Hello and welcome to the Elizabeth Holmes episode of Slate Money Criminals.
I'm Felix Amon of Axios, I'm here with Elizabeth Spires of New York Times and Slate from
other places.
Hello.
I'm here with Emily Peck of Axios.
Hello, hello.
And to talk about us with Holmes, the woman who did an entire podcast on her, Rebecca
Jarvis, Rebecca Welcombe.
Thank you.
Great to be here with you guys.
Introduce yourself and plug your podcast.
So I'm the hosting creator of the Dropout podcast, chronicling the rise in follow of Elizabeth
Holmes.
And we have two seasons.
The first one goes over the story and the second follows the entire trial real time.
So you'll hear everything that went down in the courtroom.
We are going to try and answer the question of how bad of a criminal was Elizabeth Holmes.
What did she do that was bad?
Did she get her just desserts?
We're going to talk about who the victims were, what was going through her head, what was
going on with her co-conspirator, Sonny Bellwani.
And at the end, we're going to try and place her on a scale of like one to made off.
Was she worse than made off?
Better?
It's all coming up on Slate Money.
Apple card is the perfect credit card for every purchase.
It has cashback rewards unlike others.
You earn unlimited daily cashback on every purchase, receive it daily, and can grow
it at 4.15% annual percentage yield when you open a high yield savings account.
Apply for Apple card in the wallet app on iPhone and start earning and growing your daily
cash with savings today.
Apple card is subject to credit approval.
Savings is available to Apple card owners subject to eligibility requirements.
Savings accounts provided by Goldman Sachs Bank USA.
Remember FDIC, terms apply.
OK, so Rebecca, this is Slate Money Criminals.
This is the only episode of Slate Money Criminals about someone who is actually in jail at the
time we record the show.
Or in prison, I should say, because she's been convicted, she's serving an 11-year sentence.
Tell us what was Elizabeth Holmes convicted of and was it a terrible crime?
Well, I guess it really depends on who you ask, whether it was a terrible crime or not.
According to the law, it was a serious crime because it involved multi-billion dollars worth
of criminal fraud.
And while there were many counts against her, the counts that she was found guilty on were
those involving investors.
So the crimes she committed in defrauding investors, there were also counts that her
trial about the crimes committed against patients.
And while there were many patients that we heard from at trial, people who were misinformed
about their health because of inaccurate Theranos test, things like a woman who thought
she had a miscarriage because of a Theranos test, someone who thought she had AIDS because
of a Theranos test, a gentleman who thought he had cancer.
And I also spoke to a number of people over the course of our reporting of people who
received these inaccurate tests because they went into a Walgreens or in some cases they
even got a test from a doctor and they were misinformed about their health.
So a lot of people would say that's really the stakes here that not only did investors
lose money and many of those investors are names people might know like Betsy DeVos
and Rupert Murdoch, but the real losers in all of this were the people whose health care
information that were misinformed and had to live with those decisions in some cases may
have even taken medications or put themselves at greater health risk because of it.
The interesting thing you just said there is that the kind of morally horrifying thing that
she did or that she was accused of doing in terms of, you know, basically recklessly going
into Walgreens and giving people test results that were just fictitious, she was actually found
not guilty of that. Yeah, and the thing is I talked to a lot of legal experts even before
the verdict came out and that would have been a much harder crime to prove and part of that is
that it has to do. It's not a malpractice lawsuit. This was never a malpractice lawsuit.
It was about following the money and an intention to commit a crime. So it was much clearer that
she intended to defraud investors because they gave her money when her business was not doing
the things she claimed that it was doing than it was to draw a line between herself and the
financing and what the patients ultimately paid for in those Theranos tests.
Is that not what a lot of startup founders do? I mean, they exaggerate their company and what
it can do and their technology and what it can do in order to get money from investors. I mean,
what makes Elizabeth Holmes so much worse that she had to go to prison for 11 years for that?
