Connect with us


Did S.H.I.E.L.D. Pay a Fine Tribute? Is Yellowstone More Ads Than Show? Are MLB ‘Fans’ Creepy? And More TV Qs



We’ve got questions, and you’ve (maybe) got answers! With another week of TV gone by, we’re lobbing queries left and right about shows including I May Destroy You, World of Dance, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Muppets Now!

1 | Did Fox Sports’ virtual baseball fans actually give you anxiety, since they were so tightly clustered and with no masks? And given the short season’s sickly start, should the MLB have simply hired 30 elite esports players to each “manage” one team and play out a full season via PlayStation’s The Show?

2 | I’ll Be Gone in the Dark viewers: On a scale of 1 to Sobbing on the Ground, how wrecked were you when Patton Oswalt recalled the advice Alice’s principal gave him, that he should wait to tell his little girl about her mother’s death the next day, “in the sunshine”?

3 | Did watching The Chi‘s Miss Ethel hold court at her old night club make you wish we’d had more lucid moments with her before her demise?

4 | To paraphrase TVLine reader Harold, should Paramount Network’s ads-heavy Yellowstone be retitled Commercial TV With Limited Yellowstone?

5 | How many of you correctly predicted The Alienist‘s Libby as the murderous Lying-In employee before the show revealed it?

Eye Candy Series Premiere6 | Did the announcement of Chrissy Teigen’s new Quibi game show Eye Candy make you think about MTV’s short-lived Victoria Justice thriller of the same name? That show did happen, right?

7 | I May Destroy You viewers, did your jaw drop right along with Arabella’s when the detectives noted that nine months had already passed since her attack?

8 | Did Penn & Teller’s Try This at Home Too special teach you some nifty close-up magic tricks that you are  now excited to try… once being “close up” is a thing again?

9 | When Stargirl‘s Courtney found herself unable to “power up” the staff, did you for a second think that maybe her given-away locket had something to do with it? Also, did Mike really refer to Courtney’s father as her “old man”? (Has Blue Valley’s 1950s aesthetic rubbed off on the lad’s lingo?)

Better Call Saul Best TV Shows 202010 | With Better Call Saul getting zero Emmy acting nominations outside of the sorely underused Giancarlo Esposito, we have to ask: Are Academy voters even watching the show?

11 | World of Dance‘s Derek Hough had never heard the word “coquettish”?? Also, did you laugh or groan when Ne-Yo suggested that Madison Penney needed to have her heart broken in order to dance better?

12 | Greenleaf viewers, if files were being remotely deleted from your laptop in front of your eyes, wouldn’t you try to, like, push a few buttons to stop it — exactly the way Grace didn’t?

13 | Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. fans, had you been spoiled that the late Bill Paxton’s son James would be playing Young John Garrett? If not, would the identical hairline have been your first clue? Or his vocal mimicry?

Ultimate Tag14 | Did Ultimate Tag contestant Erin’s head-on collision with that unpadded section of wall answer any questions you had about the wearing of protective mouth guards? Also, would a prospective Season 2 benefit from more of the taggers being fully committed/fierce (like Banshee), and less comical/cartoony (like Horse)?

15 | With the Big Brother All-Stars cast reveal not happening until Wednesday’s live, two-hour premiere, who are the houseguests you’re most hoping to see?

16 | As noted by Facebook commenter Joseph, isn’t it a bit ironic that the same month Netflix becomes the official home of Cobra Kai (on Aug. 28), they lose the rights to the original Karate Kid trilogy (on Aug. 31)?

17 | Why would Muppets Now give us a boring sit-down interview between Kermit and (an out-of-drag) RuPaul, when a parody of Drag Race with Muppet contestants would have been immensely more entertaining?

Hit the comments with your answers — and any other Qs you care to share!


