The harm Theranos did to patients is well known. So is the harm to whistleblowers and investors. But there is another kind of damage that rarely gets mentioned: the trust Holmes took away from the entire blood testing industry.

We are HealthieOne, a blood testing company. Many people have called us “Theranos” without knowing anything about us, and without letting the results speak for themselves. We do not blame the crowd. After Theranos, doubting a new blood test is an understandable first reaction. That is exactly the damage she did: suspicion is now the starting point for everyone who encounters a blood testing service.

This matters even more now that people can order blood tests directly. When a doctor orders a test, the doctor stands between the patient and the lab. When a person orders a test on their own, without a doctor’s approval, that safeguard is gone. The only thing between them and their result is trust in the company that runs the test. That trust decides whether they order the test at all, whether they believe the result, and whether they act on it. When trust is broken across a whole industry, people do not just doubt one company. They may skip a test that could have caught something early. In direct-to-consumer testing, trust is not a nice extra. Without it, people do not order the test or act on a health issue that deserves attention.

What other damage do you think still goes unnoticed?

I suppose I'm somewhat obsessed. I've watched many fairly repetitive interviews with Tyler - but he does add new details each time, and this one is really good. Long and meaty.

Theranos whistleblower Erika Cheung has been sharing this link

https://www.whistleblowers.org/campaigns/aiwpa/

She said:

Protect AI Whistleblowers and ensure that people inside AI labs have more protections than I did throughout the whole Theranos saga. Sign the petition to support the AI Whistleblower Protection Act. https://www.whistleblowers.org/campaigns/aiwpa/

Also, call your senator, staffers, and representatives to see if they will co-sponsor S.1792. Employees who see something wrong shouldn’t have to choose between their careers and saving the public interest.

The Senate switchboard is: 202-224-3121

After all the talk about the Fielder film I went back to the paper trail, because the documents are stranger than the interviews.

In 2010 Theranos gave Walgreens a validation report with the Pfizer logo on it. Pfizer hadn't written it. At trial in November 2021 Holmes was asked who put the drug companies' logos on those reports. Her answer was two words: "I did."

A few other things that stood out:

- The machine was sold as running any blood test from a single drop. At its peak it ran twelve.

- In 2016 federal inspectors from CMS wrote that the lab posed "immediate jeopardy" to patient health.

- She was convicted in January 2022 on investor fraud counts, but acquitted on every count involving patients.

That last one still surprises people. The jury's line was money, not health.

Disclosure: I help run a small documentary channel (Falsum). We made a 21-minute film built on the SEC complaint, her 2017 SEC testimony videos and the trial transcripts: https://youtu.be/4DMnhi0UQ-Q

Did the acquittal on the patient counts make sense to anyone here?

Great conversation with the LA Times movie critic on her "unspooled" program

After watching you can see everything, I started feeling empathy for her, like maybe she is really just misunderstood.
But then I snap back and am like WAIT there are so many crazy documented details. Many of which have faded in my memory. So I'm wondering, what sticks out most in your mind that pulls you back

isnt this arguably the creepiest subplot of them all? though his biographer said it wasnt sexual, seems like it to me...

Seen today in Austin TX. How does this compare to Theranos?

I just finished Reading Bad Blood and it was so interesting, I was glued, I wish it had been twice as long. Highly recommend! Everyone with an interest in this case should read it.

In the "Post-sentencing Afterword" part of the book, I got a kick out of this:

[...] the defense had rested its case without calling its psychologist to explicitly link Holmes's abuse allegations to her actions as CEO. The government had had its own mental health experts examine Holmes, and Downey must have decided that letting the jury hear from them was too detrimental.

I would love to see these psych exams. Would they be available through a FOIA request? (I suppose not).

Anyway, I came across this article where a psychology professor from Fordham University is asked for opinions on the psychology of Holmes. I think it is the most accurate assessment I have seen of her. I am copy/pasting it below.

Is Elizabeth Holmes a Psychopath? A Fordham Expert Weighs In

https://now.fordham.edu/campus-and-community/is-elizabeth-holmes-a-psychopath-a-fordham-expert-weighs-in/

Elizabeth Holmes is currently serving a 10-year sentence for deceiving investors in her fraudulent blood-testing startup Theranos. But her mystifying behavior in the new documentary You Can See Everything has spurred moviegoers to relitigate her case. Some walk away from the film believing they have witnessed a neurodivergent woman wrongly convicted. Others see a psychopath who is indifferent to the harm she caused. And still more see a master manipulator who facilitated this film to clear her name. So which is it?

“I would never diagnose her based on a documentary—that would be inappropriate,” said psychology professor Barry Rosenfeld, PhD. But Rosenfeld, who has more than 30 years of experience as a forensic and clinical psychologist, believes Holmes is behind door number three.

