Talk:Injection lipolysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{editprotected}}Please remove link to spam site being posted by Agincourtboy and information that is not relevant to the injeciton lipolysis procedure. This site continues to be used innapropriately by Kythera Biopharmaceuticals "Agincourtboy". See many comments and attempted edits below by medical professionals. ASALipodissolve 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite many attempts by medical professionals (some listed below), this web site offers a very biased view of lipodissolve due to the efforts of a drig company that is trying to damage the lipodissolve industry for their own profit.ASALipodissolve 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - several of the IP addresses including 12.176.148.226 can be traced to Kythera Biopharma that is trying to stop lipodissolve for their own future profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.166.66 (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish to make some comments and corrections as there is a lot of misinformation flying about. First, Lipodissolve is an injection technique. It is not the name of a medication as some believe. This notion came about because one Doctor tried to sell the medication "Lipostabil" as Lipodissolve. A Compounding Pharmacy tried to capitalize on PCDC by seekin apporval for a "Compounded Medication" purely to try to take advantage of the growing use of compounded use of PCDC.

Lipodissolve does involve the injection of PCDC however the medication is Legally Compounded by Compounding Pharmacies via a written prescription. This practice of having Pharmacies compound medications is 100% legal and does not violate any FDA regulation (see US code: Title 21.353a. Pharmacy Compounding). Compounding is regulated by each individual State.

As for the comment below by N. David. they are mistaken that Phosphatidylcholine nor Deoxycholate have not been approved. A quick seach of the FDA (CDER) site will indicate such. Medications such as "Rapamune", "Infasurf", "Curosurf" etc. contain Phosphatidylcholine. These medications and others containing Phosphatidylcholine are FDA approved. Deoxycholate is also used in a medication amphotercin B deoxycholate. The fact that both Phosphatidylcholine and Deoxycholate are allowed for use in the medications that I list testifies that they are approved for use. N. David notes that medications such as "fungizone" are no longer available. This dose not mean that the ingredients in the medication were ineffective, nor does it mean that the ingredients in the medications have been banned, it means usually that the medication is no longer profitable to be commercially used. N. David also points out that injecting a drug into a fat pad is different than injecting into the blood stream. I would think that most readers if asked would believe that an injection into the blood stream would potentially be much more hazardous as the medication would potentially affect the vital organs.

N. David does note correctly that there is no clinical trail for PCDC. As PCDC is written for as a prescription Drug there was no need to seek FDA approval as both Phosphatidylcholine and Deoxycholate have been approved for use in humans as indicated by their appearance in various medications. The FDA does not regulate the practice of Medicine, it only regulates the manufacture and safety of medications.

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts "is investigating at least a half dozen complaints involving business practices and adverse reactions" I have spoken with chief counsel Mark Stafford about this prior to their decision. The problem in Kansas and elsewhere is that in many cases, there is "non-medical" personnel injecting the public. Poor outcome as noted on many forums is not the fault of the medication, it is because of poor or non-existent training. Apparently in Kansas, as long as there is a written prescription for a medication, anyone can inject it according to Mr. Stafford. This is the source of many of the cited problems and is also part of the business practice issue. I mentioned to Mr. Stafford in our conversation that I believe their policy is misleading and potentially dangerous to the public. When someone goes into a Doctors office or Clinic to receive a medical treatment, they assume that the person doing it has adequate training. I do not think that many folks would allow themselves to be treated if they knew ahead of time that they were going to be treated by the billing clerk. As for the removal of PCDC from use, their decision was not based on any fact aside from these "half dozen complaints" which seem to involve both "business practices" and adverse reactions. A search of the CDC site does not indicate any reported incidents. There are some common side effects (mostly swelling) from PCDC all of which can be easily handled by a competent well trained Physician. There are some reports of severe pain, this is due to too high a concentration of the DC as it requires to be at a higher ph to stay in solution. Proper training in the technique will usually eliminate this from happening.

The banning of PCDC in Brazil was fostered by the fact that people were injecting themselves and their friends. Also, the pharmaceutical industry is not as well controlled as here. In England the issue was that the Drug was not approved. They do not have the same freedom of compounding as we do in the US.

Someone asked how PCDC works. Phosphatidylcholine is an emulsifying agent, Deoxycholate is a Bile Salt which has detergent properties. When injected, they cause fat cell necrosis. This has been shown by a published article by A. Rotunda. I hope that this helps.

