Talk:Elysium Health/Archive 1

Notability
I just added a couple more sources Deku-shrub (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Blogs are technically better than nothing, but we still need RSes really. Notability (organizations and companies) really requires way more than is here now - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They're selling immortality supplements. If they had mainstream coverage the world + dog would be knocking at their door. ;) Anyhow, there are loads of science publications covering the launch, but since they're rehashing their PR they mostly don't add a lot so I felt that was enough sources Deku-shrub (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit
Hi all. I’m the Head of Content at Elysium. After reading through the Elysium entry and attempting to fully understand Wikipedia’s guidelines for editing, I want to offer some suggestions for edits to this entry. These are in the spirit of removing opinion/POV and creating an entry that’s objectively valuable to Wikipedia users. Thanks for taking the time to review them.

+ I edited the intro for clarity, moving the description of the product to a separate paragraph and explaining NAD in the first mention:

Elysium Health is a dietary supplement company founded by geneticist and molecular biologist Leonard Guarente. The company is headquartered in New York City. In February 2015, they announced a product called Basis, which they state will improve cellular health. The supplement is formulated based on chemicals shown to lengthen the lives of mice and worms in controlled laboratory environments.

+ Here I’ve edited the sentence about FDA approval because the existing sentence expresses an opinion. As the footnotes demonstrate, there isn’t an approval process for dietary supplements, so it’s analogous to saying something like, “Jim’s bicycle riding on the street isn’t approved by local law enforcement.” There are rules that govern how he may operate the bicycle, but because there is no approval process it mischaracterizes Jim’s behavior (as illegal) when in fact it is extra-legal.

The pill, Basis, contains nicotinamide riboside (NR), a chemical precursor to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), which is used in metabolic reactions, and pterostilbene, a polyphenol found in blueberries. They are selling the product as a dietary supplement directly to consumers for $60 per month ($50 with a subscription). Because it is a dietary supplement, Basis does not require FDA approval.

+ Suggest adding the following sections.

+ History: Most company pages, from Tesla to Nootrobox, have a history section, so it seems reasonable to add one here. Also relevant here is notability: Elysium has been mentioned in high profile publications frequently in the past two months, including Time, The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, and The Atlantic. These mentions in the media are part of an ongoing, public dialogue about the science of aging and the company, specifically, and themselves seem to justify an expansion of this stub and the history section. I’ve included here the mentions of specific members of the advisory board because 1) they are very public and high profile figures in the scientific community, among them seven Nobel Prize winners, whose research and guidance are essential to the Elysium business, and 2) this association with the company has been discussed in the media on multiple occasions (cited below).

The company was founded in 2014 by Eric Marcotulli, a former partner at Sequoia Capital, Dan Alminana, a former vice president at JP Morgan Securities, and geneticist and molecular biologist Leonard Guarente, director of the Glenn Laboratory for the Science of Aging at MIT. The company structure includes a scientific advisory board of researchers and clinicians, including George Church, Dariush Mozaffarian, Sir Richard Roberts, Aaron Ciechanover, Eric Kandel, Martin Karplus, Thomas Südhof, Jack Szostak, and Paul Modrich. In 2015, Elysium began selling the dietary supplement Basis, a combination of nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene. In 2016, Elysium raised $22 million in series B financing led by venture capital firm General Catalyst. The same year, the company also announced topline results from a clinical trial to evaluate the safety and health benefits of Basis among elderly subjects.

+ Academic partnerships: I’ve added three partnerships with Oxford, Harvard, and Cambridge. Given the high profile nature of these universities, frequently ranked among the best in the world, these partnerships seem like relevant information for an encyclopedia-style entry. There’s also precedent: If, for instance, you like at the Pfizer page there is a section on the company’s partnership with Bar-Ilan University.

In 2017, Elysium entered into a research partnership with Harvard University to study cellular function and aging. The first project, led by Wendy Garrett M.D., Ph.D., professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, will focus on the gut microbiome. Also in 2017, Elysium partnered with the Milner Therapeutics Institute at the University of Cambridge, UK, to study aging, cognitive health, metabolic health, and general well-being. Later the same year, the University of Oxford and Elysium established the Oxford-Elysium Prize Fellowship in Cellular Health, a three-year award to study the “understanding of fundamental physiological processes that underlie normal cellular health and ways in which these processes might be better measured and promoted.”

Thanks again for taking the time to look at these edits. Jeremy Berger (Talk)
 * Looks promotional. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested edit
Elysium Health is not an "anti-aging" company and their pill, BASIS, is not an "anti-aging" pill. Numerous PR stories took that spin but it is completely inaccurate based on what they promote on their website and social channels. Additionally, the page does not site the actual compounds which are in the product. Not siting them and discussing their implications is misleading. A helpful research source on the impact of NAD is: http://web.mit.edu/biology/guarente/references/15.pdf

Finally, the scientific advisory board is much larger than the five Nobel Prize Winners listed and should be presented as such. The scientific advisory board serves in an advisory capacity so directly linking their work to BASIS or Elysium Health is a bit misleading. Feel free to contact me with any questions Samantha Taube (talk)


