Talk:Platelet-rich fibrin matrix

Use of "vampire facelift"

The procedure that is described in this article is also called "vampire facelift" ([1]). This has been repeatedly removed ([2], [3]) in the mistaken opinion that the mention of the name infringes on a trademark for the words "vampire facelift". However, that is not so; Wikipedia routinely mentions trademarks (without "TM", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)); doing so is not infringement. I'm asking for a third opinion about this.  Sandstein  22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Sandstein) There's been much confusion about Selphyl.

Even Aesthetic Factors does not use the name Vampire Faceflit (TM) to refer to their product. It's confusing to the media and reported many different ways, but Selphyl is a way of isolating platelets and then activating them to release growth factors.

If you pull up their old web site (using Alexa or any other too), they discussed filling the nasolabial folds and filling scars.

i was the first to use the name Vampire Facelift and trademarked it--this is a specific WAY of using PRFM from any source along with Juvederm to give a very striking overall lift to the face. The media incorrectly assumed that Selphyl meant Vampire Facelift--they do not and I see no reason why an encyclopedia of facts should propigate a misconception.

It's all very easily verified by looking at Vampire Facelift on at uspto.gov You can see that Aesthetic factors trademarked vampire facelift technologies AFTER I trademarked Vampire Facelift (in effort to retain an toe-hold on the name).

I'm recognized as owning the name in the New York Times article--but the writer erroneously said that I "liked it so much that I trademarked it." Nope--I thought it up, then I liked it so much I trademarked it, and lots of other people liked it so much that they continue to try to claim it.

If the words vampire facelift are used, then they should be used in the appropriate way and credit given and not used in such a way to propagate the error.

Thank you very much for asking for a third opinion. It's more than just the name--it's the idea that there are two parts to a procedure--there's the material used and what you do with that material

The news reporters have used the material interchangeably with the procedure. This is an understandable mistake, since people say--I'm going to get "Botox" which refers to material and to a procedure. But, you don't go to get hamburger meat when you go to get McDonalds--you go to get their way of preparing it.

An analogy here is that you don't go to get dye, you go to get a heart cath. You don't go to get acid, you go to get a facial peel.

If you go to get the Vampire Facelift, you go to get Juvederm and Selphyl used in a very specific way. My name went viral but is acknowledged at uspto.gov and on the index page of Selphyl.com. More at VampireFacelift.com and at ACCMA.memberlodge.org

Thank you very much for your consideration. Part of what I'm REQUIRED to do to keep a trademark is to police it's accurate use to keep in from becoming a generic name--otherwise I lose the mark and it becomes meaningless.

Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The problem is that Wikipedia's rules do not allow us to "correct media misconceptions". Our policy WP:V and WP:NOR restricts us to reporting only what reliable sources say, such as the New York Times. Any claim that contradicts reliable sources may only be mentioned if the counterclaim is itself covered in a reliable source. it appears that there is a trademark dispute between you and others about this, but it is not Wikipedia's job to take sides in this dispute, except to the extent that the dispute may be covered in reliable secondary sources. Per our manual of style, we do not highlight trademarks as such, so we cannot label "vampire facelift" with a "TM" mark or similar.  Sandstein  22:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: I'm with Sandstein on this. We're here to reflect what reliable sources say, so it belongs. And yes, the TM and such doesn't go either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And the NYTimes is a more reliable source than the US Patent and Trademark office?

Also, conceptually, a filler is not a procedure. It's propagating a wrong concept.

Even the Selphyl.com never uses the name Vampire Facelift and lists me (see very bottom of index page) as the owner of the name Vampire Facelift. So, the US Patent trademark office, and Aesthetic Factors (who actually market Selphyl) all take back seat to the "reliable" New York Times reporter?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The NYT and the US Patent and Trademark office do not conflict. The NYT says that the procedure is called the "vampire facelift". The USPTO says that you have a trademark on the words "vampire facelift" for a skin treatment. These statements are not incompatible. But your trademark is not a reason not to mention that it is, according to the NYT, also the name of the procedure. Or do I misunderstand you? What do you propose the article should say?  Sandstein  23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you for asking. I'm really trying not to be abrasive and it's hard to tell with the written word but my intention is not to self promote or to argue--just request accuracy. I'll tell you what I think is more accurate but fist an analogy:

If I report that the people at McDonalds are cooking hamburger, that would be accurate. But, to say that I'm cooking McDonald's just because I'm cooking hamburger is not. Selphyl is used by some to do the Vampire Facelift but so are other processes for making the PRFM. The reporter and others have made the mistake of equating everyone who cooks hamburgers (in this analogy, Selphyl) with making McDonalds (which it only becomes in this analogy if you add the sauce of juvederm and my way of injecting).

