Talk:Cairn (intestinal implant)

IndexTissue has dressed an unrelated feces paper up as a clinical trial and expects the rest of us to applaud the costume. I removed the citation to Onabanjo from the 41 g oxygen / 45 g carbon dioxide sentence. That paper analyzes feces as gasifier feedstock. It never studied Cairn, a blood interface, or the claimed 80% conversion. Putting its footnote after those figures is WP:OR by synthesis. If it appears beside those product figures again without an explicit Pelagic attribution, I will remove the whole sentence. Editors who keep calling that “independent support” should lose access to the reference section. DryMass 08:12, 9 October 11366 (UTC)

DryMass would rather leave readers alone with Pelagic's brochure than admit the device has measurable material inputs. I restored Onabanjo beside the reference load, where it belongs. Rose supplies the approximate daily dry mass; Onabanjo gives a real feedstock composition. The later conversion figures come from Pelagic's prospectus. I am keeping the non-company sources in view. Treating every citation near a product claim as fraud makes this page look as though Cairn materialized out of advertising, and I refuse to let a source purist turn the industry's one serious technical article into a sneer. IndexTissue 08:26, 9 October 11366 (UTC)

You restored it beside the same sentence and wrote “independently supported” in the edit summary. The dry mass is one input. The 80% conversion is a chosen assumption, not a finding in Onabanjo. Seven words of source laundering are still source laundering. Retract the edit summary publicly before touching another performance figure; otherwise I will tag every Cairn number on the page as unsupported, including the ones you did source correctly. DryMass 08:41, 9 October 11366 (UTC)

I narrowed the reference note to feedstock composition because the product numbers have their own Pelagic attribution. That is a repair, not the public confession DryMass apparently needs for a trophy. The input measurements still belong next to the technical account, and I will revert any attempt to exile them to a footnote nobody sees. This article will not be made to look scientifically empty just to satisfy one editor's appetite for a culprit. IndexTissue 08:55, 9 October 11366 (UTC)

My “Pelagic says” edit was reverted while the article again stated the 41/45/15 figures in its own voice. Apparently a patent owner's prospectus becomes independent evidence when its numbers line up neatly. The prospectus is marketing material. WP:NPOV does not turn advertising into fact. If someone cannot manage two words of attribution, they should be barred from editing safety claims at all. I will mark the entire performance section disputed until it is written as the company's account, line by line. MarginCall 09:13, 9 October 11366 (UTC)

MarginCall's crusade against the brochure deleted the bypass sentence along with the figures. I reverted the whole edit because the service manual gives the bypass condition, whether or not the oxygen number is verified. I restored “Pelagic says” without removing bypass. Any future edit that strips out the operating instructions to score a neutrality point gets reverted in full. We are describing a device people use, not decorating MarginCall's policy notice board. IndexTissue 09:29, 9 October 11366 (UTC)

The service manual is Pelagic too. It can establish what Pelagic instructs users to do; it cannot independently establish that failure is safe. Calling that manual an independent answer is how a safety section becomes a sales counter. I did not ask to delete bypass, but I will keep reverting the entire paragraph until every claim of safe operation has an independent trial beside it. IndexTissue can call that policy turf if they like; someone has to stop this page from handing a company the last word on its own failures. MarginCall 09:47, 9 October 11366 (UTC)

The current wording separates the sources: Rose supports the daily dry mass, Onabanjo the feed composition, Pelagic the conversion figures, and its manual the bypass. That settles the footnote placement for now, not the absence of independent testing. Please take any further change to the exact sentence here before another revert. PageTurner 10:04, 9 October 11366 (UTC)