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

91–100 of 140 posts

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

#91

Post by jerryhuang100 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #88
jerryhuang100 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

W put $50,000,000.00 in EH's T without doing due diligence. Normal people would even take a second look at the bowl before flushing the toilet.

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

#92

Post by trhway »

amluto wrote: post #25
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.

funny, i never thought about it (and Theranos seems to has never too :) - the smaller the hole you prick the harder you have to squeeze.

Wrt. the interview - if it were a public co. which i had stock of and i saw that moment at 0:22 - Shriver: "Do you think your company will survive?" Holmes: "Absolutely!" - i'd immediately sold it all. The delay and smile on Shriver's face when she in turn responds to question whether she believes Holmes is also telling :)

Walgreens i can guess is feeling how trial lawyers are gearing up for a class action on behalf of the customers who have had the testing done there.

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

#94

Post by danso »

wehadfun wrote: post #93

Why so much negative press about a diagnostic company? Most people would struggle to name 1 of these save for having to get a drug test or something. It just seems odd. Like some sort of vendeta to crush this company.

How many diagnostic companies have tried to make the same claims as Theranos without having a profitable business? Theranos punched far above its weight when it came to fundraising and garnering media hype. The downside of such an approach is that if you goof up, you are that much of a spectacle. Or to paraphrase Jesus, those to whom much is given, much is expected.

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

#95

Post by scottkduncan »

hunvreus wrote: post #84

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.

I hope similar attention is paid to men's wardrobe choices next time a corporate scandal article involving a male CEO is posted to HN.

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

#96

Post by zadig »

LanceH wrote: post #49
chimeracoder wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pressu…

Not disagreeing with you, just saying the finger prick has a lot going for it. In particular the lower skill barrier to do it may make it cheaper or more convenient. It certainly opens the possibility of self administration up a lot more than a needle. Bit of a moot point until it comes along, though.

The problem with self-administration though is misinterpretation. Not to mention that the logic of cheapness/convenience -> more data -> better health doesn't always hold. The more features you screen for the higher the chance of false positives, and most people don't know how to put correct readings into medical context.

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

#97

Post by sethhochberg »

ethbro wrote: post #74
ryandrake wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's just me seeing the past through rose-colored glasses, but it seems that the "Work hard and know technology" founders were more common in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, in contrast to today's "Party hard and know rich people" founders.

I think the "work hard and know technology founders" have always been around. But honestly, isn't this somewhat of a self-selection bias and something that remarks on the monotony of modern university? If you're a highly driven and entrepreneurial individual, are you going to stick around for 4+ years of enforced pace higher education?

You might be more inclined to stick around and finish if you didn't have familial support to fall back on if your entrepreneurial plans failed and you didn't have the credentials to secure traditional employment. Dropping out lets you get started on entrepreneurial plans sooner, but could leave you in a risky spot later if they aren't a success.

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

#98

Post by speeder »

scottkduncan wrote: post #95
hunvreus wrote: post #84

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.

I hope similar attention is paid to men's wardrobe choices next time a corporate scandal article involving a male CEO is posted to HN.

We don't need a scandal for that.

If you look there are plenty of articles about Steve Jobs clothing, and about Mark Zuckerberg hoodies.

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

#99

Post by beachstartup »

scottkduncan wrote: post #95
hunvreus wrote: post #84

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.

I hope similar attention is paid to men's wardrobe choices next time a corporate scandal article involving a male CEO is posted to HN.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-uniform-2014-5

what men wear at work is a frequent and unending topic of discussion, but you probably don't notice, because it doesn't fit your worldview.

... and if this hn thread were about that link, you'd probably be the person complaining that it focuses too much on men, and not enough on women. unfortunately, i don't have a quantum time machine, so we'll never really know.

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

#100

Post by blazespin »

lingben wrote: post #44

thoroughly disappointed in the Shriver interview, didn't ask any hard questions, didn't redirect after her answers, didn't really seem like she was at all fully informed about Theranos now if John Carreyrou had been conducting the interview, that would be another thing but I get the feeling that he would never be granted an interview simply because he is much more qualified in terms of competency in Theranos and its…

Yeah, but someone always wants something printed.

In all news, you get what you paid for. If you didn't pay for it, it probably isn't that credible.

Post reply on HN