Federal judge must rule on her bid for a new trial, after former Theranos lab director Adam Rosendorff’s statement that he regrets his testimony during her criminal fraud trial
It is a rare event for a board-certified clinical pathologist to be named in national news headlines, but that is what is happening now to Adam Rosendorff, MD, who served as the CLIA laboratory director at Theranos for several years.
Rosendorff is once more the subject of news headlines because of his recent statements expressing “regret” about his testimony for the prosecution during the trial of Elizabeth Holmes, founder and ex-CEO of now defunct Theranos. This development caused attorneys for Holmes to file a motion for a new trial.
In August, Rosendorff showed up at the residence of Elizabeth Holmes and made statements to her attorneys that are the basis for the motion to conduct a new trial.
In a recent court filing requesting the new trial, Holmes’ attorneys described Rosendorff as a “star witness” for the prosecution and pointed out, “The government mentioned him more than any other government witness in both opening and closing statements, and Dr. Rosendorff testified longer than any other government witness.”
During four days of testimony last October, Rosendorff emerged as a central prosecution witness. On the stand, he supported prosecutors’ contention that Holmes knew about the accuracy issues with Theranos’ Edison blood-testing device and intentionally mislead investors and patients.
In court testimony, Adam Rosendorff, MD (above) said, “I had frequent conversations with Elizabeth about concerns that I had in the laboratory,” and [that] she was often copied on emails discussing issues, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. As clinical laboratory leaders who closely followed his testimony know, Rosendorff was Theranos’ laboratory director from April 2013 to November 2014. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Rosendorff Attempts to Meet with Holmes
The “Dr. Rosendorff’s Encounter at Ms. Holmes’ Home” section of the 17-page filing states Rosendorff appeared at the home of Holmes and her partner William Evans on August 8 after leaving a voicemail earlier in the evening asking for a meeting with Holmes. Rosendorff allegedly had two short conversations with Evans, who told him Holmes could not speak to anyone and asked Rosendorff to leave. Rosendorff was described by Evans as speaking in a “trembling” voice and appearing to be “in distress.”
The filing goes on to state Rosendorff told Evans “that he wanted to speak to Ms. Holmes because it would be ‘healing for both himself and Elizabeth to talk.’ He stated that ‘when he was called as a witness, he tried to answer the questions honestly but that the prosecutors tried to make everyone look bad’ and that ‘the government made things sound worse than they were when he was up on the stand during his testimony.’”
The filing continues: “Dr. Rosendorff stated that ‘Theranos was early in his and [Ms. Holmes’] career,’ that ‘everyone was just doing the best they could,’ and ‘everyone was working so hard to do something good and meaningful.’”
The section concludes, “He stated that ‘he fe[lt] guilty’ and that he ‘felt like he had done something wrong,’ apparently in connection with his testimony in Ms. Holmes’ case. He stated that these issues were ‘weighing on him’ and that “he was having trouble sleeping.’”
Rosendorff’s Regrets Unlikely to Trigger New Trial
In the filing, Holmes’ attorneys wrote, “under any interpretation of his statements, the statements warrant a new trial under Rule 33. But, at a minimum … the Court should order an evidentiary hearing and permit Ms. Holmes to subpoena Dr. Rosendorff to testify about his concerns.”
Bloomberg, however, quoted criminal defense attorney Michael Weinstein, JD, Chair of Cole Schotz P.C.’s White-Collar Litigations and Government Investigations Practice, as saying Rosendorff’s misgivings about his testimony are unlikely to warrant a new trial.
“A witness having second thoughts and how they were generally perceived is not new in criminal trials but often don’t lead to new trials or much of anything,” Weinstein told Bloomberg. “The burden for that is simply too high.” Weinstein was not involved in the Holmes case.
CBS News reached out to Rosendorff via LinkedIn, who responded he had no comment, adding, “Do not contact me.”
Nevertheless, Holmes’ lawyers have proposed an October 3 hearing to discuss why they believe a new trial is merited. Their request for a new trial came less than a week after U.S. District Judge Edward Davila rejected the defense team’s bid to have Holmes’ January convictions thrown out, the Mercury News reported.
“The evidence does support the jury’s findings,” Davila said at a September 1 hearing in San Jose, California, in which he issued a preliminary ruling denying her bid to have the verdict thrown out.
Theranos Saga Continues
At the hearing, Holmes’ lawyer Amy Mason Saharia, JD, told Davila the defense team would make another attempt to overturn the jury’s findings based on “new evidence,” the Mercury News stated. That new evidence appears to be Rosendorff’s admission that he has regrets about his testimony in the case.
Holmes, 38, is currently free on bail, but faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, plus restitution on each of four counts. She will be sentenced on October 17. The court originally set her sentencing date for September 26, but agreed to delay her sentencing without giving a reason for the delay, CBS News reported.
Will former Theranos laboratory director Adam Rosendorff, MD’s, regrets alter the court’s previous decisions? Who knows? Many clinical laboratory directors and medical laboratory scientists followed Elizabeth Holmes’ nearly four-month long fraud trial with rapt interest. They will now have to wait a few more weeks to find out if the disgraced Theranos executive will get a new trial or a prison sentence.
Like Holmes, Balwani faces 12 counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for allegedly misleading investors, patients, and others about blood-testing startup’s technology
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists are buckling up as the next installment of the Theranos story gets underway, this time for the criminal fraud trial of ex-Theranos President and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani.
In one text to Holmes, Balwani wrote, “I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” NBC Bay Area reported.
Partners in Everything, including Crime, Prosecutors Allege
According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), prosecutors are following the Holmes trial playbook. They focused their opening arguments on the personal and working relationships between the pair, tying Balwani to Holmes’ crimes at the Silicon Valley blood-testing startup.
As second in command at Theranos, Balwani helped run the company from 2009 to 2016. He also invested $5 million in Theranos stock, while also underwriting a $13 million corporate loan.
“They were partners in everything, including their crimes,” Assistant US Attorney Robert Leach told jurors, the Mercury News reported. “The defendant and Holmes knew the rosy falsehoods that they were telling investors were contrary to the reality within Theranos.”
Leach maintained that Balwani was responsible for the phony financial projections Theranos gave investors in 2015 predicting $990 million in revenue when the company had less than $2 million in sales.
Former Theranos President and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above) is seen arriving at the federal court in San Jose, California, for the start of his federal fraud trial. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who followed the trial of ex-Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes will no doubt be interested in what can be learned from this trail as well. (Photo copyright: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.)
“This is a case about fraud. About lying and cheating to obtain money and property,” Leach added. Balwani “did this to get money from investors, and he did this to get money and business from paying patients who were counting on Theranos to deliver accurate and reliable blood tests so that they could make important medical decisions,” the WSJ reported.
Defense attorneys downplayed Balwani’s decision-making role within Theranos, pointing out that he did not join the start-up until six years after Holmes founded the company with the goal of revolutionizing blood testing by developing a device capable of performing blood tests using a finger-prick of blood.
“Sunny Balwani did not start Theranos. He did not control Theranos. Elizabeth Holmes, not Sunny, founded Theranos and built Theranos,” defense attorney Stephen Cazares, JD of San Francisco-based Orrick, said in his opening argument, the WSJ reported.
The trial was expected to begin in January but was delayed by the unexpected length of the Holmes trial. It was then pushed out to March when COVID-19 Omicron cases spiked in California during the winter.
Balwani’s trial is being held in the same San Jose courthouse where Holmes was convicted. Balwani, 56, is facing identical charges as Holmes, which include two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 10 counts of wire fraud. He has pleaded not guilty.
Holmes, who is currently free on a $500,000 bond, will be sentenced on Sept. 26, Dark Daily reported in January.
Judge Excludes Jurors for Watching Hulu’s ‘The Dropout’
During jury selection in March, some jurors acknowledged they were familiar with the case, causing delays in impaneling the 12-member jury and six alternates. US District Court Judge Edward Davila excluded two potential jurors because they had watched “The Dropout,” Hulu’s miniseries about Holmes and Theranos. Multiple other jurors were dropped because they had followed the Holmes trial in the news, Law360 reported.
When testimony began, prosecutors had a familiar name take the stand—whistleblower and former Theranos lab tech Erika Cheung, who provided key testimony in the Holmes trial. During her testimony, Cheung said she revealed to authorities what she saw at Theranos because “Theranos had gone to extreme lengths to [cover up] what was happening in the lab,” KRON4 in San Francisco reported.
“It was important to report the truth,” she added. “I felt that despite the risk—and I knew there could be consequences—people really need to see the truth of what was happening behind closed doors.”
Nevada State Public Health Laboratory (NSPHL) Director Mark Pandori, PhD, who served as Theranos’ lab director from December 2013 to May 2014, was the prosecution’s second witness. Pandori testified that receiving accurate results for some tests run through Theranos’ Edison blood testing machine was like “flipping a coin.”
“When you are working in a place like Theranos, you’re developing something new. And you want it to work. Quality control remained a problem for the duration of my time at the company. There was never a solution to poor performance,” Pandori testified, according to KRON4.
While the defense team has downplayed Balwani’s decision-making role—calling him a “shareholder”—Aron Solomon, JD, a legal analyst with Esquire Digital, maintains they may have a hard time convincing the jury that Balwani wasn’t a key player.
“There’s no way the defense is going to be successful in painting Sunny Balwani in the light simply as a shareholder,” he told NBC Bay Area. “We know that, literally, Sunny Balwani was intimately involved with Theranos, because he was intimately involved with Elizabeth Holmes,” Solomon added.
Little Media Buzz for Balwani, Unlike Holmes Trial
While the Holmes trial hogged the media spotlight and drew daily onlookers outside the courthouse, reporters covering Balwani’s court appearances describe a much different atmosphere.
“The sparse crowd and quiet atmosphere at US District Court in San Jose, Calif., felt nothing like the circus frenzy that engulfed the same sidewalk months earlier when his alleged co-conspirator and former girlfriend, Elizabeth Holmes, stood trial on the same charges,” The New York Times noted in its coverage of the Balwani trial.
The Balwani trial may not reach the same headline-producing fervor as the Holmes legal battle. However, clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who follow these proceedings will no doubt come away with important insights into how Theranos went so terribly wrong and how lab directors must act under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA).
Split verdict could still mean considerable prison time for the one-time high-flying Silicon Valley entrepreneur
In a trial generating unprecedented interest among clinical laboratory scientists, former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty in federal court this week on four charges of defrauding investors.
Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison as well as a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count, though sentencing experts predict a much lighter sentence for the 37-year-old whose birth of her first child caused one of multiple delays in the start of the three-month-long trial.
“I suspect she may get five to seven years in prison,” Justin Paperny, Founder of federal prison consultancy White Collar Advice, told Fortune. However, Paperny said Holmes will be unlikely to be eligible for early release in federal prison beyond a 15% reduction in prison time for good behavior.
“There is no real mechanism to really aggressively advance your release date in federal prison,” Paperny told Fortune.
Holmes was acquitted on four counts, while the jury failed to reach a decision on three counts. Judge Edward J. Davila of the US District Court, Northern District of California, who presided over the trial, will sentence Holmes at a later date. Holmes is expected to be allowed to remain free on bail until sentencing.
The graphic above, taken from a CNBC live report, shows the jury’s verdicts in all 11 charges, including those on which the jury did not arrive at a verdict. (Photo copyright: CNBC.)
Trial Delays Due to Pandemic, Holmes’ Pregnancy
According to ABC News, Holmes “expressed no visible emotion as the verdicts were read.” She did not respond to questions about the verdict as she left the courtroom and walked to a nearby hotel where she has stayed during seven days of jury deliberations.
“The jurors in this 15-week trial navigated a complex case amid a pandemic and scheduling obstacle,” US Attorney of the Northern District of California, Stephanie Hinds, told reporters Monday evening, according to ABC News. “I thank the jurors for their thoughtful and determined service that ensured verdicts could be reached. The guilty verdicts in this case reflect Ms. Holmes’ culpability in this large-scale investor fraud, and she must now face sentencing for her crimes.”
The decision followed an often-delayed trial in which the prosecution put 29 witnesses on the stand, most of whom reinforced the government’s contention that Holmes defrauded investors and patients as she worked to bring to market Theranos’ “revolutionary” Edison finger-prick blood-testing device. The prosecution also presented emails, text messages, and other documents that it said were evidence of Holmes’ deceptions.
Dark Daily covered all of this in multiple ebriefings, including the potential that the four CLIA-laboratory directors who held the top laboratory position in Theranos’ lab during Holmes’ tenure as CEO might be held accountable for their actions or inactions on some level.