What the article could accurately say is that Aesthetic Factors was the first to promote in the US PRFM as a way to rejuvenate the face. But, that PRFM is also used to fill scars and in facial surgery to promote healing and was popularized by the procedure the Vampire Facelift (designed by Charles Runels, MD who combines the PRFM with Juvederm in a trademarked way).

If you read the times article carefully, she did add that part--that I was combining PRFM with Juvederm and trademarked the overall procedure the Vampire Facellift--it was equating the Selphyl with the Proceudure where it was a little off center.

Maybe that's not the best way to say it but that accurately distinguishes the material from the different ways it can be used. Parenthetically, many MD's doing the Vampire Facelift do not use Selphyl but use other processes for isolating and activating platelets. Does this sound reasonable? Since even Selphyl nods to me on their website to make note of the fact that there is a specific procedure (recipe that make use of their ingredients) I would hope that you guys could do the same thing. though I'm grateful to the news for their coverage, they have been less exact than are the facts.

There is NO trademark dispute--again, even Selphyl.com, credits me with the name Vampire Facelift, just as a a great manufacturer of cotton might brag that Calvin Klein uses their cotton in his shirts.

I'm a physician and not an editor of encyclopedias, and don't claim to know the best way to communicate all of this but figure that since you know the whole story now you'd know a good way.

More succinctly, if I say Selphyl is the Vampire Facelift (as did the reporter) that is inaccurate-which she was (as were many other reporters) until the last paragraph when she noted that the name refers to my use of PRFM combined with Juvederm.

But to say that hamburger is used to make McDonalds--that would be accurate and consistent with Selphyl.com and with the USPTO and with the overall accuracy and exact IDEAS behind both Selphyl and the Vampire Facelfit.

That is the true spirit of what I know you guys are going for here in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

peace,

CharlesRunels (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)--Runels (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)--Runels (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, here's the bottom line. All information on Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up by verifiable sources. We're not supposed to have any original content; it must all be attributable to a source. Here we have a NYTimes article that says that this procedure is also referred to as "vampire facelift". That's all that matters - source says it, we put it in the article. We're not going to challenge the NYTimes as a source (as it's absolutely reliable).

If you have the rights to the term "vampire facelift", good for you. That doesn't stop us from putting it in the Wikipedia article. If you have an issue with the NYT article, then contact them, not us - we only reflect what the article says. Quite honestly, your explanation of what you're "REQUIRED to do to keep a trademark" is starting to become worrisome to me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. You may very well be right in saying that the NYT oversimplifies or distorts certain issues. But as brutal as it sounds, Wikipedia does not care about what is "true" (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). We only repeat what reliable sources publish, and the NYT is one, so we write what they say. Even if there is an error in the NYT article, we may only deviate from it if another reliable source (a published medium with editorial oversight that is independent from anybody who has an interest in Selphyl) has already done so. My recommendation is that you look for such a source that explains these rather technical issues in more detail and make us aware of it. But so far all we have is the NYT article, and so we have to keep repeating what it says.

Thanks, though, for highlighting that the article's last paragraphs do deal with your trademark. They read:

"But Dr. Charles Runels, a cosmetic doctor in Fairhope, Ala., liked the term so much he trademarked it. Dr. Runels, who used to be a board-certified internist, said this was to standardize the offering so patients know what to expect. His vampire face-lift entails first volumizing the face with Juvéderm, a hyaluronic acid filler that lasts up to a year, then “using Selphyl to polish off under the eyes, and thinner-skin areas,” he said.

Now any doctors who want to promote the vampire face-lift must pay Dr. Runels $47 a month to follow his protocol, posted online. (So far, 10 have signed up.) Asked what he intends to do about all the doctors already using vampire face-lifts, he said, “I don’t know how I’m going to rein it back in but I will.” Maybe Dracula could help."

