Talk:Scarguard

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... The Wikipedia page on Scarguard provides crucial and critical research information using independently-researched science by some of the leading experts in the scientific and medical community. These scientists are researchers at Universities such as Ohio Northern and NYU and are some of the leading experts in the field Dermatology and Plastic Surgery in the United States. There is nothing promotional on the page. It is purely factual. If Wikipedia deletes the page, they are being highly hypocritical because Wikipedia are publishing a page on Mederma and other skin care product companies and products which do not have any real scientific base. Therefore deleting the page would show bias. Mederma is a product that has no real science, is marketed by the Merz Group and is highly promotional. Go and read its Wikipedia page. Mederma is based on onion extract that has no effect on scars - it just temporarily shines the skin. The Wikipedia referenced research on Mederma is not independent, it was paid for. It is important for the public to learn about the bio-mechanical nano-film technology that Scarguard uses and its occlusive nature, as this is becoming the state-of-the-art technology for delivering drugs percutaneously, not just for scars but for psoriasis, eczema and many other chronic diseases. There are literally hundreds of papers that have been written on the benefit of occlusion in the treatment of scars and if you want I will add those papers to the page. The point of publishing the page on Scarguard is clearly to identify to the public some real and independently-researched science that actually does have an effect of scar treatment and to counter the fake science being proliferated on Wikipedia such as that published on Mederma and other similar homeopathic products. It is sad to note that the editor who might have been trying to delete this page has only done cursory due diligence rather than investigate the science of the technology. The bio-mechanical integration of the Scarguard nano-film technology with the skin, among other things, down-regulates inflammatory cytokines. Its bio-mechanical attachment to the skin allows the continuous treatment over a longer period of time and its invisibility has been proven to provide greater compliance in the treatment of scars and psoriasis - where compliance is critical. --Doctorplastic (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Other stuff exists. Scarguard may not have an article just because Mederma has an article. That said, Merderma's article is written from neutral tone. The tone of this article leans toward advertising. What I'm not sure is whether the article is salvageable and can be rewritten to fix the tone, or if it needs deleted to start from scratch. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * C.Fred Citation issues have been cleaned up and are better formatted. The page is much more scientifically focused. - trendetter99

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... The Wikipedia page on Scarguard technology is written from an entirely neutral point of view and is encyclopedic. It provides crucial and critical research information using independently-researched science by some of the leading experts in the scientific, medical dermatologic and scientific community. These scientists are researchers at Universities such as Ohio Northern University and NYU amongst others. There is nothing promotional on the page. It is purely factual.

In contrast, Wikipedia are being highly hypocritical. Wikipedia are publishing a highly promotional page on Mederma which does not have any real scientific base. Mederma is a product that has no real science, is marketed by the Merz Group and is highly promotional. Go and read its Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mederma. Mederma is based on onion extract that has no effect on scars - it just temporarily shines the skin. The Wikipedia referenced research on Mederma is not independent, it was paid for.

The bio-mechanical nano-film technology that Scarguard has developed with its occlusive nature is revolutionizing medicine. This is becoming the state-of-the-art technology for delivering drugs percutaneously, not just for scars but for psoriasis, eczema and many other chronic diseases. There are literally hundreds of papers that have been written on the benefit of occlusion in the treatment of scars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorplastic (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to comment on the speedy deletion nomination (although it is the second one that this page has had, after it was deleted a small while ago due to the first), but how exactly is the Mederma page promotional? Pretty much every other sentence has a reference, and two of the three scar tissue trials it talks about were negative. Surely, if anything, thats demotional (rather than promotional)? Looking at the "effectiveness" section (the longest section) on this page, there seem to be no references at all. Most of the text seems to be gushing about the mechanism of the product, rather than the effectiveness. (not so) surprisingly, there is absolutely nothing negative on this page. The writer seems to express adoration for the product, instead of a detached point of view. I notice that you nominated the mderma page for speedy deletion. I dont think this should happen, and so I will remove the tag. Benboy00 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also like to say that I looked at the references for both articles. I could not access the full text of the studies, so I looked at the methods and abstract. The Mederma page had a brilliant example of a well done trial. They had double blinding, a good control, and a pretty clever idea (treating the halves of the scars with different things). I also had a look at the "trials" for this page. Of the 6 linked articles, only 2 actually looked at scarguard. Of these 2, 1 looked at how scarguard affected "collegenase levels", but did not examine clinical results (i.e. does this stuff actually reduce scarring etc). The other compared scarguard against no treatement. Can you see why this might not be the best study to do? Benboy00 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues

 * Medical claims need secondary sources.
 * References need to comment on the topic in question. This one doesn't and yes I have looked at the full text.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)