Of course Holmes will have a second act. Just look at Adam Neumann. Goof up, wait it out bit, come back.
To me it seems very obvious that Holmes is slowly but surely building her charm offensive. Nice articles in the New York Times showing her with her husband.
Theranos defrauding people is just an unfortunate footnote in her career.
I would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position.
I always wonder what are the forces at play in those situations.
Is that the fraudsters are so charismatic/well connected/etc that their past crimes just don’t hold them back?
Or is it a “all notoriety is good notoriety” kind of thing, where even if your fame is due to having been a criminal, that built up name recognition will keep propelling you forward?
Or is it more subtle than this - ie some people have the skills required to appear convincing to smart people, raise lots of money, inspire others to follow them in their ventures, etc - but it just so happens that they also suck at not getting caught up in their own narrative and they end up breaking a bunch of laws in that pursuit?
An outlaw romanticism that suggests, if they got away with it, they deserved to get away with it.
Mix in "Persecuted by big government" and "Wealth makes Right" that conservatives love and you've got plenty of ammunition to mount a come back. She will most certainly come back as an outspoken conservative. I don't think she plays the "I was the persecuted women manipulated by an older man" argument that she used in court.
Like the article says spinning a narrative that "I didn't do anything wrong, it was just so-and-so conspiring to take me down because they were scared of me changing the world!"
Surely Theranos developed some technology that was useful?
It lasted for 15 years and (as far as I know) employed actual scientists and researchers that were trying to revolutionize blood testing. They must have gotten somewhere right? Even if it wasn't as far as they wanted/claimed?
I don't know much about what Haemanthus is claiming, but could a business be built using whatever technology Theranos developed? Or were they headed down a dead end street with nothing of use along the way?
Theranos was a bit too early to its idea, and while they were flailing around trying to get customers with the Edison, microfluidic testing became a reality. It was done by the "old" medical device companies that Theranos was supposed to disrupt. It turned out they were the competent ones.
It is entirely possible to spend 15 years doing absolutely nothing of value.
Their claim was that they could run hundreds of tests on a mere drop / drops of non-arterial blood, including several that are basically physically impossible due to the makeup of blood in capillaries being different from arteries.
That's still not possible to anything like the original degree of the claim.
I talked to some people in the industry shortly before the scandal broke, there were already rumors and the Glassdoor reviews had many warnings from clearly disgruntled former employees. Their thoughts was that the people there should have known, so either they lacked competence, they were desperate, or they were in on it.
While there are plenty of people looking for the chance to do something great and could do it if given the right environment, I expect Theranos didn’t foster such an environment.
Have you noticed how many startups get butt-loads of VC money based on a blatantly obvious faulty premise and never succeed?
A solid, responsibly managed company, has no place in the minds of investors.
To me, the problem is that it is almost more lucrative to NOT succeed, unless one can achieve Nvidia-level of success. It is easier to promise the impossible. I profit today but if we scale the unproven business plan 1000X, the profits will be earth shattering!
How the hell do stupid upstart app-based shady loan companies have tens of thousands of employees including thousands of engineers?
Working hard doesn't guarantee results. I feel like this is obvious. I would imagine that they never got the thing to work right, or at least not well enough. Even if they did, there's no guarantee it's profitable, much less cost-effective.
Correct. The problem is arrogance doesn't guarantee results either but it sure seems to over-promise to the point of fraud more often than not. Perhaps the Ivy business schools should make an effort to mint MBAs who have real world experience rather churn out Dunning-Kruger effect specimens who believe they have a special monopoly on "the answer".
From accounts it seems likely that they completely squandered that opportunity covering up for the exaggerations and fraud.
If at the start there had been, at least internally, an honest view of: We have no idea how to do this, existing technology won't do this, we must make a breakthrough-- and then spent 15 years grinding on that then there might be a chance.
But even then it would just be a chance. It might well be the case that what they were promising is only possible through molecular nanotechnology or some other kind of breakthrough that was entirely outside the domain of their research and which has still not yet been accomplished.
Even the new company's pitch supports that: They credit AI as an integral part of their supposed solution. Was Theranos spending those 15 years working on anything we'd call AI today? probably not.
Note that it doesn’t reference any of Theranos’ patents so any relationship between the two companies is purely based on the personal connection of the founders.
> Over the past few years a number of people have reached out to me saying they’ve invented “the Theranos that works,” and several of them have concepts similar to this: apply AI to a mountain of noise and get a thousand test results.
So probably if it works it'll come from someone who's got an earlier start and more than 50M in seed funding.
> “Do you think Haemanthus intends to revolutionize health care, or do you think it’s another fraud?” Once again — neither. I think it’s just another chapter of her narrative.
This is fraud. We need far more accountability, and that means not letting people who have failed and lied about it "narrative" their way out of consequences. Elizabeth Holmes should not be allowed anywhere near healthcare ever again, and that does mean that even people who are merely close to her should be regarded with great scrutiny.
Elizabeth Holmes has an 11 year sentence and banned for life for building anything like Theranos again. Not sure what more accountability is necessary.
If anyone is interested in hearing more about this whistleblower's backstory, I'd highly recommend checking out this podcast series:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tyler-shultz-theranos-...
Interestingly enough, one of the podcast interviewers is also a co-founder of Y Combinator.
Carolynn Levy is also an managing director (legal) at YC.
Of course Holmes will have a second act. Just look at Adam Neumann. Goof up, wait it out bit, come back.
To me it seems very obvious that Holmes is slowly but surely building her charm offensive. Nice articles in the New York Times showing her with her husband.
Theranos defrauding people is just an unfortunate footnote in her career.
I would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position.
I always wonder what are the forces at play in those situations.
Is that the fraudsters are so charismatic/well connected/etc that their past crimes just don’t hold them back?
