The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley

[biakbiak]

One thing that I thought even the book gave short shrift to is that Theranos started in 2003 and the first WSJ article that was the first story to cry foul came out in 2015 that’s a really long time in the world of SV. It was founded the same year as Tesla.

[RealReality10]

2 hours ago, biakbiak said:

One thing that I thought even the book gave short shrift to is that Theranos started in 2003 and the first WSJ article that was the first story to cry foul came out in 2015 that’s a really long time in the world of SV. It was founded the same year as Tesla.

I vaguely remember in some telling of the story that carreryou explained that he kinda stumbled onto the story.  I can't remember but there was something

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, RealReality10 said:

I vaguely remember in some telling of the story that carreryou explained that he kinda stumbled onto the story.  I can't remember but there was something

A scientist who knew that it was shit called him and gave him a tip. My main point was that 12 years is a a lot of time to realize they weren’t getting anywhere near their initial goal.

Edited March 23, 2019 by biakbiak

[pigs-in-space]

On 3/21/2019 at 9:08 PM, ombelico said:

The hair and makeup are one thing, and even the voice is admittedly weird, but for me it's the bugging out eyes and the unblinking stare that are the most profoundly bizarre aspects of her appearance. Coupled with the description of her sleeping 4 hours a night, I would not be shocked at all if she was on cocaine or some other stimulant.

Once I noticed them, the unblinking eyes definitely started getting to me as well. Yikes! Even in the deposition videos when she was basically exposed as a fraud she still had them.

I’ve been consuming pretty much everything Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos related, and this was a nice addition to the group. It barely scratched the surface of everything that went on at Theranos, but that’s to be expected of a two-hour piece.

My absolute favorite part was the celebration footage with “Can’t Touch This” and the super awkward dancing. Her brother wasn’t even mentioned in this as working with her, but he was the only one with rhythm dancing behind her. The other employees called him and his friends the “Duke Bros” I’d I recall correctly. Nepotism was strong there.

ETA: I meant to say that I’m 100% the type of person that this device was supposedly created for. I’m not afraid of needles (vaccines are fine!) but as soon as they start taking blood I get woozy and just the thought of having my blood drawn fills me with dread. I’d love for a solution to allow them to test with less blood, even for just some common tests. But if course it has to actually work otherwise it’s useless. Like the Edison. (Who was also less of an inventor and more of a thief of other people’s ideas.)

Edited March 24, 2019 by pigs-in-space

[MerBearHou]

I mentioned this on the 20-20 forum, but Elizabeth was our next door neighbor from her early teens to when she left for Stanford.  We knew the Holmes pretty well and liked Elizabeth, Christian, her mom Noelle and dad Chris (though her dad was quite intense).  She was bright, sweet, a little gangly, feminine and had zero deep voice.  Our kids hung out with them and thought it was wacky that Elizabeth and her brother had Mandarin tutors on their weekends (though my husband and I respected it).  We were all pleased for Elizabeth when her idea gained her such mega-success, but then we were stunned as Theranos unraveled and that this girl we had known turned into a fraud and criminal.  Our whole family read Bad Blood and are disgusted by the lying, paranoia and destruction to so many.  

Edited March 24, 2019 by MerBearHou

[Razzberry]

According to this article Blood-Test Startups Try to Crawl Out From the Shadow of Elizabeth Holmes,Theranos also hurt a lot of honest startups who couldn't get funding, but the quest goes on.

"Even Tyler Shultz, a former Theranos engineer who helped bring the company down by whistleblowing to Wall Street Journal reporter and Bad Blood author John Carreyrou, is back. He runs a company, Flux Biosciences, that plans to use blood, urine and saliva to measure biological markers to test fertility and dietary issues, among other things, according to its website."

I think specializing is the way to go.  Who needs 200 or even 100 blood tests?

Edited March 25, 2019 by Razzberry

[smores]

On 3/19/2019 at 9:18 AM, Melina22 said:

Imagine if it had worked and we all had little boxes in our homes that easily tested our blood for hundreds of problems! You can't argue with the vision. Unfortunately her company only made half a baby step toward the reality. 

It's like if a company promised everyone their own personal flying device, but in reality had only invented the straps that attach the wings to your body. 

If the idea had worked, then everyone would have had biohazard waste in their homes.  When she would say something about people having the Edison in their house, I was like and then what? We get special containers to dispose of the waste?  How do we toss the blood?

On 3/19/2019 at 10:12 AM, Melina22 said:

And yet, fascinatingly, she wore no makeup at all at her hearing. I feel like she was going for the "I'm weak and harmless" look there. But still with the big, wide eyes and guileless expression. Surely this can't be accidental. 

I think she was wearing the quasi-smoky eye as part of her femme-fatale CEO persona.  Then when things fall apart and you go on trial for fraud, you switch to the Bambi caught in headlights no makeup look.

On 3/19/2019 at 11:30 AM, Enero said:

This documentary made some interesting points i.e. the psychologist speaking about the psychology of lying and the detail of the errors with using the Edision. How if there was a mishap with the machine, blood would be everywhere inside the machine and in the portals. A lab technician would then have to reach his/her hand into the machine where there were exposed needles to try and correct the issue.  It was really interesting and informative to see how impractical the Edison was just based on this issue alone. However, overall, I thought 20/20 did a better job with their documentary.

I'm thinking he or they (some of the patents have several people listed), either remained with the company thinking they could continue tweaking the device until it worked the way it needed, while drinking Elizabeth's kool-aid or they left (or was fired) after pointing out the issues with trying to get the device to work. 

Ian Gibbons was the person behind the patents, and he committed suicide.  He had been fired once by Holmes, then rehired after colleagues lobbied on his behalf.  He was subpoenaed to testify in a lawsuit where Theranos sued someone alleging patent-theft,  since the person that was being sued noticed that there were similarities on patents of Gibbons from a previous company.  Gibbons was 67 and afraid that if he was fired he would be unlikely to find another job, so that would cause a problem if he told the truth about Theranos, along with harming the company and the people he worked with.  If he lied, then people would be misdiagnosed leading to health issues and possibly dying.  

On 3/19/2019 at 1:06 PM, Melina22 said:

I think he forgave him because his grandfather always treated him with respect despite disagreeing with him. He told him, "They'll never convince me you're stupid but they convinced me you're wrong. " 

I feel like Tyler understood that Elizabeth had hypnotized his grandfather, especially since she'd  made Tyler himself question his reality on several occasions, and his grandfather's advanced age sure didn't help, but he knew his grandfather did love and respect him. 

As for Elizabeth, I totally agree with you, Spaceghostess, that she never showed a shred of remorse. That's not how normal people act. She only feels sad for herself. 

I'm glad that Tyler's grandfather finally got his head on straight.  I just can't imagine not believing him in this case, yes she's obviously good at deceiving people, but Tyler worked there and he had specifics.  He was willing to go on the record with a reporter, so you'd think that would register with his grandfather. 

[CherryMalotte]

I'm about two thirds way thru The Drop Out podcast, and it's mind blowing.  

As far as the doc, I am a wee bit disappointed, usually Alex Gibney does such excellent work.  Something is just off with this one, it's lacking the bite that his Enron or Scientology docs have.  Could be because it's got so many layers going on there's just no way to present it in a two hour format.  I wonder if this could have been done in four hours.  

This woman...she deserves serious jail time.  It's not as if she had an idea, did the work, and found it wouldn't be feasible, and then moved on.  She had the idea, knew it wasn't feasible, and went ahead with the con.  This whole debacle was just a long long con.   And one that took in a lot of really smart people. 

[qtpye]

After the podcast I realized how this documentary really lacked bite. It paints her as a misguided soul with good intentions. They spoke nothing of her horrible bullying tactics or how awful Sunny was in the workplace.

[bybrandy]

What I continue to find just bizarre is the belief that one needs to be able to process 200 tests from a single drop of blood on a tiny machine that can be used at the drugstore.  

Why not a machine the size of a coke machine that can perform the say 15 most frequently requested blood tests and then we move up or down from there?   

I

[biakbiak]

7 minutes ago, bybrandy said:

Why not a machine the size of a coke machine that can perform the say 15 most frequently requested blood tests and then we move up or down from there?   

Because that already exists. The idea was to make them small, everywhere, with a quick/immediate response time to make it easier for the consumer. No special trips to a lab and lower costs because anyone could process the tests.

Edited March 26, 2019 by biakbiak

[RealReality10]

On 3/23/2019 at 10:56 PM, MerBearHou said:

I mentioned this on the 20-20 forum, but Elizabeth was our next door neighbor from her early teens to when she left for Stanford.  We knew the Holmes pretty well and liked Elizabeth, Christian, her mom Noelle and dad Chris (though her dad was quite intense).  She was bright, sweet, a little gangly, feminine and had zero deep voice.  Our kids hung out with them and thought it was wacky that Elizabeth and her brother had Mandarin tutors on their weekends (though my husband and I respected it).  We were all pleased for Elizabeth when her idea gained her such mega-success, but then we were stunned as Theranos unraveled and that this girl we had known turned into a fraud and criminal.  Our whole family read Bad Blood and are disgusted by the lying, paranoia and destruction to so many.  

How very fascinating!  I can't imagine what it would be like to know someone like that before.... everything.....

[smores]

13 hours ago, bybrandy said:

What I continue to find just bizarre is the belief that one needs to be able to process 200 tests from a single drop of blood on a tiny machine that can be used at the drugstore.  

Why not a machine the size of a coke machine that can perform the say 15 most frequently requested blood tests and then we move up or down from there?   

I

The other thing that I thought was odd was the fact that she kept harping on the amount of blood.  I hate needles, but, once you're stuck, you're stuck.  They just swap out the vials.  It's not like they have to stick you again for each new vial, they just swap the vials out.  I'm a hard stick, and it often requires more than one attempt, which really sucks, and then I bruise, but I still think I'd rather getting the arm stick over finger stick.  It would be awesome if they could figure out how to do more tests from 1 vial, but I don't see how 200 tests from one nanotainer is even on the table.  

