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 differently from what most people would consider it to mean.
A big warning sign to me is also the bizarre collection of company reviews on Glassdoor [1]. It's really fascinating to me that anybody would even consider turfing their own company's reviews with this kind of ham fisted, single voice corporate speak nonsense. I wonder who inside the company is responsible for writing all of these? Holmes herself? Regardless, it's a really fascinating look into how Holmes has prioritized things.
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 companies to pad their reviews on glassdoor. I've been using those as references for my job search, I know better now.
All those Glassdoors reviews talking about long hours of work, working late, and for what? What did all those people work those long hours for? For complete failure. Theranos is in shambles, and these people signed up to work and work late at a company that was a fraud. Requiring employees to work late, or to strongly encourage that kind of behavior is a huge red flag for me when looking for work. People wasted hours of their life at this place, away from family and friends and personal time, all for Theranos, a name that's a joke now.
Astroturfing Glassfoor should be considered fraud. It's giving information to potential employees while omitting material information (that the company is the oposter) for purposes which financially benefit the company and its backers.
Another startling Glassdoor review that seems planted by the company:
'Cons
Not a con, more of a note -
It is a start up environment, which means that it is very fast and dynamic. It calls for a lot of hard work and creativity. Theranos is not for someone who is set in his or her ways, or for someone who is simply looking for a 9-5.'
"Pros
A pay check that clears the bank. A front row seat and education how to adulterate documents and strategy! Working on my CV on company tine..."[1]
"In recent weeks, Walgreens also was named as a co-defendant in one of three civil lawsuits filed by consumers against Theranos. The suits, which seek class-action status, allege that Theranos misled the public about the nature and accuracy of its blood-testing technology."
Walgreens had an official partnership, including an investment of $50m, into Theranos.
If there is actual consumer damage shown its Walgreens that's going to find themselves writing checks to tort classes and attorneys.
In the entire WSJ expose it sounded like Walgreens management was as snowed-over as the rest of us with regard to Theranos' "technology" but it's crazy that they didn't do more relatively simple due diligence given their exposure
Who's writing the checks really depends on what's in the contract between Walgreens and Theranos. I haven't seen it, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Theranos to have agreed to indemnify Walgreens against claims over the accuracy of the tests. If so, Theranos would be on the hook even if Walgreens is getting sued as well, and the real question is how big the claims are and whether they will be enough to to bankrupt Theranos.
Well yes and no. Remember that they have a really well connected board of directors and a lot of people put their reputation out there based on information they believed to be true. The managers at Walgreens don't know how to design, validate, and certify laboratory tests and procedures so they are kind of at the mercy of the folks who tell them they do. And while it would have been within their rights to send an outside pathologist on site to audit the entire workflow, to come up with that idea you have to at least suspect that they might be trying to pull a fast one on you.
I speak from experience when I say that it is easy to be fooled into believing people when those people actually believe they are telling the truth.
Bottom line is this is all on Theranos, and not Walgreens.
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- they run huge companies employing many people, doing complex things and making profits. In this case, the star power blinded them and they'll pay a large price.
Anyone happen to know why this took so long to become official?
EDIT: Looks like it's mentioned a few paragraphs into the article:
Walgreens leaders decided to end the partnership after regulators disclosed problems at Theranos in late January, but held off on finalizing the separation because the company feared Theranos might sue, said people familiar with the matter.
Quality and safety are our top priorities and we are
working closely with government officials to ensure that
we not only comply with all federal regulations but
exceed them. We are disappointed that Walgreens has
chosen to terminate our relationship and remain fully
committed to our mission to provide patients access to
affordable health information and look forward to
continuing to serve customers in Arizona and California
through our independent retail locations.
Are the tests just completely worthless? I thought the FDA or such would mandate a battery of studies to determine whether the tests were accurate before letting someone sell them.
The fact that a major chain was selling them also seemed to indicate to me that there was something real in Theranos. Probably a lot of people think the same way, and are disappointed.
No, the regulatory system is actually doing its job. The regulatory system is predicated on the government not being all knowing and all seeing and private actors in the industry having a bit of sense and doing their own due diligence. To structure it otherwise would basically make it impossible for any health tech startup to get off the ground -- the time required, and the capital requirements would be insane.
To summarize regulatory action:
Theranos sent in a marketing application to FDA for one of the use of Edison with one test, FDA said OK, this looks good based on the data you sent us (FDA can only see what you send them). FDA then placed Theranos on an audit list (common practice for any new company), stopped by after a few months, and found out that Theranos' own internal procedures for making sure that the data they generate about their product's performance is honest were, shall we say, poor. They also found Theranos marketing other components that they had not sought clearance to market from FDA. So FDA issued a 483 (deficiency notice) and the fallout from that we have yet to see. (I personally think there will be another shoe to drop here.)
Now, on the lab side, which is regulated by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Systems, not FDA, the process is different. Basically CMS allows you to get a preliminary certificate after a cursory inspection and gives you 2 years within which to build a real testing process and get your shit together before they do the real audit. Theranos's Bay Area lab got the preliminary certificate and massively failed the real audit, and then massively failed to fix anything, which is what's landing Holmes in potentially very hot water (being banned from the diagnostic industry for two years in the US). The reason this is structured this way is that 1) to have enough data for a meaningful audit takes time and 2) the government expects anyone contracting with a brand new lab for the first two years to understand that it's a brand new lab and act accordingly (i.e. be skeptical, do your own audit, don't take NewCo's evidence at face value).
Most people in the industry understand this. Hell, most people at Walgreens understood this and were properly skeptical [1]. But the top execs at the time overrode the valid concerns of their QC people in order to chase the unicorn.
Man I've gotta say that despite all the bad news this really bums me out. I love being able to run down to Walgreens, order my own blood tests, and get the results without a doctor or a big hassle.
I can make it even more convenient - get out a couple of dice and roll them across your desk. If the total is under 7 you are ok otherwise go to the doctor for some competently run test.
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.
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.
Nor really, most products aren't designed for consumer use. If a company makes nuclear weapons, I hope the board members are not using them. Board members may not have a use for straight jackets, body armor, cash registers, oil rigs, industrial equipment, commercial fishing vessels, you get the point.
Even if the product is great, the business model could suck and the company will fail.
Has there been any confirmed cases where someone has died as a result of a faulty Theranos test during this period? Surely that would be the final nail in the coffin of such a mismanaged enterprise...
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. Many are regulations that do little to protect consumers and exist from an outdated bureaucratic system. Others are lobbied into existence by big players like JNJ to protect themselves from startups like Theranos.
3 - Theranos was trying to do something that few people do - truly inovate in the medical world. As a country we have come to a point where little inovation is possilbe bc so many rules prevent the change necessary. We are not willing to accept any risk, and so we are stuck without progress.
4 - Before we all hop on the hate Theranos band wagon, lets remember that they did what all startups do - move fast and break things.
You just highlighted why I think "hustle" is a terrible word for the startup community to embrace. Google's dictionary (appears to be the Oxford dictionary) includes the definition "a fraud or swindle / to obtain illicitly or by forceful action". The Cambridge dictionary lists "A dishonest way of making money / to try to persuade someone, especially to buy something, often illegally".
By those definitions, there is no fine line - they're the same thing.
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.
I haven't got a lot of love for the FDA and their regulations, but if you are going to break them then at least have science on your side. It is one thing to not complete the 12th form that was identical to the previous 11 forms, but it is another thing to provide wrong diagnoses to real patients. I would be a lot more supportive of Theranos if they actually were competent.
But did Walgreens know this was Theranos' mentality? The investors, patients, the doctors using the unreliable test results?
If the Theranos stakeholders all hopped on to the "move fast and break things" train- I'd be all for it. Facebook had that as their well known public motto and people still invested and used the service. People don't want to break things when it comes to their health.
[+] [-] bane|9 years ago|reply
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 differently from what most people would consider it to mean.
A big warning sign to me is also the bizarre collection of company reviews on Glassdoor [1]. It's really fascinating to me that anybody would even consider turfing their own company's reviews with this kind of ham fisted, single voice corporate speak nonsense. I wonder who inside the company is responsible for writing all of these? Holmes herself? Regardless, it's a really fascinating look into how Holmes has prioritized things.
1 - https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Theranos-Reviews-E248889.h...
[+] [-] dominotw|9 years ago|reply
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Theranos-R...
Is it common practice among upstart companies to pad their reviews on glassdoor. I've been using those as references for my job search, I know better now.[+] [-] mevile|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vincentbarr|9 years ago|reply
'Cons Not a con, more of a note -
It is a start up environment, which means that it is very fast and dynamic. It calls for a lot of hard work and creativity. Theranos is not for someone who is set in his or her ways, or for someone who is simply looking for a 9-5.'
[+] [-] pat_space|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Theranos-R...
[+] [-] rubyfan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aresant|9 years ago|reply
Walgreens had an official partnership, including an investment of $50m, into Theranos.
If there is actual consumer damage shown its Walgreens that's going to find themselves writing checks to tort classes and attorneys.
In the entire WSJ expose it sounded like Walgreens management was as snowed-over as the rest of us with regard to Theranos' "technology" but it's crazy that they didn't do more relatively simple due diligence given their exposure
[+] [-] jalonso510|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FreedomToCreate|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
I speak from experience when I say that it is easy to be fooled into believing people when those people actually believe they are telling the truth.
