I was a Theranos whistleblower. Here's what I think Elizabeth Holmes is up to
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?
This is the AI result from Google
Paul Graham and Y Combinator (YC) prioritize determination and ambition over intelligence in selecting founders, often finding success in founders who are overconfident and optimistic. This isn't a mistake; it's a calculated risk based on the belief that persistence and belief in their vision are crucial for overcoming the inevitable challenges of starting a business.
Although this piece https://paulgraham.com/founders.html only talks about the importance of determination
edit: I've just noticed at the bottom of Paul's piece a note about Sam Altman that I think is incredibly accurate - look for hackers (not crackers) - people that find ways to profit by looking at the system in a different way (but they emphasise not to be evil, just naughty)
but they emphasise not to be evil, just naughty
Based on the trajectory many silicon valley companies seem to take, the slope from "naughty" to "evil" must be very slippery
It's a shame that companies don't seem to be able to be competitive if they behave morally
Kind of an awful society we're living in as a result
Well, apart from the - already done evil things, like worked for Google... ;-)
- it did boring non-tech big industry stuff
- it was good at this
- it started an in-house hedging department (normal)
- they were good at their jobs and accidentally created a massive speculative trading business that fell apart
You know, boring stuff like that.
bankrupted utilities by causing energy prices to be 20x normal rates
Allegedly this is "good business", something that companies aspire to do (creating an environment where their competitors fail, and they profit big time)
The point of bringing it up is the demonstrate that companies are capable of doing multiple things in the course of their existence.
They ran power plants and fiber optic networks. Those things continued to exist after they went bankrupt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932001_California...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tyler-shultz-theranos-...
Interestingly enough, one of the podcast interviewers is also a co-founder of Y Combinator.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Unless you want to get involved in who she dates.
I think the going rate for them for white collar conmen is currently ~2 million.
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.