I continue to suspect the MIC used her as the pretty public face of some covert operation. When she was no longer useful to them for that purpose, they dropped her like a rock (presented in news media as "Theranos now discovered to have pulled the wool over investors' eyes!").
Yes perhaps, yet I don't really know. However, this is what I was thinking as it is not uncommon to
stack a board of directors - "
Social connections drive board appointments and more than two-thirds of directors in the 200 largest public companies are on the board of multiple companies." Which is what the article infers in the title '
Company boards are stacked with friends of friends...'
If one comes on a 'Board' (like Homes got Schultz to do) they often enlist others, and the more connected and more influential they are, they can help to drive spin/interest and thus stock prices. They can open many doors, too. It seems to me that Holmes knew exactly what she wanted in a Board and what she did not want.
This Holmes person tried to enlist the military for battlefield injury testing (which is a reasonable thing on the surface that could help), and Mattis was a good connection and willing to look at the military for Holmes, that is until the military turned her (i.e. the product) down.
There seems to have been a good body of scientists who scoffed at the whole idea knowing it is more complicated than what was being pitched. Walgreen's, however, jumped on board across the USA and rolled out the carpets in their stores (to them it sounded like a good idea too) until problems of misdiagnosis turned up, which is where the whole thing seems to have started to fall according to the investigative reporter.
Of Mattis, from the link provided above (Business Insider - from before the corporate fall) he was the military connection as "Observers have also long wondered
why the company has a board of directors full of ex-military and political officials, instead of
biotech and medical experts, something Theranos is
now reportedly working to correct." The article brings it back in that link three years earlier by stating that "Department of Defense sounded the alarm in 2012 and launched a formal inquiry with the Food and Drug Administration about the company's intent to distribute its tests without FDA clearance."
As the second link above points out, there was competition in the medical industry (their Boards lean to doctors /scientists), and to me anyway, the quote above about biotech/medical experts, speaks that by omitting said experts, questions could be deflected in order to mark the products efficacy to the public behind a veil (especially if the military was keen). Holmes needed people (listed) such as William H. Foege's connection as the CDC's former director; it did not seem to have worked out if tried, though. Whatever the case, it would all look impressive with Kissinger types hanging around for investors to ponder.
Those Board members would have been given favorable fees and stock awards (some boards can even be held libel to suits - like bank Boards due to failures), so it might be interesting to know if this Board excised their options early or got burned; I'm thinking the former, yet perhaps not.
Thought the whole Holmes, Steve Jobs look-alike bit was weird, right down to emulating his furniture.
