A commenter at Turcopolier has laid bare a crucial insight — the Deep State wants convincing ways to lie to the masses about medical tests.
Countless reports and documentaries are all based on the unlikely assumption that Theranos was her own brainchild and that she herself was in control of events. We’ll consider a different perspective here: one which places Theranos in context of the current pandemic and the coercive measures planned by the global health authorities.
Over the last 20 years, part of my own work has been raising money from wealthy investors. Based on that experience, I find the Elizabeth Holmes story completely impossible to believe. Now, my experience was different in that I wasn’t raising money for a tech startup and I never worked in Silicon Valley. Rather, I sought funding for hedge fund ventures. But in essence, the process is the same: you go to wealthy investors, pitch your project and hope to raise funds. Your counterparts are shopping for investments that can give them a high return on capital.
The experience gave me a good sense of the way wealthy individuals make their investment decisions. For starters, they are not stupid; they are usually quite rigorous and don’t easily fall for cosmetics or charm. It’s true that some investors spray money on startup ventures less discriminately with the rationale that some projects will succeed. Typically they’ll look at your team, business plan, demand some proof of concept, and if they’re half-convinced that you have a shot at succeeding, they might give you some money. But in such cases we’re normally talking about relatively smaller sums – say, a few hundred thousand bucks or something in that ballpark.
But when it comes to large sums of money, investors tend to be very demanding. Venture capital funds tend to specialize in a limited number of industries and they use domain experts to vet prospective investments. Their job is to conduct thorough due diligence on potential investments and distill the most likely future success stories out of many, many applicants. This process is itself costly and time-consuming, and I would expect that in Silicon Valley, which attracts top notch creative talent from all over the world, the process is quick to eliminate candidates that fail to convince that they have a sound concept, competent management team and a compelling business strategy.
The cosmetics alone – the stories, visions, displays of confidence or personal charm – they won’t get you past the gatekeepers if the stuff behind the façade doesn’t convince. In Elizabeth Holmes’s case, even minimal due diligence should have eliminated her: she set out to revolutionize health care but had no qualifications or experience in medicine and only rudimentary training in biochemistry. In almost all cases, her patents specified design of future solutions but not the functionality. She published no white papers or technical specifications, and could not demonstrate that her supposed inventions even worked. Any specialist in the field of medicine or biochemistry would have easily disqualified her claims and determined that there was no substance to her story.
So what’s the real story? How did Holmes manage to get that meeting with Don Lucas Sr? How did she meet Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Rupert Murdoch, Mad Dog Mattis and all the other power players?
It is far more likely that Holmes was recruited to be the front-woman of Theranos while the project’s real power brokers remained behind the stage. Her real qualifications were her youth, unbridled ambition, lack of any scruples about deceiving her own employees, investors and the public, and her willingness to advance her goals over people’s lives. She also had that sense of her family’s greatness which might have enabled her to set aside all legal and ethical considerations in pursuing her grand mission. Another plus would have been her supposed fluency in Mandarin, since future health challenges were expected to come from China.
We also know that an unnamed but influential person twice introduced Holmes to professor Phyllis Gardner. The same person may have also leaned on professor Channing Robertson to admit the unqualified Holmes into his chemistry lab? Furthermore, Holmes was able to skate past the due diligence gatekeepers at Lucas Ventures Group and land straight into Don Lucas Sr’s office thanks to an introduction from some unnamed friend of her father’s.
It appears that among Theranos directors, it was George Shultz who had the most hands-on involvement with the company. His failure to investigate the concerns brought to him already in 2014 by his own grandson and Theranos lab technician Erika Cheung indicates that he was more concerned about protecting the venture then he was about his own reputation, the investment of the people who agreed to fund Theranos, the Walgreens partnership, or the health and safety of patients who relied on Theranos tests. Shultz had ample time and resources to get to the bottom of these issues and take energetic action to right the wrongs. Instead, he took action to ensure that the truth didn’t come out.
Another revealing moment was an interview between Holmes and Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittran. He jokingly mentioned that the only person missing from her board of directors was the Pope, and then asked: “How did that happen? Was it, I’m just going to write to Henry Kissinger, these kind of caliber of people who are in the public eye, but probably not so easy to ring up?” Holmes replied that, “In our case, those were people whom I had the privilege of getting to know and in many cases working with for in some cases a couple of years before we asked them to join the board.”
I don’t know how or when Holmes met Shultz, Kissinger, Mattis, Bechtel, Roughead, Perry, Boies, or Nunn. But she told us that she had been working with many of them for years before they joined Theranos as directors. OK then, what exactly were they “working” on? Most of these people were deeply rooted in the military and foreign policy establishments and none of them had anything to do with medicine, biochemistry or health care. Yet for some reason, they all decided to pool their considerable influence and raise a huge amount of capital in order to “democratize diagnostics” and revolutionize health care? They also thought the best way to do that was to entrust it to a 19-year old with no qualifications in any of the relevant domains? This all brings us to a really important question: why?