R. Pitera M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Pitera (talk • contribs) 23:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't helpful, but I think some things that needed to be added to this page is exactly how the drug works to break down fat, any information regarding it's effectiveness, any studies done on it, possible dangers and the contraversy in the U.S. about it. As well, I don't believe that it is currently available in Canada, and if so please site a source, as I can't find one. It says 'North America' to which I think should only be the U.S. There needs to be sources for that Doctor's name, and it should be dated and cited as to when it was FDA approved. The fact it is FDA approved should be readded to the article.

Thanks.

Lipodissolve is NOT FDA approved, per the recently added citations and warning letters. I hope this resolves any confusion as to the regulatory status of the drug. Agincourtboy 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Agincourtboy

Dear Medview:

Neither phosphatidylcholine (PC) nor deoxycholate (DC) have been approved by the FDA as active ingredients in any drug. Deoxycholate was listed as an inactive component of a no-longer-marketed antifungal agent (i.e., FUNGIZONE), though that drug is no longer available commercially. Furthermore, the approval of deoxycholate as an inactive ingredient in FUNGIZONE was for the intravenous administration of that drug at far lower doses than those administered by medspas. Injecting a drug into the blood is very different than injecting a drug into somebody’s fat pad.

Phosphatidylcholine has no FDA approval of ANY SORT, either as an active or an inactive ingredient.

Also, PCDC is not currently the subject of an open IND (Investigational New Drug) application with the FDA, so it is misleading to suggest that PCDC is being tested in FDA-sanctioned clinical trials. It is not. So don’t say it.

Because your statements lack the benefit of factual accuracy, I am removing them. Please contact me if you wish to discuss.

Regards,

N David

Thanks, Dr. Pitera. I agree with nearly all of the facts as you represent them. But some nuance is needed to understand the current market situation.

Implicit in your statements is the appropriateness of "one doctor, one prescription, one patient" as safe, legal, and ethical medical practice. I completely agree. That said, most of what is going on today involves large medspa chains advertising their drug/procedure business on a mass scale. These organizations compound PCDC on a mass scale. This is NOT legal compounding. It is drug manufacturing/advertising "masquerading" as compounding. While FDA does not regulate medicine, the Agency does regulate drug marketing and manufacturing.

Also, if you can provide a reference on the Brazil situation, I would much appreciate it and would be happy to post it.

I would say that that while PC and DC are components of approved drugs, they are not the active ingredients. This is very different from saying that they are okay to be used in humans. They are allowed by the FDA as excipients in other drugs - this doesn't mean that they can be used as active ingredients in drugs without approval. I just want to make sure that people understand that there is a difference.

N David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 16:40, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

OBJECTION TO FAULTY INFORMATION

Our company is the original developers of the protocol which we named Lipodissolve several years ago when no one had ever heard of it. There need to be some clarifications of the growing (mis)use of our business name where limited knowledge of the statements issued by individuals are made, which cause further confusions to the general public.

Lipodissolve is not a medical term to describe all treatments where phopshatidylcholine is being used.
Lipodissolve is not a name or term to describe all treatments where injections are used in cosmetic efforts, ex. Lipomelt, mesotherapy, Lipo Sculpt and so on.
Lipodissolve is not the name of a drug or a product, ex Lipostabil, phosphatidylcholine or others.

We oppose to the repeated and faulty efforts to use our business name in reference to other procedures, licensing problems for sales of products or neglect by clinics that offer procedures while using the Lipodissolve name without the presence of a licensed physician. None of these issues, that are often mixed into the use in part or full of our business name, has anything to do with Lipodissolve but are individual cases of misuse in some form or the other.

Lipodissolve means only one thing: a specific combination of products in protocols developed by us. The protocols that refer to the name LIPODISSOLVE have been copyrighted and processed for patent approval. When these exact protocols are used by a licensed physician that have been certified and within clinical use we refer to it as 'Lipodissolve treatment'.

We must also remember that there are many kinds of processing being used for phosphatidylcholine manufacturing, and different 'versions' of phosphatidylcholine are available on the market based on the raw materials, etc. Not all of these products that may indicate the same base component are suitable within Lipodissolve protocols, which contain the use of several medications, not only phosphatidylcholine. This alters the scope of use and ability of use. To refer to this product in sweeping, general terms without a detailed insight into what kind of phosphatidylcholine it refers to, is insufficient.

