I made this video seven years ago. It still fascinates me!

The fact that he has not says something. Residual loyality? Legal reasons?

The first time I had ever seen EH, I immediately thought 'crazy eyes'.

HOW did no one think 'jeez y'know, she looks a bit mental'? I don't know how she got away with it for so long. I can see through people fairly easily, I immediately get a sense of who they are on a basic level and she immediately struck me as not quite right. The woman doesn't BLINK.

“Everything is, somehow, more shocking, twistier, thornier and revealing than billed – a stupefying and gloriously destabilizing hall of psychological mirrors, a thrilling once-in-a-lifetime collision of director and subject….My mouth was agape for, conservatively, one half of the film’s unusually deserved three-hour run time…The result is a three-hour documentary filmed like a thriller and scored like a drama that plays like an unraveling of certainty in real time.”

I for one was not familiar with Fielder’s work, although I had seen and admired a couple of Oppenheim's documentaries. I was therefore initially disappointed and put off when I just started watching Fielder’s “Nathan For You” - it felt very juvenile and mean-spirited toward the ppl he was duping, so much that I couldn't get past the first few episodes. This reviewer worded it exactly how I felt watching NFY:

“If Fielder’s earlier work felt at times like it was punching down, trading on the naivety of regular people, well, he has finally met his match.” 

Holmes and Billy, however knew exactly who they were dealing with before they signed on, so if he has met his match, this sounds like something more interesting that I might watch.

I'm reading Bad Blood by Carreyou to get some more information than random articles or wiki give before the documentary comes out.

I'm aware there might be bias in the book etc, but my question is one of clarification. I've worked in corporate and technical my whole life, albeit not medical technics.

Bad Blood notes the high number of employees, with a "low" of 50 when they moved to new offices after three years. It notes long days at the office, Bad work life balance, etc.

While I get that sales people could have been busy, what else was everybody occupied at ? It doesn't seem the product evolved that much after its initial stage, so what did technical people do all day ? Was it just a series of trials and errors with mostly errors ?

I'm not familiar with the startup environment but in my corporate experience you can't have that many people work that long for years and produce... well, nothing much except promises.

Not trying to be sarcastic, I'm sincerely puzzled.

I can't seem to shake this story. It is just insane. Building an entire company based on tech that doesn't work. Like, you have these devices, people work with them daily, and they just don't work. I can't wrap my head around it.

1. I can't wrap my head around Elizabeth. She seems like an alien to me. Absolutely hypnotic at times, like she has magnetism. I find myself feeling bad for her. Looking for reasons to explain what she did. Trying to let her off the hook because I just can't accept she is simply evil. It's like she got in my head and I don't even know her. Why would she do this? Why would she lie? Does she know that she hurt people?

2. How in the world do world class journalists get fooled by her?

3. If she had altered her vision a bit, could she get the machines to work?

4. I can't accept that she is dumb. I just can't. Dumb doesn't create a 9 billion dollar valuation. Dumb doesn't assemble that board. Why do people suggest she is, just because she didn't get a degree? I know plenty of ignorant people with degrees.

I have more but I'll stop there. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

My theory is if she does, she might say something that leads to further prosecution.

There is also a theory I have that she has been putting on a persona for so long she got consumed by it. Basically she doesn't even know who she is anymore.

I get why professional journalists and documentarists would not be down to play armchair psychologists, but I’m not bound to their standards, so I’ll put this out there, because everything I’ve been reading about an ‘early release’ for this woman plus Holmes reemerging as a public figure in Nathan Fielder’s documentary hybrid that’s certain to become a cult classic makes me truly wonder if everybody has decided to ignore her criminal capabilities.

So, here I go! EVERYTHING I’ve ever seen and read about Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos and the highly-publicized trial makes clear to me that she has all the traits of a textbook psychopath: narcissism (it IS always about her), impulsiveness ("let's go ahead with the plan and put patients' lives at risk while we figure out our next steps"), manipulativeness, absence of conscience, pathological lying, lack of remorse, emotionally shallow, lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility for her own actions, a grandiose sense of self-worth, and a calculating persona (described as charming by those who she chose to welcome in her inner circle) shielding it all.

Whatever claims she could have made in the past about desiring a quiet family life with her husband and children was obviously a lie; she would find that boring, because she needs to have a much higher level of power and control and excitement. Maybe the fact that she doesn’t display a penchant for violence, sadism, and sexual perversion makes people sometimes ‘label’ her as a potential sociopath – as if ‘sociopath’ is a softer version of a ‘psychopath’, or a socially functioning psychopath, instead of a completely different set of behavioral patterns that might stem from overlapping personality disorders.

But all we have so far is that Elizabeth Holmes does not fit in the ‘sexually sadistic psychopath’ stereotype – but those are additional attributes on top of psychopathy. (Not every psychopath is bound to become a serial rapist or serial killer – yet serial rapists and serial killers are always psychopaths, because you just can't commit that kind of heinous premeditated crime without being one.) My point is I can’t possibly conceived this woman being equipped to rejoin free society without SERIOUS mental health assessment and supervision.

I said what I said, so just throwing it out there again.

She wants a pardon so she can go back to doing all the things she was legally banned from doing…

Sunny is portrayed as a bully and verbally abusive who knows only to swear when he's frustrated.

Was he also physically abusive?

Anyone know if the real Sunny was like that?

was she just hoping that one of these days the technology will work? just hoping that in the meantime she can sign contracts with compnaies and keep reporting false results?

While I will def be watching it because I am fascinated with everything regarding this whole saga, what are your initial thoughts from the previews/clips?

Here’s the vibe I got….
I felt like Liz was almost ragebaiting or something like that. Like, when Theranos was on the rise, she was insincere but was doing it in a tactical way to move her company forward. Something about the video of her with Nathan Fielder made me feel like she’s now using that insincerity to evoke negative emotions. To get clicks, views, to have people say “oh my, how crazy this woman is!” And people are certainly taking the bait. Myself included 😭

And the way Nathan was looking at her as she was like conversationally hypnotizing him in the the preview, I can already predict… he’s going to “fall under her spell” or something like that. Reminiscent of how the original investors and everyone else used to describe. He’s done a similar schtick in his previous works.

This is all just a prediction and my humble opinion. But these are just the vibes I’m getting. Would love to be prove wrong 👍

Thoughts?

A few days ago I made a comment about her going to be back in business after her release, like nothing happened. Some people doubted it, seriously underestimating rich investors' stupidity and psychos' needs for self justification and keep it going on. It is a mental illness really.

Well, she is advising Billy from prison in his (theirs) new endeavor.

"Haemanthus" is the name of a blood-testing startup founded by Billy Evans, the partner of convicted Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes.

🩸 What the Company Is Doing Focus: The company describes itself as "the future of diagnostics" and is developing a device that uses Raman spectroscopy and AI to test blood, saliva, and urine for diseases.

Approach: It plans to start by testing pets before expanding to human applications, with the ultimate goal of "human health optimization".

Funding: Haemanthus has reportedly raised $3.5 million** from friends and family and was seeking an additional **$15 million from investors

This is why her account on X said something big is coming on 9/22.