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

31–40 of 140 posts

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

#31

Post by ryandrake »

JamilD wrote: post #14
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.

A role model for young women with parents coming from old money, with both Beltway and VC connections? It'll be great to have another role model in tech for young women, but incidents like this do more harm than good…

This is a good point. Today's current tech role models, both male and female, are sending the unfortunate message: "Be born rich, have daddy pay for you to go to Stanford or Harvard, party a lot and make friends with rich future investors there, and you too can become a successful tech founder!"

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

#32

Post by hvs »

endymi0n wrote: post #16
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.

She did make some progress for equality though - to show that not just men can be completely incompetent founders running an overhyped company that never had any connection with reality whatsoever.

Unfortunately, there's a segment of society that will extrapolate the high-profile failure of one woman to reaffirm their misguided belief that her gender was part of the reason for her failure.

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

#33

Post by metaphorm »

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.

in what way would she have been a role model? some evidence that being a young woman from an ultra-privileged background where high level patronage by deep state power brokers is your path to success? yeah, sure, she really "beat the odds" on that one.

in fact I think that the current pending implosion of Theranos is making a good role model of her in a way she probably never intended or desired. she is a role model of what not to do: rely on insider connections to carry a fundamentally flawed (and possibly fraudulent) business plan.

a cautionary tale if ever there was one.

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

#34

Post by pessimizer »

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?

Affinity fraud.

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

#35

Post by pessimizer »

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.

But she lacks both ethics and expertise. Aren't those the things that make a role model - or is it just a turtleneck, a presentable face, and a decent speaking voice?

Wouldn't a better role model be any ethical person on the planet?

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

#36

Post by chimeracoder »

LanceH wrote: post #18
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.

Time, skill required and volume are all in favor of the finger prick method. And some people absolutely freak out about needles but would be ok with a finger prick.

> Time, skill required and volume are all in favor of the finger prick method. And some people absolutely freak out about needles but would be ok with a finger prick.

Except the pain factor. Finger pricks are actually more painful, particularly when you have to draw more than a single drop of blood. Your fingers have more nerve endings than your upper arm. Also, you tend to use your fingers more than you apply pressure to your upper arm (e.g., typing, using your phone, playing the guitar - all of those require applying pressure to your fingertips, which will hurt).

Even diabetics oftentimes prefer to use the arm pricks, and they need to draw a lot less blood than more elaborate tests need. (Not all diabetics, but enough that there are literally blood glucose monitors that advertise this as a specific feature).

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

#37

Post by DannyBee »

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.

Yeah, It's not uncommon for execs who want some hip deal to happen to push super hard to shorten or eliminate diligence.

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

#38

Post by tclmeelmo »

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.

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.

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

#39

Post by hga »

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.

As I understand it, that's how it works with the VCs who specialize in biomedicine. They'll provide limited funding to scientists with a credible theory to see if it pans out, with further funding to ideally follow.

Theranos got way too far without having to prove their science.

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

#40

Post by mcnamaratw »

So the not-too-subtle suggestion in the article is that maybe Walgreens might not be struggling too hard to shake off Theranos, because W owns a piece of the unicorn. Which isn't worth much if it ends up in the meat freezer.

(I have no idea whether that suggestion is accurate.)

Post reply on HN