Talk:Protandim/Archives/2012/August

Side Effects
The current article, notes that side effects are not common. This seems to match the FAQ language on the LifeVantage website that reads: "We do not expect there to be any side effects for the typical consumer who consumes Protandim. Some individuals have natural allergic responses to one or another of the ingredients, just as some people are allergic to pine pollen or penicillin. These allergic responses to Protandim generally appear as gastrointestinal disturbances (ie, stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting) or sometimes as a headache or rash on the hands or feet. The symptoms disappear if Protandim is discontinued and so far none have required medical treatment. Some of those experiencing these side-effects or allergies have been able to continue with Protandim at a half dose. Others simply cannot take Protandim. Any side-effect occurring within ten (10) minutes is unlikely due to Protandim. It may take an hour or two before the caplet dissolves and the gene induction effects of Protandim require many hours to begin."

I think its important to include language that indicates side effects are not common in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the text proposed and re-added to the article ("there are no side effects") does not match what the manufacturer states. Secondly, "We do not expect" is not a declaration that side effects are uncommon, nor has any data been released on the incidence of side effects with Protandim. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The language "no expectation" is more accurate. However, it is clear the manufacturer is not suggesting that all customers will have side effects with the language they use, and yes "we do not expect" suggest that from the information they've collected, though not published, they continue to not expect most customers will have any allergic reactions.--PublicAdvocate (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "we do dont expect" is vague -- it gives no insight as to the true incidence of side effects. Just list the side effects and don't synthesize staements that reflect wheteher the incidence of such effects s high or low. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your latest edit is fine, and is accurate. I agree "we don't expect is vague", however listing the side effects without any qualification is highly misleading, suggesting that all consumers will have one or more side effects listed, which clearly the manufacturer is not suggesting using the vague but accurate language of "we don't expect". --PublicAdvocate (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually listing the side effects "without any qualification" is appropriate. It neither implies a high rate or a low rate of incidence. It bypasses the issue of incidence rates altogether because there is no reliable information about incidence rates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Incident rates are not being questioned no implied, don't spread your bias, the manufacture clearly indicates 'We do not expect there to be any side effects for the typical consumer who consumes Protandim', the basics of this critical phrase should be represented --PublicAdvocate (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference between "we do not expect" and "there are no...". It seems as though you are trying to refactor the statement to imply something that was not actually stated by the mnaufacturer. The FAQ states the following: "Q: Are there any side effects to taking Protandim?" The first word of their reply is Yes. That is very different from stating that "there are no side effects". The statement in the FAQ talks about what the maufacturer expects; it doesn't say that the consumer shouldn't expect side effects. manufacturer Please stop restoring the misleading edit. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting the manufacturer website, you are the one distorting it. This article doesn't say "there is no".  Please stop removing this and rewording the manufacture's exact language to fit your interpretation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not distorting it. I quoted the exact text above. Does it have side effects? The first sentence in the reply was a one word answer -- "Yes." The text you keep adding says the opposite -- "there are no side effects". If you wish, we can post this on one of the noticeboards for additional comment, but until then, please don't re-add this innacurate text. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article reads identically to the FAQ page as referenced, your abbreviated distortions are not not acceptable for the Wiki community. --PublicAdvocate (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested that this canbe brought to the attention of other WP editors for additional input, as this would be a better alternative to beating this dead horse and edit warring; however, you did not reply to this offer and went ahead and reverted anyway. Please don't make the mistake of violating 3RR. If you have lingering concerns, we can get additional opinions. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but then lets leave it the way it was., and then you take your case to the WP community.--PublicAdvocate (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.lifevantage.com/company-faq.aspx clearly lays out the details. This should be the referenced link, and it clearly states : "We do not expect there to be any side effects for the typical consumer who consumes Protandim" and should not be omitted in the article.--64.92.206.197 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to subvert an editing block? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The company recently rewrote their FAQ, changed the URL, and now they are trying to claim that all of the side effects of the product can be dismissed as merely being the result of food allergies. That's nonsense. They do not conduct proper safety trials to determine the incidence or underlying mechanisms of the side effects caused by the product. At best, their info is based on weak anecdotal post marketing reports. They have no way whatsoever of determining that these cases were caused by allergies. The company's claim is fallacious and it is scientifically untenable. We all read the original faq and discussed here extensively. The new FAQ seems to be a whitewash effort, and I cannot condone WP playing into their game by revising the text in his article, regardless of whats in the company's new dodgy FAQ. In summary, he product can cause side effects; we know what they are; the precise mechanism is unknown. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But here's the problem, RIR. You are leaving the part of the statement "According to the manufacturer ...". Then you essentially are rewriting the manufacturer's statement to remove or rewrite what you are describing as "nonsense". Now, please understand. I have no opinion one way or another as to whether it is nonsense. But your rewrite does change the wording enough that I don't think it fully presents what the manufacturer is stating. I suggest that you either leave the direct quotation (which is not what you think is accurate, but what the manufacturer thinks), or you reword the entire section so that it is clearly differentiated what the company is and is not claiming. "According to the manufacturer" is misleading because you are not fully presenting the issue "according to the manufacturer". Cresix (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The company is claiming and had always claimed that there are side effects of the product. I can accept that. Presumably, this is based on post marketing reports received from the company by consumers, as is the norm for reporting adverse events of dietary supplements. I have no problem reporting that in the article, as it seems reasonable and straightforward. Where we have to draw the line is in reporting any unfounded claims regarding the precise mechanism of the side effects -- I.e. trying to dismiss them as innocuous allergies -- because, as I said before, the company would have no way of determining this and they have not presented any evidence to support the claim. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I don't have a problem with your points, assuming they are factual. My only problem was clearly explaining what the company claims. If you have adequate sourcing, you might present what the company claims and then what you feel are the contradictory facts. But if you can't do that, then the only option is to present exactly what the company claims (i.e., a direct quotation). Or another option is to remove the section altogether, but I don't see that as a very good solution. Cresix (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my point also. The only side effect information we have to go on comes from the company. The article cannot be written to suggest protandim has side effects beyond this statement.  For all we know the FAQ was modified to reflect the same position, just stated more accurately, who are we to assume otherwise?  This article should read "The manufacturer claims: "... and put exactly what they claim.  People can arrive at their own conclusion if they think the claims are not substantiated.  To omit this, suggest that there is viable information to conclude side effects exist outside an allergy mechanism, which is not the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I don't want to misrepresent what the manufacturer claims, there is an issue potential bias in presenting only what the manufacturer claims. I really would like more eyes on this article, especially those with nutritional and medical expertise. It might be worthwhile to post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Cresix (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The bias comes by not quoting the only source available accurately. Disclosing the statement is from the manufacturer is required so the reader understands the source.--PublicAdvocate (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you got my point. There is potential bias in stating only the manufacturer's claims. I agree it could be biased to misquote the manufacturer, but I would like to see other information about side effects beyond those claimed by the manufacturer. Cresix (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism
My edits were removed for "self-published sources of questionable and anonymous origin." I have added them back because I fail to see how an interview with Paul Myhill, a video of Joe McCord, and a signed letter from McCord to Myhill are questionable or anonymous origin.

I didn't see a violation of NPOV, but I softened the language in an attempt eliminate any complaints there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlmwatch (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I made further changes to conform the statements to the "Inside Protandim" source. This is a controversial product (in my opinion), and the Wikipedia article is controversial; we need to stick very closely to the sources. I find protandimscams.com questionable, possibly biased, and containing some self-published information (the very name of the website suggests a distinct point of view), but I have not removed those citations at this point. I do believe we need a consensus here to keep them in the article, however, as there is some disagreement about how good the sources are. If we don't get many opinions here, there should be an RfC set up with appropriate notices posted on science- and medical-related Wikiprojects so that more eyes (especially from experts) might comment. I have long felt that this article is largely the product of a couple of editors who usually disagree with each other, and I also feel (but can't prove) that people closely involved with LifeVantage have exerted influence on the content of the article. So I think some fresh opinions might help to clear the air. Cresix (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this. In the short term, I'm putting back the edits as you made a point that you haven't removed the citations and PublicAdvocate hasn't engaged in conversation here on the topic.  I think the removal of the image of the letter from McCord to Myhill should not be questionable, as it is not biased or associated with ProtandimScams.com.  Further unbiased proof of this is available at The Internet Archive of LifeVantage's website.  I would be satisfied if that source was used instead.  (This Denver News Article also cites McCord as the inventor).  If someone would like to take a crack of editing it with those citations, that would be great.  I will be happy to do so myself when I have more time later.  I think this story can be told without any bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlmwatch (talk • contribs) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor a point, but I would prefer that any information, including reference to McCord's letter, be cited to sources other than protandimscams.com. I'm not saying that the letter is fraudulent (I have no idea), but I would feel much more confident in its authenticity if it was cited to a better source. If this information is notable, there should be comments about it elsewhere. It's also a primary source, which, though not forbidden on Wikipedia, is discouraged, especially when found from a questionable source. And information about the letter from another source may also provide a different perspective (hypothetical example: did McCord write other letters or provide other interviews, or were there any responses to his letter, that give us a broader perspective or more detailed information?). Cresix (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All good questions, let's see what comes up. I agree that a blog site is not an ideal source, and I think it was a good choice to modify the text so as to rely more on the other sources. I'm not as concerned about the blog as a source for the letter itself though, only because I watched these events unfold in real time in March-April of this year, including Myhill's posting of McCords letter. Interestingly, all of the information Myhill had posted on the Internet about this matter suddenly got expunged immediately before Life Vantage announced in late-April that they were making a big donation to Myhill's charity -- it was quite an amazing turn of events. The company even touted this "donation" in a press release, which featured uncharacteristically effusive quotes from Myhill such as: "I express my gratitude to LifeVantage for today's generous contribution as well as its past contributions to further the mission of Traffic Jam Campaign (Myhill's charity), and I deeply regret any damage or confusion that may have been caused by my public remarks in recent months." It sure looked as though the company simply paid Myhill (at least indirectly vis a vis the charity) to be quiet; they weren't exactly subtle. Clearly, Myhill was the inventor of the product, as indicated by the patents, so I think the company probably stepped over the line by plugging McCord as the inventor instead of Myhill, and the when push came to shove, they had to backpedal.


 * So having seen first hand all of this back and forth between Myhill and the company, I have a less of a problem with some of this material being included than perhaps an editor would if seeing it for the first time. To satisfy my editorial conscience, I only have to be fair and evenhanded; not blind. It's certainly interesting and seems noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion as long as there is reasonable agreement about sourcing and accuracy. It would be nice to see some more sources turn up.


 * I think it might also be helpful to footnote relevant material from the Blog Talk Radio interview with Myhill, at least on the talk page if not in the article itself, and come to a consensus that there is direct support for the text that is now included in the article, which as far I can tell, there is. The information is pivotal, so a backup would be of use if the link were to become inactive. Doing the same with the company's press release and including something about it in the WP article might not be a bad idea either. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)