Talk:Injection lipolysis

message: I have encapsulated the long unstructured area before the table of contents into a paragraph. If you feel like to chat unstructured or do not know how to write the four obligatory tildes as signation, please use this paragraph: -- 178.115.129.210 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  unstructured 

message: Dear Wiki-Editor:
I too want an NPOV Wiki entry.   And I would be happy to participate in a process to get us there.
The organization that objects to my wiki posts is called ASAL.   ASAL (http://www.asal-meso.com/) is a FOR PROFIT entity that currently sells a non-FDA approved drug (Lipodissolve) for fat removal.  ASAL uses Wikipedia to advertise their product.    As I understand it, Wikipedia policy disallows product advertisements.   My editing efforts have been to try to allow ASAL to have their say, but to point out that:
-- the FDA states that the use of their drug is an example of "unapproved drugs for unapproved uses"
-- that multiple medical organizations have issued health warnings against their product
-- the product is banned in Brazil and its promotion is illegal in the UK
not to mention a few other troubling facts (summarized here:  http://www.lipotreatmentfacts.org/)
My organization sells nothing (we may in MANY years, but not today).    We do, however, care about public safety.   We feel that the FDA drug regulatory process exists to protect unknowing citizens from organizations willing to put profit in front of human safety.    
Please use me in any way to get the Lipodissolve wiki to an NPOV without being an advertising platform for an organization selling an unregulated fat removal drug.
Thanks,
A  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second that, I remember coming to this article about 5-6 months ago because I was interested in learning about the process and all I saw was a disgusting crusade article written mainly by Agincourtboy with a total bias against Lipodisolve.  I've made many edit's and I'm obviously no sock puppet.  That dispute is gone now but we'd love for you to just go find another article to destroy.--Papajohnin (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want an NPOV wiki -- let's work towards one that is NON COMMERCIAL 

message: Dear Charraymond (and anyone else who would like the edit war on this wiki to end):
While I am not certain . . . . I strongly suspect that you (and certain other posters) are making money in some way from Lipodissolve sales.    But to the point . . . 
If NPOV is the objective, I have a proposal that might satisfy all parties.   It will be imperfect, but perhaps everyone could agree--which i think should be our objective.  
I propose a slimmed down, non-promotional, non-alarmist, NPOV Lipodissolve wiki.    It might be only 1 paragraph.    It could mention that this is a controversial drug and leave it at that.     It could mention that there is anecdotal evidence that the drug works.   And then, the editor LOCKS it.    Without the lock, future people promoting versions of the drug could come in and start advertising how great it is, and that should not be.   I realize you want to promote your drug on Wikipedia to increase sales.  But I don't think that is what it is for.   
This proposed solution is not ideal for anyone. . . . but it could prove more acceptable than the current situation (which is stressing everyone out).   
A  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An 'outside the box' proposal to settle this dispute 

message: During this page protection I recommend the editors here seek dispute resolution in the form of an article content request for comments.  This type of approach often brings in enough impartial opinions to break a deadlock.  Summarize your respective positions in short form, please (roughly one paragraph), review the instructions for this procedure, and copy the template to this talk page.  Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend dispute resolution 

message: I want to second Gordonofcartoons observations regarding widespread sockpuppetry.   Nearly each and every edit (mine included) have been made by those with financial stakes in the outcome.    So if we all follow the rules and remove the socks from our noisy little hands (mine as well), then who shall be left to do the edits?    Also, how do we prevent the next financially motivated noisy sock puppet from making biased wiki edits?    I for one want the wiki-war to end AND for an editor with no financial stake to write the wiki . . . but I fear sockpuppet-mediated asymmetric warfare will (yet again) raise its ugly be-socked head.    Gordonofcartoon, do you have any advice based on the successful resolution of comparable past disputes?    
~~Agincourtboy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only to try to bring in editors without a direct stake. The RFC and request at Wikiproject Medicine might do that. Gordonofcartoon 19:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the sound of one sock puppet talking? 

message: If you feel that one editor is posting as two individuals in support of each other, please follow the instructions at reporting suspected sock puppets to create a suspected sock puppet report. -- Jreferee   t/c 13:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected sock puppet

message: I guess this kind of "war" is something to be expected from products of this nature,
At this point, as it all seems to have calmed down, it makes me wonder just HOW MANY of these kinds of wars are being fought on the Wikipedia.
One thing is certain, the 'lulz' wars dont hold a candle to these kinds of wars.  Far more fire in these wars than any other just short of armed conflict. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation breeds wisdom 

message: http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/business-business-ticker/2007/12/fat-burn-solution-provider-fig-to-file-for-bankruptcy/
Unsure if this will help with the debate. Pgrote (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fig provider bankrupt 

message: The departments of pharmaceutic technology and plastic surgery of Regensburg University, Germany, have published the results of their study on a fat cell model in vitro. Ass. Prof. Prantl and his team have used Light microscope, confocal laserscanning microscope , propidium-jodid-stain on necrotic adipocytes and documentation of cell viability by MTT-Assay to detect the effects. The study has been published August 2009 in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal.
They have tested the single substances PPC and DOC for lipolytic and destructive effects on the fat cell as well as the substance combination.
Conclusion: „According to published clinical trials, the subcutaneous injection of phosphatidylcholine formulations appears to be an effective tool with which to reduce subcutaneous fatty tissue...Therefore, physicians should be well trained and cautious when injecting these substances. “
Speaker 58 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficacy of the substance combination PPC-DOC proven