This Theranos story just keeps getting more and more bizarre. George Church publicly criticized its board in a remark to the WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com

This Theranos story just keeps getting more and more bizarre. George Church publicly criticized its board in a remark to the WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/15/the-wildly-hyped-9-billion-blood-test-company-that-no-one-really-understands/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/15/th...). Considering that Holmes is on the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows, while Church is one of its most prominent researchers, why is he suddenly speaking out? If someone like him was concerned about Theranos, how did she end up on the Board of Fellows in the first place? Then Michael Moritz of Sequoia specifically pointed to Theranos as an example of the 'subprime unicorn' boom (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91063628-73f5-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162cc.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91063628-73f5-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162...), which is a pretty odd choice, considering the vast majority of unicorns are software companies with very different risks from what Theranos faces. DFJ is one of Theranos's investors (https://www.facebook.com/dfj/posts/10101511622019206 https://www.facebook.com/dfj/posts/10101511622019206), and I can't imagine Moritz would want to publicly antagonize them. And why did the Murdoch-owned Journal publish the original article anyway, despite the Theranos board being stacked with Republican heavyweights? What's the point of having Henry Kissinger and George Shultz on your board, if not to prevent these sorts of incidents?