Talk:Closed system drug transfer device

Neutrality flag

i am writing this in response to the neutrality flag that has been attached to the closed system drug transfer device page. Firstly i would like to commend the author/authors of this article. I work in this industry and it is nice to finally see a wikipedia page explaining what these drug transfer devices are.

I can see how this article would get flagged for neutrality when it mentions only one of the closed system drug transfer devices that are commercially available by name. But this was what really happened, as when the NIOSH alert was published, PhaSeal was the only type of system you could get of its kind.

The other place where this article could be seen as being biased is the last sentence before the references. I see that the page they have tried to link to has been removed. my vote is that if this last sentence was removed, then there would be no more issues of neutrality.

Otherwise this article is pretty accurate factually if you ask me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 07:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

New entry from another reader: To me, this piece appears to be quite without bias. It's rather matter-of-factly written, and I see no apparent or hidden attempts to disapprove of other methods or techniques. General opinion: OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.26.39 (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This article, I feel, is written in a straight-forward, unbiased perspective that neither persuades or dissuades the reader regarding the subject matter. 98.27.17.179 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)by Linda P, Utah USA

Are you all first time editors, none of you seem to have any edits other than to this page? No offence but I tagged the article because I was looking for a more experienced editor than myself with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies to assess it.Cassandra 73 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this even notable? The refs don't really support notability, and I can't find anything in Google News. There are some hits on Google Scholar. Rees11 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Google Scholar hits would confirm notability. This isn't a BLP or a pop culture subject so I think those kinds of sources would hold more weight than a news article anyway. I've also managed to verify some of the claims made in the article using the cited NIOSH reference (which is available online, I've linked to it now). -- Atama頭 01:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

i dont see this page being written anymore or any less 'non-encyclopedic' than many others so i took away that tag. what they are saying in my opinion is fact... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

hey lets no get to excited here on what is or what isn't considered a promotion. if it is part of the history of what when on, then thats gotta be a fact, right? otherwise aren't the coke and vespa pages on wikipedia promotional as well? or is someone going to explain the rules for me better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 11:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have added links to relevant policies to the user's talk page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a template:welcome so he won't feel we're picking on him. Rees11 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

COI

This article is being discussed at the COI Noticeboard. Rees11 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following two paragraphs. I would like some discussion here before they are added back in, per wp:coi. Rees11 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some studies have tested the effectiveness of the various drug transfer devices in relation to the NIOSH and ISOPP definitional guidelines.

In all of these scientific studies only the PhaSeal system met the definitional requirements to be termed a closed system drug transfer device. This is because the other products use either filtered or vented systems, which by definition cannot be airtight.

I agree that it is best to keep this out of the article considering the COI problems, if in the future another editor (who isn't a single purpose account) comes along and things that it should be included then so be it. At the moment I'm not liking the fact that this article was created almost solely to promote one system as the best. Smartse (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the silver lining. However the article came about, this has some good potential. We really need some knowledgeable, uninvolved editors who can tell what's legitimate and what isn't. I'm no pharmacist. -- Atama頭 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