Or is it a “all notoriety is good notoriety” kind of thing, where even if your fame is due to having been a criminal, that built up name recognition will keep propelling you forward?
Or is it more subtle than this - ie some people have the skills required to appear convincing to smart people, raise lots of money, inspire others to follow them in their ventures, etc - but it just so happens that they also suck at not getting caught up in their own narrative and they end up breaking a bunch of laws in that pursuit?
It’s fascinating.
An outlaw romanticism that suggests, if they got away with it, they deserved to get away with it.
Mix in "Persecuted by big government" and "Wealth makes Right" that conservatives love and you've got plenty of ammunition to mount a come back. She will most certainly come back as an outspoken conservative. I don't think she plays the "I was the persecuted women manipulated by an older man" argument that she used in court.
Like the article says spinning a narrative that "I didn't do anything wrong, it was just so-and-so conspiring to take me down because they were scared of me changing the world!"
https://archive.is/vWelf
The submitted isn't paywalled or down, are you expecting something to happen to it?
Lucky you, was paywalled for me. Good thing they posted the link.
Paywalled.
Surely Theranos developed some technology that was useful?
It lasted for 15 years and (as far as I know) employed actual scientists and researchers that were trying to revolutionize blood testing. They must have gotten somewhere right? Even if it wasn't as far as they wanted/claimed?
I don't know much about what Haemanthus is claiming, but could a business be built using whatever technology Theranos developed? Or were they headed down a dead end street with nothing of use along the way?
Theranos was a bit too early to its idea, and while they were flailing around trying to get customers with the Edison, microfluidic testing became a reality. It was done by the "old" medical device companies that Theranos was supposed to disrupt. It turned out they were the competent ones.
It is entirely possible to spend 15 years doing absolutely nothing of value.
I mean, not really.
Their claim was that they could run hundreds of tests on a mere drop / drops of non-arterial blood, including several that are basically physically impossible due to the makeup of blood in capillaries being different from arteries.
That's still not possible to anything like the original degree of the claim.
If they did generate anything of value, IP wise, it is an almost certainty that neither she nor her husband have any right to profit off it.
I talked to some people in the industry shortly before the scandal broke, there were already rumors and the Glassdoor reviews had many warnings from clearly disgruntled former employees. Their thoughts was that the people there should have known, so either they lacked competence, they were desperate, or they were in on it.
While there are plenty of people looking for the chance to do something great and could do it if given the right environment, I expect Theranos didn’t foster such an environment.
Have you noticed how many startups get butt-loads of VC money based on a blatantly obvious faulty premise and never succeed?
A solid, responsibly managed company, has no place in the minds of investors.
To me, the problem is that it is almost more lucrative to NOT succeed, unless one can achieve Nvidia-level of success. It is easier to promise the impossible. I profit today but if we scale the unproven business plan 1000X, the profits will be earth shattering!
How the hell do stupid upstart app-based shady loan companies have tens of thousands of employees including thousands of engineers?
how long did enron last before they had to close because of fraud? it was over 20 years i'm pretty sure. that's not a good estimate.
Enron still did things in addition to their fraud.
They ran power plants and fiber optic networks. Those things continued to exist after they went bankrupt.
1 reply →
According to SEC, Madoff started his Ponzi scheme in the early 90s and wasn't arrested until December 2008, about 15 years or so.
Enron started out as a real company doing real things, and only pivoted to fraud later.
3 replies →
Working hard doesn't guarantee results. I feel like this is obvious. I would imagine that they never got the thing to work right, or at least not well enough. Even if they did, there's no guarantee it's profitable, much less cost-effective.
Correct. The problem is arrogance doesn't guarantee results either but it sure seems to over-promise to the point of fraud more often than not. Perhaps the Ivy business schools should make an effort to mint MBAs who have real world experience rather churn out Dunning-Kruger effect specimens who believe they have a special monopoly on "the answer".
2 replies →
From accounts it seems likely that they completely squandered that opportunity covering up for the exaggerations and fraud.
If at the start there had been, at least internally, an honest view of: We have no idea how to do this, existing technology won't do this, we must make a breakthrough-- and then spent 15 years grinding on that then there might be a chance.
But even then it would just be a chance. It might well be the case that what they were promising is only possible through molecular nanotechnology or some other kind of breakthrough that was entirely outside the domain of their research and which has still not yet been accomplished.
Even the new company's pitch supports that: They credit AI as an integral part of their supposed solution. Was Theranos spending those 15 years working on anything we'd call AI today? probably not.
Here is a link to the patent that Haemanthus is working off:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/10/business/Haem...
Note that it doesn’t reference any of Theranos’ patents so any relationship between the two companies is purely based on the personal connection of the founders.
> Over the past few years a number of people have reached out to me saying they’ve invented “the Theranos that works,” and several of them have concepts similar to this: apply AI to a mountain of noise and get a thousand test results.
So probably if it works it'll come from someone who's got an earlier start and more than 50M in seed funding.
> “Do you think Haemanthus intends to revolutionize health care, or do you think it’s another fraud?” Once again — neither. I think it’s just another chapter of her narrative.
This is fraud. We need far more accountability, and that means not letting people who have failed and lied about it "narrative" their way out of consequences. Elizabeth Holmes should not be allowed anywhere near healthcare ever again, and that does mean that even people who are merely close to her should be regarded with great scrutiny.
> should not be allowed
This is a weird thing to say about someone serving a decade long prison sentence
Elizabeth Holmes has an 11 year sentence and banned for life for building anything like Theranos again. Not sure what more accountability is necessary.
Unless you want to get involved in who she dates.
So, what you're saying is that she's one stroke of the president's pen away from being back in the game?
I think the going rate for them for white collar conmen is currently ~2 million.
1 reply →