Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for March 15, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight...

CO: One moment Syed Ahmed was praying -- the next he was hiding from a gunman, and watching his friend die -- one of dozens of people killed in attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

JD: A darkness that sheds new light. New Zealand's former prime minister, Helen Clark, says the mosque shootings will change the way New Zealand sees itself -- and that her country's gun control laws cannot be ignored any longer.

CO: So far and yet so close. Zyed Kalel's friend died when a far-right extremist opened fire in a Quebec City mosque -- so he's shaken by these attacks halfway around the world.

JD: Mendacity was the mother of invention. An encore presentation of Carol's conversation with John Carreyrou -- who exposed the lies behind the blood-testing start-up Theranos.

CO: A needle to know basis. New York state lawmakers introduced a pair of bills that would give minors the power to get themselves vaccinated without their guardians consent.

JD: And...demand for all seasons -- or at least more than one season. A mayor in Iceland says Google's satellite view always shows his town covered in ice and snow -- and that is the winter of his discontent. As It Happens. The Friday Edition. Radio that needs a change of scenery.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: 'I mean, who can do this?' says N.Z. mosque shooting survivor who watched his friend die

NZ Mosque Attacks: Survivor

Guest: Syed Ahmed

JD: It is the worst gun massacre in New Zealand's history. During Friday prayers in Christchurch, a shooter opened fire at two mosques. 49 people were killed -- many more are still fighting for their lives in hospital. A 28-year-old Australian man is charged with murder. Two other suspects are in custody. Syed Ahmed was praying at one of the targeted mosques. We reached him in Christchurch.

CO: Syed can you first of all just take us back to the mosque before this shooting began. Describe what was happening. Who was there?

SYED AHMED: This is a small place -- it is just bigger than a two-bedroom house extended space. Every Friday we have a community congregation there. At 1:45 we all stood up for the prayers. Our Imam started the prayers -- and just within a couple of minutes, I was in the first row, and I heard the gunshots on my right side of the window because the window was just very near to me...

CO: Were the shots come from outside or were they inside?

SA: They were from outside. And I think there were some people who were joining late. There were two elderly people. And I heard three-four shots and people falling down. And everybody started to take cover. But by the time he came to the main door -- and I ran for cover. It was in an adjacent small store-room kind of a thing. And I laid down. And this room doesn't have a door so I was able to just look at them. There were few people falling down. And he was shooting indiscriminately. And there were women screaming. And there were elderly people near the other door -- on chairs -- you know those who can't stand and pray they sit on row of chairs -- and they were I think the first to [chokes up] they couldn't move, and they were shot.

CO: These are elderly people who had chairs.

SA: They can't stand.

CO: They can't stand. So these are women and men...

SA: Women. Mostly women and men. I didn't see that but somebody over-powered him -- I believe he was from Pakistan and he tried to over-power him from back and that's when he threw the guns and ran. But I was able to see. He was inside the room. He was wearing a helmet, armor, and things like that.

CO: You could see that? You could see that he was armed and he had this helmet on and...

SA: As I was taking cover and my head was down. And in glimpses I would see that he was wearing a kind of armor.

CO: Did he say anything?

SA: I believe they was screaming some abusive words, but because of gunshots and screaming, I couldn't figure out what.

CO: Syed this must have been just the most terrifying experience.

SA: Oh yeah. It is such a beautiful country, it's such a beautiful place, people are so nice here, and ever since I've come I have amazing stories of people who have been helpful and kind. And it's like we used to take pride in saying that it's absolutely like a nice place to be and to raise your family. This was extremely alien to New Zealand -- it's just unbelievable.

CO: Did you know some of the people who were shot -- did you see them?

SA: My three friends were there with me -- along with me -- and one of my friend was shot in his head. And he died immediately. And the other was bleeding, and I went to help and to know what happened -- I was screaming, where did you get shot? I was trying to locate -- to stop the bleeding because his chest and shoulder was completely in blood. And he said, I don't know. I don't know where's the bullet. And he was screaming for ambulance and help. So I went out to call the ambulance and police. Just then the police came and they didn't let me in again.

CO: Do you know if your other friend is okay?

SA: Four of my friends are missing. And one of my friend's son is missing. So we went looking for them in the hospital last night. And one of my friends news just came in one hour back saying that they're doing surgery and he's had a gunshot on his shoulder.

CO: That was the one you were trying to help -- you couldn't locate the wound. He's in surgery. They think he's going to be okay.

SA: Hopefully.

CO: What's his name?

SA: Muhammad.

CO: Muhammad -- you think he's going to be okay. But your friend who was shot in the head...

SA: He was dead.

CO: Syed I'm so sorry. You saw your friend dead.

SA: Yeah. He was a couple of metres left of my place.

CO: Your other friends who are missing, were they in this mosque in Linwood or were they in Al Noor mosque?

SA: No. Al Noor mosque.

CO: What do you know about what happened there?

SA: I didn't know until a few hours back that there's a video about the guy who shot them. And I believe that he parked outside the mosque and went in and started shooting indiscriminately in the door. Immediately as you enter there is a women's area -- and there were children and women. And then he entered the main hall and there were people that were piling and he started shooting.

CO: That's a very big mosque, isn't it? Lots of people.

SA: Yeah that's 400 to 500. Linwood: 460-70.

CO: But this is Friday prayer -- so these terrorists know this is the time...

SA: Exactly. Exactly.

CO: The prime minister is saying that a number of the people in the mosque, in Al Noor especially, were new immigrants, were refugees, were people who had come from things that they were seeking refuge from.

SA: Actually one of my friend's family they came from Syria and his husband was shot yesterday.

CO: Is he okay?

SA: No. He came to know that he died.

CO: I am so sorry. Syed do you have family with you or someone or are there people with you to help you today?

SA: Yeah we have everybody around us -- neighbours, my friends, my office colleagues, everybody's being a big support. I think that's really strength to us. We have tremendous support from the community all around. Yeah.

CO: What's the image that's going to stay with you -- it's going to haunt you from today?

SA: Well like for three four hours I couldn't comprehend what was happening around me. You know seeing that friend dying right next to you -- and helpless like old people, and women who were just helpless -- they became easy targets. Who can do this? Like even the world's toughest-stone-hearted -- I mean somebody is screaming, pleading in front of you. I mean I just can't comprehend what just [exhales] it's really unexplainable.

CO: But you say that this is so unusual, so rare an experience for you in New Zealand.

SA: Absolutely. You know I've traveled to a lot of countries. But here we had one of the beautiful environment -- like people are so kind. They're inclusive. They are very accommodating and multicultural. So it is unheard of. Like even the slightest thing is unheard of here.

CO: Syed I'm so sorry that this has happened to your community and to your friends.

SA: That's the message I'm trying to say that look we all are to create this environment that the hatred shouldn't have placed in this world. Spread the message and create an environment of peace.

CO: Syed that is very very powerful message. And I thank you for sharing it with us. Thank you for speaking with us.

SA: Thank you very much.

JD: Syed Ahmed was in the Linwood Mosque on Friday. We reached him in Christchurch, New Zealand.

NZ Mosque Attacks: Helen Clark

Guest: Helen Clark

JD: Here is New Zealand's Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, speaking at a press conference.

SOUNDCLIP

JACINDA ARDERN: Christchurch was the home of these victims. For many, this may not have been the place they were born. In fact for many New Zealand was their choice -- the place they actively came to and committed themselves to. The place they were raising their families -- where they were part of communities that they loved and who loved them. It was a place that many came to for its safety. A place where they were free to practice the culture and their religion. For those of you who are watching at home tonight and questioning how this could have happened here -- we New Zealand, we were not a target because we are a safe harbor for those who hate. We were not chosen for this act of violence because we condone racism, because we are an enclave for extremism. We were chosen for the very fact that we are none of these things.

JD: Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand's current Prime Minister. Helen Clark is a former Prime Minister of New Zealand. We reached her in Baku, Azerbaijan.

CO: Ms. Clark, the prime minister of New Zealand has called this one of your country's darkest days. How do you respond to this shooting?

HELEN CLARK: I think Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke for all of us. This is shocking beyond belief in peaceful New Zealand. We have never experienced a terrorist attack like this. 49 people killed by a callous cold blooded killer in one day. Our total homicide -- total in 2017 -- was 35 people. This is so shocking -- New Zealanders can barely believe what's happened.

CO: We spoke with a man who was in one of the mosques. He was describing how he had come to New Zealand and found it to be the most peaceful, welcoming, and accepting of places he'd ever visited -- and he's travelled quite a bit. Is that how people in New Zealand will see this do you think?

HC: Absolutely. The image New Zealanders have of themselves is of a peaceful, tolerant, diverse, accepting society where people of all ethnicities and faiths live alongside each other. So this is just so foreign to New Zealand that people are struggling to process what it means.

CO: Is it possible then that the image New Zealanders have of themselves will change or must change?

HC: I think it's a loss of innocence when something like this happens. People are aware that these horrible kinds of attacks happen in other states. They happen in Canada. They happen in Europe. They happen in so many countries -- but no one thought it could happen in New Zealand.

CO: Do you think that that led to a certain amount of complacency?

HC: Possibly complacency. I think by early next week, people will be starting to ask more questions. Would it have been possible for police and intelligence services to known more? But this stage -- it's just a little early to go down that track because we don't have enough information.

CO: We know that high powered velocity rifles were used in this shooting. So what does that say about New Zealand's gun laws?

HC: Well it says that it's to be tightened, and enforcement needs to be improved. We do have more stringent gun laws obviously than the United States. But I understand our laws at this time are not as stringent of those of others Australia or much of Europe. I would really hope that the New Zealand parliament acts immediately on this. No more excuses from those who lobby for keeping the laws as they are. It's time to act, to crackdown, to be stricter on us.

CO: You know it's interesting that among the many hateful things that this shooter posted on his Facebook -- was that well this shootings like this will lead to tighter gun laws which in turn lead to people reacting to that, getting angry, and perhaps responding with violence themselves. This is something he feels might actually trigger more violence. What do you say to that perception that they want to get you to react this way?

HC: I don't think there's any logic in what he's saying. Other countries have moved to stricter gun law after mass killings. John Howard's government in Australia did it --not aware that it led to any more mass killings. I think this person is just flattering himself.

CO: The gunman was live-streaming footage of his rampage -- as I'm sure you know. And the recording that went on for nearly 20 minutes. Do you think that police and security officials should have or could have reacted more quickly to that?

HC: Well prima facie it seems a long time for a live shooting to be live streamed with no one being aware of it. So again these are the kinds of questions that will need to be asked. We want to know, could we have done more? Where was the gun law deficient? Given that in New Zealand you have to be a person of good character to have a gun. How did these people have guns? How did they have so many? Were they very active on social media in the period leading up to the attack in a way which should have drawn police and intelligence scrutiny? I think New Zealanders will want to know the answers to all those questions.

CO: What long term effect do you think this attack will have on New Zealand?

HC: I think it will convey to New Zealanders that what they see on the TV screens off shore from London, Paris, Twin Towers -- that we are not immune from that. We may be geographically isolated, but unfortunately those with extremist ideas, well plugged in to others, carry out their vile beliefs into action. So it is the shattering of age of innocence if you like.

CO: The gunman describes -- if this stuff is found to be accurate -- they chose, they sussed out Christchurch in New Zealand as a place to have this attack. What effect do you think this will have on that community? It's a small place. What effect will it have on Christchurch?

HC: Christchurch is a very very strong community. It has suffered enormously with the terrible earthquake in February 2011. People stick together. It has strong and progressive civic leadership. So I think for Christchurch, people will rally around. They will be very scarred by it. They will certainly tighten security but I think the Islamic community which has been hit so hard by these terrible attacks will find that Christchurch will embrace the community and will reject all of the message that this horrible gunman wanted to convey.

CO: Ms. Clark I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

HC: Thank you.

JD: Helen Clark is the former Prime Minister of New Zealand. We reached her in Baku, Azerbaijan. And we do have more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

NZ Mosque Attacks: Quebec

Guest: Zyed Kalel

JD: The news from Christchurch is all too close to home for Zyed Kalel. Mr. Kalel attends the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City. He was not at the mosque in January of 2017 when a gunman murdered six people there -- but he did have friends who were. Now images from what was reportedly the Christchurch gunman's Twitter account show ammunition clips emblazoned with the Quebec City shooter's name. We reached Zyed Kalel in Quebec City.

CO: Zyed first of all I'm sorry for the grief that this news must be causing you.

ZYED KALEL: Thank you.

CO: How did you first hear about what happened in Christchurch?

ZK: Well actually it was yesterday evening. I was working on my computer and then one of my friends sent me a Facebook message with a link so I clicked on it and then then I found what was going on in New Zealand.

CO: You didn't watch the horrible video -- the live streaming -- of this man as he did what he was doing?

ZK: So yeah I watched the video. I was hesitating in the beginning and then I felt that -- I don't know why -- but I felt that I needed to see what happened. Myself -- one of the first people who entered the mosque in Quebec City after the shooting. Once the doors were open and after having seen the scene in Quebec and the disaster I had something in me saying that you know you need to look at the video and see what happens.

CO: It must have been very disturbing to watch it. Many people are saying you should just not see it.

