From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inside GET-THIN[edit]

"20/20" & "World News with Diane Sawyer"[edit]

  • 1-800-Get-Thin Under Fire for Lap-Band Surgery Deaths By BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) and CINDY GALLI May 11, 2012
  • Few doctors have made more money in the weight-loss business than Beverly Hills brothers, Julian and Michael Omidi. The brothers, who once were featured in the cable program "Dr. 90210," are the men behind a heavily advertised Southern California business called 1-800-GetThin and affiliated surgery clinics that have made millions of dollars offering an outpatient procedure that constricts the stomach with what's called a "Lap-Band." Done right, the Lap-Band procedure is a safe technique. But a "20/20" investigation that will also be featured on "World News with Diane Sawyer" has found that in the past three years, five patients have died after Lap-Band surgery at the brothers' California clinics. Jorfeihb (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant material being deleted repeatedly[edit]

A section of text is being repeatedly deleted by one editor (and this morning by a new account making its first edit). It appears to me that this material is obviously relevant and important to this article and should be retained. The current version of the content in question is as follows:

The California Department of Insurance is investigating surgery centers contracted with 1-800-GET-THIN for alleged insurance fraud.[1][2][3][4] Published reports and lawsuits stated that Michael Omidi and his older brother Julian Omidi (aka Kambiz Omidi) own and control all of the surgery centers as well as the 1-800-GET-THIN marketing firm.[4][5][6][7] The brothers were featured on the plastic surgery reality show Dr. 90210 in 2005.[8] In 2008 Julian Omidi's medical license was revoked by the Medical Board of California for not disclosing on a license application that he attended the University of California, Irvine from 1986 to 1990. The university expelled him in 1990 for his involvement in the burglary of exam papers. In its license revocation order, the medical board stated that Julian Omidi "has a penchant for dishonesty" and that his "misrepresentation and dishonesty... go to the core of his ability to practice his profession."[8][4][9][10] In 2008 the medical board placed Michael Omidi on three years' probation after finding him "grossly negligent" in treating liposuction patients in 2005.[8][4]
  1. ^ Insurance Company Targets 1-800-GET-THIN (NBC News, Jan 27, 2012 )
  2. ^ State launches Lap-Band investigation (Los Angeles Times, Jan 26, 2012)
  3. ^ State Launches Lap-Band Surgery Fraud Investigation (KTLA, January 27, 2012)
  4. ^ a b c d Legal Problems Pile Up for '1-800-Get-Thin' Surgeons (Medscape Medical News, February 2, 2012)
  5. ^ Lap-Band surgeries to be cut at West Hills, Beverly Hills centers (Los Angeles Daily News, February 7, 2012)
  6. ^ Clinics halt Lap-Band surgeries (Los Angeles Times, February 8, 2012)
  7. ^ Whistleblower complaint vs. 1-800-GET-THIN (Superior Court of California)
  8. ^ a b c Behind those lap-band ads (Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2010)
  9. ^ Medical Board of California vs. Julian Omidi M.D.
  10. ^ 2 Former UCI Students Plead Guilty to Stealing Tests (Los Angeles Times, December 5, 1991)

It appears to me that omitting this content appears to violate WP:NPOV: this content is clearly relevant, is being treated as relevant and important by numerous reliable sources, and belongs in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary provided (at last) by the 'new' contributor actually raises a valid point: "The current section is specific to brothers and should be on its own. Is there a document that shows the brothers own 1-800-GET-Thin? No". [1] As the section stood, it seemed in part to relate to the general behaviour of the Omidi brothers, rather than 1-800-GET-THIN itself. This is not to say that the edit summary is correct - there is at least one source cited which directly links the Omidi's with 1-800-GET-THIN, [2], and likewise, cited material which clearly relates directly to 1-800-GET-THIN [3] is being removed as well. The section clearly needs some work, and shouldn't be citing court documents (see WP:PRIMARY), but there is apparently enough material from valid sources to support a section on the insurance investigations etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manustella MsFionnuala (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that the edit dispute is continuing: a few editors whose edits relate entirely, or almost entirely to this topic, are repeatedly removing material about this based on an unpersuasive argument that insurance isn't relevant to the topic, when it obviously is. I think that we should go back to the 20 July 2012 version excerpted above[4]: the material about the Omidis is clearly relevant to the subject (and is being treated as such by reliable sources). As for the court documents noted by AndyTheGrump, it appears to me that they are being used only to verify factual details and as such would be acceptable under WP:PRIMARY, but those footnotes could be omitted if editors prefer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a major cleanup for clarity[edit]

I've recently reverted some vandalism here. While reviewing the article for buried vandalism, I couldn't help but notice that the entire thing is genuinely confusing.

The lead section is easy to understand and appears at first glance to be in-line with MOS:LEAD. The history section consists of two rather dull sentences, nothing special. The Marketing practices section, while well-sourced, begins to head into territory that the lead section didn’t prepare me for. The Allergan section introduces some fairly provocative information, but here I’m starting to wonder who these affiliated companies are and how they’re affiliated with 1-800-GET-THIN. The sources don’t really provide clarity for me. The safety concerns section is a head scratcher with two conflicting yet editorially neutral statements, neither of which are supported by WP:RS. Shouldn’t these contracted clinics be named? Shouldn’t the alleged lawsuit be supported by sources? And then there’s the insurance investigation section: I DON’T GET IT! I understand that there is a connection between 1-800-Get-Thin and the contracted medical centers, but that connection doesn’t seem to extend beyond Get-Thin’s role as an “insurance eligibility review and verification” provider. The un-translated legal document (reference #17) doesn’t provide much clarity either. And then, in the same paragraph, there is a sentence about the Omidi brothers appearing on the television show Dr. 90210, followed by a sentence about Kambi B. Omidi’s medical license being revoked for stealing exam papers, which is followed by another sentence about a probationary period that expired 4 years before the lawsuit (reference #17) was even filed. What does any of this have to do with an insurance investigation? The only way this section addresses the insurance investigation is by saying that there was one. Finally, shouldn’t the lead section have prepared me for all of this? After all, according to MOS:LEAD, the lead section should “serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.” So I’m left wondering, how in the world am I supposed to summarize this article?

If the intent of this article is to inform readers, then it is in great need of some major cleanup and clarification, because it confuses the hell out of me and I’m an experienced Wikipedia user. Language needs to be more specific, relationships need to be more explicit, and content needs to be compartmentalized. I would even argue that the Omidi brothers warrant their own Wikipedia article, which would probably enhance this article immensely. As it stands, I don’t think I could produce a clear lead section for this article. It’s too confusing. Any thoughts? Rinkle gorge (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi RG. I'm taking a look at the article over the next week. Maybe we can address some of the issues together. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 00:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Johns edit[edit]

i don't understand whats wrong with johns edit? Someone please elaborate in detail. anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillySantaCruz (talkcontribs)

I can't speak on the behalf of others, but a quick glace, the edit appears to be original research that is unsourced, bordering on non-neutral advertising -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest news[edit]

Well, latest news headlines....

c 00:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)