True, that's basically the point I was making. Smartse (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree that in order to be seen as not being biased, someone else should edit this page, but for me there are now to things wrong with it- the first caused by me and the second by rees11 who edited out a few sentences. the first thing that needs to be changed is this: There are currently five commercially available drug transfer devices. this is incorrect, as there are actually more than five, so what i would like it to say is this, 'Of the all the numerous manufacturers of drug transfer devices there are five main competitors'. pretty harmless the second thing that needs changing is this: These are the Chemoprotect Spike by Codan, Tevadaptor by Teva Medical Ltd, Alaris Smart Site by Cardinal Health, Chemo MiniSpike dispensing pin by B.Braun Medical Inc., and PhaSeal by Carmel Pharma. this sentence is incorrect due the edit made by rees11, because by the definiton set by NIOSH and ISOPP, PhaSeal is NOT a DRUG TRANSFER DEVICE but is a CLOSED SYSTEM DRUG TRANSFER DEVICE. this is the point that needs to be stressed. the other competitors cannot and do not meet the definitonal requirements of a closed system drug transfer device, and this is the research that proves this statement. the NIOSH definiton of what constitutes a closed system drug transfer device is found on page 44 (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2004-165), it says that in order for a device to be called this it needs to prevent the escape of hazardous drug or vapour... the ISOPP definition (J Oncol Pharm Practice (2007)Volume 13) on page 29 states that if a device claims to prevent chemical contamination (which Phaseal does) during drug administration then the term used is containment device which is a leakproof, airtight device. so there are the defintions we are working with. to support one of these products claims to be a closed system drug transfer device, then that device needs to have some scientific proof to back that up. if any of the editors watching this page goes to the website of the five products named, the only peer reviewed, published scientific articles (which act as the proof) to be found are associated with phaseal. this is because there are no peer reviewed published scientific articles that say that the others are a closed system drug transfer device, and this is because they are not that even though their marketing departments claim that they are. so for all the non experts out there (and trust me i am also one of those) the easiest way to know if a product meets the airtight/leakproof requirements to be called a closed system drug transfer device is to watch the Utah Protocol on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm5Q1qN9L8o&feature=related is the long version with commentary and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kVtLA8aqo4 is the edited version. the utah protocol was an independant, peer reviewed published scientific study conducted by James Jorgenson who is a micheal jordan of the oncology pharmacy business. so what i am saying is this: all the five competitors are drug transfer devices, but only phaseal is a closed system drug transfer device because it is the only one with scientific proof to back up this claim according to the definitons set by NIOSH and ISOPP. so when rees11 edited out what he did, he made what is left not correct. this needs to be changed. i am asking you to reinsert what you edited so i am not favouring the phaseal system because its my job to, i am just trying to get across the facts of this subject. and in this industry you need to be dead on correct in what you are saying. in response to cameron scott who commented on the fact that a poster session is not a reliable source; this is how the system works when it comes to scientific accountability the gold medal is the independant, peer reviewed published articles in scientific publications. the fact that it gets published in the first place means that it has been reviewed by others working in that particular field, and the thing is that these peers who do review the work are anonymous (to stop conflicts of interest)so when you question my 'peer reviewed' statement the fact is that only the editor of the publication knows who that is. the silver medal for scientific accountibility is the poster sessions. this is because out of 1000 studies written, perhaps thirty become independant, peer reviewed published articles (thats why that standard gets the gold) of whats left, maybe 200 or so get shown in these poster sessions, which is an attachment to a medical conference where the hardcore edited elements of the study are presented. then they run seminars about whatever is on these posters, so say between 10 and 11am poster numbers 100-130 are discussed. this gives the authors of the studies of the posters two minutes to explain to everyone what they did. everybody accepts that this is a genuine study legitimisation process. its not as good as the peer reviewed published studies, but it is accepted as being a silver medal effort. the bronze medal goes to inhouse studies and generally get rubbished by the community if they are used as reference articles so it would be good to undo that edit as well, but its to late and i will need to do that manually now i know a tiny tiny bit about how wikipedia works, i agree that our other page, the phaseal concept page, should have been taken down as being a promotion. sorry about that one guys. but on this topic, phaseal does not consider wikipedia as one of our marketing tools and not a penny from our marketing budget has been or ever will be assigned to wikipedia. in reality, i will be surprised if more than five people a month read it. the reason behind our desire for a closed system drug transfer page is to have a place within a respected site where the facts about what does and does not constitute a closed system drug transfer device can be displayed. brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.236.130 (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could summarize what you just said in a sentence or two? Rees11 (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ok rees11, i will try. when you edited the last bit that you did, you made the article wrong. now the article says that phaseal and our competitors are drug transfer systems. the competitors are, but phaseal is not. phaseal is a closed system drug transfer device. what i wrote explains why, and where to get the information that proves it. we need you to put that back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.236.130 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't put it back in, that would be drawing a conclusion based on primary sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). If you feel the remaining paragraph is wrong, it should be removed, since it is unsourced. Rees11 (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ok so what do i have to do to get that reinstated?????? you removed it because you wanted a discussion started about it. i started the discussion and told you why you should put it back. and now you are telling me that you cant because you got the information from me????? is this what really is happening even though what i said and what you took away was facts that had be referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty determining the reliability of James A. Jorgenson as a reference. On the one hand, he seems to have good credentials as a pharmacist and scholar. On the other hand, he is frequently cited[1][2] in testimonials by the company, which makes me wonder about his impartiality. (I once worked for a medical software company and we had doctors who were customers and became unofficial "spokespersons" for our company.) -- Atama頭 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will defer to Atama on this. If it goes back in I'd like to find a less promotional wording. Rees11 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

hey atama,

you say that there is a problem with citing references that appear on our companies website. what company doesnt have relevant press releases, news items or in our case scientific studies relating to their business linked to their website? this is a fact of all companies who have an internet profile.