What do you think about this proposal that should satisfy your concerns: We re-add

"... and also known as the vampire filler or vampire facelift"

and then at the end of the second paragraph:

"... before being injected back under the patient's facial skin. It can also be combined with other fillers such as Juvéderm, and a procedure using this combination has been trademarked as "vampire facelift"."

What do you think about this? We can do that because it uses the NYT article as a source.  Sandstein  06:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of those sound fine by me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. I'm grateful for the addition.

I'm not so concerned about "infringement"--that does sound like policing. It's more about accuracy--every hamburger is not McDonalds and every person using Selphyl is NOT doing the vampire facelift.

The article would be MOST accurate if it read ...also known as the "vampire filler." (leaving off the or "vampire facelift." then the other paragraph to read exactly as written in your last suggestion.

I'm not even so much into you crediting me with the procedure (even though you could also do that and be using the NY times as the source).

But, making those changes would be exactly in line with the definitions of every term used in the article. The other "reliable source" is Selphyl.com. They NEVER use the term Vampire Facelift and are working to dispel the misnomer by crediting me at the bottom of their index page with the trademark for the Vampire Facelift--in other words they claim the technology used in the procedure but by omission of the term from their site and by crediting me with the term are trying to communicate that the Selphyl is used in the Vampire Facelift but is NOT the vampire facelift.

This is about understanding what a trademark means--in this case, the "mark" identifies a specific way of doing something. The New York Times writer acknowledges it at the end of her article and Selphyl.com acknowledges it on their site--both reliable sources.

Thank you very very much for helping with this confusion. Patients do look to you as a reliable source. By making the distinction it keeps it plain to them that there's more than one way to use Selphyl and PRP and that every hamburger is not a McDonalds

Still what you've suggested is very close and if that feels best to you, then, I'm grateful for the addition and will smile and go away :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Peace & health,

Charles

--Runels (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Selphyl.com is a primary source and shouldn't be used to verify the trademark. And you're missing the basic point here: Wikipedia does not care about trademarks. Whether or not you hold the trademark is irrelevant, and we're not going to change the article to state that you hold the trademark. Sandstein's proposed changes make sense and are in line with Wikipedia standards, so they should go in. I feel like we're going around in circles here.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello "annyong"--(dangerously close to "annoying," which I guess I"m being) Looks like I may have frustrated you, and owe you an apology--it's hard for me to communicate with emails but I am very very sorry if that's the case.

I understand Wikipedia does not care about trademarks but I figure it cares about ideas and definitions: Selphyl ≠ Vampire Facelift--Runels (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

But, the proposed changes are very close and for that I'm grateful and honored. So be it.

Thank you very much for your considerations.

Charles --Runels (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback (and to you, HelloAnnyong); I've made the change.  Sandstein  15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for consideration of my comments, "Sandstein." I"m exhausted by it all, as you must be as well.

If you must report what people say no matter the accuracy then that must be the policy of Wikipedia, but my attorney has advised me that I must make it plain--the US Patent and Trademark Office, Aesthetic Factors, Selphyl.com--> all state that Selphyl is NOT the Vampire Facelift (TM).

I must go on record as saying this exact statement: the Vampire Facelift (TM) is a SPECIFIC WAY of using both blood derived growth factors AND Juvederm to rejuvenate and reshape the face in an attractive way. Selphyl is NOT the Vampire Facelift, not matter that others have misspoken with sloppy reporting.

Not to be abusive and not to argue--you've made your decision--but those are the facts about the true definitions of the terms.

Best regards,

Charles --Runels (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reopened

Here's a link to an article about someone using a way of making PRP other than Selphyl to do the Vampire Faclieft (TM). Most physicians who use PRP do NOT use Selphyl. The forwarding of the listing to "vampire facelift" as if they are the same is inaccurate. Please see the discussion under the Vampire Facelift listing and consider having a separate listing for the Vampire Facelift acknowledging the facts;

I originated and trademarked the name. it refers to the use of PRP in the face (NOT just Selphyl) combined with Juvederm.

Just forwarding the name Vampire Facelift to Selphyl does not acknowledge that the manufacturer selling the most kits for processing PRP is Harvest Technologies or the fact that just squirting PRP anywhere in the face does not make it the Vampire Facelift--I know this is a new listing and PRP is a new concept to many but Vampire Facelift as it stands as simply a forward to Selphyl is just like having Car forward to Ford.

Please open up the listing Vampire Facelift for editing.

Thank you again.