Bottom line is this is all on Theranos, and not Walgreens.
[+] [-] tuna-piano|9 years ago|reply
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- they run huge companies employing many people, doing complex things and making profits. In this case, the star power blinded them and they'll pay a large price.
[+] [-] marincounty|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tim333|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smaili|9 years ago|reply
EDIT: Looks like it's mentioned a few paragraphs into the article:
Walgreens leaders decided to end the partnership after regulators disclosed problems at Theranos in late January, but held off on finalizing the separation because the company feared Theranos might sue, said people familiar with the matter.
[+] [-] metalliqaz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kqr2|9 years ago|reply
https://theranos.com/news/posts/statement-from-theranos-7
[+] [-] lordnacho|9 years ago|reply
The fact that a major chain was selling them also seemed to indicate to me that there was something real in Theranos. Probably a lot of people think the same way, and are disappointed.
[+] [-] seehafer|9 years ago|reply
To summarize regulatory action:
Theranos sent in a marketing application to FDA for one of the use of Edison with one test, FDA said OK, this looks good based on the data you sent us (FDA can only see what you send them). FDA then placed Theranos on an audit list (common practice for any new company), stopped by after a few months, and found out that Theranos' own internal procedures for making sure that the data they generate about their product's performance is honest were, shall we say, poor. They also found Theranos marketing other components that they had not sought clearance to market from FDA. So FDA issued a 483 (deficiency notice) and the fallout from that we have yet to see. (I personally think there will be another shoe to drop here.)
Now, on the lab side, which is regulated by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Systems, not FDA, the process is different. Basically CMS allows you to get a preliminary certificate after a cursory inspection and gives you 2 years within which to build a real testing process and get your shit together before they do the real audit. Theranos's Bay Area lab got the preliminary certificate and massively failed the real audit, and then massively failed to fix anything, which is what's landing Holmes in potentially very hot water (being banned from the diagnostic industry for two years in the US). The reason this is structured this way is that 1) to have enough data for a meaningful audit takes time and 2) the government expects anyone contracting with a brand new lab for the first two years to understand that it's a brand new lab and act accordingly (i.e. be skeptical, do your own audit, don't take NewCo's evidence at face value).
Most people in the industry understand this. Hell, most people at Walgreens understood this and were properly skeptical [1]. But the top execs at the time overrode the valid concerns of their QC people in order to chase the unicorn.
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/craving-growth-walgreens-dismiss...
[+] [-] dennyis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madgar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danieltillett|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whacker|9 years ago|reply
Sad that it did not come true.
[+] [-] oneloop|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mathattack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|9 years ago|reply
If the partnership is terminated, then Walgreens must know something is very off.
[+] [-] korginator|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seesomesense|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grizzles|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barkingdog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perseusprime11|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meeper16|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yongjik|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barkingdog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nommm-nommm|9 years ago|reply
Even if the product is great, the business model could suck and the company will fail.
[+] [-] Retra|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cracks4download|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] GuiA|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] beilabs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyrophane|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _audakel|9 years ago|reply
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. Many are regulations that do little to protect consumers and exist from an outdated bureaucratic system. Others are lobbied into existence by big players like JNJ to protect themselves from startups like Theranos.
3 - Theranos was trying to do something that few people do - truly inovate in the medical world. As a country we have come to a point where little inovation is possilbe bc so many rules prevent the change necessary. We are not willing to accept any risk, and so we are stuck without progress.
4 - Before we all hop on the hate Theranos band wagon, lets remember that they did what all startups do - move fast and break things.
[+] [-] SyneRyder|9 years ago|reply
You just highlighted why I think "hustle" is a terrible word for the startup community to embrace. Google's dictionary (appears to be the Oxford dictionary) includes the definition "a fraud or swindle / to obtain illicitly or by forceful action". The Cambridge dictionary lists "A dishonest way of making money / to try to persuade someone, especially to buy something, often illegally".
By those definitions, there is no fine line - they're the same thing.
[+] [-] dingo_bat|9 years ago|reply
TL;DR people die when you move fast and break things in medicine, and your company gets sued for millions of dollars.
[+] [-] danieltillett|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|9 years ago|reply
There are some things like medical information which should not be broken, and worst of all, lying about it.
[+] [-] tuna-piano|9 years ago|reply
But did Walgreens know this was Theranos' mentality? The investors, patients, the doctors using the unreliable test results?
If the Theranos stakeholders all hopped on to the "move fast and break things" train- I'd be all for it. Facebook had that as their well known public motto and people still invested and used the service. People don't want to break things when it comes to their health.
[+] [-] taytus|9 years ago|reply