Details of Charges and Guilty Verdicts against Holmes
According to the Mercury News, the jury returned guilty verdicts on four counts facing Holmes:
Count 1: Guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud against Theranos investors. This charge accused Holmes and Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, of “knowingly and intentionally” soliciting payments from investors with false statements about Theranos’ technology, its business partnerships, and its financial model.
Count 6: Guilty of wire fraud in connection with a 2014 investment of $38,336,632 made by PFM Health Sciences of San Francisco. Brian Grossman, PFM’s Chief Investment Officer, testified that his team was told Theranos had brought in more than $200 million in revenue, “mostly from the Department of Defense.” In realty, 2011 revenue came in at $518,000 and the company had no revenue in 2012 or 2013, according to Theranos’ former head of accounting.
Count 7: Guilty of wire fraud in connection with an October 2014 investment of $99,999,984 made by a firm associated with the family of former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Managing Director, Global Private Equity at Ottawa Avenue Private Capital, Lisa Peterson testified Holmes claimed Theranos’ technology was in use “on military helicopters,” and sent a report with a Pfizer logo touting the “superior performance” and accuracy of Theranos’ machines. The logo and follow-up questioning, Peterson said, led her to conclude that the report was prepared by Pfizer, which was false.
Count 8: Guilty of wire fraud in connection with an October 2014 investment of $5,999,997 from a company involving Daniel Mosely, the long-time lawyer for former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Mosely testified he also was led to believe Pfizer had approved Theranos’ technology. In a letter to Kissinger, he called the report “the most extensive evidence supplied regarding the reliability of the Theranos technology and its applications.”
The illustration above shows Elizabeth Holmes being kissed on her head by her father after being found guilty in federal court on four charges of defrauding investors while CEO of now defunct blood-testing laboratory Theranos. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/ABC News.)
The jury of eight men and four women began deliberations on December 20 after closing arguments in the nearly four-month-long trial in San Jose, California. Holmes originally faced 12 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. One count was dropped during the trial.
During a blistering three-hour closing argument, Assistant US Attorney Jeffrey Schenk hammered home the prosecution’s contention that Holmes choose to deceive investors and patients rather than admit failure in her quest to revolutionize healthcare by delivering a blood-testing device capable of running up to 200 laboratory tests using a finger-prick of blood.
“Ms. Holmes made the decision to defraud her investors, and then to defraud patients,” Schenk told jurors, according to CNBC. “She chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest with investors and with patients.”
The defense team put three witnesses on the stand, with Holmes emerging as a surprise witness in her own defense. She maintained she never intended to defraud anyone and instead relied on experts within her company for the claims she made about Theranos’ blood-testing device. During her seven days of testimony, she also alleged emotional, physical, and sexual abuse by Balwani. Balwani has denied in legal filings Holmes’ abuse allegations.
Holmes Wanted to “Change the World,” Defense Claims
In his closing argument, defense attorney Kevin Downey maintained Holmes’ intent was not to deceive but to “change the world.”
“At the end of the day, the question you’re really asking yourself is, ‘What was Ms. Holmes’ intent?'” Downey told jurors, according to Business Insider, “Was she trying to defraud people?”
The jury’s answer: “Yes.”
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists will soon learn the price Holmes will pay for her deceptions when she is sentenced in coming weeks. Meanwhile, the start of Balwani’s fraud trial has been postponed to February 15, according to Bloomberg News.
Former CEO also testified that she believed company’s proprietary blood-testing technology could perform ‘any’ clinical laboratory blood test
One relevant question in the federal fraud trial of ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was whether she would testify on her own behalf. That question was answered shortly after the government rested its criminal fraud case against the former Silicon Valley clinical laboratory testing company founder. Holmes took the stand in her own defense, a risk her defense team hopes will pay off in her favor.
During her first three days of testimony leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday break, Holmes—who faces 11 counts of fraud and conspiracy related to her tenure as founder and CEO of Theranos—made headlines by admitting she did personally put the logos of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Schering-Plough on reports she sent to Theranos investors and executives at Walgreens and Safeway. She expressed regret for doing so to the jury, but claimed her intent was not to deceive but to give credit to others.
“This work was done in partnership with these companies, and I was trying to convey that,” she testified, according to a trial coverage from Ars Technica.
When asked if she realized that others would assume the pharmaceutical companies—not Theranos—were the authors of the report, Holmes replied, “I’ve heard that testimony in this case, and I wish I’d done it differently.”
If found guilty, Holmes—who once claimed Theranos’ Edison proprietary blood-testing technology would to be able to complete as many as 200 clinical laboratory tests using a single finger-stick of blood—could face maximum penalties of 20 years in prison, a $2.75 million fine, and possible restitution.
The illustration above depicts ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes testifying on her own behalf. Former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News, “(T)he best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. … I think the jury will like her.” That remains to be seen. But there’s no doubt that Clinical Laboratory Directors should take a strong interest in the outcome of this trail. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/Reuters.)
Holmes Testifies She Believed the Edison Device Could Perform “Any” Blood Test
In its trail coverage, NPR described Holmes’ first three days of testimony “as having involved deflecting responsibility, pointing to the expertise of the Theranos board of directors, lab staff, and other company employees whom Holmes has suggested were close to how [Theranos’] blood analyzers worked.”
According to Reuters, Holmes’ defense team is arguing that Holmes’ always-rosy forecasts about her company’s technology and finances were based on her belief the proprietary Edison device worked as advertised, which, in turn, was based on feedback from pharmaceutical companies, her own employees, and the military.
During her testimony, Holmes compared a traditional blood-testing device to Theranos’ “3.0” device, which she said would reduce the human-error rate that can occur during blood sampling.
“If we had the ability to automate much of that process, we could reduce the error associated with traditional lab testing,” she told the court.
Reuters reported that Holmes told jurors her confidence in the Theranos device was in part due to how well the unit had performed in studies completed in 2008 and 2009, including those run by drug companies such as Novartis.
The Mercury News described Holmes as speaking with “confidence—and frequently a small smile”—during her opening day of testimony.
Asked by one of her lawyers, “Did you believe that Theranos had developed technology that was capable of performing any blood test?” Holmes responded, “I did.”
Holmes Testifies about Military’s Alleged Use of Edison Device
Prosecutors maintain that Holmes knew Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing technology had serious accuracy issues yet lied about its capabilities and use to lure investors. One of those false claims included allegedly stating the US military was using the Edison device on the battlefield. Earlier in the trial, CNBC reported, prosecution witness Brian Grossman, Chief Investment Officer at PFM Health Sciences, which invested $96 million into Theranos, testified he was told in a 2013 meeting with Holmes and Balwani that Theranos technology was being used in medical-evacuation helicopters.
However, on the witness stand, Holmes described Theranos’ projects with the US military as much more limited in scope than the descriptions outlined by investors testifying for the prosecution.
According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Holmes told jurors a 2010 partnership between Theranos and a US Army Institute of Surgical Research doctor in Texas looked into using the Theranos device to measure blood markers to detect kidney performance. A second project involved the military’s Africa Command, which was determining whether the device could withstand high temperatures. Holmes testified the devices used in Africa “held up well,” though some modifications were needed, and some issues were revealed with the touchscreen.
Should Holmes Have Testified on Her Own Behalf?
Trial experts maintain Holmes’ decision to testify in her own defense could backfire.
“It’s always a risk to put your client on because if they make a mistake they can sink the whole case,” former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News. He added, “what’s at issue here is Elizabeth Holmes’ intent. And the best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. She’s very charismatic. She’s really good on her feet. And I think the jury will like her.
“This is the pitch meeting of her life,” Clark added. “She’s going to be explaining herself to 12 people as to what was in her mind.”
Judge Drops One Count Due to Prosecution Error, Government Rests Its Case
Holmes is now charged with nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud after the government dropped one count of fraud from the indictment. According to WSJ coverage of the trial, US District Judge Edward Davila blocked a patient named in the indictment as “B.B.” from testifying because of a filing error by the prosecution. The judge’s decision resulted in the government dropping one count.
The government rested its case against Holmes on November 19 following testimony from independent journalist Roger Parloff, who wrote a flattering 2014 Fortune magazine story on Holmes. He later redacted his earlier writing in another Fortune article, titled, “How Theranos Misled Me.”
The government alleged Holmes used media publicity as part of her scheme to defraud investors, patients, and physicians. All totaled, 29 witnesses appeared for the prosecution, the WSJ reported.
Former Theranos Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani—Holmes’ one-time boyfriend—faces similar charges of defrauding patients, investors, and physicians. His trial is expected to begin in January 2022.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who have watched the federal court proceedings with keen interest should expect the trial to wrap up at the conclusion of Holmes’ testimony, just in time for the Balwani fraud trial to begin.
Jury also heard testimony about Holmes’ claims that the Edison device was doing clinical laboratory testing for the military in overseas theaters
During the seventh week of ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes’ criminal fraud trial, headline-making testimony continued nearly non-stop. A former Theranos product manager took the stand offering damning testimony that tied Holmes to questionable product demonstrations and exaggerated claims about the military’s use of the Edison blood-testing device. And a Pfizer scientist testified to alleged improper use of the Pfizer logo by Theranos in a report that went to Walgreen executives.
Those claims contributed to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charging Holmes in 2018 with fraud and stripping her of control of Theranos, the SEC stated in a news release.
CNN reported that former Senior Product Manager Daniel Edlin, who worked at Theranos from 2011-2016, acknowledged in court that the Edison device had never been used in a war zone or installed on a medivac helicopter. He also noted that Holmes had final say over his communications with the DOD.
According to CNN, “Edlin said he worked directly with Holmes to support the relationships with the military and Defense Department. He said, ‘the end goal’ for these discussions ‘was to start a research program that would compare Theranos’ testing to the testing available to the military at that time.”
Edlin testified that Holmes was ‘highly involved’ with these communications, CNN reported.
“I’d say any substantive communication I had with the military, I either discussed with her ahead of time … or email drafts were reviewed and approved before I sent them back out,” he testified.
Elizabeth Holmes, ex-CEO of now-defunct blood-testing company Theranos, is seen above leaving a San Jose, Calif., courthouse following a hearing. Holmes faces 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for allegedly misleading investors, clinical laboratories, patients, and healthcare providers about Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing Edison technology. Holmes has pleaded not guilty. (Photo copyright: Reuters.)
During cross examination, Edlin walked back some of his damaging testimony. When asked by defense attorney Kevin Downey, JD, of Williams and Connelly, LLP, if he or anyone else at Theranos was intentionally trying to deceive investors or other visitors during the demonstrations, Edlin responded, “Of course not,” according to Palo Alto Online.
To counter the prosecution’s claims that Theranos’ Edison machines were unsuitable for military use because they could not operate in high temperatures, Downey introduced an email from an Army doctor at the US Command in Africa praising the Edison after examining it in high temperatures. The doctor also, according to court documents, proposed the Army provide more funding to test the Edison’s capabilities, Palo Alto Online reported.
Nevertheless, according to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the Edison was never sent to a US military laboratory in Afghanistan for study, nor was it used in Africa to run blood tests.
Former Pfizer Scientist Testifies to Misuse of Intellectual Property
In another broadside to the Holmes defense, former Pfizer scientist Shane Weber, PhD, testified Holmes used the Pfizer logo in investor materials without the company’s permission in order to pass off as credible a study aimed at validating the Edison device.
The WSJ reported Weber told jurors that in 2008 he had reviewed a 15-page Theranos study involving cancer patients, but that he had stated in his own internal report to Pfizer at that time that nine conclusions in the study—including a statement that the “Theranos system performed with superior performance”—were “not believable.” Pfizer eventually heeded Weber’s advice to not enter into a partnership with Theranos.
Prosecutors stated that as part of Theranos’ negotiations with Walgreens, which ultimately invested $140 million in the blood-testing company, Holmes had placed a Pfizer logo on the top of each page of the cancer study report before sending it to Walgreens executives, claiming it was an independent due-diligence report on Theranos technology.
Weber told jurors that he had not known about the altered report until he was shown the document by prosecutors. He stated the logo was added without Pfizer’s permission, the WSJ reported.
Unfortunately for Walgreens, the retail pharmacy chain entered into a business agreement with Theranos without extensively examining or testing the Edison device, which Theranos had claimed could quickly and accurately run 200 diagnostic tests using a finger-stick of blood. Instead, the company relied on the opinions of its own staff healthcare experts and outside experts, none of whom fully tested the technology either, the WSJ stated.
Testimony in the Elizabeth Holmes fraud trial is expected to continue through December. Therefore, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should expect headline-making news to continue as well. Dark Daily will continue its coverage as the trial moves forward.
