Without seeing the full emails, I&#x27;m hesitant to judge. The excerpt sounds reasonable, but for all we know, the subject line could&#x27;ve read, &quot;WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WRONG!&quot;...I thought company lawyers generally frown upon speculation of legal matters via email. Not necessarily to stamp out internal and genuine complaints, but because they end up being a rich source of material to be taken out of context should litigation come up...that said, Mr. Balwani probably should&#x27;ve kept that in mind before writing something that appears quite dickish when excerpted in an investigative news report.<p>The other parts of Theranos&#x27;s media strategy, according to the WSJ, doesn&#x27;t seem particularly friendly:<p>- Threatening to sue a widow whose Theranos-employed husband expressed doubts to her before killing himself.<p>- Going around to people who had been interviewed by the WSJ and asking them to sign statements (before the story was even published) that the WSJ had misquoted them.<p>- Holmes ignoring WSJ for _five months_. Then standing them up last week. The CEO is famous for being an inspirational, thoughtful speaker but can&#x27;t even make time in _five months_ to give a bland statement of defense or explanation to the Wall Street Journal, on a story that strongly hints at violations of federal health regulations? It&#x27;s one thing to refuse comment when a news organization ambushes you the night of the deadline -- it&#x27;s inexcusable to hide for five months..._especially_ if the company isn&#x27;t actually doing anything wrong.