ZK: It was. It was actually. You know it affected me a lot but I continued watching the video because I felt that -- I don’t know I need to feel what those people have felt because this is a very tragic moment. And you know I'm not the kind of person who wants just to escape this -- I don't want to feel that hurt -- I just wanted to see and feel what the people have felt -- and as if I'm involved in it and as if I'm one of theirs.

CO: When you were watching and following news last night and feeling that connection with what had happened in Quebec -- did you reach out to others in your community in the Islamic Cultural Centre?

ZK: Yeah I did. I did actually talk to a couple of people. And also I went to the president of the centre early in the morning saying that -- well actually texted him a message saying that see look at the news -- there is something dangerous happening in New Zealand in a mosque. And then in the morning at 6 a.m. I called him and I said you know it's Friday so we need probably to talk to police and ask them to come to the mosque so that the members of the community get assured with respect to security.

CO: Was that comforting to people -- did it encourage them to come to Friday prayers?

ZK: Amazingly I didn't see any police actually there. There were a lot of media so probably people got assured because you know there is a lot of media. And I don't think they were scared -- at least today. But I mean the problem will be more and more obvious when we come to the mosque at night where nobody's there except the Muslims who will be praying.

CO: What were people at the prayer saying about what happened in New Zealand? Were people talking about it?

ZK: Oh they were -- all the people. I mean all those who I have heard, they were talking about the event. They were all shocked and even the speech itself at the Friday prayer was about the event. So everyone was concerned. Actually I can see it on their faces and all the discussions were about what happened and obviously made them remember January 29th, 2017 here in the mosque.

CO: I just spoke with a young man who was there in his mosque today in New Zealand -- and (he) saw friends die and so much of what you and others experienced in Quebec. And he's just in a state of shock about it all. I just wonder what words would you give him right now if you could speak to him about how to deal with this?

ZK: Well actually the resilience is very important. This is a very tragic moment. And people lost their lives and families -- and orphans. But nonetheless we need to be resilient. We don't have any other choice. I think we do need to put our confidence on the government -- on the system. But there is something important that needs to be said that we should speak against Islamophobia and we should speak up and tell that this is not acceptable. And the government needs to take actions.

CO: And at a personal level -- what will stay with people? What will they struggle with as individuals?

ZK: Well it's very tough. It's very very tough you know losing people who you knew, who you loved. It's not an easy task. I mean I felt that -- I lost two of my friends -- it wasn't easy at all. Knowing their families, knowing their children -- is not something that we can live with very easily. And we cannot forget that -- it's very tough. And I'm with them with my heart, my thinking, and may God help them and make sure that they live safely and they try to get to their normal life pretty soon.

CO: Zyed thank you for speaking with us.

ZK: You're welcome.

JD: Zyed Kalel attends the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City that is where we reached him. We have more on this story later on in the program.

[Music]

Elisapie

JD: Elisapie is a singer-songwriter, an activist, and a filmmaker. On Juno-nominated album, "The Ballad of a Runaway Girl," she sings in Inuktitut, French, and English. So she's got a lot going on, and she makes it look easy. It wasn't though. There were seven long years between this album and her last one, "Traveling Love." But it's not that she wasn't busy. It's just that she had a lot of personal work to do. In an interview with guest host Laurie Brown on "q" she talked about what she went through between the albums.

SOUNDCLIP

LAURIE BROWN: Explain to me about that creative block that you went through.

ELISAPIE: I wouldn't say so much it's a creative block but it's more I had to you know strip down everything -- just go dig further. And it was kind of painful because I thought I was going to start from you know like let's say I go to therapy and you start like what's been going on lately or in the last few years -- but I realized I had to go further further further back to when I was born. And that was very surprising for me. So I think that's what made it longer and more extreme just because who wants to go back to when they were born -- because I was adopted, and in Inuit tradition it's very common. But when I had my second child it just brought out so many things -- I mean having to talk real with my biological mother was like okay -- I thought I knew her but maybe I really want to know her. And so I tried writing a song for her. It all started there, and then everything just went like chaos.

JD: Elisapie speaking with Laurie Brown on "q" last August. So from that "chaos" that she was talking about emerged, "The Ballad of a Runaway Girl," -- one of five nominees for Indigenous Music Album of the Year at this year's Juno Awards, which airs Sunday night on CBC.

[Music]

Part 2: Why this N.Y. lawmaker wants to let teens get vaccinated without parental permission

NZ Mosque Attacks: Internet

Guest: Robert Evans

JD: We're learning more about the man who has been charged with murder after the New Zealand mosque shootings -- and about the radical ideology that fueled his rage. He is reportedly a 28-year-old Australian white nationalist who found likeminded people in some of the darker corners of the Internet. He also posted a 74-page document that he hoped would help spread his views. Robert Evans is an author and journalist who specializes in how terrorist groups radicalized through the Internet. We reached Mr. Evans in Dallas.

CO: Robert what can you tell us about the places on the Internet where this man who has been accused of being the shooter was spending his time?

ROBERT EVANS: The number one place he spent his time was various "the chans" is one way to refer to them 4chan in a form that sort of descended from it. 8chan a message board you could say. And this specific part of 8chan where he spent most of his time was "/pol." That's where he announced his massacre. That's where he included the link to his livestream of the massacre. And it's where he published -- one of the places -- I think the first place he published his manifesto.

CO: And what are these chans? Where are they? And what do they do?

RE: 8chan "/pol" board where this guy posted is essentially a neo-nazi message board. A lot of them would not identify as neo-nazis, but they are Holocaust deniers, they believe in massacring immigrants, massacring people who are not white. They believe that there is a concerted genocide effort against white people going on. I think it's fair to call them neo-nazis.

CO: The shooter's alleged manifesto -- everything of course is still yet to be proven -- it's called "The Great Replacement." And without disseminating the ideas of it, what do we need to know about this 74-page document?

RE: You need to know that one of his goals was to exacerbate tensions -- like anger between the left and the right, particularly in the United States. He wants conservatives and liberals and leftists all fighting each other because he believes that that provides a better environment for revolutionaries -- and he considers himself to be a revolutionary to prosper. And more than anything he wants to inspire other people who are already in this far-right-wing eco-system to carry out more attacks, more deadly attacks, on Muslims and on immigrants. That is above all else his main goal.

CO: And what kind of response is he getting from his followers?

RE: I would describe it as riotous applause joy. Many of them have talked about their eager anticipation of another attack. They're very happy with it.

CO: Who is he associating himself with?

RE: He is not a member of any specific group -- or at least he has not openly claimed membership in any group but he is a regular poster 8chan /pol board. And I would say one of the terms they use for themselves -- they call themselves "anons" -- and that's a thing across several of the chans. And that is what he considers himself above all else I think -- that is where he identifies primarily.