$400k And Years Of Harassment: Tyler Shultz Tells Us What He Went Through To Expose Elizabeth Holmes



After John Carreyrou’s book, an Alex Gibney documentary, an episode of 20/20, and multiple podcasts and articles, it wouldn’t be crazy to think that the story of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos has been pretty well covered. That would be true for most stories, but Theranos, seemingly the perfect nexus of unchecked crony-capitalism and Silicon Valley’s techno-utopianist cult of buzzword libertarians, isn’t most stories. A personal angle always adds perspective, especially when that person is Tyler Shultz, one of Theranos’s first and arguably its most prominent whistleblower.

Shultz, the grandson of Theranos board member and former secretary of state under Reagan, George Shultz, had little to gain, and almost everything to lose in 2014, when he brought his concerns about the company he worked for first to a regulatory body and later to Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou. Carreyrou broke the story in a bombshell investigative series that he turned into book (I interviewed him here). This week, Shultz, now 30, Carreyrou’s most important on-the-record source, tells his own story firsthand in Audible’s new podcast, Thicker Than Water: The Untold Story Of The Theranos Whistleblower.

Revelations from Shultz and others, that Theranos was a $10 billion company whose central product (blood testing machines that were hyped as being able to perform a battery of tests using only a drop of blood) didn’t work, ended up taking down the company. Theranos’s eccentric CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, with her canned anecdotes and thousand-yard stare, a Frankenstein’s monster seemingly fabricated from inspirational quote books and pop biographies of Steve Jobs to bilk money from starry-eyed old men like Shultz’s grandfather, is currently awaiting trial.

Yet for all that to happen, a number of people, and Shultz especially, had to act almost perfectly against their own interests. It would’ve been so much easier to just shut up and go along, or quietly get a new job, than try to expose a deep-pocketed company that had effectively turned his aged grandfather against him. Not only did Tyler’s parents have to spend $400,000 to $500,000 of their own money on lawyers, Theranos’s own lawyers, led by the (in)famous David Boies, seemed to be using some of the same hardball tactics Boies had used in defending Harvey Weinstein, which in that case included hiring Black Cube, a “secretive investigative agency that used undercover operatives” (per the New York Times).

Shultz believes he had private investigators tailing him for more than a year. In one instance, one of Shultz’s lawyers had their car broken into and notes from their private meeting were stolen. Throughout the story, two huge hypotheticals echo through your brain: What would’ve happened if Tyler Shultz hadn’t been in the almost cosmically unique position of being able to defend himself? And, if I were Shultz, would I have put myself through all this grief just to expose the truth?

I talked to Shultz this week about his motives, Elizabeth’s voice, what his grandfather saw in Theranos, and what it was like being on an island.

So I take it your parents didn’t actually end up selling the house. How much do you think they ended up having to spend on lawyers?

We ended up spending, I think it was between $400,000 and $500,000 in lawyers. Thank God, they did not have to sell their house. That was really a situation specific to me actually going to court. We were told that if I was sued and I did have to go into a courtroom to fight this thing out, a good case scenario would be we spend $2 million and win. A bad case scenario would be obviously worse than that. Luckily, it didn’t come to that. So no, they still have their house that they’ve had for 30 years now, the house that I grew up in.

And that was in Los Gatos?

Yeah. Down in Los Gatos.

Talk about some of the harassment that Theranos was doing to you.

They bullied me around in a variety of different ways. One of the big ones was I felt I was entrapped in my grandfather’s home. They had lawyers hiding upstairs that I did not know were there when I went to go have an open, honest conversation with my grandfather, and then those lawyers were kind of sprung on me as a bit of a surprise. Then they had private investigators following me. I received a tip that, whether I was aware of it or not, that I was being watched about 80 to 90% of the time that I was in public places. Then probably about a year after that, I met up with John Carreyrou, for the first time in a very long time, on the Stanford campus. The Theranos lawyers let me know, I think just a few days afterwards, that they were aware that I was in contact with the reporter again. So I reached out to John, I said, “Hey, did you tell Theranos that we’re talking again?” And of course he said no. I don’t know how else they would have known that I had a lunch with the reporter unless they had someone watching either him or I. So we’re talking for a fairly long period of time someone was being followed.

