This episode is brought to you by Verizon. The experts have spoken. Rising has been named America's most reliable network by route metrics, proving there's only one vast network best and most reliable, based on rankings from the roof. Metrics. U S route score report dated first, have twenty twenty one. Your results may vary support for this part, asked comes from Verizon Business, Verizon business. Unlimited plants, unlimited data, no overages and more built right for business with speed of HORIZON five g give rise in business. Unlimited plans from his lows: thirty dollars per line, visit, Verizon, dotcom, slash business, slash plants per month, The five lines on business unlimited start includes paper free billing. Without a pan select smartphone agreement, discounts, taxes fees in terms apply five g nationwide available in twenty seven hundred plus cities on most Verizon five G devices. Five g alter white band of elbow. Only imports of select cities from CAFE welcome to stay tuned. I'm prepared she felt strongly.

That cause that she was pursuing was a noble. One, therefore, All the cheating along the way to get there in her mind, I think, was perfectly justifiable, because the cause was so noble that John Kerry Room talking about Elizabeth HOMES, founder of the disgraced healthcare startup, Baroness John, Latest book is called that blood, it's all about homes and how she fool people for years, with a promise that she would revolutionise the healthcare and in bad blood Harry rule explains have got away with it for so long and how she was eventually exposed and is now charged with several times. I speak with John about uncovering a scam why so many competent people fell for thoroughness and incredible reporting drama he faced personally while covering homes. First, let's get your questions. First, question comes from Susan delinquents who,

in Twitter. I prepare our love your podcast. Is it legal for Amargosa or any one else to take president Trump without his permission and that's a great question in the first few I'll say as its pretty remarkable? Isn't it how many people were close to the president and claimed to have loyalty to the president? Nonetheless, secretly tape, the president we have Mcloughlin, we have Amargosa. I, as you might remember, very in the past, talked about in a potentially taking the president when he called me in. Instead, it chose not to return the current twenty hours later. I was asked to resign, but there's a reason for all There is a reason why Jim call me took contemporaneous notes in people. Dont believe that Donald Trump will tell the truth about conversations he has with people, and so it's maybe not cool and in some ways not kosher to tape the president to take your boss and to be secret about red tape that

if Staff John Kelly, but just remember that the reason for that is even people who believe the doll Trump may temporarily have their back. Don't trust that he'll be honest about conversations in the future, such as an important background point, and I am pretty confident I don't know, but I'm pretty confident will learn about other people tape the president over the course of time, because they wanted as an insurance policy as to their own honesty and truthfulness about conversations now the question as to whether the legal state, the president, you know, depends on where the taping happened like New York. I understand the District of Columbia. Is a one party consent jurisdiction, which means so long as one party neck, be the person doing the taping

consented to the taping, its lawful, whether goes against policy or whether into the breach of ethics, is potentially different matter, but its its lawful. Now, at the time of this recording, which is about lunch time on Wednesday, we ve only heard, I think, up a sampling of recordings that America has made and she's dripping them. One of the time in sort of arm in a reality fashioned way, which is apparently our country now. But the one that has received most attention in some ways is recording she made of her own termination conversation with chief of staff, John Kelly, in a situation room lots of people, I think, are correctly extremely concerned about that, because it's a total breach of security. You not supposed to have recording devices in certain places and among the places you're not supposed to have recording devices is in any place called give which is simply an acronym for sensitive compartment. Information facility where classified information can be discussed without worry that you be.

He dropped on by nefarious people, foreign powers, etc, and me with the most sensitive skiff in the country is the situation room in the White House. But one thing I think people need to understand, unlike going to an airport, or going Yankee Stadium even when you go through a metal detector, to go into a particular location. We had escaped in my office in the Austrian Fish in New York, I've been to skips in the Department of Justice in the National Street division and one time I was actually in situation room in the White House. You, those things, operate on an honor system, because the people who have legitimate access to rooms like that are already vetted already have. Security clearances already are entrusted with incredibly sensitive important decision making responsibilities like assistant use attorneys in my office.

FBI, directors or people who are the national security staff of the president. So the understanding is they follow the instructions that you're supposed to follow before you enter risk. If, like the situation, there is generally speaking in a box outside where people take off their Iphone, their blackberry, their Ipad, put in a box lock it up and then go into the situation. I was never. You knows, searched or padded down when I went into skips at the Department of Justice or anywhere else, You just trust the people to do the right thing, and so here you know, I don't know if they're going to adopt a more stringent policy, because it seems lots and lots of people were for the president. Don't follow the rules, so people right to be upset now they clear this conversation in the situation. Room was about a personnel issue and it was not about you. No troop movements or threats. The United States

or something classified. But if you have a culture and a White House where someone like Amargosa feel comfortable taking a cell phone or recording device into the situation room, it makes you worry about how many other people have taken a device into the situation, when the discussion was not simply about someone getting fired, but something far more sensitive, far more perilous to the country, and you really hope that's not happening and used by the way. One more question I have: how do we know, and can we be certain that Donald Trump himself, whose fairly attached to his mobile device? How do we know that he has not taken his own cellphone into the situation room into other sensitive places when, incredibly, that confidential topsecret classified information is

disgusting someone's asking Kim. Mr President, could you hand me your phone to put in the box? I would have this conversation. I haven't heard anybody ask that question, but I I'm starting to wonder about that myself and what kind of security breach that is. Are we have another, almost question? God help us from twitter user fish. I view the preview rights quote if Trump had staffers appointees sign personal. India's is that a conflict with the constitution with these Andy's holed up in court if staffer or appointee recall to testify in a matter involving the presidency fish. I do thank you and when you say Andy ay your eyes, you referring to something that's known as a non disclosure agreement, things at a pretty common in the private world. People who go refer. You know a tech companies In other places where there is a concern about intellectual property in trade practices and trade secrets are very often required

