[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blood-testi...1536115130

The company, much discussed on this board, is set to dissolve.

In the wake of a high-profile scandal, the company will formally dissolve, according to an email to shareholders. Theranos will seek to pay unsecured creditors its remaining cash in coming months, the email said.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blood-testi...1536115130

The company, much discussed on this board, is set to dissolve.

In the wake of a high-profile scandal, the company will formally dissolve, according to an email to shareholders. Theranos will seek to pay unsecured creditors its remaining cash in coming months, the email said.

BC

[slide]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

[slide]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

[BigEasyCard]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

[slide]

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

LOL.  touche

[slide]

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

LOL.  touche

[BostonCard]

No good play is complete without the story of redemption, though I am very challenged to envision how the hell Elizabeth Holmes will be able to redeem herself.

BC

[BostonCard]

No good play is complete without the story of redemption, though I am very challenged to envision how the hell Elizabeth Holmes will be able to redeem herself.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Prosecutors have already issued indictments so not much left there. 

Anyway the book is gripping -- finished it in an afternoon. (Then my girlfriend borrowed my copy and she finished it faster.)

[washingtonismoney]

Prosecutors have already issued indictments so not much left there. 

Anyway the book is gripping -- finished it in an afternoon. (Then my girlfriend borrowed my copy and she finished it faster.)

[slide]

on what's left:  convictions?

[slide]

on what's left:  convictions?

[82lsju]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

at least one book out already (Bad Blood) and the movie based on it to star Jennifer Lawrence.

I read the book and would recommend it if your are interested in the story.

[82lsju]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

at least one book out already (Bad Blood) and the movie based on it to star Jennifer Lawrence.

I read the book and would recommend it if your are interested in the story.

[OL84]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

at least one book out already (Bad Blood) and the movie based on it to star Jennifer Lawrence.

I read the book and would recommend it if your are interested in the story.

I confess I bought the whole Holmes mythology.  My daughter considered a job offer at Theranos and I told her to take it.  Shows what I know. 

I'm afraid the movie now is an expose of the Stanford/Silicon Valley arrogance.  The redemption story is years away.

[OL84]

going out with a whimper, not a bang.

prosecutions will be the last act I suspect.

Perhaps prosecutions will be the next to last act.  The last act will probably be the books and movie which will generate litigation over the proceeds.

Geaux Cardinal!

at least one book out already (Bad Blood) and the movie based on it to star Jennifer Lawrence.

I read the book and would recommend it if your are interested in the story.

I confess I bought the whole Holmes mythology.  My daughter considered a job offer at Theranos and I told her to take it.  Shows what I know. 

I'm afraid the movie now is an expose of the Stanford/Silicon Valley arrogance.  The redemption story is years away.

[2006alum]

I'm afraid the movie now is an expose of the Stanford/Silicon Valley arrogance.  The redemption story is years away.

It's worth noting that almost everyone in Silicon Valley stayed far, far away from Theranos. Only one valley VC fund invested, and even then, not much. Most of her money came from people outside the valley who would accept her ridiculous terms regarding lack of access to verifiable results (including, notably, a brobdingnagian investment from Walgreens). And her board was full of DC bigwigs who lent authority but absolutely no credibility for the specific industry. If anything, the lesson is in the arrogance of valley outsiders to think any seller of magical beans can make them grow fruit. I always, always, thought it sounded way too good to be true.

[2006alum]

I'm afraid the movie now is an expose of the Stanford/Silicon Valley arrogance.  The redemption story is years away.

It's worth noting that almost everyone in Silicon Valley stayed far, far away from Theranos. Only one valley VC fund invested, and even then, not much. Most of her money came from people outside the valley who would accept her ridiculous terms regarding lack of access to verifiable results (including, notably, a brobdingnagian investment from Walgreens). And her board was full of DC bigwigs who lent authority but absolutely no credibility for the specific industry. If anything, the lesson is in the arrogance of valley outsiders to think any seller of magical beans can make them grow fruit. I always, always, thought it sounded way too good to be true.

