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

81–90 of 140 posts

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

#81

Post by xenihn »

a3n wrote: post #29
joezydeco wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Makes you wonder how much investor funding that would have otherwise gone to startups with an actual viable product was sucked up by Theranos.

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

#82

Post by pessimizer »

woah wrote: post #64
1024core wrote: post #11

A part of me feels sad for Theranos. I wanted them and Elizabeth to succeed; more the latter, actually. If she had succeeded (I still hold out hope), she would have been a terrific role model for young women everywhere.

I think that attitudes like this are part of what allowed Holmes to con so many people for so long. As well-intentioned as it is, your hope for the young women of tech to be inspired has nothing to do with the veracity of Theranos' claims. A lot of the breathless fluff pieces on Theranos focused on Holme's gender instead of the technology.

I think it's to blame more on her privileged, connected background than her gender. Her gender was just something to focus on due to her lack of any other accomplishments; there's no shortage of golden white boys being elevated in the tech/mainstream media on a cloud of nothing.

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

#83

Post by dang »

raverbashing wrote: post #56

I believe all prick exams need some level of squeezing ( did one a couple of weeks ago, giving a couple of samples from the same prick) it didn't hurt too much though

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11549820 and marked it off-topic.

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

#84

Post by hunvreus »

I can't help but notice that Ms Holmes is now wearing a hair loose and a shirt. Having only ever seen her with hair tied and black turtle necks, I'm wondering if this is an attempt at softening her image in the midst of a deluge of bad publicity.

Not an ad hominem or personal attack, purely curiosity.

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

#85

Post by a3n »

tclmeelmo wrote: post #38
a3n wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Experienced investors aren't going to invest much if the science isn't on a good foundation. Even if they would, that's a pretty expensive way to fund research: it's cheaper to fund it by grants or through revenue.

And were these experienced investors? :)

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

#86

Post by Aelinsaar »

stanfordkid wrote: post #69

I've been calling this for ages since I saw Elizabeth Holmes speak at the Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders seminar at Stanford 5 or 6 years ago. Huge vision, entitled dismissal of incumbents, and a story that is just a little bit too perfect. Following your dreams is cool, but only when they aren't delusions.

Especially when your delusions are being so very highly funded.

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

#87

Post by frandroid »

alistairSH wrote: post #22
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?

Your fingers touch everything with bacteria...

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

#88

Post by Alex3917 »

jerryhuang100 wrote: post #43
bedhead wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's incredible that Walgreen, a public co., not doing DD for a non-proven, non-peer-reviewed medical diagnostic co, with a possibility of very bad PR. i would guess (simply speculation) there are some external factors, made Walgreen to skip that. that's probably the whole point for the politicians on Theranos' board, along with the DC connections (& Enron?) from EH's dad. and these 'external factors' also played sam…

It's not like they do due diligence on any of the medication, supplements, or medical devices they sell, so why would you expect it for medical tests?

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

#89

Post by alistairSH »

frandroid wrote: post #87
alistairSH wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your fingers touch everything with bacteria...

Yes, but assuming the nurse/phlebotomist uses an alcohol wipe, that's a non-issue (or, no more an issue than back of hand or inside of elbow). But, with a typical blood draw, you have a larger puncture, with a relatively lengthy and deep penetration by needle (vs a prick which is smaller, less deep, and quickly in/out).

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

#90

Post by metalliqaz »

bedhead wrote: post #30
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.

I don't think it was laziness. I think it was an environment of high-pressure short-term performance goals. It is said that a manager is someone who thinks that nine women can produce a baby in one month. I can only imagine how out of touch CEOs and CFOs are.
Post reply on HN