What kind of questions exactly? It seems to me that having such powerful, influential, former members of government on your board would be highly valuable in navigating the difficult regulatory environment companies in this industry face.

Why do you have Henry Kissinger on your board and not a veteran medical device or medical test industry expert. Henry Kissinger might have tons of foreign policy experience but this is a completely different field.

Not having such expertise on their board doesn't mean they don't have that expertise within their company.

If you could get Henry Kissinger on your board and don't have moral issues with him, why wouldn't you? I absolutely understand where you are coming from, but in that respect Kissinger is definitively an exception, because while he may not have the medical credentials, he has tremendous value just because he is someone who is so well known that he can be a door-opener "anywhere".

He's also run a consulting company that's specialising in identifying partners and acting as door-opener for the last 34 years.

In other words: He's not on that board for his expertise in their field, but for his expertise and contacts related to getting in to talk to the right people.

It is undoubtedly helpful to have people on your board who understand the regulatory mechanisms and industry (leaving aside how well the Theranos board actually does this)

Composition of a board is tricky though. In a case like this you would hope to have equal, if not dominant, representation of people who are strong on the science. Anything else is a bit of a red flag.