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

Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 153 posts

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#51

Post by dingo_bat »

_audakel wrote: post #25

1 - Theranos should have been more transparent, but what startup doesn't stretch the truth or even leave out data on occasion? It is a fine line between lying and hustling. Startups can often talk about something that doesn't exist yet like it does because they can move fast enough to build it. 2 - I worked at a medical startup in Palo Alto and I can attest that it is incredibly hard complying with all the FDA rules.…

There is a fundamental difference between snapchat and medical tests. You cannot approach one as you approach the other. I have worked for a medical software company and the atmosphere is completely different from the usual move-fast-break-things culture at other places. You digitally sign for every line of code you write or review, every test you write, every test you say is working. If a single bug is found in your code, after deployment, it is traced back to the tester, dev and manager and it is counted against their performance.

TL;DR people die when you move fast and break things in medicine, and your company gets sued for millions of dollars.

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#52

Post by insanemo »

tlb wrote: post #30
grizzles wrote: post #6

It's shocking to find out that a science education is actually pretty useful for leading a science company. DFJ and the other investors should be getting way more of the blame for not doing proper due diligence on Theranos. It's kind of amazing in a way that the company is still a going concern. There is going to be no salvaging this company, because it has nothing of value. What a shmozzle.

On the other hand, out of the top 5 pharma companies, only 3/5 CEOs have science degrees: (Edit: was 1, wasn't counting medical degrees before) #1: Novartis: Economics, MBA #2: Pfizer: BS chemical engineering, chartered accountancy #3: Roche: economics, law #4: Sanofi: MD #5: Merck: veterinary medicine, PhD So a person who didn't know any better might not assume a science degree was necessary.

I count at least 3/5. Last I checked chemical engineering, MD and veterinary medicine are all science degrees, two are terminal degrees (MD, PhD.)

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#53

Post by PhasmaFelis »

dang wrote: post #11
GuiA wrote: post #2

The Theranos leadership belongs in jail. Misleading patients with bullshit medical science ranks pretty high up on the list of things that should get executives locked up. We are talking about tens of thousands of patients here whose doctors made medical choices based on fundamentally flawed blood work, all while Holmes and her buddies were boasting about how disruptive their technology was, how much better they were…

You're not going to find many defenders of Theranos at this point, but that doesn't mean this isn't a bad comment to post to HN. We ask users here to post reflective comments, not ones that try to maximize fury—no matter how right you are or how angry you feel. The fact that you end your comment with a cheap slur about "more civilized countries" is indicative.

The "civilized countries" snark at the end was pointless and annoying, I agree. But still, I'm not sure why knowingly swindling ordinary people should be anything other than criminal, whether it's done in the guise of a medical service or as a simple street con. There were people in Theranos who knew exactly what was going on, knew the human cost of it, had the power to stop it, and still pushed forward. How are they better than any common thief?

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#54

Post by Yhippa »

dominotw wrote: post #18
bane wrote: post #16

Walgreens managers also grew increasingly frustrated in recent weeks with Theranos as they sought information about the extent of test reports it had corrected or voided. This seems to be a common thread in the stories I've read about Theranos, an almost pathological inability to provide basic information upon request. I can only guess that Holmes' notion of open and transparent communication is defined very differen…

This is hilarious https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Theranos-R... Advice to Management You are doing a good job. Stay in better touch with the employees. I think most people do feel appreciated but there are also some that are disgruntled and unhappy for other reasons. I see these people spreading negative energy. You should seek them and try and fix the problem. Is it common practice among upstart co…

What do you mean by pad the reviews? Coerce employees into giving mostly favorable ones?

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#55

Post by adw »

tuna-piano wrote: post #14
FreedomToCreate wrote: post #4

It still baffles me that Walgreens got into this partnership in the first place. A complete failure of due diligence.