another fact is that these studies appear elsewhere (in credible scientific journals) before they get to our website. and if you look carefully, on the wikipedia page, no references are linked back to our website. in my learning about wikipedia i realise that this is a no-no, and so when i didnt know any better and did that, it was deleted and rightly so.

when you say that it would be ludicrous to take these published scientific studies as 'factual', does this mean that the publications that they first appeared in have no credibility either? as i said before, yes they do appear on our company website (just lik all other companies have) and i see this as a storing place for them, seen as how they are about us.

we are not trying to get wikipedia to host another phaseal website. we are trying to get across to anyone who is interested that there is a difference between what is a closed system drug transfer device and what is not. it just so happens that according to the definitions, phaseal is and our competitors arent which is backed by the scientific studies.

then you say that you are having trouble determining the reliability of Jorgenson. he is such a high player in this industry that his position and his reputation demand that he remains impartial. i only reference him because out of all the scientific studies relating to the performance of the phaseal system, he was the guy who did the studies comparing phaseal to the competitors. we have others where he is not the lead author/scientist, but he is associated with all the comparison studies. i wish it was different, but it isnt. this is/was his interest, and his findings were so conclusive that there was no need for anyone else to replicate them.

so i am asking you once again to ok what we want to put up on the page. it will be impartial because we are going to mention the competitors. it will be factual because the scientific studies have proved what we want to say, which is that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer system to meet the leakproof and airtight requirements of the NIOSH and the ISOPP definitions. and it will be referenced to the original sources of the information e.g. the original scientific journals that they were first published in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any particular knowledge of this subject, but it seems to me that a study of whether these products meet these definitions would only be relevant to this article if all of the products tested claim to meet the definitions they're being tested against. We need to be very careful about suggesting that any firms might be making false claims about their products. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

hey cassandra,

thats the whole point of this article. the competitors i mentioned (who have been removed) all claim to be a closed system drug transfer device but they are not. they have never passed any rigourous scientific testing required to be called a closed system drug transfer device according to the definitions. that is the point i am trying to make, and thats why its important that this information gets put onto the wikipedia page.

there are products out their that are marketed as a CSDTD but are not. so when you say that we need to be careful about suggesting that any firms might be making false claims about their product, the reality is that they do it all the time. we are hoping that wikipedia can be the platform where the facts are quickly and easily publicly available. once again i know the facts are on my side, and i have the science to back it up.

and when you say that a study of whether these products meet these definitions would only be relevant to this article if all of the products tested claim to meet the definitions they're being tested against...it is relevant precisly because of the opposite of what you said...that is, its relevant to mention these studies because all the phaseal competitors who call themselves CSDTD don't meet the definitional requirements... and once again i have the science in my corner on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"we are hoping that wikipedia can be the platform where the facts are quickly and easily publicly available." - I'm sorry, but it can't be. Wikipedia is not a platform for any sort of original information. Such info must first be published somewhere other than Wikipedia, per our "no original research" policy. This is a pretty solid requirement and one of the fundamentals of the project. We can't be a primary or secondary source for such information, we are a tertiary source only. This is one of the reasons why conflicts of interest are such a concern for the community here, often editors who have such conflicts are not here to build an encyclopedia, but for some other purpose. You can't publish information on this encyclopedia to be a presenter of information, so that you can later point to it and say "well, Wikipedia says so". It doesn't work that way. -- Atama頭 19:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was questioning whether they claimed to meet those specific definitions, as there are probably other definitions around - NIOSH is a US organisation and Wikipedia is aimed at a worldwide audience, so other countries' definitions would also be relevant to a Wikipedia article.

However I just found this: http://www.bbraunusa.com/images/bbraun_usa/OnGuard_TEVADAPTOR_white_paper.pdf. At least one of your competitors is claiming to have evidence that they meet the NIOSH definition.

