Talk:Transfer factor

Ill. Dictionary of Immunology, 3rd ed. (2009, ISBN 9780849379871)
See article about TF on p.713 (https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=X4X8d2SmQB0C&q=713) Niichavo (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

PDR.net
Transfer factor is currently being listed in the Physicians' Desk Reference. http://www.pdr.net/drugpages/productlabeling.aspx?mpcode=30651060 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which itself adds nothing and at the bottom it states the claims were not FDA-evaluated. Removed.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Physicians' Desk Reference® (PDR®)is the most trusted and commonly used drug information reference. This source is important as a reference to transfer factor information for the public to be aware of. Please refer to http://www.pdr.net/webpages/aboutus.aspx for more information on PDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, still no. The PDR still contains little but summaries of animal research and a tiny study of 13 people.  We don't include primary studies, even if listed in a secondary study - particularly when we have to add the words "in rats" to the end.  Just noting that the PDR mentions transfer factors adds nothing to the page.  Removing the observation that TF are unproven in the treatment of any condition is downright inappropriate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The most recent paper of any quality is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10949913 from 2001.

The PDR is not the end all be all of medical information for a research molecule. You are conflating the vernacular "transfer factor" with the research term. Read the very first citation provided and look at the picture imaged - they reference a form a transfer factor coming from lymphocytes. However, when you go to the PDR reference you link to it clearly states "transfer factors are sourced from the ultra-filtration of colostrum and from egg yolks.". However, there is little to no evidence that colostrum or egg yolks have high concentrations of lymphocytes. It is not impossible that colostrum of egg whites could contain products derived from cellular lysates, but it is unproven. Even the drawing is not full accurate since cells do not secrete TF - if they did you could pick TF up in serum and not even need the cells to "transfer" the effects. There is a line of research involving cellular lysates and a parallel, but different, line researching the "commercial product known as transfer factor". So the PDR is going to refer solely to the commercially sold product, that has no evidence supporting it, but the cellular lysate research of the past is a distinctly different subject - and deserves to be treated as such.

New sources?
The most recent paper of any quality is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10949913 from 2001.

There don't seem to be many new sources that really address transfer factors. The newest review article seems to be from 1993. It's like the interest mostly died. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The above summary is entirely incorrect, as a quick search of PubMed.gov for "transfer factor", "colostrinin", "proline rich polypeptides", or "leukocyte extract" will reveal. Indeed, the newest review paper is a 2009 article by Aaron White from Duke University. He also published a book on transfer factors that year. Four papers on the use of colostrinin (transfer factors) for Alzheimer's disease were published in 2009. Interest has not "died" but is growing. Interest among consumers for products containing transfer factors has also increased, though it is important to note that the sale of transfer factors through multilevel marketing companies and research on transfer factors are separate issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronmwhite (talk • contribs)


 * Are you that Aaron White? Citing your own work, particularly a self-published book, , is a conflict of interest.  Is the "review paper" the one from Explore! magazine?  I couldn't find the paper on pubmed or google scholar.  Please stop adding massive dumps of primary source material - the preference is for secondary, medically-reliable sources that summarize research in the form of review articles and meta-analyses.  Even if it is probable that these materials could be useful, it is apparent that they are not used as a main form of treatment.  Per our policy on undue weight we are supposed to represent the status of the field as seen by the relevant experts, and based on WebMD, Quackwatch and the Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center, transfer factors are not seen as primary treatment options.  The Cochrane Collaboration doesn't reference them as a form of treatment (or even as an investigation topic ).


