Again, here's an article showing one of MANY physicians who use something other than Selphyl for the Vampire Facelift (TM) (in this case Harvest Technologies method of making PRP). It is NOT Selphyl ≈ Vampire Facelift (TM). Selphyl ≠ Vampire Facelift.
Vampire Facelift (TM) refers to using blood-derived growth factors along with Juvaderm in specifically defined ways to rejuvenate the face. The name was NEVER published prior to it's use by me (Charles Runels, MD). Others like the name and continue to use it but it has been trademarked. If you shoot PRP from Selphyl in someone's left nostril, by your definition, that's the Vampire Facelift--that's not the idea.
The idea and the definition by research and proven by the US Patent and Trademark office is that the name means what the originator of the name decided. Otherwise you could put sugar and dye in bubble water and call it Coke.
I offer the link above (where a doctor NOT using Selphyl) advertises the Vampire Facelift (TM).
There should be a separate article about the Vampire Facelift--that recognizes the FACT that I thought of the name, defined the procedure, own the name (also verified by the NY TIMES). I could "like" the name Coke but I could not redefine the recipe.
The reporter was only partly correct in saying that I liked the name the Vampire Facelift so much that I trademarked it--her implied meaning was wrong--I did not hear it an like it--I thought it up and liked it, then I spent months on-line nurturing the viral spread of the name that I put years of marketing experience into conceiving--that's how a trademark works--you get to trademark it if you think of it first.
This automatic referral to the Selphyl site is erroneous. The link to Selphyl without even mentioning the originator of the name Vampire Facelift on the Selphyl site and to not recognize the name VFL refers to a specific way of using PRP from any reliable source is erroneous and should not stand.
And yes I have a stake in the name, but so does Harvest Medical, and so does every person who reads something about the Vampire Facelift and gets mislead into going to see someone who has Selphyl in the office but may not know the best way to use it. If Wikipedia is simply a mindless rehash of the news then does that not make it a glorified gossip blog? Where's the reason and the intelligence of a true researcher--when did mindless literal interpretation of a news paper article become gospel for an encyclopedia!?
-- Runels ( talk) 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles Runels, MD VampireFacelift.com
- As I said at Talk:Selphyl, Wikipedia must reflect the content of reliable sources ( WP:RS). The New York Times is a reliable source, while the press release you link to is not. We therefore follow the New York Times, even where we think it might be wrong. This is because, as our core policy WP:V says, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If you want your assertions to be reflected in Wikipedia, you need to provide a reliable source that supports them. Sandstein 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, here's an article showing one of MANY physicians who use something other than Selphyl for the Vampire Facelift (TM) (in this case Harvest Technologies method of making PRP). It is NOT Selphyl ≈ Vampire Facelift (TM). Selphyl ≠ Vampire Facelift.
Vampire Facelift (TM) refers to using blood-derived growth factors along with Juvaderm in specifically defined ways to rejuvenate the face. The name was NEVER published prior to it's use by me (Charles Runels, MD). Others like the name and continue to use it but it has been trademarked. If you shoot PRP from Selphyl in someone's left nostril, by your definition, that's the Vampire Facelift--that's not the idea.
The idea and the definition by research and proven by the US Patent and Trademark office is that the name means what the originator of the name decided. Otherwise you could put sugar and dye in bubble water and call it Coke.
I offer the link above (where a doctor NOT using Selphyl) advertises the Vampire Facelift (TM).
There should be a separate article about the Vampire Facelift--that recognizes the FACT that I thought of the name, defined the procedure, own the name (also verified by the NY TIMES). I could "like" the name Coke but I could not redefine the recipe.
The reporter was only partly correct in saying that I liked the name the Vampire Facelift so much that I trademarked it--her implied meaning was wrong--I did not hear it an like it--I thought it up and liked it, then I spent months on-line nurturing the viral spread of the name that I put years of marketing experience into conceiving--that's how a trademark works--you get to trademark it if you think of it first.
This automatic referral to the Selphyl site is erroneous. The link to Selphyl without even mentioning the originator of the name Vampire Facelift on the Selphyl site and to not recognize the name VFL refers to a specific way of using PRP from any reliable source is erroneous and should not stand.
And yes I have a stake in the name, but so does Harvest Medical, and so does every person who reads something about the Vampire Facelift and gets mislead into going to see someone who has Selphyl in the office but may not know the best way to use it. If Wikipedia is simply a mindless rehash of the news then does that not make it a glorified gossip blog? Where's the reason and the intelligence of a true researcher--when did mindless literal interpretation of a news paper article become gospel for an encyclopedia!?
-- Runels ( talk) 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles Runels, MD VampireFacelift.com
- As I said at Talk:Selphyl, Wikipedia must reflect the content of reliable sources ( WP:RS). The New York Times is a reliable source, while the press release you link to is not. We therefore follow the New York Times, even where we think it might be wrong. This is because, as our core policy WP:V says, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If you want your assertions to be reflected in Wikipedia, you need to provide a reliable source that supports them. Sandstein 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)