[carrps]

27 minutes ago, smores said:

The other thing that I thought was odd was the fact that she kept harping on the amount of blood.  I hate needles, but, once you're stuck, you're stuck.  They just swap out the vials.  It's not like they have to stick you again for each new vial, they just swap the vials out.  I'm a hard stick, and it often requires more than one attempt, which really sucks, and then I bruise, but I still think I'd rather getting the arm stick over finger stick.  It would be awesome if they could figure out how to do more tests from 1 vial, but I don't see how 200 tests from one nanotainer is even on the table.  

Yes! And the way she described it as being OMG stabbed by the needle. No. In the hands of a competent phlebotomist it can be remarkably non-painful.

[doodlebug]

27 minutes ago, carrps said:

Yes! And the way she described it as being OMG stabbed by the needle. No. In the hands of a competent phlebotomist it can be remarkably non-painful.

The other issue here is, ok, so you go to Walgreen's, order your own 200 blood tests (or run them in your own home) and you get the results.  Then, what?  There is no way that, doing that many tests on that many people, especially on people who are asymptomatic, aren't going to have a lot of false positive results.  So, you run the tests on a Friday evening, and the test for colon cancer comes back slightly positive.  Do you wait until Monday to call your doctor?  Do you rush to the ER?  Do you spend the weekend in a state of panic?  And, once you get in touch with a practitioner, what are you hoping for?  A repeat test?  What if it is negative, does that cancel out the positive?  Are you going to insist on an immediate colonoscopy?  What if it is negative?

Here's the thing: many of the people who compose the target demographic for this sort of testing have a lot of health related anxiety.  Doing these tests is probably going to heighten that anxiety because a barrage of random testing is bound to have some wonky results, even without all the technical difficulties Theranos experienced.

The most successful home medical test of all time is the pregnancy test.  They have revolutionized prenatal care and they've been around for almost 40 years.  They're very accurate if done properly and the most recent versions are easy to do and interpret.  And, yet, as an OB/GYN, I can tell you that we see women all the time who've gotten one result on the home test and another in our office.  Both negative and positive.  And that most of the false results are from the home test not the lab.  People are fallible; people who are anxious and performing a test on themselves for the first time are far more likely to make a mistake.

The Edison was a solution in search of a problem, even if it had worked.  

[Melina22]

20 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Here's the thing: many of the people who compose the target demographic for this sort of testing have a lot of health related anxiety.  Doing these tests is probably going to heighten that anxiety because a barrage of random testing is bound to have some wonky results, even without all the technical difficulties Theranos experienced.

Couldn't agree more. It would create a minefield. 

1 hour ago, carrps said:

Yes! And the way she described it as being OMG stabbed by the needle. No. In the hands of a competent phlebotomist it can be remarkably non-painful.

Also totally agree. I had blood drawn this morning and thought of this forum, and yes, it was virtually painless. No biggie whatsoever, despite the fact that I hate needles. I just didn't look and chatted while she did it for distraction. 

[mamadrama]

I've been kind of obsessed with Theranos/EH over the past few months. This didn't add much new information for me, but it was still fun to watch. 

So here's what I keep thinking about the Edison and "blood tests"...Okay, so you take a test and you get the results...and then what? You take them to your doctor? Most docs are probably going to want to run their own tests so you're still going to get stuck venously. I have a chronic disease. I had to get diagnosed from a geneticist, a rheumatologist, and a neurosurgeon. They all did their own tests to reach the same conclusions. I used to belong to a lot of social media groups that pertain to my disease and, it never failed, in every group people would be sending off to "23 & Me" and using it as a diagnostic tool. Their argument was that they were confident they had the disease but their doctor wouldn't order the tests so they were just going to do their own. But 23&Me isn't the final word on diseases. I don't know a single doctor who would definitively diagnose from that test alone. My doctor at the time was awesome, and she never doubted anything that was bothering me, but if I'd walked in with a mail-in form and been like, "I think I have XYZ because this test says so..." she'd have side-eyed me. 

I feel the same way about the Edison. At best, it would freak you out and tell you that you had something you didn't. (Which further testing would explain.) At worst, it would say that everything was fine when it wasn't. 

[hoosiermom]

Also,as to the vials that are drawn, for a CBC you need an anticoagulant in the vial, same with PT and PTTs. Some chemistries have to be performed on spun (is that a word?) down blood. How does the machine do all that with 2 drops of blood?

Edited March 27, 2019 by hoosiermom

[DangerousMinds]

3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

The other issue here is, ok, so you go to Walgreen's, order your own 200 blood tests (or run them in your own home) and you get the results.  Then, what?  There is no way that, doing that many tests on that many people, especially on people who are asymptomatic, aren't going to have a lot of false positive results.  So, you run the tests on a Friday evening, and the test for colon cancer comes back slightly positive.  Do you wait until Monday to call your doctor?  Do you rush to the ER?  Do you spend the weekend in a state of panic?  And, once you get in touch with a practitioner, what are you hoping for?  A repeat test?  What if it is negative, does that cancel out the positive?  Are you going to insist on an immediate colonoscopy?  What if it is negative?

Here's the thing: many of the people who compose the target demographic for this sort of testing have a lot of health related anxiety.  Doing these tests is probably going to heighten that anxiety because a barrage of random testing is bound to have some wonky results, even without all the technical difficulties Theranos experienced.