 * What's really missing are randomized controlled trials indicating TF is effective in the treatment of any condition, and similar evidence demonstrating TF is a mainstream modality. If it's not a mainstream modality, using wikipedia to promote it as such is inappropriate.  Until mainstream practice adopts the use of transfer factors, it should be portrayed as a fringe theory with minimal mainstream support.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a recent review paper from 2007. Berrón-Pérez R et al. Indications, usage, and dosage of the transfer factor. Rev Alerg Mex. 2007 Jul-Aug;54(4):134-9. Here's another from 2008. White A. Why vaccines are not the answer - the failure of V520 and the importance of cell-mediated immunity in the fight against HIV. Med Hypotheses. 2008 Dec;71(6):909-13. Superjack4life (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Medical Hypotheses is worthless as a source - it's not a "proof", experiment or review article. The sole criteria for inclusion is a coherently expressed idea.  That's neither a review article, nor a proof, and shouldn't be used.  I'll look at the review article.
 * The MSKCC page doesn't support TF being used for herpes or CFS - both are based on single studies. The herpes study showed changes in secondary blood indicators (and closes with the summary "However, CD4 counts in the transfer factor group still remained below the levels for healthy individuals.") and this isn't an indication of even clinical efficacy.  The CFS study examined similar indicators of improvement for possible, prospective, hypothetical causes of CFS (the actual cause of which is still very much in question).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume the Berron-Perez article is this one published in this journal?  I'll have to look into it a bit more.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding this link to Sloan-Kettering's website, as they address the efficacy of Transfer Factor and it is definitely not all bad. In fact they state that there is efficacy in specific clinical situations. Anyone who has read these discussions would probably have interest in reading this:

