The Blood Lily Blooms: Haemanthus, Billy Evans, and the Unavoidable Shadow of Theranos

In the tumultuous landscape of biotech startups, a new name has emerged, immediately drawing comparisons to one of Silicon Valley's most infamous cautionary tales. Haemanthus, a diagnostic company founded by Billy Evans, has stepped into the spotlight, prompting an unavoidable question: Is this truly a new chapter in health technology, or merely a "Theranos 2.0"? The initial public reaction to Haemanthus's emergence has been one of profound skepticism, marked by a collective sentiment of "Have we learned nothing?". This immediate public and expert scrutiny highlights a fundamental challenge for Haemanthus: the inherent burden of association. The very mention of the company, especially given its founder's personal connection to Elizabeth Holmes, automatically triggers a comparison to the Theranos scandal. This means that Haemanthus's most significant hurdle may not be technological or regulatory, but rather a deep-seated reputational one, demanding an unprecedented level of transparency and verifiable scientific rigor to even begin building public and investor trust.  

The Ghost of Theranos Past: A Cautionary Tale

To understand the intense scrutiny facing Haemanthus, one must first revisit the specter of Theranos. Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford dropout, founded Theranos in 2003, promising to revolutionize blood testing. The company claimed to have developed a proprietary analyzer, referred to variously as TSPU, Edison, or minilab, capable of performing a multitude of accurate, fast, reliable, and cheap blood tests from just a few drops of blood. At its peak in 2013-2014, Theranos raised over $700 million from investors, achieving a staggering $9 billion valuation, with Holmes becoming the youngest self-made billionaire in the United States.  

However, the reality was a stark contrast to the audacious claims. The technology simply did not work consistently, performed a limited number of tests, was slower than conventional methods, and frequently yielded flawed and unreliable results. Theranos made numerous false representations, including claims that its tests were being used by the U.S. military in medivac helicopters and that the company was far more profitable than it actually was. The company's culture was characterized by distrust, psychological pressure, and outright lies, with employees allegedly pressured or fired for asking critical questions, and error reports routinely ignored.  

The unraveling began in 2015, largely due to whistleblower revelations from former employees like Erika Cheung and Tyler Shultz, coupled with relentless investigative journalism by John Carreyrou of The Wall Street Journal. These exposures revealed that over 200 advertised blood tests could not be performed on the "Edison" machine, and the few it could handle were unreliable, leading to patient misdiagnoses for conditions ranging from diabetes to cancer. The company faced a barrage of legal and commercial challenges from federal regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), ultimately leading to its dissolution in September 2018.  

Elizabeth Holmes's reckoning culminated in a federal jury convicting her on January 3, 2022, of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three counts of wire fraud against investors, involving over $140 million. She was acquitted of patient-related fraud charges. In November 2022, U.S. District Judge Davila sentenced Holmes to 135 months, or 11 years and 3 months, in federal prison. She began serving her sentence on May 30, 2023, at Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, Texas. Her appeals have been consistently denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with a unanimous denial of her request for a rehearing in May 2025, leaving a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court as her last, and highly unlikely, avenue for relief. Holmes and her former business partner, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (who was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison for his role), were also ordered to pay $452 million in restitution.  

The Theranos saga serves as a stark reminder of the perils inherent in the "fake it till you make it" ethos when applied to healthcare. The company's core deception was not merely about misrepresenting capabilities to investors, but about operating a medical diagnostic service that actively provided inaccurate diagnoses to patients, directly impacting their health and safety. This distinction elevates the Theranos fraud beyond a typical tech startup failure; it underscores why the Silicon Valley mantra of "move fast and break things" is catastrophic when human health is at stake. For any new venture in this space, particularly one with a direct connection to this history, the standard for validation and regulatory compliance is exponentially higher. Any perceived deviation from rigorous scientific proof will trigger immediate and severe backlash from the public and regulatory bodies whose trust was profoundly shattered.  

Furthermore, the initial success of Theranos demonstrates the enduring power of narrative over reality. The company's ability to raise hundreds of millions and achieve a multi-billion dollar valuation, despite its technology not working and internal dissent, shows that Holmes's compelling narrative and charisma, combined with investor enthusiasm and a lack of deep due diligence, initially overshadowed the scientific and operational realities. This historical context establishes a dangerous precedent for Haemanthus. While the public is now more skeptical, the allure of "revolutionary" health technology, especially when presented by a founder tied to a high-profile figure, could still attract investment from those prioritizing hype over verifiable science. The immense burden of reinvention for Haemanthus stems from the fact that Theranos's initial ascent was built on illusion, not substance.  

Haemanthus Emerges: A New Chapter, Familiar Faces

In January or February 2024, Billy Evans, the romantic partner of Elizabeth Holmes and father of their two children, William and Invicta, incorporated a new blood-testing startup named Haemanthus. Evans, an heir to the San Diego-based Evans Hotel Group, met Holmes in 2017, during the federal investigation into Theranos, and they became engaged in 2018.  

Haemanthus's stated mission is ambitious: to offer a "radically new approach to health testing," advancing the frontiers of science and providing "exceptional service and accurate results for all Haemanthus-related needs". The company has reportedly raised $3.5 million from friends and family, with plans to secure an additional $15 million, aiming for a total of over $50 million in funding. Public reports indicate approximately $18 million has already been raised.  

The company has been proactive in attempting to distance itself from the "Theranos 2.0" label. Haemanthus has publicly stated that "this is not Theranos 2.0" and that Elizabeth Holmes has "zero involvement" in the company, claiming they have "learned from her company's mistakes". They argue their approach is "fundamentally different" from Theranos, which sought to miniaturize existing tests. The name "Haemanthus" itself, derived from the "blood lily" flower, is presented as a symbolic nod to its mission.  

However, a significant credibility gap emerges when comparing Haemanthus's public denials with other reports. While the company asserts "zero involvement" from Holmes, multiple sources indicate she is reportedly advising Evans on the company from prison. This direct contradiction between public statements and reported activities creates immediate distrust. The company's proactive denial suggests an awareness of the reputational damage from the Theranos scandal, but the alleged continued involvement of Holmes, even in an advisory capacity, fundamentally undermines their efforts to establish trust and a distinct identity. This inconsistency is a critical red flag for both potential investors and the public, suggesting a lack of full transparency from the outset, a characteristic that tragically plagued Theranos.  

The initial funding model also warrants scrutiny. The reported $3.5 million raised from "friends and family" , while a common early-stage funding source, raises questions about the rigor of due diligence applied to these investments, especially given Evans's background as an heir to a prominent hotel group and the high-profile nature of his partner. This contrasts sharply with the later, more institutional funding rounds that Theranos attracted, which were ultimately defrauded. This initial funding mechanism might allow Haemanthus to bypass the more stringent scrutiny typically applied by traditional venture capital firms, at least in its earliest stages. This could enable the company to operate longer in a "stealth mode" without facing the immediate, intense external validation pressures that a company with such a controversial association should inherently warrant.  

Deconstructing the Tech: Raman Spectroscopy, AI, and the "Radically New Approach"

At the core of Haemanthus's claims lies its proposed technology: Raman spectroscopy. This laser-based technique detects molecular signatures by measuring how light scatters when it interacts with biological samples. Haemanthus intends to couple this with AI-based software to analyze biological samples, including blood, saliva, and urine, for biomarkers such as glucose and hormones. The company reportedly holds a patent describing a system designed to identify biomarkers in bodily fluids.  

From a purely scientific standpoint, Raman spectroscopy is a legitimate and promising analytical technique in biomedical sciences. It is non-invasive, highly sensitive, and capable of providing detailed molecular insights. Research has explored its clinical applications in disease diagnosis, including the detection of ALS and certain types of cancer. Similarly, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have demonstrably revolutionized early disease detection. AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of medical data, identify complex patterns, and assist in diagnosing conditions like cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurological disorders with high accuracy, sometimes even surpassing human experts. For instance, researchers at Johns Hopkins, including Dr. Victor Velculescu, have developed and validated an AI-powered liquid biopsy for early lung cancer detection from blood tests, showing a remarkable negative predictive value of 99.8%. Furthermore, studies from institutions like a Chinese medical university have shown that combining AI with Raman spectroscopy can significantly improve the accuracy of detecting conditions like melanoma and identifying bacterial infections.  

Haemanthus claims its approach is "markedly different" from Theranos, which relied on microfluidic cartridges to run traditional blood tests on a miniaturized lab-on-a-chip. While the underlying technologies indeed differ, the core ambition remains strikingly similar: to deliver fast, minimally invasive diagnostics in a small form factor.  

This situation presents a paradox: the underlying science is real, but the execution is everything. While Raman spectroscopy and AI are legitimate and promising technologies, the critical question is whether Haemanthus's specific application of these technologies works as claimed, reliably, accurately, and at scale, under rigorous scientific and regulatory scrutiny. Theranos's failure was not necessarily in the theoretical impossibility of miniaturized blood testing, but in its inability to execute the technology reliably and ethically in practice. The ghost of Theranos reminds us that claims, no matter how technologically plausible, are meaningless without demonstrable, independently verified results.  