Well, I do think that the attention that was paid to this trial has to do with the stakes of it
that lives were at stake and this wasn't purely a case of how many users does this company have,
although we are starting to see more cases also like that and questions about whether or not what
a company says is true is accurate. We can sort of debate why that is. Maybe it's because
money is no longer free and now companies are actually looking at where they're putting that money
when the Fed no longer has zero percent interest rates, but a lot of companies, you could say,
they put their best face forward, but there's a real difference between putting your very best
face forward and completely lying. And one of the things that I thought at trial was a real
smoking gun was this idea that Theranos put forward these reports to investors that looked like
they came from pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. And in fact, they didn't. They were provided
and created by Theranos. And Elizabeth Holmes herself is the one who put the logos of companies
like Pfizer at the top so that investors would think, oh, this is Pfizer's stamp of approval when
in fact it wasn't. That's bad, but like it's not as bad as again, in the eyes of the law,
or her partner in crime, quite literally Sonny Bellwani, he got an even harsher sentence
and she did. He did. And you could argue that he was a less empathetic person at trial, given
that he had started other companies in the past, that he had worked for a much longer time. He was
older, the entire training. He basically should have known better and she founded this company when
she was 19 and basically argued like, I've never done this before. I didn't realize this was wrong.
Certainly. I mean, that was the case that they made at trial for her, that she didn't know she
was taking the advice of all the people surrounding her, including Sonny Bellwani. And so there was
some sympathy. We spoke to a number of the jurors. And the jurors, while they felt that she was guilty,
none of them took pleasure in deciding that guilt. Did you talk to any of the jurors in Sonny Bellwani
case? We didn't follow his trial as closely. From a legal standpoint, he is in jail for a slightly
longer period of time. He was sentenced to a slightly longer period of time. But from a legal
standpoint, it doesn't make that much of a difference whether the two of them were convicted
of one, two, three, however many counts that each of them were convicted of. I think it's
interesting that their trials were severed and that she, maybe in some respects, made herself
more sympathetic by having her own trial as opposed to the two of them being tried together.
Can I just come back quickly, though, to the counts that she was found not guilty of? You said
this wasn't a malpractice trial. So what was she accused? What was the crime she was accused of there?
It had to do with advertisements. So was a paid by Theranos advertisement?
An accurate representation of what she knew at the time of the product and service that they
were offering a patient. Okay, so this is like it was a false advertising thing rather than
essentially, I mean, that's that's a component of it. So was she
misinforming people with the intent to misinform them to get them to pay money
for a Theranos test through fraud? And that's where the jury found her not guilty.
That's right. And again, from a legal standpoint, you can draw a line between Elizabeth Holmes
and investors. She met with investors all the time. She's the one who approved communications
and documents that went directly to investors. With patients, it's just a less clear picture,
legally speaking. You know, when you look at her person on professional art, do you think that she
set up from the beginning in a sort of state of mind where she was willing to commit fraud to
make this work? Or is it something more of an issue where she sort of painted herself into the
corner when it became clear that the product just wasn't working? I mean, it seems from the
trial that there was a good faith effort put in in the early years to do something that people
like Phyllis Gardner at Stanford University thought was impossible. And Elizabeth Holmes
didn't graduate. She left college with almost no study underneath her. And then she set out to
do this impossible thing. And she surrounded herself with some some really excellent scientists
who worked at the company, but a board that had no real science background. And so she was trying
to carry out this incredibly audacious goal with very little experience on her own. And things
started to just not work out. And you can see how, and the entire case, the government brought
was this idea that every time the company was running short on money, she lied because she needed
more money to keep it going. And that's where the lies began. When the money started to dry up,
when she needed more investments, that's when the lies began. But also if I look at someone who's
founding a biotechnology startup, and she winds up filling the board with a bunch of retired
generals and people who know nothing about biotechnology, like on some level, there's a reason
why she went for the generals and not the scientists, right? I mean, she kind of knew what she was
doing even then. Well, you could look at it as nefarious or you could look at it as a completely
different understanding about power and money and where she was getting her money from. A lot of
that later money, the later stage money came from family offices of incredibly high net worth
individuals. And this story, you know, people talk about the venture community giving her money.
But really that high tech biotech venture community barely put money in. There was one investor.
It was like, it was Tim Draper. And that was about it.
Right. Well, Tim Draper was, you know, sort of her first investor. But there were very few
individuals who really know biotech. And when you look at other kinds of biotech investments,
usually you get really hardcore, you know, PhD scientist type biotech VCs that take a really
in-depth look. They're not betting on the person. They are betting on the work and the pedigree.
And all the things that have been accomplished by that product.
Right. And the non biotech VCs are fully aware of what they don't know when it comes to biotech.
And they're like, I don't know biotech. So I don't invest in it. I leave it to the biotech.
Exactly. And a lot of again, like a lot of the sort of traditional VC world that you hear about,
they didn't put money in either.
