This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ApothéCure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are:
WP:WEIGHT and accuracy in criticism section |
I added some clarifying wording to the second paragraph, which suggested potential wrongdoing. Apothecure is a compounding pharmacy and provides custom compounds to physicians -- and does NOT dispense compounds to patients.
Disclosure: I am a public relations practitioner who has worked for Apothecure, although I do not work on their behalf currently.
Dan Keeney
DPK Public Relations
[redacted]
[redacted]
www.dpkpr.com
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.208.110.206 (
talk •
contribs)
Plenty of negative stuff out there...
I'm trying to locate possible positive reliable sources... — Scien tizzle 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have carried out a total revert of the last 5 edits These were all made by one new SPA who
Although I am aware of the
Assume Good Faith guidelines, and these changes may have been due to inexperience, an SPA on an article like this, making apparently promotional changes, probably has a
Conflict of interest
Arjayay (
talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I clicked a few of the supporting links to the article and found at least 2 that appear to be dead. I haven't time to make a detailed survey, but it's probable that there are even more given that the 1st two that I clicked were both dead. The article makes some serious and what I would consider to be biased assertions and the entirety of the wikipedia article relies on a handful of newspaper articles, some of which are no longer "live" and verifiable. What is wikipedia's policy in this situation? Jonny Quick ( talk) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The more I read about Colchisine, the more disturbing this article becomes. When all I had read of Colchisine was from this article, I had the impression that it was a drug that existed in some kind of medical "grey area", alternative medicine, conspiracy theories and tin-foil hats. But then I read about how 2 years after the deaths in Oregon, the FDA awards an exclusive contract and monopoly to URL Pharmacy in exchange for a 45 million dollar "application fee" and then 2 years later Japanese Pharma company Takeda purchases URL Pharma (and it's primary drug Colchisine) for 800 million dollars. And while none of this may have direct bearing on the incident described in the "Controversy" section, it may indicate why the FDA and the Federal Government put so much effort into criminally prosecuting a misdemeanor offense for a relatively minor incident. I can't help but wonder if lobbying efforts were not already underway to award the entirety of the Colchisine market to URL Pharmacy and these incidents were used by the government as a pretext to "regulate" these compounding pharmacies.
Colchisine appears to be the, or at least "a" standard treatment for gout, to the extent that URL Pharmacy was willing to pay around 100 million dollars to acquire the exclusive right to manufacture and market it, and within a couple of years of that acquisition, Takeda valued URL Pharmacy at 800 million. I have problems ignoring all of that.
I also have problems with the absence of other information, such as the names, ages and general medical conditions of the 3 patients that died, the fact that autopsy of one of the patients did not reveal high levels of colchisine, the name of the physician(s) that prescribed the drug, but the fact that the drug was being used in a non-approved manner by the FDA, but then the FDA did not approve the drug for treating ANY condition, gout, autism, lower back pain, etc.., also the name of the "now defunct" alternative medical clinic. Also absent is any mention of whether or not the drugs dispensed by Apothecure were ordered by a physician. Some of the language in the article seems to indicate that Apothecure sold the drugs directly to the patient with no involvement of a physician. It seems to me that of all the specific information that could be in this article, only that information directly identifying Apothecure and it's owner has been cherry-picked for inclusion. What about the details of how the shipment of mislabeled drugs occured? The name of the presumed employee is not mentioned.
