Crazy Eyes is BACK!

From the Slope of Hope: I saw a headline on December 24 which put a damper on my Christmas Eve:


Ummm - - so why on earth would this bug me? I don't have a dog in this fight. If Theranos goes bankrupt, it doesn't hurt or help me one bit. If they become the most valuable company in the world (ha!), the situation is the same. Utterly neutral and meaningless. So why should I care?

I've been pondering my reaction. Theranos is no stranger to the Slope of Hope, as I've written about this train wreck at length on eight separate occasions. For most of 2017, I wondered what had happened to them, because the media went completely silent on them. Ms. Holmes' own Twitter account hasn't issued a tweet for over two years (!), and every time I drive by the gorgeous Theranos headquarters here in Palo Alto, I see a completely empty parking lot. So I figured she basically got away with raising $900 million and having a ruined company without any consequence. But it seems I was wrong.

With the $100,000,000 that Fortress Investment is inexplicably throwing at Theranos, the company has now raised a billion bucks. I figure Holmes must have some SERIOUS dirt on somebody, because nothing about this makes any sense at all. Yes, yes, I realize her board of directors used to have every deep state slimeball imaginable, so maybe that helps, but let's face it, the Theranos name is mud. I would wager its brand has NEGATIVE value. If you were starting a brand new medical device company, and you could give it the Theranos name for, say, ten dollars, would you do it? Yeah, I didn't think so.

So, again, why should I care? Well, I think part of it is this:

Holmes' whole schtick was how she was the reincarnation of Steve Jobs. From the bizarre diet to the black turtlenecks to the secrecy ("Hey! Our stuff doesn't work at all! Shhhhhh! Don't say anything!"), she held herself out as a younger Steve Jobs who wore a B-cup. For a while, the media gobbled it up, and they actually put her on the front cover of national magazines, repeating the claim that she was worth $4.5 billion. She - - how shall I put this? - - wasn't.

Here we see Ms. Holmes describing the $100 million as a great investment on a conference call, whose listeners couldn't detect the air quotes.

I remain floored anyone would put another dime into this place. As the recent Wall Street Journal article mentioned, "An investigation by the Journal in October 2015 sparked a wave of scrutiny about Theranos' practices, at a time when the company had a valuation of around $10 billion. Holmes has continued to lead Theranos through settling multiple lawsuits. However, investigations opened by both the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are ongoing." So they are tits-deep in lawsuits and angry shareholders, both Holmes and Theranos have been banned from running labs, and their name has become synonymous with smoke and mirrors. What's going on here? Just because you throw on a white lab coat doesn't make you a genius scientist.

Joking aside, I think for me what bugs the holy hell out of me is simply the disappointment. The past eight years have shown us an environment in which fraud, government bailouts, and crooked executives go unpunished, if not celebrated. Once in a blue moon, there's a piece of shit company which is finally exposed for what it is (other examples - - and and blow up in front of our eyes. We saw that with Theranos, and even though their success or failure doesn't affect my life one iota, it gave me some minuscule degree of satisfaction that there was still a little bit of judgment, discernment, and fairness to the world.

So when Theranos had an H-bomb dropped on them, and Holmes disappeared from the press, and their parking lot went empty, and their office space went up for lease, I thought to myself: there's still a little bit of sense left out there. But I was wrong. There isn't. And if you're a mildly-attractive slender blonde with some razzle-dazzle and the right connections, you can get away with just about anything.


CheapBastard Wed, 12/27/2017 - 06:28 Permalink

Blue-eyed con artist? does make me wonder about those chemo drugs that work so well in the labs and research but almost never save a real cancer life despite costing hundreds of thousands.

Shift For Brains Dangerclose Wed, 12/27/2017 - 08:55 Permalink

Had three members of my nuclear family die of cancer AFTER aggressive medical "care" with chemo. Have had friends die who led healthy lifestyles and when they got cancer and treated it with chemo, d.i.e.d.It's not a therapy, it's a financial tranference vehicle from your life savings to doctors and institutions. FUCK THEM.As much as you can, lead a healthy life which includes what you eat, drink, smoke and THINK. Put your money now in the best quality food you can afford...or give it in a lump sum to these fucking shysters as you lay dying. 

In reply to by Dangerclose

CheapBastard Shift For Brains Wed, 12/27/2017 - 09:29 Permalink

Several recent stdudies show a 'Green Juice" diet of veggies every day will keep you alive for 18 months [on the average] after they make the diagnosis of lung cancer (I think they said small cell lung cancer). YOu don't lose your hair, your teeth don't fall out and your feet don't swell like balloons. Chemo, at a cost of hundreds of thousands and much much suffering, will do the same.

In reply to by Shift For Brains

Overfed Shift For Brains Wed, 12/27/2017 - 13:52 Permalink

I dunno. My father was diagnosed with metastasized colon cancer in '02. He was in a good place emotionally, had a stable relationship, a decent place to live, etc.For the first 9-10 months, he responded very well to chemo. The doctors were very pleased, and were predicting a full remission. Then his ol' lady split the sheets on him, and he totally collapsed. He muddled through for a little over another year, but ultimately died.Attitude and outlook is everything.

In reply to by Shift For Brains

toocrazy2yoo CheapBastard Wed, 12/27/2017 - 07:03 Permalink

Only in Feminist Controlled Matriarchies could allow such a thing. Holmes' education might have been a clue, no? This broad's major? Mandarin Chinese, believe it or not. The Great Feminist Scientist, a Chinese Lit Major. It's un-fucking-believeable! Author of this piece didn't know or forgot that particular tidbit. Something happened, she blew someone, she got raped, something. She was trying to sell her processes to the military at the time, maybe some General trying to fuck her, who knows? This is sexual and feminist-business corruption, but other than sponsoring this attention-whore, I don't see any financial gain except to Holmes herself, IF she's allowed to bust out that cash. Her settlement with FDA also included restitution to certain ivestors. Where does this money land?

In reply to by CheapBastard

Arrow4Truth CheapBastard Wed, 12/27/2017 - 11:50 Permalink

Wonder? Chemo recipients are simply used as a vehicle for hazardous waste disposal. Yeah, in some cases the cancer goes into remission but ultimately the chemicals kill the host... and they can write whatever they want to regarding efficacy. The fact that it's allegedly "peer reviewed" speaks volumes. Wholly major scam, Batman. Just say no...

In reply to by CheapBastard

NoPension Wed, 12/27/2017 - 06:49 Permalink

Picked up a little tidbit, while perusing the web...a week or so ago. It was a blog or an article about the " swamp ". Mentioned this company was a creation to funnel $FreedomBucks to swamp rats like Hillary, etc. Look at the board of directors, for crisesake. Full of old swamp creatures most of us thought were dead.
Could be a grain of truth.

Either way...there is some shady shit going on here.

toocrazy2yoo Wed, 12/27/2017 - 06:56 Permalink

Holmes' two year ban from the 'industry' is over now, if IIRC from a recent article. She and Chelsea Hubble Clinton were BFF about NYC until the truth broke. Of course, Chelsea was under IRS scrutiny for her income taxes and wedding costs paid by The Foundation. They were/are mutually crooked chicks, but just look at their parents (I don't know shit about Holmes' parents, but apples don't fall far from the tree).Understand also that Fortress was just sold out to a Chinese company, a bank or some such. I can't imagine $100,000,000 goes far. Long enough to settle a few suits? Could the loan stipulate earmarking for research? Can she just pay herself the money and finally close the doors? Why and how does a sinker like Theranos, a corpse for a solid two years now, completely busted out, now have life to burn more cash? Also, how does that money not immediately get escrowed against settlements on Theranos' many lawsuits? I smell Hillary Clinton/Foundation/Global Initiative. I'd love to trace the DNA of this deal all the way back to the source-bank. It's 100 million dollars, completely down the drain. Even if you have billions, you don't deliberately throw away 100 million bucks. Someone is getting something for their money. A Cheney, a Regan, Rumsfeld, someone wants their money back, a someone you don't mess with.

Money_for_Nothing Wed, 12/27/2017 - 08:41 Permalink

Front company for CIA or some other Agency? Lot of money laundering going around. Theranos could be used in a lot of questionable ways. Also could be like British East India Company and have a lot of deep state investors (or even just pension funds from well connected pension boards).

crazzziecanuck Money_for_Nothing Wed, 12/27/2017 - 09:23 Permalink

Not really.  Look at the board of directors.  People may not be investing in the company, but investing in people on the board in order to secure access or benefits from other areas.  If you keep one board member in the $$$, they will remember you.  If you rush in to be a saviour for board members, then it's some grease that can be used when you approach intelligence services or Congress.  Why else would someone plop a Kissenger on their board, a person whom civil servants and representatives flock to for "advice?"  (I heard he was on the Theranos board but cannot seem to verify.)I wish they'd update "".  In the decade since, it's probably become even more concentrated, and therefore a much more glaring example of how we live in an oligarchy.

In reply to by Money_for_Nothing

mr bear Wed, 12/27/2017 - 08:54 Permalink

I dunno, I think she's kinda pretty.

'Course, good lighting and makeup can account for a lot. Some of her pix definitely show some Renee Zellweger-like pudge, and maybe that's why she seems careful to be photographed straight head-on. Not that I mind a reasonable amount of baby-fat in a woman. To each his own, rght?