Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCSO-524


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PCSO-524

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to be fundamentally non-notable spam for an herbal supplement. No hits on pubmed for any legitimately peer-reviewed studies; google hits either promotional or press releases. That said, I'm not a fatty acid expert, so if I'm wrong, feel free to speak up. -- slakr \ talk / 05:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "Notes" section of the article lists several peer-reviewed articles that mention PCSO-524. The fact that they may not appear on PubMed (likely because they are not US publications) is irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I have corrected some of the malformed references. This product does seem to have significant coverage in at least three peer-reviewed journals. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further update, posted after the comments below: It's up to 7 peer-reviewed references now, one of which (citation 11) I found cited multiple times elsewhere. The referenced studies are either about PCSO-524 or Lyprinol, which are synonymous. The fact that PCSO-524 may be less commonly used is an argument for renaming this article, not deleting it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There is less here than meets the eye. Actually, "two" of the references at the article were the same reference (I just combined them). Most of the other references seem to be about Omega-3 fatty acids in general, rather than this particular product. (Specifically references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). That one paper, reference 7, seems to be the ONLY peer-reviewed study actually about this product. It's the only one I found at both PubMed and Google Scholar (and language isn't a factor - both references show the English and the Polish versions of the article), and it doesn't seem to have been cited by anyone else. Search of the popular indexes (Google and Google News) is no more productive. This product is simply not notable or mainstream as far as I can tell. I guess it could be redirected to Omega-3 fatty acid. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PubMed is not a comprehensive repository of peer reviewed articles, particularly if they are published in foreign journals. Particularly for Chinese journals neither PubMed nor Google Scholar are reliable as indications of scholarly coverage in foreign publications. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm striking out my suggestion that this page could be retained as a redirect to Omega-3 fatty acid. Given that the article's creator frankly admits that he/she is under contract by the company to perform "brand reputation management" online, and given his/her role as an WP:SPA dedicated to this product and the company that manufactures it, and given the weakness of the sources and particularly the possibility of shenanigans involving the sources (see below), I don't think Wikipedia should have a page with this title, even as a redirect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards, not a vehicle for companies to promote their image online. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have sent this information via e-mail previously to concerned parties above.  Now that I have been unblocked, I would like to offer it here as matter of record relevant to the discussion. Accordingly, PCSO-524 is not an herbal supplement.  It is a marine lipid extract from the New Zealand green-lipped mussel. Over the last 25 years the extract has been studied extensively, at least as much as any other nutraceutical.  Below please find a short list of the several hundred studies that have been peer reviewed and published on PCSO-524:

PCSO-524™: a potential preventive treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) 1D Tenikoff, 2KJ Murphy, 1M Le, 1RN Butler, 1GS Howarth, 2PRC Howe 1Child Health Research Institute, Women’s & Children’s Hospital, SA 5006 2Nutritional Physiology Research Group, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, SA 5005

Gas Chromatography–Chemical Ionization–Mass Spectrometric Fatty Acid Analysis of a Commercial Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Lipid Extract from New Zealand Green-lipped Mussel, Perna canaliculus (PCSO-524™) Christopher J. Wolyniaka, J. Thomas Brennaa, Karen J. Murphyb, and Andrew J. Sinclairc,* a Division of Nutritional Sciences, Savage Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, bChild Health Research Institute, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia, and cDepartment of Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia

Efficacy and tolerability of Green Lipped mussel extract –PCSO-524™ omega-3-complex on inflammatory rheumatoid disorders Joerg Gruenwald, Ph.D.1 Hans-Joachim Graubaum, Ph.D. 1 Knuth Hansen, M.D.2 Barbara Grube, M.D. 2 1 PhytoPharm Research, a unit of analyze & realize, Berlin (Germany) 2 Private Surgery Kurfuerstendamm, Berlin (Germany)

