Talk:Platelet-rich fibrin matrix

Use of "vampire facelift"

The procedure that is described in this article is also called "vampire facelift" ([1]). This has been repeatedly removed ([2], [3]) in the mistaken opinion that the mention of the name infringes on a trademark for the words "vampire facelift". However, that is not so; Wikipedia routinely mentions trademarks (without "TM", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)); doing so is not infringement. I'm asking for a third opinion about this.  Sandstein  22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Sandstein) There's been much confusion about Selphyl.

Even Aesthetic Factors does not use the name Vampire Faceflit (TM) to refer to their product. It's confusing to the media and reported many different ways, but Selphyl is a way of isolating platelets and then activating them to release growth factors.

If you pull up their old web site (using Alexa or any other too), they discussed filling the nasolabial folds and filling scars.

i was the first to use the name Vampire Facelift and trademarked it--this is a specific WAY of using PRFM from any source along with Juvederm to give a very striking overall lift to the face. The media incorrectly assumed that Selphyl meant Vampire Facelift--they do not and I see no reason why an encyclopedia of facts should propigate a misconception.

It's all very easily verified by looking at Vampire Facelift on at uspto.gov You can see that Aesthetic factors trademarked vampire facelift technologies AFTER I trademarked Vampire Facelift (in effort to retain an toe-hold on the name).

I'm recognized as owning the name in the New York Times article--but the writer erroneously said that I "liked it so much that I trademarked it." Nope--I thought it up, then I liked it so much I trademarked it, and lots of other people liked it so much that they continue to try to claim it.

If the words vampire facelift are used, then they should be used in the appropriate way and credit given and not used in such a way to propagate the error.

Thank you very much for asking for a third opinion. It's more than just the name--it's the idea that there are two parts to a procedure--there's the material used and what you do with that material

The news reporters have used the material interchangeably with the procedure. This is an understandable mistake, since people say--I'm going to get "Botox" which refers to material and to a procedure. But, you don't go to get hamburger meat when you go to get McDonalds--you go to get their way of preparing it.

An analogy here is that you don't go to get dye, you go to get a heart cath. You don't go to get acid, you go to get a facial peel.

If you go to get the Vampire Facelift, you go to get Juvederm and Selphyl used in a very specific way. My name went viral but is acknowledged at uspto.gov and on the index page of Selphyl.com. More at VampireFacelift.com and at ACCMA.memberlodge.org

Thank you very much for your consideration. Part of what I'm REQUIRED to do to keep a trademark is to police it's accurate use to keep in from becoming a generic name--otherwise I lose the mark and it becomes meaningless.

Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The problem is that Wikipedia's rules do not allow us to "correct media misconceptions". Our policy WP:V and WP:NOR restricts us to reporting only what reliable sources say, such as the New York Times. Any claim that contradicts reliable sources may only be mentioned if the counterclaim is itself covered in a reliable source. it appears that there is a trademark dispute between you and others about this, but it is not Wikipedia's job to take sides in this dispute, except to the extent that the dispute may be covered in reliable secondary sources. Per our manual of style, we do not highlight trademarks as such, so we cannot label "vampire facelift" with a "TM" mark or similar.  Sandstein  22:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: I'm with Sandstein on this. We're here to reflect what reliable sources say, so it belongs. And yes, the TM and such doesn't go either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And the NYTimes is a more reliable source than the US Patent and Trademark office?

Also, conceptually, a filler is not a procedure. It's propagating a wrong concept.

Even the Selphyl.com never uses the name Vampire Facelift and lists me (see very bottom of index page) as the owner of the name Vampire Facelift. So, the US Patent trademark office, and Aesthetic Factors (who actually market Selphyl) all take back seat to the "reliable" New York Times reporter?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The NYT and the US Patent and Trademark office do not conflict. The NYT says that the procedure is called the "vampire facelift". The USPTO says that you have a trademark on the words "vampire facelift" for a skin treatment. These statements are not incompatible. But your trademark is not a reason not to mention that it is, according to the NYT, also the name of the procedure. Or do I misunderstand you? What do you propose the article should say?  Sandstein  23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you for asking. I'm really trying not to be abrasive and it's hard to tell with the written word but my intention is not to self promote or to argue--just request accuracy. I'll tell you what I think is more accurate but fist an analogy:

If I report that the people at McDonalds are cooking hamburger, that would be accurate. But, to say that I'm cooking McDonald's just because I'm cooking hamburger is not. Selphyl is used by some to do the Vampire Facelift but so are other processes for making the PRFM. The reporter and others have made the mistake of equating everyone who cooks hamburgers (in this analogy, Selphyl) with making McDonalds (which it only becomes in this analogy if you add the sauce of juvederm and my way of injecting).

What the article could accurately say is that Aesthetic Factors was the first to promote in the US PRFM as a way to rejuvenate the face. But, that PRFM is also used to fill scars and in facial surgery to promote healing and was popularized by the procedure the Vampire Facelift (designed by Charles Runels, MD who combines the PRFM with Juvederm in a trademarked way).

If you read the times article carefully, she did add that part--that I was combining PRFM with Juvederm and trademarked the overall procedure the Vampire Facellift--it was equating the Selphyl with the Proceudure where it was a little off center.

Maybe that's not the best way to say it but that accurately distinguishes the material from the different ways it can be used. Parenthetically, many MD's doing the Vampire Facelift do not use Selphyl but use other processes for isolating and activating platelets. Does this sound reasonable? Since even Selphyl nods to me on their website to make note of the fact that there is a specific procedure (recipe that make use of their ingredients) I would hope that you guys could do the same thing. though I'm grateful to the news for their coverage, they have been less exact than are the facts.

There is NO trademark dispute--again, even Selphyl.com, credits me with the name Vampire Facelift, just as a a great manufacturer of cotton might brag that Calvin Klein uses their cotton in his shirts.

I'm a physician and not an editor of encyclopedias, and don't claim to know the best way to communicate all of this but figure that since you know the whole story now you'd know a good way.

More succinctly, if I say Selphyl is the Vampire Facelift (as did the reporter) that is inaccurate-which she was (as were many other reporters) until the last paragraph when she noted that the name refers to my use of PRFM combined with Juvederm.

But to say that hamburger is used to make McDonalds--that would be accurate and consistent with Selphyl.com and with the USPTO and with the overall accuracy and exact IDEAS behind both Selphyl and the Vampire Facelfit.

That is the true spirit of what I know you guys are going for here in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runels (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

peace,

CharlesRunels (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)--Runels (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)--Runels (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, here's the bottom line. All information on Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up by verifiable sources. We're not supposed to have any original content; it must all be attributable to a source. Here we have a NYTimes article that says that this procedure is also referred to as "vampire facelift". That's all that matters - source says it, we put it in the article. We're not going to challenge the NYTimes as a source (as it's absolutely reliable).

If you have the rights to the term "vampire facelift", good for you. That doesn't stop us from putting it in the Wikipedia article. If you have an issue with the NYT article, then contact them, not us - we only reflect what the article says. Quite honestly, your explanation of what you're "REQUIRED to do to keep a trademark" is starting to become worrisome to me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. You may very well be right in saying that the NYT oversimplifies or distorts certain issues. But as brutal as it sounds, Wikipedia does not care about what is "true" (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). We only repeat what reliable sources publish, and the NYT is one, so we write what they say. Even if there is an error in the NYT article, we may only deviate from it if another reliable source (a published medium with editorial oversight that is independent from anybody who has an interest in Selphyl) has already done so. My recommendation is that you look for such a source that explains these rather technical issues in more detail and make us aware of it. But so far all we have is the NYT article, and so we have to keep repeating what it says.

Thanks, though, for highlighting that the article's last paragraphs do deal with your trademark. They read:

"But Dr. Charles Runels, a cosmetic doctor in Fairhope, Ala., liked the term so much he trademarked it. Dr. Runels, who used to be a board-certified internist, said this was to standardize the offering so patients know what to expect. His vampire face-lift entails first volumizing the face with Juvéderm, a hyaluronic acid filler that lasts up to a year, then “using Selphyl to polish off under the eyes, and thinner-skin areas,” he said.

Now any doctors who want to promote the vampire face-lift must pay Dr. Runels $47 a month to follow his protocol, posted online. (So far, 10 have signed up.) Asked what he intends to do about all the doctors already using vampire face-lifts, he said, “I don’t know how I’m going to rein it back in but I will.” Maybe Dracula could help."

What do you think about this proposal that should satisfy your concerns: We re-add

"... and also known as the vampire filler or vampire facelift"

and then at the end of the second paragraph:

"... before being injected back under the patient's facial skin. It can also be combined with other fillers such as Juvéderm, and a procedure using this combination has been trademarked as "vampire facelift"."

What do you think about this? We can do that because it uses the NYT article as a source.  Sandstein  06:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of those sound fine by me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. I'm grateful for the addition.

I'm not so concerned about "infringement"--that does sound like policing. It's more about accuracy--every hamburger is not McDonalds and every person using Selphyl is NOT doing the vampire facelift.

• • • The article would be MOST accurate if it read ...also known as the "vampire filler." (leaving off the or "vampire facelift." then the other paragraph to read exactly as written in your last suggestion.

I'm not even so much into you crediting me with the procedure (even though you could also do that and be using the NY times as the source).

But, making those changes would be exactly in line with the definitions of every term used in the article.

Thank you very very much for helping with this confusion. Patients do look to you as a reliable source. By making the distinction it keeps it plain to them that there's more than one way to use Selphyl and PRP and that every hamburger is not a McDonalds

Peace & health,

Charles --Runels (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)