CO: But he has his heroes, doesn't he?

RE: Yes he does. Anders Breivik -- the Utoya, Norway shooter and his manifesto were big inspirations, as was Dylann Roof -- his manifesto and his shooting of a black church in Charleston. Those were both big influences on this fellow.

CO: He also connected some of these ideas into the hardware, didn't he? Onto the guns -- onto the magazine -- was a message including a tribute to Alexandre Bissonette -- the man who did the Quebec shooting. What connections do you see between the photo he has of his arsenal?

RE: I mean for one thing he posted it more than two days before the attack. So there would have been time to potentially track this guy down. But what he wrote on his weapons is essentially -- it's almost stereotypical -- the beliefs he espoused and the things he wrote on those weapons based on sort of the things that these people talk about on /pol and on their other sort of discussion groups around the Internet. He for example included in four or five points on his rifle the number 14 which is a reference to the 14 words which is essentially a neo-nazi slogan that was come up with a guy named David Lane in the 1980s. And David Lane was a member of a terrorist group called "The Order," its goal was to provoke a civil war in the United States by carrying out terrorist attacks much like the one that the Christchurch shooter carried out. And the Christchurch shooter in his manifesto said that he hoped his attack would inflame tensions between the left and the right in the United States and helped provoke civil conflict. So there's a lot of direct connections between older neo-nazis and this guy.

CO: You have cautioned people to look at this document and the words that he has written very critically -- the same time be knowledgeable about them. What concerns should people have about even dipping into this 74-page document or any of the other things that this man has had to say or write?

RE: I would say you as an individual do not need to read this guy's manifesto. A lot of it's filled with disinformation. But coverage of the manifesto does not need to be irresponsible. For one thing you should not focus on the false and misleading statistics he brings up. You should not focus on his arguments. But you should focus on what his goals and intent are with the manifesto -- where he shares the manifesto is important. Who he wants to get it out to is important. Because that will give you hints as to where the next attack is going to come from. And as to what parts of the Internet we need to be monitoring better in order to stop further attacks like this.

CO: What should the media do? How should we cover this? Because I mean this live streaming -- I've heard of at least two people who last night had this sent to them while it was going on, "Hey take a look at this." I mean the media is confused as to what to do -- how much of this information to share, what to tell people, and how not to be a censor of this information. What would you suggest?

RE: It is the job of a journalist like me to watch that video which I did. And it's terrible. It should not be spread on news. It should not be shared on the news, but it should be talked about. Reporters should watch it and describe it to people and talk about the pertinent details from it. The things that are meaningful, the people that he references, his goal in putting it up there. But we do not need to be giving a blow by blow account. And we do not need to include that video in our reportage. We don't need to be showing people that video.

CO: And these channels -- 8chan or 4chan -- which have been described as the world's most vile website. We saw in Toronto a man who associates with incel, drive over a bunch of people and kill them on the street. I mean is there anything that can be done about the chans themselves?

RE: One thing that should be happening is law enforcement around the world should be monitoring these places. This guy was streaming his video for minutes before he arrived at the mosque and started shooting. You could hear his phone giving out GPS directions. If law enforcement had been watching, if there had been people -- you know even if it was someone in the FBI who could have contacted law enforcement in New Zealand and said this guy is in your city, he is heading to commit a massacre, we've seen him with a car full of guns -- they couldn't have stopped him from killing some people, but they might have been able to significantly reduce his body count by getting police on the scene faster.

CO: Robert I really appreciate your insights. Thank you.

RE: Thank you so much.

JD: Robert Evans is an author and journalist. We reached him in Dallas, Texas.

[Music]

Teen Vaccines

Guest: Pat Fahy

JD: Measles is breaking out again around the United States -- but another phenomenon is spreading as well. Teenagers who defy their anti-vax parents and get their shots. Now New York State lawmakers want to put more power in the hands of teens when it comes to vaccines. A new bill in that state calls for allowing 14-year-olds to be vaccinated without consent from their parents or guardians. The lawmakers were inspired by an 18-year-old who went public about his decision to get vaccinated because he was not as a child. Pat Fahy introduced that bill. She is a member of the New York State Assembly. We reached her in Albany.

CO: Ms. Fahy why do you think that 14-year-olds should be able to get vaccinated without permission from a parent?

PAT FAHY: Well let me start by saying I don't make these decisions or introduce bills such as this lightly. It was only because I had been following this -- I've been following this for years -- that we've had more complacency in this country about immunisation.

CO: And what did this young man -- this 18-year-old Ethan Lindenberg -- what did he say to Congress that inspired you to introduce this bill?

PF: He said to Congress that he felt his mother had been unduly influenced by social media, and that he felt he had a better -- as somebody who has grown up with nothing but social media -- that he had a little bit more ability to see through some of that and felt that immunizations have been strongly backed and widely endorsed by the medical community and felt that it was in his interest as well as in the interest of the public at large that he should have that ability to make those decisions with his health provider. This is not new territory. We have some precedents for this in other areas including with sexual health. We have school clinics in many of our high schools where teenagers can access birth control if you will and other information regarding their sexual health. So there is precedent for this.

CO: But just to go back to Ethan Lindenberger's message for a moment. I mean it was fascinating that he believed his mother is an anti-vaxer out of love and care, but that she had bad information. What did he think she was under the influence of?

PF: Well he -- and I don't want to speak for the young man -- but essentially was saying that because social media you really have to be able to sort through some of what's out on the Internet. And we say this all the time, right. Not every paper or every article posted on the Internet is from a peer reviewed journal. Anybody can post and mostly on free sites, right. It can fuel a lot of conspiracies that has fueled this complacency if you will or the complacency in general about immunisations but also the anti-vaccine movement.

CO: How serious is the situation in your state of New York?

PF: Well in the last couple of weeks now we don't know if we've hit the height of the outbreak but we had a couple of outbreaks in a couple of areas of the state and there had been about 200 confirmed cases. So New York was considered one of the more "at risk" states.

CO: What do you think you can accomplish about this by allowing teenagers to choose to vaccinate -- get themselves vaccinated?

PF: Honestly as it's turned out first and foremost what we are doing is actually providing a wakeup call. That was not quite the intent, but it has ended up as one of the intents. We have provided a wakeup call by trying to draw attention to this issue --and by the way about a half dozen other states have already provided this ability for teenagers to take charge of their own health care on this issue and again because it does require consult if you will with the health provider. In other words you can't get a vaccination out of a vending machine. So you do have to interact with a health provider in order to do this. So we need that wake up call. We need to change this complacency. And if it takes helping to empower youth I think that is a part of the answer and of course there's many answers. I also have a colleague who has introduced a bill to eliminate the religious exemption.

