User talk:Agincourtboy
Agincourtboy,
You are clearly not interested in presenting a fair and balanced point of view. Your efforts to discuss in the past have only been lipo service because you continue to edit and distort information on this wiki site. You continue to post links to spam sites that have no identified author or publicist. If you have edits that are fair and neutral (as agreed by many of the wiki editors), they can remain. As you have not been transparent in your agenda or represented information in a balanced or accurate manner any of your future edits are suspect.
ASALipodissolve 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:FDA ltr.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:FDA ltr.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate images uploaded
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:FDA ltr1.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:FDA ltr.jpg. The copy called Image:FDA ltr.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:FDA ltr3.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:FDA ltr3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User pages
[edit]You should leave messages on user talk pages; i.e. User talk:Medview instead of User:Medview. Shalom Hello 18:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Brazil banned PCDC because of OTC sales and self injection, Can not be marketed in UK, but MD still provide. Canada allows PC injections. There are 194 countries in the world - widely used across europe, australia and other south american countries. In your opinion that it is not relevant to put this information in perspective or at least not sensationalize?
Also very interesting that the only medical professionals raising red flags are the folks who could loose liposuction business? Largest revenue producing area of cosmetics... If you do not want to appear as a lobbyist or hired gun for these folks - try to find some balance and perspective. Why do you delelete any references from published articles that raise this question?
You are clearly researching but not getting all of your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.144.94 (talk) 13:31, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
OK - made an account name and noticed some nut is nuking the whole site! For the record I want a balanced article and have nothing to do with this deletion. Looking for Brazil info - have direct info from several doctors and told it was widely reported in media - just hard to find five and six year old stories in Brazil on the Internet.
Also think if you would take a more balanced approach in your desire to dominate this site we would not get nuts like ASAL LLC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liporesearcher (talk • contribs) 19:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Dear Liporesearcher,
I am in complete agreement with you regarding maintaining balanced information on this site. Thanks for the update on the Brazil information - do let me know if you find something as I have no problem keeping factual information. However, I am concerned about the use of this site as a platform to advertise Lipodissolve. This is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia and I want to keep everything on here as informative and factual with supporting documentation as applicable. Lets work together to keep this site accurate and honest.
A.
Response:
OK let's test that neutrality a bit. Lipodissolve is a treatment not the name of a drug (ASAL is actually correct on that point). Just as Lipostabil is a brand name drug, not a treatment. You like to use them interchangeably with PCDC.
DC injections are still widely available in Canada (sorry got that backwards first time around) as a contouring injectable. http://www.spamedica.com/index1.html is one example.
England the marketing and/or promotion is banned - not the actual use. Although you make no effort to make that clear and have erased edits to do so.
Also no mention that the procedure is very popular and widely used across other European countries like France, Germany, Italy, etc... And Australia.
Although you are quick to post headlines about organizations warning against the use, there is no mention of the fact these same organizations have published multiple peer reviewed articles (many listed in your reference section). Or that several doctors from other areas of medicine have questioned the motivation is not a relevant fact? Ever looked at why the sudden change of heart - or these same organizations history.
How about the history of these drugs being used for decades in infants lungs or to break up plaque in arteries? Very funny quote in an article recently from a doctor asking why the plastics think these compounds that have been used for decades by the medical community are unsafe but injecting botox and plastic into peoples faces is OK. Come on you have to admit that is amusing.
Although you quote heavily the Kansas ruling there is no mention that the "safety" concerns included "involve problems with business practices and patients suffering side effects such as nodules, infections and nausea." - quote from the lawyer representing the board in KC star (although the TV version is much more dramatic. http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/237263.html. If you read any of these research papers you will notice these are expected and common side effects. Also, just for perspective go through any magazine and read the expected common side effects for any drug.
As heavily as you quote the negative - why no quotes from the research you site like the retrospective study looking at 17,000 patients? Just because information might be supportive of injection lipolysis how do you characterize it as promotional?
Not to be too cynical but after reviewing your history of edits it is hard to believe you are actually trying to do anything other than paint this in a negative light. Maybe I am wrong and maybe I have a bias, but I have tried to develop this wiki as a balanced reference tool so people can make their own decisions.
Also funny that your involvement timed so closely with the Kythera article - you know the company moving to phase 3 clinical trials with a DCPC formula? I actually believe you can find that on the FDA site. Funny, you actually have a great ability to research but missed that one and they are only a few miles up the road from you.
OK - you are not biased, prove it. Liporesearcher 04:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Liporesearcher:
You have been very tolerant of my strong edits, and I want to thank you for that. So I think you are right, and I should put in some of your points. For example:
Hey, you have a few excellent points that should be added . . . . for example:
-- Canada ban should be restated (i.e., the drug still is available) -- Same on the England thing .. . . I need to add the correct nuance to the MHRA statement.
As to the PC as a lung surfactant . . . One could cite that, but I would NOT cite that as evidence of drug safety. Very different route of administration. But one has to be sort of sophisticaed to understand the difference, so posting it as evidence of safety would confuse soccer moms, etc.
Let me think about the retrospective study (17K patients) in terms of citation. These are retrospective and thus not nearly to drug safety standards for collective adverse event data. Hey, I got some news on the ASAPS trial. They are apparently nearly ready to go. That trial will be prospective and will collect all A/E's and report them.
So I am going to take a few of your suggestions right now. Please edit them if you don't feel they are balanced.
I will do Canada and England. I will try to make some reference to the retrospective perception of safety, but it needs to be soft due to the trial design.
How about that? Again, thanks for being collaborative about this.
Nathaniel David 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)A
Liporesearcher:
Right! Kythera's drug is on the FDA cite! For lipoma.
Also, they have a press release for a PII trial in for chin fat.
That said, the drug is still in clinical trials . . . . no data yet to speak of. What do you suggest we say about those trials? . . . .I am open to suggestions.
I added a few of your suggestions. Still thinking about how to message the safety idea. Don't like the lung surfactant thing though. It requires too much nuance for most people to undertsand.
Nathaniel David 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)A
Response:
Nathaniel,
Looked into the Duncan thing and she provided training and is not medical director for Medsculpt. They have some other doctors listed but I would agree there is a financial interest and I agree there is a bias. Duncan is clearly an advocate of injection lipolysis, but how does having a financial interest make you less knowledgeable or reduce expertise. This is not a problem in most academic circles as long as there is full disclosure and transparency of bias or conflict of interests...
As far as the study goes - it is retrospective but again the data is still valid???
Will give other comments some thought.
- LR
Liporesearcher 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Liporesearcher:
I have been trying to come with some language on safety that is balanced:
"Numerous physicians assert that this practice is safe (add a few refs), though this has yet to be empirically established in a prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical study."
This could get added as the last sentence to the intro paragraph. I think this is balanced, because it seems to me that most docs believe this is true, though many would prefer regulation/FDA approval.
The issue with the 17K patient study is that the author has a financial interest in one of the medspa chains.
Dr Duncan = Medsculpt.
Any thoughts? If we use that ref, we may need to call out the financial interest. Or we use a different ref.
Please feel free to post it.
A
Liporesearcher:
I added a reference to the Duncan et al 17K patient study of evidence of safety in the intro section . . . right after the 6 refs showing evidence that it works!
I hope you are comfy with these added refs. I think this is the direction you wanted the wiki to go.
A
Liporesearcher:
I added a bunch of stuff I think you will approve of: -- ASERF announced that the FDA gave them a green light for a 46-week clinical trial! Yea! I posted a link to the Yahoo story on it. -- I added the Duncan safety ref in the 1st paragraph. Retrospective data is not invalid, it is just not as good as prospective and blind, because in retro data, you can pick and choose what you include. As a scientist, I can tell you, if you are not blinded to your data, it is REALLY hard to resist the temptation to impose "judgment" as to what you think is important. that is the real value of double-blind, prospective data. So it is not invalid data, but it is inferior data to what will come from the ASERF trial. -- Here is the link to Diane's involvement with Medsculpt: http://www.medsculpt.com/MedicalLeadershipTeam/default.aspx. Seems a little intimate. . . . but hey, I added the reference anyway.
A
As I said - two studies and I think at least one more in the works. So what is Agincourtboy anyway?
LR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liporesearcher (talk • contribs) 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A,
I stopped posting for a few days to observe. You continue to use this site as your own editorial page and make broad accusations about anyone who disagrees with your opinion. You are qucik to take any reference to the negative and post but remove any positive. You have a clear bias. I have suggested others who DO represent some of the organizations performing and researching this technology to get involved.
LR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liporesearcher (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
LR:
That would be great! I look forward to a productive interaction!
A
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am open to collaboration on this -- are you? Really?
[edit]Dear ASAL:
Do you have any specific suggestions as to how to resolve our dispute? I am certainly open to them. That said, I don't think you are. This is why:
The problem (as I see it) is this: you guys are trying to mislead people. You want to tell your customers that what FDA calls "unapproved drugs for unapproved uses" (see New York Times and USA Today in the past 2 months, as in the wiki refs) is something else entirely. Do you believe that the FDA does not exist? No, of course you don't. You are trying to mislead those who know no better. You are doing this because you want to "brand" and sell and illegal drug for your own profit. This is a public health hazard, and I will not be intimidated by you or your other partners in crime (in this case, I use the metaphor literally).
Frankly, I am glad you have initiated a Wiki arbitration process, because I believe you will lose. Neither me nor my associates sell ANYTHING at all! We make no money from misleading people about the regulatory environment around Lipodissolve. What you guys are doing is a travesty. You should be ashamed, because you have placed profit in front of human safety.
A
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 05:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on JOML, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Editor437 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:FDA Issues Warning Letters.pdf
[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:FDA Issues Warning Letters.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)