Talk:Mannatech/Archive 2

Redirect from Glyconutrients
it is wrong to have a general topic in this case Glyconutrients redirected to a product. if I could undo the redirect, I would. it is wrong. if anybody knows how to change this, please do it. Glyconutrients could list this product or have a link to this product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.20.37 (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The redirect is fine. "Glyconutrients" is not a general topic or scientific term, but is a pseudo-scientific word created by Mannatech, Inc. Prominent glycobiologists have expressed some concern that the general public may be misled by the term, thinking it is used by scientists outside the context of Mannatech, which it is not. —Prhartcom   (talk)  07:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than link to the Memorial Sloan Cancer Center's glyconutrient page (which suggests that the company claims that the products treats cancer and then maligns the company for legal issues that date back to 2007 and are no longer relevant), I think it is more balanced to provide a link to a peer-reviewed published research article that describes the new concept of glyconutrients and mechanisms by which they may impact health and disease conditions. JERZEA (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Questions about Neutrality, Objectivity
I have taken the supplements in the past and have had great results. Because this is a multilevel product, is that why there is so much bad press? Stephanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.176.94 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The bad press reflects the many accusations of deceptive and fraudulent marketing of both the products and the company (as mentioned in the article), not because it is a multilevel product. alteripse (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Alteripse, this is not about the MLM industry at all, it is about the company itself. I do note, however, that the company has undeniably settled all of it's legal issues and has changed it's leadership.prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

JUST WANT TO ADD, AS FAR AS MY CONCERN AND INFORMATION GO, MANNATECH IS NOT A MLM BUT A NETWORK MARKETING COMPANY, HUGE DIFFERENCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.26.234.113 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's both a Multi-Level Marketing company and a Network Marketing company, which are different terms that describe the same thing, which is simply the means for marketing products produced by a company (such as this company). There's nothing wrong with either term.  Per Wikipedia: "Multi-level marketing (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sales they personally generate, but also for the sales of others they recruit, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation. Other terms for MLM include network marketing, direct selling, and referral marketing." Other companies that successfully use MLM to market their products are Shaklee Corporation, Avon Products, and Tupperware Brands.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Much anecdotal evidence
I wonder if it is appropriate to mention in the article there is much undocumented, anecdotal evidence (such as this user above) to support the company's claims of efficacy? Probably not, because of the very fact that it is undocumented and anecdotal, however if there was a way, it could help provide balance to the article. (Note: I personally have no anecdotal evidence.) Does anyone have any ideas?prhartcom (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary POV tag
Alteripse (and others), your thoughts please: Today, user Langate has added the POV tag to this article, disputing the article's neutral point of view (something I, and other editors of the article such as yourself, have tried to maintain). I have left a message on this user's talk page, asking them to remove the tag or provide a better reason here for keeping it. This is the only edit to Wikipedia this user has ever done. Do you have thoughts regarding removing the tag? I happen to believe that the article does have a neutral POV.prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There seemed to be a majorly negative slant in the article. The largest section of the article was Public Scrutiny, and even outside of that section, a considerable portion of the article contains largely negative coverage. The independent research section only sites sources which discredit Mannatech. If that was the only independent research done, or that could be found, then I apologize, but there is more: The section on Sam Caster before Mannatech only discusses "questionable dealings" in the past. I can understand the need to include such things, but more information is needed than that. The entire section only includes one source, and gives no other information on Caster. It gives the impression that the section's entire purpose is to criticize Caster rather than give information on him. Iangate (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Iangate, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank-you for removing the POV tag. You make a good point; the article does have a negative feel to it, which I regret. See above where I mention I wish we could somehow balance the article with any positive facts about the Mannatech company and it's products. The negative comes from the factual history of the company and it's founder, however. These facts are what they are. I have edited these facts that others contributed into a more readable format, and have contributed some of my own research (the results of one of the company's legal battles). I believe my editing of the article maintains a neutral point of view.  You seem quite reasonable and capable, Iangate, perhaps you would be willing to research any positive aspects of the company and its founder, and present it?  For example, is there any philanthropy by Sam Caster or the Mannatech company?prhartcom (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sam Caster founded MannaRelief, a non-profit charity organization, in 1999 with his wife Linda Caster. Most recently, Mannatech has launched the Give for Real program, which is based on a donation-through-consumption model. BusinessWire.com backs this up and it is also on Mannatech's website here.  jaredhimself  talk 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PubMed Ambrotose Study Info is now invalid
The information that there are zero studies on Pubmed data base for Ambrotose is no longer valid.  Please site. Pharma_Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmamann (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay, a small rat study showed that ambrotose was better than tap water at protecting rats from an artificially induced colitis! Next time my rat gets into the dextran I will keep this in mind. Mannatech salesmen worldwide are breathing a sigh of relief that finally, after 15 years and millions of dollars of sales, they have a bit of evidence that Ambrotose produces something measurable in a living gut besides flatus. We should see a spike in sales to rats any month now. Sarcasm aside, do you understand quite what this says to most people about the therapeutic value of ambrotose? Do you really want it in the article? alteripse (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a valid study, probably company-funded, and may be added to the appropriate company-funded reseach section if Pharmamann wishes to contribute and cite it properly. prhartcom (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently an honest, controlled study published in a peer-reviewed journal does represent a milestone for Mannatech. You do realize that a million such small animal studies are published every month in the pharmaceutical literature and 99.9999% are not worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia article? These are the kinds of studies done to decide whether a product might even be worth testing in humans, let alone marketing with therapeutic claims. My sarcastic comment above was at how little the contributor understands what citing this says about the the nature of this company and its main product. But feel free to put it in. alteripse (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized that. I defer to your knowledge and agree that it's inclusion may not be appropriate. (Coincidently, today another editor and I discussed removing and ultimately removed other company-finded research from the article for a similar reason.)