Licensed physicians who have worked with us or been affiliated with us, have published studies referring to actual Lipodissolve protocols - not other procedures, other protocols or medications. The safety record is solely a reference to the protocols that is being used in what has been named 'Lipodissolve'. Unfortunately, infringement on this name has become difficult to regulate and causes other users to pose the name on treatments that have little to do with Lipodissolve.

What Lipodissolve is NOT:

-- A general term to describe phosphatidylcholine or deoxycholate
-- A term to describe Lipostabil
-- A word that contains the description of all treatments by injections that aims to reduce in one form or the other, the appearance of body fat
-- A description for mesotherapy

What Lipodissolve has NOT been:

-- Lipodissolve has not been banned in the UK by the MHRA. The MHRA issued a ban on unlicensed import of the medication Lipostabil and the use of unlicensed products. The MHRA require that regional sellers of imported Lipostabil into the UK must be licensed to sell the product and process orders towards patient prescription. In a recent update to their past decision, MHRA has clarified that their reference is to the licensing and use of the product Lipostabil and not to Lipodissolve.
-- Lipodissolve conflicts: The confusion is created by misinformation often posted by opponents against Lipodissolve based on conflicting views on phosphatidylcholine and mixing up clinical or import violations.
-- Lipodissolve has not been banned in Brazil. Brazil had no use of Lipodissolve and we have no certified physicians from Brazil on Lipodissolve. Laymen without any medical background or knowledge were using many different medications for experimental cosmetic use, which included tiratricol, aminophyllin, phosphatidylcholine and many, many more. To control this situation Brazil restricted the use of these products. It has no reflection on Lipodissolve. As we already mentioned Lipodissolve is a name describing a protocol and is not the name of a product.
-- Lipodissolve is not within FDA approval. FDA approves medical devices and drugs. Lipodissolve is the description of a standard protocol use on medical treatments to reduce body fat. It is not the name of a drug, a medical device and cannot be applied for FDA approval, unless it is created into a licensed drug marketed as Lipodissolve.

For more information on Lipodissolve, please see www.asna-asal.com

A.K. Jordain, The American Society of Aesthetic Lipodissolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASAL, LLC (talk • contribs) 18:47, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Dear AK Jordain:

What would you propose to do? I realize that there is confusion as to the name, but the turth is that Lipodissolve is the most common term used to describe this means to remove fat.

Taking the site down does not seem to be the right answer in terms of public education.

Perhaps you could write a (non angry) fact-based paragraph explaining your position, BUT DELETING THE SITE THAT EVERYONE HAS WORKED ON TOGETHER IS NOT AN OPTION.

A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 21:05, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jordain:

I have not heard back from you on what you would like to do. I don't think any of us want to make you guys upset, so I think you should come up with an explanation that we can add to the wiki that explains what ASAL is and how it has specific protocols for administering specific mixtures, etc. and that many other organizations are using other approaches.

Anyway, I want to make it clear that we are open to getting all the info into the wiki, so please come up with something to add that fits with the format and referencings standards. If you want help or a suggestion, let me know. I could make some suggestions.

Again, please don't take down the whole page, as we will just put it up again. Rather, please come up with an addition to the wiki that explains ASAL's position. It sounds like you guys have a position to articulate, and I see no reason it should not be included. . . but just know that there are other positions.

Also, again, please don't try to SELL stuff on wiki (e.g., procedures, drugs, etc.) as it is against wiki policy to use the site as a forum to advance your economic agenda . . . whatever that is.

Thanks!

A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 I want an NPOV wiki -- let's work towards one that is NON COMMERCIAL 2 An 'outside the box' proposal to settle this dispute 3 Proposed 'compromise' wiki 4 Recommend dispute resolution 5 Resolution proposal 6 Request for comment 7 What is the sound of one sock puppet talking? 8 Rewrite 9 Redirect to Injection Lipolysis 10 Suspected sock puppet 11 Observation breeds wisdom 12 fig provider bankrupt

[edit] I want an NPOV wiki -- let's work towards one that is NON COMMERCIAL

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)

Agincourtboy,

As one of the original contributors for this page I have followed the evolution of this wiki for several months. Although you are clearly a smart individual you are also clearly biased, extremely manipulative and a hypocrite.

You work for a pharmaceutical company that has a profit motive related to how information is portrayed about Lipodissolve – yet you condemn other doctors for that same reason and try to mask your efforts under a cloak of consumer safety? You are in it for the money more than any doctor on this site - at least the majority of contributors to this wiki are transparent.

PCDC have been used for decades in the medical community, but you want us to believe suddenly you have become a crusader for safety? Guess you thought it was safe enough to raise millions of dollars to commercialize the drug?

You link to sites that have no authors or sources that is in violation of wikipedia policy – just to promote your smear campaign.

Your calls for a NPOV are a joke because you have no interest in being neutral. I agree with previous editors that you should not be involved with this wiki (or any other on this site). Funny how it would appear out of dozens of contributors you are the one everyone has a problem with... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrraymond (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] An 'outside the box' proposal to settle this dispute

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)

[edit] Proposed 'compromise' wiki

Dear WikiEditor:

Below is a proposed compromise wiki for the Lipodissolve entry. It is neither alarmist (which those promoting Lipodissolve sales, e.g., ASAL, Charraymond, Medview, etc., object to) nor is it promotional (which I object to, due to public safety concerns).

Again, it is imperfect--though better than where we are in terms of consensus:

Lipo-dissolve or Lipodissolve, LipoShape or Lipostabil, also called injection lipolysis, is a controversial cosmetic procedure in which various non-FDA approved drug mixtures, often called PCDC, or phosphatidylcholine deoxycholate, are injected into patients to remove fat^[1][2]. This practice evolved from the initial intravenous use of PC-containing drug formulations to treat blood disorders. In 1966, investigators noted that the intravenous infusion of PC-containing solutions could remove fat emboli^[3]. Later, a drug formulation called LIPOSTABIL® containing 5% PC and 4.75% deoxycholate (DC) was approved in Germany and used in the treatment of fat embolism^[4][5], dyslipidemia^[6], and alcohol-induced liver cirrhosis^[7]. The first report of LIPOSTABIL® injection for fat removal demonstrated that infra-orbital (‘under the eyelid’) fat could be removed by LIPOSTABIL® injection^[8]. While no placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated the safety or efficacy of this therapy, numerous retrospective studies of LIPOSTABIL® injections have reported the efficacy of this ‘off-label’ practice^{[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]}. While the safety of Lipodissolve injections has yet to be proven in a prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical study, retrospective studies suggest that this practice does not present significant medical risk^[18]. The American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) issued a press release in April of 2006 stating that the society had initiated a double-blind, placebo-controlled study to experimentally examine the safety and efficacy of Lipodissolve injections [1], though the results of this study are not yet published. The mixture is injected directly into the subcutaneous fat through multiple microinjections administered over multiple treatment sessions. The desired end result is the removal of localized fat deposits^[19].

The injection of Lipodissolve for fat removal remains somewhat controversial. In statements to the New York Times [2] and USA Today [3], the FDA has taken the position that the injection of Lipodissolve mixtures for fat removal is an example of “unapproved drugs for unapproved uses.” Despite that, multiple businesses have initiated commercialization of Lipodissolve by opening clinics that advertise and administer Lipodissolve injection for fat removal [4],[5]. One of these businesses states on its website that "Pharmacies are permitted to compound drugs pursuant to a valid patient/physician/pharmacist relationship - even if the drugs have not been approved by the FDA." [6] The FDA has stated that it is “investigating and evaluating” the situation [7].

It would clarify things a lot to rename the article by the generic term Injection lipolysis and stick to that unless referring to a specific named commercial version, since there are clearly disagreements about what constitutes generic and proprietary names. Gordonofcartoon 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless this particular brand is notable, that suggestion makes a lot of sense. Antelan ^talk 16:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of the recent suggestions.

I had two additional suggestions as to how to maintain a stable and NPOV wiki.

SUGGESTION #1: The 'external links' at the end of the wiki must be NPOV as well. No promotional links, no alarmist links. The currently contested wiki contains links to both promotional and alarmist sites. If the wiki is PROTECTED (as I feel it should be), then subsequent parties will not be able to add links with either bias.

SUGGESTION #2: As suggested by Gordonofcartoon and Antelan, the wiki should me moved/retitled to the generic term Injection Lipolysis. This is an excellent suggestion. But in addition, the Lipodissolve wiki should 'redirect' to the Injection Lipolysis site (and both sites should be PROTECTED to prevent later introduction of commercially motivated bias).

These two suggestions, together, ought to create a stable NPOV wiki.

Thanks,

A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of renaming the site to more accurately reflect the medical term for the procedure? How do we manage the body of text? Figmedia 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lipodissolve appears to be only a brand name for a particular organisation's take on injecting a substance (let's call it Snibbo). If I understand the dispute correctly, they inject Snibbo but under their own protocol - SnibboInject(tm) - that they argue deserves separate billing to avoid association with previous context about Snibbo injection.

I've posted this to WP:COI/N#Lipodissolve and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Lipodissolve. This really needs editing by editors without involvement. I assume everyone here is aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and also that Wikipedia is not a soapbox? Gordonofcartoon 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, move the page to Injection lipolysis and use redirects to there from any proprietary names. Note to the "Lipodissolve" folks: protection of your trade name is achieved through claiming and registering a trade mark. Copyrights and patents do little to protect trade names. FWIW, I am about as neutral as it gets: I have thousands of Wikipedia edits, most on medical topics, none having to do with cosmetic surgery. --Una Smith 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend dispute resolution

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, Durova^Charge! 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution proposal

Dear Durova:

BACKGROUND: Lipodissolve is a drug mixture injected directly into fat deposits. The drug is widely touted as a non-surgical means to remove excess peripheral fat. Some doctors swear by it. Others tell horror stories. Pro-Lipodissolve and con-lipodissolve positions can be found easily with a Google search. Various businesses have begun commercialization of this drug prior to FDA approval and claim that despite the lack of FDA approval or any well-controlled clinical trials, that the drug is safe and works.

THE DISPUTE: There are two sides in this protracted wiki edit war. Both sides have openly admitted on the wiki to having financial COI’s. One side (numerous editors with close ties to companies manufacturing and promoting the drug today) post favorable things to the wiki so that potential customers will read the wiki and say “well, wiki is NPOV, so the drug must be safe. I am going out to get injected right now!” The other side (a few editors with ties to companies developing drugs via the conventional, multi-year FDA regulated process, which requires rigorous clinical study to prove safety and efficacy) removes these glowing, transparently promotional tag lines from the wiki and replaces them with facts that highlight the risks of taking non-FDA approved drugs (FDA has stated that PCDC — another name for lipodissolve -- is an unapproved drug for unapproved uses and that buyers need to beware). The pro-Lipodissolve side has more editors than the con, largely driven by the fact that many, many people are profiting from injecting patients with this unapproved drug today. These pro organizations hope to use the wiki as an advertising platform. The con-Lipodissolve faction does not promote its interests directly on wiki, as its financial interests lie many years in the future.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Both sides, I suspect, would settle for an NPOV wiki that is neither promotional (the favored outcome of the pro faction) nor alarmist (the favored outcome of the con faction). This would not be ideal for either party, but it would end the wiki edit war with something acceptable to both sides. Such a compromise would not benefit either of the conflicted parties financially and would conform to wiki standards.

Signed, Agincourtboy

Lipodissolve is a common name for "injection lipolysis", a procedure, not a drug. PCDC is a drug, not FDA approved, although both PC and DC have been widely uses in FDA approved drugs for decades as inactive ingredients. PCDC has also been clinically used for decades for other purposes (also not FDA approved) to break of deposits in arteries and improve breathing in prenatal babies. Doctors are not regulated by the FDA - that happens at the state board level and it is clear that the FDA allows doctors to prescribe compounded (often unapproved) drugs.Chrraymond 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "dispute" as I read through the history is only with Kythera (agincourtboy)? To imply that many of the doctors who have attempted to make edits (only to have them removed by agincourtboy) are promotional in nature is way over the top. The heavy handed editing is really lopsided only by one person mentioned above. I think everyone would be happy with a NPOV web site but even in the statement above facts are distorted or partial truths. Kythera is attempting to patent PCDC, claiming "DC" is the active ingredient. They have already completed Phase I clinical trials (safety)for FDA approval (on FDA site). They are completing Phase II (efficacy) - so they already have safety data - they and the FDA felt the drug is safe to continue? But it is not safe if a licensed doctor uses the drug prior to Kythera's approval? I am sure they will split hairs on the issue and claim there drug is different, but the core mechanism is the same. Why not publish the double blind placebo, contol study Kythera completed?

This sounds good and when you check with someone who knows their fat cell biology (as I did), the will tell you there is plenty of data that speaks to safety, and the long clinical history of the compounds, and PCDC make the point. To date the other detractors are doctors protecting the plastic surgery (liposuction) industry, which I understand their position. Ironically the American Society of Aesthetics Plastic Surgeons reported in last months newsletter that members treated 28,000 patients with injection lipolysis procedures last year - a 6x increase over 2005.Chrraymond 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

This page is also under scrutiny at WP:COIN. east.718 at 05:20, 11/9/2007 Specifically, WP:COI/N#Lipodissolve. Gordonofcartoon 11:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Resolution Proposal above:

Actually the "dispute" as I read through the history is only with Kythera (agincourtboy)? ... The heavy handed editing is really lopsided only by one person mentioned above

Far from it. The article's also under scrutiny for a whole bunch of procedural problems affecting virtually all its previous editors. As I've said before, read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Anyone with a direct stake in this subject - e.g. representing the American Society of Aesthetic Lipodissolve or a company with a competing interest such as Kythera Pharmaceuticals - should not be editing the article directly.

There's also Wikipedia is not a soapbox to consider; and the no personal attacks policy; and the strong smell of sock puppetry. Gordonofcartoon 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RfC. Perhaps you could give a short explanation of the disputed issue?Labongo 13:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the sound of one sock puppet talking?

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)

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)

Work out each paragraph on the talk page, among yourselves. Once you reach a statement that gives the pertinent facts, all of them, in neutral terms, then put it on the article page. Text appearing on the article page that does not go through this process is fair game for removal by any editor who objects to it. --Una Smith 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is clear on this. If you have a financial interest in an article, you should strongly avoid editing it. I can see why people from companies have an interest in this page; after all, many prospective consumers will look at this page. It needs a complete rewrite, and none of it should be written by anyone with a stake. As for Agincourtboy wanting sockpuppets because the other side has them, that's not how the wiki works. In a perfect wiki, socks would be useless anyway, as the points made would be considered, not the votes. Just my two cents. mrholybrain's talk 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want sockpuppets as a countermeasure to sockpuppetry! All I am saying is this--financially motivated sockpuppets will probably reappear, but their proposals will likely be easy to detect, because they will sound biased in some way. That is all. I have a COI, so I will not propose future edits (per the guidelines). I will watch for sockpuppets and point them out (if they sneak in undetected). ~~Agincourtboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I'm coming into this with no knowledge of the products at hand but with some medical background. Is Lipodissolve the generic name of a compound, or is it a trademarked name of a compound that has a generic name (or is it neither)? If it is a procedure, this article should probably be named after the procedure, whereas at present it appears to have a product name. Antelan ^talk 23:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Injection Lipolysis is the proper name of the procedure. Lipodissolve is the common name of the procedure. A trademark has been submitted for Lipodissolve by an organization of doctors that provides training (ASAL). Neither are a name for a compound. Some discussion above about the use of "injection lipolysis" and most agree the change would be appropriate.Figmedia 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. See below. Antelan ^talk 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. But I think most of us (me too!) have COI's, so I am not sure if I should be making any suggestions. ~~Agincourtboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agincourtboy (talk • contribs) 07:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All people should be making suggestions, regardless of their COIs. Since I have no relevant COIs here, I'll try to help the groups communicate with one another and work towards a neutral article. Antelan ^talk 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Can we start on the rewrite?

Lipo-dissolve or Lipodissolve, LipoShape or Lipostabil, also called injection lipolysis, is a controversial cosmetic procedure in which various non-FDA approved drug mixtures, often called PCDC, or phosphatidylcholine deoxycholate, are injected into patients to remove fat.

How about:

Injection lipolysis (called by various proprietary and generic names including Lipo-dissolve, Lipodissolve, LipoShape, Lipostabil, Flab Jab and Fat Jab) is a controversial cosmetic procedure in which drug mixtures, generally based on phosphatidylcholine and deoxycholate (PCDC), are injected into patients for the purpose of breaking down fat.

This adds a couple of non-US names, removes the US-centric detail about the FDA (which can come later as it's a disputed aspect) and sits on the fence about efficacy (which is also disputed). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good first sentence; it touches on the controversy. How about this as a next step:

Injection lipolysis (called by various proprietary and generic names including Lipo-dissolve, Lipodissolve, LipoShape, Lipostabil, Flab Jab and Fat Jab) is a controversial cosmetic procedure in which drug mixtures are injected into patients with the goal of breaking down fat. This practice, using drugs generally based on phosphatidylcholine and deoxycholate (PCDC), evolved from the initial intravenous use of those drug formulations to treat blood disorders.

(Also, nota bene, I have unexpectedly become very busy in real life so I apologize but I will not be able to contribute much for the time being.) Antelan ^talk 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect to Injection Lipolysis

[edit] Suspected sock puppet

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)

[edit] Observation breeds wisdom

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)

[edit] fig provider bankrupt

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)