It seems like it’s a pattern for Boies and his law firm. Is there any legal recourse for that? Are law firms just allowed to send private investigators to harass private citizens if they want?

Unfortunately, I think it is not. My understanding is that whatever you do in public, anyone can watch you. So it’s not illegal to hire private investigators to follow somebody around and watch where they go. Yeah, it’s kind of crazy, but I don’t think that it’s actually illegal.

I guess the big question is, if you hadn’t been in this incredibly unique position of having a board member in your family and being able to pay for all these legal fees, does Theranos ever get caught? If they don’t, what are the consequences?

They definitely would have gotten caught sooner or later. I probably expedited things, but they were in the process of really expanding their testing services and patients were already getting incorrect results, so I think the medical community was kind of on their trail already. When I left Theranos and I went and got a new job, I remember the COO telling me that they had a stack of resumes from people trying to leave Theranos this high. Then at one of my first lunches at that company, I sat down, and there was an employee there who was like, “Oh, where’d you come from?” I said, “Theranos.” And he just goes, “I could bullshit forever too if I had a board like that.”

[At one point, Theranos’s “all-star board” included William Perry (former U.S. Secretary of Defense), Henry Kissinger (former U.S. Secretary of State), Sam Nunn (former U.S. Senator), Bill Frist (former U.S. Senator and heart-transplant surgeon), Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired), James Mattis (General, USMC), Richard Kovacevich (former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO) and Riley Bechtel (chairman of the board and former CEO at Bechtel Group)]

When the Edison machine was like finally revealed to you, I got the sense that it was like when Scientologists finally get to that level when the whole story gets revealed, and they’re like, “…Wait, this is it?” What were the most absurd examples of what you guys were having to do to make these things work?

Oh my God. So, I mean, the list is fairly long. Tight off the bat, you could tell that this thing does not do hundreds of tests from a single drop of blood. This device can only run one test at a time. So if you came in and ordered 300 tests, even if those tests could be run on the Theranos platform, you’d have to run them on 300 different devices. And then on top of that, you can tell that there’s nothing revolutionary about it. There’s no microfluidics. There was no revolutionary signal transduction method. It was just a pipette inside of a box. And even though it was that simple, it didn’t work that well. When you’re pipetting in really small amounts, you need to be very accurate or you’ll end up with a lot of variation. And my understanding was that the Theranos device wasn’t accurate enough to do those small pipetting steps. So we had to run the samples through a third-party piece of equipment that we bought from a company called Tecan. It’s basically this fancy pipetting robot that would do that first pipetting dilution step, and then we would put it into the Theranos device. So it wasn’t even a standalone platform.

So, we would have problems where the door wouldn’t close. You’d stick the cartridge in and the door wouldn’t shut, so we would literally tape the door shut. I don’t think we ever tested to see whether or not the taped devices worked as well as the ones that were not taped. Then there was a barcode scanner in there that would scan a barcode on the cartridge, and it would know what tests to run, but oftentimes that barcode scanner wouldn’t work. So I would peel the barcodes off of the cartridges and put them on a pair of scissors and stick it into the device and kind of wiggle it around until it would finally scan.

They were also very temperature sensitive. They would complain that they were too hot. You’re on a schedule and you’re trying to get these experiments done, and I would actually just open the door and wave with my hand to try to cool it off. But it seemed like there was a delay between the thermometer and actual temperature, so it would immediately go from too hot to too cold. So then you’d have to shut the door and wait for it to heat up. If it took too long to heat up, we had these little kind of like blanket things in the lab that you would put over the machine to warm it back up.

The tips on the pipettes were constantly falling off. And they could get stuck in the gears and then it would jam. So we had, I think it was either literally a clothes-hanger or something very similar to a clothes-hanger that we had around, where you could kind of reach into the bottom of the Edisons and fish out the pipette tips that had fallen off.