 * This article has been subject to editors with strong feelings both for and against the company, and neither is appropriate. Our editing must always maintain a neutral point of view. prhartcom (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. I do not particularly care whether this study is included or not, but I have a strong aversion to the misrepresentations (e.g., that Royal Society nonsense) that the dishonest or pathetically ignorant (not sure which) mannatech salespeople were trying to stick into the article a year or two ago. That's why the article is still on my watch list. alteripse (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 7 results at PubMed, but none of them are secondary sources (review articles) compliant with our special sourcing requirements for medical claims. When a source is publishing the results of the author's own experiments or research results, these are primary sources that cannot be used. These rules were implemented for the very reason discussed here, almost any claim one wants to make; a study can be found to support it. CorporateM (Talk) 06:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM, thank-you, this is extremely good information to know, and I wish I knew it five years ago when I was having this discussion! Better late than never, of course. Can you please direct me to Wikipedia's "special sourcing requirements for medical claims", if there is a special page for it? Can you also tell me: What if, instead of the source "publishing the results of the author's own experiments or research results", which is the normal activity of a published scientist, what if a legitimate peer-review is published on that author's results; that is, another scientist verifying (or not) the first results? I can't tell, is that still considered a primary source or is it a secondary source at that point? Thank-you for your expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is the link. I am not that familiar with it personally, as I write mostly on business topics. user:Doc James gave me a quick summary that basically the journal should be in PubMed and identified as a Review article (the filter for this is located in the upper-right-hand corner). Generally we should aim to use sources that are less than five years old such that they represent current medical understanding and the journal the article is in should have an Impact Score of more than 1. An impact score measures the average number of cites an article in that journal is given. Sometimes you can find it by doing a Google search or by using your library (my library doesn't give me access). Unlike business/company topics however, we have a very active group of medicine editors with specialized experience/expertise that could probably be consulted for less obvious cases. Even in a business content context, we would not cite for example, an analyst report that was directly sponsored by the article-subject, unless other secondary sources discuss it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this study appropriate?
 Is this human study appropriate to site? Why or why not? I am learning about what is considered acceptable, so no sarcasm or patronizing words for trying to understanding the editing process and remaining neutral. Just the facts, please. (Truvelocity (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) August 3, 2009


 * The study is not a reliable source since it is was funded and conducted by Mannatech's own "Research Group", not an objective third-party. Notice even how the article parses words by stating, "Many of the publications that report the results of these studies are posted in the Peer-Reviewed Science section of its science Web site," but doesn't actually say the study was part of this "peer-review" section; it's hoping just mentioning both in the same paragraph creates the impression it was peer reviewed. That's why it was removed from the article a few months back. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I learned something new. Dumb question: Can a product that is funded and tested by it's own in-house R and D be subject to peer review? (Truvelocity (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, and it should be. A company that has written the result of an in-house study should subject it to review before publishing it. The reviewed study will be less likely to contain unwarranted claims and more likely to be accepted by the community. The company should really take it to the next level and ask an objective third-party to perform a study, then have those results peer reviewed. Such a company desires accurate, objective information to be published about their product. prhartcom (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article provided by Truvelocity is interesting; it appears to me that the study was conducted not by Mannatech's Research Group but by two researchers both of Howard University. While it does appear that Mannatech's chief science officer may have prepared this clinical trial as he has prepared in-house trials previously, the article states it was the two researchers who did the publishing of this particular randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (of a relatively small sample). So there is some credibility, then. But what is interesting is that the researchers state that the results are "impressive", that they show "significant improvement", and that they "indicate that Ambrotose complex can benefit everyone". That's going out on a limb, to say the least. The language style used in the researcher's published work sounds exactly like a company brochure. prhartcom (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with prhartcom. The link is to what appears to be a public relations site that makes money by publishing PR stuff for corporations. I may be wrong about that but some of the clues that it is not an independent medical site are the listing of the stock abbreviations, the lack of information about the organization sponsoring the site, and (as prhartcom points out) the language of the article. The article does however provide 4 references: (1) Stancil AN, Hicks LH. Glyconutrients and perception, cognition, and memory. Perceptual Motor Skills 2009; 10:259-270. (2) Wang C, Szabo JS, Dykman RA. Effects of a carbohydrate supplement upon resting brain activity. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 2004; 39(2):126-138. (3) Wang C, Pivik RT, Dykman RA. Effects of a glyconutritional supplement on brain potentials associated with language processing. Federation Proceedings: Experimental Biology Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 20-24. 1-4. 4-20-2002. (4) Best T, Kemps E, Bryan J. The impact of saccharide supplementation on cognition and mood in middle-aged adults. Presented at the 36th Annual International Neuropsychological Society Meeting, February 6-9, 2008, Waikoloa, Hawaii 2008. The latter two are to abstracts submitted to medical meetings. The meetings themselves are genuine and respectable, but many such meetings will publish virtually every abstract submitted. The abstracts are peer-reviewed and the best are presented orally during meeting sessions, and eventually published as a full article in a peer reviewed journal. The worst (sometimes the vast majority) are often never published in any form and sink without a ripple. The the latter two do not deserve to be considered anything except preliminary results awaiting full review and publication. The first two references appear to be to genuine journals, though fairly minor ones, and one would have to examine the journal or its website to check the peer review policies and requirements for publication. The title of the first references suggests it may be nothing but a review article (i.e., not reporting original data) simply providing an overview of existing data with the typical conclusion calling for more study. Reference (2) might be genuine original research in a minor but peer reviewed journal but there is not enough info provided to determine this. I am skeptical about this report because of the past history of this company and because if full claim is supported by well-conducted, well-controlled, independent, convincing research showing a clearly significant (not just statistically significant but imperceptible) benefit on actual performance (not just brain wave shape), then this is headline, society-changing research for Nature or Science, the absolute top journals in the field. My guess is that the web reference is to a corporate PR site and the actual studies are underwhelming, but that is just a hunch. Can anyone provide the actual paper? alteripse (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Independent and Company Research
An edit was made by Tbenzinger which added an addition cited study to the Independent Research section (favorable to the company) and which deleted an earlier cited study (unfavorable to the company). I am looking into the new study myself now, but I would appreciate other editor's thoughts on this edit. (Humorously, Tbenzinger flagged the edit as "minor".) prhartcom (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To rewrite the paragraph, omit references, and call it a minor is extreme bad faith. It would be a violation of our "assume good faith" policy for me to wonder if benzinger works for Mannatech or sells it, and displays the corporate approach to academic honesty, research description, and disclosure, so I won't. If benzinger would like to re-introduce the individual assertions, point by point, without trying to sneak them in as minor, we would be happy to discuss and integrate anything useful. Phartcom, please replace your news about Badovinus' resignation (assuming its verifiable), which I deleted by reverting. alteripse (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Alteripse, especially since I have noticed that the new study Tbenzinger added that is favorable to the company was performed by the company's own science officer. An independent, peer-reviewed study would be more appropriate to place in the Independent Research section. Tbenzinger, when such a study is published you are welcome to add it.


 * I have replaced the new CEO information; I learned about it from Google Alerts, and it has since been added to the company website. prhartcom (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First, apologies for marking my edit as minor - that was a mistake on my part, and clearly mislabeled. However, as I mentioned to Prhartcom in a private note, that section as it stands is not exactly factual or balanced. The opening line is presented as fact, when it's actually "doubt" on the part of "some researchers." That should really be addressed. Also, I included the findings from two studies - if one of them was conducted by Mannatech's in-house people, then it obviously belongs in the next section down, but the second study was just deleted out of hand without any mention of it here. Tbenzinger (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I made an attempt to organize the "scientific evaluation" section more appropriately, and moved the citations I found into the "company-funded studies" section (renamed as "studies" rather than "research", to reflect the lack of a peer review process). I also added "opinion" to the "independent research" header; now it makes more sense to include the previously cited third party opinions in there. Thanks for the back-and-forth on this... it just seems like there's a lack of scientific facts on both sides of this debate, and I'd like to find as much evidence as I can to improve this page. Tbenzinger (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tbenzinger, thank-you for your edits to the Company-funded research section and the Independent research section. Alteripse, thanks in advance to you and other editors for further science-based comments and help reviewing this edit. First of all, I notice the order of the two sections was reversed; I suppose this is okay. I notice nothing was removed from either section, and two new published works were added to the Company section. The added 2007 R Sinnott study is the one conducted by the company's own science officer (who is now co-CEO); Tbenzinger, I feel he should be identified by name and by role in the article, solidifying that this is a company-funded study, do you agree, and if so could you do that? Language clarifying that the work was not peer-reviewed should be added if this is the case. The added 2009 AN Stancil study has no link that I can go to for verification; Tbenzinger, is it possible to provide that? There should also be clarification how this study is company-funded. The citation should appear after all sentences using the citation. A typo needs to be corrected. The title of the Independent research section was better before. The addition of the phrase "Some researchers suggest" are Weasel words (WP:WEASEL) although those researchers are then identified; perhaps change the phrase to "Independent research states" or "Independent research suggests". prhartcom (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I made this recent edit to place the independent research/opinion in the section to which is it most relevant - the ABC News investigation in which these doctors were quoted. I also felt that, since there is no peer reviewed research cited in the section, it was misleading to label the former section "independent research." Does anyone have access to studies that back up the flatulence claim? Tbenzinger (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice your message is dated 2009 instead of 2010 though it seems to refer to current changes? I agree that two is better than some since the sentence describes not the number of scientists critical of mannatech but the number of scientists featured in the ABC piece. I doubt there is published research supporting the flatulence, but it is not being described in the article as "encyclopedically true" but as the quoted opinion of the world's foremost glycoprotein authority. As such the quote is vivid and unambiguous and worth keeping. alteripse (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tbenzinger, I feel strongly that the Independent Research section should not be moved (buried?) into another section, but kept where it was, as the reader was presented with two viewpoints of the company's products in quick succession and given the opportunity to thoughtfully consider each. (And I agree with Alteripse about the flatulence quote in the Independent Research section, just as I am happy with your earlier contributions to the Company-Funded Research section.) As it stands now, the reader is given a product section heavily weighted in favor of company-sponsored studies. In 2007, long before you or I came to this article, and before the ABC presentation aired, many editors labored over the Independent Research section (including Alteripse I think!) to bring it to the state it currently was--before your edit. Please restore the article to its prior state. prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it might be more accurate to call those quotes "independent criticism" rather than "independent research". In other words I dont think we actually have any references to any independent research studies testing product claims. What we have are authorities accurately pointing out the lack of support for the claims of benefit, and referring to studies of somewhat similar compounds that showed no benefit, and pointing out the implausibility of the. In general, no one bothers to conduct research studies of something they expect to be worthless unless someone gives them money to do so or the social pressure rises and the potential social value of a negative study becomes so great that someone expends the effort and expense to do it. It goes back to the basic question of who bears the responsibility to conduct an honest study: the entity making a new claim of efficacy or the skeptic unwilling to accept the claim without evidence. If I had to write a one-sentence summary of this encyclopedia article about Mannatech it would be: The main reason this company has acquired so many critics is the unusually large gap between actual research evidence of efficacy for any purpose and the magnitude of the sales claims, implicit or explicit. As long as this message is clear it may not make much difference where the criticism is located. alteripse (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, guys. Alteripse, you point out exactly what I was trying to address, in that there are no actual "studies" or "research" in the subsection titled "Independent studies". I think renaming it "independent criticism" makes some sense, but then shouldn't it be placed alongside the other criticism? It just seemed to me that the two quotes come from the same ABC Report that already has a subsection devoted to it. I'm not sure what's wrong with presenting the company-sponsored studies alone in the section, given that it's quite clear they are just that - company funded. I won't make another edit yet, but I'd be interested in finding the right solution here. Tbenzinger (talk) 2:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The company-funded and independent points of view of the products belong next to each other, where other editors put them, and for the reason I stated. As Alteripse has said, there is clearly a gap, or a difference, between the thoughts of the two camps. Your point is still valid, Tbenzinger, therefore I have replaced the word "research" with "studies" (not a perfect fix, but it is a softer-sounding word than the negative-sounding word "criticism"), and the first sentence now contains the the word "opinion" that you added--a strong word that implies that this group could be wrong. I think the reader gets the idea that the company has one view and the prominent glycobiologists have another. As Alteripse has said, this message should be clear. If you have other thoughts then let's state them here and get consensus before changing the article. I'm pretty happy with the article right now, thanks to the efforts of so many people (us included)!


 * By the way, in an earlier edit you had accidently caused an important WSJ citation in this section to be omitted, which I just discovered and restored. (Be careful when using the "name" attribute in the "ref" tag.) prhartcom (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional independent and company research
63.162.52.130 blanked the public scrutiny section in two successive edits, which I reverted assuming vandalism. I added a couple sentences to the criticisms from glycobiologists not affiliated with Mannatech. That section could be strengthened by citing original research about the clinical ineffectiveness of the indigestible fibers found in Ambrotose. The necessary sources are in the Schnaar, Freeze article. Cmcnicoll (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your research Cmcnicoll; additional cited information about further independent and company research has improved this article. I appreciate also this comment you made to my talk page, but if it's okay with you I moved it here to this article's talk page. prhartcom (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While the majority of the Independent studies section refers to scrutiny of Ambrotose, publications and placebo tests for numerous products made by Mannatech can be found on MannatechScience.org. It may be worth noting. jaredhimself  talk 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing from a website controlled by Mannatech would be appropriate in the Independent research section. This section is for studies and observations made by entities other than Mannatech. —Prhartcom   (talk)  19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr Darryl Matthew See and his use of barbituates
As many of you may know, Mannatech used to rely heavily on supposed research by one Dr Darryl See to promote its products, particularly Ambrotose. That chapter came to a screeching halt when - amongst other things - the National Institutes of Health disavowed the connection that Darryl See claimed he had with it. Anyway, I thought I would give you an update on our Dr Darryl See. It seems that he lost his medical license due to "Gross Negligence", "Repeated Negligent Acts", "Incompetence" and - get this - "Conviction of Crime", "Excess Use of Drugs or Alcohol", "False Representations", and "Failure to Maintain Accurate and Adequate Medical Records":