Charles --Runels (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Sorry, this is a press release ("Source: PRWEB"), not a reliable source as defined at WP:RS. It cannot therefore be the basis of Wikipedia content.  Sandstein  13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting--so there is serious question about whether or not this person is actually using something other than Selphyl? Here's a better way to think about this--even though the TM is used for trademark...this is actually being used as a service mark.

pick up the phone and call the guy's office--he does NOT use Selphyl to do the Vampire Facelift. I can give you the names of a dozen more like him! Amazing this blind interpretation and blinders awareness based solely on the New York times. What does it take for you to recognize that many if not most of the people doing the Vampire Facelift use something other than Selphyl and that the name refers to a specifically defined SERVICE and not a specific product?

The US Patent and Trademark office has a listing that says exactly what I just said--that takes back seat to the Times aritcle?!

Charles

--Runels (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow you. What change to this article, exactly, do you propose?  Sandstein  14:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the basic idea--every Ford is a car but not every car is a Ford.

Yes, it was close when some of the reporters referred to Selphyl as the Vampire Facelift--but not really correct. Selphyl was referred to as the vampire filler before I coined the name Vampire Facelift to designate the service of using PRP in a specific manner. The US patent trademark office recognized my first use of the name to mean a specific service but the news liked the name and confused the idea with fuzzy reporting.

If you read an issue of Writer's Digest you will see multiple notices there by companies warning writers to be wary of making this mistake when they have a new product or service.

I'd propose leaving reference to Selphyl being called the "vampire filler" and expand the second part to recognize that the "vampire facelift" can incorporate Selphyl produced PRP or PRP from other patented processes in a specific way. Then simply leave the part about a way of using Selply was trademarked as combined with Juvederm.

It really is a difficult process to think about until you see it. But when you see what Selphyl is--it's just 4 test tubes and a centrifuge programmed to go the correct speed and time to isolate platelets. In other words, Selphyl is simply a patented way to process blood to isolate and activate PRP.

The Vampire Facelift is a specific way of using that PRP that I invented.

Then simply open up the Vampire Site for editing where the idea of PRP, and unipotent stem cells, and other manufacturers of PRP (there are 12 in the US) could be listed for the benefit of people researching the ideas. I heard a lecture offering Wikipedia as the way to find out about manufacturers and stores and it really is an amazing reference tool. Then, let others contribute to the Vampire Facelift site in addition to what you write (and there will be those using the Harvest and other systems wade in) and there will be references to Juvederm and unipotent stem cells and to service marks and will make an informative and useful article that will help people (potential patients) actually understand what they are doing.

I could edit the article the way I think it should read but I honestly think you'd do it better than I once the confusion about what Selphyl and the VFL (promoted by fuzzy and half accurate reporting) is cleared.

Thank you for listening.

Charles

--Runels (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so your proposal is to "expand the second part to recognize that the "vampire facelift" can incorporate Selphyl produced PRP or PRP from other patented processes in a specific way". It seems to me that we already have this by making reference to your process that combines Selphyl and Juvéderm under the trademark "vampire facelift". That's OK because it's sourced to the NYT, a reliable source. We are not second-guessing the NYT, that's simply not Wikipedia's purpose. Our purpose is to repeat what reliable sources say, even if we think they are wrong. Therefore, in order to write it exactly how you want it to be written we absolutely need a reliable source, as defined at WP:RS, that says what you want the article to say. Is there such a source?  Sandstein  15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I am recognized as the "creator of the work" (your guidelines) the SERVICE of the Vampire Facelift by the US Patent and Trademark office! You can prove it by simply going to their website, going to the link for searching trademarks, and searching the mark, "Vampire Facelift." That seems to be within your guidelines.

I created that service, or else I would not be recognized as such by the US Patent and Trademark Office. I am the originator, the one who defined and thought of the name for the SERVICE which uses two different products (only one of which is derived from the patient's blood in at least 12 possible ways), and THE authority--it is only by doing all of the preceding did the US patent and trademark office award to me the owner of the rights to the service. I feel like we're still going in circles? Is the US trademark office not reliable? Have you read the definition posted there (which says nothing about Selphyl--Selphyl could disappear from the planet and the Vampire Facelift would not miss a beat)?

IF YOU READ THE DEFINITION THERE--YOU WILL SEE NO MENTION OF SELPHYL--it's simply PRP and the growth factors that may be derived from PRP obtained from any reliable source.