Moreover, Haemanthus's ambition to create a "small form factor" device , potentially even a "wearable device" the "size of a postage stamp" , echoes Theranos's ultimate failure point: the miniaturization trap. Theranos's core promise was to shrink complex diagnostics into a "minilab" with a few drops of blood. While Haemanthus is pursuing a different technological pathway, the shared ambition to condense complex diagnostics into a tiny, accessible device suggests it could face similar engineering and scientific hurdles related to maintaining accuracy and reliability at such a small scale. This historical context demands extreme skepticism regarding claims of revolutionary miniaturization without robust, independent validation.  

The Business of Blood: Strategy, Funding, and Regulatory Loopholes

Haemanthus's strategic market entry plan involves initially testing animals and targeting the pet and veterinary market before expanding into human healthcare. This strategic choice is a well-known maneuver in the biotech industry, potentially an attempt to navigate around the significantly tighter regulatory oversight associated with human diagnostics. Indeed, Haemanthus's pitch deck reportedly contained a claim that there was "no regulatory oversight" of the company's device in its current form. This approach, while a legitimate business strategy for some startups, raises a red flag in the context of Theranos, suggesting a potential prioritization of speed and market access over the rigorous, human-centric validation that is paramount in healthcare. The eventual transition to human health will inevitably bring these stringent regulatory challenges to the forefront, and the company's early avoidance could be perceived as a lack of commitment to the highest standards.  

As noted, Haemanthus has reportedly raised $3.5 million from friends and family and an additional $15 million from other sources, with a total reported funding of $18 million and an ambitious goal of raising over $50 million. Disturbingly, reports indicate that some of the same investor circles that once bankrolled Theranos are reportedly being approached by Haemanthus.  

The company's team is reportedly small, around 10 employees, with some having worked at Evans's prior venture, Luminar Technologies. Haemanthus also claims to have "roughly two dozen advisers helping them, including vets and testing experts," though no names have been disclosed. The most controversial aspect of the team structure remains the alleged advisory role of Elizabeth Holmes from prison. While Haemanthus publicly denies Holmes's involvement, stating she has "zero involvement" , her ban from being an officer or director of a public company does not extend to private companies like Haemanthus.  

Haemanthus's continued operation in "stealth mode" , characterized by a "low profile, lack of public contact information, and closed-door communication style" , further fuels skepticism. While common for nascent startups, for a company with such a controversial association, this secrecy echoes early Theranos tactics, where a lack of transparency masked a lack of scientific validity and enabled the exploitation of buzzwords to dodge scrutiny. This lack of openness, combined with the alleged advisory role of Holmes, creates a significant trust deficit. Transparency is not merely a regulatory or scientific requirement but a crucial reputational imperative. Operating in stealth mode, while protecting intellectual property, simultaneously prevents the public and independent scientific community from scrutinizing their claims, which is precisely what is needed to differentiate themselves from the Theranos saga. The dynamic where "silence invites suspicion" is particularly potent here.  

The Unavoidable Shadow: Skepticism, Scrutiny, and Public Reaction

The emergence of Haemanthus has been met with an immediate and palpable backlash from the public and industry experts alike. Reactions on social media have ranged from astonishment to outright mockery, with many questioning, "Have we learned nothing?". Prominent voices have voiced deep concern; whistleblower Tyler Shultz, a former Theranos employee, cautiously remarked, "She seems to be trying again," while Dr. Geoffrey Baird, chair of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, starkly commented, "I wish there were a way to short a stock before a company even exists".  

This intense scrutiny is exacerbated by the persistent credibility gap surrounding Elizabeth Holmes's alleged involvement. Haemanthus's public claims of "zero involvement" from Holmes stand in direct contradiction to reports from various sources confirming her advisory role from prison. This blatant inconsistency fuels distrust and severely undermines the company's efforts to establish its own identity, independent of the Theranos legacy. The paradox of proximity and distance is stark: while Haemanthus actively attempts to create distance from Theranos through public statements, Evans's undeniable personal proximity to Holmes and her alleged continued advisory role make true separation impossible. This creates a challenging public relations tightrope, where every claim of innovation or differentiation is met with heightened scrutiny, not just because of the technology itself, but because of the unavoidable personal and historical baggage. The company's actions regarding transparency will ultimately speak louder than its denials.  

Haemanthus itself has acknowledged this uphill battle, stating that "skepticism is rational" and they "must clear a higher bar". This "higher bar" necessitates not just technological innovation, but an unwavering commitment to transparency, rigorous scientific validation, and a fundamental departure from the secrecy and buzzword-driven tactics that characterized Theranos.  

Questions also linger about the due diligence being conducted by investors. Despite the Theranos scandal, which defrauded investors of hundreds of millions of dollars , Haemanthus has already raised $18 million, and reports indicate it is approaching "some of the same investor circles" that once bankrolled Theranos. This raises concerns about whether the lessons of Theranos have truly been learned by all stakeholders. The ability to continue raising significant capital, even from previously burned investors, suggests either a short memory in certain investment communities, a belief in the "second chance" narrative, or a willingness to gamble on high-risk, high-reward ventures despite past failures. Dr. Baird's cynical remark underscores the deep skepticism from those who understand the industry's history. The "scorched earth" effect on investor confidence from Theranos means that the continued flow of capital into a "Theranos-adjacent" venture, despite clear red flags of secrecy and alleged controversial involvement, suggests that the allure of disruptive health technology, even when unproven, remains potent enough to override caution for some.  

