Latest / The Lila Rose Show / BONUS: Elizabeth Holmes: When Confidence Goes Too Far with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty

Transcript

BONUS: Elizabeth Holmes: When Confidence Goes Too Far with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty · The Lila Rose Show

0:00
It's actually not a good and beautiful and wholesome thing
0:04
for a 19 year old to believe I'm going to cure cancer.
0:07
It is so easy to cast judgement, especially those that are
0:10
already being roundly excoriated and every single flaw and every
0:13
single mistake is being paraded by the public.
0:15
Do you think her board of directors was negligent?
0:17
Absolutely without a. Doubt.
0:18
Do you think they should be criminally liable?
0:25
Hi everyone. On this bonus episode of the
0:28
Lila Rose podcast, we are going to do a little commentary,
0:32
little discussion on criminal justice in particularly around
0:36
the case of Elizabeth Holmes. Elizabeth Holmes, as many of you
0:40
may know, was the very now infamous entrepreneur who
0:45
founded the company Theranos about a decade ago.
0:48
She founded it as a dropout from Stanford, 19 years old, and it
0:53
was at one point worth valued evaluation was $7 billion.
0:59
She was on the cover of Forbes magazine, was called 30 under
1:02
30, a rising star, the new Steve Jobs.
1:05
She had many, many accolades. And she was claiming that she
1:07
was revolutionizing how blood testing would be done and she
1:11
and her technology would help save countless future lives.
1:15
The reality is much of it was a scam.
1:18
It wasn't real. There was fraud happening.
1:21
There was dishonesty happening. But I'm going to sit down with
1:24
my good friend, psychiatrist, Doctor Aaron Kariati, Dr. K, and
1:28
we're going to talk about this case a little bit from the
1:31
psychological side, have a discussion about was her
1:34
punishment. Just, I do think that there was
1:38
a lot she did to mislead people. But I'm going to play a little
1:40
bit of a devil's advocate because I have the maybe
1:43
unpopular opinion that I do think her sentencing was harsh
1:47
and we're just going to break it down.
1:48
What really went into the crime, so to speak?
1:51
How much of her willingness, how much willingness was there to
1:55
commit that crime? How do we know what is the
1:57
psychology of a crime? We're going to get into all of
2:00
it. Another thing that makes me
2:02
passionate about this case or interested in it is that
2:05
Elizabeth is a young mother. She has a three month old or now
2:08
4 month old baby and she has a very young toddler son.
2:12
And so my heart breaks for any woman, and there are 10s of
2:16
thousands of them who are incarcerated and separated from
2:19
their very young children. Now, obviously if the mother is
2:22
a physical risk or a psychological risk to her child,
2:26
I do think separation is necessary for this child's
2:29
welfare. But when maybe there's a a crime
2:32
that is not directly impacting that child, but it's something
2:36
certainly wrong that the mother did and then she is separated
2:38
from that child, a lot of harm can be done to that child.
2:42
And so that's another thing that we bring to the context of this
2:45
discussion. Hope you enjoy.
2:46
Let me know what you think about some of these bonus
2:48
conversations I'm doing with Aaron.
2:50
He's a fantastic and a brilliant person and has amazing
2:55
experience to offer to the podcast.
2:56
I love talking with him. We go back and forth.
2:58
We sometimes disagree on points. It's a lot of fun.
3:01
Let me know what you think about the form we're experimenting
3:03
here. And without further ado, let's
3:05
get into it. We're talking all things Silicon
3:08
Valley today. And Theranos.
3:10
Theranos, is that how you sound? Theranos.
3:12
Theranos. Yeah.
3:14
Can you say it in the Elizabeth Holmes?
3:15
Theranos, do you know where the name comes from?
3:17
Where does the name come from? Here it's a combination of
3:20
therapy and diagnosis, which again goes to her idea of
3:24
empowering people to do more self diagnosis through the more
3:30
widespread of availability of cheaper and more convenient lab
3:34
tests so that they can then pursue appropriate therapies.
3:38
And she acknowledges the therapies probably require a
3:40
physician, but maybe the diagnosis, we can empower more
3:44
and more people to do it. I'm skeptical of that proposal
3:47
in the way that she has proposed it.
3:49
I'm all for giving people more health information and more
3:53
information about understanding what's going on with their
3:56
bodies. I just think her proposal for
3:59
how to do that probably required a lot more input from physicians
4:07
who actually utilize lab tests in particular clinical contexts
4:11
to sift out a. Lot of a lot of physicians, but
4:15
let's get to that in a second. The context here is last month.
4:18
Elizabeth Holmes reported to prison, federal prison in Bryan,
4:21
TX. She's in for I think 11 years
4:24
and three months, has two young children.
4:26
It's been in the news. This case has been in the news
4:28
now for 5678 years now. I think she first entered the
4:31
scene maybe 2013. She kind of made her first debut
4:34
as a sort of public figure, CEO Steve Jobs, female Incarnate
4:39
figure. But all of this didn't happen in
4:42
a vacuum. There's a lot of different
4:44
factors. So Aaron's going to
4:45
psychoanalyze the case for us and weigh in.
4:48
We have some disagreements. I think I am not as hard on
4:51
Elizabeth Holmes as most 99.9% of the Internet is.
4:54
It's not that I think what she did was right.
4:56
It's not that I think that she's innocent of all, you know, she
5:00
didn't do anything wrong. It's not that I I just think
5:03
that she has been, she's sort of become the scapegoat of deeper
5:08
issues in our tech world, you could say in Silicon Valley.
5:12
And unfortunately, she's a young mother.
5:15
I mean, people say she got pregnant just because of this.
5:17
If you want an easier sentencing, sure we can talk
5:19
about that, but. I wouldn't accuse anyone of.
5:22
OK. That's good of that.
5:24
The reality is she leaves behind a 21 month old boy and a three
5:26
month old girl. So I have a lot of thoughts
5:30
about that. You have a ton of thoughts.
5:31
OK. My first question though is
5:33
where did you get your facts about Elizabeth Holmes
5:35
upbringing? Because there's an investigative
5:37
reporter. What is?
5:40
His name. Pull his name.
5:41
Up for us Wall Street Journal Very bright guy he wrote Bad
5:44
Blood very compelling read and he basically has written up a a
5:50
biography of her effectively that is probably the least
5:53
flattering take anyone could have on someone I mean every
5:56
little care he like talks about her saying she wanted to be a
5:58
billionaire at 8 years old according to some relative at a
6:00
family BBQ, you know and she's just this evil person from youth
6:04
basically so I. Know I haven't read the Wall
6:06
Street Journal piece or Bad Blood.
6:08
The reason I bring him up really quick, though, is because there
6:11
is a very strong narrative that she's basically like evil
6:14
Incarnate and 90 and if you say anything sympathetic to her then
6:18
you're soft on crime. You know, that's sort of the
6:21
Internet. No, that's, that's not the angle
6:23
I'm that's not the angle I want to take.