The most successful home medical test of all time is the pregnancy test.  They have revolutionized prenatal care and they've been around for almost 40 years.  They're very accurate if done properly and the most recent versions are easy to do and interpret.  And, yet, as an OB/GYN, I can tell you that we see women all the time who've gotten one result on the home test and another in our office.  Both negative and positive.  And that most of the false results are from the home test not the lab.  People are fallible; people who are anxious and performing a test on themselves for the first time are far more likely to make a mistake.

The Edison was a solution in search of a problem, even if it had worked.  

And a lot of people who might want to run their own blood tests at home don’t have insurance or their own doctors at all. So then what? They run to the ER with their home test results? (And come home with a huge ER bill).

Edited March 26, 2019 by DangerousMinds

[smores]

12 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

And a lot of people who might want to run their own blood tests at home don’t have insurance or their own doctors at all. So then what? They run to the ER with their home test results? (Ans xome hope with a huge ER bill).

But then this opens up an even scarier thing with people potentially trying to manage medical care on their own.  Periodically I'll see posts online asking where you can order contact lenses without a prescription because people are confident that their vision hasn't changed in whatever the time period it has been since their last visit to the eye dr.  There are also pharmacies that are not in the US where you can order prescriptions from, and I have no idea how strict they are on requiring an actual prescription.  I have a thyroid disorder and have bloodwork done every 3-6 months (depending on how stable it is), and then my dosing of meds change based on the results.  This means I have 2 drs appts each time, one for labs and then a week later another appt to go over the results and get the new prescriptions.  Theoretically, I guess I could just order my own bloodwork from somewhere else, but then what do I do with those results?  I'm guessing if I showed up at my dr's office with my own bloodwork they would be like, that's cool, now go to the lab and get some tests that we're requiring.  

[bybrandy]

18 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Because that already exists. The idea was to make them small, everywhere, with a quick/immediate response time to make it easier for the consumer. No special trips to a lab and lower costs because anyone could process the tests.

If that does exist why didn't Walgreens invest in that?  I just feel like she was trying to solve the big problem and if she (and I mean had the many, many  people working for her) solving the little problems they could have gotten a machine that did less and was bigger but still more affordable/user friendly than the lab machines... and then from there engineered smaller and more tests per machine.   

 

47 minutes ago, smores said:

  I'm guessing if I showed up at my dr's office with my own bloodwork they would be like, that's cool, now go to the lab and get some tests that we're requiring.  

My mom's doctor is happy to look at test results that were run other places.  Had Theranos been a workable model he would have had no issue at all with getting her TSH from a machine run by them... once it was, you know, tested.   I often just bring him print outs of test results from other places (she was in cancer treatment for a long time so was getting lots of blood work but he was her prescribing physician for all non cancer related things).

[doodlebug]

13 hours ago, bybrandy said:

If that does exist why didn't Walgreens invest in that?  I just feel like she was trying to solve the big problem and if she (and I mean had the many, many  people working for her) solving the little problems they could have gotten a machine that did less and was bigger but still more affordable/user friendly than the lab machines... and then from there engineered smaller and more tests per machine.   

My mom's doctor is happy to look at test results that were run other places.  Had Theranos been a workable model he would have had no issue at all with getting her TSH from a machine run by them... once it was, you know, tested.   I often just bring him print outs of test results from other places (she was in cancer treatment for a long time so was getting lots of blood work but he was her prescribing physician for all non cancer related things).

I am a physician.  I get stuff from outside labs all the time.  However, the labs are licensed and certified by the FDA.  They are scrutinized for proper procedures and calibration of their machines and reproducibility of their results.  Theranos never had that.  23&me doesn't have that.  A do-it-yourself kiosk at Walgreen's isn't going to have that, either.

BTW, did you know that, if your doctor does any sort of lab testing in his or her office, they have to get a license from CLIA and be tested for competence annually?  A log book also has to be kept.  In my office we do urine pregnancy tests, I look at microscope slides to diagnose ruptured membranes in pregnant women as well as vaginal infections.  Pretty simple and routine stuff, but, yet, I have to get re-certified annually and our logs, etc are inspected regularly to be sure we are compliant with the law.

[bybrandy]

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

am a physician.  I get stuff from outside labs all the time.  However, the labs are licensed and certified by the FDA.  They are scrutinized for proper procedures and calibration of their machines and reproducibility of their results.  Theranos never had that.  23&me doesn't have that.  A do-it-yourself kiosk at Walgreen's isn't going to have that, either.

I'm also in the medical field and I don't disagree with what you are saying.   I am discussing what I think Walgreens was expecting from these machines which was not to have patients walk up to them and use them while they wait in line like one of those blood pressure cuffs.  But rather in store clinics staffed by nurse practitioners who were drawing your blood and putting them in to a machine that had been approved by the FDA and were being serviced by licensed technicians. 

I think a machine in every home is crazy.  I think people getting their own results and knowing what to do with them is crazy.  But I think that there are situations where these machines when used in a setting like a ready clinic at Walgreens can be used to get people aware of changes in their health, to treat minor issues, and to encourage people to go to a full service facility to others.  And I think there is a market for that.  I don't think that market at the time had been fully tapped.  And I think there was a machine that could have been made for and distributed to that market with proper FDA approvials.   

