Re: [DIYbio] "Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged With Massive Fraud"

First of all we need congress to stop the Hatch/ Harkin Act where snake oil is legal though. If DSHEA was Illegal wouldn't Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos Board been shut down by FDA and FBI earlier than 2014 when the proposed Walgreens deal was at play? Theranos as seen in the John Carryrou Book Bad Blood was a Snake Oil operation for medical devices and the Politicians on the Theranos Board took the bait

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hatch-20180105-story.html

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BwDuMlBCQs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA0wKeokWUU


On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 4:44:30 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Cline wrote:

The open question of why more skepticism was not aimed at Theranos
throughout the entire company history, even though it was easily and
obviously deserved, needs more attention to ensure history repeats
itself less often.

""One thing that the [Theranos] documentary makes very visible is this
long list of old men who seem to have been captivated by a very young
woman: journalists Parloff, Ken Auletta and Charlie Rose; investors
Don Lucas, Larry Ellison, Tim Draper and Rupert Murdoch; board members
George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Jim Mattis and Channing Robertson; and
others, including Joe Biden and Bill Clinton.""
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/americans-have-a-fascination-with-fraudsters-alex-gibney-on-the-fall-of-theranos-and-elizabeth-holmes


In other long-term fraud news, Monsanto-Beyer lost another court case
related to cancer and glyphosate (Roundup).   The documentation
unloaded through prior court cases shows the disturbing history of
scientific research manipulation by the Monsanto executive team, a
strategy pursued for years.   Look up the emails in the court
documents to see how Monsanto exec's discussed which studies should be
buried or cut and which studies should be glorified, and by whom.


-- Quote --

Interview

'Americans have a fascination with fraudsters': Alex Gibney on the
fall of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes

by Julia Carrie Wong Sun 17 Mar 2019 06.00 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/americans-have-a-fascination-with-fraudsters-alex-gibney-on-the-fall-of-theranos-and-elizabeth-holmes


The Oscar-winning director presents a sympathetic portrait of the
Silicon Valley CEO who fooled the world into believing she had built a
better blood test


We can't get enough of Elizabeth Holmes. The founder and CEO of
Theranos once captivated the imaginations of venture capitalists and
magazine profile writers with her too-good-to-be-true tale of a
revolutionary blood testing technology. Three years, numerous federal
investigations, and eleven felony counts later, our appetite has
shifted to devouring the tale of how Holmes fooled the world. The
Silicon Valley morality tale – a true crime saga with a dash of Fyre
Fest-schadenfreude and the added bonus of an icy blonde with a
mysteriously deep voice – has thus far inspired a best-selling book, a
popular podcast, and two documentaries, with a feature film and
real-life criminal trial still to come.

One of the documentaries, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon
Valley, debuts Monday on HBO. The film, by Oscar-winning director Alex
Gibney, presents a surprisingly sympathetic portrait of Holmes as a
modern-day Thomas Edison-gone-wrong. The Wizard of Menlo Park, Gibney
reminds us, was a master of "faking it until you make it" who raised
money off a promise long before he figured out how to make the
incandescent light bulb work. Of course, Edison eventually came
through, while Holmes is facing up to 20 years in prison, and her
company was forced to void tens of thousands of blood tests for
patients in Arizona.


Gibney has spent a career on what he calls "the fraud beat", with
subjects including Enron, the Church of Scientology, Lance Armstrong,
and the Catholic church. We spoke to him about the lessons of
Theranos.

What drew you to making a film about Theranos?

I was interested not just about the details of the story but what it
had to say about the psychology of fraud – not only how someone
deceives others, but how they deceive themselves in order to deceive
others, and how the people who are deceived get deceived. How does
that happen?

We're in the midst of something of a national fascination with
scammers. Do you see Elizabeth Holmes as being part of an American
archetype of a fraudster?

I've been on this beat for a while – the fraud beat. I think what's
interesting about Elizabeth is: What happens when you pursue a dream
and your dream doesn't work? Do you admit it? Or do you just keep
finding ways to pursue the dream and pretending that it really is
working when it isn't?