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69399.cfm

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.173.67 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Transfer factor research vs transfer factor marketing and sales
More research (1000+ papers) has been published on transfer factors in reputable scientific and medical journals than most other immunomodulators. They have powerful, demonstrable effects on immune system activity, cell counts, etc. At the same time, a few companies are aggressively marketing transfer factors as cure alls for diseases. There IS evidence that transfer factors affect immune system function. There IS NOT sufficient evidence to back up the widespread claims made by these companies and their sales force. Importantly, the activities of these companies should be viewed as separate from the science on transfer factors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronmwhite (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Until mainstream medicine adopts the use of transfer factors as a useful, proven treatment modality, the article should be short and based on secondary (i.e. review) sources rather than primary in vitro or single studies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of recent changes
WLU - may I ask what qualifies you to claim any level of expertise on cellular versus colostrum transfer factor? It is clear you have not even read the citations you seem to "tolerate" on the page LCDR IAM (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCDR IAM (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS for what qualifies to make a medical statement on wikipedia. Also note that qualifications are irrelevant for editing wikipedia, what matters is the ability to verify information using reliable sources.  Please note that in particular, primary sources (i.e. the results of individual experiments) are not adequate to make medical or treatment claims on wikipedia; though I am not an expert, from what I have seen there is no real acceptance of transfer factors as a treatment for any condition.
 * I have left a note at WT:MED to attract attention to this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is making medical recommendations. I specifically outline that there is no connection between the cellular product listed in the first section, and the dietary supplement. The information as you have provided is flatly incorrect. THe companies sell their "product" based on false equivalence between the work from Dr Lawrence and their claims. By not separating the two you are playing right into that. There is no mention of medical treatment recommendations - this is a scientific comment. I could say Interleukin 1 improves response to viruses and it would not be a "recommendation" for someone to go get an injection - nor could they even do so outside of a research study. You wanted newer references and were provided them - and, as for all scientific information, multiple "individual" experiments are used to. I AM an expert on the science of Transfer Factor the cellular molecule working at the NIH and your page, as formulated, plays into the nonsense claims of companies by giving the impression they are the same. They are two distinctly different items and need to be treated as such. I hope and pray your "flagging" gets someone to look at this as I would welcome any and all opportunity to outline that either you need to make two separate pages (one for "researched lymphokine" and one for "dietary supplement"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCDR IAM (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful in what sources we use, and how we state it. The use of individual primary studies goes against WP:PSTS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS.  I note that changes made to the side effects section were not supported to the cited reference as well. As an "expert on the science of Transfer Factor", you have no special rights or privileges on this page; Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you have to work with other editors here.  As an expert, you should be able to provide good high quality sources and discuss them here.  I would suggest making suggestions here on the talk page for changes to be discussed, rather than making whole-sale changes that appear to be contentious. Yobol (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that. But I am frustrated by another user simply overriding all edits without any reasoning other than "no it shouldn't". LCDR IAM These are peer reviewed journals on a scientific review. Please look at the article on IL-1B. The "secondary source" as you would call it it basically a blog with a list of published papers. There is no systematic review as is being suggested. The comments on human derived TF on WebMD has no source itself - but that being said, please read the WebMD page. You will not they clearly state TF is "taken from a human or animal that has already developed protection (immunity) against a certain disease". Contrast this with with PDR reference that states it comes from milk and eggs. These are clearly not the same thing and I am adjusting the article to reflect that. LCDR IAM (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are a genuine expert interested in improving the page through wikipedia's processes, this is a good thing. However, you must be aware of the rules and constraints; wikipedia is not like a scholarly journal or personal webpage.  For one thing, original research is not permitted.  Nor is attempts to predict what will be successful (even on the basis of expert knowledge.  This is not the place to promote an idea or product.
 * If you are interested in improving the page within the scope of the policies and guidelines, I will enumerate my objections to the current page and ask, as a demonstration of good faith, to remove them.
 * There are several primary sources. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, particularly for medical pages; please review WP:MEDRS.  Primary sources should only be used for very good reasons, and I do not see the reason for including sources from 1980, 1996 or even 2002.  If this is an active area of research, it should be easy to find recent review articles or scholarly books discussing the topic.  This means that references 5 and 9 at minimum are inappropriate and should be removed.  Conference proceedings are also not MEDRS, so 11 should be removed as well.
 * Please populate the footnotes that remain. The fastest and easiest way to do so is to find the relevant publication on pubmed and use the pubmed number in the cite pmid template.  The model for this is, in the edit pane, place  between tags, replacing PMID with the actual number as appropriate.  This will result in an incomplete template that it says will be populated soon.  It lies.  Click on the "jump the queue" hyperlink and the 'bot will do the rest for you.
 * There is considerable unsourced text. Per WP:PROVEIT, all challenged material must be verified by reference to reliable sources.  If you are an expert in the area, I would expect you to have both a personal library and knowledge of the subject matter such that this is a trivial task for you.
 * Please incorporate wikilinks to concepts that are not readily understood by nonspecialists. This includes things like varicella (which is actually a redirect so please link to chickenpox instead) and candida.
 * Please correct the capitalization of the words used; wikipedia uses sentence case, so only capitalizes the beginnings of sentences and proper nouns.
 * Please build a proper body; currently most of your edits have been to the lead, which is meant to summarize the whole article.
 * Please correct the text so that it is not misrepresenting the source. As an example your edit removed the side effects verified by the WebMD article (which might be a neutrality problem, I can see no reason to remove it), and makes it look like the WebMD article discusses the use of TF in and out of clinical trials, which it does not.
 * If you are sincere about improving the page, these items need to be addressed. I may not be a researcher working on transfer factors, but I know wikipedia.  Please address them.  I am more than happy to provide advice or suggestions if you are unclear on how to meet any of our policies or other editing requirements.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No original research was presented. Only information from sources that are peer reviewed.  I specifically state that people should be aware there is no evidence for the dietary supplement and state that the human derived should not be done outside of a research setting.  Thus I would politely contend that allowing the page to stand is promoting a product by falsely conflating the science with the supplement.
 * If allowed I will remove them. I did place studies from 2010-2012 before they were deleted.  But keep in mind that many scientific ideas are not repeated yearly.  I.E. IL-1B causes fever - but the papers stating that are from the 1950's.  But since that was decided back then, I doubt you would have a paper researching if IL-1B causes fever in 2012.
 * I will gladly do so if allowed. All of the articles cited are from pubmed.
 * Understood. I admit I am less familiar with inserting redirects and so forth.  But simplifying the langue and putting in more citations would not be a problem if I am told that I will be allowed to do so.
 * Understood. But I will need to introduce the idea in the leads that there is a research molecule under that name, and a dietary supplement - but then will discuss each separately in the body.
 * Was not my intention to do so. I can correct this but can also make additional citation on possible side effects.  Keep in mind that these will be old articles and case reports.  I.E. they will involve a published incidence of adverse effects.
 * If you provide me confirmation that you will work with me on fixing these issues so the page is as accurate as possible and does not fail any of Wikipedia's policies, I will be grateful to assist in improving this page. LCDR IAM (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have refactored LCDR IAM's comments per the WP:TPG, the original context can be found in this version (diff) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will flag some of the areas I consider to be problematic according to WP:OR. It's possible your use of sources is a little different than ours. I had never seen any discussion of the conflation between supplement and molecule, if you can verify this information with a specific source, that would be very helpful. Regarding old sources - we have no aversion to "first" sources, classic ones where a compound is identified or whatnot. But science generally marches on - if a substance was proven to do something 20 years ago, this should be discussed in review articles, novel experiments, textbooks and the like. While we might cite the source from 1992, most of the information on the page should come from much more recent developments.

