This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The company developing this product has gone out f business. See the wiki page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northfield_Laboratories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogorno ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This article seriously needs to include the negative side of it and the controversy. -- Michael.Niemann 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Xyra e l 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)
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) .
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The company developing this product has gone out f business. See the wiki page for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northfield_Laboratories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogorno ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This article seriously needs to include the negative side of it and the controversy. -- Michael.Niemann 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Xyra e l 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)
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) .