The Road Ahead: Hurdles, Hope, and the Path to Trust

The path from cutting-edge diagnostic research to a scalable, regulated, and commercially viable product is fraught with inherent difficulties. Translating complex innovations like Raman spectroscopy and AI from academic settings to real-world healthcare applications is a significant challenge, often encountering "translational gaps" where new knowledge and clever technologies face slow and haphazard uptake. The high failure rates of investigational drugs, with up to 90% failing to gain approval due to lack of efficacy in human testing despite promising animal models, underscore the immense hurdle of clinical validation.  

Beyond scientific validation, Haemanthus faces a complex regulatory landscape. Medical devices, particularly those involving AI, are subject to stringent and diverse regulatory standards that vary widely across countries, complicating compliance efforts for companies operating internationally. Challenges include navigating sub-supplier regulations, managing unexpected approval delays due to overwhelmed regulatory bodies, and addressing the growing need for robust cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive patient data. Furthermore, scaling diagnostic solutions presents its own set of formidable hurdles: identifying and qualifying strategic laboratory partners, overcoming technical integration bottlenecks, maintaining consistent quality control across multiple sites, managing complex logistics for shipping, and handling the operational overhead of patient compliance. AI solutions in healthcare also contend with the ongoing challenge of developing adequate regulatory safeguards and attracting sufficient investment to navigate this evolving landscape.  

The "regulatory catch-up" challenge is particularly relevant for Haemanthus. While its initial focus on the pet market might temporarily shield it from the most stringent human regulatory oversight , the company's stated long-term goal is human diagnostics. The regulatory environment for AI-powered medical devices is still evolving and inherently complex. This implies that Haemanthus will inevitably face significant, and potentially unpredictable, regulatory hurdles as it attempts to transition to human applications. Any shortcuts taken now, or any lack of rigorous internal validation, will likely be exposed and severely penalized, potentially leading to a similar downfall as Theranos, which ultimately failed because it could not meet regulatory and scientific standards.  

Ultimately, revolutionary health technology lives or dies on evidence, not just narrative. For Haemanthus, transparency is not merely a regulatory or scientific requirement but a fundamental reputational imperative. The company's proximity to the Theranos scandal means it begins with a significant trust deficit. This "trust deficit" is a substantial business barrier, impacting not only investor confidence but also potential partnerships , the ability to attract top talent, and, critically, eventual patient adoption. If patients or healthcare providers do not trust the diagnostic results, the technology, no matter how advanced, is commercially unviable. Therefore, Haemanthus's success hinges not just on technological breakthrough but on an extraordinary commitment to verifiable data, transparent operations, and ethical conduct. They must actively over-communicate and embrace scrutiny, rather than deflect it. Failing to do so will mean that even if their technology works, the reputational damage from its association will prevent widespread adoption and ultimately, commercial viability, making their path to market significantly harder than a typical biotech startup.  

Conclusions

Haemanthus, under the leadership of Billy Evans, enters the biotech arena burdened by the undeniable shadow of Theranos. While the company claims a "fundamentally different" technological approach utilizing Raman spectroscopy and AI – both scientifically legitimate fields – the striking parallels in ambition, the initial "stealth mode" operations, and the controversial alleged advisory role of Elizabeth Holmes create a profound credibility challenge.

The lessons from Theranos are clear: in healthcare, verifiable scientific evidence and rigorous regulatory compliance are non-negotiable. The "fake it till you make it" mentality proved catastrophic, leading to patient misdiagnoses and widespread fraud. Haemanthus's strategic move to target the pet market first, while potentially easing initial regulatory burdens, raises questions about its long-term commitment to the highest standards required for human health diagnostics.

The company's explicit denials of Holmes's involvement, juxtaposed with reports suggesting otherwise, establish an immediate trust deficit. For Haemanthus to truly differentiate itself and succeed, it must move beyond mere denials. It must embrace radical transparency, subject its technology to independent, rigorous scientific validation at every stage, and foster an organizational culture that prioritizes ethical conduct and patient safety above all else. The public and the scientific community are watching with a heightened level of skepticism. Haemanthus faces an exceptionally high bar for earning trust, a bar set by the very scandal it seeks to escape. Whether it can truly emerge as a legitimate innovator or remains tethered to the cautionary tale of Theranos will depend entirely on its unwavering commitment to integrity and demonstrable results.