Talk:Surgisphere

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Medicine Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 Stub‑class Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Undeleting the CEO's article

The Guardian article notes that Sapan Desai's Wikipedia page was deleted, as if it was an act of censorship for recent events. However that AfD was from 2010 for promotion and not meeting GNG. I think there's a good argument Desai is now notable, for very different reasons, and that Biography should be recreated. I've meanwhile created a redirect to this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sapan_Desai

Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: can you undelete the article on Sapan Desai. I'd like to see a new article but should start with the old article. There also seems to be an unusual contribution history for User:Crusio the guy who created the AfD. I'll try to find "Request for undeletion" and see if I can do anything there, but I've only been to that page once and don't really know how it works. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it but I think a simple request at WP:REFUND is probably a better way to go- they know what they're doing. tedder (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already requested the “refund” BoonDock (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi, BoonDock, and Tedder: I've taken the last version before deletion and stripped off everything that looks like nonsense and saved it. It's all primary sources and "more likely to be true than not" type of stuff. I was astounded that there wasn't something solid there. There *may* be some better stuff in much earlier versions, I haven't looked too hard yet. There does seem to be some paid or COI editing in the earlier versions. In any case, I reverted back to the redirect to here. If you want to edit, especially with new information (say from the last month or so) please edit this version. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BoonDock (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not completely sure this is the correct way to do this, but I created a draft version to work on. If there’s some better/other way, feel free to correct me. Draft:Sapan_Desai BoonDock (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked for the largest byte count when I reviewed it, I think it's all about the same. tedder (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I’ve been updating the “publications” to get them right. Not 100% sure how to tackle the rest of the article BoonDock (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on something related but can't really write this up. When I find sources for Sapan Desai though I'll just drop them off on the draft page (which I did for a BuzzFeed News article just now). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian “investigation”

I’m a little uneasy with the paragraph putting emphasis on the Guardian’s investigation because it’s literally a rehash of what other people has found out as has been listed already in sources attached to this page. It in fact feels as if the newspaper had appropriated other peoples research and claimed it as their own. Further , having this paragraph so prominently displayed makes it seem as if it was some newspaper researcher which questioned the data and discovered the various impossiblities. That’s patently false. It was a number of Scientists who did so. Some of the information is of interest and should be worked into the article as a whole, I believe.BoonDock (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agree. However, The Guardian was instrumental in first highlighting the scientists' concerns on 28 May. The follow-up 3 June Guardian article expanded on this, assessing the company's social media activities to illustrate the company's overall credibility and standing. I have moved the paragraph from the lede to the base of the main COVID-19 section. Paul W (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult. We can't source everything to Twitter or 'non-notable' researcher blogs, so it's really when it gets secondary-sourced to Guardian and elsewhere that it gains credibility. tedder (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed WSJ quote I added yesterday

Yesterday I added a quote which was from a WSJ story (i.e. from the reporter), not from any official retraction. Today, with an introductory phrase it read:

"their retraction stated that:"

Surgisphere said it has petabytes of data from more than 100 million patients, culled from some 1,200 hospitals and institutions on six continents. Yet many researchers and some hospitals said they had never heard of Surgisphere.^[1]

with the introductory phrase being clearly wrong. The WSJ updated the story today. changing the quoted material to the extent that it removed the last sentence. Similar material was presented well above the quote, but in a different context. "The Wall Street Journal contacted more than a dozen large U.S. hospitals, including some that treated high numbers of Covid-19 patients. None said they had an arrangement to share patient data with Surgisphere, and several said they had never heard of it."

To be brief and to keep it simple, I just removed the whole quote, but if anybody wants to include just the 1st sentence of the original quote, without the improper "retraction" context, please do. That sentence is still in the WSJ article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble following you on what changed. Are you saying that WSJ retracted part of a quote, where you had made the wording imply there was a retraction from Lancet? tedder (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the author's retraction request and added in two quotations from that. I can't access the full WSJ article. Paul W (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the archives on archive.is give the full article, BTW tedder (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hopkins, Jared S.; Gold, Russell (4 June 2020). "Hydroxychloroquine Studies Tied to Data Firm Surgisphere Retracted". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 June 2020.

Method critique

I have removed some paras that appear to be criticising the study methodology, but are unsourced:

"The authors culled data from 671 hospitals from around the world.

Study included 98,262 patients with positive test for "SARS-CoV-2" virus, but not necessarily positive for "COVID-19" disease. It is unclear how many of the group were WITHOUT disease.

81,144 patients were added to Control Group, and not given any of the therapies of interest. 14,888 patients were added into the 4 Treatment Groups and were given HCQ or CQ (either with, or without, macrolide).

The patients who received the HCQ or CQ regiments were obviously positive for COVID-19 disease. While the patients in the control group may not even have had COVID-19. Many (or possibly "most") of them only had positive test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus but not COVID-19 disease.

The authors admitted in METHODS section that data set of 98,262 patients included those with " a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2" (which would include BOTH patients with, and without, "COVID-19" disease. But, later in the report they replace the description of the data set with "COVID-19" patients, abandoning their initial label of "SARS-CoV-2" patients.

The study results are therefore flawed because they did not exclude patients without disease from Control Group. This made control size appear to have better outcomes that patients treated with therapies of interest."

Paul W (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul W Not sure what you are trying to do but Thelancet's article (the graphic showing which patients got excluded from the analysis) says those are hospitalized patients, ie. they all have Covid (ie. dyspnea). Reuns (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[WSJ_study_retracted-1] Hopkins, Jared S.; Gold, Russell (4 June 2020). "Hydroxychloroquine Studies Tied to Data Firm Surgisphere Retracted". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 June 2020.

[1]