Talk:Cetyl myristoleate

Point of view
This article seems to present a single, non-neutral point of view. It essentially tells a story from the perspective of Harry Diehl using the contents of his personal website. A more balanced approach would improve the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even the introductory paragraph before it brings in the personal story bit, reads like marketing copy.--Ericjs (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I ALSO AGREE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.51.95 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Have just been searching for neautral references. I cannot find any and some of the links included here to support statements turn out to be dead links. This whole page seems to be an advert. I think it is safer for now to delete claims with no support until some can be found. I also intend to delete some of lines that read as if they are pure advertising. Lady of the dead (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Have deleted a mass of references which after checking seemed incredibly irrelevant and seemed only to serve as padding. Have also deleted referece to clinical trials because after much searching these trials only seem to be present on Diels own website and have not been perr reviewed at all. Not very clinical. Lady of the dead (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As disgusting as it may seem, in the case of products whose distributors may attempt to distort Wiki into giving themselves an advertising advantage--which we don't necessarily know was the case here--there may actually exist some rationale for their intended use. There are only 8 hits in PubMed on cetyl myristoleate, and, bizarrely enough, none of those references are duplicated among the previous citations in this article except for the one referring to Diehl's original study. I am surprised to see that the paper by Hunter, et al, in 2003 was not referred to, since it concsluded, "Although the protective effect of CM in collagen-induced arthritis [in mice] observed in the present study was less dramatic than that reported earlier, our results confirm the anti-arthritic properties of pure CM." (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12526860). Another study, Kraemer's, concluded that, "Use of a CFA topical cream is an effective treatment for improving knee ROM, ability to ascend/descend stairs, ability to rise from sitting, walk and sit down, and unilateral balance" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15088305). A 2006 review by Swiss reviewers Ameye and Chee concluded that "Limited evidence was found for the Chinese plant extract duhuo jisheng Wan, cetyl myristoleate, lipids from green-lipped mussels, and plant extracts from Harpagophytum procumbens. Overall, scientific evidence exists for some specific nutritional interventions to provide symptom relief to osteoarthritic patients. It remains to be investigated whether nutritional compounds can have structure-modifying effects." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16859534).

The history paragraph obviously needs some kind of validation for the part beginning with "After he received his first 'use' patent...." That part might very well be true even though it sounds like the kind of fairy tale that snake oil merchandisers use to push their products. It also sounds like the kind of roadblock that someone with a legitimate discovery might run into. If that part comes from some company's advertising, then, until verified, I would leave it in with a disclaimer.,

Two of the best known name brands of the product are Cetylpure and Celadrin. The product is not a bandwagon item as much as, say, fish oil, but I would hate to denigrate it for that reason. There may be only limited evidence to support its efficacy, but there is no negative evidence, and it has no known toxicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeButel (talk • contribs) 08:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Article quoted in sales copy for Flexcin
It's possible (likely) that this article was created by Flexcin marketers, as it is specifically referenced on the Flexcin sales page. (www.flexcin.com/Affiliate/index.html) Perhaps 75% of the statements in this article are not factual, and potentially misleading. I suggest that the article be removed completely as it is pseudo-medical jargon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrothcycle (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you sign your comments. I further suggest that the non-factual parts of the article be corrected, and that the article be left in Wikipedia.  Considering that the above comment is the one and only thing you've ever written in Wikipedia under the "Hrothcycle" user profile, I suspect you're shilling for the competition. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 09:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the article be reduced to a 2-3 line stub, and wait for somebody with a non-sales interest in the subject to write the article. Sales copy should not be considered a valid rough draft to improve on, especially in cases like this where their astroturf effort didn't even involve taking the time to learn the citation standards. 2001:470:1F04:3DF:0:0:0:2 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. For now I have removed everything but the first line and the infobox.  I will gradually add back in content that can be supported by reliable (WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) references.  ChemNerd (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten
Based on the comments above, I have completely rewritten the article. I have tried to include only content that is consistent with some of Wikipedia's core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS). I hope the current state of the article addresses the concerns expressed above. Comments are welcome. ChemNerd (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've praised you on my talk page, and I've praised you on your talk page (with the first and only barnstar I've ever awarded), and now I'm praising you here. I've never seen an article improve so much so quickly. Excellent work! You're a genius and a hero. Thank you.--Jim10701 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Paste self-citing ad copy inserted again into main article, in apparent repeat violation of Wikipedia policy
Without coming out and saying so, the following gibberish suggests someone's opinion that a clinical trial may have found a clear benefit for the merchandise, of the opinion holder.

Seems to be a misuse of Wikipedia for advertising purposes.


 * 32 week (8 week cycle, 4 in hospital & 4 follow up) multicentric, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled parallel trial study

CITING

BASICALLY A TOOL INSERT A LINK TO THE SELLER'S SITE, http://cetyl-myristoleate.com/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cetyl myristoleate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130421040131/http://www.ftc.gov:80/os/1999/09/arthritiscmp.htm to http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/09/arthritiscmp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)