I do think that we as Americans – going back to movies like The Music
Man – there's a kind of fascination with a fraudster, somebody who
breaks the rules. We want to see them brought down and punished.

But I think that the more important thing about Elizabeth to me is
that she did have a mission – a noble mission, in a way – that she
wanted to accomplish. And what brought her down was this notion that
the police call "noble cause corruption" or "the end justifies the
means". You know, if you're pursuing a noble goal, it's OK to fake it
'til you make it.



I'm curious how you came to believe that her initial motivation
actually was noble.

There are indications in [Wall Street Journal reporter John]
Carreyrou's book that early on she was cutting corners and lying to
people. But I do think that if she had wanted to make a lot of money,
she could have made a lot more than she did. If she had been Bernie
Madoff and just was trying to do this in order to make bank and then
leave, she could've paid herself a lot more handsomely than she did.

Fraud has been a through-line in your career. What is the connection
between Scientology and Silicon Valley or Silicon Valley and Enron?

I think the connection between scientology and Elizabeth Holmes is the
"prison of belief". Look at what happens to [Theranos board member]
George Shultz – the grandfather of [eventual whistleblower] Tyler
Shultz; the noted Secretary of State. Even when his grandson comes to
him and says, "You know Grandpa, there's rampant fraud at Theranos",
he can't undo or retract or unwind the belief that he has. He's in a
prison of belief of Elizabeth Holmes. He's committed to her, and for
him to say, "Oh wow, that's terrible", would mean that he has to go
back to the beginning and admit that he was duped and fooled.

On the other hand, you take something like Enron and you look at
people like Jeff Skilling. Jeff Skilling, I think, was not in it like
Bernie Madoff. He did have a mission. His mission was that the
completely untethered unregulated free market is going to end up
having enormous social benefits.

This idea of the end justifies the means and trying to manipulate
reality in order to conform to the dream, those, I think, are
consistent.

A lot of people around Silicon Valley point to Theranos and say,
"They're not real Silicon Valley. We're not like that."

There's an element of truth and there's an element of bullshit. Fake
it 'til you make it is something that's imbued in the DNA of a lot of
Silicon Valley companies. And there are a lot of powerful Silicon
Valley companies – the most respectable – who are still lying to
people. Look at Apple and the battery. Look at Facebook and Google in
terms of how they were mining our data and how they were misusing
information and also kind of ruddering to our worst instincts.

In some ways Elizabeth was an outlier, and it is true that a lot of
the powerful Silicon Valley VCs did not invest in her because they
didn't see the evidence and they were suspicious of her. But I think
that, in the ethic of "move fast break things" without really
considering the damage that might be caused and how that can become
culturally problematic, she does share some DNA with the other Silicon
Valley firms.

You were not able to speak with Elizabeth Holmes.

My producer sat down with her at the very beginning for about five
hours off the record to try to persuade her to participate, and we
were unsuccessful. We kept coming back and trying to get her to talk
to us, and she refused. She kept saying, "When we're back on our feet,
then you can come see the successful Theranos." Right. That never
happened.

Early on we had a very tough time talking to employees because they
were all terrified of [Theranos lawyer and board member] David Boies
and being sued. It took a long time to build up momentum in terms of
being able to get people on the record and then we got very lucky in
terms of somebody from the inside giving us a treasure trove of video.

Roger Parloff, the Fortune magazine reporter who wrote the first
magazine profile of Holmes, has carried a certain amount of blame for
helping to create the myth of Theranos, but he was also the only
person in the film that expressed any actual remorse for what
happened, so he comes across as this very tragic figure.

I see him as the beating heart of the film. It ripped him up inside
that he got it wrong and that he put her on the cover. To see those
moments where both his embarrassment but also his anger almost renders
him speechless – it's a very powerful moment. We live in a time when
we have a fraudster-in-chief for president and everything's being
angled for everyone's own cognitive biases, but Roger I think really
took seriously this idea of pursuing the truth.