[washingtonismoney]

It's worth noting that almost everyone in Silicon Valley stayed far, far away from Theranos. Only one valley VC fund invested, and even then, not much. Most of her money came from people outside the valley who would accept her ridiculous terms regarding lack of access to verifiable results (including, notably, a of immense proportions investment from Walgreens). And her board was full of DC bigwigs who lent authority but absolutely no credibility for the specific industry. If anything, the lesson is in the arrogance of valley outsiders to think any seller of magical beans can make them grow fruit. I always, always, thought it sounded way too good to be true.

I hear this self-defense a lot and think it's not terribly convincing, for a few reasons: 
1) it's not true that valley outsiders were the sole (or preponderance) investors. Larry Ellison and Draper put money into it. And BlueCross BlueShield's in-house investors (who are actually reasonably well-regarded) put money in too. 

2) This is, to be fair, a subjective thing. You might think this represents not a brobdingnagian slice of the Silicon Valley elite, and I suppose as a semantic matter I might concede. But I would argue this makes the Valley look even worse. Because Valley insiders were definitely complicit in hyping the company. Tons and tons of insiders either invited Holmes to speak at their events or feted her with awards. Several insiders, including Marc Andreessen, reflexively defended her when the first wave of negative press coverage came; and in fact some of them indulged in bizarre conspiracy theories (that the coverage was somehow prompted by her "enemies") rather than treating it as a good-faith disagreement. 

Defending her to the hilt while refusing to put their money at stake looks like trying to put one over the rubes. So, to be honest, I think it's better for the Valley if story 1) (that actually many of their investors were conned, like all the rest) is true. 

Anyway the government has filed a superseding indictment on Holmes and Balwani, which doesn't look good.

[washingtonismoney]

It's worth noting that almost everyone in Silicon Valley stayed far, far away from Theranos. Only one valley VC fund invested, and even then, not much. Most of her money came from people outside the valley who would accept her ridiculous terms regarding lack of access to verifiable results (including, notably, a of immense proportions investment from Walgreens). And her board was full of DC bigwigs who lent authority but absolutely no credibility for the specific industry. If anything, the lesson is in the arrogance of valley outsiders to think any seller of magical beans can make them grow fruit. I always, always, thought it sounded way too good to be true.

I hear this self-defense a lot and think it's not terribly convincing, for a few reasons: 
1) it's not true that valley outsiders were the sole (or preponderance) investors. Larry Ellison and Draper put money into it. And BlueCross BlueShield's in-house investors (who are actually reasonably well-regarded) put money in too. 

2) This is, to be fair, a subjective thing. You might think this represents not a brobdingnagian slice of the Silicon Valley elite, and I suppose as a semantic matter I might concede. But I would argue this makes the Valley look even worse. Because Valley insiders were definitely complicit in hyping the company. Tons and tons of insiders either invited Holmes to speak at their events or feted her with awards. Several insiders, including Marc Andreessen, reflexively defended her when the first wave of negative press coverage came; and in fact some of them indulged in bizarre conspiracy theories (that the coverage was somehow prompted by her "enemies") rather than treating it as a good-faith disagreement. 

Defending her to the hilt while refusing to put their money at stake looks like trying to put one over the rubes. So, to be honest, I think it's better for the Valley if story 1) (that actually many of their investors were conned, like all the rest) is true. 

Anyway the government has filed a superseding indictment on Holmes and Balwani, which doesn't look good.

[82lsju]

I hear this self-defense a lot and think it's not terribly convincing, for a few reasons: 

1) it's not true that valley outsiders were the sole (or preponderance) investors. Larry Ellison and Draper put money into it. And BlueCross BlueShield's in-house investors (who are actually reasonably well-regarded) put money in too. 

2) This is, to be fair, a subjective thing. You might think this represents not a of immense proportions slice of the Silicon Valley elite, and I suppose as a semantic matter I might concede. But I would argue this makes the Valley look even worse. Because Valley insiders were definitely complicit in hyping the company. Tons and tons of insiders either invited Holmes to speak at their events or feted her with awards. Several insiders, including Marc Andreessen, reflexively defended her when the first wave of negative press coverage came; and in fact some of them indulged in bizarre conspiracy theories (that the coverage was somehow prompted by her "enemies") rather than treating it as a good-faith disagreement. 

Defending her to the hilt while refusing to put their money at stake looks like trying to put one over the rubes. So, to be honest, I think it's better for the Valley if story 1) (that actually many of their investors were conned, like all the rest) is true. 

Anyway the government has filed a superseding indictment on Holmes and Balwani, which doesn't look good.

Draper put on the order of $1 million in early (and none later, but has been a big defender, his daughter was apparently a childhood friend of Holmes)

Rupert Murdoch and Larry Ellison also reportedly put in big money (Murdoch reportedly sold his stake $125m back for $1 https://www.businessinsider.com/rupert-m...ake-2017-3 )

In "Bad Blood", which may or may not be 100% accurate, the Walgreens and Safeway behavior is mind boggling, the former afraid that if the technology worked and CVS jumped in they would be screwed and the Safeway CEO wanting to leave a new business legacy around wellness before he retired.

I'm not a biotech/blood expert but the few people I know in that field were highly skeptical from the beginning that a small amount of blood from your finger could give reliable test results.

[82lsju]

I hear this self-defense a lot and think it's not terribly convincing, for a few reasons: 

1) it's not true that valley outsiders were the sole (or preponderance) investors. Larry Ellison and Draper put money into it. And BlueCross BlueShield's in-house investors (who are actually reasonably well-regarded) put money in too. 

2) This is, to be fair, a subjective thing. You might think this represents not a of immense proportions slice of the Silicon Valley elite, and I suppose as a semantic matter I might concede. But I would argue this makes the Valley look even worse. Because Valley insiders were definitely complicit in hyping the company. Tons and tons of insiders either invited Holmes to speak at their events or feted her with awards. Several insiders, including Marc Andreessen, reflexively defended her when the first wave of negative press coverage came; and in fact some of them indulged in bizarre conspiracy theories (that the coverage was somehow prompted by her "enemies") rather than treating it as a good-faith disagreement. 

Defending her to the hilt while refusing to put their money at stake looks like trying to put one over the rubes. So, to be honest, I think it's better for the Valley if story 1) (that actually many of their investors were conned, like all the rest) is true. 

Anyway the government has filed a superseding indictment on Holmes and Balwani, which doesn't look good.

Draper put on the order of $1 million in early (and none later, but has been a big defender, his daughter was apparently a childhood friend of Holmes)

Rupert Murdoch and Larry Ellison also reportedly put in big money (Murdoch reportedly sold his stake $125m back for $1 https://www.businessinsider.com/rupert-m...ake-2017-3 )

In "Bad Blood", which may or may not be 100% accurate, the Walgreens and Safeway behavior is mind boggling, the former afraid that if the technology worked and CVS jumped in they would be screwed and the Safeway CEO wanting to leave a new business legacy around wellness before he retired.

I'm not a biotech/blood expert but the few people I know in that field were highly skeptical from the beginning that a small amount of blood from your finger could give reliable test results.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not a biotech/blood expert but the few people I know in that field were highly skeptical from the beginning that a small amount of blood from your finger could give reliable test results.

A friend of mine, a nurse, swore early that it would basically be impossible. (They train nurses to draw blood away from the fingertip because it's much more reliable, as I understand it.) I believed her but didn't take her seriously enough to write about it. Probably should've, in retrospect. 

But then again there were plenty of health care people willing to ally with Theranos, at least for press purposes. Cleveland Clinic attached themselves; Dignity Health, the same. It was kind of unclear to me how much those alliances were PR-driven and how much were actual efforts. Carreyrou doesn't really get into it in Bad Blood (for which I'm sure he has good reasons).

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not a biotech/blood expert but the few people I know in that field were highly skeptical from the beginning that a small amount of blood from your finger could give reliable test results.

A friend of mine, a nurse, swore early that it would basically be impossible. (They train nurses to draw blood away from the fingertip because it's much more reliable, as I understand it.) I believed her but didn't take her seriously enough to write about it. Probably should've, in retrospect. 

But then again there were plenty of health care people willing to ally with Theranos, at least for press purposes. Cleveland Clinic attached themselves; Dignity Health, the same. It was kind of unclear to me how much those alliances were PR-driven and how much were actual efforts. Carreyrou doesn't really get into it in Bad Blood (for which I'm sure he has good reasons).

[BostonCard]

A friend of mine, a nurse, swore early that it would basically be impossible. (They train nurses to draw blood away from the fingertip because it's much more reliable, as I understand it.) I believed her but didn't take her seriously enough to write about it. Probably should've, in retrospect. 

There are differences between capillary blood labs (as would result from a fingerstick) and venous blood labs (as would result from a traditional draw).  These differences aren't so large that you can't, for example, reliably measure glucose from a fingerstick.  

Nurses are trained to draw blood from veins.  Veins generally get larger and thus easier to cannulate as they merge and get closer to the heart.  A highly trained nurse can somehow manage to draw blood from a stone, blindfolded.  An ICU doctor like myself; we have to go after the jugular vein to get blood.

I think the challenge for Theranos wasn't physiological; it was an engineering challenge.  At low volumes, blood, which is already more viscous than water, becomes a fluid dynamics nightmare.  A friend of mine who was a chemical engineer at Stanford interviewed with them and came away thinking that their proposed solution was a dead end.  It was an approach that had been tried many times unsuccessfully in the past.  He came away thinking the company was stubborn and full of hubris, and halfway through the interview, figuring he didn't want to work there anyways, candidly told them that their approach was a dead end.

BC

[BostonCard]

A friend of mine, a nurse, swore early that it would basically be impossible. (They train nurses to draw blood away from the fingertip because it's much more reliable, as I understand it.) I believed her but didn't take her seriously enough to write about it. Probably should've, in retrospect. 

There are differences between capillary blood labs (as would result from a fingerstick) and venous blood labs (as would result from a traditional draw).  These differences aren't so large that you can't, for example, reliably measure glucose from a fingerstick.  

Nurses are trained to draw blood from veins.  Veins generally get larger and thus easier to cannulate as they merge and get closer to the heart.  A highly trained nurse can somehow manage to draw blood from a stone, blindfolded.  An ICU doctor like myself; we have to go after the jugular vein to get blood.

I think the challenge for Theranos wasn't physiological; it was an engineering challenge.  At low volumes, blood, which is already more viscous than water, becomes a fluid dynamics nightmare.  A friend of mine who was a chemical engineer at Stanford interviewed with them and came away thinking that their proposed solution was a dead end.  It was an approach that had been tried many times unsuccessfully in the past.  He came away thinking the company was stubborn and full of hubris, and halfway through the interview, figuring he didn't want to work there anyways, candidly told them that their approach was a dead end.

BC

[82lsju]

I think the challenge for Theranos wasn't physiological; it was an engineering challenge.  At low volumes, blood, which is already more viscous than water, becomes a fluid dynamics nightmare.  A friend of mine who was a chemical engineer at Stanford interviewed with them and came away thinking that their proposed solution was a dead end.  It was an approach that had been tried many times unsuccessfully in the past.  He came away thinking the company was stubborn and full of hubris, and halfway through the interview, figuring he didn't want to work there anyways, candidly told them that their approach was a dead end.

BC

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

[82lsju]

I think the challenge for Theranos wasn't physiological; it was an engineering challenge.  At low volumes, blood, which is already more viscous than water, becomes a fluid dynamics nightmare.  A friend of mine who was a chemical engineer at Stanford interviewed with them and came away thinking that their proposed solution was a dead end.  It was an approach that had been tried many times unsuccessfully in the past.  He came away thinking the company was stubborn and full of hubris, and halfway through the interview, figuring he didn't want to work there anyways, candidly told them that their approach was a dead end.

BC

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

[OL84]

I'm afraid the movie now is an expose of the Stanford/Silicon Valley arrogance.  The redemption story is years away.

It's worth noting that almost everyone in Silicon Valley stayed far, far away from Theranos. Only one valley VC fund invested, and even then, not much. Most of her money came from people outside the valley who would accept her ridiculous terms regarding lack of access to verifiable results (including, notably, a of immense proportions investment from Walgreens). And her board was full of DC bigwigs who lent authority but absolutely no credibility for the specific industry. If anything, the lesson is in the arrogance of valley outsiders to think any seller of magical beans can make them grow fruit. I always, always, thought it sounded way too good to be true.

Interesting points, all.  The Walgreens connection certainly lured me as well, but I did not realize the paucity of local VC investment.  Over time as I explained the technology to people who might understand it, all questioned it.  When I researched it, I could not find a satisfactory technical answer either.  To your point, it's amazing that anyone would invest much or serve long without a better explanation of the "magic beans."

[OL84]

I'm afraid the movie now is an expose of the Stanford/Silicon Valley arrogance.  The redemption story is years away.

It's worth noting that almost everyone in Silicon Valley stayed far, far away from Theranos. Only one valley VC fund invested, and even then, not much. Most of her money came from people outside the valley who would accept her ridiculous terms regarding lack of access to verifiable results (including, notably, a of immense proportions investment from Walgreens). And her board was full of DC bigwigs who lent authority but absolutely no credibility for the specific industry. If anything, the lesson is in the arrogance of valley outsiders to think any seller of magical beans can make them grow fruit. I always, always, thought it sounded way too good to be true.

Interesting points, all.  The Walgreens connection certainly lured me as well, but I did not realize the paucity of local VC investment.  Over time as I explained the technology to people who might understand it, all questioned it.  When I researched it, I could not find a satisfactory technical answer either.  To your point, it's amazing that anyone would invest much or serve long without a better explanation of the "magic beans."

[BostonCard]

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

I always read that as them having a menu of 100 tests they could run from their nanotainer and not that they would run 100 tests from the nanotainer.  I've worked in an ICU, and I've never ordered 100 tests at once, even the most complicated patients.  Then there is the fact that different tests need the blood processed differently (for example, whether it is plasma (blood with the cells centrifuged), serum (blood with the cells and clotting factors clotted off), or the cells).  So, I don't think they could have taken one nanotube of blood and run 100 tests on it.

BC

[BostonCard]

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

I always read that as them having a menu of 100 tests they could run from their nanotainer and not that they would run 100 tests from the nanotainer.  I've worked in an ICU, and I've never ordered 100 tests at once, even the most complicated patients.  Then there is the fact that different tests need the blood processed differently (for example, whether it is plasma (blood with the cells centrifuged), serum (blood with the cells and clotting factors clotted off), or the cells).  So, I don't think they could have taken one nanotube of blood and run 100 tests on it.

BC

[cardcrimson]

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

I always read that as them having a menu of 100 tests they could run from their nanotainer and not that they would run 100 tests from the nanotainer.  I've worked in an ICU, and I've never ordered 100 tests at once, even the most complicated patients.  Then there is the fact that different tests need the blood processed differently (for example, whether it is plasma (blood with the cells centrifuged), serum (blood with the cells and clotting factors clotted off), or the cells).  So, I don't think they could have taken one nanotube of blood and run 100 tests on it.

BC

Holmes is working on another project, 100 tests and diagnoses without even using blood. Shatner and Takei are on her new board. . . .

[cardcrimson]

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

I always read that as them having a menu of 100 tests they could run from their nanotainer and not that they would run 100 tests from the nanotainer.  I've worked in an ICU, and I've never ordered 100 tests at once, even the most complicated patients.  Then there is the fact that different tests need the blood processed differently (for example, whether it is plasma (blood with the cells centrifuged), serum (blood with the cells and clotting factors clotted off), or the cells).  So, I don't think they could have taken one nanotube of blood and run 100 tests on it.

BC

Holmes is working on another project, 100 tests and diagnoses without even using blood. Shatner and Takei are on her new board. . . .

[82lsju]

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

I always read that as them having a menu of 100 tests they could run from their nanotainer and not that they would run 100 tests from the nanotainer.  I've worked in an ICU, and I've never ordered 100 tests at once, even the most complicated patients.  Then there is the fact that different tests need the blood processed differently (for example, whether it is plasma (blood with the cells centrifuged), serum (blood with the cells and clotting factors clotted off), or the cells).  So, I don't think they could have taken one nanotube of blood and run 100 tests on it.

BC

my mistake, they claimed "as many as 30" not up to ~100

Holmes says all she needs is a micro sample, equal in volume to a raindrop, to sufficiently run as many as 30 tests, the results of which can be available in less than a day.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovatio...180949983/

[82lsju]

especially if you were going to be able to run up to ~100 tests from one "nanotainer" of blood.....

I always read that as them having a menu of 100 tests they could run from their nanotainer and not that they would run 100 tests from the nanotainer.  I've worked in an ICU, and I've never ordered 100 tests at once, even the most complicated patients.  Then there is the fact that different tests need the blood processed differently (for example, whether it is plasma (blood with the cells centrifuged), serum (blood with the cells and clotting factors clotted off), or the cells).  So, I don't think they could have taken one nanotube of blood and run 100 tests on it.

BC

my mistake, they claimed "as many as 30" not up to ~100

Holmes says all she needs is a micro sample, equal in volume to a raindrop, to sufficiently run as many as 30 tests, the results of which can be available in less than a day.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovatio...180949983/

[Mick]

Nurses are trained to draw blood from veins.  Veins generally get larger and thus easier to cannulate as they merge and get closer to the heart.  A highly trained nurse can somehow manage to draw blood from a stone, blindfolded.  An ICU doctor like myself; we have to go after the jugular vein to get blood.

Our youngest was born at about 3 a.m., we got to Stanford Hospital at about 1 a.m.  Mrs. Mick was already having labor pains and Rookie Nurse was having a difficult time finding a vein, resorting to switching arms.  Rookie Nurse (probably drew the late assignment due to seniority) was fretting the entire time and causing undue stress to Mrs. Mick.  Just before I was about to call for help, Battleaxe Nurse walked by the entrance, sized it up at a glance, bumped Rookie Nurse aside, found a vein in seconds and had the IV set up in less than a minute.  Battleaxe nurse took Rookie Nurse aside just outside in the hall and gave her one of the most thorough and efficient dressing downs I've ever seen in my life, all in a normal speaking voice.  Not just a wonderful nurse, but a master manager.  I was quite impressed.

[Mick]

Nurses are trained to draw blood from veins.  Veins generally get larger and thus easier to cannulate as they merge and get closer to the heart.  A highly trained nurse can somehow manage to draw blood from a stone, blindfolded.  An ICU doctor like myself; we have to go after the jugular vein to get blood.

Our youngest was born at about 3 a.m., we got to Stanford Hospital at about 1 a.m.  Mrs. Mick was already having labor pains and Rookie Nurse was having a difficult time finding a vein, resorting to switching arms.  Rookie Nurse (probably drew the late assignment due to seniority) was fretting the entire time and causing undue stress to Mrs. Mick.  Just before I was about to call for help, Battleaxe Nurse walked by the entrance, sized it up at a glance, bumped Rookie Nurse aside, found a vein in seconds and had the IV set up in less than a minute.  Battleaxe nurse took Rookie Nurse aside just outside in the hall and gave her one of the most thorough and efficient dressing downs I've ever seen in my life, all in a normal speaking voice.  Not just a wonderful nurse, but a master manager.  I was quite impressed.