http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/see/accusation.shtml

The "Conviction of Crime" and "Excess Use of Drugs and Alcohol" relate to his taking barbituates. Looks like he was taking barbituates instead of Ambrotose. Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.9.171 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick Internet search showed me there was indeed an alliance between the company and this former representative. I see that the company dissassociated itself from this person in 1999, and then several years later in 2007 the events you report occurred. It appears to me the company was correct to end the relationship when it did. Of course after the relationship ended, the events that occurred were not applicable to the company and really not deserving of a mention here.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  18:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, you are certainly touchy on this subject. You have already staked out your position that the entire Darryl See mess should not, in your opinion, be mentioned in the main Mannatech entry.  I'm not so sure about that.  Given the degree to which Mannatech relied on Darryl See's non-existent "research", I think it should be included in the main article.  But I agree that his barbituate use and his losing his medical license should be confined to a coda at the end of a paragraph, i.e. just a short sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.9.171 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This most definitely merits inclusion. The story was covered by LA Times and Bloomberg. The product claims made by the company that were were based on See's crooked research were fraudulent. That's a significant detail. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ben Carson
Should this mention the recent info about Ben Carson's 2004 endorsement of Mannatech? A series of National Review articles has recently covered this, and there has been some secondary commentary about the articles, such as Salon and BET. I don't see this as being a huge deal, but a sentence or two seems like it might be appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is good info, Grayfell I'm glad you have these sources. Yes, perhaps added to the Public Scrutiny section, under a new sub-heading. Please feel free to add it, or would you like me to? Prhartcom (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added something. I'm not attached to it. Edit ruthlessly. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Weight Issue in Texas Attorney General Section
The current version of this section includes a lengthy defensive quote from Caster. However, the source article cited also includes several quotes from the AG's memo elaborating on the details of the investigation, which were not included for some reason. This creates a WP:UNDUE issue. In essence, Caster's defense is give more weight than the charges themselves. The quote from Caster is mildly interesting, so rather than pull it, perhaps it would be best to include a few quotes from the memo. This generally seems to be a bit of an issue throughout the Public Scrutiny section, where Caster is given the last word on every issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Broken reference link
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty
 * 1) 49 is broken -- here is the URL for the correct page. I don't know how to substitute this for the other so maybe someone else could fix this?  Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks! Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Logical inconsistency
Is it not illogical or a big head scratch to have a reference (the only reference) and mainspace text that states that a review found that Carson was NOT an official endorser, and then add "endorser" or "endorsement" in the section header? I wonder how this is logically reconciled? By not using the WP:OR "e" word, or by using it? FeatherPluma (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to concede the point of logic. How about the word, "relationship" isn't really needed either, per header brevity as advocated in the manual of style? Or not. I really don't care. I just wonder about previously adding back "endorsement" explicitly - seemed liked a logical conundrum, and kind of wonder why it was (deliberately or oopsy?) done. Nonetheless, whatever...FeatherPluma (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What exactly is an "official endorser"? This is a phrase used by the Politicfacts source, but it doesn't really explain much. Carson has repeatedly endorsed the company's products according to common sense and plain language definitions. That his endorsement was not "official" seems like a very trivial distinction. Grayfell (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You and every other reader is fully entitled to come to whatever personal opinion you wish regarding the degree of distinction you perceive. The Wikipedia point is not one of perception or personal analysis but what the cited sources state. Given the choice made to use PolitiFact as a source, it is illogical to use "endorsement" in the section header. That's all I am saying. If you think PolitiFact is a sucky source because it doesn't meet your common sense standard of speaking plainly and using words the way you like them used you should go ahead and redact it as a source, with a clear explanation why it's a sucky source. Then you can go ahead and use the word "endorsement" from some source you find. As I said, I really don't care, but please try for internal coherency from one component to another within the article. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

When I added the section in January it was before the debate and the Politifact article came out. I think I just used "endorse" because it briefly described what the section was about. I have no problem changing it to something else, and I think relationship is a better choice than just Ben Carson. Sections titled with just names are often about people who are not notable enough for their own articles, which is clearly not the case here, so adding a single word improves clarity.

Wikipedia articles summarize sources, but this obviously doesn't always mean verbatim quotes. Does "official endorser" have a generally understood meaning? Is it a term used by the FTC or something? On the surface it seems to me to be almost meaningless. The National Review source even says this is about "a semantic argument about what constitutes an endorsement." If someone can explain what "official" is supposed to mean, great, please enlighten me. However, if it's not meaningful, we should consider rephrasing it to explain the actual relationship. The source is crystal clear that Carson was not accurate when he said that he had no connection to Mannatech. That's the primary point of the Politifact source and that's what we need to summarize here. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been mulling this over. This is an update of my first thoughts. I apologize for the length but this turned out to be intellectually nuanced and interesting. If this is too long, the nutshell version is I explain why I changed "connection" to "speeches." And the brief reason is that PolitiFact is one source, it's not a particularly good source, and unless you want to find and carefully add more sources, PolitiFact, despite the name and the Pulitzer, isn't going to cut the mustard and have Wikipedia add back "endorsement".


 * PolitiFact is quite clear that in its opinion Carson had a "connection" (word used) with Mannatech, and, further, that in PolitiFact's opinion Carson:
 * "'suggests he has no ties to Mannatech whatsoever. (emphasis added) In reality, he got paid to deliver speeches to Mannatech...'"
 * This PolitiFact piece is based on the following, quoted from the PolitiFact source page:
 * "At the Oct. 28 Republican presidential debate, hosted by CNBC in Boulder, Colo., moderator Carl Quintanilla asked Carson about his involvement with the company."
 * "'This is a company called Mannatech, a maker of nutritional supplements, with which you had a 10-year relationship,' Quintanilla said. 'They offered claims they could cure autism, cancer. They paid $7 million to settle a deceptive marketing lawsuit in Texas, and yet your involvement continues. Why?'"
 * "'Well, that’s easy to answer: I didn’t have an involvement with them,' replied Carson, a former pediatric neurosurgeon. 'That is total propaganda. And this is what happens in our society -- total propaganda. I did a couple speeches for them. I did speeches for other people. They were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them. Do I take the product? Yes. I think it’s a good product.'"
 * PolitiFact sets up a strong dichotomy here, in which PolitiFact suggests by its structural organizational choices and particularly by its positioning of the word, "whatsoever", and the phrase, "In reality", that Carson misled or outright lied. PolitiFact arrives at "We rate Carson’s claim False." On the basis of this synopsis, you state that PolitiFact "is crystal clear that Carson was not accurate when he said that he had no connection to Mannatech." I suggest, however, that perhaps it behoves a thinking person to reread what Carson said, and to explicitly consider the imputation in Carl Quintanilla's question that he was "involved". To my eye it looks like Carson was addressing that imputation. (I give a simple hypothetically analogy about praying in a Catholic church below, so that this is clearer.) Moreover, it kind of looks like he said he gave speeches. It looks like Carson acknowledged that he got money. So to my eye, perhaps Politifact's use of "In reality" is overreach. (It wouldn't be the first time. Take a sniff at the long list of issues in the PolitiFact article.) It looks like he said he wasn't "involved" and that he said he didn't have any kind of "relationship". Which looks like he is saying he himself did not put about claims that the product could cure autism or cancer. Or have anything to do with the $7 million settlement put up as the focus point by Quintanilla's question, that places in adjacency "$7 million", "deceptive", and "your involvement continues". Carson seems to be saying he had no special knowledge of these aspects.
 * Let's look at "involvement" or "endorsement". PolitiFact is crystal clear (your terminology) that in its opinion he did not provide an official endorsement and was not a paid employee or an official endorser. On the other hand, PolitiFact manages to also say that Carson gave "a full-throated endorsement of the product".
 * I appreciate from what you say that you don't know the difference between no "official endorsement" and a "PolitiFact full-throated endorsement". Well, to some extent I am not totally sure either. But as an intellectual exercise I think I might try to join the hypothetical dots. I have 2 ideas that might, or might not, have anything to do with anything.
 * The "banal reason" we have a seeming confusion between two types of "endorsement" is PolitiFact needs (not just "wants") to have it both ways. This is because it sells newspapers and it markets its work product to other similar news media. I imagine hypothetically that marketplace economic Darwinism makes it a good thing to sell to as many as possible, and thus to fall into the habit, partly by deliberate choice and partly by Darwinian pressure unconsciously shaping the output of the work group, of giving both sides enough rope to pull on. A 2010 editorial in the WSJ spoke about this.
 * "PolitiFact is run by the St. Petersburg Times and has marketed itself to other news organizations on the pretense of impartiality. (emphasis added) Like other 'fact checking' enterprises, its animating conceit is that opinions are what ideologues have, when in reality PolitiFact's curators also have political views and values that influence their judgments about facts and who is right in any debate."
 * According to the WSJ editorial:
 * "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, (emphasis added) misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a 'fact,' though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute."
 * What I think I hear is that perhaps, rather disappointingly, the storm of contention is stirred by the not-so-impartial adjudicators at PolitiFact. And this might just be because PolitiFact survives because the stirred teapot storm is the storm that sells.
