Elizabeth Holmes’ Downfall Has Been Explained Deeply—By Men
Maybe Elizabeth Holmes, whom a grand jury
indicted last month for fraud, never should have asked herself, “What
would you do if you knew you could not fail?” 1
The
eye-roller slogan adorned a plaque on Holmes’ desk at Theranos, her
ignoble blood-testing startup. She seems to have gravely misread it.
Rather than goading her to courage, the words blinded her to the
obvious. In launching a company with a sub-Edsel product as a keystone,
she could fail. And of course did.
In May, the journalist John Carreyrou, who made Theranos his white whale for years, the journalist John Carreyrou Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup,
a potboiler about the company; I devoured it. But it didn’t slake my
thirst for enlightenment about that epochal evildoer: Holmes herself.
Holmes herself.
Holmes is no one’s maidservant or adjunct. She’s not
Imelda Marcos or Ivanka Trump or Kellyanne Conway. Holmes is the master
puppeteer of Theranos. It’s clear in Bad Blood that it was
she—and no one else—who managed to drive the company’s value up to $9
billion without a working product; and she alone who was able to win
unholy investments of trust, as well as a whopping $900 million from
superstar investors, including education secretary Betsy DeVos and her
family ($100 million) and good old Rupert Murdoch ($125 million).
Holmes, in the book and now the indictments, comes off like a cheat, a
pyramid schemer, an evil scientist, for heaven’s sake.
She’s
also a woman. And we’re not used to self-made young female oligarchs
lying outrageously, fleecing the hell out of other billionaires and
conducting thunderous symphonies of global deception. There’s no
American template for a powerful woman gone so gravely wrong.
What made her think she could bluff and bluff and bluff on what must be
the lowest hand ever played in Silicon Valley—no cards at all?
Virginia Heffernan (@page88) is an Ideas contributor at WIRED and the author of Magic and Loss: The Internet as Art. She is also a cohost of Trumpcast, an op-ed columnist at the Los Angeles Times, and a frequent contributor to Politico.
Holmes
is no one’s maidservant or adjunct. She’s not Imelda Marcos or Ivanka
Trump or Kellyanne Conway. Holmes is the master puppeteer of Theranos.
It’s clear in Bad Blood that it was she—and no one else—who
managed to drive the company’s value up to $9 billion without a working
product; and she alone who was able to win unholy investments of trust,
as well as a whopping $900 million from superstar investors, including
education secretary Betsy DeVos and her family ($100 million) and good
old Rupert Murdoch ($125 million). Holmes, in the book and now the
indictments, comes off like a cheat, a pyramid schemer, an evil
scientist, for heaven’s sake.
She’s also a woman.
And we’re not used to self-made young female oligarchs lying
outrageously, fleecing the hell out of other billionaires and conducting
thunderous symphonies of global deception. There’s no American template
for a powerful woman gone so gravely wrong.
Did she try the Bankers Plan? And think she was powerful enough to slip through like they did by being a singular experience as a beginning chemical engineer and self-made female billionaire ?
Did she try the Bankers Plan? And think she was powerful enough to slip through like they did by being a singular experience as a beginning chemical engineer and self-made female billionaire ?
ReplyDelete