The CO2-SFE crude lipid extract and the free fatty acid extract from Perna canaliculus (PCSO-524™) have anti-inflammatory effects on adjuvant-induced arthritis in rats M. Singh a, L.D. Hodges a , P.F.A. Wright b , D.M.Y. Cheah b , P.M. Wynne c, N. Kalafatis a, T.A. Macrides a, A Natural Products Research Group, School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia b Key Centre for Toxicology, School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia c SGE International Pty Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, 3134, Australia

Anti-Cyclooxygenase effects of lipid extracts from the New Zealand green-lipped mussel (Perna canaliculus)(PCSO-524™) S. McPhee a, L.D. Hodges a , P.F.A. Wright b , P.M. Wynne c , N. Kalafatis a , D.W. Harney a, T.A. Macrides a, a Natural Products Research Group, School of Medical Sciences, Division of Laboratory Medicine, RMIT University, PO Box 71, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia b Toxicology Key Centre, School of Medical Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia c SGE International Pty Ltd., Ringwood, Victoria, Australia

Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of PCSO-524™, a Lipid Extract ofPerna canaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model

Chi-Ho Lee1, John Hon-Kei Lum1, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng2, Janice McKay2, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt1, Man-Sau Wong1 and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo1

1State Key Laboratory of Chinese Medicine and Molecular Pharmacology, Shenzhen and Department of Applied Biology and Chemical Technology and 2Department of Health Technology and Informatics, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

The Treatment of Arthritis With a Lipid Extract of Perna Canaliculus PCSO-524™: A Randomized Trail S.L.M. Gibson, R.G. Gibson, Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital Glasgow, UK

The Effect of a Lipid Extract of the New Zealand Green-Lipped Mussel (PCSO-524™) in Three Cases of Arthritis SHEILA L.M. GIBSON., M.D., B.Sc., M.F.HOM.

The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus (PCSO-524™) T.A Macrides, Perna canaliculus. T.A. Macrides(1), A.P. Treschow(1), N. Kalafati(1), P.F.A. Wright(1), P.M. Wynne(2)

Thank you Romano Writes (talk)
 * As accurately stated by Amatulić above, PubMed is not the end all when it comes to published studies, especially on the international level. Generally, subscription based resources such as Medline offer a deeper resource.


 * Delete At first, I thought that Amatulic was right about the peer reviewed papers listed in the "notes" section, and I even wrote a message to post here, saying "keep". However, before clicking on "Save", I had a look at the papers listed, and found that all was not as it seemed. For example, the article lists a paper "Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of PCSO-524™, a Lipid Extract of Pernacanaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model", by Chi-Ho Lee1, John Hon-Kei Lum1, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng2, Janice McKay2, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt1, Man-Sau Wong1 and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo1. I can find no trace of this paper anywhere, but I have found "Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of Lyprinol, a Lipid Extract of Perna Canaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model" (My emphasis), by Chi-Ho Lee, John Hon-Kei Lum, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng, Janice McKay, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt, Man-Sau Wong and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo. Note that this is exactly the same title except for the replacement of "Lyprinol" by "PCSO-524™", and that the authors are exactly the same, except for the inclusion of the figures "1" or"2" after each name. (Those figures appear as superscript references to footnotes in the by line on the original paper, but make no sense as cited in the Wikipedia article.) It seems remarkable that the same group of seven authors would have written two articles with exactly the same titles except for the replacement of the name of the substance investgiated by the name of a different, proprietary, substance. It is also striking that, while the one paper is readily traceable, referenced in numerous places, available for download as a pdf file, widely cited, the other paper by the same authors is not mentioned anywhere at all that I have been able to find except in a Wikipedia article. The argument that PubMed etc do not give widespread coverage for "foreign" (whatever that means: not USA?) journals is unconvincing for several reasons, including the fact that the other paper by the same authors with an almost identical title is indexed on Pubmed, as are many thousands of other papers published in "foreign" journals. Why does one paper appear and not the other? Unfortunately, we are dealing here either with a paper which for some obscure reason has been completely ignored everywhere, despite being written by the same group of authors whose other paper has received very widespread publicity, and who have a strange practice in naming of papers, or else a reference to a non-existent paper, the title of which has been created by copying and pasting the title of a real paper (including the footnote reference numbers) and substituting the name of one substance for another, in order to give the misleading impression that there is coverage of that substance in a respectable peer reviewed paper. The same reference is repeated above in this discussion by Romano Writes (the author of the Wikipeedia article), including the meaningless numbers which were footnote references in the original article. Needless to say, the real article does not mention PCSO-524 at all.