 * The sources say it is an anti-aging company, so all we can do is repeat what they say. I removed the advisory board section, as normally we just list the CEO only. I did get the impression, just looking at the sources at-a-glance, that more negative material was warranted (sounds like fringe/alternative medicine). I'll ping and  to see if one of them has an interest in taking a closer look. Anything not approved by the FDA sounds pretty sketchy to me. CorporateM (Talk) 06:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the inclusion of the board, specifically the link to the Natural Products Association was an objective enough critique of the company's direction, however since this is removed I've been unable to find a third party source directly making this critique. Personally, I prefer my old revision. 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

and Thank you for reviewing my request. I understand you can only use the sources that are available. With that said, I still believe there are still some mistakes and updates that can be made in this post. Please find below my proposed updates along with relevant sources. Thank you for your time and consideration.
 * CEO Listing: The CEO is not Leonard Guarente but rather Eric Marcotulli. Leonard is a co-founder and Chief Scientist. The three co-founders that should be listed are: Eric Marcotulli (CEO), Leonard Guarente (Chief Scientist), and Dan Alminana (COO)


 * Scientific Advisory Board: It would be great to showcase the Scientific Advisory Board since they are such a large component of the company. "The SAB now includes more than 35 industry innovators, scientific researchers, health care experts and clinicians, including six Nobel laureates" The initial post only included a subset of the advisory board. All of the Scientific Advisory Board members can be found listed at the following reference . The role of the Scientific Advisory Board is a key differentiator for Elysium Health and they play a significant role. "Elysium Health has brought together some of the world's leading scientists and healthcare experts to help guide the discovery and validation of these new supplements.”


 * FDA Approval: While I understand your skepticism, FDA does not review and approve dietary supplements like it does pharmaceuticals as they are not intended to treat or manage diseases or chronic conditions. This means that there exists no approval process, via the FDA or otherwise, through which a dietary supplement can be evaluated by a regulatory agency. . With that said, all dietary supplement manufacturers must register their facilities with the FDA and comply with the Dietary Supplement Current Good Manufacturing Practices for quality control It would be helpful if we could mention this factual representation of the regulatory environment in the wiki post so that we don't mislead readers or consumers into thinking that there exists a process for approval and we have chosen to circumvent or ignore it.


 * Testing: Elysium Health has plans to initiate a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study evaluating Basis that will focus on overall quality of life with specific measures related to metabolic health. The trial will follow 120 people and Elysium Health plans to initiate it in the third quarter of 2015.


 * Anti-Aging: The company is not marketing itself as an anti-aging company and therefore should not be listed as such. "It isn’t selling the pill as a key to a longer life or to preventing any particular disease, since there isn't any evidence the pill will do that. A press release the company put out with its launch hardly mentions aging at all. (Another reason is they want to appeal to young people too, who don’t necessarily care about aging, but may want to feel healthier and more energetic). Instead, the founders talks about enhancing basic biological functions: improving DNA repair, cellular detoxification, energy production, and protein function.”


 * Research: There is a significant amount of research supporting the product. This research can be referenced on Elysium Health’s website, in press articles, and found in scientific journals. It includes but is not limited to:


 * "NAD—Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide—is one of the most compelling bits of chemistry related to aging. Its presence in the body is directly correlated with the passage of time: An elderly man will have about half the levels of NAD is his body as a young person. There’s no amount of healthy eating or exercise that can stop the decline. But in a scientific paper published in 2013 that generated headlines about "reversing aging," Harvard’s Sinclair showed that after a week of giving two-year-old mice a boost of NAD, their tissues looked more like six-month-old mice. Elysium’s pill is an attempt to replicate that process naturally in humans. It contains the building blocks of NAD, so the body can easily absorb the smaller molecules and synthesize its own.”
 * “NAD is a linchpin of energy metabolism, among other roles, and its diminishing level with age has been implicated in mitochondrial deterioration. Supplements containing nicotinamide riboside, or NR, a precursor to NAD that's found in trace amounts in milk, might be able to boost NAD levels.”
 * NAD+ declines as we age. “For reasons still unclear, as we age, level of the initial chemical NAD decline. Without sufficient NAD, SIRT1 loses its ability to keep tabs on HIF-1. Levels of HIF-1 escalate and begin wreaking havoc on the otherwise smooth cross-genome communication. Over time, the research team found, this loss of communication reduces the cell’s ability to make energy, and signs of aging and disease become apparent." and
 * NR is the most direct precursor of NAD and linked to higher NAD levels. “We show that NR supplementation in mammalian cells and mouse tissues increases NAD+ levels and activates SIRT1 and SIRT3, culminating in enhanced oxidative metabolism and protection against high fact diet-induced metabolic abnormalities”
 * Increased NAD+ levels (not just stopping the decline) may have a significant benefits on the brain
 * The effect of NR in humans. “Nicotinamide riboside may be the only vitamin precursor that supports neuronal NAD+synthesis, we present prospects for human nicotinamide riboside supplementation and propose areas for future research.”