I imagine you're probably familiar with their claims and disagree with them but as Atama says Wikipedia is not a forum for original research (see WP:OR, which includes unpublished syntheses of published sources, so it would be inappropriate to analyse various companies' claims and studies to draw a conclusion on whose claims are true and whose are not for the purposes of this article. However, in the interests of neutrality, I think if we are going to give any coverage to your claims we need to cover your competitors' for balance, particularly if we are going to mention them by name.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you are not just looking to promote your product but to denigrate your competitors, which is concerning because anything that appears in a Wikipedia article represents Wikipedia, not specifically the author. Neutrality is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, this is compromised if it appears to be taking sides in a debate about whose product is the best. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source stating that the competitors' products clearly do not meet the definition of a closed system drug transfer device. If we have a definition from NIOSH, and conclude ourselves based on that definition that the other systems don't qualify, that is called synthesis, which means taking information from sources and drawing conclusions that aren't mentioned in sources. In other words, if we have a source that says A, and a source that says B, we can't say that A+B=C. We need a third source that says C. When proposing language that might cause harm to a person or organization we need to be especially careful. -- Atama頭 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Atama, I think this is what Brendan claims the Jorgenson study is saying, I'd be interested to know whether you agree? For me, even if we do have a source that says C we should still counterbalance it by covering the contradictory evidence. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the report. It turns out that Pharmacy Europe makes all of their publications available on their web site if you register (for free, luckily). I did so, and read the report. Jorgenson says, "Only one system tested, the PhaSeal system by Carmel Pharma, met the NIOSH and ISOPP definition of "closed"." But here's the thing, the article is a response to a previous article written in that journal, an article written by Teva Medical Devices that claims something different, it claims that the Teva device does work. Now, Jorgenson makes a very compelling argument (with pictures!) and also rightly points out that the previous article was sponsored. But this illustrates that there has been cherry-picking of sources. There is a wider controversy about what systems satisfy the definitions at NIOSH and ISOPP and to only show PhaSeal's side of things would be a mistake, not to mention a violation of WP:NPOV. I don't know that there wasn't a response to the response that says that Jorgenson's study neglected to include another product, or that a release of titanium tetrachloride particles can't be proven, or that the release of the particles doesn't technically invalidate the definitions, etc. This is why I'd really like input from a neutral expert. While I'm certainly neutral, I have no training in the field of pharmacy. But we need to be careful to give the full story. -- Atama頭 22:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! That picture looks familiar, I'm sure it was in their other two articles that got deleted. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

These two companies are at war! PhaSeal are trying to trying to get Tevadaptor’s FDA approval as a closed system device revoked. [3][4][5][6]That probably explains why both sides have commissioned studies. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

hey guys,

let me start by replying to the comments that have been posted here since my last entry...

firstly, i am not trying to and do not want to add anything that is new. what i want to add has already been published within scientific journals, and no the part where i can say 'well, wikipedia says so..' doesnt apply to me. i want to get the facts out as they are as simply and as easily understood as i can. and you are right when you say that NIOSH is an american organisation with rules for america, but ISOPP is the international governing body and they also have their own, more strict definitions....

the link that you provided for the information claiming that the tevadaptor is claiming to be a CSDTD is an inhouse study. bbraunusa are the manufacturers of the tevadaptor. this is the same as mcdonalds doing a mcdonalds study that verifies that bigmacs are healthy for you. you can tell because easy research confirms that they are the manufacturers, and that they source 'teva data on file' as one of their references, which is ridiculed in the scientific community. it would have claim to validity if it was published as an independant peer reviewed piece of research, but its not so its pretty much worthless when it comes to scientifically claiming that their system is a CSDTD. and this is not a COI, its a fact. the reason why it is not a peer reviewed published article is because any rigourous scientific research on the tevadaptor would discredit this claim. i will take extreme notice if you find anything that saysd the same thing is a reputable science journal.

i would be very happy to mention the competitors in this article. it would be awesome to write about their claims that they are also a CSDTD and to be able to reference them with a peer reviewed published article, but you couldnt do that because they dont exist. that is a fact in itself, and i have a several scientific articles which say that, but according to you editors, this would violate some wikipedia neutrality rule and so it is not allowed. even though it is a published fact. i am quite happy for you to edit in, say 'tevadaptor is also a CSDTD based on this reference' so i have no issue against mentioning our competitors. in fact i would like to do this but because there are no scientific claims to back them up then it becomes a NPOV issue, even though i have the scientific studies which actually say this, which in itself is not allowed due to a COI issue. even though, once again, both points are fact which i can reference.

