S01.S07: Heroes

[slowpoked]

8 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

The leadership at Theranos encouraged F-U chanting directed at anyone who wasn't on board and drinking the Kool-Aid.  It wasn't just Carriou who got a F--- Y-- chant from the mob.

Yes, towards the end it became like a cult, and EH and Sunny were the biggest enablers of that behavior. Those ridiculous Halloween, Christmas and other parties happened in real life.

I mean, I understand feeling loyal to a company. I've been there before, I felt loyalty to the only company who hired me for my first job when I was straight out of college and came from a another country. But I think I would have been out there pretty fast if it ever became close to a cult. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by slowpoked

[Cinnabon]

14 hours ago, slowpoked said:

 

EH's big sales pitch is that Theranos can detect every single thing wrong with a person via a single drop of blood. No more multiple blood draws into different colored vials with different labels like Quest Diagnostics does. Like @Cinnabon said, once she admits her theory isn't feasible, then she's just another lab owner wannabe that will be eaten up by established labs already, and what investor would be interested in that.

She tried to "pivot" to "multiple drops of blood", and that's the part that Carreyrou used a lot to back Theranos into a corner.  

In fact, the I-STAT, a small handheld analyzer that can do about 25 tests using very small amounts of blood, has already been around for about 25 years. Theranos was offering absolutely nothing that didn’t already exist. 

[peachmangosteen]

6 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

I figure the fallout will be season 2.  The Dropout podcast covered the whole thing through the verdict.

But there is no season 2 of this show.

[CrystalBlue]

3 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

But there is no season 2 of this show.

What is known so far.  Hopefully not an April Fools' Day joke.

The Dropout Season 2 Release Date

[Bobcatkitten]

God I hope that convo between Phyllis and Elizabeth at the Harvard thing really happened. Talk about satisfying. 

[peachmangosteen]

The promo for the next episode calls in a 'series finale.'

[slowpoked]

15 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

The promo for the next episode calls in a 'series finale.'

Ugh, I want more. Maybe they can do a Big Little Lies turnabout.

[lovinbob]

22 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Lisa Gay Hamilton was the MVP of the episode even though she didn't have much screen time. Her downloading the recording app was gold.

I absolutely loved what she did with this role. Very refreshing. It was the kind of part usually reserved for a male actor and played in a crusty/curmudgeonly way. She brought something original, and charming without trying too hard. Bravo. 

[Johnny Dollar]

I would watch the hell out of a show called “Louise Grant” starring Lisa Gay Hamilton as a hard-boiled, snarky managing editor and a team of intrepid reporters. 

[40Love]

4 hours ago, lovinbob said:

I absolutely loved what she did with this role. Very refreshing. It was the kind of part usually reserved for a male actor and played in a crusty/curmudgeonly way. She brought something original, and charming without trying too hard. Bravo. 

Did anyone else catch her side remarks during a heated exchange with the Theranos lawyers "Hey, what happened to Good Cop?" and "Personally I prefer Pepsi!". Hilarious! 

[AntFTW]

On 4/1/2022 at 8:57 AM, bluegirl147 said:

I wonder what would have happened if he had killed the story.

On 4/1/2022 at 10:04 AM, questionfear said:

If Murdoch had killed the story then presumbably Carreyrou and/or Fuisz would have taken it to the Post or somewhere else. 

I doubt the WSJ has a non-compete to the point where Carreyrou couldn't have consulted with another reporter or flat out quit and left the WSJ to report it on his own. 

Not to mention that there's no way the entire news division wouldn't have leaked that Murdoch squashed a story about one of his investments all over the place. 

My initial thought was "Good luck having a newspaper after that" if Murdoch had actually quashed the story. Carreyrou did what he was supposed to do as far as getting sources, gathering evidences, and talking with first hand witnesses. I imagine that would be an issue for other journalists who do that sort of investigative reporting. Not sure if my confidence is too high on that.

On 4/1/2022 at 8:57 AM, bluegirl147 said:

If I'm not mistaken they were planning on taking the company public.

If it didn't come out in the WSJ, it would have came out as a result of them trying to go public.

Edited April 2, 2022 by AntFTW

[AntFTW]

8 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

What is known so far.  Hopefully not an April Fools' Day joke.

The Dropout Season 2 Release Date

It's a miniseries. It's only one season.

