Skip to content
Elizabeth Holmes- Case Archive
personpersonShane WeberShane WeberFormer Pfizer diagnostics director who evaluated a proposed use for Theranos technology.← All People
WitnessPfizer

Shane Weber

Former Pfizer diagnostics director who evaluated a proposed use for Theranos technology.

AppearedFederal Criminal Trial
395 lines·14 proceedings·11 mentions

About

Shane Weber testified for the prosecution about the technical due-diligence review he conducted for Pfizer in 2008. He described reviewing Theranos reports and patents, participating in a teleconference led by Elizabeth Holmes, submitting written questions, consulting Pfizer clinical personnel, and preparing an internal report.

Weber said the information Theranos supplied did not persuade him that its system was ready for clinical use. His report found no current diagnostic or clinical fit for Pfizer, recommended against further investment or clinical-sample support, and proposed only periodic monitoring.

Comparing his assessment with later Walgreens materials, Weber denied approving Pfizer's logo and rejected claims that Pfizer had validated or endorsed Theranos technology.

Cross-examination addressed the scope and documentation of Weber's review, prior statements, selected exhibits, and later contacts. On redirect, he said Pfizer colleagues moved on after he advised that no further action was needed, and he clarified that a later favorable phrase did not amount to comprehensive validation or agreement with Theranos's conclusions.

Trial Record (14)

FederalFederal Criminal TrialAug 31, 2021 – Jan 3, 2022Called by prosecution

Shane Weber described Pfizer's 2008 due diligence on Theranos and testified that it led to no recommendation for further investment or clinical support. He also rejected later claims that Pfizer had validated or endorsed Theranos technology.

Day 21

ProceduralAdmissibility Hearing — Pfizer Internal Report1highlightMentioned

Summary

The parties disputed admission of an internal Pfizer assessment, focusing on technical material, critical language, and the difference between Pfizer's private conclusions and what Holmes was told; the court deferred a ruling.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

evidence eventThe government sought admission of Shane Weber's internal Pfizer report, arguing that it was relevant to the alleged falsity of Holmes's representations about Pfizer and could qualify as a business record; it offered to redact particular technical questions if necessary.Open in transcript →
CrossDaniel Edlin — CrossDaniel EdlinKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Defense counsel narrowed Daniel Edlin's technical expertise, elicited that he relied on Theranos scientists and did not believe his external communications were false, and developed his operational role in a multi-site burn study. The court later deferred a Rule 106 decision about FDA-inspection text messages.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 22

ProceduralAdmissibility Hearing on Dr. Weber's Pfizer ReportMentioned

Summary

The defense sought to exclude Dr. Shane Weber's internal Pfizer report as expert material and unfairly prejudicial, while the prosecution argued that it directly rebutted alleged claims of Pfizer validation. The court considered possible redactions but deferred its ruling.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralEnd-of-Day Jury AdmonitionMentioned

Summary

The court admonished and recessed the jury until Friday, addressed the next witnesses and schedule, and continued measures to limit distracting keyboard noise.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 23

ProceduralEvidentiary Conference on Tolbert ExhibitsMentioned

Summary

Judge Davila ordered the admission process for Exhibit 5387-D repeated before the jury and heard competing arguments over Tolbert-related notes and a 2016 shareholder communication, leaving their disputed uses unresolved pending testimony and cross-examination.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectShane Weber — DirectShane WeberRobert S. Leach10highlights218lines spoken

Summary

Pfizer diagnostics director Shane Weber testified that his 2008 review found no current clinical fit for Theranos, recommended against further investment, and did not validate the technology or authorize Pfizer branding on a report later sent to Walgreens.

Highlights (10)

evidence eventThe court admitted Exhibits 143, 159, and 162, allowing the government to trace the Theranos study materials and communications that preceded Weber's review.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightWeber identified Exhibit 167 as his final Pfizer report and testified that he recommended no further financial investment or clinical-sample resources for Theranos, while leaving open periodic monitoring for future improvements.Open in transcript →
Quote“THIS IS MY FINAL SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO PFIZER ON THE USE OF THE THERANOS TECHNOLOGY.”— Shane WeberWeber authenticated the central Pfizer assessment as his own final report and recommendations.Open in transcript →
Quote“THE WORLD CHANGES. ONE NEVER KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT BRING, AND SO A WAIT AND WATCH APPROACH SEEMED TO BE PRUDENT.”— Shane WeberThe statement captures the qualified nature of Weber's recommendation: Pfizer rejected a present use while allowing limited monitoring for later developments.Open in transcript →
Show all 10 highlights
objectionAfter a defense objection invoking Rule 702, the court directed the examination away from expert definitions; later pages of Exhibit 167 were displayed only as demonstratives while Weber explained his contemporaneous conclusions.Open in transcript →
Quote“I BELIEVED THIS BASED UPON MY EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE DOING ASSAY DEVELOPMENT, ASSAY QUALIFICATION, RECEIVER OPERATOR CURVE ANALYSIS, THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT TO CONVINCE ME THAT THEY WERE -- THAT THE THERANOS SYSTEM WAS READY TO BE TAKEN FORWARD FOR CLINICAL USE THROUGH AN FDA OR CLIA LABORATORY PROCESS.”— Shane WeberWeber explained why the information supplied to him did not establish that the system was ready for clinical use.Open in transcript →
Quote“WELL, WHAT I MEANT WAS I, AS A MESSENGER, AM DELIVERING A PIECE OF INFORMATION AND A POINT OF VIEW THAT WAS NOT DESIRED, AND SO I HAD TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS REALLY PFIZER'S INTENT.”— Shane WeberWeber described communicating Pfizer's adverse decision to Holmes despite her pushback.Open in transcript →
Quote“I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PFIZER APPROVAL FOR THE USE OF THE PFIZER TRADEMARKED LOGO ON THIS DOCUMENT.”— Shane WeberWeber denied knowledge of Pfizer authorization for the logo appearing on the report sent to Walgreens while preserving the limits of his knowledge.Open in transcript →
rulingThe court overruled a defense Rule 702 objection and permitted Weber to testify whether the conclusions in the Walgreens document reflected his own contemporaneous conclusions; he said they did not.Open in transcript →
evidence eventAfter Weber's direct examination ended, the court admitted Exhibit 5387D, subject to potential defense objections to particular uses.Open in transcript →
CrossShane Weber — CrossShane WeberJohn D. Cline6highlights154lines spoken