And another problem I have with this article is that of scale. How statistically relevant is this incident, compared to other compound pharmacies, and how relevant is that number compared to what mistakes the major pharmaceutical companies make? Jonny Quick ( talk) 04:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the 2nd paragraph for 3 reasons, and could find no way to fix the problems without making the entire paragraph meaningless. 1) "may have been illegally dispensed" weasel word. It's been 8 years. Either it happened or it didn't. 2) An incident that had "insufficient evidence" isn't an incident, it's a complaint by an anonymous person, and not worthy of inclusion 3) "may have been several violations" is also weasel-y. There were charges and a settlement, so I think it's time to update the article to reflect what has happened since then. In case anyone is interested, I meant what I wrote about the parallel history and colchesine, and am concerned Big Pharma has used Wikipedia to do a hatchet-job on a small-fries compounding pharmacy in order to make hundreds of millions of dollars by acquiring a government-awarded monopoly. After finalizing this, I'm going to browse the large pharmaceutical companies' wikipedia pages, and see if those articles list each and every violation, and every incident that resulted in someone's death. Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have been written entirely by one person, so I do not see how you can assert there was "consensus". Maybe I am missing something. Also, I can think of no more weasle-y word than "may", particularly when alleging serious crime, and that paragraph used the weasel word "may" twice in four sentences. You use a weasel word yourself in that (something) "appears" to be a WP:POV issue. Either it is or it is not, you either think so or you do not, and if you do I would expect you provide some justification for this belief. There is no "fact" of violations of the law in Oregon, only allegations and it has been over 5 years since those allegations have been made. Jonny Quick ( talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your NPOV statement assumes that your are starting with an article that has a neutral point of view, and that any changes I may wish to make are therefore POV. You SHOULD assume good faith. I have made my bias perfectly known. What's not known is the bias of the people that created the article. Consider that at the time of it's creation, there were literally millions of dollars floating around. I think this article is a "hatchet-job" and would like to apply standard wikipedia policies to make it more neutral, and to afford some balance. That's not an accusation, it's a question. While most of the article may be "sourced", what to do when the sources were/are all biased and beginning to rot? A brief look-over at my activities should make my lack of experience obvious. This is a good faith effort to move this article from what it is to something better, and any help in that regard will be appreciated. Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
So then, what's next. I still maintain this article is biased, and outdated. A few days ago it was listed for possible deletion. Now that status has changed. I find no record of this, nor who initiated the move to delete, nor what happened as a result of that. Isn't this stuff supposed to be documented? Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Even though the deletion discussion resulted in no consensus, it seems clear to me that the company is notable. It has received non-trivial coverage in several news sources. However, this coverage is almost exclusively related to malfeasance and lawsuits. If there was just one incident, like with New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak, I would say that we should modify the article to be about the event rather than the company. However, there have been at least three separate incidents, so I think it makes more sense to organize the article around the company. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 00:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ApothéCure Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ApothéCure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are:
WP:WEIGHT and accuracy in criticism section |
I added some clarifying wording to the second paragraph, which suggested potential wrongdoing. Apothecure is a compounding pharmacy and provides custom compounds to physicians -- and does NOT dispense compounds to patients.
Disclosure: I am a public relations practitioner who has worked for Apothecure, although I do not work on their behalf currently.
Dan Keeney
DPK Public Relations
[redacted]
[redacted]
www.dpkpr.com
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.208.110.206 (
talk •
contribs)
Plenty of negative stuff out there...
I'm trying to locate possible positive reliable sources... — Scien tizzle 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have carried out a total revert of the last 5 edits These were all made by one new SPA who
Although I am aware of the
Assume Good Faith guidelines, and these changes may have been due to inexperience, an SPA on an article like this, making apparently promotional changes, probably has a
Conflict of interest
Arjayay (
talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I clicked a few of the supporting links to the article and found at least 2 that appear to be dead. I haven't time to make a detailed survey, but it's probable that there are even more given that the 1st two that I clicked were both dead. The article makes some serious and what I would consider to be biased assertions and the entirety of the wikipedia article relies on a handful of newspaper articles, some of which are no longer "live" and verifiable. What is wikipedia's policy in this situation? Jonny Quick ( talk) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The more I read about Colchisine, the more disturbing this article becomes. When all I had read of Colchisine was from this article, I had the impression that it was a drug that existed in some kind of medical "grey area", alternative medicine, conspiracy theories and tin-foil hats. But then I read about how 2 years after the deaths in Oregon, the FDA awards an exclusive contract and monopoly to URL Pharmacy in exchange for a 45 million dollar "application fee" and then 2 years later Japanese Pharma company Takeda purchases URL Pharma (and it's primary drug Colchisine) for 800 million dollars. And while none of this may have direct bearing on the incident described in the "Controversy" section, it may indicate why the FDA and the Federal Government put so much effort into criminally prosecuting a misdemeanor offense for a relatively minor incident. I can't help but wonder if lobbying efforts were not already underway to award the entirety of the Colchisine market to URL Pharmacy and these incidents were used by the government as a pretext to "regulate" these compounding pharmacies.