CO: The World Health Organization identifies measles as one of the top 10 global threats to public health. If you have to counter this complacency, these conspiracy theories, why not make it mandatory that they have to get vaccines?

PF: In some ways, we have -- but maybe not as directly, maybe it's a more indirect way. Our public schools -- you cannot enter our public education system without having vaccination. You could not get into college without having been vaccinated.

CO: But you just pointed out there are these exemptions that people can for their conscience or for religion.

PF: Yes. And by the way I should also note we have a medical exemption -- and by the way this legislation would not impact. You don't want to risk an unintended reaction to an immunisation.

CO: Sure. But why not make it mandatory?

PF: I am a cosponsor to eliminating the religious exemption. I think we've tried to be sensitive to the concerns of other religions and, in some states, other philosophies. But I think those days are over -- again -- because we've had this wakeup call and because the World Health Organization is saying we are on the verge, we are at risk of a public health crisis. So yes I think we will see more movement toward mandatory and toward better enforcement of having these vaccinations in our schools. It's more difficult when you have home schooled children or some private schools -- if they're not going to enforce that. It's hard to then make it mandatory. We certainly can't you know -- I would not support criminalizing this at all. So it's hard to make it mandatory beyond saying if you want your child in a public school they have to be immunized.

CO: Ms. Fahy I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

PF: Thank you so much for the interest.

JD: Pat Fahy is a member of the New York State Assembly. She and a fellow Democrat have introduced a bill to allow 14-year-olds the right to be vaccinated without needing consent from their parents.

[Music]

Google: Icelandic Town

Guest: Guomundur Gunnarsson

JD: If you pull up the Westfjords region of Iceland in Google Maps you will get pictures that you would expect to see: towns and mountains covered with ice and snow. Well Guomundur Gunnarsson and his fellow mayors in that area would like a change of online scenery. Mr. Gunnarsson is the mayor of the town of Isafjorour. And that is where we reached him.

CO: Mayor Gunnarsson what's the weather like there today?

GUOMUNDUR GUNNARSSON: It's actually really beautiful weather. But if it wasn't, I wouldn't tell you either. [Chuckles] So it's a lovely winter day. We haven't had a lot of snow anyway, so it's it's probably the Westfjords at its best.

CO: And what's it like there in the spring and the summer?

GG: It's actually really really beautiful, and probably quite different from what people picture or imagine. The summers are mild. But since we are so sheltered by all the mountains up here in the north they are relatively calm.

CO: I guess the point though is that it's green, right, at least on the land.

GG: Absolutely. It's all different shades of green and yellow. And it's actually quite flourishing.

CO: Why is it then if I look on a Google Map or look at you on a satellite view you're just in one frozen lump. Whatever time of year I would choose to try and look up your town, that’s what it would look like. Why is that?

GG: That's so absurd. And that's a very good question -- why is that? And this is a question we've raised on numerous occasions with our good friends at Google -- even though we don't know anyone there. And to be quite honest I think the people here are a bit annoyed by it.

CO: [Laughs] Well you're annoyed by it. Right?

GG: Yeah we are, but in a comic kind of way. We are used to all kinds of different weather, but it's not very uplifting when you go on the map and you try to look for different kinds of scenery. And you look out the window and you see all this beautiful green and even slight trace of sun. But on the map on your computer it's winter -- 12 month wintertime.

CO: And now it's more than just annoying as I understand for you to always be depicted as being a frozen lump of ice but it actually affects your ability to attract tourists.

GG: Yeah because it would maybe make sense if all the towns around us and the rest of the country would be painted in the same colours. But it's actually just this slight corner of the country where this particular town and the town closest to it -- they are the winter towns. But if you go several kilometres in the other direction you'll find a very similar facing village which is always very sunny -- and in their summer. So there is some bit of a mismatch.

CO: What happens if I go onto Google Street -- will I see a different version of your town?

GG: That's where -- it's almost like they're trying to be annoying [laughs] because on overview you have all this winter landscape and snow on the streets, but then as you zoom-in, as you go closer and you go all the way down to street view, it's actually a very beautiful July summer day here in Isafjorour. And you see the people wearing t-shirts, and calm seas, beautiful mountains which is totally different from what you just looked at that. If you zoom-out again -- then you're back to winter. So you can switch between summer and winter just with your zoom button -- which is quite the technique that Google has mastered.

CO: I mean if I were to go and spend time in Isafjorour in the summer -- what will it be like? What would I do?

GG: Well what do you want to do? I'm assuming you wouldn't be here if you weren't interested in beautiful landscapes and nature.

CO: Well I think if I'm going to go there to ski I'm going to be disappointed, right?

GG: You're going to be disappointed. We have -- maybe not what you would call a resort -- but we have some opportunities to go skiing. But in the summer that's impossible because the weather is too nice. Mountain hiking would probably be the option number one. Going out and seeing spectacular birds cliffs. Enjoying views of incredible mountains without any trees on them. All this sort of typical nature that you would expect in a volcanic island being torn apart by tectonic plates -- and with a very huge and large Viking heritage. And proud people probably.

CO: Taking on Google for any reasons is very difficult -- and so I know you've been doing this for a long time, trying to get them to change this perception. When did you take on this Internet giant before?

GG: Well we started out small. We started just putting across messages, comments, and trying to raise attention that this was quite absurd. And we've done that -- both myself and the mayor in the next town. And we've tried to encourage people that live here to do the same because our remarks and our questions so far we haven't got any answers. But what we do have is raise the tension from let's say media like a call I'm getting at this moment and it caused quite a stir here in the media in Iceland last week. But bear in mind this is a community of 4000 people.

CO: You've done quite well with 4000 people -- you have really put out your Horton Hears a Who-moment. But you personally have taken on Wikipedia. What was that moment?

GG: Where did you dig that up?

CO: Well you know we know everything about your town.

GG: I do have experience with trying to tackle -- let's say -- inaccurate information online. Because up until like a couple of weeks ago I was portrayed as being a 74-year-old electrician, and the father of the singer "Bjork." And the only reason for that is that we share the same name. So if you would look up Guomunder Gunnarsson on Wikipedia you wouldn't see the Mayor of Isafjorour -- you would see a 74-year-old electrician. [Laughs] So I tried to get that rectified.

CO: Changing all kinds of images over there in Isafjorour. Mayor Gunnarsson it's great to talk to you. Thank you.

GG: Thank you ever so much. All the best to Canada.

JD: Guomundur Gunnarsson is the Mayor of Isafjorour, Iceland. And that is where we reached him.