Summary

Defense counsel narrowed Weber's Pfizer review to a document-based, business-use assessment, challenged his account of management agreement with a 2020 interview memorandum, and introduced emails showing his contemporaneous communications with Holmes and Gary Frenzel.

Highlights (6)

Quote“I HAD RECEIVED ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION AND THE STUDIES, SO I HAD THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE THAT I WOULD NEED FOR AN ASSESSMENT.”— Shane WeberWeber defended the informational basis for his assessment while acknowledging that he had not personally participated in Theranos's earlier work with Pfizer.Open in transcript →
admissionWeber acknowledged that his review relied on supplied documents and public patent materials; he did not visit Theranos headquarters or physically examine its device.Open in transcript →
impeachmentThe defense used Weber's 2020 interview memorandum to challenge his direct testimony that Pfizer managers agreed with his assessment. Weber said the memorandum did not describe the full situation but ultimately accepted that he must have made the recorded statement that the assessment was met with silence.Open in transcript →
Quote“YOU KNOW, IT'S A WRITTEN SET OF WORDS. I MUST HAVE SAID IT IF IT'S RECORDED DOWN.”— Shane WeberAfter being confronted with the 2020 interview memorandum, Weber accepted the recorded statement without claiming an independent present recollection of it.Open in transcript →
Show all 6 highlights
Quote“"HI GARY. "THANKS FOR CONTACTING ME. "PFIZER HAS NO INTEREST IN PREECLAMPSIA. "BEST OF LUCK, YOU ARE ON TO SOMETHING GOOD. "HAVE A NICE WEEKEND."”— Shane WeberWeber read his final recalled communication with Theranos, which combined Pfizer's lack of interest in the proposed area with a favorable personal remark.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightWeber limited his knowledge of later Pfizer-Theranos dealings, recalling no personal involvement after February 2009 and acknowledging only a vague 2011 reference to Theranos during a group teleconference.Open in transcript →
RedirectShane Weber — RedirectShane WeberRobert S. Leach4highlights21lines spoken

Summary

Weber clarified Pfizer management's response to his report, denied that an encouraging email phrase signified validation, and confirmed that an admitted spreadsheet listed $900,000 in Pfizer entries for 2007 and 2008 with none thereafter through 2014.

Highlights (4)

testimony highlightWeber explained that his Pfizer colleagues had seen his report, briefly asked whether anything further should be done, and moved on after he said no; he remained satisfied that they agreed with his conclusions.Open in transcript →
Quote“THAT THIS WAS A MATTER THAT THEY HAD SEEN MY REPORT AND BRIEFLY HAD ASKED, DO YOU THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE TO BE DONE? I SAID NO, AND THEY WERE SILENT AND MOVED ON. THESE ARE VERY BUSY PEOPLE.”— Shane WeberWeber clarified the interview statement used on cross-examination, explaining that the reported silence followed brief consideration of his recommendation rather than indicating disagreement.Open in transcript →
admissionWeber rejected the suggestion that his statement that Theranos was "on to something good" meant Pfizer had comprehensively validated the technology or that he agreed with the report's 13 conclusions.Open in transcript →
evidence eventThe government displayed the admitted Exhibit 7753 spreadsheet, and Weber confirmed that it listed Pfizer entries of $500,000 in 2007 and $400,000 in 2008, totaling $900,000, with no other entries through 2014 according to the file.Open in transcript →

Day 29

Day 38

DirectElizabeth A. Holmes — DirectElizabeth A. HolmesKevin M. DowneyMentioned

Summary

Holmes described Theranos's 4 Series development, Walgreens and Safeway partnerships, clinical validation, FDA disclosures, marketing, investor communications, and financial projections. She admitted adding pharmaceutical logos to Theranos reports and regretted how that was handled, while attributing limited disclosure of modified commercial analyzers to trade-secret advice.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 46