[qtpye]

This is her presenting to The American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

It is long and a little dry but is fascinating that she would even have the nerve to present her useless machine in a conference like this.

They have a panel question her at the end.

Edited April 2, 2022 by qtpye

[SlovakPrincess]

On 3/31/2022 at 9:23 PM, Jordan Baker said:

The most surprising thing I learned in the episode was that Rupert Murdoch refused to kill the story (assuming that tidbit was true).

Has "fake it till you make it" evolved over time to now mean stall, obfuscate, and hope things will work out? The first time I ever heard it used (many years ago), it was in the context of personal behavior. For example, if you're feeling down, project an air of happiness and eventually you'll be happy. If you want to appear confident, project an air of confidence, etc. It was actually supposed to be a positive thing to do. (I'm not saying the philosophy is correct, BTW. But it wasn't about fooling anyone else.)  

Maybe Rupert also was starting to wonder what the heck he'd actually invested in.  Gotta hoard and protect those billions!  And since the company hadn't gone public yet, there wouldn't be a direct hit to stock prices with one bad investigative story.  

But this also shows Holmes' arrogance and foolishness -- her still-young company was not gonna win out in Murdoch's mind when set up against the Murdochs' more-established institution, the Wall Street Journal.  While people might view the opinion pages as reflecting Murdoch's politics and personal beliefs, the investigative journalism side of the paper is not about to get scooped on a huge business scandal!  This is the paper's bread and butter.  

"Fake it 'til you make it" used to mean to just fake a confident attitude, but between Theranos and Fyre Fest and so many other scammers, it seems like in the last decade it's become a mentality that excuses lying or exaggerating to get the money (and telling yourself you'll actually achieve what you claimed later).  

Edited April 2, 2022 by SlovakPrincess

[amarante]

The book also explains that Murdoch's $100 million investment was really chump change in comparison with his net worth. By the time he had written it off on taxes it would be a piffle.

And putting aside his *politics*, the WSJ is a jewel in his media crown and so it would lose any kind of credibility if he were to kill editorial coverage of finance and business to protect his own investments - has to be a complete division between "church and state".

I doubt Bezos interfere with the Washington Post - any story that tangentially touches on him or his businesses carries a disclaimer. The Los Angeles Times was also bought relatively recently by a very rich guy. At this time - the newspapers are the trophies for the ultra ultra rich - it's like the Church supporting great art back in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. 

[Cinnabon]

I’ve worked in Silicon Valley, and I still don’t quite understand how all of these CEOs live in multimillion dollar homes when their companies aren’t even profitable yet. And may never be profitable.

[chocolatine]

29 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

I’ve worked in Silicon Valley, and I still don’t quite understand how all of these CEOs live in multimillion dollar homes when their companies aren’t even profitable yet. And may never be profitable.

If you watch WeCrashed, the latest episode of that show explains it really well - the CEOs can get huge personal lines of credit because of the valuation of their companies. It was said in this episode of The Dropout that Elizabeth's share of Theranos was worth $4.5B based on the company's valuation, so she could get many millions worth of personal credit without a problem.

[amarante]

I think the issue of fake it until you make it is that it works when one is releasing software with bugs because in general they don't have life or death implications. 

However Theranos was essentially a medical device company and not a software company and so there are approvals needed before devices and drugs are released for general use and real ethical considerations. The book goes into a lot of detail in terms of how Theranos skirted the approval issues by having the lab in California certified through some loophole.

One of the reasons that she swung into the Walgreen/Safeway consumer sector was because she had tried peddling it to pharmaceutical companies as a way for them to test the efficacy of their drugs. But they didn't receive results that were acceptable to companies that actually knew what they were doing.

ETA - I have been watching bits and pieces of Wecrash and. the same Emperor's New Clothes was evident in that since there was nothing remotely high tech about the company - it was just a real estate company with all of the issues facing those who manage commercial real estate. Just like Theranos was essentially just a medical device company which didn't even live up to the promise of being more effective than Seimans old technology. Plus it wasn't really an issue that was extremely important anyway - getting blood tests the old fashioned way is not big deal for the most party. They are cheap - at least in terms of how much insurance or Medicare reimburses for a test and they are very accurate. No one would actually want a home device to check their blood - most people don't have home devices for blood pressure or even a pulse oximetry device which is recommended because oxygen levels can be deceptively low if you have COVID. The Wecrash guy essentially got away with all of his fraud - he even leased back real estate to the company for artificially high prices. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by amarante

[Irlandesa]

On 4/1/2022 at 4:01 PM, peachmangosteen said:

But there is no season 2 of this show.