Does this not meet your guidelines? Does the US Patent and Trademark Office and the legal description posted there not count as a reliable source. And if it does, then that source qualifies me as the "creator of the work" as defined by your guidelines.

Charles

--Runels (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

But the USPTO is not a source that supports your proposed change. It is a primary source that supports only the fact that you have a trademark called "vampire facelift" for "Skin treatment, namely, the injection of blood derived growth factors including platelet rich fibrin matrix into the face for the purpose of rejuvenation of the face." The existence of that trademark does not mean that such a procedure is in fact performed and called "vampire facelift" in the real world, or conversely that Selphyl is not also called "vampire facelift" by its users, as the NYT writes. Apart from confirming the existence of the trademark as a legal issue, the trademark office does not confirm that the procedure for which the trademark is claimed exists and is indeed performed.

In other words, anyone can register a trademark for anything. A trademark does not confirm anything but the existence of the trademark. I could register a trademark for "Zombie facelift" defined as "Skin treatment, namely, the injection of dead skin cells into the face", but that would not entitle me to write a Wikipedia article stating that "Zombie facelift is a procedure consisting of injecting dead skin cells into the face". I could only do that if a reliable secondary source (see WP:SECONDARY) writes that people do indeed do such things to their faces and call it a "zombie facelift". Since there is no reliable source that describes your own trademarked procedure as the "vampire facelift", to the exclusion of Selphyl, Wikipedia can't either.  Sandstein  17:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What you say about the Zombie Facelift is NOT CORRECT. Before a Trademark is granted, it is examined by an attorney. There must be an actual real service or product and sales being made on a national level or the trademark would NOT be granted. Yes, you could file a TM but it would be examined and not published unless confirmed to be real. My TM HAS been confirmed to be real--it's an established fact by an attorney from the US Patent and Trademark office. Perhaps, this misunderstanding explains why you would put more confidence in a news paper reporter than in a trademark published by the US Patent and trademark office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's say this a different way--

If you put a link from the part of your article that says there is a trademarked service called the Vampire Facelift--to the listing at the US trademark office--there the listing would say NOTHING about Selphyl and would define the procedure exactly the way that I have defined it. Yet, your article listing for the Vampire Facelift, simply forwards to Selphy--NOT accurate according to the definition of the one recognized as the originator of the term (I could not be there if I were not the originator--you can't trademark something just because you "like" it. You must be the originator and definer of the mark.

Understanding your own listing about what a "Service Mark" is combined with the authority of the US Trademark office listing me as the originator of the name (together wit MY definition posted there) should make this crystal clear that I am the "creator of the work."

Charles

--Runels (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not about anyone infringing upon my mark---(that would be like making a pizza in your kitchen and trying to sell it with the name Domino's on it). If a physician does something with any PRP and does not use it in the way I have defined it, that IS infringement.

We are not talking about infringement (as suggested at the beginning of this discussion). This IS about using very reliable sources--the US patent and trademark office and what the information there MEANS to get the definitions here in this article absolutely correct on Wikipedia--which at this time they are NOT.

--Runels (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles

Sorry, Wikipedia is not concerned with any authoritative concepts of "truth", e.g. that we must use terms the way their originator or trademark holder intended them to be used. Our motto is "verifiability, not truth", as defined in our core policy, WP:V. This means that we write what reliable secondary sources say, even if we believe them to be wrong as a matter of fact. And since the NYT, a reliable secondary source, uses "vampire facelift" and "selphyl" as synonyms, we follow them. Our policies require us to. If you think the NYT got it wrong, don't argue with Wikipedia - instead, argue with the NYT and get them to print a correction, and then we can reflect that.

Besides, we would not be able to write a separate article about your own procedure called "vampire facelift" anyway. Since there are no sources specifically about that procedure, it's not notable as defined by our rule WP:N and therefore can't have an article of its own. So all we can do is redirect "vampire facelift" to the article about Selphyl, where your procedure is at least mentioned. That's about the best possible outcome you can currently get.  Sandstein  17:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes or NO, Is the US Patent and Trademark Office a reliable source?

