Talk:Protandim/Archives/2013/January

From LM--studies and bias
Editor 99.19.17.4 ("LM") left me this message at my User Talk page:
 * Dear Zad68 Edits made  to Protandim are due to misrepresentation in the article. There are 13 research studies, it only highlights one that didn't have specific outcomes after 7 days, still had results but not for alcoholics in the way they hoped.  There are 12 other studies and one artical that show the Nrf2 activation validity. The person who is editing this page had a bias slant. the writing is done in a way that leads to negative thinking vs investigation or information. I have edited out the bias but you all revert it back without really looking at it. Check out pubmed.gov, its a valid source backed by doctors, peer reviewed, not some random editor. There are many citations that are opinion of bloggers which is not a reliable reference. Some of the refrences are good but much is left out. HOW does one edit and have it researched not just reverted? How can Wiki become a reliable source of unbias information. I have to tell people right now to go to google scholar and Pubmed.gov and not wiki or blogs since its opinion that is not objective.


 * Since im not a pro at this editing wiki its very hard to figure out how to talk to someone or discuss with the other opinions how to have correct info. I know about the account offerings but dont have time to post all the time.LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk • contribs)

I said that I'd open up a new section to discuss his concerns here, so here we are. LM, you should propose a specific content change to the article, and the source you would like to use to support the content. 03:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) "There are 13 research studies" - Incorrect; it seems that you are including review articles in your tally -- review articles are not "research studies".
 * (2) "it only highlights one that didn't have specific outcomes after 7 days, still had results." -- There have been only two clinical trials (i.e., human studies) on Protandim; the latest one, which you referred to, was the only one of the two that was properly designed (i.e., a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial). The latter study is highlighted for that reason -- i.e., it is the highest quality evidence in humans to date (although note that the other clinical trials is also mentioned). Refer to WP:MEDRS for additional explanation. Also, note that human studies should be given precedence over vitro and animal studies.
 * (3) "The person who is editing this page had a bias slant" - Accusations like that are not constructive. The talk page should be used for commenting on specific content in the article (refer to WP:TPG, not to throw dirt at others editor, which is a form of personal attack.
 * (4) "I have to tell people right now to go to google scholar and Pubmed.gov and not wiki or blogs since its opinion that is not objective" -- Your comment seems to indicate that you have a WP:COI. Also, I get the impression that you are JohnnyVictrola, the same editor who blocked for edit warring a couple of days ago. If you are, you should refer to WP:SOCK. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to above: not sure who the victrola person is but this was posted after several attempts to figure this wiki thing out and how to communicate to others, sorry for frustration showing. I would like it any wiki page to come across as objective, informational, etc. In stating the writer has a bias is not a personal attack (i teach cognitive psy) it would be if it were not true or i was putting the character down of the writer without just cause. But after several readers reading the wiki page, they do come away with a negative view rather than an informational one therefore making it bias. Examples below:

The statement below is also opinion.

It has not been refuted so you can not objectively comment on what that test can or cant do purely by the statement that "The authors suggested" suggests bias not a objective 3rd party source.

A 2008 review article noted that while many supplements are claimed to act as antioxidants, changes in the levels of TBARS and increases in the levels of antioxidant enzymes in response to a treatment do not provide a reliable indication that the treatment has an antioxidant effect, since the same responses are produced by pro-oxidant compounds that induce oxidative stress. The authors suggested that measurement of isoprostanes might be a better indication of lipid peroxidation and oxidative damage to DNA.[34]

This is a bias reference in that the title is not objective as well as the opening statement " I’m fed up! In August 2009 I wrote about Protandim, pointing out that it’s not supported by good evidence. I thought I had made myself clear; but apparently I had only made myself a target". If its objective and informational it would not point one way or the other. This may be a good blog piece but it isn't objective and therefor should not be cited. A 2011 blog by Harriet A. Hall in Science-Based Medicine stated, "We simply don’t know enough at this point to recommend Protandim for treatment or prevention of any disease, for anti-aging, for making people feel healthier or more energetic, or for anything else."[35]

under In vitro and animal studies, it states: "In studies published by LifeVantage executive Joe McCord and colleagues," but the citation is for free radical bio. This seems like a misleading or incorrect statement.

same below that: "An in vitro gene expression microarray study published by Dr. McCord and associates" with refrences to publications not the authors. It would seem to stay objective to let the publications speak for themselves and make the statement the remainder of each of those sentences such as:

No mention of this study done out of the Netherlands Nrf2 activators: a novel strategy to promote oligodendrocyte survival in multiple sclerosis?