True. And yet, networks make it so hard to believe in "this is a one and done" season.  So many of them have been renewed.

On 4/1/2022 at 4:06 PM, CrystalBlue said:

What is known so far.  Hopefully not an April Fools' Day joke.

The Dropout Season 2 Release Date

Not an April Fool's Day joke but a content creator.  You can find a page like that for almost any show. 

[AntFTW]

17 hours ago, chocolatine said:

If you watch WeCrashed, the latest episode of that show explains it really well - the CEOs can get huge personal lines of credit because of the valuation of their companies.

That’s exactly what happens. Even the CEOs with profitable companies would do the same thing because why spend your own money if you don’t have to.

For the ones I’ve seen, the terms are usually very loose. I’ve seen lines of credit for high net worth people that are essentially interest-free and they are given a lot of leeway on when to pay it back.
 

I’m of the opinion that lines of credit like that are loss-leaders. In WeCrashed, JPMorgan Chase will take the loss on the line of credit by giving loose terms if that means Adam will come back to JPMC when it’s time for WeWork to go public and then also come back to JPMC to manage his wealth. The same applies to EH. The banks are doing the groundwork to make sure Theranos goes to them for their investment banking needs, and for them to manage EH’s newfound wealth.

[Samsnee]

These guys are pure evil

[wanderingstar]

Is it me or is Richard Fuisz one of those people who is committed to feeling aggrieved?

[qtpye]

5 minutes ago, Gillian Rosh said:

Is it me or is Richard Fuisz one of those people who is committed to feeling aggrieved?

He is not a nice person but totally spot on about Elizabeth. 

[wanderingstar]

20 hours ago, qtpye said:

He is not a nice person but totally spot on about Elizabeth. 

Oh he absolutely is. But I'm thinking more about his interactions with other people, like John Carreyrou and Phyllis Gardener, who are ostensibly his allies. He seems irritated by them.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Gillian Rosh

[AntFTW]

4 hours ago, Gillian Rosh said:

Oh he absolutely is. Bt I'm thinking more about his interactions with other people, like John Carreyrou and Phyllis Gardener, who are ostensibly his allies. He seems irritated by them.

He's motivated by revenge... for something he started.

He will be forever irritated until EH stops winning at life. He's irritated by anyone who puts obstacles in his way like "evidence" and "proof." Her face is everywhere. She's a billionaire. She has a seemingly legitimate company. He will use anything to take her down. Since they're suing him, it helps him tremendously.

The show doesn't really go into Richard divorcing but I wouldn't be surprised if it was partially because he was too focused on taking down EH and Theranos, and that Richard partially blames EH for his divorce.

Edited April 4, 2022 by AntFTW

[Johnny Dollar]

When you read stories about billionaires paying little to no income taxes, it’s because they are using loans against their company’s stock to fund their lifestyle. Why take a salary and pay income tax when you can just borrow against your stock portfolio literally tax free? And if the stock tanks and you can’t pay back the bank? That’s what taxpayers are for. 

[Readingallnight]

On 4/1/2022 at 8:57 AM, bluegirl147 said:

I wonder how many former employees keep Theranos on their resumes.  

Don't know about his resume, but someone on one of my calls today was wearing a Theranos t-shirt.  I choked on my coffee when I saw it.

[marybennet]

8 minutes ago, Readingallnight said:

Don't know about his resume, but someone on one of my calls today was wearing a Theranos t-shirt.  I choked on my coffee when I saw it.

Do you think it was a joke?

[Readingallnight]

16 minutes ago, marybennet said:

24 minutes ago, Readingallnight said:

Don't know about his resume, but someone on one of my calls today was wearing a Theranos t-shirt.  I choked on my coffee when I saw it.

Do you think it was a joke?

I don't know, someone said "OK now let's hear from (guy's name) in his Theranos shirt" and he didn't react or explain at all.  The emails are flying about it though! It's a slow Monday.

[chocolatine]

There are many people in tech who look like they never buy their own t-shirts because they dress exclusively in company branded ones. They collect them through their own jobs, friends'/partners' jobs, and professional conferences where many companies give them out for free. Most of them don't really care what's on the t-shirt.

