Talk:PolyHeme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
[edit] This
This article seriously needs to include the negative side of it and the controversy. --Michael.Niemann 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- From what I've read, the so called "controversy" is only related to the non-informed consent issue that was raised by Senator Grassley. Even then, it only has to with the FDA, since the FDA allowed Northfield to start and proceed with the current trial, Northfield follows the law here and did nothing wrong. What controversy are you suggesting, the ANH trial? Have you read the external links at the bottom? Before the phase III trial started, the FDA and many participating trauma centers and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) have reviewed the datas from that trial and allowed the p.III trial to proceed, ie. they must have concluded that the results of the ANH trial was inconclusive. Besides, in the current trial, if you had read, there have been 4 different occasions during this phase III trial where the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC), who has an unblinded look at the trial progress for any safety problems or any anomolies, still recommended the trial to proceed. I suggest we should remove the neutrality tag. Disclamer: I own NFLD stock and am an advocate of Polyheme, I have read much about the product and the company itself. --Sir Vicious 20:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion
It is my feeling that the neutrality tag should be removed for now, purely because the disputing user has not replied, and therefore there isn't really a dispute. If he were ever to return, it would seem appropriate to me to add the template again, and reopen this debate. However, he isn't here, so it is no longer disputed. Additionally, perhaps when the article is rewritten per below, adding all the information you stated above might be sensible, as it is all events in relation to this product. --Xyrael T 11:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/04/62955 http://www.acronymrequired.com/2006/03/polyheme_and_the_newest_plastic.html http://www.polyhemelawsuit.com/ Here are some controversial links. Azoundria 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio?
Umm, this article is directly copied from [1], the first result of a Google on "PolyHeme", and the manufacturer of the product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leapfrog314 (talk • contribs) .
- True, user "2005-12-03 02:02:48 69.137.90.8" lifted most of the content from their site. Anyone up for a re-write or re-wording? Sir Vicious 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
