Talk:Protandim/Archives/2010/April

Article rewritten
To start with, the links to on-line content of Protandim skeptics such as Harriet Hall and Tony Campbell should not have been removed. The link to an unpublished observational study on Duchene's muscular dystrophy should not have been deleted either. Also, description of pending research activity should not be omitted nor a direct link to the current quarterly SEC report of Lifevantage. A lot of Wikipedia articles have a section entitled "Controversy". Perhaps that would be a good approach. The current research strongly indicates that this formula modifies NRF2, the master control switch of anti-oxidant response at the cellular level. This not only deserves further study, but it also requires further study if a lot of consumers are trying the product. I do not think that there would be unanimous consensus among all doctors and scientists that there may not be unknown issues involved in doing this or that everybody should feel free to use this product on a long term basis. The Wikipedia article should not come across as an endorsement of this product. (Entropy7 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I've restored the links, and cleaned up some of the style problems, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done to restore this article to a non-advertising balance.
 * For example, I'm not convinced that the patent status is even the least bit important to anyone except a potential investor -- and Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of flogging stocks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that the rewrite has omitted any reference to multi-level marketing or the fact that the human evaluation used a simple before-and-after-style protocol on a comparatively small scale as opposed to a double-blind placebo study which could have provided a more systematic evaluation of any side effects persons might experience if they choose to use the product. (Entropy7 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't see anything about MLM sales in the previous version, either. I think it would be a reasonable thing to include.
 * Would you like to have a go at improving the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)