Edited April 5, 2022 by chocolatine

[Sweet-tea]

I think Amanda Seyfried is doing a masterful job. Her voice isn't as deep as Holmes' but she has the odd cadence down. The other stuff she does with the weird stares, awkward posture and strange pauses... all fantastic. She really does seem off in ways that are hard to pinpoint but enough to make another person uncomfortable. I hope she gets an Emmy nomination. She's prettier than Holmes but this is almost always the case in movies. 

I want to read the book. 

 

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, Sweet-tea said:

I think Amanda Seyfried is doing a masterful job. Her voice isn't as deep as Holmes' but she has the odd cadence down. The other stuff she does with the weird stares, awkward posture and strange pauses... all fantastic. She really does seem off in ways that are hard to pinpoint but enough to make another person uncomfortable. I hope she gets an Emmy nomination. She's prettier than Holmes but this is almost always the case in movies. 

I want to read the book. 

 

I was able to get the book free to read from Libby. 

[Showthyme]

2 hours ago, Sweet-tea said:

I think Amanda Seyfried is doing a masterful job. Her voice isn't as deep as Holmes' but she has the odd cadence down. The other stuff she does with the weird stares, awkward posture and strange pauses... all fantastic. She really does seem off in ways that are hard to pinpoint but enough to make another person uncomfortable. I hope she gets an Emmy nomination. She's prettier than Holmes but this is almost always the case in movies. 

I want to read the book. 

 

Amanda Seyfriend also does that weird thing that Elizabeth does with her mouth. 
 

EH had some weird mannerisms. She was pretty but not beautiful. I don’t understand what people saw in her. Even the jury found her likable.

[slowpoked]

On 4/3/2022 at 8:21 AM, AntFTW said:

I’m of the opinion that lines of credit like that are loss-leaders. In WeCrashed, JPMorgan Chase will take the loss on the line of credit by giving loose terms if that means Adam will come back to JPMC when it’s time for WeWork to go public and then also come back to JPMC to manage his wealth. The same applies to EH. The banks are doing the groundwork to make sure Theranos goes to them for their investment banking needs, and for them to manage EH’s newfound wealth.

Yes. They're willing to lose a few thousand revenues in LOCs if it means they can eventually charge gross investment fees in EH's investment accounts. It's a tradeoff a lot of brokerage houses are willing to make.

I've seen it in real estate too. Banks too often willing to lend money in looser terms compared to other types of loan, because there's always the real estate to fall back into when the company or its owners defaults. And the owners mostly get off free. This is why for a lot of these people, "debt is king". Why spend your own money when you can spend others, and even have the chance to not pay them off at all?

[Wiendish Fitch]

The scene with Phyllis (sorry, Dr. Gardner) and Elizabeth was the highlight of this already masterful miniseries. I'm almost completely certain it didn't happen in real life, but I loved it anyway (it kind of reminded me of the fictional confrontation between Phyllis Schlafley and Jill Ruckelshaus in Mrs. America).

What's important about that scene (and, indeed, the first episode with Elizabeth and Dr. Gardner) is that we've really lost the ability to differentiate between a "hater" and someone who is just being honest about our abilities (or lack thereof). Dr. Gardner was not being a "hater"; she gave firm, fair, diplomatic, and ultimately correct advice to Elizabeth. Elizabeth's ideas were admittedly kind of cool... but they weren't good, because they simply couldn't work.  Ambition and ideas aren't enough without knowledge, experience, hard-earned wisdom, and, the most underrated gift of all, humility. There is nothing admirable about never listening to others or owning when you're wrong. Elizabeth, empty shell of a human being that she is, had none of the aforementioned qualities, and that's why she so deservedly failed. 

Chris Redd from SNL was recently on Seth Meyers's show, and he (Redd) talked about his early aspirations to be a rapper, and how people doubted his abilities... and then he came to realize that they were right, and that being a rapper just wasn't in his future. Redd, to his immense credit, had a wonderful sense of humor about it and capped it off with this beautiful line: "Some haters are just intuitive!"

Bingo. Phyllis Gardner wasn't a mean ol' naysayer gunning to stomp on poor Elizabeth Holmes's dreams, she was just intuitive, and 100% right. Holmes arrogantly disregarded her advice, and basically dug her own professional grave. So, to me, that's the biggest reason why Dr. Gardner telling her off was so damned rewarding (among so many others).