It was such a disaster that I always thought that if we ever had to go to court, like if they sued me for violating trade secrets or whatever, I was going to demand that if this thing worked in a medevac helicopter it should work in that courtroom. The judge should prick his finger, and in four hours he should get 300 test results downloaded to his phone. And if it didn’t work, I should be able to leave. If Theranos was real, they could have proven it. In my mind, it was so easy to see if it worked or not. It’s amazing that here we are in 2020, and the story is seemingly still ongoing, you know? Elizabeth is still walking around a free woman.

How much of her success do you think came from being an old person’s vision of a young person?

What do you mean?

I mean, you had that scene in the podcast where it’s her birthday or something. And everyone there is over 50. It kind of seems like she was what an old person wanted to think a young person was like.

Yes. Well, I think Elizabeth represented a lot of good things. She represented the future, one that was… the future is female, you know? She embodied that. She was super sharp. She was a Stanford dropout. She fit all the criteria of being a Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. She was very charismatic. She was, quote-unquote “doing well by doing good.” So in some ways, she would be even above a Mark Zuckerberg. How much good does a Facebook really do versus how much good could Theranos do? So, she just had an amazing story that I think hooked a lot of people, and that included older men, who were probably also a little bit extra enchanted by the blonde hair, the blue eyes and kind of the attention they were getting from this young up-and-coming entrepreneur.

What about the voice? I know John Carreyrou hinted that the deep voice might be a put on.

I don’t know. I never heard her really slip out of that voice. Occasionally, if she were laughing at something and trying to talk at the same time, her voice did seem to maybe revert to a higher pitch, but, really, I don’t know for sure if the voice is fake or not. Her younger brother has maybe the deepest voice I’ve ever heard in my life, so it wouldn’t surprise me if Elizabeth’s voice also skewed that direction. But I wouldn’t be surprised either way. I am starting to wonder if she really speaks Mandarin though. I’m questioning that one.

The big sticking point between you and your grandfather was him wanting you to sign the affidavit that said that you had never talked to the Wall Street Journal after you already had. They were trying to catch you in perjury, essentially. Do you think that there was a real threat of them actually using that to charge you? Or was that just something that they were using to discredit John Carreyrou? I other words, were they just trying to get you to sign that so they could say like, “Oh, John Carreyrou invented this source and so all of his reporting is in dispute?”

Probably both. I think that if I had signed that document and lied under penalty of perjury, that would have been fantastic ammunition for them on many different fronts. Either they could come after me personally, or they could have used that to discredit me as a source and discredit the Wall Street Journal’s reporting. Looking back, that’s one of the best decisions I made, not signing that despite being under immense pressure to.

It seems like all the incentives were in place for you to just go along. Do you think that contributes to the cultishness of tech? Because everyone’s incentive was just to either believe in this or pretend to. And to go against it seemed like it would just get you nothing but trouble.

I mean, they were bullies. To go against them, they would just cause trouble for you. Right after that first Wall Street Journal came out, Elizabeth went on Mad Money, and I think we have a clip of this in the Audible Original. But she says that all of the sources have said that the Journal misquoted them or they demanded payment from Theranos just to have a conversation. She sounds very convincing, but what she doesn’t say is the circumstances under which those people retracted their statements. It was people like me, who all of a sudden were fighting David Boies and had no legal counsel, who were thrown into a situation they never anticipated being in, who were put under extreme pressure and felt like their livelihoods were endangered. And then they may have retracted their statements. I don’t know all the sources, and I don’t know who retracted or who didn’t, but knowing the circumstances I was under, I can only imagine that the circumstances were similar for other sources. Yeah. They were bullies, and they got away with being bullies for a really long time.

What were your grandfather’s incentives? You kind of went against your incentives because you felt it was right. But his incentive seems to be to just keep pretending everything was great. What were all the forces there that were pushing him in that direction?

