![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I don't really agree that this article is 'written like an advertisement', but I plan to expand the article using sources to help improve it. Fences& Windows 17:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm removing to here, for more detailed discussion, the following content from the last section of the accompanying article:
My reasoning is that the sentence is on its face
OR. After watching the founder on
Charlie Rose last nite, my impression was that their primary claim is that they are making faster, more convenient, and broader-spectrum testing feasible, and i don't have to know whether it even makes sense to apply whatever CLIA standards call for in judging the potential for this technology for transforming public health via an information explosion of earlier and more extensive data. Someone should also be paying attention to the danger of sacrificing quality of testing, but while i can't recall the context the concept that "at some point, enuf quantity turns out to be a revolution in quality" seems salient. Now, that doesn't prove Theranos have the best thing since sliced bread, but it is relevant to the fact that it's not WP's role to report two presumably appropriate places where the imputedly unavailable information is missing. We should be citing experts' peer-reviewed opinions about how this technology's potential should be investigated, and refereed studies on the effects of both clinical and market experience. For instance, if
JAMA or
NEJM has editorial(s) that say CLIA needs to weigh in and/or ones that say pts who skip venipuncture are reckless and/or ones that say the more safe but not necessarily reliable tests we can flood health-care consumers with, the better, society should
IMIO in each of those three areas be moving forward as rapidly as the economy can afford, but our article on the company must be drawing on those editorials -- and we must not be effectively insinuating that Theranos are bandits bcz conventional medicine venerates CLIA certification for the context that has given it its existence. IMO, the removed material violates
NOR.
--
Jerzy•
t
10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal has an in depth exposé of Theranos, "Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology" ( http://www.businessinsider.com.au/theranos-problems-blood-tests-edison-machines-2015-10 and second-hand summary at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/theranos-problems-blood-tests-edison-machines-2015-10 ). I don't seem to have access to the original full article, so maybe someone else can have a look and see if there is anything appropriate and worthwhile to add to this article. Edgeweyes ( talk) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple of reference articles that could be added: http://singularityhub.com/2013/11/18/small-fast-and-cheap-theranos-is-the-poster-child-of-med-tech-and-its-in-walgreens/ http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814233_4 Claudeb ( talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested in incorporating it into the article myself, but someone may want to add the claim by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that Theranos poses an "immediate jeopardy to patient safety." Citation. -- Yamla ( talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Some more history would be helpful, like when the Edison was introduced, and what they were doing before then. (Since they've existed since 2003 but the controversy over their testing particularly the Edison only just recently blew up so either no one noticed or they weren't using it until more recently.) Nil Einne ( talk)
This number is widely circulated, but what is the source? Who valuated it at $9 bil and how? Is there any evidence that there is a buyer willing to pay this amount? Washington Post reference just says its $9 billion valuation. 73.71.174.75 ( talk) 21:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There appear to be two CMS sections: "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" and "CMS certification". They are not entire redundant but have significant overlap and should likely be combined. Dbsseven ( talk) 16:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Given the secretive nature of this company, I would ask that all editors editing here agree to make clear that they lack of conflicts of interest in their editing. It is not beyond the pale to expect the company to enlist/involve editors to maintain the image that they wish to convey, through wikipedia and other media avenues. 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 13:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
WP's closest to reliable defense against COI is
V, and IMO any editor "agree[ing] to make clear ... lack of [COI] in editing" is thereby more suspect of being habitually negligent about providing the needed citations that would the COI issue irrelevant. (All this, aside from the absurdity of questioning someone's integrity and asking them to vouch for their own integrity. Or is what the IP is asking for documentation that proves the negative they want "ma[d]e clear"?)
And i will do no more than mention the
AGF policy.
--
Jerzy•
t
10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
So COI yay or nay? 199.46.198.230 ( talk) 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
As of now, the lede for this article states that the company is "known for its technology" but that it "received negative news coverage". That might have been an appropriate lede two years ago when the company was mostly viewed positively, and questions remained about the nature of the negative claims against it. At this point, it seems to me that the company, rather, is mostly known as a cautionary tale in the same category as Enron. The Wall Street Journal recently called it, "one of the biggest corporate scandals of the decade, one affecting thousands of lives." I think the time has come to fundamentally reconsider the article based on what we now know, rather than what we had begun to suspect several years ago.
