Day 22 - October 20, 2021

Daniel Edlin’s cross-examination placed Theranos’s military work and technology demonstrations in a development-and-evaluation context. He described devices adapted for transport and heat, an AFRICOM exercise using artificial results, and planned CENTCOM and SOCOM evaluations that did not produce clinical deployments. He distinguished demonstrations from physician-ordered Walgreens testing and denied that the demonstration arrangements were intended to deceive. The defense also introduced communications showing Holmes and others seeking scientific review and revising public materials to qualify turnaround times, venipuncture, test availability, comparisons, and risk disclosures. On redirect, Edlin said the AFRICOM results were predetermined, the proposed Bagram experiment never occurred, and SOCOM apparently did not test the shipped devices. He confirmed that demonstration software shielded errors from viewers and testified that Daniel Young and Holmes had final authority over reported demonstration results. He recalled Theranos’s FDA clearance as limited to the HSV-1 assay and said repeated failures to demonstrate the technology after critical press coverage contributed to his departure in December 2016. On recross, he said he did not consider continued display of the demonstration interface deceptive, relied on technical personnel about which application to use, and identified an assay-team leader as the source of one result-removal suggestion. Outside the jury’s presence, the court admitted a text-message exhibit under its Rule 106 analysis, subject to objections when particular portions were read. It deferred a decision on Dr. Shane Weber’s internal Pfizer report while considering proposed redactions. The court also declined to admit a collective binder of customer-feedback reports at that stage, while allowing the defense to return with relevant portions.