Let's start with the current version and move from there. I suggest LCDR IAM do the actual editing (I don't need the practice) and we should be OK. The best thing to do is to start with the body, clarify and expand ideas there, then write the lead. It's easier, and a better page. If the body reflects an idea, particularly an important one, then it should/will be reported in the lead. Let's start a new section to discuss below. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Some questions
I'm hoping LCDR IAM can answer these, and build the answers into the page. Since these are separate sections, it's a little easier to interstitch discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Most recent review article
What's the most recent review article on transfer factors? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the most recent review . But I would not consider it the best.  I believe a lot of their statements, but if I am getting a picture of what sources you want, I doubt it will reach your bar. LCDR IAM (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing then, is to start from what is included in that source. From there, we can discuss what kinds of lower-bar sources we can use (primary sources in peer-reviewed journals being the next rung down, used judiciously) and what kinds of statements they can verify.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Supplement versus research molecule
What is the most recent and best source that distinguishes between the two? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a good question. I'd say it is more of a case of parallel research that unfortunately uses the same term.  I can list the sources from which the supplement company is deriving its claims - I have those on my work computer and have to get them.  But I hesitate to cite them if you are worried about only having review articles and sources.  Finding one that directly compares the two will be difficult since no one has done that.  But there is lies my point - since no one has ever directly compared the two, the dietary supplement should not be allowed to make claims that their product in any way is comparable.  There have been some that found that the dietary product as similar in vitro effects - but that is truly confined to a petri dish and would be way under your threshold . LCDR IAM (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When you say "dietary supplement", do you mean something consumed orally, versus the research ones you work with which, I believe, are injected?
 * Sources discussing in vitro experiments could be mentioned with great caution, particularly more recent ones.
 * Have there been any studies of oral use of TF? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the dietary supplement is taken orally. 99.9% of research done on cell-derived TF has been injected.
 * I will avoid any citation based purely on in vitro.
 * There was one study showing the product that is normally injected can be taken orally with similar effects. But the explanation of this study would be well into the weeds compared to what we seem to be aiming for.  So, as of now I'd just say it is an injected product only.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCDR IAM (talk • contribs) 00:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could find a source that distinguishes between oral and injected, that alone would be very helpful. If you find an in vitro source you think is useful, even though primary, please bring it up on the talk page and we can discuss it.  Again, in most cases we avoid primary sources, in some cases we can use them judiciously.  I would prefer to run out of secondary before we start though!  Something I sometimes do when working with other editors is start a new section on the talk page and fill it with a list of sources that are not integrated but I think are useful.  If you are unsure about any, feel free to populate such a section and I will look at anything you put in it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What are some of the other terms for TF
"Dialyzable leukocyte extract" seems to be one, are there others? How about putting them into the lead, with citations? Usually that would look like this: "Transfer factors, also known as dialyzable leukocyte extractundefined and fooundefined are..." Also note that citation always follow puncutation. It's always like this.undefined It's never like thisundefined, or like thisundefined. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood on the citations. DLE is the only term I have heard to reference cellular TF other than transfer factor.  I believe the original articles used something like 'transfer substance' but that was pre-1955 and the term TF was started shortly thereafter.  The milk/egg based has attempted to usurp prolene-rich polypeptides and I will occasionally see statements about PRP.  There are small (primary sourced) studies showing PRP has effects that overlap with milk/egg TF - but there is 0 evidence the two are the same. LCDR IAM (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say "cellular TF other than transfer factor". Could you clarify?
 * Why have they used such a generic name? For that matter, why are all small, low-molecular weight compounds referred to with the same term?  Have you seen this book?  What about this reference?  And for that matter, why did research seem to stop so suddenly, was it solely HIV?  That doesn't seem like the best reason to stop, particularly for a promising substance.
 * Actually, that brings up a point I'll raise in a section below. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I mean to say that the transfer factor that was made from cells has only gone under the name 'transfer factor' or DLE. There should not be any other search term that will refer to the cellular lysate version.
 * It is unfortunate that they used such a generic name. But in 1955 that is about all they knew - it 'transferred' immunity from one person to another.  There were efforts to change to DLE as a term since it was more accurate, but the big wigs writing papers at the time stuck with TF and thus we are stuck with it as well.  I don't think they predicted the absurd claims that would follow from the dietary supplement.
 * I have seen those articles. The 1975 book will not offer much more, but I am happy to cite that if it is seen as more of a secondary source.  The scandal is a story unto itself.  Basically, the research world was lit on fire so to speak and everyone started looking into the possibility that a very small molecule could have immune effects (which was unheard of at the time as IL-1 was not discovered until the 70s).  At first it was mostly transfer of skin reaction and swelling, but eventually a researcher at Harvard (big wig at the time) started claiming it could cure Alzheimer's and Autism.  In some of his work he also claimed that TF was a double-stranded RNA molecule.  At that time, there was no evidence double stranded RNA existed, so the claim was seen as even blasphemy.  It was later discovered that this Harvard researcher was faking his evidence.  Burning Guinea Pigs with a lamp and claiming it was an immunologic response.  So all his claims of neurologic effects already had TF on shaky ground before his immunologic ones were exposed as fraud.  So what followed was a perfect storm leading to the abandonment of transfer factor.  First, you have the deflation of all non-immunologic effects, followed by a big wig at Harvard being exposed as a fake.  Then, the research into small molecules and immunity started bearing much more productive fruit with the discovery of interleukins - so researchers that wanted to look into such things were better suited doing so in ways other than the tainted TF.  Then HIV and Hep C were about the death nail.  There was no way anyone would get FDA approval for even the smallest of studies to use a blood product as a treatment (you will note that all studies post about 1980 or so are in Mexico or Europe, some in Japan).  Thus, if there was 0% chance of making this into a therapy (i.e. no long term in clinical research), and the basic research was tainted by recent scandal, why would anyone opt to research it?  No one really did after that save a few lab-only studies.  I hope to restart this work as I think it has been long enough that people should be open to the idea again - especially since there was plenty of evidence that it could have an effect (i.e. the Harvard fraud represented only a small % of the TF research that was out at the time).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCDR IAM (talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a profoundly helpful addition to the page, that sort of real-world context for research is one area of wikipedia most chem/biochem articles are lacking but make for salacious reading. Sounds horrible, but think of it as the film that makes you read the book :)
 * Based on some of the information I have found, I can start editing the page. However, if you would prefer to do so yourself (for practice, or just because you think, probably correctly, you'd do a better job), then I am fine with that.  Chances are I would start with the article from the '70s because that sort of thing doesn't require any technical expertise.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to make the edits - I should be able to so in just a moment. After you look it over you can feel free to shift things around.  I have no doubt in my mind that I will need assistance making the links and everything come out correctly.  Then you can just let me know areas that need further repair and I'll put that in as well.  Thanks for your assistance.LCDR IAM (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you try figuring out the WP:REFNAME tags as well? Berron-Perez and Al-Askari are repeated unnecessarily (the latter three times).  May I also suggest you use cite web for the websites?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