 * Other Sources: Beyond the three listed in the current wikipedia post, there are several other independent press sources available to be cited:


 * http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041800/one-of-the-worlds-top-aging-researchers-has-a-pill-to-keep-you-feeling-young
 * http://www.garmaonhealth.com/can-elysiums-basis-pill-really-make-you-younger/
 * http://supplementpolice.com/elysium-health-basis/
 * http://www.geek.com/science/5-nobel-prize-winners-back-50-per-month-health-pill-that-fights-aging-1615171/
 * https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/03/anti-aging-supplement-from-prominent-local-scientists/FvHsy28Hd9fILmrR4OZArO/story.htm

I hope you will consider updating the post so that it is a more comprehensive and accurate depiction of Elysium Health. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Thanks!

--Samantha Taube (Talk) 13:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence supporting the efficacy of Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide belongs on that page, not this one Deku-shrub (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuit
Just going to drop this here for review and potential inclusion. Currently, the article just has the POV of Chromadex. Morphh  (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.right-of-assembly.org/single-post/2017/04/03/Elysiums-Motion-to-Dismiss
 * https://www.right-of-assembly.org/single-post/2017/03/31/Discovery-Plan-for-ChromaDexElysium-Litigation
 * https://media.wix.com/ugd/7fb8ed_87ec5143f313465aba30b7fdb8c66a63.pdf
 * https://media.wix.com/ugd/7fb8ed_8b983f4420684f4fbe856c6c34d535ca.pdf

Adding Partnerships?
I have a COI, but wanted to suggest some additions to the page to give it some more substance. Could we add a section about educational partnerships? Elysium has entered into partnerships with some institutions including Harvard University, University of Cambridge and University of Oxford to fund research projects. Here are the sources:
 * 1) University of Oxford: https://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/research/internal/funding-directory/oxford-elysium-fellowship
 * 2) Harvard University: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elysium-health--enters-multi-year-research-agreement-with-harvard-university-300422423.html
 * 3) University of Cambridge: http://www.ats.cam.ac.uk/news/elysium-health-joins-milner-therapeutics-consortium and http://www.milner.cam.ac.uk/ElysiumNews