--Runels (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles

It's a reliable primary source for the fact that you have a trademark called "vampire facelift". But that fact does not determine what we call "vampire facelift" in Wikipedia. For that we follow reliable secondary sources, such as the NYT.  Sandstein  19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Does how the US Patent and Trademark office defines Vampire Facelift count as a reliable source? The office does more than just credit me with the mark--it also defines what the mark IS--WHAT IT MEANS. IS NOT THAT OFFICE THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE FOR WHAT A MARK IS?!!!

Did you read how the US Patent and Trademark office defines the mark?

Are you saying that the New York Times trumps the US Patent and Trademark office at defining the meaning of a trademark!!!?

Also, carefully read Selphyl.com

They say, "Inspired the Vampire Facelift" Selphyl is and Excellent product that did "inspire" me to create the Vampire Facelift. But, as Asethetic Factors says on their own website--Selphyl "inspired" the Vampire Facelift. They are NOT the Vampire Facelift and never refer to Sephyl as the Vampire Facelift. Coke doesn't say "inspired" coca cola because they are the same thing.

Aesthetic Factors is in effect saying we are NOT the Vampire Facelift. Is that not a reliable source.

Charles

--Runels (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The USPTO is indeed reliable for defining what the meaning of a trademark is. But Wikipedia is not "Trademarkpedia"; our articles are not about trademarks, but about real things (and trademarks don't necessarily describe these real things). That is to say, what Wikipedia writes about any topic is not necessarily the same as the meaning of any corresponding trademark. For example, "Coca-Cola" is a beverage and a trademark, but our article is about the actual beverage, not the trademark (the trademark is merely mentioned). In other words, we do not define our article subjects by way of trademarks. A trademark is simply a means to identify a good or service in commerce; it has no relevance for how an encyclopedia describes the subject. We have already explained this at length above.  Sandstein  20:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a small comment: I have to run now, but I'll read this conversation and offer my help within the next 24 hours. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And there is why we are going in circles--if you really believe that "trademarks don't necessarily describe...real things" then you will let the definition of a news paper reporter trump the definition of the US patent and trademark office. The reason there IS a US patent and trademark office is to offer the public a true definition of the real meaning of patents and trademarks. Since Wikipedia counts the news paper as more reliable than those legal/government defined definitions, and since (as you said above), "we write what reliable secondary sources say, even if we believe them to be wrong as a matter of fact" rather than print what the primary and definitive source says (and easily verifiable than that), then that policy turns Wikipedia into a gossip blog that has no problem with publishing gossip even when known to be wrong.

Guess we should add to Thoreau's comment that "all news is gossip" and up-date it to say, "all news and Wikipeida are gossip."

Here's a list of MD's doing the Vampire Facelift (TM), many of them not using Selphyl, easily verified by simply calling their office or visiting their website--all just make believe until someone puts it in the New York Times?

I have lost a large degree of confidence in Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

Charles

--Runels (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read this huge wall of text, and I still have no idea what end result is desired here. Runels, in as few words as possible, can you explain what is wrong with the current article, and what you want to change? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for asking.

1. the Vampire Facelift is Not Selphyl. Selphyl is one of the kits that can be used to make the PRP which is then used in a particular way to do the Vampire Facelift.

2. Have a separate listing for the Vampire Facelift that actually explains what it is. The article would refer to what PRP is, how (many details of the biochemistry and physics of the process could be added) it can be made (in more than one way), and then is injected in a very defined way with the name, the definition, and the procedure conceived of my me.

I can make the edits as I think they should be done but is seems uncivilized to get in an editing back-and-forth. Are you asking me to give you exact wording?

My suggestions may sound self promoting, but they are true--I would not have the published, approved, trademarked if these were not facts. True you can apply for a trademark for anything, but to have it published requires that what I have told you be true.

Charles

--Runels (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To the first request, perhaps we change the last sentence of the second paragraph to say something like "combining Selphyl with other fillers is one way to perform the procedure known as 'vampire facelift'". In other words, what the referenced article says is true, but it's not necessarily linked to that.

Second request - absolutely not. Wikipedia isn't for you promoting your trademark. I think Sandstein (and I) have been more than generous in entertaining your ideas, but we're certainly not going to let you use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

First, are you even reading what's posted above? There are plenty of physicians who do the Vampire Facelift (TM) who have never even seen a Selphyl kit! It's not that they are combining Selphyl with something else, it's that there are other methods of isolating the PRP (for example the Harvest Technologies product) and that the PRP must be used by the physician in a particular way defined by me or it is NOT the Vampire Facelift.