You're not saying that, and this was sort of my question coming in, Elizabeth Holmes didn't set out
to be a fraud or to do a crime. She set out to create this technology that was going to be
groundbreaking. Like she really thought that's what she was doing. She didn't come into this.
On the series we've talked about, you know, Bernie Madoff who always, he kind of stumbled into it too.
But he knew pretty early on that he was just faking everything total crime. And all the criminals
we've talked about knew what they were doing from the outset. They were doing a fraud. Like
it was pretty clear. But she came in and it was different. So was there a turning point for
Elizabeth Holmes where it was just like where she knew this wasn't going to happen and she was just
doing crime, you know, trying to get away with something. I don't know if you ever asked her.
And she was sitting in a lie detector that she really didn't believe it was going to happen.
I think there's a difference between thinking something might happen or knowing something hasn't
happened. And I think that's where this grey zone existed for her where she was always selling the
dream. But in many ways she was selling the dream as though it already occurred. And that is the
corner she backed herself into. And a lot of it came back to running out of money. And it is
expensive, by the way, to do this kind of work. So they did run out of money frequently. And the
first when she originally brought even Sonny Belwanyan in 2009, they had fully run out of money.
This was the end of the Great Recession, the financial crisis. It was really hard to come by
capital. And he came in with a big infusion. And then she brings him on as her partner.
Applecard is the perfect credit card for every purchase. It has cashback rewards unlike others.
You earn unlimited daily cashback on every purchase, receive it daily, and can grow at
a 4.15% annual percentage yield when you open a high yield savings account. Apply for Applecard
in the wallet app on iPhone and start earning and growing your daily cash with savings today.
Applecard is subject to credit approval. Savings is available to Applecard owners subject to
eligibility requirements. Savings accounts provided by Goldman Sachs Bank USA. Member FDIC terms apply.
Slave money is sponsored this week by planet money. We love planet money around here.
Labor strikes, climate change, your crappy office printer. What are they all having common?
It's all about the money. Economics is everywhere and everything fueling our lives even when we
least expect it. If you're a fan of sleep money and are curious to learn something new and exciting
about economics every week, check out the planet money podcast from NPR. It is fun to listen to,
it is funny, it is entertaining, it is e-con down to earth. It answers some of life's burning
questions like will AI take our jobs? Is fancy vodka just fancy marketing? Why a Christmas tree
is so darn expensive? The planet money team lives to tell a good story in around 30 minutes,
so tune into planet money every week for entertaining stories and insights about how money
shapes our world. Listen now to planet money from NPR wherever you get your podcasts.
Slave money is brought to you by IANX. The following information is provided for general
informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, investment, legal or any other
professional advice. There's a lot of talk across the financial sector about digital assets being
a new and innovative standard of finance, so how can you get involved in these emerging financial
opportunities? It's actually simple, IANX. IANX is the only company that offers full access to
multiple exclusive investment opportunities on one platform opportunities that until now
were only available to a select few. Today, IANX offers the only secure way to trade,
invest and raise capital all under the appropriate regulatory umbrellas and with the ultimate checks
and balances. IANX puts customers first, they hold an audited and segregated reserve fund,
maintain one-on-one balances to customers and do not use customer assets. All trading, investing
in security tokens or cryptocurrency transactions are conducted on one US-regulated platform IANX
1. Registered now for free at IANX 1. Cryptocurrency and crypto asset markets are highly volatile and
speculative and investing in them involves a high level of risk. Past performance is not indicative
of future results, you should conduct thorough research and consider seeking advice from qualified
professionals before making any investment decisions. IANX I guess we should talk about
gender, right, when we're talking about Elizabeth Holmes and I don't even know where to start,
to be honest with you. One of the things that struck me along those lines was that
the story about her going to Phyllis Gardner and Gardner telling her your idea for a patch that
it would deliver antibiotics just doesn't work.
And she completely disregarded that.
And she disregarded the advice of many professionals
and experts who told her and explained why,
her idea was bad.
And I'm having trouble coming up with an analogous woman
entrepreneur who's exhibited that kind of stubbornness
in the face of expertise.
I can think of several men.
I mean, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, always considered
a little bit of an admirable trait when people like that
buck, what everyone tells them is conventional wisdom.
But in her case, it just seems really unusual.
And it seems like it might have been a key to part
of her downfall.
She just diluted herself at these things
where possible when they weren't.
How much do you think that played into what
happened with her?
I think if you, every entrepreneur,
every entrepreneur male female, what have you,
is going to tell you a story from their past
where they were confronted by someone
who didn't believe what they were doing is possible.
I think there's a difference between having absolute faith
in yourself, which you really have to have
when you're an entrepreneur, and then outright lying,
and outright going down a path when you know
that it's not working.
Again, this idea that you're selling a dream
as though it's already occurred.
And I think that is what differentiates her.
I know female entrepreneurs who have been told to their face,
they can't do what they're going to do.
And they end up doing it.
And her story, if she had told the truth the whole way,
could have been very different.
We don't know what that outcome would have looked like,
but it could have been a very different story
where we would celebrate her.
As some of the people you just mentioned Elizabeth,
we have celebrated those entrepreneurs
because they were faced with the impossible
and they somehow managed to overcome it.
And yet the reason they managed to overcome it
on some level was because they had the domain expertise
to understand what was possible.
And Elizabeth Holmes, like example,
she dropped out of college after one year of undergrad,
there was nothing, there was no rational reason
for her to believe that she understood the science here
better than everyone who was telling her that she was wrong.
I mean, even someone like Martin Schnelly
understood that biotechnology science
much better than Elizabeth Holmes.
Yeah, and I think that's why I think in part,
Phyllis Gardner at Stanford was so offended by the idea
that Phyllis was sitting down the hall
from the most brilliant minds of our time
and Elizabeth Holmes Waltston
said, I'm going to do this and I'm just going to do it
and I don't need to complete my degree here
and I'm not going to do the hard work.
I'm going to surround myself with names
who will then bring in money and attention
and I'm going to get attention
and that attention is going to propel money
to just continue to flow in and it's all sizzle at no stake.
And it worked until it didn't.
Right, exactly.
One of the things I've thought a lot about in my reporting
is what was that moment like in Elizabeth's mind
where she was so close in her head
to really achieving her goal,
but she also knew that it was all built on nothing.
And what would that combination of fear
and excitement be like to live with
for a person every single day?
What would the achieving the goal look like for?
I mean, given that it was built on nothing,
was there an end game?
I mean, on some level,
there doesn't seem to have been any good outcome for her.
Like even if John Carrey you had never come along,
like ultimately the tests didn't work.
This company was destined to implode.
Yes, on some level, but I can also see a world
where they manage to go public
and they became a going concern
because they suddenly got access to the public markets
and somehow found a way to just trudge along.
I mean, if you look at the number of companies
that are not fully living up to the standard
that they say that they could live up to,
but they're publicly traded
and they have access to a relatively steady flow of capital.
They're surviving.
Despite the fact that they're built,
I can't say on fraud because they haven't been,
they haven't been called out for that.
They haven't been accused of that,
but I don't know.
I don't know where it would have ended up.
I think the reality, when you look at it,
I feel like I do.
Like I feel like the FDA would have shut them down
pretty quickly, whether they were public or not.
Because the FDA could have pulled tests, absolutely.
But the FDA pulling tests doesn't mean
that the FDA shuts you down.
They could have pivoted to something else.
They could have been like,
this pin thing is now working out.
We're just gonna be a regular blood testing company
or sold to someone else or that's the thing.
I think part of this story is that
the access to capital was the goal
because as long as you have access to people
who are willing to give you money,
you can keep going forward.
And in her mind, if she could go until infinity,
eventually there would be a solution.
And there are other companies that are trying
to do some of the things that she was trying to do.
That doesn't mean that they will achieve those things.
And it also doesn't, by the way,
none of this is to suggest that she did right
or anything like that.
Why did she talk to Amy Chosek?
What did you make of that article?
That's the New York Times feature story.
Yeah.
I don't know why either she chose to speak
with her or vice versa.
I think...
I mean, if you're Amy Chosek,
it's clear why you take that call and you do that.
Right.
This woman's about to get sentenced to prison.
She has a baby.
And was she pregnant also?
I can't.
She had like a two-month-old baby.
She just had her baby.
She just had her baby.
She just had her baby.
Yeah, you definitely want to talk to her for a quarter.
But on the other side, like as a friend of mine said,
like you are in the scene when you have a two-month-old
newborn in the house.
The last thing you want to do is invite a New York Times
reporter into your house and spend like days
with her.
Right.
Right.
It was embedded, too.
I mean, I...
I...
I...
Look, I think from Elizabeth Homestand Point,
it was great PR or it was intended to be great PR.