J. Lim, S. van der Pol, J. Drexhage, E. de Vries, J. van Horssen (Amsterdam, NL) Conclusions: Our findings indicate that several Nrf2 activators are able to significantly increase antioxidant enzyme production in oligodendrocytes. Interestingly, protandim, a dietary supplement consisting of herbal ingredients, was the most potent inducer and therefore may be the most suited as a therapeutic strategy. Importantly, Nrf2-mediated antioxidant enzyme expression in oligodendrocytes resulted in enhanced oligodendrocyte survival during an oxidative attack.

Not sure if this is a correct statement:

The citations show Dr. McCord and this may be true but i believe it is also true when someone is referencing work and builds off the science of others they reference them, have them low on the list, and/ or if the were a major contribution show the names, does that mean it was funded by Lifevantage? I would like to see a reference showing the studies were funded by Lifevantage for this to be published correctly. Most of the studies referenced are done by multiple universities

Legal On October 14, 2011, Burke Hedges, a former high-level LifeVantage distributor, filed a lawsuit with the Utah District Court against LifeVantage and its executives, seeking $3 million in punitive damages over allegations of wrongful termination and tortious interference.[40] this link is not active, i understand this was dismissed?

Other: no mention of the the 6 patients

Citation 10. ^ a b "Scientist returns to build long-life pill plant". The Scotsman. November 17, 2003. Retrieved 08/20/2012. is not noted in the text and doesnt seem to relate to said prduct Citation 11 & 35. is opinion and shouldn't be used as a reference, seems to be a draw to her site for advertising ^ Hall, Harriet. "Pursued by Protandim Proselytizers". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 12 November 2011.

^ a b Austin, Marsha (December 8, 2003). "Denver Businessmen Gamble on Selling Fountain of Youth in Pill Form". Denver Post. Retrieved 08/20/2012.

Let me know your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a hard time understanding the details of your comment; it was generally confusing. I'll tackle the low hanging fruit first. The Dutch study by Lim et al. is nothing more than an abstract; it is not a full published "study" per se. Abstracts are not peer-reviewed and are considered incomplete and unreliable as sources. It also adds little because it was an in vitro study conducted in animal cells, and the WP article already refers to the activation of NrF2 based on other more complete published studies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

the details are hard to lay out bc you cant put bullet point and separate things out, nonetheless, editing so that it is neutral is the overall goal correct? I dont think Wiki stats you can't reference data that doesn't have full abstracts, rather ensure you dont misrepresent the reports. Please let me know about the language issues, they seem like simple fixes. LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The source in question is a conference abstract; it is not a published study. WP GLs on sourcing state: "Conference abstracts present incomplete and unpublished data and undergo varying levels of review; they are often unreviewed self-published sources and these initial conclusions may have changed dramatically if and when the data are finally ready for publication. Consequently, they are usually poor sources". Conference abstracts do not undergo peer review. They are basically worthless. The source is woefully insufficient to support an extraordinary claim about the product. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1.12.13 There seemed to be no objection to the suggestions made above in the sense of keeping objective. Based on that and it's been some time now, i have updated the information accordingly. Above it also referenced a resources on measurements of antioxidants, since there is various theory's and measurements out there, unless it is proven NOT to be a valid measurement, we need to let the peer review publications stand on their own merits. so I additionally took down the reference with citation of the abstract on ways to evaluate ROS. If it is accepted by the various universities studding the product, i image the British Cambridge abstract would be one counter point. SO instead of evaluating the method, let's stick to the topic of the post.

BTW there is no way to confirm this: "Burke Hedges V. Lifevantage Corporation". United States District Court for the District of Utah: Civil No. 110918424. October 14, 2011. the reference doesnt work anymore so i deleted. it cant be found or validated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)