I non disclosure agreements so that cancer to come in as a spy from other company. I still information and then make a profit on it or give it to competitors. That's one example in which India's Woodbury common. We know from a lot of reporting and books that have been written, that Donald Trump, as was his right. Let me know when this private businesses had a lot of people sign non disclosure agreements which were not simply non disclosure agreements, but also sort non disparagement agreement, so they couldn't say anything bad about. Donald Trump or about the employees are, but the company can you imagine why that is because he does companies in a lot of seemingly shady things, as were coming to learn from an to be required for people who come to work for the White House in particular or government generally. But typically, the White House is an extraordinary thing and, as news has

at the White House has made basically everybody at some point sign and Andy. I think we should be concerned about that. First of all, the people in the White House. They are accountable to the President, yes, and they serve at the will to president yes, but they are public servants who are ultimately, answerable to the people and the communications engage in, and the information, they have is in some ways the property of the public. And I know no lawyer, myself included, who thinks that you can actually enforce a non disclosure agreement on that If somebody who's a public servant working in the White House outside of classified information out standard practice for people who have access to classified information, to sign something to make clear that they have an obligation to keep that information secret going forward and that's what leads to sometimes criminal investigations and other things. In abundance of caution. People are often asked to make sure that they understand they sign on a line which is dotted that are classified information, but beyond that of others,

powerful argument in every expert that I've seen opine on it in the recent week has agreed that is potentially yes in conflict with the constitution, especially the first amended protection of people not to safe. After their employment. So when you say, with these Nda's hold up in court of the staffer of pointy were called to testify in a matter involving the presidency. I don't think the Indians would hold up if somebody went on the tv show and talk generally about the Ritz. Is and decide to say: while there is a lot that was chaotic in the White House or the president from had a terrible temperament, so long as you're, not revealing secret information?

could harm the national security of the country. I have yet to see an expert say otherwise and in fact, if you believe the reporting, the White House Council himself Don Mcgann indicated to the president and to others that he asked to sign such documents that they were not enforceable and once what has he got people to be comfortable signing such a document was the sort of side conversation that he apparently had with people saying the worry about it, it's unaffordable and basically, we're asking people to sign it cuz. It makes the boss happy that boss being Donald Trump, so you know overall, I don't think this is going to stand in the way of the public getting information it supposed to get. They don't think any First, amendment right, you're gonna, be abridged because these things are unenforceable, but it tells you another sad example of people deciding to do things that are questionable that don't make any legal sense

and in some ways are contrary to law, because President Trump out of a concern because of his paranoia and secrecy in non traditional ways of doing things, many of which I think are bad needs to be placated. Somebody suggested today thought about it, deeply enough to have an opinion that, to the extent on began, the White House Councillors the bar was asking people to sign. A document that he thought was legally enforceable is unethical violation on his part. Has you violated some oath as a member of the bar. I know the answer that question, but I think it's a question to ask next question. Also a tweet comes from TAT had ever who asks. I just read that man affords defence Ernie called no witnesses to testify in his clients. Behalf is this common and what legal thinking behind calling no witnesses? Thanks, love your podcast, so caveat right off the bat we are taking this about noon on way day and as we are taking this, the government in them,

fourteen are doing their estimations in federal court in Eastern District of Virginia. I think they're gonna finish today and in the jury gets the case. After the judge gives legal instructions we could have a verdict anytime. I think the case when well for the government needs a very strong, I don't get. The defence damage were as much as they hope to were needed to in order to prevail in this case, and there are lots of documents that show, I think Manifold guilty of someone crimes at don't even need corroboration from the gates. So, if you're listening to this and as a verdict- and I was wrong- forgive me- but Your question is a common one and not everyone has the same view. Sawdust give you my personal view in my experience and I've seen some people on tv say something different and say was shocking or incredibly surprising that men afford didn't put on a defence out anything so at all. In fact, I I haven't an italian, but in many many cases that I tried myself

that I preside over there I witnessed the event doesn't put on a case, because member the burden of proof is a high one for the government and its not proof. Preponderance of the evidence in a criminal case. It's not more likely than not its proof B. And a reasonable doubt, which is really really high, and I think a lot of smart defence lawyers would prefer to make their arguments. Information and say. Look these dost on connect, and this witness was lying. You it's a little bit of a back of the hand and bear in mind that sometimes in a very strong case by the government, there is a strategy for the defence to do less, because once you put on a defence, then you're subjecting that defence to attack as well. So in my first very first trial that ever had. I think the defence lawyer- and we had a week case in a gun, possession matter that the defence lawyer thought you he's got to explain to the jury. How

Was it his client, the defendant didn't possess the gun and someone else possess again. So the theory in my case was at the defendant we had charged was in possession of a firearm which was unlawful because he had been a phelan, wouldn't have great evidence. And the witness. Your clearly had problems that we put on the stand, and I think the defence should have done what metaphor towards did in this. Which was simply to argue that we had not met our burden of proof that we didn't have enough happens, and instead the defence lawyer, whose very excellent lawyer and is now a sitting, judge, decided he needed to explain to the jury that his client was not the possessor of the gun, but some else. We haven't called to testify possess. The gun without enabled me to do was not only

either. We had sufficient evidence. It also allowed me to blast a hole in the defence theory because adventure he was actually ridiculous. So sometimes it's the case. That less is more, even though the defence has no burden of proof and the burden doesn't shift, even though the defence decides to beak in its own defence by putting on witnesses and documents, and everything else jurors, are human beings and they're going to expect that once the defence decides to put on a case rather than claim that the government and meet its proof of the defence decides to put on a case they're going to expect that all their nagging questions about guilt and unresolved discrepancies and gaps are going to be addressed. Can effectively rebutted so in some ways either need to bring it home when you put on your defence or not- and that's not true in all cases, but my general sense and then

The question about what are not manifest testifies. I think, in the vast majority of cases that that I remember being involved within federal court to defend it doesn't testify in a manner forts case. I think it made sense for him not to testify because he had a lot to answer for, and the ability to cross examined on things it didn't come out in the main government case is significant in From what we know about men, a forty may not have made a very good witness. It may not amid a sympathetic witness the end the day it doesn't always matter in a case it. I've talked about here on on the show recently my office, when I was, he was attorney charged and can.