One, I think was just pride. And I remember in one instance, him telling me that he was 90-years-old and he had seen a lot of stuff and he knew what he was looking at. Basically, he was saying, he’s been right so many times that it’s impossible for him to be wrong at this point in his life. Another part of it was that he was infatuated by Elizabeth. He really treated her like she was part of the family. She was coming to Christmas celebrations, birthday celebrations. He would invite her to Family Day at his fancy country club. They were very, very close, but I think that was also part of it. And then the other piece of it was financial incentive. I know that at one time he told his family that he had created a trust fund for his great-grandchildren, who would be my children, who do not exist by the way, that consisted 100% of Theranos stock. So there’s a trust fund for my future children somewhere with 500,000 shares of Theranos stock in it. I was definitely financially incentivized to make Theranos a success. My grandfather was definitely financially incentivized to make Theranos a success. But I think he had much more invested than just that trust fund.

How’s your grandpa doing now?

He’s doing great. He definitely sees that he was lied to by Elizabeth. He definitely is proud of me for doing what I did. He’s in good health for someone who is about to turn 100-years-old in a few months. I think just like everyone, he and his wife are getting antsy sheltering in place in California. But overall, he’s still working, he recently published a book. He does Zoom calls. He used to go into work at the Hoover Institute every day. Now he has someone come in and set up his computer so he can do Zoom calls all day long. So in a lot of ways, he’s just like you and me, chugging along, doing Zoom calls every day.

My grandpa’s going to be 103 in December, and he’s definitely not doing any Zoom calls.

Oh my God. That’s wild. Hopefully, you got those genes.

Tyler Shultz’s Audible Original, ‘Thicker Than Water,’ premieres August 4th. Vince Mancini is on Twitter.

Continue Reading


Man Walks Out On His Wife After Finding Out She Has Ovarian Cancer And They Can’t Have Children



So far, it’s all understandable. That kind of diagnosis is scary and confusing no matter how old you are, but it’s doubly so when you’re only 32 and 33. The man’s wife asked what this could mean for her, and the doctor was very clear.

“My wife asks what that means for her and he says that she’ll likely at least need a full hysterectomy, and they’d have to remove the Fallopian tubes as well as the ovaries.”

That is tragic news, again, especially to receive at such a young age. But… this is when the story takes a turn.

The man shares that instead of being afraid, he feels feelings of anger.

“That news jolted me from my chair. Because the doctor was effectively telling me that she wouldn’t be able to have kids after this, and after years of work, I thought we’d finally have a family.”

“I’m overwhelmed with emotions of anger, not just anger at the disease, but pent up anger form the fact that I had begged her to have kids since we were 26, but she refused for her career.

And now instead of becoming a real family, I didn’t even know if she would remain the woman I married, whether the last picture of us together would be last time I’d remember her looking beautiful, young, and carefree. Because the wife I as in front of me was already a different person.”

While it’s understandable that the man was caught off guard by this news, it’s strange that he so immediately centered his worries about himself: the family he wants, the wife that he wants. It definitely makes one wonder about the various reports and articles that report that men often leave women after they receive a serious diagnosis.

The man’s wife obviously knew this would be upsetting.

“My wife started to grab my hand and say “ We’ll fight this and we’ll adopt.”

But I shook my head and turned to walk out the door. I still had my suitcase in the car so I drove to a hotel because I didn’t know if my wife was going to end up being discharged or what.”

In other words… she received a scary, possibly fatal diagnosis at the age of 32, and he walked out and left her.

While at the hotel, he continued to process his feelings about himself.

“At the hotel, I was at least able to get out of reactive mode, but I was still so disappointed that our dream of a family was over.

I finally was able to get a grasp on all my emotions and feel more like my normal self in that I knew exactly what I felt about every aspect and how I would react to it from here on out.”

His mother-in-law called him and told him to simply stay wherever he was, and not to come back home.

The man hopped on to Reddit to find out if he was in the wrong. While defending himself, he again centers only his feelings and his reaction to his wife’s very scary diagnosis.

“I wasn’t going to expel the cancer if I stayed that night but I did at least make myself aware of my situation. And I feel I have a right to be angry that my hope of biological kids, the only kind I ever wanted, is rapidly fading away.”

Predictably, people were quick to point out that yes, in fact, this man is pretty terrible.

“Oh. My God. Your wife deserves far better than you.