6:25
But I. Just wanted to call that out
6:27
because people listening, I think that's the world we're
6:29
swimming in right now. And I do recommend that if
6:32
you're going to read Bad Blood, if you're going to watch the
6:35
documentary on her, if you're going to, you know, read all of
6:38
the exposes about her. I also recommend, just for
6:43
context, to read some of the letters submitted to the judge
6:47
from friends and family on behalf of Elizabeth.
6:49
I think, by the way, that's not a bad thing to do for any very
6:52
big public terminal case to just get a a sense of of the defense.
6:57
So hindsight is 2020 and after the information about what
7:01
happened came out and certainly after she's been sentenced in
7:05
the fact finding process of the court case has been done, it's
7:09
very easy for people to pile on. So my research was all pre
7:14
expose. What do you?
7:15
What does that mean? You mean you did the research
7:18
years ago? No, I mean, what I read up in
7:21
preparation for this episode was what people were saying about
7:24
her before people knew the truth about her, which was with the
7:28
Washington Post specifically was saying about her.
7:30
So you're saying you auditor in New York that?
7:32
Were dated prior 2015. Yeah, that's right.
7:35
So you, you looked at, you tried to look at her as if it was 2014
7:40
or 2013. As if.
7:41
And you were just acknowledging her on the scene.
7:43
I, I, I know, I know what has happened recently, right?
7:48
But I honestly didn't dig into the trial in depth.
7:54
Knowing that she has been convicted of fraud.
7:57
It's a very interesting exercise.
7:58
And this is what I did this morning, actually, to read the
8:02
old New Yorker profile of her, which is quite laudatory.
8:06
And, you know, it was a bit of a puff piece actually, to read the
8:09
Washington Post piece, which acknowledged the Wall Street
8:11
Journal critic, but also seem to seem to be favorable toward her
8:20
and excited about her project. And to watch her Ted Talk, the
8:25
TEDMED talk. That was, I think back in 2014,
8:28
or I'm not sure when she recorded that, but it was it was
8:32
one of a series of talks that she was giving all over the
8:35
place to lots of different investors in terms of describing
8:38
her project. But the thing that really
8:41
actually bothered me about her Ted talk was actually the thing
8:47
that probably attracted a lot of people, which is she began with
8:52
human rights, UN declaration on human rights is we all have the
8:56
right to to healthcare, right? And people have the right to
9:01
access information. I'm a big advocate, obviously,
9:03
of data transparency. So in principle, the idea that
9:06
people have a right to healthcare.
9:08
And then she told some sad stories about people that were
9:11
diagnosed too late with diseases and didn't survive.
9:14
And wouldn't it be great if we could diagnose them earlier?
9:17
And what, the whole pit? And then in the middle she had a
9:20
few sentences on on her technology, which apparently
9:25
wasn't real or wasn't what she I think.
9:28
They had a few patents, but mostly.
9:30
Mostly not real. And, and it struck me that she
9:36
was doing the same kind of pitch that I saw when there was
9:40
debates in California over a, a, a ballot initiative to permit
9:46
the funding of embryonic stem cell research.
9:51
I don't know if you remember those debates.
9:54
This was right after. The $3 billion.
9:57
Yeah, it was right after President Bush.
10:01
I want to say it's Prop 73, but I may have the number right.
10:03
I. Think it was top. 73 So the
10:05
federal government basically said we're only going to fund
10:08
embryonic stem cell research on lines, cell lines that have
10:12
already been created so that no additional human embryos are
10:16
destroyed. And that was an attempt to kind
10:17
of thread the needle and not not do away with that research
10:20
entirely, but not destroy any more on more nascent human life
10:25
in the process. And California responded to that
10:29
by saying we're going to do lots of embryo research and we're
10:33
going to have the taxpayer funded.
10:35
And, and in the in the campaign to get that proposition passed,
10:40
which created, it's called SERM, the California Institute for
10:43
Regenerative Medicine. You had Christopher Reeves, you
10:46
had Michael J Fox, you had all kinds of celebrities getting on
10:49
TV and saying you have to allow us to do this research.
10:54
And if you don't, you don't care about me and you don't care
10:57
about other people who suffer from spinal cord injuries or
10:59
Parkinson's. And they made all kinds of
11:02
promises that they may not have known, but the credible
11:07
scientists behind this enterprise knew they could never
11:10
deliver on. We're going to cure Alzheimer's.
11:12
We're going to cure Parkinson's. We're going to in 5-10 years,
11:15
We're going to with if you give us the money and allow us to do
11:19
this. What was uniquely horrible is
11:21
they were going to kill children to do it and they were getting
11:23
taxpayers. But how did they sell that to
11:26
the public? They sold it by appealing to
11:31
people's compassion, appealing to people who have loved ones
11:35
suffering from these conditions. I mean, the number of conditions
11:39
that they named that would be cured from diabetes to also,
11:42
everyone knows somebody who's impacted by one of these
11:44
conditions on the on the list of promises, on the list of blank
11:47
checks, right? And to me, it was a, it was an
11:52
emotionally manipulative because people dealing with illness or a
11:56
loved one who has an illness, they're vulnerable, right?
12:00
They're desperate for a cure, and that's why these medical
12:03
sales pitches are so powerful, right?
12:07
I think that was Safeway's board when they approved the deal with
12:09
Theranos, the second in commander.
12:11
One of the members, their husband was dying of cancer and
12:15
they were and veins were collapsing and they were like,
12:17
well, if this can help my husband, you know, it became the
12:20
quest. And that's, that's how we got
12:22
the, the boondoggle that has delivered 0 FDA approvals that
12:30
has delivered only one last time.
12:33
I no, no, no, I'm sorry. Going back to the stem cell
12:35
promises that were made over 10. This is big what you're about.
12:37
10 years ago. This is a great point.
12:40
All of those promises have resulted in zero approved
12:45
treatments. Listen to that.
12:47
It only, I think one treatment that has even gone to phase
12:52
three clinical trials, the last step prior to FDA approvals and
12:56
I need to go back and circle back on that, but I don't think
12:58
the clinical trial was successful.
13:00
Meanwhile, we've had lots of advances in stem cell research
13:05
taken from adult tissue that's converted to stem cells that
13:09
doesn't destroy human embryos. That is, by the way,
13:11
underfunded. How much money has been wasted
13:15
killing babies to try to derive cures from their dead bodies?
13:18
Several billion dollars in California alone.
13:21
I mean that just sounds demonic to me, especially when adult
13:24
stem cells are the ones generating the cures and the
13:27
breakthroughs. What I heard when I listened to
13:30
Holmes Ted Talk brought me back to what I was hearing.
13:37
People who should have known better.
13:38
I'm fine if the celebrities do it.