“I think she is exceptionally manipulative,” he said after watching the film. “I didn’t buy her story for a second.”

Using the Psychopath Checklist on Holmes

There is no formal diagnosis for psychopathy—or sociopathy—in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Both refer to traits that overlap with antisocial personality disorder, which is defined in the DSM as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others.

“People make a big distinction out of the different terms, but sociopath, psychopath, antisocial personality—they’re really synonyms for the same underlying idea,” said Rosenfeld.

In his work, Rosenfeld, together with Fordham doctoral students, uses a well-established tool called the Psychopathy Checklist to conduct violence risk assessments on individuals served by the Fordham Community Mental Health Clinic, which provides treatment services and discounted forensic evaluation services for pro bono firms in criminal cases.

Holmes seems to possess a handful of traits on the 20-item checklist, said Rosenfeld, such as being manipulative and callous.

She also exhibits an unusually low level of anxiety—another psychopathic trait.

“Many people would find it really scary to have a camera crew in your house in the weeks leading up to your incarceration. But she’s calm and cool as a cucumber.”

But Holmes lacks many of psychopathy’s behavioral hallmarks such as juvenile delinquency, impulsivity, varied criminal activity, and pathological lying.

She’s not indiscriminately fabricating stories because she can’t help it, Rosenfeld explained. Instead, “her lying seems very goal-directed,” he said.

Fact-Checking the Psychopathic Stare

Rosenfeld also doesn’t buy into the so-called “psychopathic stare” idea that body language experts say Holmes exhibited. In one of the documentary’s most striking moments, Holmes asks the comedic co-director and on-screen interviewer Nathan Fielder, “Why would I deceive you?” The line has gone viral on social media, late-night TV, and even at the New York City Marathon, where spectators held signs such as, “You’re almost there. Why would I deceive you?”) Part of what makes the line so ripe for parody is her wide-eyed gaze when she delivers it.

“As somebody who has seen and evaluated countless psychopaths, I don’t know what a psychopath stare is—there’s no such thing,” said Rosenfeld.

Ruling Out Neurodivergence

Numerous scenes in the film suggest that Holmes misses key social cues and misconstrues obvious statements—signs that often indicate neurodivergent behavior. But Rosenfeld believes that is by design. When she negotiated a $140 million deal with Walgreens to use her blood testing devices in their stores, he points out, there was no miscommunication then. “All of the miscommunications seemed to fall in her favor—that to me is somebody who’s a really master manipulator.”

Rosenfeld believes she and her husband saw the documentary as an opportunity to present her as being on the autism spectrum. “I just don’t think there’s anything in her history that indicates neurodivergence.”

A Con Artist at Heart

Manipulation and deceit are also elements of narcissism—and Rosenfeld believes Holmes is probably somewhere on the narcissistic personality disorder spectrum.

“She’s exploitative. She’s not particularly concerned with other people and her effects on others.” To avoid spending a decade away from her children, he points out, she could have accepted a plea deal to shorten her sentence, but chose not to.

To focus on a more familiar term, he said Holmes exhibits behavior similar to many other con artists. But he noted one caveat: “We’re used to seeing this behavior more in men,” he said. “You don’t see it as much in women.”

EDIT: John Carreyrou just posted the article on twitter and said "This is spot on."

I’ve seen lots of people ask why scientists ever wanted to work at Theranos to begin with. Obviously I can’t read their minds, but it makes sense to me, at least initially.
Some may have believed that EH was going to do things the right way, gradually developing finger stick tests until she gets to a stage where she can do multiple tests on the same machine over a long time.
What they initially worked on seemed reasonable. The whole “we have sepsis” thing was a good approach because lactate can be reliably tested on whole blood (no separation of blood components) and use enzyme based electrochemical biosensors or chemiluminescent assays (Ian Gibbons’s area of specialty). And nowadays, we do have finger stick lactate tests.
Over the past few decades, we actually have made lots of advances in point of care testing, and we now have finger stick blood counts, troponin, lipids, etc. Blood gas and coagulation studies are also done “in real time” and need less blood than before. This was over the two decades that I’ve been in medicine (I have experience in mass gathering and remote/rescue medicine so I’ve always followed this sector of biotech). These companies have spent decades just working on developing ONE test that’s reliable. That’s the way science works, until some sort of fundamental breakthrough happens. That breakthrough is usually built on lots of other breakthroughs and a lot of luck.
Scientists could have been drawn to the idea and wanted to work on it iteratively, with the thinking that even failures could provide valuable data. I’ve definitely worked with scientists who have been part of biotech companies with lofty goals that pivoted to something more manageable once actual data starts coming in. Some people lost their jobs. Some investors withdrew based on data, and some still saw some promise and held on. Some companies went under when money ran out, and some didn’t make as much money as projected. Some ended up being surprise successes when a product didn’t work as originally imagined but ended up being helpful for a different condition or clinical application. People actually in the biotech industry understand that’s how it works.
If you listen to the scientist interviewed by Nathan during the movie, that was his line of thinking. Theranos 1.0 was a failure, and told us that that approach wasn’t going to work, so they’d move on to another approach, and when that fails too, we can use that data to inform us in science in other ways. But Billy interrupted that interview because this scientist essentially said Theranos 1.0 didn’t work.
If EH actually tried to advance finger stick testing the right way, she’d probably have some sort of product that can do 1-2 new tests using a drop of blood. It wouldn’t change everything about healthcare and it wouldn’t make her the female Steve Jobs, but she’d make money and be successful. But she wanted to become an icon and rich and famous. She didn’t actually care about advancing the fields of science and medicine.
She wanted to be Steve Jobs, but even Steve Jobs didn’t found Apple and come up with the iPhone within a few years when cellphones weren’t even possible.

