Talk:Blood-spinning

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

Possible references

Based on a quick internet search, here's some possible references that editors may wish to use:

I'm sure there are many more. Mind matrix 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/verifiability issues

This article is extremely biased and lacks verifiability.

It implies that PRP is a known effective treatment, promoting healing at a rate "as much as five times faster." No unbiased or scientific sources are cited at all to support this claim, only newspaper articles.

Meanwhile, surveys of literature, such as this one, say "There is uncertainty about the evidence to support the increasing clinical use of platelet-rich plasma and autologous blood concentrates as a treatment modality for orthopaedic bone and soft-tissue injuries."

In addition, the lifting of the WADA ban, as mentioned, happened because of the same lack of evidence. From the Mirror source: "WADA banned intramuscular PRP injections in competitive athletes in 2010 but this was removed in 2011 because of limited evidence for a systemic ergogenic effect of PRP, but the growth factors within PRP remain prohibited." A reader of this Wikipedia entry might infer that WADA lifted the ban because of the supposed "calls to legitimize the practice," but that is entirely false and appears deliberately misleading.

This article is also biased towards the idea that blood-spinning should be a permitted practice. It does mention that it is controversial, but presents only the side that wants to legitimize the practice. Even that claim is extremely poor. The word "scientists" (what scientists??) is a weasel word, and no such scientists are identified. The argument that PRP doesn't improve performance, only recovery time, is completely groundless because that is already an acceptable reason to ban a substance. Anabolic steroids, for example, also do not improve performance, only recovery time, via increased production of proteins and decreased muscle catabolism. Reduced recovery time allows an athlete to train more than they would have otherwise, which leads to increased performance, and therein lies the unfair advantage.

96.241.147.29 (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to improve the neutrality of this article and have added some sources. That said, I am not a medical professional and am therefore limited in what I can access and understand (in terms of sources), so there are likely still some issues to iron out. SwedishRussian (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]