History section
For an apparently promising, novel substance, TF seems to have dropped off the research radar remarkably efficiently. That suggests something notable in the history of the substance. That might even be a starting point. The threshold for historical claims is lower than for medical claims, and the literature review section found in most article would be readily and unproblematically usable if it discusses the history of TF. Everything still needs to be verifiable, but we can expand on things more readily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can certainly try to work in the historical aspects. Honestly it will be hard to find published reports detailing all that I laid out above.  The New Scientist reference does a good job, but won't explain the full scale desertion from the research.  I'll try to work it in when I plug everything together.  If I overstep or fail just let me know and I'll continue to clean up as requested.LCDR IAM (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. The most important thing (and hardest thing for experts) is to stick to the sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
This article has become a magnet for pseudoscientific claims. I have thus added it in Category:Pseudoscience. All serious scientific research into transfer factor – as "discovered" by Henry Sherwood Lawrence – ended by 1985. Any positive results published after that date are highly questionable and most likely pseudoscience. The article now uses for illustration a graphic by Commons user AaronMatthewWhite from his self published book. The mechanism described, if it ever existed in serious science, has long since been abandoned. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. I think it is a bit of an over statement to say that all research since 1985 is pseudoscience in terms of the immune molecule, but it has certainly not been main stream nor in secondary sources.  The reason I wanted to separate out the immune molecule from dietary supplement is that ALL supplement claims are pseudoscience and have no evidence (other than that published by the companies selling it - which, of course, is always dubious).  Even calling the supplement pseudoscience may be too kind since it is really snake oil with no 'science' behind it at all.  Whereas there is scientific literature on the effects of the immune molecule and I'd say stopped closer to 2001 (before restarting recently) rather than 1985.
 * I'd concur that the drawing from White's book also is a stretch since I don't see any hard evidence of the exact mechanism that he illustrates. However work on the immune molecule (while not common) has been on going and in 2001 there were interesting (and serious) papers published on the TF molecule as discovered by Lawrence (albeit again, primary sources only).  Others since have been less interesting, but still published in peer-reviewed journals, which I would think it the measure of 'serious' in most cases.  Lots of items were 'abandoned' in medical literature for a while before rediscovery.  Ignaz Semmelweis discovered hand washing saved lives decades before it was accepted.  So while I think you are correct to label TF with a pseudoscience label to warn people against outlandish claims, I am not sure it is fair to imply all published papers on the immune molecule are fraudulent.
 * If the supplement were made into a new article, wouldn't it have to be basically "this is sold under claims of being related to TF:immune molecule, but no evidence exists" or something along those lines? We can separate them, but the supplement would be no more than a few sentences no? LCDR IAM (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Proving that transfer factor is bogus would be almost a as difficult as disproving cold fusion. I agree that there was great interest and serious research into the topic before 1985. What stopped it may have [been] a greater general understanding of cell-mediated immunity. There is no way you can squeeze anything pathogen-specific into 5 kDa. I see there are similar snake-oil articles in Japanese and Korean. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The MHC class II molecule only displays pathogenic proteins in 15-24 amino acid increments. The CDR3 region of both the T and B cell receptors (the part that actually binds to the pathogenic/antigenic epitope) is typically only 7 to 11 amino acids long. Therefore I would put forth that you can pack an amazing amount of epitope specificity into a relatively small amount of molecular investment.  Of course, simply binding the epitope would not be enough; you would need an additional end of the molecule to signal through an immunologic receptor and thus the myriad of other explanations must be considered more likely for the results found in transfer factor research. However, while it is absolutely true that until somebody isolates and clones the transfer factor molecule it cannot be considered anything more than antiquated phenomenology, it is equally true that until somebody recreates the findings previously published and proves their own alternative explanation for the results - responding to the published literature (as cob-webbed as it may be) with a backhanded dismissal is not justifiable.  LCDR IAM (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