Why would anyone, and especially a group of very powerful individuals, contrive such an ambitious, elaborate and unlikely venture? What moved George Shultz to get as closely involved with such an audacious, risky venture? When Theranos was set up, he was already in his 80s with a very distinguished career behind him, and Theranos was not a simple matter of flipping some tech investment with his retirement savings: it was a complex, long-term managerial undertaking completely unrelated to his expertise. And what was so important about “democratizing diagnostics?”
But before I attempt to answer that, there is another question about this mystery. Suppose you were one of these power players like Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, etc. You have the power to mobilize all the influence and resources in the world and for some reason, you decided to launch a venture to democratize diagnostics. If so, then why not go to companies like Siemens, Abbott Labs or LabCorp that already had the right expertise, decades of experience and world’s most advanced diagnostics technology? Why not tap the industry’s best talent and incentivize them to build your solution? Wouldn’t any reasonable person do exactly that? I believe so, and most probably, our Theranos dream-team did explore that option.
For some reason however, that route did not work for them and we can venture a guess why: probably because the response from the real blood testing experts would have been (or was) that what they were asking for was impossible. That is what professors Dr. Phyllis Gardner and Dr. Darren Saunders had suggested. Indeed, Dr. Gardner did not hesitate to say that Theranos investors were crazy to back such a venture.
according to comrade Gates, fighting these next pandemics will require quick, cheap and ultra-versatile platforms that can test 20% of the entire population every week. Doesn’t that sound a lot like what Theranos was trying to build? Indeed, on the occasion of promoting their joint venture with Walgreens in 2013, Elizabeth Holmes explained that, “We have an operational plan that will allow us to become within five miles from every person’s home through Wallgreens that we’ve opened and continue to open nationally.”
The explicit purpose of this infrastructure was to centralize the health care process so that diagnostics, medication and treatment could all come from the same source. Now that kind of a thing could explain our powerbrokers’ excitement about Theranos: it would be a very powerful tool of population control in the hands of those who lusted to wield it.
Theranos was intended as an information weapon
This agenda could explain why during its first 11 years, Theranos board of directors consisted almost exclusively of deep state actors: high ranking military officers and top foreign policy officials, but no medical doctors or health care experts. It also explains why the power players behind Theranos weren’t bothered about whether the technology actually worked or not: it was not intended as an accurate diagnostics tool (we already had those); it was intended as an information weapon. Unlike the PCR test which has been known and well understood by health care professionals worldwide, Theranos technology would have remained a mystery, hidden behind the veils of patents and protected intellectual property. The public would not be given the opportunity to have the devices examined independently; such checks would certainly be entrusted to reliable, Theranos-friendly inspectors.
The technology’s legitimacy would instead be protected behind Elizabeth Holmes’ personality cult. As her star rose, we were all encouraged to see her as a young genius, a successful entrepreneur, a brilliant inventor and an all-around do-gooder. We were meant to see her just as General Mattis, the Mad Dog described her: the anointed one with “the most mature and well-honed sense of ethics…” Elsewhere she was compared to Steve Jobs, “but with a kind heart…“
It is always difficult to dissent under a hailstorm of such propaganda. In an environment where almost everyone agreed that Holmes was a genius; that she was kind-hearted and brilliant, and where the narrative that she had saved millions of lives was widely accepted and believed, it would be very risky to face down the adoring crowd and tell them that the emperor has no clothes… Perhaps only a few would dare to speak up, but such lone voices could always be cancelled, ridiculed, or otherwise silenced.
In this way, Theranos technology would be able to fulfill its purpose regardless of whether it actually worked or not. It was created as an information weapon with which to manage future pandemics, convince the population that they were facing a health threat, that emergency measures were needed and that this or that kind of medication would be recommended or mandated.
New & improved versions of Theranos
If this was the venture’s ultimate agenda, then its importance for the kingmaker class went far beyond mere business considerations and its unravelling would not deter them. If so, we should expect that they would regroup and come up with new and improved technologies in pursuit of the same agenda. In fact, there’s much evidence that this is indeed the case. At this time, the health authorities in many nations are preparing to abandon PCR testing and replace it with other kinds of tests. For example, in July this year we learned that the Soros Economic Development Fund (SEDF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would buy the UK-based Covid testing company Mologic which allegedly developed a 10 minute test for Covid. We’ve also seen focused commitment among the traditional providers of blood-testing technologies to offer faster, more reliable and more widely available blood testing.
Venture capitalists’ quest to democratize diagnostics with miniature, network connected analyzers hasn’t withered either.
–read the original two essays at: