Theranos revisited

elizabeth holmesWere the PTB to start pushing the rights of, the promotion of and the hegemony of some group in society at the expense of all others in society – let’s say, hypothetically, mousy-grey-haired people – and the reason for that is that they [the PTB] had got it into their heads that that group could run things far better than anyone else, as if a group runs things on the basis of possessing some anatomical feature …

… and if that group was never out of the news, constantly promoted at symposia, conferences, workshops, if every schoolchild had it rammed down his or her throat that mousy-grey-haired people were superior, if only they could be given the chance …

… and if people in other groups, say light-grey-haired or dark-grey-haired, were also supporting their soul buddies …

… and if govt now weighed in, it having been infiltrated and permeated by mousy-grey-hairs, not based on performance but on the anatomical feature they possessed, to the point that anyone attempting to talk down or failing to promote this group could be had up under the rushed through Hair Relations Act …

… and when apologists and promoters start the weaselword lexicon going, calling anyone who opposes this lunacy a Hairist or Mousaphobe, if ‘learned’ opinion pieces appear by lesbian feminists in newspapers, showing solidarity with fellow hair possessors in that general region, even to the point that one of them, Eliza Woren, claims she is actually of grey-haired origin …

… then a certain amount of resentment is going to build up and take hold in the community. And when those parachuted into high office are not the saner, more ordinary or even skilled members of that societal subset but are the pushy incompetents who get noticed, due to their loudly trumpeting their own skills package, and when they’re given this blank cheque to do their worst …

… then they are, as night follows day, going to do their worst and the whole thing will go pear-shaped.

And that’s what happened here. It’s not mousy-grey-hairs but the story is the same. Inevitably, it will get to this point:

It seems I’m not alone in my disgust at the leadership of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and how they allowed Theranos to abuse their conference to try to pretend they have any legitimacy. The FT reports that members of the society are apparently resigning in protest at not just giving Theranos the platform they did, but the way the normal rules were bent to eliminate the chance of actual tough questions.
Dr Andy Hoofnagle, a member of the organising committee, said he and several of his colleagues had “fought really hard to prevent” Ms Holmes from appearing but were overruled by the AACC president, Patricia Jones.
“I’m removing myself from the committee and don’t intend to pay my dues next year,” he added, in effect announcing his resignation from the association.
Others were not happy with the decision and called the society President, Patricia Jones, “stupid” but decided not to resign as she leaves office next year. Jones defended her decision, deriding the very idea that even though she’d had to fight her AACC colleagues and force the Theranos presentation on them, anyone could possibly even consider it inappropriate.
This is the same person who introduced Elizabeth Holmes before her talk on Monday, and as she ceded the podium to the Theranos CEO could be heard to say “You’re going to be awesome.”

Of course, it’s not helped by the reactions of the disgusted who, far from pointing out the fallacies in calm, measured language, instead hand the PTB a gift by using immoderate language.

So let’s say there’s a young mousy-haired man pushed into such a role, there are mutterings from the disgruntled of ‘send a boy to do a man’s job’ and ‘my nipper could have done better than that’, at which all those with hair roughly that colour now take offence and are told to F off for their trouble.

And then, of course, start the witch hunts. The young man hears that people are muttering and wants to know their names. Being fundamentally insecure in his own competence and desperately wanting the name of his role glued onto the outside of his office door so everyone can bow down and worship him, not as an incompetent, like all incompetents of the type but as a CEO now, a superior being, one of the first of this demographic to have broken through the glass ceiling – then he is going to hunt down and expel any dissenters who can be found.

Which is not what the firm needs at that point.

There is at least one good reason for this witch hunt. The young mousy-haired knows he’s incompetent and has been winging it so far. He’s talked the talk and walked the walk and everyone except the actually knowledgeable has fallen before him, with his big eyes and sensual lips – he must eliminate truth-tellers who would undermine him with a few casually inserted facts and figures.

Eventually he is ignominiously sacked but still a rump of those of similar type support him because they themselves now come under scrutiny as well as a group. This is wrong because it is not a group at issue but that particular person of those characteristics in that particular role which is the issue.

And the overall result of all this insanity? Huge wastage of everyone’s time and money, people ruined or harmed, deep-seated division and rancour and all for what? For the egos of those who desperately want this mousy-haired-young-man to succeed against all indicators.

And for the original game plan of the PTB anyway who knew this demographic hungered for power, to be ‘taken seriously’ and knew they would do the PTB’s bidding to the nth degree, being fundamentally brittle and crazy in the first place with their centuries old resentments, coupled with the reaction of any human being to being feted and promoted.

So, not to put too fine a point on this, we’re talking deep-seated psychosis in the workplace, are we not?

[H/T Chuckles for the article, all opinions expressed are my own]

1 comment for “Theranos revisited

  1. Cuffleyburgers
    August 23, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    At the risk of stating the obvious the problem is that such a large proportion of human activity is managed by the state which is infested by this lefty mentality – in any privately run organisation the incentives work to prevent institutionalised incompetence (in most cases).

    In the state, institutionalised incompetence is the norm, and people (who pay the immense billls and suffer the appalling service) don’t get as angry about it as they should, in part because the media in the uk and elsewhere tend to be dominated by the statist and nowadays massively institutionally incompetent BBC (or its equivalents, in most cases, staggeringly, even more lefty and incompetent).

    Another reason why this monolith must be smashed.

Comments are closed.