2600:1017:B807:9F1B:891C:CE89:8588:948F (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Elysium has a multi-year research agreement with Harvard to fund research on projects "focused on cellular function and other key modulators in the aging process."
 * Elysium joined the Milner Therapeutics Consortium at the University of Cambridge alongside major pharmaceutical companies to invest in collaborative research with Cambridge academic scientists.
 * Elysium and the University of Oxford created a Prize Fellowship to support research in cellular health.
 * Thanks for making an edit request, instead of editing directly. That is one of the 2 parts of the COI management process here.  Would you please define your COI?  If you are being paid to work on the article, you are obligated to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation.  If there is some other connection, please disclose the connection.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry about not adding that. The COI is that I'm working as a consultant for the company. Do I need to add anything else to the request?  2600:1017:B807:9F1B:4817:ABD2:EE7:E01B (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to belabor this. If your consultancy is communciations/PR and working here is part of that, you need to disclose  - your employer, your client, and your "affiliation" (the last is kind of a gather-all, in case something important is not exactly covered in the first two).   So apparently Elysium is the client.  Who is the employer?  Also, just to finish this basic stuff - you are editing from an IP.  If you have edited under an account here before, would you please either start using that account or name it?  These things will finish this foundational stuff and then we can discuss the content proposal.  Thanks for your patience working through the process. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot disclose more info at this time since I'm under a NDA. I don't have an account, but happy to create one, if it's needed on here? Thanks!  2600:1017:B81E:6CCD:C971:2FA1:8A7C:4C18 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is too bad that you signed an NDA. That puts you in an impossible situation, since if you cannot make the required disclosures in Wikipedia, you cannot do work in Wikipedia on behalf of your client -- the agreement you make here every time you edit (you agree to the Terms of Use every time you save an edit) requires disclosure.  Please do read WP:PAID. Perhaps you can renegotiate the NDA or agree to terminate it.  I do appreciate your effort to semi-comply and your straight-forwardness! Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as adding information on partnerships, it does seem like relevant information for the article worth inclusion. As an additional note (and I mentioned this in the archived talk and included sources), I do feel there is an imbalance in mentioning Elysium's alleged failure to pay and being sued by Chromadex without any mention of Elysium's side and countersuit.  Appears one sided and highlights the apparent bad behavior of Elysium when currently we just have charges and no verdict.  I expect we should either not mention the specifics or include a more balanced description of the disagreement/infringement/etc.   Morphh   (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dealing with the actual content proposed, all three refs are not independent and are SPS, and adding that would not be appropriate. With regard to Elysiums's "side" in the litigation, I didn't find that any where in secondary, independent sources. If you are aware of any such source, please provide it.  (btw we don't do "fair and balanced" - we follow what independent, secondary sources say. An article is NPOV that reflects and gives WEIGHT according to such sources.  Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think primary sources would be acceptable with no interpretation - just directly stating facts of the countersuit based on the court filing. Weight would be minimal, but at least it would be mentioned.  Morphh   (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep that is not valid editing; we don't seek "balance"; we summarize what reliable sources say, with a strong preference for independent, secondary sources. That is what NPOV means. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, I know how it works. I helped write NPOV for goodness sake.  Geez, condescend much?  We have one secondary source, Techcrunch, that is giving weight for the lawsuit inclusion.  I'm fine with that, but since it is a relatively small company and we're talking about one short article as reference, it is not expected that any counter-opinion would receive media coverage to provide the opposing viewpoint.  Since we give coverage to the issue, using a primary source in this case is acceptable to provide the opinion of Elysium.  It would also fall under WP:ABOUTSELF.  It's not like we would need to include much, one short sentence, which I think is in line with Wikipedia's underlying principle.    Morphh   (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * if you understand how things work, then you will not be adding content based on SPS or other primary sources aiming for WP:GEVAL. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not seriously suggesting that mentioning the fact that Elysium (who is the subject of the article) filed a countersuit for alleged Chromadex violations, which is filed in a reliable public record (a published viewpoint of Elysium), is akin to a giving equal weight to a fringe view like flat earth theory in a larger science article are you? You're pulling my leg now.. right, otherwise, this is some serious WP:WL.  It's not a controversial issue.    Morphh   (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in your legs nor in wikilawyering. I do have an interest in giving WEIGHT where it is DUE per secondary sources per the NPOV policy. Please suggest what content you would like to see in the article about the dispute, based on independent, reliable <secondary sources.Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC) (guess i need to say this again Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC))
 * I'll try to write up something really short tomorrow, but I think unitedstatescourts.org would be a sufficent source for Elysium's viewpoint and here is the full case I expect we're just having a difference of opinion regarding what constitutes weight with regard to an obscure topic.  I think the TechCrunch article gives secondary for inclusion of the lawsuit - it provides WEIGHT for including the topic, but at the time of publication of that article, Elysium had yet to respond beyond what TechCrunch included at the bottom of their article.  Had Elysium provided more at that point in time, TechCrunch would have included it by the point that they reached out to them for their viewpoint.  At this point in time, we do have their viewpoint from a reliable source - federal record.  Since we've given the topic some weight and we now have their viewpoint, we can include it.  I just don't see how this is a problem for equal validity or false balance.  One side filed a lawsuit and the other side filed a counter-lawsuit, not a big deal.  I don't see that there is some majority opinion in favor of Chromadex and Elysium's viewpoint is some fringe view that would constitute exclusion.  But in any case.. I'll review the source and put something together, which may just simply say that they dispute some of Chromadex's charges and filed a countersuit for breach of agreement.   Morphh   (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * independent, secondary sources. Do not try to cite legal briefs. Complete waste of time  - take it to RSN if you need to hear that from people other than me. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In what situation would you accept a ps if not in cases like this? Not everything is available in a secondary source - Wikipedia allows them.  Morphh   (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is your argument that Chromadex filing the lawsuit is an undisputed majority opinion as covered by a secondary source and that Elysium (the subject of the article) disagreeing with the charges and filing a countersuit is a fringe tiny minority viewpoint that doesn't merit inclusion because it's only covered in a primary source? I may just take this to an RFC - this is such a twisted interpretation of NPOV.   Morphh   (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not how primary sources are OK to be used. It is OK to do something like cite a letter by George Washington and describe simply what it says.  You are trying to use a primary source that is a legal brief, apparently trying to continue that legal dispute here in Wikipedia.  It is not only primary but SPS and generated not to be reliable but rather to make an argument.  That is way, way out of bounds.
 * Please propose content you would be OK with about the litigation based on independent, reliable, secondary sources Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And again, I would suggest that you take the notion of citing a legal brief to RSN. It is a much more efficient route and will waste less community time. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ref
Would need a good ref for this "scientifically-sound natural health products" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Content
"Along with other human trials into NR, Elysium Health has conducted their own trial on if their product increases NAD+ levels in humans.  "

Does not really say anything? -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources report on the conclusion, but the point was just to say that Elysium completed human clinical trials on the supplement. Readers can follow the sources if they want to know more, but I'm fine to include more.  Morphh   (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What MEDRS sources report on the conclusion? Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the Nature publication was, but as you can tell, I'm not a MED editor. I don't know the quality of that source vs any other med journal.  Wikipedia seems to have special rules for this topic.   Morphh   (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is primary. See WP:MEDDEF. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks. I understand the argument and conceded the sentence.  Morphh   (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. If you like please see the "summary" section of WP:Why MEDRS? which might help you understand why the WP community is so intense about sourcing health claims. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello! I work at Elysium Health. I am proposing that the text "; the two ingredients could be purchased separately for a total of $25." be removed.

According to the cited article, the total of the referenced products that can allegedly be used to get the same supplement dosages as Elysium's product, Basis, is $31 ($19 + $12), not $25. The reason the original editor wrote $25 is likely because the price on Amazon for the referenced nicotinamide riboside (NR) supplement went down since the TechCrunch article was published, so the editor is using the Amazon product page as a reference for the price. Even then, the referenced NR supplement provides 100mg of the supplement whereas Basis provides 250mg, which means you would have to buy $45 worth of the NR product to get _at least_ as much NR as Basis, bringing that total to $57 for a comparable supply. Alternatively, an editor could just change the text to read $57 and add the Amazon product pages as references, but I am not sure that Amazon product pages are considered a WP:SOURCE.

Thanks! ~  Rick305  t·c 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

❌ I removed all the information on prices, per WP:NOTCATALOG Regards,   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks! ~  Rick305  t·c 20:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rick. The source doesn't support the sentence and the sentence is misleading to the reader.  The source article currently says that you can get the two ingredients for $31, not $25.  However if try to look at the cost, the $19 NR quoted in the article is only for 100mg, where Elysium has 250mg.  Looks like you can get two bottles though for $26.25, but as Nick stated, this is really Amazon sourcing.  The Pterostilbene for $12 is for 60 pills, instead of Elysium's 30.  The only intent of including the price is as a point of comparison, so in such a comparison, you have to compare apples to apples.  I have no doubt you can get the ingredients cheaper.. and I would probably be ok with just saying that if we want, but I don't really see the point.  It's not something you usually do in company articles.  I don't expect we say other companies sell ibuprofen for less on the Motrin article, or similarly Acetaminophen cheaper on the Tylenol article.  Morphh   (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes everybody knows that generic drugs are cheaper than drugs still under patent. And we actually do have content in the Society and culture sections about drugs where we discuss actual prices and how the price compares to other available products for similar use. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the business model here - the key part - is marketing of a slickly re-packaged product, for a higher price than the ingredients separately. I took out the numbers but the notion needs to stay in. There is some validity to not giving the exact numbers, yes. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Different arguments could be made about their business model and what actually constitutes the price, such as funding clinical trials, investigating the efficacy of new health based drugs, etc. That's a different model than repackaging ChromaDex.  I don't agree with the inclusion, but I can grudgingly accept the current wording.  Morphh   (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the "for the less money than the price of Basis" part should not be included for a few reasons: 1) Elysium offers plans that allow customers to purchase Basis's NR/PT supplement at a lower price than the referenced competitors when prepaid, so the sentence is quite arguable. 2) I have reservations about keeping it when the main argument for it is a seemingly personal view that the "business model" is to charge higher for individual orders because of "slickly re-packaged product." I wholeheartedly agree, however, that "the two supplements from which Basis is made are available separately from other companies" is relevant. ~  Rick305  t·c 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Edits are based on what RS say and this is following the techcrunch source. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one sentence in the article and likely falls short of WP:WEIGHT when you take the sources as a whole. They spend three paragraphs after that in that article talking about the quality of other products, but we don't mention that.  We shouldn't be cherry picking to make points, particularly when the other POV in the article is not even presented.   Morphh   (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost every ref talks about how it is a combination of two known and available supplements and several whistle at the price itself. Again check other articles about health products; it is common that we discuss costs. One sentence is not UNDUE.  Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we want to include points on price, then we should follow up with the rebuttal pov regarding quality. At this point, we only have three people commenting and consensus is not to include.  Maybe someone else will join the discussion or maybe we can put something together that is more balanced.  Morphh   (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

break for different issues

 * Not sure why you undo some of those changes saying "hell no". One was source to the wired article.  The other is not an opinion - it's just a statement of fact and that source is fine.  Also not sure why you changed the phrasing as all the companies are doing the same thing regarding those supplements, not just Elysium.  I'd undo your edit, but just seems like you're edit waring over silly stuff.  Morphh   (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ChromaDex does sell the supplements separately to consumers.. why are you removing that? Morphh   (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a quote from Wired source that is cited, where it says that Chromadex sells directly; its says very clearly that they are an ingredients company - I copy/pasted that into my edit note. And adding the content about effects based on the primary source was absolutely not OK.  You can take that all the way to ANI and you will hear "no" every step of the way. I left you a notice about sourcing health content on your talk page.  Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The product is called Tru Niagen and you can buy it directly from their website. As for the other, I only included Elysium's intent, not a claim as to it's effectiveness, but that can be reworded without removing it.  It is important to include that they did do a human clinical trial in order to show the products efficacy.  That's a fact statement that requires no interpretation.  You can even use their website to support that.  Morphh   (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are also plenty of secondary sources regarding the human trial, so we can just reference those. Also, why did you remove the material source to wired regarding Cockayne syndrome?
 * There is no reference in the article that discusses "Tru Niagen"; they do appear to be selling that now. I dealt with that vis RELTIME in this diff.   And again we do not source content about health to primary sources like that paper (nor popular media reporting on it).  If you will insist on adding it, others will remove it, and if you keep trying you will get blocked and then eventually topic banned from editing about health. Please read and follow WP:MEDRS. The content about Chromadex' drug development activity was about Chromadex and about drug development; the current content is about the dietary supplement business.  Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded it so it's just a statement of fact regarding their conducting a human clinical trial to study levels of NAD+, which can easily be sourced to the existing references. As for the FDA, I think it's important if we're going to chide them for avoiding the FDA, we include that it's not something the FDA would even review as aging is not a disease or condition. The only thing that can be done is already being done Chromadex, which is to test NR on a disease that has similar symptoms. I think it's fair to include that since it's the main ingredient of Basis and it's something the sources also cover. Morphh  (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and self-reverted and asked for more input from WP:MED. I've warned you about abuse of WP for advertising and edit-warring.  You and I are not going to reach consensus because we are not pursuing the same mission.  The things you are writing here and your edits are very promotional, especially here with regard to your comments, if we're going to chide them for avoiding the FDA, we include that it's not something the FDA would even review as aging is not a disease or condition and If we want to include points on price, then we should follow up with the rebuttal pov regarding quality and I think it's fair to include... which have nothing to do with NPOV but are clear effort to try to "sell" and "balance" to benefit the company.   Your edits do the same.    Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The balance you describe is called WP:NPOV. The sources include these points of view and with sufficient weight.  It's not a mission or promotional and I'm not trying to sell anything.  I just find the article very unbalanced and I'm trying to improve it.  I don't understand why it's a problem to include they conducted a clinical trial, when most recent sources include the fact.  It takes two to edit war and I think I've been constructive in my changes and followed with discussion.  Please stop trying to WP:BULLY - I've been around Wikipedia longer than you and know the rules.   Morphh   (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me include here what the article said before my edits "By selling the product as a dietary supplement the company doesn't have to invest in clinical trials to prove to the FDA that it is safe and effective". They do invest in clinical trials and NR is going through the FDA in the only way it can.  You call my changes promotional, but I see it removing bias and including the complete picture.   Morphh   (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I shouldn't have to do this, I'll say this just to alleviate and preempt any Jytdog concerns. Aside from trying Basis, I have no affiliation with Elysium or COI.  I am just interested in longevity research.  Morphh   (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask if you have a COI (I would have, if I thought you did). You are very, very clearly editing as an advocate.  See WP:ADVOCACY and please do actually read it.  We get a lot of problems in articles about health from  advocates in the longevity and related transhumanism space.  Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Or just a guy trying to balance a pov article.  Morphh   (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see my last response and please try to become self-aware. The advocacy is unambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The text in question
Can we take this one step at a time for the benefit of uninvolved editors, please? As far as I can work out the dispute principally revolves around this text: sourced to: Is that correct? I can see there may be further issues, but perhaps we can make progress on this one.