Second, It's not promotion, it's truth. I never asked that you use my name (and it does belong to me by law) on Wikipedia. But, if you want to use it, I have given you the proper way in line with the legal definition. The New York Times was not correct but they let stand comments that I posted following the article that corrected the error.

What you have now promotes Selphyl and ignores the actual person who thought of the name, Vampire Facelift, and ignores the other manufacturers of a way to isolate PRP.

What you have now is incorrect. Why would you promote Selphyl and sacrifice truth? I DID think of the name, I WAS first to use it, I did define it (that's what a trademark proves!) and spend MONTHS of work promoting its viral spread through search engine optimization and other means--SAYING SELPHYL IS THE VAMPIRE FACELIFT IS LIKE SAYING THAT NOODLES ARE THE SAME THING AS SPAGHETTI and it is in effect giving away the fruits of my labors. There is a reason for our laws about protection of intellectual property. Intangibles, ideas, definitions are valuable, and--YOUR RULES ABOUT PROMOTION and your Wikipedia guidelines HAVE YOU BLIND TO THE TRUTH of what a published trademark really means--and do not give you rights to destroy the value of my work.

I am perfectly happy with you removing the name Vampire Facelift completely from Wikipedia. I do no wish to "promote" myself here. But, either use the name Vampire Facelift correctly or remove it entirely.

CHALRES --Runels (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No matter what the policy of Wikipedia, a trademark does give me certain legal rights. the next letter will not be from me.

--Runels (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Break 2

I'm not sure who Dr. Runels thinks the next "letter" is going to be from, but if I could interrupt the flow of this thread for a moment, I would appreciate it.

As a physician, scientist and educator with substantial experience in this area, I am adding my contribution to this discussion because I am profoundly disappointed by the comments of the Wikipedia editors in this thread. When seeking information about topics outside my area of expertise I have often turned to Wikipedia believing it to be generally reliable and have had no quarrel with students who wish to use Wikipedia when researching papers. Thus it was extremely disappointing to see a Wikipedia editor flippantly misapply one of Wikipedia’s core policies to the topic of Selphyl with the highly misleading statement: “Sorry, Wikipedia is not concerned with any authoritative concepts of ‘truth’… Our motto is "verifiability, not truth…” This wrongly suggests that Wikipedia is fine with knowingly offering false information to its readers as long as the falsehood has been published by a “reliable source.” To give a hypothetical example: Suppose a writer for the New York Times erroneously states that Elizabeth Taylor died in 2010 rather than 2011 and that information was published on Wikipedia; according to this editor, Wikipedia would not correct this misstatement unless the New York Times published a retraction. That, of course, is not the case.

With all due respect to this editor who seems to believe that the goal of Wikipedia is to simply collect the views of “reliable sources,” he or she is wrong. Using reliable sources is simply the best way to achieve the actual goal of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias: Accuracy. No source, no matter how “reliable,” is always accurate. Inaccuracies may be due to typographical or other similar errors, fraud (e.g., Jayson Blair), or misinterpretations that result when a writer takes on a complex subject for which he or she has inadequate knowledge or experience (as I believe was the case for the Vampire Facelift piece from the New York Times).

In my view, no Wikipedia editor should feel their job is done simple because they confirm that a “reliable source” has indeed written what is claimed in a proposed article for Wikipedia. Using a usually “reliable source” is the minimal threshold for a Wikipedia publication, it does not mean that the article is publication-worthy and it does not mean that the article conforms to Wikipedia’s over-riding goal for its entries: Accuracy. Sometimes there is overwhelming evidence from other sources that a statement made by a usually reliable source is inaccurate; sometimes the application of simple logic or common sense mean that a statement cannot be accurate. Another hypothetical: A New York Times writer misreads a press release from the Academy of Motion Pictures that expresses condolences for the death of Elizabeth Taylor and writes that she is to appear at next year’s Academy Awards. Should that be published in a Wikipedia article simply because it comes from the New York Times?

All of which brings us to the Selphyl article. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Selphyl (as noted in the existing Wikipedia article, it received FDA approval under the name “Fibrinet”) is a blood collection device in the form of a “self-contained disposable kit. Each kit consists of two or more sterile evacuated blood collection tubes, needles and a transfer device…used for the safe and rapid preparation of autologous platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) from a small sample of blood…”

I think all would agree that the FDA would be much more authoritative “secondary source” than the New York Times regarding an accurate description of what Selphyl actually is. The FDA tells us that Selphyl is no more than a medical apparatus and associated method for obtaining PRP, which can then be injected back into a patient. Selphyl itself is clearly not a substance to be injected. Therefore, “I injected the patient with Selphyl” is a nonsensical statement because one obviously does not inject blood collection kits into a person’s face. It is clearly is not a “process in cosmetic surgery;” the kit and the use of the kit does not involve cosmetic surgery in any way (unless one considers drawing blood to be a form of cosmetic surgery). Therefore the implication contained in Selphyl Wikipedia article that “Selphyl …[is] the vampire filler or vampire facelift” is absurd and clearly inaccurate. I suppose that pointing out that a NYT writer published this falsity might be of some interest to some readers, but I would submit that the real interest for the vast majority is learning what Selphyl actually is and how it might be utilized in their treatment.

The fact is that the Selphyl is just one of several commercial and non-commercial methods to obtain PRP for a variety of subsequent cosmetic and non-cosmetic medical and dental procedures. The fact is that the Selphyl is just one of these several methods used to obtain PRP for cosmetic purposes and it is just one of the several available methods for obtaining the PRP required to do a “Vampire Facelift.” There is no basis for equating Selphyl and the Vampire Facelift any more than there is a basis for calling the scalpel a plastic surgeon uses a “Facelift.”

So I agree with Dr. Runels that for the sake of Accuracy the Wikipedia article must be edited so that readers do not erroneously believe that Selphyl is the Vampire Facelift, but I disagree with him when he suggests that allowing readers to believe that Selphyl is the “Vampire Filler” is an acceptable alternative. Selphyl, as we have seen, is neither a cosmetic procedure nor a substance.

Because I am late to this intellectual party, I will not submit the following (without receiving appropriate feedback), but I would suggest that the following replace the relevant portions of the article:

“Selphyl, an abbreviation for the “Selphyl System,” is one of several semiautomatic systems available for the isolation of platelet rich plasma (PRP). Selphyl is marketed as a simple reproducible method for obtaining PRP that contains minimal red or white blood cells by Aesthetic Factors, Inc. (AF), which, on the Selphyl website, claims it has been utilized over 45,000 times for plastic surgery, orthopedics, maxillofacial surgery, and soft tissue regeneration applications.

Selphyl has been associated with the “Vampire Facelift,” a procedure that involves the injection of PRP as a filler into multiple areas of the face with or without other fillers like Juvederm, because several media reports on the “Vampire Facelift” have described using PRP obtaining using the Selphyl System to perform this procedure. There is, however, no scientific evidence that the use of Selphyl is superior to any other method of obtaining PRP for cosmetic purposes and there is no evidence that cosmetic surgeons performing the Vampire Facelift only utilize PRP generated using Selphyl to do so.”

I mean no disrespect to the editors or Dr. Runels with my comments, but even beyond the issue of Accuracy as a lofty goal, the fact is that patients frequently turn to the internet to obtain medical information about procedures they are considering and we do them a grave disservice by not making every effort to ensure that any website any of us is associated with provides the most accurate information possible.

Reprodoc (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Calcium chloride

Dr. Runels, you added the phrase "which are then activated with calcium chloride (to release growth factors and form the PRFM)" to the description of the method. Is there a reliable source (WP:RS) that can be used to verify this description?  Sandstein  15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The US Patent and trademark office (to which I gave a link above) has a way to search patents and see the exact content. The label on a tube of Selphyl has what's there listed.

Harvest Technologies (which some use combined with Juvederm for the Vampire Facelift) uses thrombin combined with calcium chloride for surgical use and recommends nothing but activation by the needle when used by injection. I have (again) a trademarked way of using the Harvest Technologies product that improves upon the Harvest Technologies system (I was a research chemist at Southern Research Institute (designed instrumentation still in use by our armed forces) in Birmingham Alabama before going to medical school)--It's like the recipe for Coke--this is not the cure for cancer--there's no ethical reason why the exact methods must be shared except with the providers of the service. That's the idea behind intellectual property. this whole discussion has been very disappointing to me--never thought a new york times reporter would trump everything even the idea behind a trademark.

There's much science and thought glossed over in the Selphyl article that could be expanded in a separate Vampire Facelift article.

--Runels (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Charles