The FDA couldn't ever approve her machine because she couldn't let them test it.  She couldn't let them test it because it didn't work.  I'm discussing a machine that works that is larger and with less lofty ambitions than her machine that could theoretically (who knows she never even tried) to meet FDA standards for approval in the use of a ready clinic type environment.

In a home environment and I can't see how that could ever be regulated, but the only, only, only instance I see of it being useful is in a home that was also being used for in home dialysis.    
 

[candle96]

On 3/19/2019 at 12:26 PM, GussieK said:

Maybe I did not watch with my fullest attention, but I'm not sure how she suddenly got the idea for this business and started it.  Was she just a college student who was looking around for something she could do?  Her science teacher who went to work for her--what was HE thinking?  I'm missing some steps here, which may be explained by her ability to charm people and they would have a confirmation bias not to check anything she said.

In the podcast The Dropout, it's explained a bit more. She initially cozied up to the female professor interviewed, Phyllis Gardner, about a different idea, having to do with a slow release patch and antibiotics. Gardner told her it was literally impossible, based on the chemical makeup of antibiotics. (something with potency, don't ask me, a non-science person!)

She eventually landed on this other professor, and when he was quoted in the podcast talking about Holmes, he sounded utterly enchanted by her. Honestly, I thought it was going to be revealed that they were having an affair the way he was talking. My guess is that she just kept going around until she found a professor who liked her and until she an idea that seemed somewhat plausible.

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, candle96 said:

In the podcast The Dropout, it's explained a bit more. She initially cozied up to the female professor interviewed, Phyllis Gardner, about a different idea, having to do with a slow release patch and antibiotics. Gardner told her it was literally impossible, based on the chemical makeup of antibiotics. (something with potency, don't ask me, a non-science person!)

She eventually landed on this other professor, and when he was quoted in the podcast talking about Holmes, he sounded utterly enchanted by her. Honestly, I thought it was going to be revealed that they were having an affair the way he was talking. My guess is that she just kept going around until she found a professor who liked her and until she an idea that seemed somewhat plausible.

Thanks.  This is helpful.  But in the end, it's just a mystery and she was a crazy person!  I thought that too about the professor, but maybe she was already having an affair with Sonny.  

[Mannahatta]

I don't know which is scarier: that Holmes is a despicable POS who masqueraded as a hard working/ genius/saint, or that there were a lot of people in powerful positions who fell for her shtick.

Another thing that struck me is how Tyler Schultz's lawyers charged his parents between $400,000 to $500,00 to represent him, while Erika Cheung simply was told by "a lawyer" that - as a whistle blower talking to a regulatory agency - she was protected!  Makes me wonder why Tyler Scultz's lawyers didn't take that route. Hmm.

One more thing - I think the dry, haphazardly arranged hair was all part of her "I'm just a humble hard working Einstein too busy to care about superficial things" routine.

[RealReality10]

I think that Holmes "idea" was eventually that the Edison was going to be treated like a blood glucose meter, which tests your blood with generally reliable results and uses a drop of blood.

There are more than a million reasons why that wouldn't work, but I think that was probably part of how she sold it.  

 

13 hours ago, Mannahatta said:

One more thing - I think the dry, haphazardly arranged hair was all part of her "I'm just a humble hard working Einstein too busy to care about superficial things" routine.

It's all style over substance.  She couldn't be TOO obvious about trying to sell her young blonde Barbarella that was trying to seduce old men routine.

[qtpye]

17 hours ago, Mannahatta said:

I don't know which is scarier: that Holmes is a despicable POS who masqueraded as a hard working/ genius/saint, or that there were a lot of people in powerful positions who fell for her shtick.

Another thing that struck me is how Tyler Schultz's lawyers charged his parents between $400,000 to $500,00 to represent him, while Erika Cheung simply was told by "a lawyer" that - as a whistle blower talking to a regulatory agency - she was protected!  Makes me wonder why Tyler Scultz's lawyers didn't take that route. Hmm.

One more thing - I think the dry, haphazardly arranged hair was all part of her "I'm just a humble hard working Einstein too busy to care about superficial things" routine.

4 hours ago, RealReality10 said:

I think that Holmes "idea" was eventually that the Edison was going to be treated like a blood glucose meter, which tests your blood with generally reliable results and uses a drop of blood.

There are more than a million reasons why that wouldn't work, but I think that was probably part of how she sold it.  

It's all style over substance.  She couldn't be TOO obvious about trying to sell her young blonde Barbarella that was trying to seduce old men routine.

The crazy thing is she obviously bleached her hair. Conditioning is just an extra step in the shower while bleaching does take some commitment.

[Melina22]

One thing I found baffling was that Elizabeth was supposed to be this brilliant inventor who only slept 4 hours a day, yet when questioned later said she didn't have a lot to do with the lab where the actual work was being done, so couldn't speak to what exactly was happening there. So what was she doing 20 hours a day? Fundraising? Wouldn't that just make her a brilliant fundraiser? 

Also, in either this doc or the one on 20/20, people complained she would "go dark", disappear for up to a month at a time. What's that about? 

[Razzberry]

On 3/26/2019 at 1:02 PM, hoosiermom said:

Also,as to the vials that are drawn, for a CBC you need an anticoagulant in the vial, same with PT and PTTs. Some chemistries have to be performed on spun (is that a word?) down blood. How does the machine do all that with 2 drops of blood?

Good point.  I didn't see anything about separating the blood into its components, which I would think be one of the first steps necessary for all these tests.  I'm picturing a teeny tiny centrifuge,  but I'm not a doctor, and wish the show had gone into more specifics.  

Her real genius was in targeting men of such great reputation that others would just go along. They almost had to be wheeled out, but she played them like a grand piano.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Razzberry

[scrb]

I really wonder about the commercial potential of a machine which does 240 tests.  I guess if it can be done from a finger prick and you can just do these tests every few days, it's a new thing.

But doctor would have to interpret the results and would really be the one who'd have to determine what's actionable.

I can see a market for testing blood sugar a lot more easily for all the diabetics out there.  Then you have a more focused market.

But that's a mature market so you'd have to bring something new.  Like it would be revolutionary if they didn't have to draw ANY blood, you know, like a Star Trek tricorder.

[Melina22]

1 hour ago, scrb said:

But that's a mature market so you'd have to bring something new.  Like it would be revolutionary if they didn't have to draw ANY blood, you know, like a Star Trek tricorder.

Wouldn't that be the dream? Given time, I bet they can do it. (If Elizabeth Holmes tells you she's already done it, do NOT give her any money!!) 

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, scrb said:

But that's a mature market so you'd have to bring something new.  Like it would be revolutionary if they didn't have to draw ANY blood, you know, like a Star Trek tricorder.

MIT/Harvard did a research project a year or two ago that was a tattoo that changed color when your glucose levels changed so there are a lot of research/ideas out there.

[Melina22]

This reminds me of a couple of things. In the 60's everyone was talking about the video phone of the future. It took a few decades to arrive, and it's not exactly as pictured. I still find it odd that I have the technology we dreamed of (FaceTime) but almost never use it. 

Then I remember when movies on video first came out. I think the original idea was that people would buy VCRs and buy movies to view on them. Only nobody wanted to. Then eventually the idea arose of renting videos. Blockbuster opened. And suddenly videos were a thing. 

I feel like Elizabeth Holmes had a great idea, but she didn't wait for any of the kinks to be worked out, whether in the product (to put it mildly) or in the marketplace. Just because something exists, doesn't mean people will want it, or in this case, know how to use it. 

Who knows? Maybe in a few years we'll have something similar to what she supposedly invented, but with some unforeseeable twist that will make it insanely popular. 

Or maybe we'll end up with Walmart Tricorders. (That's what I'm hoping for.) 

[mamadrama]

On 3/27/2019 at 2:00 PM, candle96 said:

In the podcast The Dropout, it's explained a bit more. She initially cozied up to the female professor interviewed, Phyllis Gardner, about a different idea, having to do with a slow release patch and antibiotics. Gardner told her it was literally impossible, based on the chemical makeup of antibiotics. (something with potency, don't ask me, a non-science person!)

She eventually landed on this other professor, and when he was quoted in the podcast talking about Holmes, he sounded utterly enchanted by her. Honestly, I thought it was going to be revealed that they were having an affair the way he was talking. My guess is that she just kept going around until she found a professor who liked her and until she an idea that seemed somewhat plausible.

From what I've seen and read, it sounds like she had better luck with getting men to support her than women. The majority of the people they've focused on have been older men. I don't have any commentary on that, I just think it's interesting. 

30 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

This reminds me of a couple of things. In the 60's everyone was talking about the video phone of the future. It took a few decades to arrive, and it's not exactly as pictured. I still find it odd that I have the technology we dreamed of (FaceTime) but almost never use it. 

Then I remember when movies on video first came out. I think the original idea was that people would buy VCRs and buy movies to view on them. Only nobody wanted to. Then eventually the idea arose of renting videos. Blockbuster opened. And suddenly videos were a thing. 

I feel like Elizabeth Holmes had a great idea, but she didn't wait for any of the kinks to be worked out, whether in the product (to put it mildly) or in the marketplace. Just because something exists, doesn't mean people will want it, or in this case, know how to use it. 

Who knows? Maybe in a few years we'll have something similar to what she supposedly invented, but with some unforeseeable twist that will make it insanely popular. 

Or maybe we'll end up with Walmart Tricorders. (That's what I'm hoping for.) 

I see what you're saying and I agree. I think that in the future we'll have some kind of version of this. I hope she doesn't feel vindicated when that happens. 

[qtpye]

13 hours ago, mamadrama said:

From what I've seen and read, it sounds like she had better luck with getting men to support her than women. The majority of the people they've focused on have been older men. I don't have any commentary on that, I just think it's interesting. 

I see what you're saying and I agree. I think that in the future we'll have some kind of version of this. I hope she doesn't feel vindicated when that happens. 

This is going to be a horribly sexist thing to say but I hope most of her judge and jury are women. If they are older men then I am afraid they will just open their wallets and fund her latest venture which will probably be a rocket ship to mars powered solely by unicorn farts.

[RealReality10]

17 hours ago, scrb said:

I really wonder about the commercial potential of a machine which does 240 tests.  I guess if it can be done from a finger prick and you can just do these tests every few days, it's a new thing.

But doctor would have to interpret the results and would really be the one who'd have to determine what's actionable.

I can see a market for testing blood sugar a lot more easily for all the diabetics out there.  Then you have a more focused market.

But that's a mature market so you'd have to bring something new.  Like it would be revolutionary if they didn't have to draw ANY blood, you know, like a Star Trek tricorder.

As a diabetic, I think that more work needs to be done on the disease, for sure.  But I cannot complain about a lot about blood glucose.  The glucose machines used to be like the size of a small Walkman and it took nearly a minute to get a result and it had to be coded and the blood sample had to be a fairly large drop.of blood.

Now, my glucose machine is like the size of a car fob, it requires a tiny amount of blood and it takes 5 seconds to get a result, which reads directly to my insulin pump.  Now I still don't test it enough, but that's my laziness.  And there is also continuous glucose monitoring.  The field has advanced.

But I agree with people who say that running 200+ tests in your house is probably unnecessary.  Like there are some results that a lot of people need and generally it would be helpful to beam those results to doctors to titrate dosage....like TSH, a1c, and lipid panel results are two I can think of.  There is a doctor in the room who can probably come up with more but I'm not sure 200+ is really necessary.

[sadie]

I liked this documentary as a supplement to the podcast. But I don’t think it did a goood job explaining her true motivations which were to become a “billionaire”. When I was watching the one speech she gave on that darkened stage it just seemed so fake. Like she had watched every Ted Talk she could find and mimicked the mannerisms, the inflection, in a way to make what she was saying sound more impressive, maybe hindsight and all but it really struck me as completely phony. She wanted to be adored and acclaimed, I don’t think she had any true motivations for helping people or she never would have endangered so many peoples health trying to push this to market when it didn’t work. This like the Frye documentary really pushes home the point of cult of personality and this story had a lot in common with that fraud. A vision with no real plan how to make it work, ignore the experts that tell you it won’t work, bullying those that want to expose the fraud, living a “lifestyle” they think they deserve and soaking up what the sycophants around them are serving them. Terrifying that these people walk among us. I hope she sits in jail for a good while. 

[Melina22]

25 minutes ago, sadie said:

This like the Frye documentary really pushes home the point of cult of personality and this story had a lot in common with that fraud. A vision with no real plan how to make it work, ignore the experts that tell you it won’t work, bullying those that want to expose the fraud, living a “lifestyle” they think they deserve and soaking up what the sycophants around them are serving them. 

Very apt observation. Same MO, same lack of remorse after the debacle. 

[ninjago]

Reading the book, and then watching this, it makes me wonder why so many people, especially in the lab, who knew it didn't work, who knew people were being given inaccurate results, continued to work there.  I get it, people need jobs, etc., but, in addition to having tyrannical Sunny and con artist Elizabeth breathing down your neck 24/7, you are complicit in doing real, serious damage to real human beings.  Not unleashing a shitty piece of tech-really actively harming people.  It's unconscionable.

Also, I hope George Schultz paid Tyler's parents back.

[carrps]

On 3/23/2019 at 10:56 PM, MerBearHou said:

I mentioned this on the 20-20 forum, but Elizabeth was our next door neighbor from her early teens to when she left for Stanford.  We knew the Holmes pretty well and liked Elizabeth, Christian, her mom Noelle and dad Chris (though her dad was quite intense).  She was bright, sweet, a little gangly, feminine and had zero deep voice.  Our kids hung out with them and thought it was wacky that Elizabeth and her brother had Mandarin tutors on their weekends (though my husband and I respected it).  We were all pleased for Elizabeth when her idea gained her such mega-success, but then we were stunned as Theranos unraveled and that this girl we had known turned into a fraud and criminal.  Our whole family read Bad Blood and are disgusted by the lying, paranoia and destruction to so many.  

I just started reading Bad Blood last night, but according to the book, she originally wore cheap grey suits and Christmas (!) sweaters all the time. Sounded more like your description. The book credits Ana Ariola (sp?) -- or Ana credits herself -- as the one who told her to dress like Steve Jobs.

On 3/26/2019 at 10:19 AM, smores said:

The other thing that I thought was odd was the fact that she kept harping on the amount of blood.  I hate needles, but, once you're stuck, you're stuck.  They just swap out the vials.  It's not like they have to stick you again for each new vial, they just swap the vials out.  I'm a hard stick, and it often requires more than one attempt, which really sucks, and then I bruise, but I still think I'd rather getting the arm stick over finger stick.  It would be awesome if they could figure out how to do more tests from 1 vial, but I don't see how 200 tests from one nanotainer is even on the table.  

Again, according to the book, she "inherited" a strong aversion to blood draws from her mother. Apparently, her mom would actually faint. I only put that in scare quotes because Elizabeth seems like a strong aper; she patterns herself on others. Also, the only people I've known IRL who had such a strong aversion to needles and blood were men, but, admittedly, my sample size is small!

[Melina22]

9 minutes ago, carrps said:

strong aversion to needles and blood were men, but, admittedly, my sample size is small!

Blood makes my knees wobbly and needles terrify me. Double if it's the dentist's needle. And I'm a woman. I think they're pretty common fears in both sexes. 

Otherwise, really interesting post though. I can totally picture her in a Christmas sweater, dancing to "Can't Touch This". It's a shame she's such a pill because she actually has a lot of quirky, likeable qualities. No empathy chip though, that's for sure. 

[carrps]

21 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

Blood makes my knees wobbly and needles terrify me. Double if it's the dentist's needle. And I'm a woman. I think they're pretty common fears in both sexes. 

Yah, like I said, I haven't known that many. You're the exception that proves the rule? 🙂

[Melina22]

Interesting. I'll have to do an unofficial needle and blood phobia poll and see how the genders compare, hopefully without coming across as too weird and nosy. 😁 

I'm also not a fan of having sharp things stuck in my finger, so I'm hoping the future holds some less pointy options, like the tricorder we were discussing or some kind of patch. 

[Showthyme]

On 3/28/2019 at 6:28 PM, Melina22 said:

I feel like Elizabeth Holmes had a great idea, but she didn't wait for any of the kinks to be worked out, whether in the product (to put it mildly) or in the marketplace. Just because something exists, doesn't mean people will want it, or in this case, know how to use it. 

Elizabeth is a cross between Jeff Skilling from Enron and Bernard Madoff. Like Jeff Skilling, Elizabeth thought that she was the smartest person in the room and had an idea. Not only was her idea not great but it wasn’t even novel. Others realized early on that a greater quantity of blood is needed for certain tests and that was the one thing that she would not change! Like Bernard Madoff, her methods were so proprietary that no one dare question the methodology and she targeted her investors: old, white men and people without medical or scientific knowledge.

Let’s say the idea did work. It is a terrible idea to have a unit in your house to run your own blood test and then try to play doctor. I know that Theranos intended for people to take the results to their physicians but the reality is that we Google and then maybe go to the doctor if we can afford it. People often do not even take medications or change dressing on a wound as directed. Collecting your own blood looks easy but I see the potential to screw it up. Sanitation of the machine and disposal of the nanotainers would be an issue. 

I can’t wait for her jail court date.

[carrps]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:06 PM, Showthyme said:

Elizabeth is a cross between Jeff Skilling from Enron and Bernard Madoff. Like Jeff Skilling,

Just finished the book last night, and I highly recommend it if this story interests you. So much more detail that couldn't be covered in either of the aired versions. But this is funny, because the Holmes family moved to Houston because Elizabeth's dad went to work* for Enron. Those guys were scamsters through and through. Maybe it's in the "blood?" One of the very high executives in the company I worked for lost a power struggle, quit, and went to Enron. At a corporate function, a few friends of mine were at his table, and he gave me a bad vibe. Not surprised that Enron turned out to be a complete fraud. Also, the book made Elizabeth's dad sound like a bitter, complainer who blamed his problems on others. She was said to be more like him than her mom. Hmmmmmm.

*I had a typo originally -- twork. It'd be really funny if her dad had to get work as a tworker. 😁

[ombelico]

On 3/29/2019 at 2:10 PM, ninjago said:

it makes me wonder why so many people, especially in the lab, who knew it didn't work, who knew people were being given inaccurate results, continued to work there.  I get it, people need jobs, etc., but, in addition to having tyrannical Sunny and con artist Elizabeth breathing down your neck 24/7, you are complicit in doing real, serious damage to real human beings.

Never underestimate what fear can do to people. The Boies law firm was incredibly threatening to Theranos workers, current and former. They saw what happened to former co-workers who spoke up and/or quit. Then they were living and working in Silicon Valley, one of the most expensive places to live in the country. These were not necessarily people that could afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Yes, it would have been more honorable to speak up, but I can understand why some really did not feel at the time that they were in a place to do so. Also, the Theranos setup was very silo-ed, such that each worker was only privy to and aware of a small component. It was hard for any given individual to see the full scope of the fraud. IIRC, Tyler only figured it out the full truth when he was moved from one department to another.

I find it interesting that both this documentary and the 20/20 episode were each only 2 hours long. There are so many layers to this story that two hours just isn't sufficient. They could do 5 2-hour episodes and there would still be stuff left out.

[carrps]

20 minutes ago, ombelico said:

I find it interesting that both this documentary and the 20/20 episode were each only 2 hours long. There are so many layers to this story that two hours just isn't sufficient. They could do 5 2-hour episodes and there would still be stuff left out.

That's what I was saying the whole time I was reading the book (I know I keep touting it, but it's good). It should be a multi-part miniseries. I don't have a lot of hope for the Jennifer Lawrence movie, if it gets made. They'll probably put more focus on extraneous things or what they think is "sexy" -- like more detail on Elizabeth's and Sunny's relationship -- which I have no interest in learning the details of.

[Quilt Fairy]

10 hours ago, ombelico said:

Yes, it would have been more honorable to speak up, but I can understand why some really did not feel at the time that they were in a place to do so.

Don't forget they had all signed non-disclosure agreements. 

[DangerousMinds]

I think whistleblowersare exempt from NDAs, legally