dummy Redux ( 5616896 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:10PM (#58165242)
    What a coincidence! Wil Wheaton's house number in The Big Bang Theory was 1701.
  • by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxrubyNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:10PM (#58165248)

    Due diligence and best practices were sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. People were so desperate to have a female CEO and founder of a large company that they disregarded established safeguards. People need to learn that best practices and due diligence are there for good reasons.

    I'm not objecting to having woman starting and running a business (my wife has done this - I think it's a good thing). I'm objecting to people disregarding established standards in the name of political correctness. Let this be a lesson that narrative should never trump best practices.

    • When I think Political Correctness, who doesn't think Henry Kissinger as part of the feel good package? After all, no company has ever failed big based on fraud when men were in charge.

      Holmes is the daughter of an Enron executive. Need I say more?

      • After all, no company has ever failed big based on fraud when men were in charge.

        So your motto is "go with the women, they're just as bad as the men"? That's a helluva thing to use as a yardstick. If you're going to excuse bad behavior by women by saying they're no worse than the men, why bother making the distinction between genders at all anymore?

        • So your motto is "go with the women, they're just as bad as the men"?

          I believe in equality, women are just as capable as scamming investors out of capital as men have been.

          • So your motto is "go with the women, they're just as bad as the men"?

            I believe in equality, women are just as capable as scamming investors out of capital as men have been.

            True. Reading the article, what she did was manage to convince people that the basis of success was not ability, but eccentricity. She also had an ability to schmooze people. That is not a genitals specific thing.

            It is true, that she is quite physically attractive. This cannot be totally disregarded. https://www.psychologytoday.co... [psychologytoday.com]

            But probably a detail that is a telling thing is that her father was an executive at Enron. So she is no stranger to corruption in business.

            • But probably a detail that is a telling thing is that her father was an executive at Enron. So she is no stranger to corruption in business.

              My guess is that she is a disciple of the "fake it until to make it" school of success, in an extreme form. I think it is telling that she thought indefatigable chirpiness is a necessary ingredient to visionary success, especially when faced with bad news.

              A number of Enron executives seem to believe that their shenanigans were merely technically illegal, and that if only their gambits had succeeded in keeping the stock price rising, all would have been forgiven.

              I think that Holmes here thought a little fud

    • by Megol ( 3135005 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:18PM (#58165298)

      Bullshit.
      Personal connections with people that should have known better and not believing a CEO for a so highly valued company could be lying were the main problems. If someone lost their money for backing a company with a female CEO I'd simply laugh at them - but that wasn't the case for the majority of backers. They backed an incredible technological advancement that could change medical diagnosis all over the world being faster, cheaper, safer. But it was all a gigantic lie.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        They backed an incredible technological advancement that could change medical diagnosis all over the world being faster, cheaper, safer

        ...without a shred of evidence to back up the claim. THAT was the real problem. Serves them right for losing their money.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          No no, "there was evidence", the problem was it was invented for that purpose, to fool investors and try to skate until the product could live up to the claims. It never made it. If it had worked the fraud might have been sweep-able.

          • We've known from since the time of Royal Rife that to build real Star Trek tricorders, you need to resonantly stimulate and sense the characteristic frequency of the testing material. This mucking around with nano blood samples is still messy biology [xkcd.com]. Also once you can determine the resonant frequency, it's a simple matter to destructively overdrive pathogens to blast them to bits. This has been settled super-science since the late 1920's.
          • That was an interesting thing from one of her interviews, she mentioned that some publication had written an article critical of their tech, based on interviews with industry experts, and had in response offered to go to their offices to demonstrate that it worked. So she was going to send a carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show to overwhelm some journalists with gee-whiz, using Theranos gear run by Theranos techs and results interpreted by Theranos, in other words where Theranos could produce any resul
      • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @05:14PM (#58166098) Journal

        Bullshit. Personal connections with people that should have known better and not believing a CEO for a so highly valued company could be lying were the main problems. If someone lost their money for backing a company with a female CEO I'd simply laugh at them - but that wasn't the case for the majority of backers. They backed an incredible technological advancement that could change medical diagnosis all over the world being faster, cheaper, safer. But it was all a gigantic lie.

        Oh come now.

        It was a huge factor - "she's young! She's a woman CEO in tech!" It was all over the place.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        People were so desperate to have a female CEO...

      Please. Those old fools made a bad investment because of her looks. This should be obvious to most men.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        How about this - the fraud and the investments themselves were gender neutral, but the underlying/contributing hype and the specific CEO's charm were gender centric.

        Everybody happy?

      • I think greed and optimism make a plausible explanation as well.

        • I think greed and optimism make a plausible explanation as well.

          Many factors are involved. Where we run into trouble is the large number of people who become angry and go into denial when the slightest suggestion is made that there is no sexual aspect involved.

          She's an attractive woman with conman abilities. It would be pretty naive to think that she wouldn't use every tool at her disposal.

          The major operating factor is indeed greed and avarice, and misplaced optimism. But her ability to make men stupid and the political incorrectness that would dare say that a wom

      • People were so desperate to have a female CEO...

        Please. Those old fools made a bad investment because of her looks. This should be obvious to most men.

        She did have more than looks. She had a con man's ability to bullshit people and make up stuff. She is at least a sociopath, or just as likely a non-violent psychopath.

        But make no mistake, men can become remarkably stupid around an attractive woman, so it would be very unlikely that she didn't use her sex as another tool in the toolbox.

        And yes, there is political pressure to increase the number of women CEOs to a bit over half - at least. It would be naive to think otherwise.

    • Due diligence and best practices were sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. People were so desperate to have a female CEO and founder of a large company that they disregarded established safeguards.

      What the absolute fuck my friend?! Elizabeth Holmes' is a con-artist. They come in both male and female variety. Con-artist get away with a lot of shit because most sane people think other people, especially people in power, are equally sane. This episode isn't a marker of how PC has wronged us all, I mean good grief there's way, way, way better examples of that, but nah my friend this is just shitty people with power. Let's at the very least classify it correctly. Hell, if you want to toss a buzzy wo

      • People were starting to raise concerns in 2014 and by 2015 concerns were becoming much more vocal. There was no rational reason to ignore these concerns especially when you are talking about billions in dollars of valuation.

        While they had lawyers on call, I can't believe that was enough to dissuade sincere concerns when billions of dollars were at stake. Therefore an irrational reason must have driven this, and the only thing I've seen that is powerful enough to do that is political correctness. The fact th

    • It might also be the investors thought the public would be desperate for a female CEO of such a company. If so they were trying to cash in on the general trend of the political correctness. Luckily that trend seems to have been trumped by the trend to return to common sense, at least in parts of the society.

  • Foolish startups that have people throwing millions (or billions) of dollars at them while other good startups can't get the funding they need. I have a startup that has built a new kind of data management system. It is twice as fast as the big database management systems and does things thousands of times faster than file systems. It is the kind of thing that can radically change how data is managed on a global scale; yet I can't seem to attract even a few $100K from investors even though I have a working
    • Foolish startups that have people throwing millions (or billions) of dollars at them while other good startups can't get the funding they need. I have a startup that has built a new kind of data management system. It is twice as fast as the big database management systems and does things thousands of times faster than file systems. It is the kind of thing that can radically change how data is managed on a global scale; yet I can't seem to attract even a few $100K from investors even though I have a working system with a few customers already. It's all 'who you know' instead of 'what you know'.

      Perhaps it's because people are addicted to the phrase order of magnitude. 2x just isn't enough. If you had 10x then you'd be in. Citation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/g... [forbes.com]

      • It definitely does some things 10x better/faster than existing systems (I guess I should have lead with that), but for a well established market like RDBMS where products like Postgres or SQL Server have been around for decades; I thought 2x in the general case was a pretty high bar to clear.
    • LOL with Theranos in the ring one couldn't even secure academic funding.

      I was working directly in the medical diagnostics space and Theranos (and Calico) made it impossible to get grant funding for electrochemical bioassays for newly discovered targets despite the path to development being extremely straight forward and unlikely to fail (even from our own institution who had money allocated for this but never dolled it out), let alone get a nibble of interest from an outside investor. It's sad, because

  • Former SecDef Mattis was also taken in by Theranos.

    If it's not YOUR PERSONAL specialty and you don't know as much or more about the subject than the people trying to sell you, leave it the fuck alone.

    • Betsy "Let's arm teachers to protect schools from grizzly bears" DeVos also coughed up $100 mill for Balto to poop on.

      It's the black turtleneck.
      Steve Jobs discovered that people with more money than sense get easily hypnotized by black turtlenecks.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:21PM (#58165308)

    I stopped reading the article the moment they called her a WASP. As soon as they break out the racist terms, I know they are not going to unbiased.
    Why is it ok to call a white person from an upper middle class background a WASP, but it's not ok to call a black person the nword or a person of jewish descent a Jew. Seriously WTF does her race or upbringing have to do with any of this?

    • it's not ok to call .. a person of jewish descent a Jew.

      WTF? I know it was ok to do that in 2018. Who changed the rules and why wasn't anyone notifed?

      • it's not ok to call .. a person of jewish descent a Jew.

        WTF? I know it was ok to do that in 2018. Who changed the rules and why wasn't anyone notifed?

        I've got the feeling there's more to the grandparent poster's story. Because saying "Steve is Jewish" is fine and always has been fine.
        But shouting "Give me my money back, you fucking JEW!" is not fine. If you call them out they act like they're the victim, making like you're not allowed to refer to a Jewish person as a Jew anymore.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        It was around 2016 when you could be labelled a terrorist by your tone and people started attacking fundamental rights as Free Speech. You didn't get the memo because this shit is subtle and everyone's having a generally hard to time coming to terms with the change.

    • .

      WASP means old-money. I mean, literally it doesn't. But it's used to connote a very specific type of person. If you didn't grow up with a trust fund or around people who did, you're not a WASP, regardless of your religion, ethnicity or ancestry.

    • What exactly is racist about calling someone a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant?
    • I'm not sure why it would be brought up, but WASP is hardly a pejorative.
      It's too much of a colloquial to be used in serious journalism, however.

    • or a person of jewish descent a Jew.

      Huh? Jews never had any problem being called Jews. Not one of them. Not even israeli Haredim.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      WASP has been a common term for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant forever. Jeez. Get over yourself. As another commenter said, calling someone black who is black, or Hispanic is Hispanic isn't racist. The fact that she is an attractive WASP female is pertinent to the story. Comments like yours just make me feel so damn tired.

  • by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:27PM (#58165344) Homepage

    She is an instrument of fraud. And she risked people's lives with piss poor testing.

    • > she risked people's lives with piss poor testing.

      I think it was piss rich testing. The samples were contaminated. Or the word rich could refer to ridiculous extravagance.
    • Elizabeth Holmes knew nothing of how laboratory medicine works and how to bring up a lab assay. Worse, she didn't come from a medical background, and probably thought she could get by with, I don't know -- making nice to her board of directors? Bravado? She's the best example of the Kruger-Dunning Effect I've ever seen.
      • There was a theory, very popular among MBAs for a while, that a good manager could just manage without knowing anything about what the managees were doing. I think that led to a whole raft of problems, myself.

    • I forgot who but she's somebody's God daughter or something. As long as we continue to pretend our ruling class doesn't exist they're untouchable.

      Warren Buffet nailed it. [washingtonpost.com] (apologies for the WaPo link, open it in incognito/private mode).
      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @04:32PM (#58165814)

        I forgot who but she's somebody's God daughter or something. As long as we continue to pretend our ruling class doesn't exist they're untouchable. Warren Buffet nailed it. [washingtonpost.com] (apologies for the WaPo link, open it in incognito/private mode).