i am thinking that you would still edit out the information we want to insert even if there was a reliable, neutral source on this subject. the issue of synthesis which you mention does not apply here because i and we are not making the conclusions ourselves. other reliable sources have done that already, and have had their papers published in the relevant medical journals, which i can reference. i have source a, who says point b, which is agreed to by person c. this has already been done. and as cassandra points out, this is what i have been saying all along....

atama, i want to thank you for your diligent research. you are making my big boss happy, and if you are making my big boss happy for me, thank a big thanks to you. the article you read in the pharmacy europe magazine is a reply to the critique of the utha protocol. i have provided the link to the utah protocol on youtube before. the teva article is saying that jorgenson used dodgy science to achieve his results. they contend that he should have used the titanium tetrachloride direct from the syringe, and by doing so the tevadaptor would not have blown somoke outside of the vial. this is true, because the filter system the tevadaptor uses is 0.2 measurements, and the smoke particles are larger than that (so they would get trapped by the filter) but the NIOSH definitions that jorgenson was measuring say 'escaping drug vapours' not escaping smoke particles. the drug vapours, which is the term the NIOSH definitíon uses, are smaller than the 0.2 measurements, and so the product is not airtight. you can see the somke outside the vial... the article i referenced is jorgenson pointing this out. jorgensons original study used five different products. there was no release titanuim tetrachloride particles- it was the escaping drug vapours which cause the smoke outside of the vial. the smopke outside the vials definiatly violates the definitons...

and yes cassandra, that picture was in on of our other articles that got deleted. a nd yes these two companies are at war, like mcdonalds is at war with burger king. it just goes to show how seriously carmel pharma takes our competitors who claim to be things that they are not...

so in conclusion, if i can persuade someone from the wikipedia pharmacy branch to come and check out this site, and if he/she says that yes phaseal is the only clinically proven CSDTD, can we reinstate our text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We could include claims that each manufacturer makes, as long as we can source those claims and make it clear where the sources come from. For example, if we included the Tevadaptor claim it should be stressed that the study was in-house and disputed (as you said above). My concern is that I don't want this to be an article about PhaSeal, or any particular product. Any info about manufacturers should be kept brief. To keep with your example, hamburger doesn't spend half of the article talking about McDonald's (though it is mentioned numerous times). I would very much welcome the opinion of someone from the pharmacy WikiProject. -- Atama頭 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I just went to ISOPP's website to check if they are a governing body as stated, and look who's top of the list of their sponsors! [7] And I didn't find anything there to suggest they are a governing body, if they were they wouldn't be allowed to be sponsored by private sector companies. And James A. Jorgenson, the man behind this study, is on Carmel Pharma's advisory board [8] (P4).

So we are being asked to include evidence, from a study conducted by someone on Phaseal's advisory board, that Phaseal is the only true closed system drug transfer device in the world (Wikipedia is written for a worldwide audience) because it's the only (and that's disputed) one that meets NIOSH's non-regulatory [9] US definition, and another definition from an international organisation who are sponsored by Phaseal. Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, Tevadaptor is the third one down in the list of sponsors. So if there's any suggestion that ISOPP's strings are being pulled in favor of PhaSeal on this issue, the same claim could be made for their competitor. I just thought I'd point that out.

On the other hand, I think that we can probably rule out Jorgenson as a reliable source, since even in that Hospital Pharmacy article he and Susan Spivey (who I remember being used as a source earlier) are "acknowledged" to be affiliated with PhaSeal. -- Atama頭 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that the sponsorship means that PhaSeal are exerting influence over ISOPP, but they can't be assumed to be independent either if they accept sponsorship. Cassandra 73 (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

