New Details of Theranos Implosion Makes Great Fodder for Jennifer Lawrence Movie
September 8, 2016
By Alex Keown, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff
PALO ALTO, Calif. – A beleaguered but determined Elizabeth Holmes, looking remarkably like Katniss Everdeen, addresses a group of Theranos advisers—in both a commanding and pleading tone.
“We have to squash this story from getting out. It will ruin this company,” she exclaims, while slamming her hand on the table. “We need to talk with our advisers in Washington to see how we can discredit the story and these unnamed former employees talking about our technology. I want this stopped and I want it now.”
Then in a softer tone, “please, help me get this done.”
Did that actually happen? Certainly not in the way it was described above, but couldn’t you see Jennifer Lawrence delivering those lines as the embattled founder of Theranos? While there is still little word about the script for the movie that was announced earlier this summer, there are plenty of cinematic moments in the rise of Holmes and Theranos that an actor the caliber of Lawrence can sink her teeth into. Although the story of Holmes and Theranos has become widely known over the past year, a recent Vanity Fair article lays out the timeline and provides some nice insights into the culture of Theranos, particularly in the days following the initial Wall Street Journal expose questioning the efficacy of Theranos’ blood-testing technology. The article nicely lays out enough meat that a screenwriter the caliber of writer/ director Adam McKay, best known for his “The Big Short” script, which won the Oscar for best adapted screenplay earlier this year, could craft a compelling drama with dripping overtones of tragedy.
McKay could begin with the aforementioned scene of the beginning of Theranos’ troubles following the Journal’s expose and then flash back to a college-aged Holmes who had the vision of creating a blood-testing technology that could yield multiple diagnostic results from a single drop of blood. Although she was stymied early on while a student at Stanford University, the determined Holmes was able to raise funding for her idea and launch her company at the age of 19. Theranos quickly became the darling of the venture capitalists in Silicon Valley and quickly earned a value of about $9 billion—a value it has since lost due to the problems plaguing its technology and the negative press. But in her early days at Theranos, Holmes became the darling of Silicon Valley and was also highlighted on the covers of numerous magazines as a revolutionary figure who would disrupt the health care industry. In a scene like this, Lawrence could channel the same passionate determination she harnessed to take on the role of Joy Mangano, the self-made millionaire and designer of the self-wringing Miracle Mop.
Perhaps Lawrence could deliver an Oscar-worthy performance showing her interpretation of how Holmes handled the devastating news the U.S. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services banned her for two years from owning or operating a blood-testing facility. Or perhaps how she went into crisis control mode when the company was forced to void two years’ worth of data that impacted tens of thousands of patients.
Holmes was able to cultivate relationships with many powerful individuals in Washington, D.C. and New York, bringing some in to serve as advisers to her company, despite their lack of a science background. Among the powerful she cultivated are august names such as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissenger, and former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz. She also cultivated former U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn. She also developed a relationship with Marine General James Mattis, who initiated a pilot program to use the blood-testing technology on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Mattis, who has now retired from the U.S. Marines, now serves on Theranos’ board of directors.
Another part of the Theranos story that Lawrence and the screenwriters could really highlight is the company’s dedication to compartmentalization and secrecy—a topic that is a common theme in the Vanity Fair article. Theranos has been well known for not allowing peer-reviews of its technology and also for the strict non-disclosure agreements it makes employees and visitors to the company headquarters sign. In his article, writer Nick Bolton lays out multiple incidences of company secrecy—from the early days of fundraising when Holmes accepted financing, but with the conditions that she would not divulge to investors how her technology works. Former company president Sunny Balwani also reportedly chastised employees about talking about their work to each other and job applicants did not receive a full description of their possible roles unless they were hired.
Another aspect of the Holmes story would be the tragedy of Ian Gibbons, a man with more than 30 years of diagnostics experience who went to work at Theranos and repeatedly attempted to get the blood-testing technology to work—all to little or no avail, the Vanity Fair article shows. Citing Gibbons’ wife, he became vocal about the problems of the technology, all while Holmes and the company were in marketing overdrive touting the blood-testing technology. Gibbons’ wife said he received a call to report to Holmes the next day and fearing he was going to be fired, attempted suicide. He died a week later, Vanity Fair reported. While Gibbons was in the hospital, his wife said she received a call from Theranos seeking the return of all company property Gibbons may have had at his home.
The tale of Theranos, from its beginnings, to its crisis of technology—and perhaps to its side-step touting of its portable miniaturized laboratory, is suited for the big screen. Jennifer Lawrence could certainly put on the mantle of Holmes and play her with the dogmatic idealism that Holmes seems to possess. Will the film, tentatively titled “Bad Blood” be made? Only time will tell. And only time will tell the rest of Theranos’ and Holmes’ story.