[Music]

Part 3: Encore: New book documents the rise and fall of Silicon Valley wunderkind Elizabeth Holmes

Encore: John Carreyrou

JD: Elizabeth Holmes could do no wrong -- except, it kind of turned out that 'wrong' was all she was doing. Ms. Holmes said she had invented technology that would revolutionize blood tests. And people bought it. And bought it. And bought it. And bought it. They invested billions of dollars in her company, Theranos. But the tech in truth was worthless. And eventually -- despite Ms. Holmes' efforts to hide it -- her company was too. Investigative journalist John Carreyrou exposed it in a series of articles for the Wall Street Journal. Then he published a book on the debacle entitled, "Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup." Last May, Carol spoke with Mr. Carreyrou about the rise and fall of Theranos. Since that conversation, Ms. Holmes has been charged with multiple counts of fraud and faces the possibility of 20 years in prison. So here's an encore presentation of Carrol's interview with John Carreyrou.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: John, welcome to As It Happens.

JOHN CARREYOU: Thank you for having me.

CO: Can you just start off by telling us what was the pitch that this company, Theranos, was making to the world?

JC: Right. Theranos was a company that was founded by a Stanford dropout named Elizabeth Holmes, and she claimed to have invented a portable device that could run the full range of lab tests off just a drop or two of blood pricked from the finger.

CO: And what would that be to replace? Why would that be something that the world would want?

JC: And in addition to being able to run the full range of tests from just a drop of blood from the finger she said — her pitch was that she could get the results very quickly at half or less of the prices that other laboratories offered. It would have been a great advance because, as you know, when you get your blood drawn usually they'll take several tubes — often as many as five tubes and they'll use the big hypodermic needle and a lot of people find that process unpleasant and avoid getting their blood drawn. And sometimes diseases and conditions get missed because people aren't getting their blood drawn and having lab tests as often as they should.

CO: And the company went even further to suggest that some point this could be something you have in your home like your thermometer, you could just do have your own blood tests, get yourself diagnosed and send a message to your doctor and you have a cure or some medication waiting for you.

JC: That's right. When she first dropped out of Stanford in 2003, Holmes had this idea for what she called a Thera-patch. It was sort of an arm band that had micro needles and the micro needles would draw your blood from your wrist and simultaneously diagnose whatever was ailing you and inject you with the appropriate drug. That vision proved a bit too futuristic and naive. So she quickly pivoted to something that she thought was more feasible, which was a cartridge and reader device. The reader was sort of like toaster-sized and it was a system that you could have in your home. And she idolized Steve Jobs and Apple and she wanted the Theranos blood testing device to eventually be in everyone's home and be ubiquitous just like Apple devices —iPhones and iPads and iPods.

CO: She, this Stanford dropout Elizabeth Holmes — absolute compelling personality. Her face many people have seen gracing the covers of all the big magazines and business publications. Who is she?

JC: She is — well now she's about 34 years old, at the time when she dropped out of Stanford, she was 19. She had barely completed a-year-and-a-half of her undergraduate studies. So she had no training to speak of in medicine or really in science but she was very ambitious. From an early age she wanted to be a successful entrepreneur. Like I said, she idolized Steve Jobs, and by sheer force of will and hard work she convinced a lot of people to fund her, and over the years developed three iterations of a Theranos blood testing device. And by the time she rolled out her blood test commercially in Walgreen’s stores and in the fall of 2013, she was now 30 years old and she became an instant star. And, like you said, graced the covers of Fortune Magazine, was profiled in The New Yorker, became a fixture at conferences and on television and her company in its last round of funding garnered a valuation of more than $9 billion. She had managed to keep half or more of the shares of her company so that effectively gave her a net worth four $4.5 billion dollars and made her the world's youngest female self-made billionaire.

CO: She modeled herself on Steve Jobs, as you mentioned. How did she do that?

JC: Well, she started wearing a black turtleneck around 2006. And, of course, that was the trademark outfit that Steve Jobs made famous. She also liked to drive around in a car without license plates, which is something that Steve Jobs also did. She implemented in Theranos a culture of absolute secrecy and that was also in part because it's something that that Apple was famous for. She had hired Chiat/Day, the advertising firm, and she hired them because they had worked on some famous Apple advertising campaigns. So really the mythology of Steve Jobs and of Apple really was there throughout her 12-year rise. It really was an obsession.

CO: But that magic, that sort of cult of personality that she created, attracted a lot of high profile, very impressive people. I'm looking at how you describe her board of directors — George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Secretary of Defense James Mathis. How did she manage to bring all those people into her orbit?

JC: You're right. Her board was filled with larger than life personalities, legendary former statesmen like Secretary of State George Shultz, who crafted the Reagan administration's foreign policy and is credited by many with defeating the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War. How did she get all these people on her board? Well, she was introduced to George Shultz by someone at Stanford in 2011 and George Shultz is someone who has always been very passionate about science. And he was won over by Elizabeth's vision and her charisma and he quickly joined her board. And after that he introduced her to many of his colleagues at the Hoover Institution, which is the conservative think tank that is headquartered right on the Stanford campus. And that's how she was able to meet Henry Kissinger and people like Sam Nunn and Bill Frist and Admiral Roughead and all of these people gradually became Theranos directors and she lured them with grants of stock. Of course the stock at one point was worth a lot of money because Theranos reached a valuation of almost $10 billion.

CO: You are listening to As It Happens. I have John Carreyrou in the New York studio. Ee're talking about his fascinating book Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. John, your book — well first your articles that you wrote for The Wall Street Journal and then ultimately this book — you begin with an anecdote about the company's onetime chief financial officer Henry Mosley. What did he discover about the early Theranos system that began to tweak his curiosity and his concerns?

JC: Right. In November of 2006, So Theranos by then was about a 3-year-old company, he started getting a sense that a demonstration that Elizabeth had given to Novartis, the giant Swiss drug maker, had not gone well because employees who had acompanied Elizabeth on the demo looked outright downcast when they got back to Palo Alto. So he started asking questions and eventually that day Elizabeth Holmes’ co-founder a person by the name of Shaunak Roy, who had worked with Elizabeth in the Stanford professor Channing Robertson's Lab at Stanford, came clean to the CFO that actually the demos weren't entirely real, that the result that they showed prospective investors who came by for the demos were pre-recorded because the system didn't always work and, in fact, often malfunctioned. And so they had recorded one result and that's what they showed. And he realized at that point that he had been bringing around investors for months and that they were being misled. And so he confronted Elizabeth that day in her office and told her ‘We need to stop misleading investors. We need to stop doing these demos if they're not totally real.’ And at that point she turned icy and told him that he was not a team player and fired him on the spot.

CO: He only knew that because he was he hearing it from people in the company that he was building this case. Others were hearing it or suspecting. What did you hear from other employees about what their suspicions were and why they didn't raise the alarm?