Did a trial, Dean scholars who was the Senate Majority Leader Republican in your estate in the first trial, where he was convicted fairly quickly. The defendant did not testify Dean scales gave no. Testimony did not talk about in a what he did and I was not unlawful in the retrial that happened just recently. He changed his mind changed strategy any to testify that convicted anyway. So sometimes what matters is the underlying strength and clarity of the government's case and whether or not the defence puts on a case or not and ultimately make the difference. Chad vaguely rights hey had prepared with the news of the struck firing coming out today. What are your thoughts on the FBI going further than the idea report recommendation of a sixty day, suspension demotion by firing and thanks love, the show so Chad you're talking about special agent Peter struck of the FBI, who very famously has been attacked by the

The United States, who was one of the people in charge of the hurricane email, investigation and other investigations, Who was sending you Anti Trump text messages. To someone who's having a relationship with also the FBI Lisa page and is a lot of controversy about what age instructed, how he comported himself and bear in mind that the record reflects that as soon as Hayden's trucks, conduct and tax came to be known to Bob mother. He was removed from the rush investigation in Russia case so his conduct with serious. It was unprofessional I don't know anybody doesn't think it was undeserving of a rebuke. I dont have a particularly strong view of what the right result should have been in the absence of all. This

character assassination by the President of the United States and politicians on tv and talking heads, it could be that maybe what he did know private messages expressing up the personal political standpoint various things, was not deserving of much of a rebuke at all. It could be that, given how important the FBI's reputation is that its reasonable for someone who has brought such disrepute to the FBI, to be terminated. You know, I don't know all the facts, but I think what he did was serious and needed. You know some kind of discipline, but but I think it's awful and what I think is terrible. What I think makes it impossible to know if this was done ethically and correctly and fairly. Is that the president himself, by name with a king and basically asking for this result. In the same way, he did it against endemic cape, whose a deputy, through the FBI on the eve of his being able to fully vest and his pension and that's gross, and that's disgusting,

the problem of people like the present wing in onto rather than letting the professional ethics folks and disciplinary folks at the various agencies? Do their work quietly and without interference? Is that it's impossible to know if it was a political decision or not? He throws all of that into question and then has to stop. My guess this week is John Kerry Rule as a journalist, John is one to Pulsar prizes and his reporting help led to the downfall of fairness, the blood testing company led by Elisabeth homes. We talk about his book on homes, bad blood, and why so? Many people, including General James Madison, were pulled into her scamp. That's coming up stated Word press powers more than thirty percent of all websites from your favorite local shops to the world's biggest companies joint global high trap.

Network of organizations and entrepreneurs. When you build your website and your business, your way on word, press dot, com press? Allows you to carve out your own corner of the web with a new domain name or one that you already own, create a site that fits you using templates and customizable themes, no design experience necessary. You can import and export content on your word press I easily. It's your site and your content use a range of e commerce options to promote and sell from an easy to use payment button to a full, fledged online store press makes it easy to reach a global market, and the customers find you with built in Essie. Oh, your site is search, really and ready for the world. Plus, you can get your site up and running for just for

dollars a month, the time to grow. Your business is now build your website today and get fifteen percent off. Any new plan features that word press dot, com, slash preach, that's word: press dot, com Slash preach for fifteen percent off your brand new website were pressed dotcom, slash, preach, hiring is challenging. But there is one place that you can go: we're hiring a simple, fast and smart, a place where Growing businesses connect to qualified candidates that place is appropriate or dot com, slash preach, zip recruiters, your job to over one hundred of the webs leading job words, but they don't stop there with their powerful matching technology. Zip recruiters

and thousands of resonates to find people with the right experience and invite them to apply to your job, zip recruiter is so effective that eighty percent of employers, who post and zip recruiter, get equality candidates with sight within the first day with results like that it's no wonder the Zapruder is the highest rated hiring site in America and right now, my listeners contrive zip recruiter for free at this exclusive web. Address, zip, recruiter, dot com, slash preach that zip, recruiter, dot com, slash, P, r e t, zip recruiter, dot com, slash preach, zip recruiter, the smartest way to hire John Kerry Route. Thank you so much for being on the show. Thanks for having so I will. I gotta say I just finished reading your

in the nick of time. For this interview, bad blood, it is a fantastic read. It goes by really fast, so I can gradually on the success of the book and largely. I want to talk about this massive fraud that was unfolding in a basically in the public, but you're the one who will go to the heart of it, based on new, really sharp investigative reporting work, but you did it for people who may not be familiar. Could you just sort of begin by telling us you who is Elizabeth HOMES in what is, or was fairness right, and actually it wasn't in the public eye until recent years because the thing about fairness is is it was founded quite a while ago, back in two thousand three and Elizabeth HOMES was a Stanford sophomore who dropped out and decided she was gonna

through this vision of building a start up around a diagnostic device, a portable blood testing device that would do the full range of blood tests off just drop or two of blood pricked, the finger and for the first ten or so years, really of fairness existence. Operating under the radar, and she even referred to that the mode they were in as stealth mode. She really arose to feign for the first time in late, two thousand thirteen early, two thousand fourteen when she launched her technology ye her fingers stick blood tests. In Walgreens stores, in Palo Alto and in the Phoenix area in Arizona and at that point started drawing a quite a bit of media coverage, and one of those stories and in MID two thousand fourteen by Roger Parle off a fortune, it was revealed that the company had achieved a ten billion. Nine or ten billion dollar valuation that she had kept half the equity. So

