Talk:Surgisphere

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)

@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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for doing this/rewriting the bio, guys! BoonDock and Smallbones I have been adding a bit tonight and wonder if it is ready for "re-publishing". I find an accompanying bio to the Surgisphere story is essential. I also want to draw your attention to a "reference"- a business advertorial link, in which the then 33 year old claimed to be a lawyer! Sapan_Desai

“ Dr. Sapan Sharankishor Desai (born April 6 1979) is an American doctor, scientist, lawyer, Chief Executive Officer of Apex Testing, LLC, and Director of the New India Charity Endeavor (NICE). Dr. Desai is the former President of Computer Consulting Service, Inc. and Digital Renditions, LLC. He is married to Niketa Desai. The Desais have one son, age 2. ”

"Sapan Desai". Home-Encyclopedia-Sapan Desai. bionity.com. Retrieved 8 June 2020.

Maybe archive this, before it gets disappeared by "Bliss Integrated" ? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Wuerzele. I’m not terribly good with WP Policies and Politocs, so I’ll have to rely on someone else to make the call I’m afraid. BoonDock (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's the archive. Also, brought Amit Patel into the circle. His article looks similar to the Desai draft. tedder (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just checked WP:OR - it does not apply to talk pages. You might want to consider whether you want this to affect how you edit actual articles however. I've been conducting original research on another matter related to this. First, the text in the link above given by @Wuerzele: is clearly taken from the Wikipedia article (except for the first paragraph). It is my opinion at this point that our article was originally written by Desai or someone very close to him (but that's just my opinion). The "lawyer" was in our article as well [1] The OR is only that I checked out his credentials at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where most of his academic work was done. Their report is that all academic qualification reported in our article as coming from the University of Illinois are correct. "Lawyer" was kind of slipped into our article among the U of I stuff, but our article didn't say a U of I law degree (or from anywhere else). He doesn't have a law degree from the U of I (either Chicago or Champaign-Urbana). Where else would he have gotten it? Given a normal person's time constraints - I don't think he could have. Maybe a mail order degree? BTW, I *believe* his MBA is from Governors State University - which is very near Chicago and serves working adults with pretty quick degrees sometimes. It's a very legitimate school at what it does, but is probably not as well-known as Western Governors University - which is where our draft article says he got the degree. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. That article clearly states at the bottom it comes from Wikipedia, so it’s the article self-written which got deleted so not a reliable source. I don’t think the lawyer thing is too important actually. I think just getting a barebones bio up is most important. Avoiding speculation and theories and sticking so what’s undisputed fact is the gold standard. BoonDock (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's very possible I thought WGU (in the last month) and added his MBA from there. We should be able to find it- though a RS on it might be more difficult. tedder (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

WGU vid, which is also referenced in the bloomberg article tedder (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong, Western Governors University it is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Smallbones for the explanations. I did not know that the bionity text mirrors the deleted WP article; thanks for archiving. Thanks tedder for adding Amir Patel. BoonDock, the law degree matters in so far, as it fits Desai´s pattern of self-aggrandizement. All, do you not think the draft bio can be re-published yet ? What are you/ we waiting for?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up a little bit, filled out the lede a bit (adding a ref that was sitting around under "further reading") and I think it's a perfectly adequate BLP compliant article. There is a potential problem with the article title: Sapan Desai is now a redirect to Surgisphere (this article), with the history of the previously deleted (in 2010) article on Desai included there. Draft:Sapan Desai is partially based on that history. I think the procedure of merging article histories would be pretty easy to do here - the histories are in order without overlaps (first article on Sapan Desai), (edits related to the redirect and my "slimmed down" version of the previously deleted version) and then (the edits to Draft:Sapan Desai)

If nobody objects, I'll ping @Drmies, DGG, and MER-C: to ask them to move it back to mainspace (and to see if anybody remembers how to merge article histories). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind doing that. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is a thing to do, Smallbones: identify the two articles that were retracted, because those are the only ones that, per our regular conventions, are worthy of being mentioned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

References

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)

@Paul W The unique source we have is Thelancet's article (the graphic showing which patients got included/excluded from the analysis) saying those are hospitalized patients, ie. they all have Covid (ie. dyspnea) so yes what you removed didn't make sense. Reuns (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the following reference which makes claims that are not correct: https://drquay.com/hydroxychloroquine-political-science/. "If you look at an outcome like arrhythmias or death and you have two input variables, one variable is being on a ventilator and the other is taking HCQ, you have no way to know which caused the outcomes." That is not correct - ventilator was used as an output variable. Source: table 1 and 2 from original study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7255293/) lists mechanical ventilator as outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:154:8D99:309B:AFBA:8C00:F341 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments: this is an essential article. Whatever info appears to be reliable should be included. Degrees which cannot be verified can be omitted--they can be added later if someone finds a good source--"quicky" law degrees are not unknown. There is only one thing here I cannot do, which is merge the histories--every time I try it I mess things up completely. I will help by undeleting anything necessary, but someone else will have to do the work of integrating it.

The various comments on the work should be included. we do not judge. We report the judgements made by others. As a personal comment, it is always very tempting in a critical situation to publish a series of cases even tho it is smaller than would be desired. The value of having truly significant sample size and proper statistics has to be balanced against the desire for some sort of preliminary information. The true problem is that secondary sources and newspapers will over-interpret the preliminary results. DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know Wikipedia policies, but the following comment confirms the one above: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/25/hydroxychloroquine-update/#comment-1347385. "Quay seems to have missed the important detail that they excluded from their study any patients for whom treatment was begun after mechanical ventilation, and they say that progression to mechanical ventilation was an output of the study." This page is listed as one of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:154:8D99:88D5:2F43:238:E052 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 10 article

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sapan-desai-lancet-study-hydroxychloroquine-mass-audit-scientific-papers

New article in Guardian. I don't have time to consume it, and it is probably circular with this article and Desai's, but it does a good job summarizing things and being a secondary source to things we've been seeing on blogs/twitter/pubpeer. tedder (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Speculative content edited out

@Tedder: in re: "It ceased publication despite having claimed to accrue 50,000 subscribers, because Desai "ran out of time."

FYI: I'd removed it in the course of other editing because it's vague, speculative and appeared to be irrelevant, source aside.PythonGraham (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's irrelevant at all. It says as clearly as possible that the company owner is full of shit. And it's not a BLP violation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

removing the connected contributor template at the top

This (or the Sapan Desai article) *was* "apparently" written by SD, but it was deleted and started over from scratch. so the template is irrelevant now. You might check out my article in The Signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Opinion]].

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)