JC: Right, well the history of Theranos is one — and by the way we're now 15 years into it — is a history of tremendous turnover. Elizabeth fired people all the time. And you also had along the way quite a few people who left because they had qualms. The problem was that Theranos made everyone sign non-disclosure agreements and there was an unspoken and sometimes even spoken threat of litigation if anyone spoke up. So that's how the secret that this company was a house of cards got kept for so long. And when the company eventually commercialized its blood tests in the fall of 2013, even one of Theranos’ directors grandsons, who was working at the company at the time — and that was none other than Tyler Schultz, the grandson of the former Secretary of State George Shultz — tried to raise his concerns internally with Elizabeth and her boyfriend Sunny Balwani, who was the number two at the company, and he was rebuffed and threatened and he had to leave the company quietly. And I later made contact with Tyler about a year later and he was one of the whistleblowers who helped me expose the scandal.

CO: But as you point out, I mean, Silicon Valley is full of young people, idealistic people who see themselves above capitalism. They're trying to change the world. They think they're on a mission. It's a very zealous place. And so how come nobody blew the whistle? How come those who have little bits and pieces of this — some had larger pieces than others — why did they never expose Elizabeth Holmes?

JC: Well, this was a company that had an almost $10 billion valuation that raised almost a billion dollars from investors. It had very deep pockets. Its CEO and the COO were very intimidating and threatening, and it was very well known that they would not hesitate to go after employees who spoke up. And those threats were backed up in the person of David Boies, who is arguably America's most famous lawyer. He was the outside counsel for the company starting in 2011, eventually came to become a de facto board member in 2013 attending all the board meetings of the company. David Boies was a scarecrow that put the fear of God in many employees. They felt that if they were to go public with their concerns that David Boies and his henchmen would come after them.

CO: There's one man that you talk about, a scientist Ian Gibbons, a very a sad case of somebody who was working with Elizabeth Holmes had his concerns and died. Can you tell us about him and what happened to him?

JC: So Ian was probably the first legitimate scientist that Elizabeth hired in 2005 and he helped Theranos develop its blood tests. He had worked at several diagnostics companies over the years and Theranos is a company that he joined when he was in his late 50s. So he was at toward the end of his career and he eventually developed qualms because he realized that the diagnostic boxes that Theranos was working on were not reliable. And he also came to distrust Elizabeth and felt she was dishonest and he was also, at one point, demoted because he tried to blow the whistle on the way she was running the company to his old friend Channing Robertson, the Stanford professor who had helped Elizabeth launch her company and who was her mentor. And Channing Robertson told Elizabeth everything Ian had said, so in 2010 Elizabeth fired Ian. He was rehired the next day because a lot of his colleagues lobbied Elizabeth to rehire him, but he wasn't hired in the same capacity, he was effectively demoted. And so that blow to his pride in his career triggered the beginning of a depression, along with the fact that the company was claiming things about its systems capabilities that he felt weren't true. And eventually his depression got worse and worse and unfortunately, he committed suicide in the spring of 2013.

CO: And his widow was a very good source for you, telling you what it was like — what had been like for Ian Gibbons to be working for Theranos and for Elizabeth Holmes. What did she tell you?

JC: So I met her for the first time in the early summer of 2015, a few months before my first story came out, and she was still very much grieving Ian. I met her at a restaurant in Palo Alto and she had tears in her eyes and she felt that none of this would have happened if Ian had not worked at Theranos. She didn't know the particulars of the technological problems that Theranos was having because Ian had been prevented from going into that with her because of the NDA he had signed. But she knew, because he had told her so, that things weren't working, that the technology wasn't working. She also knew that the culture, the corporate culture at Theranos was one of fear, paranoia and secrecy.

CO: Despite such tragedies and despite all the people who had their doubts and concerned this company kept on and the though the technology was certainly not up to snuff Theranos managed to partner with the U.S. drugstore chain Walgreens. What was the deal? What did they partner to do in the Walgreen chain?

JC: Right. So the idea was they were going to do a pilot launch first in about 45 stores, a couple in California and the rest in the Phoenix area, and then they were going to expand Theranos’ finger stick blood testing services to all of Walgreens stores, which meant expanding to more than 8,000 stores through the U.S. And Theranos services would be offered in these wellness centres within the Walgreens stores. And Walgreens customers would go in and get their fingers pricked and then get results, supposedly within a half-hour and at a fraction of the prices of traditional laboratories.

CO: And did it work for anybody?

JC: Well, behind the scenes what was actually happening is Theranos was using one of its devices, the Edison, which was the second to last iteration of its technology, for only a few finger stick tests, between a half dozen and a dozen. And the rest of the more than 240 blood tests on its menus were actually performed on modified Siemens machines. So the Siemens machines were hacked by Theranos employees and modified so that they could accommodate tiny fingers stick samples and they did that mostly by diluting the blood samples to create more volume so that the Siemens machines could accommodate those samples. But, of course, diluting the blood created problems because the blood as part of the Siemens machines protocol would already get diluted within the Siemens machine. So this meant an additional pre-dilution step. And when you're diluting blood twice you're tampering with the sample and creating more room for error. The other problem was that when you were pre-diluting the blood you were taking the concentration of the analytes in the blood you were trying to measure down to levels that were below the allowed measurement range for these Siemens machines. So it was essentially an unauthorized experiment and Siemens itself didn't even know that Theranos was doing this with its machines and regulators certainly didn't either. And this resulted in inaccurate results and the results that were performed — that were obtained from the Edison for the few tests that the Edison put out, were also inaccurate because those machines were unreliable. So in the end Theranos had to void or correct almost a million blood test results in Arizona and California.

CO: And were people harmed by this? Did they get misdiagnosed and have any consequences?

JC: It's really difficult to measure the harm, but I certainly came across more than a dozen instances of patients who got questionable test results back from Theranos and had health scares or had unnecessary medical treatments. Some patients have banded together in a putative class action in federal court in Arizona alleging that Theranos committed consumer fraud and medical battery. And one of those consumers who sued alleges that a Theranos blood test failed to detect his heart disease. And that as a result the heart attack that he subsequently suffered, could have been, and was not prevented.

CO: You are listening to my conversation with John Carreyrou, who is the author of Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in Silicon Valley. And you're listening to As It Happens. John, you began to investigate, you approached Theranos to find out what they're up to. This is late summer and fall of 2015. How did Theranos react when they knew that you were questioning the system and what they were selling?