 * I will not spend the time it would take to write at such length on each of the papers listed above and in the article, but I will mention a few points. The paper "The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus" by Joerg Gruenwald et al is published not by an independent peer-reviewed journal, but by www.omaprem.com, a commercial website selling products. Several of the papers listed do not mention "PCSO-524" at all. And so it goes on: the more I look at the individual articles, the more it looks as though we are dealing with a substance with precious little independent coverage in reliable sources, together with a very concerted effort to make it look as though there is plenty of such coverage. MelanieN is perfectly right in her assessment above of the sources. This is apparently a very careful attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise this proprietary product. Or, as Slakr puts it more concisely in the nomination statement above, "non-notable spam". Delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete . As one of the papers appears to be faked mis-identified (and so clumsily too - copying the footnote numbers from the original), and others seem to be problematic, I don't think we can trust any of the sources provided by Romano Writes. (And please note that Romano Writes has admitted to having been contracted by the company to perform "brand reputation management" at User talk:Romano Writes, and also to having a close personal relationship with them). It is sometimes acceptable to write about a topic in which one has a COI, but this case has gone way too far. It really looks like someone is being dishonest in faking sources here - I don't know who it is, and I'm not accusing Romano Writes (who may well have been given the "sources" to use - by whom I do not know), but we can't assist in perpetrating this apparent hoax. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC) (Striking my 'delete', now that some more source checking has been done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC))
 * I've struck that, because I don't now think there was anything dishonest intended over the title of that paper. I still think the very close COI and the issues mentioned by JamesBWatson means it would be too risky to keep this article - if it's really a notable substance, someone completely independent will eventually come along and write it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for RomanoWrites: Do you actually have a copy of Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of PCSO-524™, a Lipid Extract ofPerna canaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model, by Chi-Ho Lee1, John Hon-Kei Lum1, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng2, Janice McKay2, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt1, Man-Sau Wong1 and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo1? Do you actually have copies of any of the other papers, or did you actually use copies of them when writing this article? Or were you just told what "sources" to quote? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I have hard copies of every single study ever conducted on PCSO-524 covering the last 25 years. I assure you none of them are contrived. A $2Bil enterprise holding multiple international patents was not built upon a hoax. When I return to my office on Monday I will gladly scan and post the study you requested. In the mean time here is the PDF: downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2009/305826.pdf. This is not by any means a scam or anyone perpetrating an "apparent hoax". "Lyprinol" "Omega XL" "Omaprem" and "patented extract from Perna Canaliculus" are all "PCSO-524."  It's like saying "Tylenol" is "Acetaminophen" which is "Paracetamol" (which, by the way is listed in Wiki). PCSO-524 is interchangeable with any of them, hence the parenthetical listing of PCSO-524 in the listed studies.  If the study is on Lyprinol then it is PCSO-524. Lyprinol is marketed world wide, the US market gets Omega XL, health care professionals dispense Omaprem,  ALL are composed 100% of PCSO-524, and all are patented.  Yes, I have admitted a close relationship with the marketer of Omega XL, however nowhere in the world is "PCSO-524" sold to the general public as PCSO-524.  Wikipedia has numerous listings for chemical compounds that are the generic for common OTC and prescription drugs, Paracetamol being just one of many - and it clearly lists the retail drugs, specifically Tylenol, that contains it. Despite my relationship with the US marketer of the brand name supplement containing PCSO-524, my description of the substance is meant to be on par with any generic compound - NOT marketing hype. If there is "promotional language" in my article I will gladly remove it, however comparing my article on PCSO-524 to any other listing of generic compounds, PCSO-524 seem sterile by comparison.  However, I am always open to suggestions on ways to make my edit more compliant.  If the sole complaint lies in the fact that the studies listed seem "fake" then I will embark Monday morning to gather the resources to prove my position that these studies are totally legitimate and that PCSO-524 is the patented lipid complex it purports to be, with the exhaustive clinical research pedigree of any OTC nutraceutical, if not more. I respectfully submit that PCSO-524 is deserving of a Wikipedia article in no way different from any of the other hundreds of generic compounds listed here.  If you have access to a subscription based search engine for international peer reviewed published studies feel free to enter any of the following: "Lyprinol" "Omega XL" "Omaprem" and "patented extract from Perna Canaliculus." You will get hundreds of hits and none of them are fake.

