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.
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".
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.
The entire organization was made up of rich idiots with no domain expertise throwing money at a young lady because she wore a turtleneck and claimed to be the next steve jobs. Meanwhile there were actual scientists involved, including the CSO and a former director of the CDC, and they never blew the whistle, so they either never thought to ask for a demo of the magic science product, or they were in on it.
It was never going to do anything productive. It wasn't even an elaborate con, she just lied to people's faces and they never even considered whether they should verify her claims.
Theranos is a great example of how pathetically incompetent and stupid you can act as a rich person and STILL come out pretty well. Nobody did any due diligence because they almost never do due diligence and it almost never hurts them.
Meanwhile I have to do due diligence on the damn clothing I buy or it probably won't even fit.
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.
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?
I saw one of those billboards on Ventura Blvd. the other day and wondered what kind of PR scam it was. Who pays for those things? Billboards are pretty expensive around here.
She got got convicted on federal charges, so I think they're targetting Trump for a pardon/commutation. The "MAGA-like" aspect isn't a coincidence, it's deliberately mimics Trump's style to woo him.
This is not a "delusional person does delusional things" kind of situation, but a "manipulative person does manipulative things" kind of situation.
Presumably her husband (or "partner", whether they're legally married is a question of some debate) is paying for it by the way, as Holmes probably doesn't have any funds and he's born to wealth.
> There is no need to denigrate a political faction. It's flamebait and off-topic.
And like witnessing a shooting star, I've witnessed manipulation. What this person was upset about was the insinuation that MAGA is conspiratorially minded. That's bad - can't have people agreeing with that! So they first play at striving for fairness (to poor helpless political parties lol). But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
If this weren't so poorly executed (and if I hadn't caught the edit) I wouldn't have even noticed but given that it is so poorly executed I gotta wonder whether this is just someone slacking at their botfarm job.
Edit: just so no one can accuse me of making this up, here is the screenshot from my reader app which still has the original comment:
> The real question is: Will Elizabeth serve the purpose of your fund — or by investing in her, will you simply be serving her purpose of writing her rise-from-the-ashes narrative?
I think pretty clearly there are VCs who are quite cognizant that their main advantage is their marketing, and making a big splashy controversial investment serves that marketing well. A16Z don't give a damn if they throw 50m at a bad investment, that's not how the game works- they already know most of their 50m investments will fail, so if that investment can keep their name out there so they get access to the funding rounds of the ones that succeed? It's worth it.
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.
> “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.
I would assume that in a strict legal capacity that's probably true (for now at least). Although obviously she's "involved".
Is Haemanthus a fraud? Lets just say I think you'd be a right idiot to invest in this.
But I think this will be very hard to prevent legally. Even if Holmes and Evans are married (unclear if they are), it was only Holmes who was involved in Theranos' fraud and not Evans.
Elizabeth Holmes has an 11 year sentence and banned for life for building anything like Theranos again. Not sure what more accountability is necessary.
> 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.
"Since she reported to prison about two years ago, by far the most common question people have asked me is: "Did Elizabeth start Theranos with the intention to revolutionize health care, or did she intend to commit fraud from the start?" I think the answer is neither."
It seems that some folks just cannot see Holmes as under-educated and incompetent.
Those who see the incompetence are not surprised by the outcomes: business failure and, subsequently, fraud.
"It will not work" was an educated opinion offered to her by an advisor that she refused to accept, not because she was "determined" in some "heroic" way, but because she was stupid. Another college drop out who could not finish the work to earn a degree and learn anything, e.g., humility, in the process.
If raising money and receiving valuation is in and of itself "business success", then why bother with the made-up scientific basis. Obviously in Holmes' world "it does not have to work (yet)" in order to raise capital and receive press coverage. The only "science" required is the Silicon Valley "science" of exploiting gullibility and building hype.
The more interesting question IMHO is: Why try to appear authentic?
I think they will try to make this new company have some kind of success (real or fake) and then seek a pardon from Trump. I have no proof, but no doubts either.
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 would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position
That’s a ridiculous theory and I’d gladly take the other side of that bet. She has zero populist appeal and would never be elected to any office. So it comes down to whether an incumbent would appoint her to some position, and I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
> I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
Agree, which is why I think I will be correct. Back in August of 2016 I was joking with friends that if Trump won election he would declare his intent to annex Canada. Everyone had a good laugh at that. Now it's not so funny.
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?
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!"
I think there is a personality trait that makes you absolutely obsessed with the idea of 'proving everybody else wrong'. I think this trait is very common, if not downright necessary, to be at the very top of some fields. Once you have that bug, the more ridiculous the idea, the higher the emotional reward if it pays off, so there's no limit on what you will consider pursuing.
