Talk:Theranos
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theranos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Article Structure
The outline or structure of this article is a mess. It needs to be reconfigured. It should be almost entirely chronological in the body. Blue Tie (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2018 (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)
- 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.
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)
- 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)
Criminal investigation
I just came across this news article this morning:
- 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..."
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)
- cant believe ppl were so dumb, duped to NOT see thru her. 'Elizabeth Holmes became a Silicon Valley darling after persuading high-profile investors to back her blood-testing company, Theranos' Sez something about them! greedy or just naive, stupid? And her so-called company president Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani, but actually arab THUG, hit man?? What a woot! You know, the one that lobs foreign curses to those that question the product, fact figures. Just wondering... has ANYONE else notice how Michael Cohen, Duncan Hunter jr, this sack o nuts, Elizabeth Holmes. oh, and Mark the Zucc... ALL have that SAME facial expression? NO expression, no feeling, self involved.... etc etc ad nauseum. 2600:1700:A760:C10:90EB:B713:1BA9:62FF (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2019 (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
"False" claims
There's been some controversy over whether to use the word "false" in the first sentence. I'm leaning toward keeping it. A ton of reliable sources (and the US government) say that Theranos made false claims. Before I revert, I want to open up the topic for discuss. Andrew327 16:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- The firm has avoided actual testing of its techniques. Thus, the remote possibility exists that there is a fine pig in the poke. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
12 missing years
What, in detail, went on from 2003 to 2015? When did the representation that so much could be done with a few drops of blood began and who made it? How were the major investors brought in? By who? Need a section on the charismatic characteristics of the founder, including some illustrative videos like those used in the 60 Minutes segment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Indictment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elizabeth-holmes-founder-of-blood-testing-company-theranos-indicted-on-wire-fraud-federal-authorities-announce/2018/06/15/8779f538-70df-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Late July: additional indctment ( https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/31/theranos-founder-holmes-hit-with-12th-fraud-charge-again/) while Holmes questions grand jury selection (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/28/theranos-deadlines-set-after-elizabeth-holmes-claims-coronavirus-changes-may-have-violated-her-rights/)67.209.133.238 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Elizabeth Holmes PR photograph
Someone claiming to be a Theranos employee and PR head has uploaded a publicity photograph of Elizabeth Holmes to Commons. There is an Image for Deletion discussion here (scroll to bottom for active discussion) -- GreenC 20:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Edison machines
There seems to be surprisingly little information about the actual machines. According to this article the Edison appears to be a glorified autosampler that required all the usual vials and chemicals, albeit in smaller quantities. Some say they did work but were inaccurate or unreliable, others suggest they were fake or vaporware. If they did work they would perhaps be similar to a Keurig or Nespresso machine which did not reinvent the way coffee is made but simply made it more convenient for the user and much more profitable for the seller. Did Theranos publish any technical details?--92.201.201.61 (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class company articles
- Mid-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- B-Class hematology-oncology articles
- Low-importance hematology-oncology articles
- Hematology-oncology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions