|
|
Post by mango on Jan 11, 2018 19:05:27 GMT -5
This just seems like low hanging fruit. There are plenty of knowledgeable people on this board who could put all of their research efforts to work to tell the world about Afrezza. What a great opportunity for investors to write the story of this paradigm-shifting product! Lack of awareness remains a huge problem, and here's our chance to help change that. Again, I don't have the knowledge to pull it off, but I don't think this needs to be left to professionals, and no one has to write the whole article. Even a well-crafted sentence or two could really improve on the information that's out there now. Technically anyone with a financial interest in something should not be contributing to the wiki page, according to their policies. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone flaunt their rules surreptitiously  , but if it is clear that an investor is editing it, that would be easily contested if there is someone wishing to cause trouble. There are layers of "editors" where stuff is adjudicated. Let's say you were to create wiki account to contribute and used "xanet" as your username. Someone could look at the edit history and appeal to the editors providing a link to posts here where you say you are an investor. So in summarizing, investors should not be editing Afrezza wiki page I would apply your thinking to the Endo Consensus and Standards of Care rather than a wiki page. Those two are polluted with financial conflicts of interest and directly impacts and affects the lives of PWD. Total corruption. |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jan 11, 2018 19:10:48 GMT -5
I use to update the inhaled insulin wiki but a few days later it would get changed back to the current stuff. I just looked and its as bad as ever. It led me to believe there was an organized effort against afrezza, just saying. I will try and update it over ther weekend if I have time or unless someone beats me to it. However, IMO its almost a full time job and should be done by the MNKD web guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanet on Jan 11, 2018 19:29:19 GMT -5
I use to update the inhaled insulin wiki but a few days later it would get changed back to the current stuff. I just looked and its as bad as ever. It led me to believe there was an organized effort against afrezza, just saying. I will try and update it over ther weekend if I have time or unless someone beats me to it. However, IMO its almost a full time job and should be done by the MNKD web guy. I see that in the article history. It looks like one particular editor likes to undo edits if he deems them promotional, poorly sourced, or having a conflict of interest. So... I guess we can expect extra scrutiny and need to use high quality sources and careful, accurate wording. I don't have the knowledge to write that material, but I would be happy to review it to see if it looks academically rigorous. Also, if high quality material gets removed, I would be happy to follow-up with Wikipedia about it. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 11, 2018 19:50:05 GMT -5
Technically anyone with a financial interest in something should not be contributing to the wiki page, according to their policies. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone flaunt their rules surreptitiously , but if it is clear that an investor is editing it, that would be easily contested if there is someone wishing to cause trouble. There are layers of "editors" where stuff is adjudicated. Let's say you were to create wiki account to contribute and used "xanet" as your username. Someone could look at the edit history and appeal to the editors providing a link to posts here where you say you are an investor. So in summarizing, investors should not be editing Afrezza wiki page I would apply your thinking to the Endo Consensus and Standards of Care rather than a wiki page. Those two are polluted with financial conflicts of interest and directly impacts and affects the lives of PWD. Total corruption. Wikipedia is far more concerned with accuracy than ADA  [perhaps it should be at 45 deg angle, since I'm only half joking] |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 11, 2018 20:03:00 GMT -5
I use to update the inhaled insulin wiki but a few days later it would get changed back to the current stuff. I just looked and its as bad as ever. It led me to believe there was an organized effort against afrezza, just saying. I will try and update it over ther weekend if I have time or unless someone beats me to it. However, IMO its almost a full time job and should be done by the MNKD web guy. It would seem with the label change it would be hard to dispute pointing out the speed of action difference. In the past even that could have been disputed if it were not carefully worded to say pk rather than pd since label previously had the confusing notion that it got into system quicker but then didn't produce action quicker. I can understand why bar would be pretty high for drug wiki pages... with the editorial view of better to lack info than present info that turns out to be wrong. For instance I would assume a claim like "Afrezza is safer than any other mealtime insulin" would be rejected unless there is a reference to a peer reviewed source with a conclusion such as that. In the past have you had references for each "claim" you tried to include regarding Afrezza? Bear in mind, your edits could be thrown out summarily regardless of accuracy if the editor is aware of you being an investor in MNKD. The frustrating thing is that some editors may have their own personal opinions, if not a verifiable financial conflict of interest, that makes it hard to get fair portrayal. |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jan 11, 2018 20:23:50 GMT -5