Suddenly there was a self made multibillion right. She was worth almost five billion dollars and she was sort of that. The first female text under in Silicon Valley, who'd risen that high become that wealthy and was joining the pantheon of these right. You know these these men, the Zuckerberg end Larry Pages in Serbia, brands and before them, you know jobs and Ellison etc. What was the promise in the special thing about this technology for drawing blood? Why was it such a big deal right? I mean to summit may not seem like such a big deal to be able to run a bunch of blood tests off a tiny sample blood. But actually, if you don't know anything about a blood testing, that is something that thousands researchers and in industry and academia have been trying to do for decades. If it were possible, it would have clear uses such as for cancer patients, who gets stuck a lot with needles,

or incense to be able to just cricket a tiny bit of blood in and run a battery of tests for four newborn child is great and elderly patients applications in the field. You know what happened, feel too. In the end, the battlefield, So, for reasons that we can into. No one had crack this nut and she claimed to have done so and Anne she claimed. You know that did she could run as many as seven detests. Seventy different blood tests simultaneously off one drop of blood and that her She could run the full gamut of blood tests and, if you ask lab experts, what the full gamut of blood tests means its anywhere from several hundred to several thousand, what tests so tussle, but more about Elizabeth homes herself? What what drove her to pursue particular vision right. So she grew up, but what I would call not for middle class family with an actually an interesting back

around on her father's side, she she was descended from the Fleischmann EAST Dynasty by the turn of the twentyth century, the Fleischmann and homes fan. These were similar. The richest people in America unfortunately her. Fathers, grandfather and father had lived large, but flawed in and sort of decadent lives in school How much of that wealth her father very much her know about this great entrepreneurial dynasty that she was from, and I think, communicated to her the expectation that that she would follow in their footsteps. He himself Chris HOMES, her father, had a civil servant. I think he and and his wife raised Elizabeth with the pressure to achieve and to sort of reclaim their

ancestors success in wealth, but also with this notion that she should do good and that she should live a purposeful life and my corrected, as you were, the book that over time She began to present herself even to her own employees. Having the phrase uses, it is a world historical figure. She didn't Please say that she didn't say explicitly, but her employees began some of them at least became convinced that she saw herself as a world historical figure, a sort what does that mean like some someone who really puts a dent in the universe and is remembered as a significant, a person of their errand history books? She went to be remembered for someone who who really had invented something and had no change science. Unfortunately, it was all channeled through the Prism of Silicon Valley, culture and silk on values. Culture, if you go back,

Fifty years has always included a lot of fake it until you make it and her idle with Steve jobs. She absolutely idolized jobs and apple and she really modeled herself after him. To the point of you know. Wearing the same attire she's she took to wearing black turtle next and she also embraced. You know this ethos of like it's. Ok to you, no sort of get it right or you know it all right. And so within you know, within eighteen months to years of starting fairness and two thousand three, she was already starting trying to start to commercialize a blood testing system that absolutely did not work. But fooled a lot of people along the way right, because, starting in those early days, two thousand and five, two thousand and six. She started doing a false demos. Faked demonstrations of the product whereby investors would come around to their nose is EAST Palo Alto office. At the time they were doing. Microfluidics.

Attempting to do micro, fluid x and solely the investors would see on the screen the blood running through these little channels in the cartridge that would that would be inserted into this you're part of the device called the reader and then- would go to another room and they would be shown the result from the blood tests and actually result was a pre recorded results from one of the times that the machine had worked. So it was a half faked demonstration of so much of this was utter fraud. It is clearly to us when, when we look back on it, but I think and Elizabeth HOMES is mind, this is the way an entrepreneur operated in Silicon Valley, You tried to work on something you got it to sort of work, not really, but you have to raising money, pretending that you had gotten network and eventually you hoped that the reality of the technologies. Development would catch up with the promises made to investors in the land.

Couple of months those with homes have been charged criminally by the US attorney's office for the northern District of New York, in that cases pending inches presumed innocent, but northern. What district of arms? I can't help myself proteins that northern of California she's, been charged criminally with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, along with her former boyfriend and somebody well to run the firm. But this is sort of debt on reading the book and thinking about some the characters that I encountered during my work as a prosecutor. The way you just but she sort of different from burning made off some similarities in presenting herself in a particular way and in social circles as well, but may I never thought it ultimately. I wanna make this right now he was ripping people off taking their money, pretending that it did that investments are being made

with their money overtime and generating these false brokered statements? She, on the other hand, to engage in attacks on of fraud. You think, at least at the beginning was hoping to something real. Ultimately, I think in her mind, she continued to think that eventually they were gonna, get there with the technology and the corners they cut along the way and all the lies. She told wooden manner in the end, because when they got their there nose would be recognised. Tighten of Silicon Valley would have disrupted medicine and she would be as well known as a Zuckerberg and others and fetid really all the cheating that had gotten her. There wouldn't happen and in it look at one of her early backers. Larry Ellison. You know he was absolutely faint in the early days of work or for totally over promising about what the Oracle database software could do and for shipping early versions of that software. That was crawling with

bugs, and so in her mind, she she was going to follow that that play book, and so I actually recently come to learn this expression that I think applies well to her and that expression is noble. Cause corruption, sheath felt only that the cause that she was pursuing was a noble one. Therefore,. All the cheating along the way to get there in her mind, I think, was perfectly justifiable because the cause was so noble, Who knows the ends justify the mid yes, but along the way in order to get more respectability and more investment. She collected a who's who of famous people, mostly men, who believed in her in her vision. One take us a list of some of those people who either because members of the board were made huge investments or who otherwise about for this unproven technology right, and so I just want to start by making a distinction between

early investors. In the later investors. You could say all the investors who came in during those first three rounds were early investors who knew You know what the lay of the land was. Their nose was brand new company, like all start ups, the odds that it would succeed where low on the other hand, most of the money that their nose raised in that Elizabeth homes raised came in the late around after the fall of two thousand thirteen after thoroughness went, live with finger? Stick tests? Seven hundred million dollars of the billion dollars was raised at that point and the reason that was outright fraud. Is she used the fact that she had commercialized the technology that she had gone lie with it? stores and in California in Arizona to say to these new perspective investors. Obviously our technology is real. We ve gone live with, patients are using it. How could it not

real, and I think that, on top of that we have people like former Secretary of state, your child's right We have media Baron Rupert Murdoch right. We have the person who had become the future Defence Secretary general matters and their associated integrity and always agree with you know their through views opinion your political stripe that an impressive group as you reciting your book missing from the board, was anyone who actually was expert on blood? That's right, and you know it in hindsight. That was an enormous red flag. In any case, that board did serve its purpose, because one investor in particular, was a hedge fund. Best answer Cisco that put in almost two hundred million in early two thousand fourteen and one of the one of the factors that swayed them into investing was that Sterling Board, and then, of course, you know, people such as the former from you mentioned, and Betsy Divorce, or current education secretary, the

