Theranos Trial: United States vs. Elizabeth Holmes, Day 9 (The Cavalry Arrives)

The government finally brought out its big guns. Or, rather, its big gun. One-time Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a former Theranos board member, took the stand on September 22, 2021. Most people assumed Erika Cheung and Tyler Schultz, former front-line employees, would be the government's critical witnesses; however, a board member can also establish guilt if directly lied to. Assuming the government can show Elizabeth Holmes used the same slides or documents with investors as she did with Theranos' board, it appears the government will meet its burden of proof. 

Society "rightly demands... of each of its citizens... some form of productive labour to the common weal... Society often forgives the criminal; it never forgives the dreamer." -- Oscar Wilde, "The Critic as Artist" (1891)

In addition to implicating Holmes through specific statements, Mattis helped admit emails in which Holmes appears intolerably unctuous. When a CEO signs off, "With my very best regards," and writes, "having the trust and faith and confidence of the people you respect the most matters more than anything" while soliciting investor cash or taxpayer-funded pilot projects, substance should follow treacle. If substance doesn't exist, insincerity is assumed; practically speaking, the defendant no longer has the benefit of doubt.

Mattis' main contributions were locking down specific statements during the relevant time period--from 2011 through 2014--about the Theranos analyzer while denying knowledge of Theranos' military contracts.

November 20, 2011, Holmes to Mattis: "It is on us to drive forward to get a pilot [program in place with the military]."

Mattis testified Holmes told him the Theranos analyzer (aka the Edison) could run blood tests quickly (a slide claimed "less than 4 hours"), accurately, and on "a single device." He "would not have been interested" had tests required more than one device because of the limited room in emergency triage situations. Mattis affirmed "accuracy is critical" and generally appeared credible, though often veering into military clichés like "stand and deliver."

March 22, 2013: the Theranos analyzer "can revolutionize much of what we do in combat zone health care." 

Mattis also confirmed difficulties gaining federal certifications before comparing the Theranos analyzer with existing military equipment: we have "been unsuccessful in getting [the Theranos analyzer] in the theater." Regardless of whether Theranos or the military was responsible for delays, Mattis said he was unaware of the Edison being used in the field or actively used on servicemembers during his command or after it.

Mattis's most damning testimony might not have been military-related. In late 2013, when visiting a Theranos facility, Mattis testified he saw the Theranos analyzer but not the larger blood analyzers made by other companies. He again confirmed Holmes' direct statements, saying she was the "sole source" of his information about Theranos and the "primary presenter" when he joined the board of directors and invested 85,000 dollars (in exchange for 500,000 stock options).

Mattis also buttressed news reports about Theranos, warding off claims of journalistic inaccuracy or mistake. After showing statements from the media, including from the Wall Street Journal and Fortune, the government confirmed they were consistent with Mattis's understanding of Theranos, including the following: Theranos "does not buy analyzers from third parties..." (Note: when Mattis later became aware of third party analyzers, he assumed a "very limited use" for a "very limited number [of] assays not accepted by regulatory agencies," i.e., nothing to do with common blood tests. "I thought all along that we were doing it on Theranos' gear.")

Interestingly, Holmes had claimed an "unprecedented lack of variation with Theranos' yields" due to reducing human error through automation--a laughable statement after yesterday's pregnancy results. Clearly, the software and science teams were not on the same page: Balwani texted Holmes regarding his frustration at lab workers, whom he believed were interfering with the software's functions.

We also learned Holmes, in 2013, asserted Theranos' lab infrastructure was validated under FDA and WHO guidelines, even displaying agency logos in her slides. In the same presentation, Holmes said GlaxoSmithKline's Lab Director concluded "Theranos' lab infrastructure eliminates the need for a lab," which now appears out-of-context or false. (If true, one wonders how Holmes managed to sucker one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies.)

A cruel irony is on deck: a man in charge of almost total failure in the Middle East and thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths may bring down Elizabeth Holmes, who never killed anyone. Mattis couldn't even remember his Theranos' salary--150,000 dollars a year--which he received in full despite not working his entire first year. In other words, the 85,000 dollars he invested essentially came from Theranos itself. OPM. For all his talk about public service, post-9/11, one could argue Mattis and the military stand for other people's money and no accountability--even when they don't deliver. If you're keeping score at home, lying about WMDs is fine, but lying about blood might get you jail. God bless America.

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction." -- Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, 2003 speech to U.N.

"Neither the CIA nor any other government agency ever found evidence that Iraq played any role at all in 9/11." -- Michael Morell, fmr deputy director of the CIA

"We were wrong." -- George Tenet, fmr US Director of Central Intelligence, on intelligence claiming Iraq had WMDs

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2021) 

ISSN 2770-002X

Bonus: while in charge of CENTCOM, Mattis said he oversaw 200,000 American troops and 50,000 Allied troops in the Middle East. Though I'm pleased Mattis testified, it's troubling to realize the United States elevated an experienced employee into exactly the right positions and still failed. If Afghanistan turns out to have been a money laundering operation for defense contractors, was Theranos an extension of this lack of oversight plus unchecked military spending?