> her funding came from individuals like former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Walton family, among other wealthy elites.
And there we have the crux of why she was prosecuted...
You're much better off screwing average people, then it's just "capitalism".
> If she'd done the same thing at a university she'd have gotten away with it scot free.
But she didn't though. She was rejected from academia, which is why she turned to private capital. Her fraud worked on private investors, not government funding agencies. She couldn't even convince her professor to get behind her idea, but private funds threw millions of dollars at her.
> For her to be able to convince a lot of people - companies, investors, CEOs and perhaps a multitude of bright people to do what seems to conclude as a big fraud is still mind boggling to say the least.
It's not that mind-boggling honestly. We're overloaded with information and have too little pertinent information (and information-gathering time) to make informed decisions. The most dangerous people in society right now are people who believe in their own bullshit. Their absolute sincerity is enough to dupe people and part them from either their money or their influence.
Come on. You make it sound like it was only Betsy Devos she defrauded. There’s a long list of other ultra-rich people, including Oracle guy Larry Ellison, Walton Family (Walmart owners), and Rupert Murdoch.
Not fair to frame her sentence as Betsy pulling strings, even when I’m no fan of that woman for obvious reasons.
> But her wealth is the subject of mounting scrutiny
The problem is articles like this glamorize the people and the activities. "Savvy investor", "lucky". I know the verdict isn't in and if she did her job just right it will never be. The whole point of being so rich and benefiting from nepotism is that nobody can or wants to touch you. But from a reasonable perspective I guess it's pretty obvious that with such relationships you don't get rich in a country where most barely go from one day to the next by making honest business. This while state coffers that should be full somehow stay empty.
On the flip side you have just "mounting scrutiny". This article does too good of a job at staying "impartial" by completely avoiding any claim that the accusations are real. But gives a strong hint that she is actually the savvy businesswoman she presents herself as. You never get sued for defamation for saying that eh?
What’s there to explain. She acquired billions of dollars because of a thoroughly corrupt and inept legal system and she clearly cares what others think of her.
And importantly: after cheating the US governments' most trusted individuals-turned-investors plus a couple other billionaires out of several hundred million dollars.
I mean she just totally misunderstood the game: you cheat the poor in the US. Not the rich. Strange that such an intelligent woman missed that.
That's about the most generous way of possibly framing it. She apparently deceived investors, the media, and the public, potentially putting people's health at risk in the process. And this deception made her one of the richest people in the world, at least on paper. Like it or not, it's a pretty big story and it will be reported on.
From the article "...lying to investors about a Theranos technology she hailed as a revolution in healthcare but which in practice produced dangerously inaccurate results."
Duping investors clearly isn't the worst crime committed here. The true crime is puting sick people at even more health risk simply because she wanted to be a billionaire. I could care less about losing money, just like I don't cry when a stock or property I own plummets in value - there is risk (gamble), and I accept it when it doesn't work out in my favor unless someone is literally stealing from me intentionally and even then I admit partial negligence as I should have done more due dillegence to prevent being dupped. However, when my family consults a healthcare provider, I trust them to not intentionally harm us.
So, yes, I join the chorus and say good riddence Elizabeth and we'll done law enforcement.
Only because the victims in this case were billionaires too. Remember, she was convicted for defrauding investors, not because of the harm she done to poor patients.
Isnt this a much more simple tale of greed and corruption. the ceo is the daughter of a democrat senator and lobbied big government the jacked hwr salary 600x. Just another shkrelli, maybe even worse because she lobbied for schools to have them.
This case is wildly embarrassing to a huge number of elites including some of the largest funders in the VC world: Tim Draper of Draper Fisher Jurvetson, former secretary of defense Jim Mattis, the most important democratic power broker David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner (who almost certainly has criminal liability that was ignored) and on and on.
This case wouldn't be prosecuted at all if not for the public scrutiny. The question left largely unanswered was what favors did elizabeth exchange with these old powerful men to get them to first invest and then to become unnindicted coconspirators in her schemes.
She defrauded people who would go to court and claim fraud laws are unconstitutional restrictions on speech if it served their purpose. They’re opportunists who will spin whatever tune empowers them.
Murdoch and co’s only life skill is being rich which mesmerizes those who think fiat economics and American civic life are divine mandates of a higher power even if they don’t belong to a traditional religion.
You don't understand. In our system of capitalism, fleecing investors under false pretenses is the gravest of sins. She must be punished accordingly, in order to make a legal statement to other potential capital thieves.
And there we have the crux of why she was prosecuted...
You're much better off screwing average people, then it's just "capitalism".
reply