I'm an unapologetic Phyllis Gardner fangirl, can you tell?

[Cinnabon]

8 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

The scene with Phyllis (sorry, Dr. Gardner) and Elizabeth was the highlight of this already masterful miniseries. I'm almost completely certain it didn't happen in real life, but I loved it anyway (it kind of reminded me of the fictional confrontation between Phyllis Schlafley and Jill Ruckelshaus in Mrs. America).

What's important about that scene (and, indeed, the first episode with Elizabeth and Dr. Gardner) is that we've really lost the ability to differentiate between a "hater" and someone who is just being honest about our abilities (or lack thereof). Dr. Gardner was not being a "hater"; she gave firm, fair, diplomatic, and ultimately correct advice to Elizabeth. Elizabeth's ideas were admittedly kind of cool... but they weren't good, because they simply couldn't work.  Ambition and ideas aren't enough without knowledge, experience, hard-earned wisdom, and, the most underrated gift of all, humility. There is nothing admirable about never listening to others or owning when you're wrong. Elizabeth, empty shell of a human being that she is, had none of the aforementioned qualities, and that's why she so deservedly failed. 

Chris Redd from SNL was recently on Seth Meyers's show, and he (Redd) talked about his early aspirations to be a rapper, and how people doubted his abilities... and then he came to realize that they were right, and that being a rapper just wasn't in his future. Redd, to his immense credit, had a wonderful sense of humor about it and capped it off with this beautiful line: "Some haters are just intuitive!"

Bingo. Phyllis Gardner wasn't a mean ol' naysayer gunning to stomp on poor Elizabeth Holmes's dreams, she was just intuitive, and 100% right. Holmes arrogantly disregarded her advice, and basically dug her own professional grave. So, to me, that's the biggest reason why Dr. Gardner telling her off was so damned rewarding (among so many others).

I'm an unapologetic Phyllis Gardner fangirl, can you tell?

I agree and I really dislike the word “hater” and its derivatives. Hate is a strong word, and is not equivalent to disagreement or criticism. Being a naysayer isn’t equivalent to hating someone or something 

[CrystalBlue]

Dr. Gardner was just tellin' like it is.

[chocolatine]

Dr. Gardner wasn't even a naysayer. She was just stating her professional opinion. 

[Cinnabon]

13 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Dr. Gardner wasn't even a naysayer. She was just stating her professional opinion. 

Exactly right. But a lot of numbskulls are quick to label that “hate.”

[nora1992]

On 3/31/2022 at 12:55 AM, surfer said:

Grandma Shultz, Judith “BAM!” Baker and Phyllis Dr. Gardner are all pretty awesome. 

 

Totally agree, but I wish I had a boss like Judith!

[MaryPatShelby]

On 3/31/2022 at 11:17 AM, slowpoked said:

That tic of Amanda - is that a real-life tic of EH?

 

I'm guessing you mean how she almost imperceptibly nods her head all the time?  I just started watching the HBO doc (stopped when I realized I had actually already watched it lol); there is a lot of real-life Elizabeth in it, and she's a bobblehead almost all the time.  

[CrystalBlue]

7 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

I'm guessing you mean how she almost imperceptibly nods her head all the time?  I just started watching the HBO doc (stopped when I realized I had actually already watched it lol); there is a lot of real-life Elizabeth in it, and she's a bobblehead almost all the time.  

There is a link to a YouTube video in the "Flower of Life" thread with four experts in body language analyzing her bobbing head and other body language which you may find interesting.

[Ursula Parrott]

Here’s the link to the Holmes Behavior Panel analysis.

[qtpye]

On 4/8/2022 at 8:28 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

The scene with Phyllis (sorry, Dr. Gardner) and Elizabeth was the highlight of this already masterful miniseries. I'm almost completely certain it didn't happen in real life, but I loved it anyway (it kind of reminded me of the fictional confrontation between Phyllis Schlafley and Jill Ruckelshaus in Mrs. America).

What's important about that scene (and, indeed, the first episode with Elizabeth and Dr. Gardner) is that we've really lost the ability to differentiate between a "hater" and someone who is just being honest about our abilities (or lack thereof). Dr. Gardner was not being a "hater"; she gave firm, fair, diplomatic, and ultimately correct advice to Elizabeth. Elizabeth's ideas were admittedly kind of cool... but they weren't good, because they simply couldn't work.  Ambition and ideas aren't enough without knowledge, experience, hard-earned wisdom, and, the most underrated gift of all, humility. There is nothing admirable about never listening to others or owning when you're wrong. Elizabeth, empty shell of a human being that she is, had none of the aforementioned qualities, and that's why she so deservedly failed. 

Chris Redd from SNL was recently on Seth Meyers's show, and he (Redd) talked about his early aspirations to be a rapper, and how people doubted his abilities... and then he came to realize that they were right, and that being a rapper just wasn't in his future. Redd, to his immense credit, had a wonderful sense of humor about it and capped it off with this beautiful line: "Some haters are just intuitive!"

Bingo. Phyllis Gardner wasn't a mean ol' naysayer gunning to stomp on poor Elizabeth Holmes's dreams, she was just intuitive, and 100% right. Holmes arrogantly disregarded her advice, and basically dug her own professional grave. So, to me, that's the biggest reason why Dr. Gardner telling her off was so damned rewarding (among so many others).

I'm an unapologetic Phyllis Gardner fangirl, can you tell?

Amen

On 4/8/2022 at 5:15 PM, Cinnabon said:

I agree and I really dislike the word “hater” and its derivatives. Hate is a strong word, and is not equivalent to disagreement or criticism. Being a naysayer isn’t equivalent to hating someone or something 

What I dislike is that it implies that anyone who disagrees with you is jealous and wants to just keep you down. Yes, there are jealous people but Dr. Gardner is very accomplished and was not jealous of a pathetic wanna be, like Holmes.

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by qtpye

[DeeplyShallow]

12 hours ago, Ursula Parrott said:

Here’s the link to the Holmes Behavior Panel analysis.

This was fascinating, thank you

[Ursula Parrott]

New videos every Thursday from this quartet. I’ve learned a lot about pathology from them.

[Lovecat]

On 4/1/2022 at 9:01 AM, MaggieG said:

I loved Judith and John's little banter about the recording app downloading. "I click here? Is it free?"

I was hoping that the app cost $1.99 and Judith would say "Oh, well I'm going to have to get approval for that expenditure.  I'll be right back..." and leave them cooling their heels.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Lovecat

[FozzyBear]

On 4/2/2022 at 3:17 PM, amarante said:

I think the issue of fake it until you make it is that it works when one is releasing software with bugs because in general they don't have life or death implications. 

However Theranos was essentially a medical device company and not a software company and so there are approvals needed before devices and drugs are released for general use and real ethical considerations. The book goes into a lot of detail in terms of how Theranos skirted the approval issues by having the lab in California certified through some loophole.

One of the reasons that she swung into the Walgreen/Safeway consumer sector was because she had tried peddling it to pharmaceutical companies as a way for them to test the efficacy of their drugs. But they didn't receive results that were acceptable to companies that actually knew what they were doing.

ETA - I have been watching bits and pieces of Wecrash and. the same Emperor's New Clothes was evident in that since there was nothing remotely high tech about the company - it was just a real estate company with all of the issues facing those who manage commercial real estate. Just like Theranos was essentially just a medical device company which didn't even live up to the promise of being more effective than Seimans old technology. Plus it wasn't really an issue that was extremely important anyway - getting blood tests the old fashioned way is not big deal for the most party. They are cheap - at least in terms of how much insurance or Medicare reimburses for a test and they are very accurate. No one would actually want a home device to check their blood - most people don't have home devices for blood pressure or even a pulse oximetry device which is recommended because oxygen levels can be deceptively low if you have COVID. The Wecrash guy essentially got away with all of his fraud - he even leased back real estate to the company for artificially high prices. 

Ive heard a lot of comparisons between Elizabeth Holms and Adam Nueman. How Elizabeth is going to jail and Adam walked away a billionaire. I think they’re both frauds and would actually be fine with Adam facing criminal charges. I also think thee is sexism involved in how each was treated and the ferocity with which Elizabeth was prosecuted while Adam got the “boys will be boys” treatment…HOWEVER! However, I think you have to be delusional not to see the difference in morality here. Adam lied about office space. Elizabeth lied about health tests. It’s not the same thing. The depravity of knowingly sending out false medical tests is, IMHO, a different animal.
 

But this series is so good. Lisa Gay Harden calmly downloading her app, just taking her time, as a power play to the lawyers was amazing and worked. They were off balance after that. “Guys, it’s only been 4 hours!”