I was a Theranos whistleblower. Here's what I think Elizabeth Holmes is up to

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;vWelf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;vWelf</a>

If anyone is interested in hearing more about this whistleblower&#x27;s backstory, I&#x27;d highly recommend checking out this podcast series:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;tyler-shultz-theranos-whistleblower-part-1&#x2F;id1677066062?i=1000678413175" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;tyler-shultz-theranos-...</a><p>Interestingly enough, one of the podcast interviewers is also a co-founder of Y Combinator.

Surely Theranos developed <i>some</i> technology that was useful?<p>It lasted for 15 years and (as far as I know) employed actual scientists and researchers that were <i>trying</i> to revolutionize blood testing. They must have gotten somewhere right? Even if it wasn&#x27;t as far as they wanted&#x2F;claimed?<p>I don&#x27;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?

There are billboards on 101 directing people to Holmes’ MAGA-like post truth website that declares she is ‘proven innocent’

&gt; 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?<p>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&#x27;t give a damn if they throw 50m at a bad investment, that&#x27;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&#x27;s worth it.

Here is a link to the patent that Haemanthus is working off:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2025&#x2F;05&#x2F;10&#x2F;business&#x2F;HaemanthusPatent.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2025&#x2F;05&#x2F;10&#x2F;business&#x2F;Haem...</a><p>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.

&gt; “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.<p>This is fraud. We need far more accountability, and that means not letting people who have failed and lied about it &quot;narrative&quot; 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.

&gt; 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.<p>So probably if it works it&#x27;ll come from someone who&#x27;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

&quot;Since she reported to prison about two years ago, by far the most common question people have asked me is: &quot;Did Elizabeth start Theranos with the intention to revolutionize health care, or did she intend to commit fraud from the start?&quot; I think the answer is neither.&quot;<p>It seems that some folks just cannot see Holmes as under-educated and incompetent.<p>Those who see the incompetence are not surprised by the outcomes: business failure and, subsequently, fraud.<p>&quot;It will not work&quot; was an educated opinion offered to her by an advisor that she refused to accept, not because she was &quot;determined&quot; in some &quot;heroic&quot; 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.<p>If raising money and receiving valuation is in and of itself &quot;business success&quot;, then why bother with the made-up scientific basis. Obviously in Holmes&#x27; world &quot;it does not have to work (yet)&quot; in order to raise capital and receive press coverage. The only &quot;science&quot; required is the Silicon Valley &quot;science&quot; of exploiting gullibility and building hype.<p>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.<p>To me it seems <i>very obvious</i> that Holmes is slowly but surely building her charm offensive. Nice articles in the New York Times showing her with her husband.<p>Theranos defrauding people is just an unfortunate footnote in her career.<p>I would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position.