Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 140 posts

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#21

Post by tclmeelmo »

mc32 wrote: post #19

One would think Walgreens would have done some due diligence when partnering with anyone. Wouldn't they put someone providing healthcare diagnostics services through rigorous testing to see if they could deliver on promises? I'm hoping they don't take providers' word when they partner with providers. Or is Walgreens just trying to get from under the weight of theranos's bad publicity at this point?

This article (by way of the WSJ) claims that Walgreens skipped their standard DD in partnering with Theranos, and that the deal overall was atypically structured.

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#22

Post by alistairSH »

pcurve wrote: post #17

Test accuracy aside, isn't finger prick blood draw painful? I've had blood drawn both ways, and finger prick is very unpleasant. I'll pick arm blood draw any day.

Pain aside, wouldn't a finger prick be less risky from an infection standpoint?

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#23

Post by nkrisc »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #3
zwieback wrote: post #2

I wonder, is this good or bad for other startups in the diagnostics space?

I don't see how there is anything good coming out of this for startups. Theranos burned the field for many more companies. //EDIT: which is very sad to see because in many ways it seemed like the CEO was behind it with a lot passion and no ill intentions.

Intentions are as valuable as ideas. Outcomes and execution are ultimately what matters.

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#24

Post by mc32 »

tclmeelmo wrote: post #21
mc32 wrote: post #19

One would think Walgreens would have done some due diligence when partnering with anyone. Wouldn't they put someone providing healthcare diagnostics services through rigorous testing to see if they could deliver on promises? I'm hoping they don't take providers' word when they partner with providers. Or is Walgreens just trying to get from under the weight of theranos's bad publicity at this point?

This article (by way of the WSJ) claims that Walgreens skipped their standard DD in partnering with Theranos, and that the deal overall was atypically structured.

Something seems a bit fishy. An uncorroborated source says WG skipped the due diligence part but in any event had they tried Theranos would have rebuffed their inquiries (because "secrecy") Could they not just compare and contrast results against known technologies, why rely on theranos's data at all?

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#25

Post by amluto »

pcurve wrote: post #17

Test accuracy aside, isn't finger prick blood draw painful? I've had blood drawn both ways, and finger prick is very unpleasant. I'll pick arm blood draw any day.

I tried a Theranos test once and it hurt like hell.

The problem want the finger prick itself. The problem was that the nanotainer isn't that small and that they had to squeeze REALLY FUCKING HARD for quite a while to extract enough blood. It hurt for a while afterwards, too. And it was slow.

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#26

Post by JonFish85 »

mc32 wrote: post #24
tclmeelmo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article (by way of the WSJ) claims that Walgreens skipped their standard DD in partnering with Theranos, and that the deal overall was atypically structured.

Something seems a bit fishy. An uncorroborated source says WG skipped the due diligence part but in any event had they tried Theranos would have rebuffed their inquiries (because "secrecy") Could they not just compare and contrast results against known technologies, why rely on theranos's data at all?

Probably because they felt they didn't have the luxury of time on this one. They were probably worried that Rite Aid / CVS / other competitor would beat them to the punch, and figured that it was worth the risk to move quickly, at the time.

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#28

Post by tclmeelmo »

zwieback wrote: post #2

I wonder, is this good or bad for other startups in the diagnostics space?

I would predict that it depends on where the money is coming from.

For VC firms that are experienced in the biomedical space, Theranos changes nothing because they were already suspicious of Theranos.

For firms that are inexperienced in the biomedical space, they have hopefully learned that growth cannot compensate for flaws in science or technology. If they continue to invest in biomedical, they will be much more careful in their DD; or perhaps they lose their appetite for biomedical and leave entirely.

I don't think things have changed for biomedical startups that are based on good science and technology and have an experienced team.

What would be wonderful is if the media learned a lesson from this mess. As I see it, they were a passenger in the Theranos hype machine.

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#29

Post by a3n »

joezydeco wrote: post #9
zwieback wrote: post #2

I wonder, is this good or bad for other startups in the diagnostics space?

Perhaps it's just a lesson to have your science locked down and proven before you make all kinds of promises to investors. And if your science is broken, don't snow people over with a board of directors that Fortune-50 companies can't even muster.

Except sometimes you need those investors' money to get to where your science is locked down and proven.

Re: A Marriage Gone Bad: Walgreens Struggles to Shake Off Theranos

#30

Post by bedhead »

mc32 wrote: post #19

One would think Walgreens would have done some due diligence when partnering with anyone. Wouldn't they put someone providing healthcare diagnostics services through rigorous testing to see if they could deliver on promises? I'm hoping they don't take providers' word when they partner with providers. Or is Walgreens just trying to get from under the weight of theranos's bad publicity at this point?

Their CFO at the time has since gotten fired for among other things, getting Walgreens into this without doing a lick of due diligence. Evidently he bungled a number of other things, hence getting fired. That kind of laziness strangely exists even at large, deep-pocketed organizations where time and resources certainly aren't standing in the way of doing old fashioned work and analysis.
Post reply on HN