I have some concerns with the neutrality of that wording.

First, neither of those sources are high quality secondary medical sources, so are unsuitable for making any claim – or even an inference – about the efficacy of any drug in treating any condition.

Secondly, the FDA's opinion on ageing is immaterial; the majority of our readers live in countries where the FDA has no jurisdiction, and MEDRS is very clear about the quality of sourcing required when discussing the use of any intervention for treatment of any kind. It is not acceptable to lead readers to conclude that because a drug is being tested, that it may be effective – particularly when the assumption is made that any effect on an a condition with symptoms similar to ageing will then have the same effect on ageing. Thousand of trials take place that show no effect or are inconclusive. We require trials to have been completed and analysed by independent third-parties before we deem their conclusions worthy of inclusion in our articles. Jumping the gun in the way that this text does is unacceptable.

Thirdly, phrases such as "clinical trial to study the efficacy of their product" mislead the reader by making the assumption that there is an efficacy to study. If you were to write that trials have been made to investigate whether their product has any efficacy or not, that would be closer to what an unbiased observer could deduce from the sources. Even then, I'm doubtful about the WEIGHT being given to a few trials. This is an encyclopedia, not a news journal, and our articles wait for results and conclusions confirmed by secondary sources before reporting on them.

In summary, I wouldn't support the inclusion of any of that text, based on the current sources. When we have reviews and meta-analyses of completed trials, we might be in a better position to state something. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, which is why I reverted (then self-reverted). thx for the analysis. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the sentence as making a statement regarding efficacy, only that they had a clinical trial to study it, which I think is a true statement based on the sources. I'm fine with rewording.  My point is, we should include that they're funding research to study the supplement.  Morphh   (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a point of reference, the clinical trial study was published here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-017-0016-9
 * Based on your explanation, I can understand how the first sentence could give that false impression. It was a response to the prior wording.  I'd welcome a rewording, but can live without it now that the earlier statement is more neutral.  Morphh   (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first sentence and reworded the second to Morphh   (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * additional source:


 * Unacceptable still - still promotional. This is exactly how dietary supplement companies sell. "tested in clinical trials!"   I suggest that you revert back to before you added this promotional content. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't just dismiss content because it favors or disfavors the company. That's not the basis of content inclusion.  It's free of puffery and verifiable with independent, third-party sources.  If you have a better wording, I'm open to it.  Morphh   (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * V is a minimum - necessary but not sufficient. Please see what Rexxx wrote about clinical trials and what I wrote - it is promotional. I have said what content I prefer. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I reworded it based on RexxS's comments. The results and conclusions are reported by secondary sources.  We're not even reporting on them though as he suggests, just stating the company did a trial.  You balked at actually reporting the conclusions.  Morphh   (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No both Rexxx and I said that it is not worth mentioning that they did a clinical trial much less that others have done so.  That is misrepresentation.Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake. That would be a question of WP:DUE then and we have several sources that report on the study, so I think one sentence is not unreasonable.
 * it violates WP:PROMO which is policy. Every edit you have made to the article and talk page is advocating for the company.  Every. One. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So any inclusion that is not negative is apparently a violation of promo in your opinion. Maybe if you'd stop attacking me and actually work with me, explain your views instead of appealing to authority, we'd get something done.  May great articles are done by people with views on either side.   Morphh   (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

there are no "sides" here. There is writing an encyclopedia and there is advocacy. These are different missions. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone has bias. Morphh   (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As is acknowledged in WP:YESPOV. Each of us needs to try to check their passions at the login page. No editor experienced in editing about health has supported your edits here.  Again, please be self-aware of your advocacy concerning longevity research Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And if there was a good reasoning and discussion with it, I'm fine with removing it. But just keep repeating that I'm bias, promo, advo, whatever... because that bullying works to change my viewpoint of the content.  Morphh   (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Self-reflection, that your advocacy is driving you to take a stance that contradicts experienced medical editors, should lead you to change your stance. Martin Luther said that reason is a whore and he was correct - one starts with assumptions and has goals, and reason can connect dots to get you from the assumptions to the goals. In WP goals are set by WP's mission but there is no rational discussion possible when the goals are different.  That is why you should reflect on what you are doing in this article. Your edits clearly show advocacy and no experienced health editor agrees with them. You can hear that or not. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see, my stance is changing based on actual discussion of the content and the policy points. I'm perfectly fine with Wikipedia's mission and rational discussion works great.  That didn't happen here - you just attacked my intentions and wikilayered, so I dug my heels in.  What should have been easy was made difficult, not because of my viewpoint, but because of your condescension and attitude.  Maybe some self-reflection is due for both of us.   Morphh   (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the editing issue has been solved up to this point. As Jytdog and RexxS pointed out, the statement in its various forms does not conform to WP:MEDRS. One study has no value for supporting such a statement. Same with news sources, which tend to inflate results because its garners an audience. And MEDRS plainly says this: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information..." and even says why. Consensus here supports this and it makes sense. This is not your regular run-of-the-mill topic. What is published in this article has implications for the general public:
 * "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information." Wikipedia cannot imply this has reverse-ageing effects based on the available sources ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Series of edit requests
Hello again. I work for Elysium Health. I am not being commissioned directly by them for these changes. I am simply interested in the article not having incorrect information.

There are a lot of statements in this article that are not really accurate based on the sources being references. Some of them are inaccurate because they are outdated and there is other information out there to show that it is out of date.

I have structured it as multiple request edits so each one can be tackled separately. Hopefully, this is a useful way of structuring the requests so that conversations about each point can be organized accordingly and not get lost if it turns into lengthy discussion. Feedback is appreciated! ~  Rick305  t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the way to do multiple requests. Meters (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll leave some comments but I won't make any immediate changes, pending comments by other editors. Meters (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to Sirtris Pharmaceuticals
I request that ", and is pursuing a similar "anti-aging" marketing path as did Sirtris Pharmaceuticals with resveratrol." be removed. The reference mentions Sirtris Pharmaceuticals only in that one of the founders of Elysium Health was previously involved with that organization. The company has never said, nor does the article say, that Sirtris's "marketing path" was being followed or that their history is of any influence to how Elysium Health markets its products or itself. ~  Rick305  t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be more germane to mention that one of the founders (Leonard Guarente) had previously been involved with Sirtris Pharmaceuticals than to make the vague similar marketing path claim, particularly when the source actually says "Elysium’s approach to the anti-aging market represents a change of strategy for Guarente". Meters (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the comparison is common as dirt. i tweaked the content. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit makes sense to me. Thanks. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Marketing on social media
I request that "Like other companies in the supplement industry, Elysium marketed the product heavily on social media." be removed.

The referenced article mentions the word "social" only once and in a completely different context than "social media." Also, you can say about a lot of companies that they heavily market on social media as it is now a normal channel of advertisement. That is not unique to Elysium Health and seems to be irrelevant. ~  Rick305  t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference says "By the time I bought it, the brand had been pummeling my awareness for weeks, the ads barreling into my Facebook feed with claims of being the “world’s first cellular health product informed by genomics.” Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. That counts as social media to me, too. I don't see justification (in this ref) for "like other companies"though, but it could probalby be found. Meters (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting that sentence in the ref for me. Even then, however, I think it's giving undue weight to something that is common practice for any modern Internet advertiser (behavioral retargeting). I could understand if this is something seen as unique to Elysium Health or something that has garnered widespread controversy or coverage outside of that single source. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I 'm inclined to agree with Jytdog's leaving this one. Positioning an anti-aging product with a scientific basis as a simple dietary supplement and then arguing that heavily promoting it on social media is normal for such a product is a bit much. Meters (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Source of ingredients
I request that "It buys the ingredients in Basis from a company called ChromaDex, that as of December 2016 sold the two ingredients to other supplement companies that also marketed products containing them." be removed or updated for relevance and WP:RELTIME.

Elysium Health no longer purchases its ingredients from ChromaDex. You can see that in one of the TechCrunch articles referenced: "Elysium stopped ordering from the company thereafter.". ~  Rick305  t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

FDA's regulation on dietary supplements
I request that "By selling the product as a dietary supplement, Elysium is able to avoid the lengthy process of FDA drug approval, but is restricted from marketing it as treating any disease or condition." be removed.

