Agree with Dr Lo as being the expert--didn't get into that detail in my comment. He was a moderator and it was difficult to tell which parts of the question he

Agree with Dr Lo as being the expert--didn't get into that detail in my comment. He was a moderator and it was difficult to tell which parts of the question he read was the original audience question versus his own--but the question was a devastating moment nonetheless, and the Theranos response was weak (something to the effect of "that 50x number isn't comparable/relevant because our measures use the new ranges the CDC gave us". It was more of an "are you lying now, or were you lying in this 2008 paper?" question. Holmes didn't open her mouth at all for that one, and there was an awkward moment of silence and glance over to figure out which employee was going to take that one. I am less optimistic around the FDA's ultimate neutrality when it comes to political pressure. Facts certainly need to win, but Theranos didn't hire a board like they did if they were counting on facts alone to save the day. It's the same playbook from before, now pivoted to public health crises instead of a DoD endgame.