Journalists are both truth seekers but also storytellers. In coming
across Elizabeth Holmes, this was a powerful story that they really
wanted to tell of a young female entrepreneur in male-dominated
Silicon Valley who's really coming up with something that was doing
good. But when you see something that is such a wonderful story,
sometimes you have to wonder whether it's a fairy tale. And they
didn't wonder hard enough.

One thing that the documentary makes very visible is this long list of
old men who seem to have been captivated by a very young woman:
journalists Parloff, Ken Auletta and Charlie Rose; investors Don
Lucas, Larry Ellison, Tim Draper and Rupert Murdoch; board members
George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Jim Mattis and Channing Robertson; and
others, including Joe Biden and Bill Clinton.

I mean, I think that it is so utterly evident. Phyllis Gardner [a
Stanford professor of medicine] refers to the board and says, "They
evidently succumbed to a certain charm." We tread lightly on it, but
it's clearly obvious that they did succumb to a certain charm. She was
young. She was pretty. It blinded them in a certain way.

I think Elizabeth herself infused her own myth with this idea of youth
– youth conquers all. Steve Jobs dropped out of Reed College. I'm
going to drop out of Stanford. You don't need that bullshit education.
All you need is genius. Well, maybe if she had stayed at Stanford for
a few more years and took a few more courses, it might have done us
all a bit of good.

We do kind of revere youth in some ways, and Elizabeth very much
inside the company used that. She had a real distrust of the older
people, either because they were experienced and they were showing her
up, or they just didn't get it in the way that young Silicon Valley
entrepreneurs get it. You move fast, you break things, you don't ask a
lot of questions, don't give me your old paradigm bullshit. Well,
sometimes you know that experience can be very valuable, right?

Thankfully, two very young people are also the whistleblowers who end
up bringing her down. Because they're not worried so much about
families they need to support, and also I think they're more
idealistic. They're coming out of college and they haven't become
cynical yet.

I think the men fell for her. It's clear and it's clear that she
understood. There weren't any women on the board. How odd was that for
a woman who is the CEO?

Were you ever concerned about falling into the same trap? Personally,
I was a bit surprised that the film came off more sympathetic towards
her than …

Than it should have?

… than I feel, by granting that her motives were altruistic. And I
think the comparison to Edison is generous.

It's generous in one way, and there's a couple of reasons I went
there. One is, I really don't think she is a Madoff character. So I
give her the credit for at least having that sense of mission. But
honestly in my view that's not necessarily the good news. You can look
at Hitler and say he was a guy who who believed that the end justifies
the means, right? That's not good news.

The comparison to Edison – yes, Edison was a for real inventor. But
also let's be honest: Elizabeth exists on a spectrum of people who
over-promise and sometimes way under-deliver and sometimes commit
fraud. I didn't want to do the film in which Silicon Valley gets left
off the hook. Because if she's just the bad apple – you know that's
what they said about the people at Abu Ghraib. They're just bad
apples, and so they have nothing to do with the overall system. Well,
that was bullshit for Abu Ghraib and I think it's bullshit for Silicon
Valley. I think she does exist within the context of Silicon Valley
culture even though she's an extreme outlier in many ways. So it's
that tension I kind of was interested in playing with.

I wonder if I was too generous. But it's hard to know. She very much
feels she's a victim. And that is a hard thing to reckon with. And
that's why I put in Phyllis at the end saying, "You are not a victim."
You know, the buck stops with you, Elizabeth Holmes.

This interview has been edited and condensed for brevity and clarity.



-- End Quote --




On 3/15/18, Jonathan Cline <jnc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The vaporware and hyped promises of Theranos surprisingly did not get much
> attention on this group thruout the company's history.  There have been a
> lot of vaporware and fraudulent claims in synbio, which obviously goes
> against fundamental principles of science.


--
## Jonathan Cline
## jcl...@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################