 * The more "academic guess" as to why we have a seeming confusion between two types of "endorsement" is that PolitiFact had a writer, an editor, and a fact checker work on this story, or maybe more than 3. Reading between the lines, their in-house team didn't come to an internal perfect alignment, and we have a glaring confusion between "official endorsement" and "full-throated endorsement". My guess is somebody in legal told them there are several principles worth looking at. To see what legal hypothetically might have told them, a lengthy Talk page explanation is less apt to assuage your intellectual curiosity than additional reading. You might start with the Arm's length principle (which could do with a bit of expansion as per e.g.  and maybe even some references, like a freaking textbook hahaha). There are several other principles that may also have played into the opinion/s of the legal department at PolitiFact but this direction might help you get started. If you think this principle through you will see that if Carson isn't an employee and wasn't an official endorser then I suppose that it is within the realms of possibility, but I am merely working from the Politicfacts source cited within mainspace, that the situation is one where Carson seems to be saying that he was not aware of certain aspects regarding Mannatech, that he was not within the corporate walled garden of familiarity in any way, and that as a speaker he gave his personal experience with the product and as such he properly had a lesser degree of involvement and responsibility in knowing these details than would have properly pertained if there had been an official endorsement.
 * As an off-topic illustrative hypothetical, if I walk into a Catholic church and say in all honesty that I find I like the candles, and that I find I appreciate the art work, and that I find that the priest is personable, I am not an official Catholic, and I may or may not know much about a hypothetical previous priest's problems. I am not personally "involved" in any settlement on behalf of the Church, I don't have a relationship to whatever happened. That remains true even if I sit down and say a quiet prayer, or later give a "full-throated" speech about how much I liked and appreciated my visit from the perspective of what I liked and appreciated. Now, if, on the other hand, I am the bishop, and I know all about... then I am "involved"... (And even more off topic, you ask what "official" means. What do you think this "full-throated" means? Perhaps we are to take it as "enthusuiastic" or "with a resonating voice reminiscent of Édith Piaf" or "as warbly as Deep Throat (Watergate)" or as "engagingly entertaining as "Deep Throat (film)" or as "full-on throbby like a well tuned big carburetor"? This of course, is never going to be a serious or even marginally acceptable basis for adding "endorsement" back. I removed "endorsement", so it has nothing to do with January. It was added back after I removed it with a rather energetic edit summary that expressed "distinct reservations about it being in the least appropriate" -- actually, for cacophemistic emphasis, I said pointed it up as being so improper a use of the source as to be "um fucked up".)
 * In short, for the purposes of this Wikipedia article I caution against pushing the word "endorsement", whether "official" or "full-throated." I think that while originally it had a plain sense here in Wikipedia, we have a wobbly real world source that casts a shape to the meaning that needs to be carefully eschewed. Of course, if multiple sources start using the "e" word in a particular way things may change. For now though, I think that continuing to hold on to "endorsement" within the Wikipedia text would definitely require additional explicitly confirmatory sources. In fact, having worked on this a bit more, I believe it is appropriate to change "relationship" to "speeches" (or less satisfactorily to "connection", as despite what PolitiFact says, Carson did not say there was no "connection"). Doing so is in line with your advice not to quote the source verbatim, but to use a modifying clarifier.
 * I am making this change now and I hope we can then close out this issue as complete. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply, and I like the current wording. I share your unease with Politifact, and have for a while; it's useful, but it's got some problems. After looking into it a bit more, I think the legalistic nature of the distinction might itself be worth explanation... maybe. The section is already getting out of hand, and this seems like a potential recentism problem. Still, this quote from the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column seems very relevant: Carson is using technical and legalistic language to distance himself from Mannatech. But the public isn't necessarily looking for evidence of signed contracts between Carson and Mannatech or a "paid endorser" label. That pretty much sums up my point. I don't see any sign that the controversy centered on the contractual terms of Carson's involvement with Mannatech, so that seems like a technicality, or a worse, a deliberate distraction. I don't have as much familiarity with the column, but I assume it has the same problems as Politifact. It also has a gimmicky lie scale and a simple view of 'fact'. I think I'm going to leave it alone for now and reassess at a later time. It might also help to see if this gets more coverage in the future. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These are excellent additional points, particularly recentism. I too have reached the point of stepping back, with the parting thought that while a brief treatment of this topic here augments the Mannatech article, the major proper place for this to get worked through is at Ben Carson, and that I think that the wording there is much better than what I have ended up with here. Best wishes. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the subsequent edits by Rhode Island Red to the section have improved the article. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mannatech. 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/20130721034910/http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/survive.htm to http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/survive.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Summarising the scientific view in the lead
Currently the lead states "The scientific validity of Mannatech's key product Ambrotose has been called into question by several researchers". This seems to be far too generous to the company given the coverage in Glycobiology and Science already included in the article and a follow up in Glycobiology published this year which again concluded "there is insufficient evidence that glyconutrients are a way to cure, mitigate, treat or prevent diseases, illnesses or serious conditions."