13:40
Like Christopher Reeves is paralyzed.
13:42
He's desperate. Michael J Fox is declining from
13:45
a degenerative neurological disease.
13:48
I don't. I don't blame those guys for
13:51
wanting a cure. I get it.
13:53
Well, I think you can still blame a little for wanting at
13:55
the expense of the. People on the board of SERM, the
13:58
scientists that were pushing this, the people at the
14:00
universities. I mean, the first thing that UCI
14:03
did with the money they got from Sir was bricks and mortar.
14:07
They built buildings. They didn't run experiments, I
14:11
think because they knew that the experiments.
14:13
Were you working at UCI at the time?
14:15
I was so. You saw this?
14:17
1st And I knew, I knew these people were promising the moon
14:21
and it stomped to high heaven and it made me, it made me angry
14:25
because I knew that they were playing on people's desperation
14:28
because I, because I treat patients in these circumstances
14:32
all the time. And it's, it's actually cruel to
14:36
tell someone with an incurable disease, give us the money.
14:39
In a few years we're going to have a cure for you.
14:43
When the people saying that know that that's not true.
14:50
And I I smelled the same pitch with Elizabeth Holmes.
14:59
And what do you think her motive was?
15:03
Because in the case of the actors, they're desperately
15:07
looking for the cure. In the case of the scientists
15:09
who think. She wanted to be a, a sciency
15:13
Steve Jobs. I mean, she dressed like.
15:15
Him. So it was, it was a it was a a
15:18
pursuit of stardom. It was the pursuit of celebrity.
15:21
You think that was driving the pursuit of grandeur?
15:23
Let me let me read something from The New Yorker profile or
15:28
no, this is yeah, this is from The New Yorker profile about her
15:31
childhood. I was probably definitely not
15:34
normal, she said. I was reading Moby Dick from
15:35
start to finish when I was about 9.
15:37
I read a ton of books. I have a notebook with a
15:40
complete design for a time machine that I designed when I
15:43
must have been like 7. Now it's wonderful when a 7 year
15:46
old designs a time machine. That's childhood imagination.
15:50
It's grandiosity that we we smile and probably encourage in
15:55
children, she said. The wonderful thing about the
15:57
way I was raised is that nobody ever told me I couldn't do those
16:00
things. I remember reading that too and
16:03
being struck by that too. It's it's.
16:05
I had two responses. Now, in hindsight, it's a it's a
16:07
very, I mean, it's a very interesting thing that she never
16:11
seems to have grown. Never grew up the delusion, but
16:16
that's where like that's where. And again, I'm not like.
16:18
We'll call it a fantasy. OK, that's, that's fine.
16:20
And again, I'm not here to be like, I don't think.
16:22
It's in their home fantasy. And that's fair too.
16:25
That's very fair. But IA. 19 a 25 a 30 year old
16:31
who's taking investment money from people and who's telling
16:36
vulnerable sick people this is what I'm going to do for you
16:42
should know better than a 7 year old that a time machine is not
16:46
realistic and you're defrauding people if you're asking the
16:50
money for money to advance. I mean, she was, she was
16:54
claiming to have The Time Machine.
16:56
To some degree, but I I totally see what you're saying and I
16:59
think it goes back to what's going on.
17:02
What's the context of all of this?
17:04
Back to the original point you had about the.
17:06
Silicon Valley mystique. Yeah, and, and, and think about
17:09
it like technology as we know it.
17:11
It did just blossom. I mean, it was just this
17:14
incredible. You go like my grandparents grew
17:17
up in San Jose and when they grew up, it was all orchards.
17:20
There were no highways dotting it.
17:22
There were no homes. There was certainly no tech.
17:25
And then all of a sudden, tech comes out of nowhere and little
17:27
old San Jose becomes this Mecca worldwide for the wealthiest,
17:32
richest, most famous people in the world.
17:34
And what the guy builds in his garage becomes the technology of
17:37
the future, which is worth billions and trillions of
17:39
dollars. So like that in of itself.
17:42
And then you put a girl in the middle of it.
17:44
This is Elizabeth Holmes, who's a Stanford student who is raised
17:48
being told you can accomplish anything.
17:50
And by the way, I'm a mother. You know, I want to believe that
17:52
for my kids. And I'm sure if you for your
17:53
kids, you want them to be realistic and brass tacks and
17:56
tough, but you want them to, you know, you.
17:58
Want them to dream? You know the man in the arena
18:01
you want to be. You want them to be the man in
18:02
the arena, not the critic, right?
18:04
The critic doesn't count. But.
18:06
But when they get to college, So the the other thing that
18:10
happened in Silicon Valley was a mystique of youth, because
18:14
cognitively, when it comes to programming, young people are
18:18
very, very good. And you, you hit your peak
18:21
earlier in life, then you hit your peak as as a writer or in
18:24
many, many other. Questions.
18:25
When do you hit your peak with? Programming, I think it's before
18:27
30 with advances in like computer engineering and
18:31
programming. And so you have this mystique of
18:34
youth. You you have the origin story of
18:37
a Bill Gates who either dropped out or never went to college.
18:40
You have the Peter Thiel who pays people to drop out of
18:43
college if they have an innovative idea.
18:45
And then you have Elizabeth Holmes goes to Stanford.
18:49
But you also have the the just, to be perfectly frank, the
18:52
arrogance of the Stanford student, the hubris of that.
18:58
They're better than anyone in the world.
18:59
Being a creative and being a disruptor.
19:02
And you, you had a young woman who did understood a little bit
19:08
maybe about lab testing. Well, I think her her professors
19:12
thought she was extremely talented with they.
19:15
Did. And she was clearly smart.
19:16
She was clearly. But they didn't.
19:18
Just, I mean, I remember reading about what her professor said
19:20
about her. And these are not like investors
19:22
or people that down the line are praising her 'cause she's, well,
19:25
she that she. She know that the chair of
19:28
engineering became a board member at Theranos.
19:30
And, and he was knew what he was talking about and he evaluated
19:34
what she was, was talking about. He was interested in the details
19:38
of her work and he was involved in the details of her work.
19:40
And she thought, he thought she was onto something.
19:42
And they were onto something because they filed, I think it
19:45
was in the dozens of patents. They have like multimillion
19:48
dollars worth of patents that I think are now the property of an
19:50
investor that reclaimed it because of, you know, the fraud.
19:53
But they had legit stuff happening, which is part of the
19:56
tragedy of the whole thing. You.
19:59
Know well it wasn't that it wasn't that legit.
20:02
Well. What I'm saying is there was
20:04
actual innovation happening. There was some innovation that
20:08
happened. I had obviously.
20:10
I have yet to see any evidence that their innovation has
20:16
improved any testing or any medical outcomes.
20:20
Sure. I I'm not saying I don't know
20:22
that it improved. It's certainly not on the
20:24
market. That's the fact, right?
20:26
Have you looked at the patents that they have filed?
20:28
No, I haven't looked specifically.
20:30
I haven't looked specifically at the patents, but but you can
20:34
have, you can have innovation, you can have a new way of doing
20:37
things that actually doesn't change patient outcome.
20:40
This goes back to our conversation about lab tests
20:42
functioning in a broader medical context.
20:44
It was the the hubris of an Elizabeth Holmes that she could
20:48
remake not just the industry of lab testing, but the the entire
20:52
practice of medicine, which is how she pitches it in her Ted.
20:55
Talk. Here's the question.
20:56
Without any experience, without any understanding, without ever
20:59
having treated a patient to clarify her entire.
21:01
Life not the Elizabeth Holmes offender, but she hired people.
21:05
They spent a boatload of cash at Theranos because they had on
21:08
staff, medical doctors, scientists, you know, they,
21:11
they, they recruited some of the brightest bio engineers in the
21:15
country. So it's not like she was
21:18
pretending she was doing it. She, I mean, you could say she
21:20
was pretending she was doing it, but she was publicly, you know,
21:24
to her investors, she had, these are the people I've hired.
21:27
She recruited the best of the best.
21:29
And not just in the sciency stuff, but also in the
21:31
marketing. You know, that was part of the,
21:33
she built this whole persona, right.
21:35
But she did recruit the best of the best.
21:37
So I do think I, I think if she had succeeded, would you have
21:41
called the same thing hubris? Well, it depends on if if she
21:45
lied. If she had succeeded, she didn't
21:47
lie. Presumably she hadn't.
21:48
I think it's. Important to lied about what
21:50
she. Did she didn't lie and she
21:51
succeeded? How about this?
21:54
She didn't lie, but she failed. Was it hubris?
22:00
Not, I mean, it was, it was probably reckless, it was
22:04
probably very, very imprudent. But if she was honest about what
22:10
they had, when they had it, what it was doing, what it was not
22:15
doing, she wouldn't have engaged in criminal behavior.
22:18
She would have engaged in very reckless and imprudent business.
22:23
You think it would have been reckless to?
22:25
This is a good thought experiment.
22:28
Is it reckless to go into, build, put together a team of
22:33
the best scientists in the world and to go raise a billion
22:37
dollars to pay for endless work to cure cancer?
22:44
Is that is that a reckless experiment?
22:47
It depends on how you do it. It certainly could be.
22:49
That's very fair. It certainly could.
22:51
It could be if it's led by a 19 year old When?
22:53
You're promising when you're promising that you're going to
22:55
cure cancer, when you're taking investment money from people to
22:58
do things that you are not and will not be capable of doing,
23:03
while giving the impression, at least to the general public,
23:05
that you're already capable of doing it.
23:07
That's the impression that she that you certainly walk away
23:10
from. Well, when you wanted to give
23:12
that impression because she's trying.
23:13
To raise public statements, right, Right.
23:15
Then, yeah, that's completely reckless and irresponsible.
23:18
And it is a manifestation of either hubris or, or really
23:23
nefarious willful deception and greed.
23:27
And so rather than wanting to go with nefarious willful deception
23:31
and greed, yeah, a level of overweening pride that is not
23:37
warranted in a person with so little experience.
23:42
And look, you can hire, you can hire a team of crackerjack
23:44
people. And yeah, if you if you throw a
23:47
bunch of money at them, you're going to get people with jobs in
23:53
your company from Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic and
23:56
whatever, but they're probably going to have a very discreet
23:59
function. Right.
24:01
I think the part of the problem is she lacked the ability to
24:04
properly manage them because. Well, the responsibility for a
24:07
company legally rests with the executives, the officers and the
24:13
board of directors. Do you think her board of
24:16
directors was negligent? Absolutely, without a doubt.
24:19
Do you think that they should have been on the hook for
24:21
restitution for some of the money that was defrauded?
24:23
Yeah, I think they're responsible for the disastrous
24:27
outcome of the company. And do you think they should be
24:29
criminally liable? I don't know.
24:31
I mean, it depends on, it depends on the crime, it depends
24:34
on the person, it depends on what they know.
24:35
That's where the legal fact finding process.
24:37
But if they were, If they were, but they if they failed in their
24:42
duty to properly oversee the details.
24:45
So they were told something and they never double checked the
24:47
homework, so to speak, criminally.
24:51
Fraudulent. The board is responsible.
24:52
Because because let's see the aftermath.
24:54
So there's the rise involved. Elizabeth Holmes.
24:56
We just went through some of the rise and discussing that, you
24:59
know, bringing it all back to present daytime, present day.
25:03
She's in jail. Sonny Balwani's also in jail, by
25:05
the way, the Co, the COO, they're both in jail.
25:09
Board, to my knowledge, would wash their hands of it.
25:12
They just dissolved their in US. They're they're just out.
25:14
Yeah. Is it just that she first, just
25:20
in terms of who's responsible for the fraud, that she and
25:24
Sonny alone are being held accountable for the fraud?
25:27
I don't know. I don't know enough about what
25:30
the board knew, I think. Do you think the board is
25:32
responsible for the for the certainly for the failure of the
25:38
company? And they may, they may be
25:40
responsible for fraud vis A vis their investors.
25:44
And, and here's why you have, you had a remarkable number of
25:47
politicians on the board, even though other than the military,
25:51
she wasn't really seeking government contracts.
25:54
You had a lot of people on the board.
25:55
Well, they were. There were, there were
25:56
politicians, many of whom had military service, right?
25:59
Yeah, well, yes, they were. They were people.
26:03
Which politician was on the board that wasn't military?
26:06
Bill first, who is one of the only physicians, I think there
26:09
were two physicians on the. Board.
26:10
He was the Senate Majority Leader for a while, or the House
26:13
Majority Leader. He had a medical background, so.
26:15
That he had a medical background.
26:16
He was. But I don't think she had
26:17
politicians that weren't either, that weren't either medicine or
26:21
military adjacent, right? Developments in Silicon Valley
26:28
were ultimately incubated by the military and intelligence
26:36
agencies of the federal government.
26:38
And this is an interesting. The Internet itself was invented
26:42
by researchers at the end of that she.
26:44
Was smart, she knew how things got done.
26:45
I don't know. I mean, you could argue that's
26:48
an interesting. One that's, yeah, I mean, I
26:50
don't want to speculate on why she chose those board members,
26:53
but regardless, and regardless of their background and
26:56
expertise in biomedical engineering and in science and
26:59
in medicine, they had a responsibility to verify whether
27:06
their product, whether they had a product that they claimed to
27:10
have. Well, in particular.
27:11
Whether it worked in the way that they claimed that it was
27:14
working? So George Shultz is the
27:16
grandfather of the young man who was one of the whistleblowers of
27:19
Theranos because he worked, the grandson went and worked at the
27:21
company, hated it and then left and then, you know, gave the tip
27:25
to the Wall Street Journal reporter, etcetera.
27:27
And he was told multiple times by his grandson, technology is
27:31
not working. It's not.
27:33
And he never investigated. He always just said no, it's
27:36
going to work. You don't understand.
27:38
There's more context. So but he passed away, you know,
27:42
he he's an elderly gentleman. So he passed away thing in 2021.
27:45
I don't know if it was during the trial before, but it's
27:47
interesting back to the whole like who's liable for this?
27:49
Regardless of whether the other board members got tips from
27:53
employers like that, they, they had external critics saying we
27:59
don't see how this is actually like possible and, and 10% of
28:03
the cost of what Medicare reimburses the other labs.
28:08
And so whether or not they understood the underlying
28:13
engineering or when they looked at the machine, they knew what
28:17
the heck was going on inside. They had a responsibility to
28:21
figure out whether what we have is because people are saying it
28:25
can't be possible. It can't be possible.
28:28
Where you're claiming this is not possible, it's like claiming
28:31
you have a time machine. Well, people have said, people
28:34
said said those things about a lot of other inventions.
28:36
So that in of itself. Let me read you one other
28:38
compelling, but one other. I do want to get to, I know.
28:41
Please no. This is this is an interesting
28:43
Elizabeth Holmes. And then we'll get to sentencing
28:45
psychology, then we'll get to sentencing.
28:48
Because again, I, I just feel like, I mean, speaking as a
28:50
Catholic, it is so easy to cast judgement on other people,
28:57
especially those that are already being roundly excoriated
29:00
and every single flaw and every single mistake is being paraded
29:02
by the public. And this happened during the
29:04
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, which deeply just made me
29:07
really sad because literally every little bit of dirty
29:11
laundry that they had was flung out for public consumption.
29:14
And what I think is tragic about the Elizabeth Holmes case, of
29:17
course, is the fraud and they, you know, the misleading and all
29:20
of these horrible things. But that I think there is
29:23
something in a social body that loves to hate somebody, you
29:28
know, like this is the tale of oldest time that societies get
29:31
riled up. That's why we had witch hunts,
29:32
and that's why we've had public mobs that have gone after
29:36
individuals. Guilty or not guilty, there's
29:38
something thrilling about hating on the criminal.
29:42
Sure, but the criminal justice? System laundry is out.
29:45
Has should ideally have nothing to do with hatred or our
29:49
feelings toward the person, whether we're sympathetic to
29:52
them or not sympathetic to them. Yes and no, because even their.
29:55
Responsibility is to decide whether a crime has been
29:58
committed, of course, and was it committed knowingly And in some
30:03
rare cases, was the person impaired by a mental illness
30:07
that made it such that they they shouldn't and can't be held
30:10
responsible for their actions by the criminal justice system?
30:15
Which often means by the way, that they end up in a
30:18
psychiatric hospital, high security psychiatric hospital
30:21
for a longer period of time than they went.
30:22
It would have ended up in jail. So the idea that not guilty by
30:26
reason of insanity gets you off the hook is not true.
30:29
And in most cases, the the person is still punish, but the
30:33
criminal justice system needs to administer punishment.
30:38
It's, it's a very important thing to do.
30:40
In fact, Socrates said the best thing for someone who's
30:43
committed a crime, the best thing for their soul, is to
30:46
accept their punishment. And the primary purpose of
30:50
there's several purposes of punishment.
30:53
The primary purpose, and this is by the way, the teaching of the
30:56
Catholic Church on the matter to the primary purpose of
30:58
punishment is not to protect society.
31:01
That's an ancillary secondary purpose.
31:04
It's not even to rehabilitate the criminals so that they don't
31:06
commit criminal acts in the future.
31:08
That is not always possible. Person could be in jail for
31:11
decades contemplating their crime and come out and still not
31:15
be sorry for it and maybe reoffend.
31:17
In the same way. It's nice when the criminal is
31:22
rehabilitated, but that's not also the primary purpose of
31:24
punishment. The primary purpose of
31:26
punishment is punishment. It's it's a medicine for the
31:30
soul. It's at least an opportunity for
31:32
the person to recognize, OK, how did I get here?
31:35
How did I get to the point where I so bought into my fantasy that
31:42
I was willing to actually harm? A lot people were harmed in this
31:46
process. But you're saying that the
31:48
primary person of punishment is punishment, but then you you
31:51
speak to use the word medicine. It is the opportunity for
31:58
rehabilitation. It might not work, but it's
32:01
necessary. You know, you do the crime, you
32:03
serve the time. Because otherwise we're not
32:06
taking wrongdoing seriously. How can the person cease from
32:09
doing wrongdoing in the future? So it in that sense it is.
32:12
But it's still necessary as a matter of justice, whether the
32:15
person is quote, UN quote, rehabilitated.
32:18
Well, you look at that God, you know, look at our God and you
32:21
look at, you know, the account in Genesis.
32:23
And these are given as the curses, you know that we, we
32:28
will die because of our sin, right?
32:30
We will endure pangs and childbirth.
32:33
They're remedial. They're given to us in part to,
32:37
you know, you know, our mortality.
32:38
So you're more likely to choose the right thing, or at least at
32:41
your deathbed to say sorry for the wrong things, right.
32:43
So they're they're given to us as an opportunity to change and
32:46
be better. But the criminal justice system
32:49
has to take a much more modest approach to, well, it.
32:54
May not always work, of course. Meeting out judgment.
32:56
What I mean by that is yeah, God knows the intricacy of the human
33:01
heart. I do not I mean, I cannot judge
33:04
Elizabeth Holmes culpability, at least not to the I could tell.
33:11
I could tell you whether she is she is so sick that she
33:15
shouldn't be held. Responsible.
33:16
You can't judge. Her heart is what you're saying.
33:18
I can't judge her heart and I would leave that to God.
33:21
Can you? Judge Ted Bundy's heart the.
33:23
Criminal justice system also, I would even go as far as to say
33:29
cannot judge Ted Bundy's heart and shouldn't try.
33:34
It should try to punish him for his crimes.
33:37
It should try to ascertain was he so impaired by an illness
33:41
that he couldn't have done otherwise.
33:44
If the answer is no, why he did what he did, how responsible is
33:50
he fought ultimately at the last judgement?
33:53
You know, was he abused as a child?
33:55
But the criminal justice system, trying to make that
33:58
determination, is going to try to put themselves in a position
34:03
of being omniscient. Or not.
34:05
So the modest aim should be is the person of sound mind and
34:12
that doesn't mean are they a virtuous mind.
34:14
It doesn't mean are they clear thinking.
34:16
It just means they're not insane.
34:18
OK, is the person not insane? They may still.
34:21
Have a warped conscience. That was exactly, deeply, deeply
34:24
warped conscience to the. Degree of a personality
34:27
disorder. To the degree that even a
34:29
lifetime in prison is not going to change their conscience,
34:34
right. But we we still have to make a
34:36
judgement on the Commission of a crime for lots of reasons,
34:40
including the protection of society.
34:43
But even if Ted Bundy is is not, you know, and even if he's even
34:47
if he's impaired by he has a stroke and like he, he's laying
34:52
in a hospital bed and he's no longer dangerous or whatever.
34:55
Even if there's other ways to protect society, he still needs
34:58
to be punished. That's the job of the criminal
35:01
justice. System So this brings us to
35:03
sentencing, which is I know this is it's a very good analysis
35:08
that you just shared, because I do think that is a question.
35:10
What's the point of prisons and in general, right?
35:13
Well, you we need to have punishment like you're saying,
35:16
even if it doesn't rehabilitate, which is, which is a tragedy.
35:19
Although I think punishments should be designed in the
35:22
direction of rehabilitation as best we can for the sake of
35:25
everyone. I think Elizabeth Holmes strikes
35:28
me as the kind of person who may learn a lot about herself and
35:33
could potentially change in positive ways after.
35:39
I don't think she'll spend 11 years in prison, but after a few
35:42
years in prison. Spend in prison.
35:44
I've seen reports at the most we can reduce a federal, I saw
35:47
reports at the most you can reduce a federal sentences I
35:51
think by like a 1/5 of the sentence or something that she
35:54
could get off, you know? Like in nine years?
35:57
Yeah, she could. Only she would have to do at
35:58
least nine years. The thing that you know, my
36:01
husband and I were talking about this recently because I've been
36:03
like following this case recently, especially since I
36:05
learned about the sentencing, which is 9, you know, 11 years,
36:09
three months in prison and that she has two babies.
36:12
So I'm a young mother. You know, your heart go you, you
36:15
I know you've had young you have 6 kids, right, 655.
36:18
I keep saying 6 for you 5 kids. So, you know, I think there's a
36:22
you don't even have to be a young mother.
36:24
You know, have have had young children to have the sense of
36:27
vulnerability of a young parents, especially a young
36:30
mother. So anyways, my husband asked me
36:33
if she hadn't that doesn't have the young, if she didn't have
36:35
the two young kids, would you care so much?
36:38
I was like, yeah, I don't know that I would care as much.
36:41
I would still care, but I don't think I'd care this much.
36:44
What role do you think being a mother of young children should
36:48
have in sentencing? Now that's different than it's
36:52
different than you are not going to be treated differently by the
36:55
jury. You shouldn't be treated
36:56
differently in the, in the trial.
36:58
But after the conviction happens, the judge has the
37:02
opportunity, the responsibility to decide.
37:05
There's a range of sentencing, you know, 10 to 20 years, in
37:07
some cases fines. What do you think when it comes,
37:12
should that be taken into account?
37:13
And we discussed this earlier. Is it right to send an 8 month
37:16
pregnant woman to prison? Should she be treated just like
37:21
a man who committed the same exact crime?
37:25
I think it should be a consideration only in terms of
37:29
the welfare of the children. So if you put a pregnant woman
37:34
in prison in the prison environment, right, if we have
37:36
evidence that it could change the outcomes of the pregnancy or
37:41
the health of the unborn child, I think the welfare of that
37:45
unborn child can be taken into account.
37:48
So maybe the prison sentence only begins, you know, once she
37:54
delivers. Did you know that there are
37:56
prisons in our country that permit nursing children in the
38:00
prison and they make accommodations so children up to
38:03
like 1 year old can be with their mothers and bond with
38:06
their mothers? I have mixed feelings about
38:09
this. But that wasn't permitted.
38:12
Elizabeth Holmes was not permitted that luxury.
38:15
You could call it. She's in a pretty minimal
38:17
security prison from what I could see.
38:19
But the whole point is she's not with her three month old nursing
38:22
infant. She was.
38:24
She's been separated from her three month old child.
38:27
Well, she could pomp, I mean, but the.
38:30
Point of The point of breastfeeding isn't just the
38:32
milk. No, no, it's not.
38:33
It's not. But do you?
38:35
Think there should be considerations made for because
38:38
this is there's a lot of young. I mean, like, she's not
38:41
breastfeeding is is only one of the many things that sadly her
38:45
being in prison deprives her children of.
38:48
But a father being in prison deprives his own children
38:52
likewise of many, many things that they should have.
38:55
That's a that's a tragedy of especially.
39:01
The financial side, by the way, because you throw a guy in
39:03
prison and he is not able to support financially his young
39:07
children. Yeah, it's it can be hugely.
39:11
Parents who commit crimes negative.
39:12
For them. Even if they're being in prison
39:15
is going to be suboptimal for their children, still need to be
39:19
punished. So to me, I don't know where, I
39:21
don't know where you draw those lines.
39:23
I mean, I think it's a question of prudence, you know, whether
39:26
it's good for kids on balance to be brought into a prison, to be
39:29
breastfed from zero to 1. I think there's probably
39:33
legitimate room for, you know, differences of opinion and
39:36
debate about that. What do you think about how?
39:38
The criteria should be the welfare of the child.
39:40
The criteria should not be the person being punished.
39:43
OK. Well, if that's the case, if the
39:45
criteria is the welfare of the child, I think you could
39:47
definitely make the argument for nonviolent offenders who are
39:51
they're not afraid of them being like flight risks or something
39:54
for them to be placed under house arrest for the duration of
39:58
their child's up until the child is two or three years old.
40:01
I mean, I think you could make that argument.
40:02
Would you make the same argument for fathers?
40:05
I don't know because I think I don't know.
40:08
I think it would be harder to make the argument for fathers,
40:10
quite frankly, because the mother has a does have a a
40:13
different role in nurture for a very young child.
40:18
So, but that's I don't know, what do you think?
40:22
I haven't thought about. It that much people listening?
40:24
Let us know what you think. I would have to think.
40:25
About it because if the if the priority is the child's welfare,
40:29
if the child's welfare is actually more important than
40:32
punishment of the adult, that does open a lot of questions
40:36
that I don't think are being asked today.
40:42
Is the child's welfare more important than the punishment?
40:44
Well, didn't you just say that? Or maybe I mishird you.
40:46
Socrates said that the the the best thing you could do for a
40:49
person who's committed a crime, the best thing a person who's
40:51
committed a crime could do for themselves and by extension for
40:55
the people in their lives, is to accept their punishment.
40:59
So in that case, you, you could make the argument that the young
41:02
child, you know, obviously we don't want them to be destitute.
41:05
We want them to have some sort of nurturing caretaker with
41:07
which they can form a primary bond.
41:09
But it's actually better for them not to form that primary
41:12
bond if that means that they're convicted.
41:16
Criminal parent is out of their punishment for the.
41:19
Potentially. Because they could send the
41:20
wrong messages to the child or I don't know, it's in.
41:24
I don't know. I'm in favor of discretion in
41:26
sentencing. Well, Judge Davila wanted to.
41:28
Use. I'm in favor of discretion in
41:30
sentence. Elizabeth Holmes, Judge wanted
41:31
to use her. Within reason, yeah.
41:33
I mean, he used her as an example.
41:35
He said that as much like, you know, silicon, he you should
41:38
read his, I don't know if you read his remarks about her
41:40
sentencing, but it was all about the story of Silicon Valley.
41:44
And yeah. You know how I don't think
41:46
anyone should be used as as an example?
41:49
I actually one other ancillary purpose of punishment is
41:54
deterrence, right? So to when it's publicly known
41:58
that someone is punished, and I think that's what the judge
42:00
meant by using her as an example, it was publicly known
42:03
that somebody is punished for a crime.
42:07
That. May deter other people from
42:09
committing the same crime, but that that is not and should not
42:12
be the primary purpose of punishment.
42:14
And I think that should not be the primary consideration in
42:17
sentencing because that's using that individual as a means to
42:20
another end, right? The sentencing should be
42:23
appropriate for what we judge to be that person's degree of
42:27
responsibility or whatever circumstances we've ascertained
42:32
surrounding the crime that might be mitigating factors.
42:35
Those are relevant for sentencing.
42:37
Maybe the welfare of the person's child to some degree is
42:39
relevant in sentencing, although I think that's a very sticky
42:43
issue. I think sentencing has to has to
42:48
do with the crime and what our, our modest ability to understand
42:54
the circumstances might allow us to do.
42:56
We shouldn't try to be omnicious, omniscient and judge
42:59
the person's heart. But yeah, maybe there's room for
43:03
OK, there's mitigating factors going on here.
43:06
But I mean, in Elizabeth Holmes case as well, you've you've got
43:11
a situation in which, you know, a classic example in criminal
43:16
sentencing would be a crime of passion.
43:17
So someone knowingly commits murder.
43:19
But in the heat of walking in and discovering, you know,
43:22
spouse in bed with another man, you know, I pull out my gun
43:25
that's right there at hand and just do something and
43:27
impulsively in the moment. That's not really premeditated.
43:31
It's just an expression of my anger.
43:32
Is that a mitigating factor versus someone who has plotted
43:37
and and spent weeks thinking about killing this person had
43:40
plenty of opportunities to change course.
43:42
Well, Elizabeth Holmes crime was nothing if not premeditated in
43:48
the sense that she, she, I would argue, lied over and over and
43:55
over in a serial fashion to many people on many occasions.
43:59
And even when she was confronted by critics who said, we're not
44:04
sure you're telling the truth. We're not sure you have what you
44:06
claim that you have. This is not adding up.
44:09
This is not making sense. She didn't use that as an
44:13
opportunity to come clean and to say, OK, in the interest of
44:18
transparency, I'm going to tell you what we actually have these
44:20
patents and this technology is at this stage of development and
44:24
it works for this. Well, and it appears that she
44:26
still thinks that she's telling the truth.
44:29
She pled not guilty. She if she had pled guilty, her
44:33
sentencing would not have been as severe.
44:36
Ten years in prison might be the only thing that can rectify
44:39
that. And then my dad rectify.
44:40
That for her, I don't know. Yeah.
44:42
I mean, that's back to the whole but.
44:43
Regardless, she deserves, I, I believe she deserves to be
44:46
punished. If you want to talk about
44:48
fairness and sentencing, I consider what she did to have
44:53
been a form of theft, defrauding.
44:57
People hundreds of millions of dollars. 800 million to be
45:00
specific. You know someone who grows up on
45:04
the mean streets and hijacks a couple of cars?
45:09
Maybe he does it three times. Could spend a lifetime in prison
45:13
for stealing a few $1000 worth. Of and my husband and I, my
45:19
husband and I were discussing that the other day that I mean,
45:21
you look at something like the Innocence Project and the
45:25
amazing work that they're doing in some of these cases that are
45:27
just insane. You know, people locked up for
45:30
their whole lives and they didn't even commit the crime or
45:34
they committed, you know, it's like a they, they sold drugs one
45:36
time or they used drugs one time and they're in jail for decades
45:40
or whatever. I mean these severe cases.
45:42
When we talk about fairness in sentencing, like leniency for
45:46
Elizabeth Holmes strikes me as a is a very sort of bourgeois.
45:53
Well, that's why he he didn't. He was not lenient with her
45:56
because he knew if he did, he didn't want it to.
45:59
I mean, partly you could just say it's pure justice, but I
46:02
think it's also the message he was trying to send because if he
46:06
there her defense asked for I think 18 months and you just I
46:11
mean. Some someone who steals a couple
46:13
of cars is not going to get ever get 18 months in prison and then
46:17
you're free to go and they're not going to be in a low
46:19
security posh prison like the one that she's in.
46:23
So, yeah, she's a Stanford grad, and she looks like a female
46:28
Steve Jobs. And so we can sort of overlook
46:32
the theft of $800 million. And, you know, maybe investors
46:36
were stupid and they should have known better.
46:38
But yeah, but they were also lied to.
46:42
And I think we largely agree on this, Aaron, although I think
46:46
I'm still, I'm still disturbed, not just the by the fact that
46:50
Elizabeth Holmes is separated from her very young children,
46:53
but I think the number is, I don't know if it's 80,000 women
46:57
of young children in prison. It's a, it's, it's something to
47:01
think about, you know, and I, but I, I think the larger themes
47:04
at play here. Woman's sins and woman's crimes
47:07
adversely affect her children. Absolutely.
47:10
They do. Yeah, right.
47:12
That's true. And so it's tragic that there
47:15
are so many mothers in prison. And it's tragic.
47:19
But the other thing we didn't. We haven't.
47:21
Even. We haven't even talked about.
47:23
It's also tragic that those women committed crimes.
47:28
I agree. They killed people, they stole
47:30
from people, they hurt people. And I I.
47:32
We do have, though. We do, we should note this.
47:35
We have 20% of the world's prison population in the United
47:38
States alone, and we're like 3% of the global population and
47:42
over 1,000,000 prisoners in this country.
47:44
Yeah, that's that's an important conversation.
47:46
I do think in context of we like to put people in jail on the end
47:50
if you still, if you still 800. If you still $800 million that
47:55
has to be considered. Well, I think they only found
47:59
her guilty of stealing 270 million, but I agree it's a load
48:03
of cash. Yeah, it's a it's tragic.
48:08
It's tragic, I. Mean think of think of what that
48:11
money could have done for people elsewhere, including in
48:16
healthcare. It's true.
48:18
It's a very good point. Including in healthcare.
48:19
That was money. It was not spent to help people
48:24
in other contexts, and she was. And you think about the the ill
48:28
effect of is she, if these blood tests have been permitted to be
48:31
out there longer, all of the physical harm it could have done
48:34
people, potentially thousands and thousands of people.
48:37
So that's another. In our kind of, in our kind of
48:41
materialist philosophy that that operates in our current world,
48:46
we, we usually, we usually have to have to think through how
48:50
does this physically harm people to convince people that there
48:56
was harm done. It's.
48:57
A great. Point and I think that's a
48:59
mistake. And I, I, I was reflecting
49:01
earlier today as I was thinking about Elizabeth Holmes and
49:04
thinking about the whole the sin or the crime of fraud, the fact
49:09
that Dante places fraud lower in a deeper circle of hell with
49:13
more severe punishments then he places even murder.
49:17
And lust is the very top. Lust is the very top sin of the
49:21
flesh. A sin against the body is less
49:26
serious in at least to the medieval and early Renaissance
49:31
mind, than a sin that is basically involves lying, or
49:36
lying in this case for the sin financial gain.
49:40
Well, the way he or Aquinas would have explained it is that
49:44
we are creatures of body and soul inextricably united, and
49:52
the body is a constitutive part of who we are, obviously an
49:55
important part of who we are. But the soul and the faculties
49:59
of the soul are the higher part. They're the spiritual part of
50:02
who we are. So if I murder you, that's a
50:05
terrible crime, but I haven't necessarily.
50:09
I've harmed your body, obviously, but I haven't
50:13
necessarily harmed your soul. Your soul may be with God in
50:17
heaven. And that's why the hair prepared
50:19
for that the hair or the the the the bishops are.
50:22
In. Yeah, that's right.
50:23
The the heretical bishops are in the, I think the the deepest.
50:26
So the spiritual faculties of of the intellect and the will.
50:29
You mislead the moral character of a right of a child.
50:33
It would be better to be thrown into the ocean with a millstone
50:36
around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to
50:38
stumble. That's right.
50:39
That's right. So what?
50:40
What do the spiritual faculties do?
50:42
The intellect is there to know the truth, and the will is there
50:46
to pursue the truth. Yeah, to choose the good, right.
50:50
And by fraud, I willfully and knowingly deceive the intellect
50:57
into believing untruth, and willfully and knowingly lead the
51:02
will to pursue something that's not good.
51:07
It's a good closing lesson for anybody listening that he who is
51:13
faithful and little things can be faithful and big, but he's
51:16
unfaithful and little things will be unfaithful and big if
51:20
you'll steal the dollar. But it's interesting.
51:23
My telephone. Did she steal dollars before she
51:25
stole stole billions. We we've got her up.
51:29
I know, but it's there's lots more food for her thought here.
51:31
Yeah, I mean, she was convicted of fraud and not theft, but it
51:36
it was fraud that led to. What other fraud?
51:38
Was the accrual, yeah, the accrual of of money.
51:42
And I, I don't doubt that she told 1000 or a million half
51:47
truths or fantasies that she wished were true but were not or
51:55
not quite or not yet. That probably prepared her for
52:00
for the Big Lie. I think it's a word of caution
52:04
to again, I've met so many of these guys, not just guys, I
52:09
guess there's girls too, but the young entrepreneur with the big
52:13
idea, the honesty in all things. Have big dreams.
52:17
Have big. Dreams never, never like to.
52:20
Tell the truth. Know your limits.
52:21
Or better yet, our Lord, you know.
52:23
Have the humility to acknowledge that that you are not going to
52:29
save the world. You can have all the right
52:30
aspirations like it's, it's, it's easy and, and, and kind of
52:37
cheap for an undergrad at I'm picking on Stanford because I
52:41
think it's endemic at that particular university.
52:43
But you know, you could pick on other undergrads to to.
52:47
It's actually not a good and beautiful and wholesome thing
52:52
for a 19 year old to believe I'm going to cure cancer.
52:56
That's an interesting statement. It's a good and beautiful and
53:00
wholesome thing to say I would like to dedicate my life to.
53:04
Pursuing. This science and to try to
53:07
advance, you know, treatments for leukemia because my nephew
53:11
died of leukemia. And I recognize that I can
53:18
devote my entire life to this and maybe make modest progress
53:23
toward that goal. And that is a good and beautiful
53:26
thing. And that the cure of cancer,
53:28
even the cure of one type of cancer is not going to come
53:30
about through the efforts of one person alone behaving in a way
53:34
that's sort of grandiose, but through the the everyday.
53:38
Put your nose to the grindstone, your belly to the bench in a lab
53:43
and and do the work and know the field and study it and recognize
53:48
how hard these problems are to solve.
53:53
And recognize that collaboration with many other hundreds and
53:57
even thousands of researchers doing similar work is necessary
54:02
for us to move the ball down the field at all.
54:06
And maybe I'll get lucky with a major advance, but I'll be
54:10
standing on the shoulders of giants.
54:13
And I, it may have been just the right place at the right time to
54:16
put the last piece of a 3000 piece jigsaw puzzle in place to
54:21
to take that significant step in the treatment of this particular
54:26
cancer that that is a healthy attitude for our young people to
54:32
be introduced to in their undergraduate days.
54:36
It is a scary and toxic and strange environment where a 19
54:43
year old drops out of Stanford, the chair of her department
54:47
follows her onto her board of directors, brings in all kinds
54:50
of other investors and power brokers that bring in all kinds
54:55
of money to to to do things that from the very beginning, each
55:02
and every one of those people should have a healthy skepticism
55:07
toward the promises that we're being.
55:09
Yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't go that far.
55:11
I don't think that is always a recipe for bad for bad things.
55:16
But I would agree with what you said before, which I thought
55:18
were very wise words and anyone listening would do well to
55:21
listen to them, which is put your back into it, collaborate,
55:26
work hard, seek, seek the good, seek doing the good service of
55:30
others, and you can have a vision.
55:33
I think vision's good, but to have a messianic complex
55:37
associated with your vision is a recipe for disaster and a recipe
55:41
for moral compromise, severe moral compromise.
55:44
And you know, if you're given the gift of vision, steward the
55:47
vision wisely. Don't don't become the don't
55:51
become an Elizabeth Holmes, unfortunately.
55:54
So that is the the lesson perhaps that we've we've learned
55:58
today. So thank you, Aaron.
55:59
Thank you, Doctor K. Thank you.
56:01
For your wisdom. Doctor Al.
56:04
Oh gosh, no, that's a fake one. You're a doctor now.
56:06
That's a well, anyways, I love I love Stephenville, but let's
56:10
just say it doesn't doesn't compare to your your kind of
56:12
doctor. So otherwise I'm going to be in
56:16
trouble for fraud. Go around.
56:19
That would be funny. Go around saying I'm a doctor.