How many of us could name the current or former Walgreens CEO? I've seen a certain mentality in people, including managers in the more "boring" companies in our economy. Silicon Valey companies are glamorous. There's a certain star mentality about it. Silicon Valley is in the news, the founders are rock stars. I think the management of "boring" companies is as star struck as the rest of us are. They shouldn't be- the…

Stefano Pessina. One of the most impressive European entrepreneurs. And he's CEO because the pre-existing management, who got them into this mess, were terrible.

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#56

Post by HarryHirsch »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #17
wpietri wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Theranos's leadership belongs in jail. But I think it's worth reflecting a bit on how much our community created and benefits from the tech-genius hype cycle that they exploited. On how much we have supported a mythos that our cutting-edge innovations can't be judged by existing stick-in-the-mud regulators. I'm not saying that those are entirely bad things. But it's worth remembering that Theranos couldn…

I don't think that's "our community". It certainly isn't my community. I believe (and hope) that the delusional libertarian wing of the entrepreneurial class, who believe that regulation has no place in a market, is a fringe element.

The "no regulation faction" is fighting hard to get out of its corner. A few days ago, Jessica Flanigan (https://sites.google.com/site/jessicamflanigan/Research), an anti-FDA medicine ethicist at the University of Richmond, made the rounds on this very board. She shows how this group is trying to get its ideas accepted by the mainstream.

Note that she is housed at a philosophy department! Physicians are trained to put patient outcomes first. If she were invited to speak at any medical school she would be torn to pieces. She wouldn't have any good answers how her positions would help prevent Elixir Sulfanilamide or now Theranos. The medical school I am associated with is in the South, in a conservative town, and she wouldn't fare well here. But I guess at a conservative philosophy department they don't ask that kind of hard questions.

We need to fight to keep the libertarian fringe confined.

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#57

Post by Retra »

meeper16 wrote: post #49

The hallmark of a good product is whether or not the founder, founding team, board and few key shareholders are using the product. I'd like to hear more about this.

That's useful if they're not all cranks trying to sell perpetual motion, organic food, or placebos.

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#58

Post by delish »

niels_olson wrote: post #38
dang wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not going to find many defenders of Theranos at this point, but that doesn't mean this isn't a bad comment to post to HN. We ask users here to post reflective comments, not ones that try to maximize fury—no matter how right you are or how angry you feel. The fact that you end your comment with a cheap slur about "more civilized countries" is indicative.

Dang, I appreciate where you're coming from, and understand your sentiment. However, as a pathologist, and having sworn to defend the US Constitution for over 20 years, and having visited a number of the countries he mentioned, I'm inclined to not disagree with the poster. And I am inclined to suggest that killing people for profit is the best single basis for righteous fury.

In my estimation (I'd like to be wrong!) righteous fury adds nothing to the pursuit of insight. And, again in my estimation,[0] we'll better distribute justice if we stay unbiased and seek to understand the situation.

The people at Theranos, especially the wrongdoers, probably want to be and feel understood. I think that's a step toward insight and justice.

Maximizing fury (I love the turn of phrase) makes people defensive, which aborts the insight-pursuit.

[0] Sorry to use so many qualifiers. Because I'm telling people how they should talk, I want to be as precise as possible.

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#59

Post by barkingdog »

meeper16 wrote: post #49

The hallmark of a good product is whether or not the founder, founding team, board and few key shareholders are using the product. I'd like to hear more about this.

Well...let's agree to disagree because I say the hallmark is whether the business model is sustainable, which I'm not sure your heuristic completely fields. Deal? To be fair, it did look like the business model had legs here for a while.

Re: Walgreen Terminates Partnership with Theranos

#60

Post by barkingdog »

grizzles wrote: post #6

It's shocking to find out that a science education is actually pretty useful for leading a science company. DFJ and the other investors should be getting way more of the blame for not doing proper due diligence on Theranos. It's kind of amazing in a way that the company is still a going concern. There is going to be no salvaging this company, because it has nothing of value. What a shmozzle.

Yeah, I don't know if this has anything to do with a science degree. Folks with science degrees can end up managing things in a suboptimal manner, and so can folks without science degrees.
Post reply on HN