"" is pretty weasely and it's unclear what it actually means. Something like "" would be better. "" makes it seem as if they have said they might not work, whereas they have said that there is no evidence that they work - quite a different meaning. "" is also unclear and makes it seem as if they are in the minority whereas this seems to be the accepted position of the glycobiology community. It also strikes me as strange that this is only written about Ambrotose, when they have many other products. Can anyone come up with a better way of summarising this, and are there sources discussing the efficacy of any of their other products? as this is right up your street and you're much better at writing than I am! SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oy. Thanks Smartse, will look.  Will also post at WT:MED to get other eyes here. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, i revised it. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The science evidence is HARD TO FIND, but it appears to be listed here. http://mannatechscience.org/wp-content/uploads/ClinicalResearch-2017v4.pdf  Most of the products have no clinical trial evidence or reviews, so not possible to get into efficacy of their other products. David notMD (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice find! They do a good job marketing/hyping what they have done.  We have MEDRS sources in the article, and none of the citations they list there are reviews.  Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually aka  is a 2012 review in an OK journal on cognitive effects. by company scientists which is too bad. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also nice find on the interaction with the FDA. Thanks, and thanks too Zefr!  Much tighter now. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even given that review, the company shorts the customers. In the clinical trials, most dosing was 3.6 to 7.0 g/day, with only one trial under 1.0 g. For the powder Ambrotose products, suggested use is in that range (two serv/day, 2.0 g/serving), but the capsule products fall far short. Suggested use for Ambrotose Complex capsules is 1.34 g/day. When Ambrotose Complex is combined with other ingredients, as in Ambrotose AO, the Ambrotose content per day falls to under 1.0 gram (as low as 0.084 g in Manna-C). Another example of dosing "in-name-only" is in CardioBALANCE. It calls out Coenzyme Q10 as beneficial for people on statin drugs, but the amount in the product is 1.7 mg, whereas CoQ10 supplement amounts necessary to significantly raise plasma CoQ10 start at 30 mg. David notMD (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Manna?
According to the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall, but [ https://www.culteducation.com/group/1042-mannatech/13139-health-claims-by-sales-forceboost-supplement-firm.html ] has a copy of the text):


 * "Early on, Mr. Caster and his wife turned to friends and prayer partners to sell products and recruit other salespeople, according to Ms. Caster's self-published book, "Undeniable Destiny." Steven Barker, a professor of veterinary medicine at Louisiana State University who served as a Mannatech director from 1998 to 2002, said the board was concerned about religious influence on marketing."


 * " 'People would become overzealous and start making claims that this was manna and it had miraculous properties, that it was God's gift,' says Mr. Barker. 'Sam is a very religious individual, and he would listen to people making claims they thought were miraculous....The board wanted him to tone it down. They didn't want it to become a revival, some kind of ultrareligious event.' "

and
 * " These days, God and the Bible are mentioned frequently by some sales associates during meetings and conference calls. At this year's MannaFest, one associate led a training workshop called 'Leadership Lessons from Moses,' which used quotes from Exodus. At 'Leadership Skills from a Biblical Perspective,' associate Dottie Anderson described 'Jesus as the first network marketer.' "

Is this worth including, perhaps in the history section?

BTW, the website [ https://www.culteducation.com/group/1042-mannatech.html ], while not itself a RS, has gathered a bunch of material from sources that we can use. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Criticizing a company for using religious principles as marketing tools is not unique to Mannatech, and in my opinion, not germane to the article. By the way, it is common that MLM and Ponzi schemes function within religious and cultural groups, as they start by betraying their own kind (in parts of the country, MLM is known as "Mormons Losing Money"). David notMD (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was thinking something along the lines of replacing
 * "Mannatech is a multinational multi-level marketing firm that sells dietary supplements and personal care products, with a history of false claims and lawsuits."
 * with
 * "Mannatech is a multinational multi-level marketing firm that sells dietary supplements and personal care products, with a history of false claims and lawsuits. The name refers to the biblical Manna.(citation)"
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would be ok with that. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Against a "manna" mention in the lede. Perhaps appropriate within History. David notMD (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I second the suggestion to include mention of manna in the history section rather than the lead. It's a detail of minor interest but not really notable enough to be lead-worthy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been in the body for quite a while now, ya'all. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly no consensus for changing the lead, so I am happy with the existing mention in the history. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

comment
Hi all. Isn't this edit overkill in terms of NPOV? (Pro Amateur (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC))


 * What do you mean by "this edit"? Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not convinced this article adheres to non-neutrality. Not convinced this article contains complete information and is not promoting one particular point of view over another.(Pro Amateur (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC))


 * What, in particular, are you disputing? Do you dispute that Mannatech is a multinational multi-level marketing firm? That they sell dietary supplements and personal care products? That they have a history of false claims and lawsuits? That it is best known for the false claims made by it and its sales people about the health benefits of its lead product? That at one time Ben Carson was associated with the company? These claims are all well-established by reliable secondary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Pro Amateur, please reply to the question asked at User talk:Pro Amateur. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi All,

Mike here. Updated Infobox with 2016 SEC Filing figures to keep article current. (MZT35 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC))