"Is there more to the Theranos debacle than we are being told? Indeed, could there even be a immigration dimension to what has happened to Elizabeth Holmes and her once-hailed company?
. . . Holmes dropped out of Stanford aged 19, in 2003, to set up her company, “Theranos.” She claimed to have developed equipment which could diagnose multiple serious illnesses using only miniscule drops of blood. This miracle piece of technology would mean that patients could constantly be aware of their own health status. They could test themselves, quickly conveying the results to their medics. Endorsed by Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger and many others, “The Next Steve Jobs,” who even dressed in black like her supposed idol, was running a company worth $9 billion by 2015 [Elizabeth Holmes on trial, by Samuel Fishwick, Evening Standard, September 2, 2021].
But it was all a sham, as she surely knew. Silicon Valley companies regularly exaggerate in order to drum up investment capital, but Holmes’ claims—constantly repeated credulously in the media—were simply untrue. Her machine took 99.9% less blood than standard devices, didn’t work and in fact gave many dangerous false results. People who showed up for tests with the device were actually tested using old-fashioned needles instead. If they weren’t, they were, for example, falsely told that they were having a miscarriage [Elizabeth Holmes’ trial: Theranos patient testifies about miscarriage diagnosis, BBC News, September 23, 2021].
. . . By 2015, when serious issues were being raised about her product, Holmes proclaimed: “First they think you’re crazy, then they fight you, then you change the world” [Theranos founder was 'personally shocked' about the story slamming her company today, by Kevin Loria and Lauren F. Friedman, Businessinsider.com, October 15, 2015]. But by 2018, numerous fraudulent practices had seemingly been uncovered and Theranos came crashing down.
. . . On the face of it, it could be argued that Holmes epitomizes the female psychopath. These are different from male psychopaths and far less is known about them, because they are far rarer. About 30% of incarcerated men are psychopaths, compared to only 17% of incarcerated women. Thus, whereas a male psychopath is openly narcissistic and brags of his brilliance, a female psychopath will be more covert. She will, for example, surround herself with high-status people, persuading those people to endorse her. Where, really, she should have the endorsement of nerdy scientists, she will get former presidents or secretaries of state. Male psychopaths will be openly aggressive towards you. Female psychopaths will manipulate you and gaslight you [How to Identify a Female Psychopath, by Melissa Burkley, Psychology Today, November 12, 2018].
. . . The prosecution argues that Holmes is a manipulative liar. And, let’s face it, there is something satisfying about seeing self-congratulating proto-Woke types, who backed Holmes because she was young and female, losing money that they might have better invested in a company run by an experienced, qualified middle-aged white man . . . "
Full article: https://vdare.com/articles/elizabeth...ooming-or-both
![]()