These findings may be useful to clinical laboratory professionals when physicians want guidance in effective treatments for COVID-19 patients, particularly when there are concerns about a rebound of the infection
Drug interactions are a major concern for physicians and clinical laboratories. That is especially true given the push for nearly universal COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters. Now, a study conducted in Denmark may show that the use of Paxlovid as an antiviral drug to treat early SARS-CoV-2 infection could trigger drug-drug interactions (DDI) in some patients.
For clinical laboratory managers, insights into the issues associated with Paxlovid may be useful in helping client physicians diagnose their patients and anticipate possible negative drug reactions where other anti-viral drugs are involved.
Also of interest to medical laboratory leaders is the fact that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in May released a Health Alert Network (HAN) Health Advisory about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.
COVID-19 Rebound, according to the CDC, “has been reported to occur between two and eight days after initial recovery and is characterized by a recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms or a new positive viral test after having tested negative.”
In an article she penned for STAT, Joan Susan Bregstein, MD (above), a pediatric emergency medicine physician and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, wrote, “Is Paxlovid worth it? The CDC advisory states in black, bold, and no uncertain terms that, despite the risk of rebound COVID, ‘Paxlovid continues to be recommended for early-stage treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 among persons at high risk for progression to severe disease.’ But the definition of ‘high risk’ in this situation has been a moving target since the first days of COVID-19.” Clinical laboratory leaders can attest to the accuracy of that statement. (Photo copyright: Columbia University.)
Do Anti-Viral Drugs Interact with Other Medications?
Paxlovid is the retail name for a combination of two anti-viral drugs: nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. The medication for COVID-19 was developed by American pharmaceutical company Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) and received Emergency Use Authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration in August of this year.
The drug is taken orally for five days by people who test positive for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus to head off disease progression as well as serious illness, according to the CDC advisory.
But a “sizeable proportion” of elderly people are on medications that could interact with Paxlovid, Reuters reported.
“Two oral antiviral drugs—nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and molnupiravir—have been approved for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 to prevent severe disease. Ritonavir, contained in NMV/r is known to have significant DDI with several drugs frequently used by the elderly. This communication puts the problem with DDI with oral antiviral COVID-19 treatment into perspective,” the study authors wrote.
Their analysis of prescription data from Denmark residents found “extensive use of drugs likely to interact with NMV/r” as follows:
Anticoagulants (blood thinners): used by 20% of people over age 65 and by 30% of people over 80.
Statins (cholesterol-lowering medications): taken by 15% to 18% of people over 65.
Analgesics (for pain), calcium channel blockers (used to decrease blood pressure in patients with hypertension), or digoxin (used to treat heart conditions): taken by 20% of those studied.
In their paper, the researchers offered guidance to physicians. “Before prescribing NMV/r, the patient’s full medical history, including herbals and over-the-counter and recreational drugs, must be known and co-treatment carefully managed by the treating physician or by a specialist to avoid detrimental effects.”
However, one infectious disease specialist told Scientific American it may just take the elderly who were taking Paxlovid more time to completely get over COVID-19.
“Being of an elderly age and then having other risk factors—like diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, or some sort of cancer—does put you at higher risk of rebound,” Aditya Shah, MBBS, Mayo Clinic Infectious Disease Physician and Researcher, told Scientific American.
That study’s researchers retrospectively reviewed 92 million electronic health records (EHR) from US patients. They found most people (11,270) had been treated with Paxlovid. However, 2,374 patients took molnupiravir, which also was granted EUA status by the FDA and is marketed as Lagevrio.
That COVID-19-rebound study found:
After nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) treatment: 3.53% had rebound infections, 2.3% with rebound symptoms, and .44% were hospitalized.
After molnupiravir (Lagevrio) treatment: 5.86% had rebound infections, 3.75% with rebound symptoms, and .84% were hospitalized.
“Patients who took molnupiravir were significantly older and had more comorbidities than those who took Paxlovid,” the researchers wrote. “Results further suggest that rebound was not unique to Paxlovid and may be associated with persistent viral infection in some patients treated with either of these two antivirals. There has been more attention to COVID-19 rebound following Paxlovid treatment than molnupiravir, which may be attributable to more people being treated with Paxlovid,” they concluded.
Clinical Laboratories Can Guide Doctors
In an article she penned for STAT, titled, “Paxlovid Rebound Happens, Though Why and to Whom Are Still a Mystery,” Joan Susan Bregstein, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine physician and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, wrote of COVID-19 rebound, “My emergency medicine physician colleagues are seeing tons of it. Although people tend to think of medical care as something that is certain, it is actually a real-time experiment. Paxlovid, like a lot of COVID-19 care, is a reminder of this.”
Similarly, Mayo Clinic’s Shah acknowledged difficulty in identifying a COVID-19 rebound case. “You need real documentation of three tests—a positive, a negative, a positive—and clear documentation of symptoms—all symptoms gone, symptoms come back,” Shah told Scientific American.
Thus, clinical laboratories play a vital role in diagnosing and treating COVID-19 rebound patients, because that is what clinical labs do: test, document, and report. And as the study of the Danish population pointed out, doctors need guidance as they prescribe oral antivirals to COVID-19 patients who are on other drugs and at possible risk of drug-drug interactions.
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.
Jurors are expected to hear closing arguments beginning on December 16 and then will decide Holmes’ fate in criminal fraud trial
It was seven days of testimony from former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, reported in detail by most major news outlets. The jury in her criminal fraud trial heard the once-high-flying Silicon Valley executive attempt to explain away charges of deception. She acknowledged that she made mistakes while leading the clinical laboratory blood-testing company but claimed that others were ultimately responsible for the company’s failures.
Rosendorff left Theranos in November 2014. He was followed by three more Theranos laboratory directors, all of whom have testified in the fraud case against Holmes.
Presumably, in her testimony, Holmes was laying the blame for key failures in the accuracy of the lab tests performed for patients, along with major deficiencies in how her medical lab company complied with CLIA regulations, on these former Theranos laboratory directors (as the clinical laboratory company’s CLIA lab directors of record during those years).
“Whether you have an intent to defraud is really a state of mind,” she said.
The illustration above depicts ex-Theranos CEO and founder Elizabeth Holmes concluding seven days of testimony in her criminal fraud trial in San Jose, California. Closing arguments are scheduled to begin December 16. Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists following the fraud trail may soon learn whether the four clinical laboratory directors who worked for Theranos may in some way be held accountable for some of the company’s activities. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/The Wall Street Journal.)
‘We Wanted to Help People’
Holmes’ testimony may have both helped and hurt her case. According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Holmes “hasn’t flinched during questioning by her lawyer or the government.
“The persona of the confident yet traumatized chief executive could create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors, legal observers following the trial say, and muddy the evidence prosecutors put forward over 11 weeks to prove she intended to defraud investors and patients about the reach of Theranos’ technology,” the WSJ wrote.
During testimony, Holmes maintained that her goal in founding Theranos was to increase access to healthcare. “We wanted to help people who were scared of needles,” she told jurors, the WSJ reported.
In building its case, prosecutors presented witness testimony and other evidence strongly suggesting Holmes lied to investors about Theranos’ laboratory testing capabilities and deployment, concealed its use of commercial blood testing machines, and hid ongoing issues with its Edison device.
One of the most damaging moments of Holmes’ own testimony may have been when she admitted to affixing the logos of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Schering-Plough to reports sent to Walgreens and potential investors.
Holmes told jurors that her intent was to give credit to others, not to deceive and her defense attorneys attempted to show that many of Holmes’ more questionable decisions were aimed at protecting Theranos trade secrets.
“We had a huge amount of invention that was happening in our laboratories,” Holmes testified, according to CNN’s trial coverage. “We had teams of scientists and engineers that were working really hard on coming up with new ideas for patents and trade secrets, and we needed to figure out how to protect them.”
Holmes Claims No Responsibility for Theranos’ Lab Operations and Product Development
On the witness stand, Holmes acknowledged she was the final decisionmaker at Theranos. However, she worked to distance herself from the company’s medical laboratory troubles. She pointed out that others within the company had control over laboratory operations and scientific decision-making.
The WSJ reported that defense lawyer Kevin Downey asked Holmes, “Who was responsible for operational management of the lab?”
Holmes replied, “Sunny Balwani.” She explained that her former No. 2 executive oversaw all the “business parts” of the lab. Meanwhile, the clinical/scientific decision-making, Holmes stated, was the job of the laboratory director and laboratory leadership.
When given the opportunity to cross-examine Holmes, prosecutors focused on Holmes’ response to the 2015 WSJ investigation into Theranos and her retaliatory actions against whistleblower Erika Cheung, a former lab employee who became a source for the WSJ’s expose and a prosecution witness.
According to WSJ live coverage, Holmes testified that Theranos hired a law firm and threatened Cheung with litigation after she left the company, but only did so to protect Theranos’ trade secrets. Holmes acknowledged that Cheung’s concerns about Theranos’ blood-testing technology ultimately were proven correct.
“I think I mishandled the entire process of the Wall Street Journal reporting,” Holmes said.
Closing Arguments
In her closing day of testimony, Holmes was asked if she ever intentionally misrepresented Theranos’ technology to patients and investors, the WSJ reported.
“Never,” Holmes responded.
Asked if investors lost money because of her attempting to mislead them, she answered, “Of course not.”
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who have taken a keen interest in the Holmes fraud trial will soon learn if the jury buys her arguments. Closing arguments are set for December 16, after which the jury must decide whether Holmes intended to defraud patients and investors or is guilty only of falling short in her goal of revolutionizing clinical laboratory medicine.
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.