May I add that what I heard was that Transfer Factor research stopped in the early 1980s because of the onset of HIV and AIDS and so manufacture or Dialyzable leukocyte extract was dangerous. Then, when it was found in the late 1990s that cow colustrum contained the right stuff, it was started again. I do not have any "scientific" evidence that it works, but I have personally seen two instances where it sure looked like Transfer Factor was at least in part responsible for some pretty amazing results in reducing tumors. BTW, I heard about TF from my veterinarian quite a few years ago and take it myself after having 3 types of cancer in the last 15 years but none since I started taking it about 6 years ago. This is my unscientific addition to this subject. I have a book from the 1970s called Clinical Immunology but am not sure if it is in the list of references.boB K7IQ (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we get rid of esoteric language in the introduction of the article? It plays right into the hands of MLMs scams like 4Life? I am talking about this: “They are an ancient part of the immune system and represent "an archaic dialect in the language of cells."” The source doesn't seem to be publicly available, so I can't check if it is valid, but even if it is it doesn't seem appropriate for the introduction of a Wikipedia article. Googling that quote actually turns up mostly 4Life pages. For example on this 4Life page they are even linking to this article, so they are using this article to promote their bullshit. Maybe instead of confusing with esoterik language the introduction should inform the reader that there are currently no medical uses of transfer factors. Jan Path (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)