hello folks,

cassandra, i also want to thank you for your efforts here, even if you are beginning to sound a bit hostile and a bit non neutral as well... ISOPP is the international governing body as they formulate the standards that everyone follows. there is no law saying that companies should, but they do because they are the peak pharmacist body in the world. just because you didn't find that they are doesn't mean that they are not... Carmel Pharma does not have an advisory board anymore, and hasnt had one for a while. while both Jorgenson and Spivey were once on this board, they have long since left, and neither of them are on the carmel pharma payroll. but instead of seeing the 'biasness' i would ask you to look at the science. it wouldn't matter if dr. jorgenson was the ceo of carmel pharma, if the scientific experiments weren't valid, his peers would not have said so. the fact that they did agree with his scientific findings is mirrored in the fact that he has had them published. everybody here must give more weight to the science behind CSDTD rather than trying to higlight how 'bias' this article does or does not seem to be. so yes you are being asked to allow scientifically proven facts, conducted by an esteemed scientist (who was a member of phaseal advisory board) whose percieved biasness has been over ridden by the precise nature of his experiments, which has proven that the phaseal system is the only CSDTD which is disputed within the MARKETING of the product but not the science behind the product to meet the NIOSH and ISOPP (the two peak regulatory/advisory organisations in the world), one of which is sponsered by us.... when you leave it to atama to supply the fairness by saying that teva and all our other competitors also sponsor ISOPP, you lose NPOV credibility... who knows, maybe you work for one of phaseals competitors?

so once again thank you atama.

please everyone focus on the science behind the CSDTD claims, because that is not biased regardless of who wrote it, because it has been independantly reviewed by other highly regarded pharmacists, and they have found it to be sound because these studies have been published in peer reviewed medical journals.

yes, ISOPP accepts sponsorship from all the main competitors. if they were not independant of us all, then their organisation would lose credibility overnight. they accept sponsorship from teva, but they will never endorse teva as a closed system drug transfer device because they dont have the science to prove that they are....no matter how much money teva gives them. brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want this to descend into any unpleasantness, but I can't really ignore what you've said there:

• I don't work for your competitors, and I didn't know what a closed system drug transfer device was until I came across one of your articles when I was patrolling new pages.
• NPOV is a requirement for the text of Wikipedia articles, I can express my opinion (on matters related to the actual article) on the talk page.
• As for "hostile", don't take any of this as being anything against you or your company in particular. I do a lot of this kind of thing, ie taking action where I feel companies are attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes (which I know you deny).

OK that's the personal bit answered, now back to the issue.

• Re "please everyone focus on the science behind the CSDTD claims", that sounds like you're asking us to weigh up the claims and determine which is the most credible, which as I've said before is synthesis.
• Here is a good example of how contradicting studies are covered in a Wikipedia article: Criticism of Wikipedia#Comparative study on scientific articles conducted by Nature. You can see it reports both sides of the argument, giving them equal coverage and not implying any conclusions - if there is controversy about something, it is covered in the context of it being a controversy. It also keeps it fairly brief and does not go into great detail on the technicalities as Wikipedia is aimed at the general reader, for example it says "Nature...have published a point-by-point response to Britannica's specific objections" but it doesn't list them.

Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

hey people,

there is now no more time for me to devote to this page in work hours until next year, if i am going to continue then it will be in my own time, which means that it is going to remain a very low priority... but i will be back next year to further the cause in getting what we want mentioned on this page.

cassandra, i do and i dont have issues with synthesis. yes i have an issue with it trying to convince you the editors to put what it verifiable fact onto the page. the no part is that i already have the evidence that A did experiment B which was pronounced valid by person C, which is far as i know is not synthesis.

i will stand by my claims that the science behind the phaseal CSDTD is sound, and that there are no other independant peer reviewed published articles for any of the other competitors. and this is what we are trying to work out how to say so that everyone here is happy...

so to all the editors of this page, i say thank you for your time and effort, have a merry christmas and i will be back to further the cause sometime in the first three months of next year.... brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.236.130 (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Brendan, and a Merry Christmas to you as well! I'll look forward to your return. -- Atama頭 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

hey we are back!!! there has been a new independant published study regarding which device can be called a closed system drug transfer device. this article is called medical devices for safe handling of cytotoxic drugs and appeared in the European Journal of Oncology Pharmacy, volume 4, 2010/1 page 17. I dont know if you can read it on their website www.esop.eu or not because this article arrived in my inbox.... the highlight of this article is the paragraph entitled devices called in practice 'closed systems' and the author at the conclusion of this paragraph says this: 'the tevadaptor cannot be considered, or recommended, as a closed system device' based on this article, is it now possible to name all the drug transfer devices on the market in this wikipedia closed system drug transfer device page, and say this sentence, as well as highlight that the PhaSeal system is the only proven closed system, like i wanted to do before???

i hope you all had a great christmas and are continuing to do great work editing these pages...

brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.236.130 (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

References