That's my theory for why certain classes of people: VCs, film producers, dictators, pro athletes, are often dumping money into extremely transparent and audacious scammers.
I have long deep close experience with people who create similar situations, who have no criminal intent, just a remorseless indefatigable belief that this time it's going to work, and I have witnessed many times that the vaster the vision, the more laws of physics violated, the more absurd the suspension of belief required to hold a narrative in your head, the more passionatley it will inspire certain people who are looking for a quest, a purpose so grand it will rewrite the story of their life in one bold move.
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.
Regardless of the public relations angle it will be the fact that she can bring value to the capitalist class, family connections, name brand (lol). If you can make them money they let you do it.
It's money. PR companies are the ones who place those "Look this person who we all hate because they did blatantly antisocial and greedy crime is actually a human" articles in the New York Times and similar.
It really only takes like ten million dollars to ensure that the narrative you want prevails, as long as there is no monied force working against you with a different narrative.
Even shithole kids of rich assholes get this treatment.
And this was the case BEFORE half the country decided that the "good guys" are all hated by "the mainstream" anyway, and voted (a third time) for a guy who literally sells presidential pardons for $2 million, and has already pardoned outright fraudsters who don't even have fan clubs.
Comparing Holmes to Neumann is a terrible parallel for obvious reasons to those that understand these matters. You should have used someone like Jeffrey Skilling instead.
https://archive.is/vWelf
Try disabling Javascript.
The submitted isn't paywalled or down, are you expecting something to happen to it?
Perhaps you are logged in with a "STAT Account"? When I load the link, it prompts me to create one in order to view the article.
3 replies →
Lucky you, was paywalled for me. Good thing they posted the link.
1 reply →
Bloody hell, I was only curious! It wasn't paywalled for me, I read it no problem.
Paywalled.
3 replies →
paywalled for me too
1 reply →
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.
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.
1 reply →
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.
Why? Didn’t they own most of the company?
1 reply →
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".
6 replies →
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.
5 replies →
> It lasted for 15 years and (as far as I know) employed actual scientists and researchers that were trying to revolutionize blood testing.
It was, by all reports, _very_ poorly run, though. Like, even beyond the scam aspect.
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.
The entire organization was made up of rich idiots with no domain expertise throwing money at a young lady because she wore a turtleneck and claimed to be the next steve jobs. Meanwhile there were actual scientists involved, including the CSO and a former director of the CDC, and they never blew the whistle, so they either never thought to ask for a demo of the magic science product, or they were in on it.
It was never going to do anything productive. It wasn't even an elaborate con, she just lied to people's faces and they never even considered whether they should verify her claims.
Theranos is a great example of how pathetically incompetent and stupid you can act as a rich person and STILL come out pretty well. Nobody did any due diligence because they almost never do due diligence and it almost never hurts them.
Meanwhile I have to do due diligence on the damn clothing I buy or it probably won't even fit.
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.
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?
There are billboards on 101 directing people to Holmes’ MAGA-like post truth website that declares she is ‘proven innocent’
I saw one of those billboards on Ventura Blvd. the other day and wondered what kind of PR scam it was. Who pays for those things? Billboards are pretty expensive around here.
I assume she is paying for the billboards.
So the website seems to be https://justblood.com (?)
She got got convicted on federal charges, so I think they're targetting Trump for a pardon/commutation. The "MAGA-like" aspect isn't a coincidence, it's deliberately mimics Trump's style to woo him.
This is not a "delusional person does delusional things" kind of situation, but a "manipulative person does manipulative things" kind of situation.
Presumably her husband (or "partner", whether they're legally married is a question of some debate) is paying for it by the way, as Holmes probably doesn't have any funds and he's born to wealth.
[dead]
[flagged]
Right before I refreshed this comment said
> There is no need to denigrate a political faction. It's flamebait and off-topic.
And like witnessing a shooting star, I've witnessed manipulation. What this person was upset about was the insinuation that MAGA is conspiratorially minded. That's bad - can't have people agreeing with that! So they first play at striving for fairness (to poor helpless political parties lol). But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
If this weren't so poorly executed (and if I hadn't caught the edit) I wouldn't have even noticed but given that it is so poorly executed I gotta wonder whether this is just someone slacking at their botfarm job.
Edit: just so no one can accuse me of making this up, here is the screenshot from my reader app which still has the original comment:
https://imgur.com/a/njjy4Fd
Edit 2: in case this person edits again, the comment currently reads
> Please don't instigate political arguments.
10 replies →
> The real question is: Will Elizabeth serve the purpose of your fund — or by investing in her, will you simply be serving her purpose of writing her rise-from-the-ashes narrative?
I think pretty clearly there are VCs who are quite cognizant that their main advantage is their marketing, and making a big splashy controversial investment serves that marketing well. A16Z don't give a damn if they throw 50m at a bad investment, that's not how the game works- they already know most of their 50m investments will fail, so if that investment can keep their name out there so they get access to the funding rounds of the ones that succeed? It's worth it.
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.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me
> “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.
According to their "X" account, "Elizabeth Holmes has zero involvement in Haemanthus": https://xcancel.com/haemanthusinc/status/1921644626085024047...
I would assume that in a strict legal capacity that's probably true (for now at least). Although obviously she's "involved".
Is Haemanthus a fraud? Lets just say I think you'd be a right idiot to invest in this.
But I think this will be very hard to prevent legally. Even if Holmes and Evans are married (unclear if they are), it was only Holmes who was involved in Theranos' fraud and not Evans.
> should not be allowed
This is a weird thing to say about someone serving a decade long prison sentence
Agreed. To me, this is the unusual case where individuals in corporations are actually punished. Most cases are way worse.
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.
2 replies →
> 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.
There is always enough for the needy, there is never enough for the greedy. -Mahatma Gandhi
"Since she reported to prison about two years ago, by far the most common question people have asked me is: "Did Elizabeth start Theranos with the intention to revolutionize health care, or did she intend to commit fraud from the start?" I think the answer is neither."
It seems that some folks just cannot see Holmes as under-educated and incompetent.
Those who see the incompetence are not surprised by the outcomes: business failure and, subsequently, fraud.
"It will not work" was an educated opinion offered to her by an advisor that she refused to accept, not because she was "determined" in some "heroic" way, but because she was stupid. Another college drop out who could not finish the work to earn a degree and learn anything, e.g., humility, in the process.
If raising money and receiving valuation is in and of itself "business success", then why bother with the made-up scientific basis. Obviously in Holmes' world "it does not have to work (yet)" in order to raise capital and receive press coverage. The only "science" required is the Silicon Valley "science" of exploiting gullibility and building hype.
The more interesting question IMHO is: Why try to appear authentic?
I think they will try to make this new company have some kind of success (real or fake) and then seek a pardon from Trump. I have no proof, but no doubts either.
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 would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position
That’s a ridiculous theory and I’d gladly take the other side of that bet. She has zero populist appeal and would never be elected to any office. So it comes down to whether an incumbent would appoint her to some position, and I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
That's what people said about trump.
> That’s a ridiculous theory
> I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
Agree, which is why I think I will be correct. Back in August of 2016 I was joking with friends that if Trump won election he would declare his intent to annex Canada. Everyone had a good laugh at that. Now it's not so funny.
> That’s a ridiculous theory
Yeah she's not even a Fox News host yet. She needs to be on TV for at least a couple of years before Trump gives her a job.
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.
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!"
I think there is a personality trait that makes you absolutely obsessed with the idea of 'proving everybody else wrong'. I think this trait is very common, if not downright necessary, to be at the very top of some fields. Once you have that bug, the more ridiculous the idea, the higher the emotional reward if it pays off, so there's no limit on what you will consider pursuing.
That's my theory for why certain classes of people: VCs, film producers, dictators, pro athletes, are often dumping money into extremely transparent and audacious scammers.
I have long deep close experience with people who create similar situations, who have no criminal intent, just a remorseless indefatigable belief that this time it's going to work, and I have witnessed many times that the vaster the vision, the more laws of physics violated, the more absurd the suspension of belief required to hold a narrative in your head, the more passionatley it will inspire certain people who are looking for a quest, a purpose so grand it will rewrite the story of their life in one bold move.
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.
Regardless of the public relations angle it will be the fact that she can bring value to the capitalist class, family connections, name brand (lol). If you can make them money they let you do it.
1 reply →
It's money. PR companies are the ones who place those "Look this person who we all hate because they did blatantly antisocial and greedy crime is actually a human" articles in the New York Times and similar.
It really only takes like ten million dollars to ensure that the narrative you want prevails, as long as there is no monied force working against you with a different narrative.
Even shithole kids of rich assholes get this treatment.
And this was the case BEFORE half the country decided that the "good guys" are all hated by "the mainstream" anyway, and voted (a third time) for a guy who literally sells presidential pardons for $2 million, and has already pardoned outright fraudsters who don't even have fan clubs.
Comparing Holmes to Neumann is a terrible parallel for obvious reasons to those that understand these matters. You should have used someone like Jeffrey Skilling instead.
I was at WeWork the day the news broke about Neumann. :)
Jeff Skilling is also high on my list of bad boys.