It was intended to make her sympathetic and change the narrative
about her.
An interview like that with somebody who's been convicted of lying.
They've been convicted of lying.
So outside of getting a new smoking gun or some new piece of information about the
crime itself, there's not a lot...
I get why people read it.
I understand why audiences want it and I understand why journalists want it.
But I often ask myself if I was sitting across from her right now, what could I...
What objective?
What outcome could I possibly achieve?
Are there things you still want to know?
What would you ask her?
I don't know that there's any question that I could ask her because I don't know that
there's any answer that would live up to what I'm hoping to achieve, which is the truth.
And my objective is to get to the truth, to get to the heart of the story, to make complicated
ideas clearer, more understandable for my audience, for our audience, to help keep people
from getting taken advantage of by charlatans.
And once you open that door, it's really complicated.
So tell me about the legal victims here, because as you said, you found not guilty of victimizing
the people who wound up thinking they had cancer or AIDS or the genuinely terrible outcomes.
She was legally guilty of defrauding Betsy DeVos and Rupert Murdoch out of millions of
dollars.
And like, they're certainly not sort of sympathetic victims in any real way.
So where is it just the dollar amount that even though these people were more than capable
of losing that kind of money and not missing it, like just because the number of dollars
was so great, she had to go to prison for 11 years.
That's basically it.
I mean, you didn't hear from Rupert Murdoch was not one of the witnesses at trial.
They were smaller investors who took the stand, but they were generally high net worth
investors.
I spoke to a handful of people who put money in who are not.
This is why I say, if the company had gone public, maybe via a SPAC or something like that,
and all the investors were ultimately made whole, how would this story be framed differently?
Because if she was found guilty and she was, she was found guilty purely on the crimes against
investors and a lot of those investors brought their own civil suits in order to recover
the money that they lost.
If it purely was about the FDA and Walgreens, the product would no longer be on store shelves,
but would there just be new iterations of it happening somewhere in a laboratory somewhere
and just being kept out of the way of real people, but still being worked on,
still, I mean, potentially being developed.
Again, not to suggest on any level that it should have gone down that way.
I'm just playing out what I see happening in other ways where companies as long as you
can get to that point where you have access to the public market capital, then you don't
need some of the things that the private companies do to keep surviving.
Yeah, it seems like when it became clear that the tests weren't really working, there
are no, some of the Walgreens' places just do regular blood draws.
That's right.
Exactly.
It seems like they could have, if they did have access to public markets, they could
have pivoted just being a regular lab testing company and that would not have been nearly
as exciting, but it would have probably saved them all this time.
And that's kind of what they were trying to do because they were doing all of these
venous draws inside of Walgreens, and they would do venous draws even with their board members
all the time.
So, they were attempting to pivot while still selling this dream that they had managed
to do the tiny little draw from two pricks of blood from your finger.
The reason she got 11 years really isn't about how much money was at stake.
It's more about, it's like when OJ Simpson got sent to jail, not for murder, but for this
other thing he did.
But we all knew that he was getting sent to jail for a really long time because of the
murder.
Yes, the attention.
Whatever you can get this woman on, we're going to send her to jail because everyone's
really mad at her.
That's right.
I agree with that.
Also, don't you think it's also a matter of the brazenness of the fraud, the fact that
she falsified documents, you know, we have her lying in so many instances?
Yeah, I think the amount of attention that she was getting worked to her benefit at a
time, and then it worked to her disadvantage.
There was so much attention on her, which is what made people potentially more skeptical
of her.
And it's also why people like Erica Chung, who was one of the whistleblowers in this,
who spoke to us why they came forward because they had this view of this woman as, you
know, not as somebody who had this audacious goal and was worthy and a leader.
And then when they got inside and saw the reality of it and saw how different that reality
was from the one being portrayed to the public, and also the fact that this technology was
now being put into the hands of people, of real people and having real impact, they
felt like they had to come forward and Erica Chung had nothing.
She didn't have a family that was going to support her.
She didn't have a pedigree that she could fall back on, and it was her first job out
of college.
So she was incredibly brave to come forward and potentially face and did initially face
the wrath of Elizabeth Holmes and her lawyers and went through her own scary experiences
that she's talked about?
I think another reason she got such a long sense, and it does seem really crazy long
to me.
I mean, sentences in America, all crazy lines.
We just live in this crazy castle, stay with everyone, get the crazy things.
But that's the thing, there's guidelines, and the guidelines say exactly what the sentence
can be, and the guidelines were, it was right in the middle of where the guidelines are
for her crime.
Same thing for Sunny Boani.
Hi all.
Wondery's podcast Business Wars is back with an incredible season that you'll want to
listen to.
It's all over the news, but did you know that as early as the 2010s, the dream of artificial
intelligence became real, the big tech companies knew they'd have to harness this technology
if they were going to win the new AI race.
In fact, it was key to their very survival, but researchers within each company would
soon sound the alarm that if the tech giants moved too fast, the consequences could be devastating.
Business Wars dives into some of the biggest corporate rivalries of all time.
In their latest season, the rise of AI, the tech behemoths fight to dominate the artificial
intelligence space, and reckon with the costs.
Follow Business Wars wherever you get your podcasts, you can listen ad-free on the Amazon
Music or Wondery app.
Apple Card is the perfect credit card for every purchase.
It has cashback rewards unlike others.
You earn unlimited daily cash back on every purchase, receive it daily, and can grow
it at 4.15% annual percentage yield when you open a high yield savings account.
Apply for Apple Card in the wallet app on iPhone and start earning and growing your daily
cash with savings today.
Apple Card is subject to credit approval.
Savings is available to Apple Card owners subject to eligibility requirements.
Savings accounts provided by Goldman Sachs Bank USA.
Remember FDIC, terms apply.
The fact that she was a woman, people get really super angry, extra mad, when women don't
do what they're supposed to do or they fall off their pedestal, I think they get a harsher
a harsher run for it, typically, I really don't think she's, I mean, you know, she's
clearly not being...
I'm not saying I don't agree that she...
She did more harshly than Belwani, right, which is the obvious, you know, non-woman who
did exactly the same thing.
That's true, but I still think the reason people are so upset with her is because partly
because she was a woman.
It's also partly because of the hype.
I wanted to just touch on this a little bit.
There was the famous ink cover, calling her the next-deave jobs.
There was the glowing cantaletta profile in the New Yorker.
That she had this, you know, almost too good to check narrative that was just catnet
to journalists.
And to what degree is sort of we as a profession guilty of providing the very hype that was
necessary for her to perpetuate the fraud?
Part of why I was interested in covering this in the first place is the look inside of
what it is that we do and how to be the best journalist that I can be and hopefully that
people around me can be.
And I think one of the things I have given thought to is on that question about female,
I think that is part of the story.
But the audacious goal is the other part of it.
And we as human beings want to champion people with audacious goals who are coming from
in quotation marks the right place.
And I think that as a journalist is one of the biggest lessons that even people who have
the best objectives still need to answer the toughest questions.
And my job, whether I'm sitting across from somebody that I believe in and I agree with
or somebody I completely disagree with, my job is to ask them tough questions and continue
to ask those questions regardless.
I just want to bring up her voice.
Oh yeah.
Can we talk about the voice?
I really want to get into it.
No, but I don't know what even the question is, but I guess the voice went away and what
do you make?
I mean, according to this piece of New York Times that Amy Chosek wrote, she just talks
in a higher register now when she was in charge of Thernos, we all know she had that
famous voice.
I mean, what do you think happened there?
Well, you know, for me, I went back and listened to a lot of tapes of her.
I obviously watched every interview she did and I watched the deposition tapes.
And I noticed just from, and there was an MPR interview she even had done years and years
before she became so, so pervasive everywhere.
So her voice did change over that time.
And I look, her voice is one of the things that people talk about.
And I think this story, in addition to being something with incredibly high stakes, where
everybody can imagine themselves going to get a blood test.
And the cast of characters who were in her orbit who surrounded her were fascinating.
But she herself is a fascinating character.
And I do think that's part of why people were drawn to her story, both on the up and
the down of the story, whether, honestly, I have no idea why she's making the choices.
I saw a theory somewhere, and this sort of makes sense to me that maybe a little somewhere
along the line, she got some media training and was told, and I read something similar
to this in an interview about Ivanka Trump, that for women, if your voice is a little
bit lower and you talk slower, people think you're more serious.
So you know, when Ivanka's interviewed, she also does that kind of blue,
breathy thing, but when she's speaking on the fly, she doesn't.
You know who else did it?
Is Margaret Thatcher?
Famously.
She ended politics with like a relatively high registered voice.
And then she brought it down, started talking more slowly.
And people were like, oh, Margaret, I think that happens unconsciously a little bit,
because I find if I'm really deeply explaining something,
I will go down a little bit to talk about it.
Well, I think also, and again, this was part of her attorney's case at trial,
was this idea that, you know, they kept pounding this idea of her being a 19-year-old founder.
The crimes that she committed that she's now been charged for and convicted of,
those didn't occur until years later when she was in her 20s, but still young for the work
that she was doing for the rooms that she was in.
And so you could, one could argue that part of this entire manifestation was,
you know, trying to make herself be taken seriously by lots of different people.
And when you go through some of the things that came out at trial,
Sunny Bellwani allegedly had written to her and talked to her about her presentations.
And he had even chastised her at times for being too like giddy and girl-like in meetings.
So she was also getting at least now based on the record that we've seen and the allegations
that she presented at trial. She was getting that feedback as well from Sunny Bellwani.
By doing just finish, Rebecca, by asking you, you've spent an enormous amount of time researching
this woman, reporting on her, talking to people around her, going to the trial,
like on a scale of like one to evil, like where does she stand?
Like, is she a bad criminal? Is she like sympathetic and not so?
Like, at one point we were talking about having an episode about Martha Stewart,
who's like a sympathetic criminal. She went to jail, she did a bad thing,
but no one really thinks that she's a criminal.
You know, where would you place Elizabeth Holmes in the context of someone like, say,
Bernie Madoff? Zero to Madoff. Zero to Madoff?
You know, I'm a journalist and you know I can't answer that question.
What I can say. We're all journalists. We just like let it all hang out.
I understand, but here's what I'll say. Just a ranking. This is what I will say.
And it's what I honestly think a lot about. And I've thought a lot about this throughout
covering her. Well, while she's this fascinating person, and she has children,
and you, I feel for those children, being brought into this world.
And by the way, being brought into this world with the knowledge that there was a lawsuit,
and with the knowledge that there would be a sentencing based on an outcome of a trial,
the people who guide me and in my thinking are all the people who spent time
talking to me and to us for our podcast, Erica Chung, who put her life at risk in at least
financially, at least her career and providing for her own family. The people who got the tests
and were misinformed. I, you know, a woman named Sherry Ackard who thought she had breast cancer
and her breast cancer had returned. People who thought they had diabetes. People who thought
they had AIDS when they didn't. A woman who thought she had miscarried when she hadn't.
For those people, the consequences of inaccurate blood tests were very real.
And they were not throw away. And while they are not the charges on which she was convicted,
and they are not the reason per se that she is in jail, their lives have been completely changed
because of it. And while I can't as a journalist answer your question, I think that each of those
people who actually had everyday interactions with her would feel very strongly that justice needed
to be served here, that she needed to go to jail. I'm going to come out and say, like, I think Rebecca
has persuaded me and I was probably persuaded before and anyway, this is worse than made of.
You know, these are, this is medicine we're talking about. This is health we're talking about.
That it must be held to a higher standard than finance. Finance is a place where people with
money invest money and they lose money and things go up and things go down and you're taking
financial risks. And it's just a, you know, it's a different realm than health and medicine,
which is extraordinarily carefully regulated and controlled because so many issues of literal life
and death are at stake. And to blunder recklessly into that space in and of itself would be
unconscionable, but to knowingly lie and defraud in that space and to knowingly run the risk of
causing exactly the kind of outcomes that we're talking about in terms of people thinking they
have breast cancer or AIDS or whatever is just, you can't do that with any kind of working moral
compass. I just don't see how that's possible. Yeah. Did anyone get a false negative? Every example
is like she thought. Yes, they did. There were also false negatives. And one other thing I would
just say to what you just said Felix is the idea of trust inside of a system and that if there
isn't trust inside a system that is as important as our health, it's incredibly problematic.
As we, yes, as we know, having lived through this. Yes. Yeah. Pandy.
Rebecca, thank you so much for coming on this show. It's been wonderful having you and explaining
everything. Thanks very much to Patrick Fort for producing, to Ben Richmond for doing all of the
pressing all of the buttons and making everything sound amazing. We will be back on Saturday with
another sleet money. Hey, everybody, it's Tim Heidecker. You know me, Tim and Eric bridesmaids
and fantastic four. I'd like to personally invite you to listen to office hours live with me and my
co-hosts DJ Doug Pound and Vic Berger. Howdy. Every week we bring you last fun games and lots of
other surprises. It's live. We take your Zoom calls. We love having fun. Excuse me.