Theranos Patients: The Emerging Wild Card in the Trial of Elizabeth Holmes (wsj.com) 28
The government hopes patient testimony -- if a judge allows it -- in the closely watched criminal fraud trial will support the charge that Elizabeth Holmes touted the company's medical tests as reliable despite knowing of bad results. The former executive has pleaded not guilty. From a report: After three back-to-back miscarriages, Brittany Gould said she turned to Theranos Inc. to know if her latest pregnancy was on track. Then, one of the company's trademark finger-prick tests indicated she was losing another baby, Ms. Gould said. The Mesa, Ariz., medical assistant recalled dreading the moment when she would have to tell her 7-year-old daughter, who was waiting for a sibling. "Mommy is not having a baby," Ms. Gould said she told her.
Like those of other patients slated as potential witnesses in the criminal trial of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes , Ms. Gould's test was wrong. Prosecutors have accused Ms. Holmes of defrauding patients and investors by falsely claiming her invention could accurately perform lab tests on just a few drops of blood. The repeatedly delayed trial -- postponed once because Ms. Holmes was due to have a baby herself -- is expected to be one of the most widely watched corporate-fraud cases in years.
Scheduled to begin with jury selection on Aug. 31 in San Jose, Calif., the trial features a star-studded list of potential witnesses, including ex-Theranos directors Henry Kissinger and Jim Mattis ; ex-Theranos lawyer David Boies ; and high-profile investors, including Riley Bechtel, the former chairman of Bechtel Corp., and Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox Corp. and executive chairman of News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal. The lineup also could include a handful of previously unknown patients -- if the court allows them to take the stand. Ms. Holmes's lawyers have argued the patient witnesses should be excluded, and they have already had success in limiting the scope of their testimony. A ruling by the judge to eliminate the patients would be considered a big win for Ms. Holmes, and could significantly change the nature of the trial.
Like those of other patients slated as potential witnesses in the criminal trial of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes , Ms. Gould's test was wrong. Prosecutors have accused Ms. Holmes of defrauding patients and investors by falsely claiming her invention could accurately perform lab tests on just a few drops of blood. The repeatedly delayed trial -- postponed once because Ms. Holmes was due to have a baby herself -- is expected to be one of the most widely watched corporate-fraud cases in years.
Scheduled to begin with jury selection on Aug. 31 in San Jose, Calif., the trial features a star-studded list of potential witnesses, including ex-Theranos directors Henry Kissinger and Jim Mattis ; ex-Theranos lawyer David Boies ; and high-profile investors, including Riley Bechtel, the former chairman of Bechtel Corp., and Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox Corp. and executive chairman of News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal. The lineup also could include a handful of previously unknown patients -- if the court allows them to take the stand. Ms. Holmes's lawyers have argued the patient witnesses should be excluded, and they have already had success in limiting the scope of their testimony. A ruling by the judge to eliminate the patients would be considered a big win for Ms. Holmes, and could significantly change the nature of the trial.
Seriously? (Score:2)
Is that a random example, or is it the biggest harm they could come up with? Someone got told they might have a miscarriage? Did she have an abortion?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone got told they might have a miscarriage?
Blood tests for miscarriage risk are not reliable even when done by "real" testing companies with a full vial of blood. They just predict a statistical risk and a positive result should always be followed by a more thorough test, such as a sonogram.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Theranos was in the habit of sending blood samples out to real companies, it's likely the result came from one of those labs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They had a few things they did wrong. They had internal testing machines that weren't accurate, but continued using them. This was the pinprick stuff. They also took vials for some things, and farmed the tests out. That's what you describe, but not necessarily what is the focus of the trial. Finally, there is suspicion that they attempted to combine things for vial testing (which is common for some tests - for example, HIV a
Re: (Score:2)
There is no Catch-22 when the screening is for of the possibility of increased miscarriage. Pick something else like Down's Syndrome and sure you would have a point but miscarriage nada nope.
To show harm you would have to find someone who was told they where not at increased risk of miscarriage they then proceeded to do things they would not had they known there was said increased risk and they then went on to have a miscarriage. You would also need to show that the miscarriage was a result of the altered b
Re: (Score:2)
I had a friend in college who was near suicidal over getting a B in a class because he thought it would ruin his chance of getting into a top med school. Does that mean we have to hold back on giving 4.0 students B grades? On the other hand some of friends were happy to when they got a C.
At some point we have I just don't see it as traumatizing in comparison to a whole list of other things that happen to people.
Let's say your job is delivering packages for $50 per package with a 2pm delivery guarantee .. un
Re: Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Grades and "Graduate Students" (Score:2)
I saw several times where students on a track to "graduate school" would get an 'A' regardless of their performance in a class.
snake eating its own tail (Score:2)
Reading the list of investors and corporate officers, I have the vision of a snake eating its own tail. Were all these people really fooled? Or were they all in on it? Each one of these people already has a lot of skeletons in their own closets.... IMHO the patients are the real victims here.
yes (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Read "Bad Blood" - she erected a wall of luminary dumbasses like Henry Kissinger who wouldn't ask questions but would have enough reputation to get investors and then she didn't tell anyone anything. The smart investors walked away but some dumb money invested. Fraud is still a crime even if the victim isn't smart enough to see through the fraud.
Not necessarily true. There was a case where a baseball player was hired as a spokesperson for something, which went bust, so he got sued along with the others.
The court ruled he was safe. Just because he was paid and participated in luring in people, he was just a stupid hireling too dumb to realize anything.
Re:snake eating its own tail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But they still had their reputations on the line. You'd think someone like Kissinger would have enough sense to do his due diligence. I'm sure he has the resources to hire someone experienced in the field, to ask the right questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Holmes! (Score:1)
I'm thankful the Holmes saga continues. It's always good for a laugh no matter which way it is looked at. Start from her fake voice, let the pooping pooch take the middle, and let's hope we never get to the end!
I tried it. (Score:3)
Re:I tried it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
are kids stupid? (Score:2, Troll)
7-year-olds don't understand first person is not about themselves, but about the speaker ?
Imagine if we could have tested for covid at home (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Her idea was a good idea like having a universal shot that immediately fixes all illness. That's a great idea too, but like her, I have no idea how to create a working product.