JC: I actually approached them — or they approached me they found out that I was talking to a lot of people and so they hired a an outside PR person to approach me in late April of 2015 and I would say that for the first two months the company gave me the runaround. I think that it hoped that I would just go away and in the meantime Elizabeth kept giving interviews to magazines and making appearances on TV, it seemed like I was the only reporter in America that she wouldn't talk to. So I finally told the PR person that they had to address my questions, that we had to meet and they couldn't just ignore me. So what did the company do at that point? It sent lawyers led by David Boies to the midtown Manhattan newsroom of The Wall Street Journal. And Boies and these lawyers met with us for five hours in June of 2015 and were threatening and told us that I had misappropriated Theranos trade secrets, that had to essentially cease and desist and either destroy them or return them. And it was made very clear to us that if we proceeded with the story we would be sued. Over the ensuing weeks Theranos was able to figure out who some of my sources were, including Tyler Schultz's identity, and went and threatened these sources and, I'm convinced, had them surveyed by private investigators. And one of the most shocking episodes is described in the book in chapter 20 of the book, is the ordeal that the company and David Boies’ his law firm put Tyler Schultz through.

CO: At some point Elizabeth Holmes had to actually address her staff — what she thought of these articles you were writing, your publications — how she was going to defend it. Do you know what happened when she actually addressed the staff?

JC: Yes, when the first story that I wrote came out she was in Boston. So she did an interview on CNBC’s Mad Money program, in which she essentially denied my article, and then flew back to California the next day held an all-employee meeting in the cafeteria of Theranos’ Palo Alto headquarters and told employees that the story was inaccurate and false and seeded by disgruntled employees and competitors and said that she would take on the Wall Street Journal and the reporter. Toward the end of that meeting Sunny Balwani, who is number two at the company and Elizabeth's boyfriend, led employees in an “F You” chant. They were saying “F you, Carreyrou.”

CO: So have you ever seen it get personal like that before in your investigations?

JC: I've been doing this for more than 20 years and I've certainly experienced instances where there was pushback but never anything of this scale. I mean, having sources followed and intimidated and having essentially a scorched earth campaign waged against me, my newspaper and my sources, is something that I had not experienced before.

CO: How did the Wall Street Journal respond to this? Because there was one issue that came up you learned, that well Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Wall Street Journal, was actually an investor of Theranos.

JC: Right. And I actually didn't know that before we published my first story. I heard rumors and I only got confirmation that Rupert Murdoch had invested in Theranos a year after my first story was published in October of 2016, at which point we found out that his investment was actually enormous. He had been the single biggest investor in Theranos. He had put a $125 million dollars in the company. And it was quite a surprise and a shock for me when I learned that.

CO: Elizabeth Holmes attempted to pressure him to shut down your investigation?

JC: Right. And I learned that subsequently when I went on book leave, I learned that she met with him four times before my first story was published, including once in his office on the eighth floor of the News Corp building just two weeks before my story was published and I was on the fifth floor just three floors below. And I had no idea she was in the building.

CO: Elizabeth Holmes has said that she was — in response to all this — she's devastated by deficiencies in her lab and she has settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the U.S. on charges of overseeing massive fraud. But has Elizabeth Holmes ever admitted she did anything wrong?

JC: Never. She did use the word devastated, but she didn't admit to having done anything wrong and she never apologized to the patients that she put in harm's way or to investors for that matter.

CO: Have you ever had a chance to interview her?

JC: Never. I tried to interview her for five-and-a-half months before my first story was published. I went back and sought interviews again over the next two, three years, including for the book, and she never agreed to speak to me.

CO: And your book isn't just about her — it's principally about her and this company — but it's also about Silicon Valley and its culture and this sort of cult of personality that exists there. How everything has a bit of a bit of fairy dust on top of it that people follow that very, very important people, smart people will go into investments with seems like, with their eyes half shut. So what do you make of that? What did you earn about the culture of Silicon Valley in the course of the investigation?

JC: There's a lot of innovation, for sure, going on in Silicon Valley, but there's also a lot of pretending, there's a lot of hubris and arrogance and Theranos was a story of fraud but also of hubris and arrogance. And the front man — or front woman rather — for the fraud was Elizabeth and she had this incredible charisma. She was also very smart and she had this ability to make people suspend disbelief. As I said, her idol was Steve Jobs, and she shared with Steve Jobs this trait, which was that she had a reality distortion field. She's able to cast a spell on people and to really get them excited and enamored with the vision that she's articulating, to the point where they forget to ask, ‘Are you really able to do this?’ ‘And if you are, can you walk me through how exactly it works and how you were able to solve these problems that thousands of researchers in academia and industry have been unable to solve for the past 20 years?’

CO: But if you hadn't done your investigation, if your investigative nose hadn't twitched at some point, I mean, a lot of people were invested in this — a lot of agencies that should have been on top of this, a lot of levels government that should have been alerted. This isn't like making an app for something that's just going to make your life more fun. This would affect people's health. How do you think it was able to bypass so many checks?

JC: Well, I mean, some parts of this story are almost incomprehensible. How did Walgreens, Theranos’ main retail partner, not do sufficient due diligence and figure out that the Theranos device was but a malfunctioning prototype? Walgreens actually hired a consultant very early on. His name is Kevin Hunter and he sniffed out that things were not right during visits at Theranos in Palo Alto and also during meetings that the two companies had. And he tried to warn people at Walgreens that this was going to end badly and Elizabeth and Sunny Balwani were able to get him marginalized by telling Walgreens that they didn't want him to participate in the weekly video conference calls and that they didn't want him to be in the in-person meetings anymore. And so he continued to work for Walgreens, but he was held at arm's length and not allowed to do his job. As far as the regulators are concerned, Elizabeth Theranos exploited a loophole between two agencies. And Elizabeth was able to capitalize on that ‘no man's land.’

CO: So at this point where — does Theranos still exist as a company?

JC: Theranos still exists. Elizabeth laid off another 100 employees about a month ago so the head count is now down to about 20 employees. And she announced to investors in an e-mail that the cash of the company was going to go beneath $3 million in late July. And at that point the covenant's of a loan agreement with the private equity firm Fortress would allow Fortress to seize the assets and to liquidate them. So it seems very clear that Theranos is going to be liquidated by August and will cease to exist. Then the other thing to keep an eye on is that there's a criminal investigation that's been conducted for more than two years now by the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco. And my sources tell me that that investigation is nearing its conclusion and that indictments of Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani are a distinct possibility.

CO: John it’s a remarkable story and I’m glad that you could — the Wall Street Journal gave you the ability to do this kind of investigation, very important. And thank you for speaking with us.

JC: Thank you so much for having me.

JD: John Carreyrou is author of "Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup." And he's an investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal. That was an encore presentation of his conversation with Carol which first aired in May 2018. And on Monday, HBO will air a documentary called, "The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley," -- which is also about the rise and fall of Theranos. You can find our conversation with Mr. Carreyrou -- should you want to listen again or share it -- on our website cbc.ca/aih.

March 15, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode