Elizabeth Holmes cheats no one. Well, almost anyone.
A convicted fraudster and founder of defunct medical startup Theranos is awaiting the start of his 11-year sentence in federal prison. She received this reprimand for misleading investors about her lab-in-a-box technology, which she claimed could perform hundreds of tests with a few drops of blood. In fact, when Theranos’s Edison device didn’t exist, explodewhich provided unreliable results scared patient.Holmes’ downfall – she was the youngest ever self-made female millionaires–It’s been explained over and over again. However, there is still a little blood left on this stone.
on sunday, of new york times Ran profile Author Amy Chozick suggests that she was fascinated by Holmes, a devoted family woman. Chozick wrote that Holmes was “gentle and charismatic” and “seemed neither a hero nor a villain”. Like most people, she seemed to be somewhere in between. This flattery, or at least vague tone, was not well received.of Axios Editor Sam Baker another article selected on Twitter. Emergency physician Jeremy Faust called itthoughtless nonsense‘ argued journalists and doctors alike. times I made the mistake of helping Holmes restore his image.
When something goes wrong in the health care system, doctors try to trace it to process failures. Errors are handled at the system level rather than the individual level. For example, if a patient receives the wrong dose of medicine, the responsibility does not necessarily lie with the nurse who administered the medicine or the doctor who prescribed it. The entire pharmaceutical delivery process, from pharmacy to bedside, is carefully inspected for unsafe practices. The media and their content distribution processes are doing a similar post-mortem for the Theranos debacle. Before John Careyloo broke bad news About the company of of wall street journal, the reporters gladly profiled Holmes with only the most rudimentary caveats.even journal praised her before it curses her.but timesA recent visit to Homesville suggests that this dangerous practice still exists.
As a pathologist, a medical doctor who specializes in laboratory testing, I have followed Theranos’ story from the beginning. The rise and fall of Holmes is the most fascinating scandal ever to hit my field.most scandals are more attractive body parts behind the pickup than financial crimes involving celebrities. Just last week I gave a comprehensive talk on Theranos.regulatory loopholes and widespread ignorance I spoke to academics in attendance about how the blood-testing scheme has led medical professionals and the public to commit diagnostic fraud. Towards the end of the lecture, I posed a question. Have the media learned a lesson after enabling the Holmes farce?
Much has changed in science reporting since Holmes’ shaming. I have seen the media debate about new medical technology become more nuanced and spooky. The mainstream press now goes out of its way to underscore the volatility of early research results. We are getting more and more calls from journalists asking for a skeptical view of new clinical tests and scientific discoveries. But there are cracks in Mediah’s armor. The weakest element is the headline. All sorts of definitive advances can be declared as long as you add “Scientists have discovered” to the title. Another persistent problem is the medical controversy reported in each study. Articles on disputed territories offer ready-made drama back and forth, with little clarity. (Masks help prevent the new coronavirus.wait, they not working at allnever mind, they are doing it again now.) When doctors evaluate the latest research, we recognize that some methods are more reliable than others. Wisdom comes from learning which consequences to ignore, and scientific consensus slowly shifts.
But a journalist’s most stubborn instinct, one he shares with Holmes, is to rely on a good story. It is the human side of science that attracts readers. Every technological advance must be linked with a story of suffering and triumph. Holmes, like everyone else, knew this. She gave little thought to how her device would work. She couldn’t because her device didn’t work. Instead, she repeatedly told the world about her fear of needles and of losing a loved one to a disease that could have been discovered sooner with a convenient blood test. Of course, journalists were also picked up. The next entrepreneur to show up and talk like that might garner sympathetic voices in the press.
Holmes understood that nearly everyone — journalists, investors, patients, doctors — could be swayed by pick-up lines. She still tries to move forward by telling stories. By devoting herself to her times Holmes joins the story started by partner Billy Evans as a converted idealist and wonderful mother. Last fall, as part of Holmes’ sentencing process, Evans wrote: multi-page letter The petition for mercy from the judge was accompanied by numerous photographs of Holmes posing with animals and children. “She is gullible, overly trusting, and simply naive,” Evans wrote of one of the great corporate fraudsters of our time.
Journalists still tell stories about her, for better or worse. Holmes is not naive, and neither are many readers of this book. of new york times. Her “hero or villain” coverage last weekend may be said to betray the memory of patients and Theranos employees who were harmed by her inaccurate blood tests. died by suicide, it’s also just an entry into an expanded world of Holmes-themed entertainment. There are also books, podcasts and feature length documentaries. Here are the TV miniseries scores about Holmes: 89 percent at Rotten Tomatoes. (“Addicting!“”Fun as ever!”) Indeed, some of those who now mourn, timesFriendly Treats has consumed this material for non-academic reasons.
The mundane details of the convicted crook’s home life aren’t all that news, but they’re interesting because Elizabeth Holmes’ character is interesting. So is her ongoing effort to spin stories about who she is. But in a land so well trodden, there’s irony built into it. You know Holmes is a crook. i know it. At some level of new york times You seem to know that. Her article details her crimes and cites a friend of Holmes’s who said she could not be trusted. This is not character rehab. it’s the content. We are all waiting to see what Liz does next. Have the media learned their lesson? The real test will come when the next science impostor appears, and the next, when their story is still intact and their deception is yet to be exposed. At that point, a system that prevents errors should work.