The result of the debate was kept post-rewrite. DS 14:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. 72 unique Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete Advertising.
Fan1967
04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comments and questions. As the creator of the article, I cannot agree with the above comment, "excellent rewrite". All the person doing the revising did was delete 1 sentence in the introduction and about 5 sentences under the Hemobag entry itself! The rest of my work remains as is. The person also included a few more links to wikipedia pages, which I would have done myself - this was only a first draft.
About the entry being blatant advertising I disagree. Look at what was said about the Hemobag in the original. It's one of 3 methodologies used to for intraoperative blood salvage, specifically a new type of technology using an ultrafiltration reservoir; studies to date have shown it to be safe but studies using clinical trials are neede to show if it really is effective and safe. The rest of the entry was background material to show why blood salvage devices are needed and why they need to be improved. Moreover the scientific links to published research that I added (4 of which remain) are quite critical of blood salvage technology in general and present a balanced perspective.
Frankly, the Haemonetics entry is pure advertising with absolutely no redeeming scientific or education value! The Hemobag article was the opposite.
A general question - this article was written as an entry for the Hemobag and now has been changed into an entry for Intraoperative blood salvage. As the creator of an article that has been revised but is substantially the same as originally written (except for deletion of about 6 sentences), should I choose to (and it's only a maybe at this time), do I not have the right to delete the article? Not saying I would but am curious about wikipedia policy. ~~Blut~~
About interpreting the Hemobag portion as advertising, here's the 5 sentences I wrote:
The Hemobag® is a new type of ultrafiltration reservoir designed to overcome the limitations of RBC-savers and direct retransfusion in cardiac, vascular, and other types of surgery through hemofiltration. The methodology of blood salvaging with the Hemobag® in the operating room is depicted in this video.
Being a new ultrafiltration method, the Hemobag® was not included in earlier papers and studies. Studies to date have shown the Hemobag® to quickly and safely recover substantial proteins, clotting factors, and red cell concentrates (References 5-7). While the Hemobag® shows promise, randomized clinical studies of the Hemobag® are needed to more fully assess patient outcomes and to measure reduction of allogeneic blood products.
The Hemobag statements are backed by references. There's a link to a video; it shows the new technology in action. Believe me promotional copy reads quite differently, and does not have links to studies that question the entire process of cell salvaging!
Contrast with the Haemonetics entry (only a few extracted - the entire entry is an advertisement!):
It has offices worldwide... Haemonetics has been a global leader in blood processing technology. The Company has two families of products:....Haemonetics is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker HAE.....
Give me a break! User blut