Talk:Theranos/Archive 1

Advert banner
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 &amp;  Windows  17:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an exaggeration to call it "advertising." However, I agree that it isn't yet encyclopedia quality. Would it help to consolidate the "Founding" and "Investment" sections into a "Company history" section?Claudeb (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, done. I also moved the sentence about how the tests basically work into "Services". Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the sources I listed above, and trimmed down some of the editorialising that was there before to focus more on directly relevant facts. I've dropped a note at User talk:GrahamColm to see if the ad banner can come down now. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal
I'm removing to here, for more detailed discussion, the following content from the last section of the accompanying article:
 * While the company reports that tests are being performed at a CLIA-certified laboratory, as of January 2015 the documentation on each test including analyte being detected, the approved means of detection, the criteria and statistics related to the analysis are not yet available at the sites of Theranos or its partners.

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)

Wall Street Journal "exposé"
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)

Additional references
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 added one and used another as an external link, for now. These are other references that can be used:


 * Fences &amp;  Windows  20:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Where are references to reliable sources suitable for medical articles, such as peer-reviewed medical or scientific journals? Which refs in the article currently satisfy Identifying reliable sources (medicine) ? The refs tend to violate WP:MEDPOP, which says that medical articles should not be based on newspaper stories. The article is full of newspaper articles from the companiy's hometown, which in turn are likely based on press releases. The criticisms by the Wall Street Journal equally inspire caution.  Edison (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Immediate jeopardy to patient safety
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)

History
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)

$9 bil valuation source?
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)

CMS sections
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)

Request for article editorial transparency
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)
 * Wow. That request comes from an IP sometimes used by someone who claims to be a registered user who also calls themself "Le Prof" and has 3803 (password-IDed) edits since 2012-10-07, and can't bother to pay attention to whether they're logged in even when signing talk pages. I'd suggest that they set a better example of responsible & collegial editing, respect the rights of cutting edge companies to be paranoid about protecting their intellectual property instead of treating that as the mark of Cain, and take seriously our established COI policy. I for one have my off-WP identity known to only one other WP editor (and thus have any COIs that i might have knowable to at most that one person -- whose username is BTW none of your business).  Wow. Some of this sounds like it was written by Elizabeth Holmes herself. You cannot be secretive with people's health.
 * I'm sure everyone will hop right on that. Snort. -- 184.189.216.159 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So COI yay or nay? 199.46.198.230 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IQ > 90 yay or nay? -- 184.189.216.159 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede needs revision, as does overall tone
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. Andrew327 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

60 Minutes

 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GweTHD36PQ User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Criminal investigation
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)
 * Theranos Is Subject of Criminal Probe by U.S.. "Federal prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into whether Theranos Inc. misled investors about the state of its technology and operations..."