as to the Walmart fortune. The wantons put an hundred fifty million explain something things fastening in the story, how she got the trust of so many folks. Well, is this: what is the nature of the force of her personnel in her demeanour right will. I would say that the pattern that emerged early on was that she would win the backing of someone who was older and who had prestigious accomplishments and therefore a good reputation and the first person she did. That with was her Stanford Engineering School, Professor Channing Robertson, who was a star of the the Stanford faculty, and he gave credibility when she went and met with these, he's early on and she then pivoted so to speak to George Shots, the former secretary of State, who, whose houses right off

and campus, and when he heard from Elizabeth, you know about her product and what she claimed it could do. He was really in trade, and in short order, joined her board and then introduced her to all his buddies at the Hoover institution. The conservative think tank on the Stanford Campus and that how she got to know Kissinger and and none and end all these other guys with sterling recipes and one afternoon there, they joined the board in exchange for grants of stock, but she had to have a certain kind of personality. Glad these these very smart people who had died with issues of war and peace in life and death. How does it happen, or first, all she's? Very, very smart is very smart woman she's got charisma and she's an incredibly talented pitch woman. She truly did believe in this vision of this device and in accomplishing

this vision, and so you know she one people over with her enthusiasm with her intelligence with her charm. I think it's. You know no coincidence that, starting with Channing Robertson and going all the way through to Rupert Murdoch and David boys that they were older men- and if you take your children in particular he's. Ninety seven now when he first met her, I think he was ninety one. Ninety two he's man of great accomplishments, I'll take many twenty something you're old, attractive. Blondes were hanging out with him. I'm not suggesting anything inappropriate sexually, but I think it can't be denied. Dead dead. You know these older white men, one after another, fell under this. This young attractive charismatic woman's spell and then at some point she becomes element more famous in part because of a peace. It's written in the paper that you were for the most region,

have that come about right. So by then. She had become friends with George shots. He had joined her board. He had become her biggest champion and in two thousand twelve came and visited whilst journals at Editorial board. But at the end of that meeting he mentioned by the way? I know this, this amazing young woman who come up with this incredible medical invention, she's, very reclusive and she's, been and stuff mode up until now, but getting the feeling that she's gonna be ready to sort of presented to the world soon. Would you guys be interested and so Paul ago, the long time editorial page editor at the journals sure I'll, send a writer when she's ready a year later, George Schulz and unfairness came back to the Wall stronger page and said Elizabeth homes ready, and why was it was a bit homes ready because she was on the cusp of launching her finger, stick tests in wandering stores, and so she wanted to make a splash

media to coincide with that launch, and so an editorial page writer named radio, flew out to power also and interviewed her and then run a very friendly sort of profile of her and the editorial pages that essentially took everything. She told him about the capabilities of technology and face value, so now we fast forward from that interview, which was August of two thousand thirteen published in September, two thousand thirteen to early two thousand fifteen, by then Elizabeth HOMES has become a household names in Silicon Valley. Friends of mine would would talk about her women in particular. Could she was summoned to look up to self made billinger in a part of the attraction of it was? It was not just sort of some software that can make someone rich, but it was gonna, have a positive impact on people's lives. Medically part of that is that journalists who covered her and who wrote about her didn't really

from a medical reporting backroom She had presented herself. As you know, the heir apparent to Steve jobs in the Silicon Valley, tradition, and I guess those reports- who covered earlier on accepted that portrayal of herself as attack figure as opposed to a medical figure, although United medical reporter either well, I spent a lot of time or that the previous ten years reporting on medicine and doing a lot of investigative reporting on healthcare in medicine the previous year as part of a series of few colleagues and I have done on Medicare fraud and in the course of reporting, where those stories I had come across a hepatologist in Missouri. Who wrote an obscure blog that he called the pathology blog, which he spelled, B, L w G. And how would you spell it? I'm an avenue rear that blogs. Well, it was next your blog, but it did

come across my radar and I reach out to him, because I needed someone to explain to me certain complexities about laboratory billing for that Medicare Fraud Series and he above aged, and then you know we weren't in contacts for another six or eight months and suddenly in early two thousand fifteen. He comes to me and he says: have you read this some New Yorker magazine Profile of a woman named Elizabeth HOMES and her start up fairness and as it turned out, I had I found that story interesting, but there have also been some things in it. That's me, as on the main one being the notion that college dropout Kin just drop out with very little if any training in medicine and then go the pioneer new medical science victory pause area, so you know you are a very smart guy. You know scientist by training, not at all, but you have a suspicious mind. Why is it that

because I think it's important impressive. I wonder why we now have more people like that. I don't you SAM is suspicious. I am sir, I'm askin me that what it is your euro sceptic, meanwhile these other people who did have great fortune and accomplishments life and serve presidency. A United States of America, committee didn't have the same suspicion that you have a first, all these people who jumped on her bandwidth wagon there. There are very few if any, you had any background whatsoever in medicine and much less laboratory sites, so I at least had that advantage, which is that I spent much of the previous ten years report. On this stuff. Do you tribute your initial suspicion to having that background or to just sort of common sense scepticism. I think it was a combination of both But it was certainly informed by my medical reporting, expertise in one of the things they letting those guys off the hook. Ok, yeah I mean what one things in the new Yorker piece which which than you.

The writer pointed out, and there were, by the way, a few skeptical paragraphs in that New Yorker Profile, fairness had never really published any studies and peer review literature and I couldn't think of any a great advance in medicine that act had not envy of publishing you're discovery in peer reviewed scientific papers, so that was one red flag so when he told me of his own scepticism, and not least on to blogger he knew a thing or two about blood testing. Certainly new. More about it than I did, he came to me with other information, which was that he, after the new Yorker story, he had written a short skeptical blog item on his blog and this log item had been seen by a guy named Richard Fuse and Richard Fuse is afore

childhood neighbour of Elizabeth HOMES, who had gotten into a patent litigation battle with her, and she had ultimately been steamrollered by Elisabeth and Fairness, who had hired David boys, the famous lawyer to represent them. And boys had steamroller fuse and in the course of that three year, litigation fuse had become convinced that their nose was and by the way, fuses trained medical doctor with a number of patents to his name, and so you talk to also so. I learned that the pathology blogger had been approached by fuse and that fuse was alleging.

This thing, meaning thoroughness was a scam. In addition, I also heard that fuse had recently himself made contact with an employee of Theranos would just left their nose and it was a key employee. It was the laboratory direct, so I was hearing third hand through the pathology blogger that there was this guy named Richard Fuse, who himself felt there with a scam and who not only had that hunch but had talked to a primary source whose confirming that hunch to him, and so I thought this story could have eggs. If I can pull on the string and make contact with the primary source, and if I can confirm that the primary sources, alleging wrongdoing and as alleging that this thing is the House of cards, then you know this could be a big story like an investigative spidey sense? So at this moment you been reporting for life Are you up with one thousand one hundred and twelve Pulitzer's? How many I've been part of teams at the journal that have one slash two pallets here, so Bluebird modest, two hundred and twenty two more

at that moment, how are you feeling personally when you're this information. Is it whether things where you know it's happened twenty times before. She doesn't pan out. Or do you have some sense that this is really something. I got to say that I get a lot of tips and I think a lot of reporters get tips and most of them don't pan out. I would say nine out of ten, if not nineteen out of twenty, don't panic Usually you can tell pretty early on in this case, I have to say that my ears immediately pricked up. Because I was immediately aware of the implications of potentially a fraud at this company one. You know. Silicon Valley is a big story, and this was one most value valuable, private unicorns in Silicon Valley value. Nine or ten billion dollars it had this. You know female founder, which was a rarity who who achieved a star status and, in short period,

and then you had the public health dimension of this. If what I was hearing second hand was true, and if this company Not only did really have the technology that had claimed it had, but was also putting unreliable test results. Then it meant that patients and potentially thousands if not hundreds of thousands of patients were being put in harm's way, because at that point the thoroughness services had been rolled out in two stores in law. In California and about forty one others in Arizona solely. You talked a lot of people in. Among the other things you did, which I thought was fascinating. Is you subjected yourself to? Let us read describe? Why did that and how that went off I wanted to see if they were gonna pick me do the finger stick tests or do the traditional needle draw, because I heard from the former laboratory director who, by the way, goes by a pseudonym in the book Alan Beam, I'd heard from

Alan that actually a large proportion of the tests we're being done on on regular sized samples drawn venuses from the arm and was a problem with that that just went against the entire glory envision What right there and I was putting forward she had claimed in all these these interviews and she claimed it even on the website of fairness that they were doing finger stick and that supposedly I was hoping to write. It was an old point. So if they're doing Venus draws for many, if not the majority of the tests that Socrates one huge hole in this, there are no Psmith. I wanted to see that and the other thing I wanted to do as I wanted to compare my blood test results from thoroughness to one's from a traditional laboratory in Self Minutes After I accepted the Walgreens in Arizona where I got my blood tested by fairness, I drove to a lab corp location, and I wanted them to be close together so that you know, Fairness wouldn't be able to say well you waiter,

law long didn't have a big MAC and between right and, of course, I'd fasted and later a week or two later, I got my test results from fairness. I by then return to New York and I got the ones from LAMP Corp as well. And there were some discrepancies, one of them was that fairness labelled my cholesterol measurements as optimal because I'm gonna go get hasn't turnover after this an end laugh corvette actually said. You know they weren't optimal, that there were high the doktor, We had given me my test order who became a source from us, because she had come across questionable results for her patients from their nose she had had herself tested to and her thoroughness results showed that she has Addison Disease, which is a very serious condition that can result in death if it's not treated her lap port result showed that shit. You know that values perfectly

formal, and so she had no doubt in her mind. Having seen the other questionable results from scores of patients that she had seen. She had no doubt that the laugh court result was the correct one the children had eyes and so here's the question I haven't. Maybe people listening have the same question that seem to be a very easy common sense: smart conformable comparison test, threat, wizened the whole thing That point. Is it easy for everyone, then, to just confirm what what you tested and concluded and put these folks out, This is something we have when we started confronting thoroughness with this information, and I I want to say I had at least a half dozen patients test results. And I had a handful of doctors participating on the record in saying that didn't trust the thoroughness results and they felt the ones from the other lads were the correct ones. They told us well, this is just a small sample,

and by the way, there's a lot of very ability traditionally between lamp test results and so basically to help- use for everything long awaited there. A hundred stories like this. We didn't, except that excuse that said, we were mindful that we couldn't empirically prove that their nose results were consistently inaccurate because It was therefore right. We only had ass a small sample, but did feel we had enough to raise questions about the accuracy and reliability of test, especially, I also had these sources who had worked at thoroughness, among them the x

I've director, who were telling me that the thoroughness machine could only do a handful of finger, stick tests and that for all the others, or that at least for eighty other test, they had hacked and basically modified Regular Siemens machines to adapt them to small finger. Stick samples in that one of the things that they have done to adapt them was to dilute the finger, stick samples to create more volume so that the probe that went down in the cup inside the Siemens machine can reach the blood if it was a tiny sample. So what did to get around that is they increase the volume by diluting the blood. The thing about the seams machine is, it already has a dilution step as part of its protocol, and so that introduced more room for error, and it also reduce the concentration of the Anna that the scenes machine was trying to measure it reduce them to allow. All that was so low that it was beneath the analytical measurement range that the FDA had approved for the machine. Fairness was now

company in the later years. What happened to the people? If anything, who raise questions and raise doubts and were concerned about the ethics of what they were, doing, right. So there was a pattern starting early on of Elizabeth firing. People lots and lots of people got fired, hundreds of people got fired specially after the fall two thousand nine, when her boyfriend Sonny boy won't, he joined. He became the number two executive, the president and chief operating officer, and he was very high. In demeaning with employees, and he took the firing people all the time the point that it gave rise to a new expression at their nose shortly after he came on board, which was to disappear, someone if, if a colleague suddenly no longer there in the morning, then it meant that sunny had disappeared them before they escorted out of the building. They were made very much aware of the fact that if they talked about anything

had seen while employed at their nose. Fairness would come out lemon sue them violating their non disclosure agreements so you're putting together this article, never very nice an open and transparent with you, I presume, were I to you and helped you quite the opposite, at first when I was rapporteur And right and how hard they fought back against your reporting? Yes, so I started looking into fairness in early February today: Fifteen, and by MID to Lady April, I started allocating with the company in warning and asking for an interview with Elizabeth HOMES and sunny bologna. Did you ever get one no end? They hired a pin outside PR guy who, at first for the first month or two just put me, and then it became apparent to them by June of two thousand fifteen that I wasn't going away and that they had to deal with me and so at that point that took the form of David boy employees are those prominent powerful. I remember now, arguably one of the best known

lawyers and was feared litigators in Amerika, for though he does not have a punk asked Standing for the record, it does not have a package at all and he came with his henchman to the Journal offices in late June, two thousand fifteen. First of all, they told us that I had procured trade secrets from there. That was that I had a legally procured them in that I needed to either destroy or return them immediately. At the same time, they said that my sources were unreliable. Were leading the astray and they would not answer my questions about how many tests were done on their own technology, verses, third party, commercial, analyzes- that was a trade secret and basically went around in circles for five hours in this conference room. Did they threaten you date? They had these two taper quarters at each end of the conference table is very clear that they were approaching that meeting as a depth.

Mission and in a future legal does one you should be aware. I am also taking this currency. I more ok, no? And then, in the ensuing days and weeks, we got very sternly. You know dead. Letters from from boys telling us in no uncertain terms that if we continue with the story, the would get sued for libel, pretty I started finding out that they figured out who saw my confidential sources were in were pudding. Crews to them. You I got a frantic call from one of them. This young woman named Erika Chung. She had been confronted in the parking lot of her new employer in. They'll California, by a guy who had presented her with an end, up in the envelope contained letter from David boys telling heard that she needed with him by certain day in certain time, because he Inferno suspected, she was a leading trade secrets and they were in a Sou her.

The envelope had her name and underneath it had the address of the house in EAST Palo Alto, where she had been staying for less than two weeks. So you think she was understood. There is no other way. Her mother didn't even know she. She was staying with US colleague at this place in his power, though, the only person on earth who knew that was the colleagues whose house it was deeply at any point you are under surveillance. I would say this problem. I wouldn't be surprised at all. If I find out I was I am certain that Erika was. I am certain that Tyler was Tyler It was another one of my confidential sources as it turned out his George Schulz. His grandson and George Schulz was bored of us there are no. So it was at this strange situation where one of my confidential sources was the grandson of Famous Board member Tyler when dark on me before we publish the first story had no idea what was happening. I suspected they were putting the screws to him

and what I learned later is that they ambushed him they meaning to attorneys the boy, Schiller, Flexor, ambushed him and his grandfather s house The lawyers representing Thirnagoas, based on your, actions in your reporting behaved and ethically anyway. I believed that they crossed lines I thought that one guy in particular name MIKE Brill, who isn't it I see it of David voices at bushel reflects nor the way he behaved towards Tyler Schulz was thuggish he hit upstairs along with another lawyer at George Shoals, this house, waiting for Tyler show up and Tyler had agreed to meet his grandfather. Under the understanding that they would meet face to face, and there would be no lawyers involved. A few men after you arrived the these boys Schiller attorneys MIKE Brill.

Among them showed up your brow, beat him in and tried to get him to admit. He was a source of mine and try to get him to sign these papers and threatened him. This went on for months, Tyler had to tire lawyers. You know I'm told that at one point MIKE Brill threat, To thank reptiles, entire family if he didn't sign the latest staff version of ass? He had one interesting aspect of this. Is the boys firm in lieu? I believe you wrote this in lieu of fees, typical legal fees, rent took stock and accompany yeah. Something that I learned later as well, or at least after my first story, was published that, during the fuse patent litigation, the boys firm had been paid for its work and that litigation in stock and as a result, they had almost five million dollars worth of theoretical stock. So, by the time I came along and David boys was trying to convince the journal not to publish my story, and was representing fairness effectively against me in the journal.

He was not only a legal advocate for the company. He also had a financial stake in the company To me. That was a conflict of interest when, when I learned of it, not to mention the fact that, ten days after my first story was published, she joined the movement. The boar trace Rich, compounded the car. Mix of interests, and people not only rose strongly worded. Yours and try to get people to stop by you know these methods are described. They also went straight to the top two Rupert Murdoch Red who simultaneously was the head of the parent and your paper, your employer, the Wall Street Journal and also had made a one hundred and twenty five million dollar investment and fairness. Rather that turn up. I started looking in fairness in February, two thousand fifteen. I did not know this, but basically at the same moment, Rupert Murdoch and who, as you say, owns and controls news corporation,

The pair of the journal was putting a hundred and twenty five million dollars into fairness, becoming its single biggest investor hat. I had no idea Nor did he have any idea. I think that that I was beginning to to dig into the company, but he was asked to kill the story later later, so in heat and obviously you're here he'd, he did not. He did not yet Elizabeth homes met with him about four times before four five times you for that story was published in October, two thousand fifteen and during several those meetings she appeal to him. She told em, there's this guy at the journal, who has gathered false and misleading. Invest information about us that he's threatening threatening to this is is gonna, do great harm to accompany and and and presumably to your investment. Rate may ultimately how to get out of and she kept bringing it up in the hope that he will offer to kill the story and he never did we're coming up to the end of our time.

So one observation I have about the book in the story and does not criticism, but it's kind of surprising to me. It doesn't seem to be anything but redeeming about Elizabeth HOMES in the book. You know in Shakespeare in another, stories of people who fall from greatness. There seems to be little more complexity and their people some good motivations, and there are stories of things. If it did, you know acts of kindness moments of grace, even though their flawed and they commit crime and massive fraud and lots and lots of people? There is none of that in Hereabout Elizabeth homes what what do you make of her and why should in what she did and what kind of person she is separate apart from any crime she may have committed, would you would you make it as yours well I would say that if there is something redeeming about her and if you contrast her with a guy like made, offer

earth some of these other mega fraudsters? I do believe that her vision was genuine, the ultimate vision of creating a diagnostic device that would be revolutionary, and that would therefore you know improve mankind. She really did believe in that vision. Unfortunately, she felt that that vision and achieving it justified everything that she did they get there and- and I think that's where she got herself in the trouble and that's why she turned back. Do you think she understands what you do is wrong, or do you think she still in that mode? Even things were falling apart? she was right in everyone else's out together and everyone else is wrong. I am not convinced that she understands that. He did wrong and ended. She understands the magnitude of the wrong doing here, a producer.

Alex Givney who, by the way, working on their nose documentary for HBO that should come out early next year had dinner with her last fall and she said to to this producer dead. She EL the Chechen done anything wrong in it. You know all she had tried to do was build a successful start up, and that start ups often fail and- male start up. Founders often fail in their allowed to fail and that she wasn't being allowed to fail. Don't not only is there documentary being made about fairness and was but homes, but as we discuss before we, but a taping. There's a Hollywood movie being made that right, that's right who is playing Elizabeth HOMES, Jennifer Lawrence Turnover, whose playing it Oh that's, gonna be determined at a later date. Right what's happening right now is Vanessa Taylor, a screenwriter in Hollywood who co wrote the shape of water with gear Mundell Toro is working on the screen play an she needs to finish

screenplay handed in Adam Mackay. Who is the director attack? to film the movie to direct a movie and is producing. It will then have to get the screenplay Green lighted, and at that point will the other members the Caspian try. So what? If I can make a suggestion, we need someone to play. You podgy model is an excellent choice. Oh how bout mark roughly, who also also great, who played a great investigate, reporting spotlight. And also the hulk. That's what I thought you were going to John Kerry Roofing Much were being with us. Thank you is last month so now comes a time in the show to talk about something that affected me in the last week, and you may be thinking in the dark days of summer- I'm getting a little savvy- and maybe that's true. So yesterday was tuesday- and I was thinking about doing something very radical, but I had not done in many many years, and that is to go

watch a movie in the middle the day, and I wasn't sure I should that. But then I got an email from my book editor at can off who would finally finished reading the first draft of the book that I headed three weeks ago, and he said, among other things, quote, I'm very pleased which is high praise from my editor. So thank you Peter, and I put me in a really good. That's not! Why don't? I now go ahead. Watch a movie and decided to walk out into the hot New York City, air, so I walked down to an old theatre on twelve streams can avenue in Manhattan to see a movie called. Won't you be my neighbour, and I've heard a lot about it and did know quite what to expect, and if you haven't heard about it, it's about a man named Fred Rogers who, with your of a certain age, you grew up with him on public television and he had to show where he would basically come every day take off his jacket put on a cardigan change out of his work. He was put on sneakers and you ask a simple question, which was: would you be my neighbour?

beautiful day for a neighbor. Would you be mine? Could you be mine? upon the screen somewhere Seen in decades refund On the very long time I own child comes putting back to me. It sort of transporting moment you that same I remember when I was a kid, he was very saw spoken, look directly into the camera seem like he was talking just to you, but it was not feeling to remember the puppets and remember the games it. He would play and remember the stories that he would tell and kind. Mind you have a similar time. I guess, although, as reminded in watching. The movie was not a simple time at all. He addressed the issue of Rebecca his destination on the programme. The issue of war in Vietnam on the programme, the issue of racial tension and Rachel

combination on the program and I remember as a kid I wasn't thinking about those things I was just watching the show as an innocent child might and as television was becoming in the more violent and there's lots of shooting and, as he says, lots of pie throwing leaving hidden face, would pies and acts of violence and shouting and yelling and speed and fast editing, Mister Roger Show, with simple and slow and kind and you don't have a lot of that in the world anymore, and he talked about things values that I think people sometimes worry are a little bit missing today, like hope in love and tolerance and kindness. But then you also got to see how strong enough

really this man was there's a scene and spoil alert. So you haven't seen it- and I want to hear about this, but there's a scene in which there was a particularly curmudgeon Lee Senator who, under the next administration, was trying to cut funding to public broadcasting and witness after witness at a hearing in the Senate, made no mark on the senator and then Fred Rogers came to testify and he talked about the show me talk about the message of the show. He talked about the importance of children, s report. Of love for children and literally, as the movie suggests. In that moment, the heart of this curmudgeon senator was warmed and he, the twenty million dollars and funding, which is a big amount of money at the time to go for for public broadcasting, know that there's something deep inside that helps us become what we can

for a girl can be some day a lady and the boy can be some day a man. I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just down the twenty million dollars You think this is a throwback film and it's about the past and about the Sixtys and Seventys when I was growing up But then you realize the message of the movie couldn't be more contemporary, couldn't be more relevant to the present He talks about how much in the world occurs because of love and because of a lack of love and you're. Here that being talked about as much these days either, and it's important to see that I think jarring juxtaposition between what Fred Rogers was trying to communicate in an earnest, honest, almost boring way.

And all the stream and rang you see today with watching. I television neighbour, lasted for this episode of stay tuned. Thanks again to my guest John Kerry Roof. His book is bad blood. You should read it if you like the show rate and reviewed and apple pocket, Every positive review helps new listeners, find the show send me your questions about news in politics, tweet them to me at three parara with the hashtag asprey, or give me a call at six hundred and sixty nine, two hundred and forty seven, seven thousand three hundred and thirty, eight that six thousand six hundred and ninety two for priests or you can send an email to stay tuned at cafe, dot com stay tuned is presented by CAFE, gets produced by the team and Pineapple Street media cat heron. Chris Brule,

obsolete, generalise, permanent, Joel Level and MAX Linsky would help this way from Gabrielle Louis. Our music is by Andrew Dust and special thanks to Julia Doyle, Jeff argument: Jake, Mcafee, Monet, Boston, I'm prepared stated.