        Her father was a VP at Enron(!) then worked at government agencies and her mother was a Congressional staffer. Explains why almost all of her board members were former government officials (none of the board members had experience with biomedical technology-how that didn't raise red flags with investors I don't know; they were probably too busy seeing green)

        • Her father was a VP at Enron(!)

          Sounds like the fraud apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. She learned from "The smartest guys in the room."

  • by Anonymous Coward

    What is chilling about this? Silicon valley culture is horse shit, everyone knows that by now. None of this surprises me.

    • That is not entirely correct. Some of Silicon Valley culture is made up of bovine digestive product, and some smaller percentages are from other species. The exact formulation is a closely held secret. Kept in a bank in Atlanta GA next to the coke formula.
  • College Dropout (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:41PM (#58165442)

    One thing I've learnt with some college dropouts is that they quit because they generally take shortcuts for most things in life. My ex team-lead was the same thing, crazy shortcuts/hacks he would do in his code because he couldn't be bothered to take the time to finish it properly.

  • Mansion? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @03:45PM (#58165484)

    Theranos was also still paying for her mansion in Los Altos,

    The other stuff is the normal corporate stupidity of giving executives too many privileges. But this is fraud. It could be her mansion, and she was paying for it from her personal funds. Or it could be Theranos' mansion, and she was paying the company rent to live in it. But having the company pay for "her" house is fraud (it's not a legitimate business expense, so she's essentially stealing money from the shareholders), and probably tax evasion (company gets to write it off as a tax-free expense, she doesn't have to pay income taxes on the benefit received).

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      I worked with a guy who our company was sending to visit a remote site. Company policy was to buy economy class airline tickets for employees' business travel. His response: "Get me a first class ticket or I'm not going. Don't like it? Then fire me." He flew first class. And guess what. It was a legitimate business expense.

      When you deal with people at executive levels, they often have personal services contracts. And if part of that contract says you scoop up my dog's shit or you pick all the brown M&M

    • It's just another form of compensation. If a company car is legal, so's this.

      And as an added benefit, the company probably turned a profit due to appreciation.

    • Call it the Executive Briefing Center and have a few President stay there and the IRS never takes a second look.
    • Well at least one would have some real stories to tell. About crazy spending, peeing dogs, nice things, boss stereotypes, scams, gullible people, etc. Don't know what it was like for the common worker there. Maybe they still had Bob in the basement cubicle grunting about Jenkins to everyone who happens to come too close. But sounds interesting.

  • Hyped wunderkind, complete fraud, and now she gets to walk away? That is not right.

  • She's increasingly looking like some kind of failed Steve Jobs clone. Some of his charm and bravado, all of his asshole douchebaggery, and none of his vision or attention to detail. She got so wrapped up in her delusions that she fooled herself into ignoring the trainwreck she created and the lives she ruined in the process. She's a walking catastrophe and should be locked up before she can turn anything else to sh*t.
  • "One day in late December 2017, Holmes showed up at the Newark building and held an all-hands meeting. She appeared excited beyond restraint. Brimming with enthusiasm..."

    Elizabeth Holmes, if that's even her real name, is not a real person. She's an actress put in place by the Theranos board to front this ponzi scheme of a company.

  • Every time I saw her speak I'd look to see if she had a visible adam's apple. /me shivers

  • Usually this refers to a successful product. Apparently at Theranos it applied to the CEO herself.

  • > and screens that would come out of the ceiling

    This phrase betrays the commie motivation behind this vitriolic attack.

  • It seems she might actually believe in the efficacy of totems.

    Or maybe it's cargo cult behaviour.

    The black turtle neck from Jobs? "Maybe if I wear this, I'll be as good as him."

    The dog. The various little foibles.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...