Please don't misunderstand my passion for this subject as anger or teeth gnashing in any way. Regardless of my association with any principle involved, I believe my entry is neutral. If it is not, I would implore you to please point out where it isn't and I will gladly make the appropriate edits. I have over 25 years of experience writing scientific reviews of nutritional supplements, nutraceuticals and performance enhancing drugs. From my review of the Wikipedia entries regarding lipids, fish oils, Omega-3s, Omega-6s, free fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, fatty acids in general, and triglycerides, I believe my assistance here would be a benefit.

Thank you for your consideration Romano Writes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The accepted convention is that any one person gives only one bold "keep" or "delete" at the head of a comment, as otherwise it is possible to give the misleading impression that it is a new person contributing an independent opinion. You are welcome to make additional comments, but not to prefix each one with a bold "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "If the study is on Lyprinol then it is PCSO-524." - that doesn't make the *title* of the paper change. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, JBW. I did not know that. Hence forth I will refrain. Romano Writes (talk)


 * Indeed the title of the study does not change. That's why "PCSO-524" is added parenthetically. It is also why a study listing "Paracetamol" is also germain to ("Acetaminophen") and vice-versa.  There are many published studies that are quoted for reference within the scientific community that clarify, parenthetically, the generic compound or the drug depending on what the clinicians listed, regardless of whether or not the study was so titled. It doesn't change the facts of the outcome.  If the parenthesis were left out of any of the cited research then the error was mine. It doesn't change the fact that PCSO-524 is the de facto substance being studied and that those studies cited are legitimate and not a fraud.   I am only interested in putting forth an accurate and neutral, not to mention factual, definition of "PCSO-524."  So far, there have been accusations of fraud in the cited studies, as well as questionable edits due to potential COI. Just so I am clear, What is the actual issue here? If the definition I posted contains promotional language consistent with someone with a COI, please be so kind as to point it out.  I will gladly edit it.  If your assertion is that the cited studies are fraudulent, I beg to differ.  The link cited in the PCSO-524 article for the international trademark office (http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/ctm/pcso-524/009184847) clearly shows that PCSO-524 is a legitimate, patented marine lipid.  If you click the link for "See all trademarks registered by this owner" (http://trademark.markify.com/trademark-owner/ctm/pharmalink+international+limited/81024) you will see that PCSO-524 is Lyprinol.  These two studies: Randomized Controlled Trial of Marine Lipid Fraction PCSO-524™ on Airway Inflammation and Hyperpnea-Induced Bronchoconstriction in Asthma (http://www.clinicalconnection.com/exp/EPVS.aspx?studyID=318363&slID=4350618) and this one currently recruiting participants: Effect of a Component of Fish Oil on Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction and Airway Inflammation in Asthma (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01504646) both list "Lyprinol and PCSO-524 concomitantly throughout the text.  Therefore, all of the studies so far cited, whether they be on Lypriniol, Omeprem, Omega XL, etc., are all studies on PCSO-524.  This has been aptly and legitimately proven. There is no cogent argument against  PCSO-524 and its retail preparations being listed interchangeably without perpetrating a fraud or a hoax, especially when the relevant patent information was cited..