No, it would get published and a few days later someone else would publish an update. There was a similar issue with the WebMD reviews. All positive reviews would get deleted. I talked with Chuck Grassley's office over this who has dealt with Lilly in a previous lawsuit and they explained some of the mechanics of what was going on. I figured the market would sooner or later figure things out with afrezza so I stopped pursuing things. But clearly its been the later and not the sooner. However, we are starting to move in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanet on Jan 11, 2018 20:49:49 GMT -5
No, it would get published and a few days later someone else would publish an update. There was a similar issue with the WebMD reviews. All positive reviews would get deleted. I talked with Chuck Grassley's office over this who has dealt with Lilly in a previous lawsuit and they explained some of the mechanics of what was going on. I figured the market would sooner or later figure things out with afrezza so I stopped pursuing things. But clearly its been the later and not the sooner. However, we are starting to move in the right direction. <iframe width="20.379999999999995" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 20.38px; height: 3.88px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_15374033"></iframe> <iframe width="20.379999999999995" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 20.38px; height: 3.88px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 958px; top: -154px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_49854174"></iframe> <iframe width="20.379999999999995" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 20.38px; height: 3.88px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 10px; top: -14px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_71294386"></iframe> <iframe width="20.379999999999995" height="3.8799999999999955" style="position: absolute; width: 20.38px; height: 3.88px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 958px; top: -14px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_35264925"></iframe> If things are removed without cause, we can request a conflict of interest review. On our end, everything needs to be factual from high quality sources. In other words, neutral, accurate, scientific. I would personally appreciate your efforts, if you have a chance to make some additions to the article. |
|
|
|
Post by xoxoxoxo on Jan 11, 2018 21:26:32 GMT -5
Exactly, factual respected sources. Basically it has to be scientific journals or FDA approved literature. Youtube videos of afrezzauser and anecdotal evidence isn't usable.
There's a wiki entry for this online game I used to help develop. I noticed some info was wrong on the wikipedia page and corrected it. However, it got reverted because a book had been published with the wrong info and their source was valued higher than my info even though myself and all the old developers were in agreement. It's just how wikipedia works.
|
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Jan 11, 2018 22:36:41 GMT -5
So Mannkind should just sit on their hands and wait - just like every other time... geez, not even trying. No... they should just do it from their home computer so it's not traceable, as I'm sure almost everyone else does Couldn't they just hire the Russians? |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Jan 11, 2018 23:32:19 GMT -5
No, it would get published and a few days later someone else would publish an update. There was a similar issue with the WebMD reviews. All positive reviews would get deleted. I talked with Chuck Grassley's office over this who has dealt with Lilly in a previous lawsuit and they explained some of the mechanics of what was going on. I figured the market would sooner or later figure things out with afrezza so I stopped pursuing things. But clearly its been the later and not the sooner. However, we are starting to move in the right direction. Actually, I believe Afrezza has been proven beyond any doubt, that it is an undeniable great tool for a PWD to battle mealtime glucose spikes. The PWD that take the time to fight to get it, and then really learn how to use it, seem to be noticeably happier and healthier. And IN MY OPINION !!!, (which means absolutely nothing), the Market is no longer waiting on proof that Afrezza is everything we know it is, the Market is waiting to see if/when, and how Mannkind as a Company is going to successfully market it. And when this happens, (and I 100% believe it will), everything that we have all been waiting for will start to materialize. The horseplay of Investors, some long and some short, writing reviews of how great or terrible Afrezza is, is just that,,,,, it’s just horseplay. The data is out there, there are thousands of PWD using Afrezza, some with unprecedented results, “Game Changing” results, and every single one of them have a Physician that has been specifically treating Diabetes for years, maybe decades. They’re seeing the data, they know exactly what it means. As soon as Mannkind successfully gets our wonderful Healthcare System to cover Afrezza as they should, our scripts will rise exponentially. Do what ever it takes to get coverage, advertise the shit out of it, and sell the product. Everything else will follow. Good Luck Everybody BULLISH and then some. 🎸😎 |
|
|
|
Post by xanet on Jul 22, 2018 21:36:20 GMT -5
I learned a couple things about updating Wikipedia, and encourage everyone to give it a try for kicks and giggles, and good PR. This is low hanging fruit, guys!
