Sociopath. Harsh words. But in the closing pages of “Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup”, Pulitzer Prize winning author John Carreyrou, suggests Elizabeth Holmes might actually be a sociopath. After reading his book, and watching a few videos of Elizabeth Holmes in action, speaking about Theranos, I don't think she is a sociopath. She is definitely lying, even though the power to believe her is as compelling as her blue eyes, blonde hair, and black Job’sian turtleneck. She was living the Silicon Valley dream of “Fake it till you make it” and giving her the benefit of the doubt, she brought this brand of business ethics mainstream like no other. Is she a lying, sociopathic scam artist? Or is she faking it, till she makes it, Silicon Valley Extreme Makeover Edition style?
Theranos was the quintessential Silicon Valley startup that at one point reached a $9B dollar valuation and her the cover of Forbes magazine. Given all that, it’s hard to believe Carreyrou is telling the truth. Let me say that again. It’s hard to believe a Pulitzer Prize winning author at the Wall Street Journal is telling the truth. Investors, wealthy men, and women, who we all respect, would also find it difficult to believe Carreyrou. Does that sound familiar? The false narrative we all want to believe is true, a disruptive, game changing technology, making health care affordable, taking on the titans of the medical industry is a story we all want to believe. But it all turns out to be a lie. Carreyrou, in fact, has the facts. Yet we still wish it it to be the other way around. We wish that it can be made to be true. If only Holmes had more time. Some investors wanted it to be true so badly they invested $100M of their personal fortunes. Rupert Murdoch the owner of the WSJ for example. How’s that for putting Carreyrou in a pickle? That fact alone might win Carreyrou another Pulitzer. It’s important to note that Carreyrou has reported that Murdoch was approached by Holmes, not once, but twice to put the kibosh on his story. Both times Murdoch trusted his editors to get the story straight and allowed it to go to press. That might be the single most important fact in the mountain duplicity that surrounds this case.
Even though now in hindsight, her behavior seems to defy logic. Her motives, while the facts of this case have been well sourced and recorded, remain as secretive as she the elusive nature of the technology behind the patents with her name on them. As it turns out, literally, one day after I finishing the book, Holmes and her boyfriend were indicted as criminals in a Federal court. It’s possible that over the course of the criminal trial, all of the facts in the case will finally reach the light of day and we will get our answer...maybe. But I still don’t think she is a sociopath.
So, how does, a 19 year old, Stanford dropout, with no biomedical engineering, software, or healthcare experience, raise $700M in venture capital? That is the phenomena that Carreyrou reports in this book. It is a compelling as any business book I have read. And it’s easy to see how it may also top the charts of best business books of the year...or “How Not to Run A Business” book of the year if there were such a category. Thug tactics are not the best way to run a business. But it’s easy to see how she did not run her business like a true Silicon Valley unicorn. She was no Peter Thiel or Elon Musk where the inspiration and perspiration goes into the technology. Her inspiration and perspiration went directly into raising capital and covering up for the non-existent technology until they could invent it. Which again raises the “what if?” question. What if she would have focused on the technology? Could she have invented something, while well short of the Theranos dreamstate, could still be defined as medically useful? I think the answer is no. Gates wrote MS-DOS. Job’s invented the Apple in his garage. Zuckerberg banged out the code for FaceBook in his dorm room. Similarly, Elon Musk banged out the software that would become Paypal. Holmes didn’t like needles. That’s insufficient knowledge to change the world. It’s easy to see that wanting to be like somebody else is also insufficient motivation to change the world. I don’t think she is a sociopath. I do think she believed in her vision, she just didn’t spend enough time in the lab to realize that her vision was an evolution too far. She was chasing a unicorn that didn’t exist and was unwilling to listen to her people simply because she didn’t, and still doesn’t, understand the technology. Unlike other Silicon Valley startups, a few cans of Red Bull and an all night coding session doesn’t change biomedical science.
On Amazon book reviews I have said I’m giving this book 5-stars because it’s a page turner, it’s well written, well researched, and a necessary story about the ethics of a Unicorn start-up. I will deduct 1-star because the term sociopath, as applied to Holmes, seems like a personal attack and an easy out when trying to find the motivation behind her actions. There is a far less complex answer starring Carreyrou in the face which in my mind is an even more damning indictment of Holmes given that she started Theranos. She is not an engineer and simply the worst biomedical scientist ever to run a biomedical company. No one has figured that out yet. But they will. Case closed.