This is not about you or your feelings. No one preempts cancer. No woman should be forced to have children earlier than she’s ready to just to fit into someone else’s grand master plan. The fact that you don’t see her as the person you married when she is more than just an incubator and a baby-making machine is deeply troubling.

You should go back. Grovel and support the hell out of her. The vows you made were ‘in sickness and in health’.

Stop being a wet ham sandwich of a man and be a decent human being.”

Another person urged the man not to go back, because he’s not going to help anything.

“He should not go back. Cancer patients have a better success rate and recovery if they are surrounded by positive influences around them. My mother had that operation and it took years to heal internally. This high-stress situation revealed his true character and I honestly see no coming back from this. What’s there to excuse? Sorry, that you ruined my hopes of a real child because you got cancer? I feel less attracted to you because your oven is being ripped out and we can’t get a bun in anymore?”

Another person commented that this guy pretty much confirms their worst fears about humanity.

“Jeeeesus. Sometimes I read a post on this subreddit and think, ‘Yep, this is it–THIS is the worst human being.’

And then this guy goes and prove me wrong.

Sure, you’re allowed to mourn the loss of what could have been, but you don’t get to abandon your wife during the worst moment of her life and cry victim.

I really don’t know if you should go back. MIL is probably right, and as others have brought up, negative influences can be harmful to cancer patients (this is very true; I’m a biologist and have written reports on this sort of stuff). If you can’t honestly overcome whatever the hell you’ve got going on and support and love your wife 110%, go kick rocks.”

One commenter pointed out that it’s unlikely the couple would have been able to have children anyway.

“If her cancer was already at ‘must have total hysterectomy,’ I’m not sure they’d have even been able to have children. Depending on the aggressiveness of her particular type, once it causes actual pain, it’s been there for a while.”

Ultimately, many people agree with the person who pointed out that the fact that his wife’s first reaction upon finding she has cancer was to comfort her husband is very telling.

“The fact that his wife said ‘we’ll adopt’ after hearing her cancer diagnosis because she knew that was the only thing he’d care about broke my heart. You don’t deserve her. I hope this ends in a divorce and she takes you to the cleaners.”

Continue Reading


Simpsons Star Harry Shearer Isn’t Necessarily on Board with Apu Decision



Harry Shearer, an Emmy winner for his legendary voice acting work on The Simpsons, does not appear to be on board with the show’s recent decision to pivot away from white actors voicing non-white characters.

“I have a very simple belief about acting. The job of the actor is to play someone who they’re not,” Shearer told Times Radio in an interview on Monday. “That’s the job description.”

The long-time Simpsons cast member gives voice to a number of famous supporting characters on the series, including Dr. Hibbert, who is Black. Under new protocols announced by Fox and the show in June, however, Shearer would no longer voice Hibbert going forward. The decision for The Simpsons to cast according to the character’s racial background came after years of controversy around the fact that Hank Azaria, who is white, voiced Apu, who is of South Asian descent.

For years, Azaria himself has sought to put distance between Apu and himself. “I’ve tried to express this before,” Azaria said to Stephen Colbert in 2018. “You know, the idea that anybody was—young or old, past or present—was bullied or teased based on the character of Apu, it just really makes me sad. It was certainly not my intention; I wanted to spread laughter and joy with this character, and the idea that it’s brought pain and suffering in any way, that it was used to marginalize people, it’s upsetting. Genuinely.”

Speaking to the New York Times earlier this year, Azaria said part of the reason he stepped away from voicing Apu had to do with a realization he had about how the character promoted stereotypes and mockery. “I started thinking, if that character were the only representation of Jewish people in American culture for 20 years, which was the case with Apu, I might not love that,” he said.

But ultimately, The Simpsons’ decision to cease having white actors voice non-white actors came after an industry-wide reckoning on race in animation. White actors like Mike Henry from Family Guy, Jenny Slate from Big Mouth, and Kristen Bell from Central Park have all announced they will no longer play their Black animated counterparts going forward.

According to Shearer, however, this push toward representation is anathema to performance.

Continue Reading