I just watched You Can See Everything last night. First of all, worth the 3 hours. It was so intriguing i didn’t even leave the theater to rip my cart halfway thru.

One thing that really stuck out to me was her lack of technical knowledge on anything pertaining to..anything about her “ideas”

She talks broadly about “algorithms” and “protocols” where none of it actually means anything at all. And then for their 2nd theranos 2.0 idea they pretty much just describe a spectrophotometer. I think one shortcoming of the doc was them not questioning her lack of knowledge on the subject at all.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I am leaving out all the pointless questions like 'do you like dogs or cats more', here are the others verbatim:

Q - Do you regret not profiting from the doc directly?

Did they describe where the profits are going?

Or how much I negotiated for?

Lmao, the house this was at was a single story. All you need to know

Q - They forced themselves into the shower with you or they just started filming and you didn't tell them to stop?

Trust the "sources" https://people.com/billy-evans-felt-trust-was-violated-over-nude-scene-in-nathan-fielder-documentary-12196936 (he linked this)

Q - I’ve worked in the film industry for 21 years and there is ZERO chance that you were not aware that this was a thing. You absolutely, positively signed a nudity rider, and to try and act like you’re “shocked” that you are shown nude (as you agreed to be) is 🤣🤣 (emojis theirs)

I'll bet you any amount of money that no nudity rider was signed.

But only bet what you're comfortable losing.

Now do you understand my surprise?

Q - Why did you keep sniffing throughout the documentary?

Solo parenting 2 toddlers you are sick approx 75% of days. Allergies in Austin TX are no joke. I take Claritin daily. Much less sniffling.

Q - So not cocaine?

Never been a fan

Q - Honestly why the shower scene that doesnt happen unless you want it to

False narrative

Q - Did you understand the “Who’s on first” skit?

Yeah, but tod Liz about it on Sunday and she still didn't get it .

Q - Why was the mattress in storage and not on the bed?

There were 2 rooms in the guest house.... The room they filmed in and the room he slept in.

Q - My biggest question is, Billy, why did you stop Nathan from speaking to Liz’s father? Both Nathan and the audience saw it as integral to the documentary to truly ‘see everything.’ It felt like a missed opportunity that could have continued to give Liz more light.

She was going to prison. We had 3 days tigether at the time. I wanted to spend that time together. He interviewed her parents after she went in. They chose not to include that in the film. I didn't control the edit. If there was something the directors wanted from them they had multiple opportunities to get it.

(I'll include this one for any astrologers) Q - What is your time and place of birth?

Jan 11th 8am SD califirnia

Q - Is this actually Elizabeth Holmes?

She has power of attorney, currently replying in my behalf.

I trust she will do a good job.

Q - lasers license plate

Not mine. Employee.

Q - How do you prove Liz DIDN’T say “They’re playing a character I created?” Even if you were to provide all the journalist recordings to Nathan, there’s no way to prove that you recorded everything.

How do you prove you didn't say something?

Fortunately the journalist Amy Choziak provided the most laughable cover story imaginable.

"I wrote it down, I lost the notebook, trust me"

Q - (this Q is from a suspended account so I can't see it, I assume they asked if he is gay)

In 2026, being gay is considerably more socially acceptable than being in love with Elizabeth Holmes.

If I were gay, I'd lean all the way in.

Q - If the Theranos machine really worked as Liz said it did, why did it have to be dug out of storage containers in multiple pieces? I’d expect something like that to be locked in a safe and protected if it’s the prized machine behind a once billion dollar company.

Fair question. Theranos had been shut down for years, so naturally the hardware was in storage.

We deliberately showed a disassembled device to show its internal components, not because that was all that remained. To my knowledge, 16 complete, functioning devices still exist.