Colchisine appears to be the, or at least "a" standard treatment for gout, to the extent that URL Pharmacy was willing to pay around 100 million dollars to acquire the exclusive right to manufacture and market it, and within a couple of years of that acquisition, Takeda valued URL Pharmacy at 800 million. I have problems ignoring all of that.
I also have problems with the absence of other information, such as the names, ages and general medical conditions of the 3 patients that died, the fact that autopsy of one of the patients did not reveal high levels of colchisine, the name of the physician(s) that prescribed the drug, but the fact that the drug was being used in a non-approved manner by the FDA, but then the FDA did not approve the drug for treating ANY condition, gout, autism, lower back pain, etc.., also the name of the "now defunct" alternative medical clinic. Also absent is any mention of whether or not the drugs dispensed by Apothecure were ordered by a physician. Some of the language in the article seems to indicate that Apothecure sold the drugs directly to the patient with no involvement of a physician. It seems to me that of all the specific information that could be in this article, only that information directly identifying Apothecure and it's owner has been cherry-picked for inclusion. What about the details of how the shipment of mislabeled drugs occured? The name of the presumed employee is not mentioned.
And another problem I have with this article is that of scale. How statistically relevant is this incident, compared to other compound pharmacies, and how relevant is that number compared to what mistakes the major pharmaceutical companies make? Jonny Quick ( talk) 04:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the 2nd paragraph for 3 reasons, and could find no way to fix the problems without making the entire paragraph meaningless. 1) "may have been illegally dispensed" weasel word. It's been 8 years. Either it happened or it didn't. 2) An incident that had "insufficient evidence" isn't an incident, it's a complaint by an anonymous person, and not worthy of inclusion 3) "may have been several violations" is also weasel-y. There were charges and a settlement, so I think it's time to update the article to reflect what has happened since then. In case anyone is interested, I meant what I wrote about the parallel history and colchesine, and am concerned Big Pharma has used Wikipedia to do a hatchet-job on a small-fries compounding pharmacy in order to make hundreds of millions of dollars by acquiring a government-awarded monopoly. After finalizing this, I'm going to browse the large pharmaceutical companies' wikipedia pages, and see if those articles list each and every violation, and every incident that resulted in someone's death. Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have been written entirely by one person, so I do not see how you can assert there was "consensus". Maybe I am missing something. Also, I can think of no more weasle-y word than "may", particularly when alleging serious crime, and that paragraph used the weasel word "may" twice in four sentences. You use a weasel word yourself in that (something) "appears" to be a WP:POV issue. Either it is or it is not, you either think so or you do not, and if you do I would expect you provide some justification for this belief. There is no "fact" of violations of the law in Oregon, only allegations and it has been over 5 years since those allegations have been made. Jonny Quick ( talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your NPOV statement assumes that your are starting with an article that has a neutral point of view, and that any changes I may wish to make are therefore POV. You SHOULD assume good faith. I have made my bias perfectly known. What's not known is the bias of the people that created the article. Consider that at the time of it's creation, there were literally millions of dollars floating around. I think this article is a "hatchet-job" and would like to apply standard wikipedia policies to make it more neutral, and to afford some balance. That's not an accusation, it's a question. While most of the article may be "sourced", what to do when the sources were/are all biased and beginning to rot? A brief look-over at my activities should make my lack of experience obvious. This is a good faith effort to move this article from what it is to something better, and any help in that regard will be appreciated. Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
So then, what's next. I still maintain this article is biased, and outdated. A few days ago it was listed for possible deletion. Now that status has changed. I find no record of this, nor who initiated the move to delete, nor what happened as a result of that. Isn't this stuff supposed to be documented? Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Even though the deletion discussion resulted in no consensus, it seems clear to me that the company is notable. It has received non-trivial coverage in several news sources. However, this coverage is almost exclusively related to malfeasance and lawsuits. If there was just one incident, like with New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak, I would say that we should modify the article to be about the event rather than the company. However, there have been at least three separate incidents, so I think it makes more sense to organize the article around the company. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 00:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ApothéCure Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)