It is already mentioned in the referenced "dietary supplement" article and I don't see how the fact that a dietary supplement company doesn't need to go through the separate FDA drug approval processes is relevant or unique to Elysium Health. It is true of any dietary supplement company that sells in the United States. Elysium Health does not currently sell any product that is intended to diagnose, treat, or prevent any disease, just like any other company whose only products are dietary supplements. ~  Rick305  t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think i tmatters if it is mentioned in the linked article. The source discusses the approach Elysium Health is taking as "a savvy way of sidestepping the FDA’s more onerous regulations around drugs". Meters (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence does seem to be misplaced though. The following sentence refers to te preceding sentence, not the dietary supplement sentence. Meters (talk) 00:21, 14 Janeuary 2018 (UTC)
 * fine, removed. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jytdog. Just to make the article clean, I think the sentence for "Elysium originally bought ..." should be the first sentence of the following paragraph so that there is one clean paragraph discussion the ChromaDex relationship. Also, "Chromadex" has incorrect capitalization in that following paragraph. Might as well be consistent. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Head of manufacturing"
I request that "Elysium recruited the head of manufacturing" be updated. According to the article referenced, Elysium did not hire their head of manufacturing but hired their "VP of business development." ~  Rick305  t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * yep that was a dumb mistake. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just to be accurate, not all "heads" of departments are the VP. Sometimes they are C-level. Might as well just finish that fix with changing "head" to "VP." I have no idea if he was actually the "head" of business development there, I have no idea how they structure that. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect reference to "Morningside Partners"
I work for Elysium Health.

The firm "Morningside Partners" referenced in a recent edit, but it is incorrectly referenced as "Morningside Ventures"

Thanks. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, it looks like the actual reference is incorrect... Maybe update the reference to use Reuters instead? It's more credible and is already a reference in the article. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We follow the refs. Morningside Group appears to be the holding company for several vehicles. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just reading the added ref and got thrown off by the mistake it seems the ref made. Thanks. ~  Rick305  t·c 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed grouping
I work for Elysium Health.

I'm hoping to make the article read a little bit better with more logical grouping. Here is what I propose to replace the first paragraph. It also removes the second last paragraph as it merges that paragraph with the content here:

Thanks. ~  Rick305  t·c 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this is just styling and the style is fine. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not just styling IMO... it's taking two sentences that overlap in context and joining them as a graf. Otherwise it reads with a weird disconnect ~  Rick305  t·c 01:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Change from six Nobel prize winners to seven
I work for Elysium Health.

According to a reference in the Elysium Health article, the company has seven, not six, Nobel Prize winners on its advisory board.

Thanks! ~  Rick305  t·c 01:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:PAYTALK. Enough of this WP:BLUDGEONING over trivia.Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Woah, woah, woah, woah. I am incredibly thankful that you've been responsive for the edits that I am discouraged to make on my own because I have a COI, but I am absolutely not trying to "force" any "point of view" by purposefully creating a "sheer volume of comments".
 * Forgive me if you are frustrated by the number of edits I have structured, as maybe I should've just waited until I had every edit I could think of queued up like I did above. But accusing me of abusing the process to force a point of view? If you don't want to deal with my edit requests, then don't. I fully respect the volunteer nature of this community and it's one of the things that drives me to participate here and in other WP articles.
 * So I suggest you take some of your own advice about self-awareness and understand how you can come off as condescending and uninviting, regardless of your well-intentioned passion towards preventing bias from editors with COI. Your discussions with other editors of this page are educational and definitely have me respect the importance of the WP:MEDRS world and its guidelines, so I am super appreciative of that. But that said, I invite you to take some time to self-reflect to see how your communication with others and interpretations of others' intentions affects the spirit of building a collaborative community. ~  Rick305  t·c 01:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, this is an encyclopeida. Two nobel prize winners might join tomorrow, and then we would have to update this again. We are an encyclopedia. High level summaries.Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See below for the conflicting change I was writing. See above for self-reflection on whether or not I'm allegedly "WP:BLUDGEONING" on purpose. ~  Rick305  t·c 01:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, your change from "six" to "several" instead of my proposed "seven" is a smart move because then the statement can't become dated unless somehow all Nobel Prize winners leave the advisory board. And the count doesn't really make or break the article at the end of the day. Thanks for the partial implementation of the edit request. I would call the edit request satisfied. ~  Rick305  t·c 01:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Reads like a press release for the company
I would shorten the article to:

Elysium Health is a dietary supplement company founded in 2014 by biologist Leonard Guarente, Dan Alminana, and Eric Marcotulli.[1] As of December 2016, Elysium had raised $26.2 million from investors including General Catalyst and Robert Nelson from ARCH Venture Partners.[8]  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The article has improved significantly in just the last six days! Great work y'all.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  16:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Efficacy of Basis
Do we know anything about the efficacy of their "basis" product? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ingredients List?
Info grossly incomplete! Full disclosure of ingredients as appear on label is needed here!!!!! 76.81.251.163 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)A-user