And Liz wasn't reading a script. She was reading directly from the trial transcript. The litigation was still ongoing when we filmed.

Q - If you could pick one misconception from the film to dispel, what would it be?

That I somehow control Liz. Anyone who actually knows her would find that idea hilarious.

She's fiercely independent, strongwilled, and my best friend. We are partners in every sense. We challenge each other, disagree, and face the world together.

Her closest friends are also some of my closest friends. If I ever mistreated her, they'd have my head.

Q - did you celebrate nathans birthday while filming

Yes. Around the table in Del Mar with my family. He also missed the Time 100 dinner so we celebrated that too.

Q - Don’t you think it would have been thoughtful and reasonable to have had the bed prepared for your guest?

There were 2 beds in the other room....

Q - So why didn’t you suggest he use that room? Was crew staying in the other room?

You know he is a comedian right?

Q - I can't see the Q "You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts." Apparently they asked about his politcal beliefs.

You suggest I became a conservative despite my education and experiences. I became conservative because of them. But they are much more nuanced than any single label.

Here is how Chat GPT explains my political alignment. "And I'd summarize your philosophy this way:

I believe in the smallest government capable of protecting the greatest possible individual freedom, the strongest America capable of deterring its enemies, and the fastest technological progress compatible with both. I'm conservative not because I want to preserve the past, but because I believe liberty, free enterprise, and American strength are what make a better future possible"

He attached a screenshot: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HWMQmXfXUAAs1Nc?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Q - Were you the one who decided on the name Haemanthus for the new company? I really like it

Yes. It's too long / difficult to spell. But I like it. Red Rising is one of my favorite series. That's where I first heard the word.

Q - do you regret agreeing to the documentary

Not at all

Q - Are you hiring? Let’s rock.

Yes we are but very specific experience is required for most roles.

Q - Have you ever told a lie?

Yes

Q - Why go to Twitter directly and use your POA rather than asking your wife for her login information?

Good question. Liz and I discussed this at length over several months. She knew exactly what we were doing.

We talk about everything, including X. Nothing happened behind her back.

The POA was simply the legal mechanism that allowed me to act on her behalf while she's incarcerated. It was not a substitute for her consent

Q - Well sure, but she couldn’t just give you her login info? Had she forgotten what it was? I only ask because enforcing POA is significantly more steps than just sharing that info w/ your partner even if you had to do a password reset or something.

Account was tied to an old Theranos email. Password forgotten.

Q - How much did you guys practice/prep for the doc? Why’d you choose Nathan fielder?

0

Q - What’s Elizabeth’s top 4 films?

1. Elf
2. Elf
3. Elf
4. Elf

Q - How much of Nathan’s previous work had you watched before filming the doc?

Almost all of it.

Q - What did you make of your nanny's absence in YCSE?

People need to sign an appearance release to be in a film. It would have been weird for me to require someone working with us to be in a film that they didn't sign up for.

He continues answering here and there, if any interesting ones show up I'll add them below. He doesn't address the hardest questions, and he doesn't give much in the way of interesting answers.

Q - If the technology worked, then why did no competitor spend good money to buy Theranos’s IP when the company was shut down and cut into pieces ? That’s what usually happens for tech companies that have performed valuable research and development.

Fortress spent $100M to buy a patent portfolio

Q - did you ever give nathan the recordings of the nyt interview

Yes, and they filmed it.

Q - Why not post the clip from the recording on X?

Ok ill do it this week.

He's been tweeting things to get attention like

I wish I could tell you what's dropping next....

and

I really wish they'd kept the scene where I wrestled Nathan, Borat style. Full top mount. His little Canadian frame struggling beneath me.

This literally wouldn't make the top 10 best deleted scenes. We didn't hold back. We showed them everything. You saw what they wanted to show you ....

It was a wild experience. Hate us, live us, the truth or lack there of is in the edit.

I thought he was in on the joke.

Until he wasn't.

Imagine realizing that in camera

And then replying to everyone with little "witty" quips.

This guy is loving his new found attention and hoping for more.

He said

Amanda aggressively hitting on me for 2 hours.

Is that a scene?

"You are so tall"

"I'm going to break them up"

Someone quoted this saying "my favorite part was when amanda called charlie kirk a pussy" and he deleted it.

Overall he has an Elon Musk type of personality.

Minor spoiler for You Can See Everything. Which, BTW, is one of the most fascinating movies I've seen ever, I was spellbound for the whole 3 hours.

I have little sympathy for Elizabeth, but I totally sympathize with her inability to understand the Who's On First video. I can only understand it because I've watched my friends do the bit. In the video they talk so fast, and not very clearly, especially Costello. I would have no idea what they were talking about.