I imagine such changes are likely to controversial, however, so I wanted to post first here to look for a consensus before actually making any changes. Thoughts? — Rnickel ( talk) 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lede is pretty damning, making the whole lede overwhelmingly negative IMHO. Robert The Rebuilder ( talk) 18:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with Rnickel. I'm now working on rewriting the lead paragraph and all assistance is welcomed. Andrew 327 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I just came across this news article this morning:
Is this something that should be included in the article, or is it too soon? Gnome de plume ( talk) 13:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I don't really agree that this article is 'written like an advertisement', but I plan to expand the article using sources to help improve it. Fences& Windows 17:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm removing to here, for more detailed discussion, the following content from the last section of the accompanying article:
My reasoning is that the sentence is on its face
OR. After watching the founder on
Charlie Rose last nite, my impression was that their primary claim is that they are making faster, more convenient, and broader-spectrum testing feasible, and i don't have to know whether it even makes sense to apply whatever CLIA standards call for in judging the potential for this technology for transforming public health via an information explosion of earlier and more extensive data. Someone should also be paying attention to the danger of sacrificing quality of testing, but while i can't recall the context the concept that "at some point, enuf quantity turns out to be a revolution in quality" seems salient. Now, that doesn't prove Theranos have the best thing since sliced bread, but it is relevant to the fact that it's not WP's role to report two presumably appropriate places where the imputedly unavailable information is missing. We should be citing experts' peer-reviewed opinions about how this technology's potential should be investigated, and refereed studies on the effects of both clinical and market experience. For instance, if
JAMA or
NEJM has editorial(s) that say CLIA needs to weigh in and/or ones that say pts who skip venipuncture are reckless and/or ones that say the more safe but not necessarily reliable tests we can flood health-care consumers with, the better, society should
IMIO in each of those three areas be moving forward as rapidly as the economy can afford, but our article on the company must be drawing on those editorials -- and we must not be effectively insinuating that Theranos are bandits bcz conventional medicine venerates CLIA certification for the context that has given it its existence. IMO, the removed material violates
NOR.
--
Jerzy•
t
10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal has an in depth exposé of Theranos, "Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology" ( http://www.businessinsider.com.au/theranos-problems-blood-tests-edison-machines-2015-10 and second-hand summary at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/theranos-problems-blood-tests-edison-machines-2015-10 ). I don't seem to have access to the original full article, so maybe someone else can have a look and see if there is anything appropriate and worthwhile to add to this article. Edgeweyes ( talk) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple of reference articles that could be added: http://singularityhub.com/2013/11/18/small-fast-and-cheap-theranos-is-the-poster-child-of-med-tech-and-its-in-walgreens/ http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814233_4 Claudeb ( talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested in incorporating it into the article myself, but someone may want to add the claim by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that Theranos poses an "immediate jeopardy to patient safety." Citation. -- Yamla ( talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Some more history would be helpful, like when the Edison was introduced, and what they were doing before then. (Since they've existed since 2003 but the controversy over their testing particularly the Edison only just recently blew up so either no one noticed or they weren't using it until more recently.) Nil Einne ( talk)
This number is widely circulated, but what is the source? Who valuated it at $9 bil and how? Is there any evidence that there is a buyer willing to pay this amount? Washington Post reference just says its $9 billion valuation. 73.71.174.75 ( talk) 21:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There appear to be two CMS sections: "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" and "CMS certification". They are not entire redundant but have significant overlap and should likely be combined. Dbsseven ( talk) 16:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Given the secretive nature of this company, I would ask that all editors editing here agree to make clear that they lack of conflicts of interest in their editing. It is not beyond the pale to expect the company to enlist/involve editors to maintain the image that they wish to convey, through wikipedia and other media avenues. 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 13:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
WP's closest to reliable defense against COI is
V, and IMO any editor "agree[ing] to make clear ... lack of [COI] in editing" is thereby more suspect of being habitually negligent about providing the needed citations that would the COI issue irrelevant. (All this, aside from the absurdity of questioning someone's integrity and asking them to vouch for their own integrity. Or is what the IP is asking for documentation that proves the negative they want "ma[d]e clear"?)
And i will do no more than mention the
AGF policy.
--
Jerzy•
t
10:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
So COI yay or nay? 199.46.198.230 ( talk) 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
As of now, the lede for this article states that the company is "known for its technology" but that it "received negative news coverage". That might have been an appropriate lede two years ago when the company was mostly viewed positively, and questions remained about the nature of the negative claims against it. At this point, it seems to me that the company, rather, is mostly known as a cautionary tale in the same category as Enron. The Wall Street Journal recently called it, "one of the biggest corporate scandals of the decade, one affecting thousands of lives." I think the time has come to fundamentally reconsider the article based on what we now know, rather than what we had begun to suspect several years ago.
I imagine such changes are likely to controversial, however, so I wanted to post first here to look for a consensus before actually making any changes. Thoughts? — Rnickel ( talk) 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lede is pretty damning, making the whole lede overwhelmingly negative IMHO. Robert The Rebuilder ( talk) 18:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with Rnickel. I'm now working on rewriting the lead paragraph and all assistance is welcomed. Andrew 327 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I just came across this news article this morning:
Is this something that should be included in the article, or is it too soon? Gnome de plume ( talk) 13:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)