1) Anyone can do it by clicking "Edit" at the top (then chose "visual editor"), even without logging in or creating an account. It was easy.
2) Edits that include opinions or do not have strong citations to support them are quickly removed.
3) I added current info from an ADA poster, and it has not been removed, and I removed biased info and my revision has not been reversed.
This suggests that if we update the Inhaled Insulin article with strongly supported facts our revisions will likely be left alone. I would encourage anyone interested to write up a sentence or two based directly on a cite-worthy source (e.g., ADA or other publication), and add it to the article. If you need help writing out your idea in a scientific way, post your sentence and citation here and we can all look it over and give feedback. We can improve this article one well-crafted sentence at a time!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2018 6:32:49 GMT -5
This just seems like low hanging fruit. There are plenty of knowledgeable people on this board who could put all of their research efforts to work to tell the world about Afrezza. What a great opportunity for investors to write the story of this paradigm-shifting product! Lack of awareness remains a huge problem, and here's our chance to help change that. Again, I don't have the knowledge to pull it off, but I don't think this needs to be left to professionals, and no one has to write the whole article. Even a well-crafted sentence or two could really improve on the information that's out there now. Technically anyone with a financial interest in something should not be contributing to the wiki page, according to their policies. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone flaunt their rules surreptitiously , but if it is clear that an investor is editing it, that would be easily contested if there is someone wishing to cause trouble. There are layers of "editors" where stuff is adjudicated. Let's say you were to create wiki account to contribute and used "xanet" as your username. Someone could look at the edit history and appeal to the editors providing a link to posts here where you say you are an investor. So in summarizing, investors should not be editing Afrezza wiki page That would make SO the perfect candidate, supposedly. Hahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by xanet on Jul 23, 2018 7:51:51 GMT -5
This just seems like low hanging fruit. There are plenty of knowledgeable people on this board who could put all of their research efforts to work to tell the world about Afrezza. What a great opportunity for investors to write the story of this paradigm-shifting product! Lack of awareness remains a huge problem, and here's our chance to help change that. Again, I don't have the knowledge to pull it off, but I don't think this needs to be left to professionals, and no one has to write the whole article. Even a well-crafted sentence or two could really improve on the information that's out there now. Technically anyone with a financial interest in something should not be contributing to the wiki page, according to their policies. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone flaunt their rules surreptitiously , but if it is clear that an investor is editing it, that would be easily contested if there is someone wishing to cause trouble. There are layers of "editors" where stuff is adjudicated. Let's say you were to create wiki account to contribute and used "xanet" as your username. Someone could look at the edit history and appeal to the editors providing a link to posts here where you say you are an investor. So in summarizing, investors should not be editing Afrezza wiki page I just read through their policies: Wikipedia COI. My impression was that their primary concern is with paid editors, people who are compensated to write. They look at how close the conflict is, so someone who works for MNKD should not edit directly in most cases. Otherwise, a COI should be disclosed not in the article, but in a field one fills out while editing. In my case, my interest is in making accurate information available, not in trying to prop up the share price, and the value of my holdings has dropped to such a small amount, I don't think there's much of a conflict there. What they really care about, is that articles provide accurate information written in a neutral, bias-free way with proper citation from high quality sources (e.g., not from a corporate website or press release). I think that's attainable. |
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jul 24, 2018 16:37:21 GMT -5
Would anyone be interested in answering Quora questions about alternatives to injected insulin? If so, PM me and I'll provide some links.
|
|
[perhaps it should be at 45 deg angle, since I'm only half joking]