Thank you Romano Writes (talk)
 * I'm not trying to say that the two names are not the same thing, just that a scientific paper only has one title. And even if the various names for the material are interchangeable, titles for scientific papers are not - they need to be sourced with their actual title, not a different title (even if the different title might mean the same). Can you not see how stating the title of a paper incorrectly might seem suspicious? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point, however, would a study on Paracetamol not be relevant to Tylenol if Tylenol wasn't listed in the title of the study? I wrote the article by first establishing the fact that PCSO-524 was a patented marine lipid.  Using the cited link it could be seen that PCSO-524 is the commercial generic preparation and that other retail preparations were listed.  Forgive me for assuming that readers would not examine the cited reference and realize that PCSO-524 is a commercial generic preparation with numerous retail names, e.g., Paracetamol being Tylenol.  I am hesitant to edit the article listing retail preparations for fear of if sounding "promotional."  I'll be happy to edit the article and list different studies that more specifically mention PCSO-524, however the best of them list Lyprinol.  Perhaps a better and more referenced explanation identifying PCSO-524's retail brand names?  I'm open for any suggestion.

Thank you Romano Writes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying a study on Paracetamol would not be relevant to Tylenol if Tylenol wasn't listed in the title of the study, just that the actual title of the study would need to be cited and not have the word "Paracetamol" changed to "Tylenol" in the citation! The paper title with "Lyprinol" is fine and should not be changed to "PCSO-524" - that's all I'm saying. It's the changing of the title that's the problem. As for getting readers to understand, I don't see why you can't say once in the article, for example, (also known as "Lyprinol") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Romano, another problem with the studies you listed here is that you have given us only a title, the names of the authors, and the affiliations of the authors. But the key thing is WHERE they were published - whether in a peer-reviewed journal or a trade journal or as some kind of private study or what. We cannot evaluate the studies without this information. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood. I will edit accordingly.

thank you! Romano Writes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Out of the 5 malformed references in the "Notes" section, I found complete citations for 3 of them and corrected them accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you ~Amatulić!!  I will either fix or replace the other two.  --Romano Writes (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Amatulic. Looks like #1 is the article from Rheumatologia that we already knew about. #4 is from Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine which describes itself as an open-access peer-reviewed medical journal. #5 is from European Respiratory Journal which describes itself as peer-reviewed. #3 is from Omaprem which is the product's commercial website. And apparently reference #2 remains to be discovered. Of course, to me the bottom line is not just the existence of a few published studies, but also the importance or impact of the studies, for example the reputation of the journals that publish them, and whether the studies get cited by unrelated parties. (That is actually the criterion for a person, via WP:ACADEMIC, but it seems to me it should also apply to a product to some extent.) The record still strikes me as very weak. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should prefer Wikipedia to have articles on topics that have importance or impact. However flawed the inclusion criteria may be, the fact remains that Wikipedia measures importance by coverage in independent reliable sources, according to the WP:SIGCOV section of WP:GNG. If the sources were all authored by the same person, that would weaken their importance, but they seem to be authored by multiple independent researchers. Given the sources already discussed, and the policies we have, this topic does appear to meet the WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I am replacing the two studies in question with these two peer reviewed published studies: http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-asthma-allergy-and-immunology/volume-8-number-1/treatment-of-children-s-asthma-with-a-lipid-extract-of-the-new-zealand-green-lipped-mussel-perna-canaliculus-lyprinol-a-double-blind-randomised-controlled-trial-in-children-with-moderate-to-severe-chronic-obstructive-asthma.html

Please note the relevant information in the "study design" section: "Lyprinol® contains 50 mg of a unique combination of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (mostly eicopentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) the product of a patented extraction process. The unique combination of fatty acids produced by the extraction process is named PCSO-524. This product is then dissolved in 100 mg olive oil. It is a commercial product sold under the brand name Lyprinol® and Omega XL®. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romano Writes (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC) And this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11094641 These seem to satisfy the criteria specified, please let me know if it doesn't. thank you. --Romano Writes (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Amatulic has posted to my talk page to tell me that some of my comments above "no longer seem valid". He/she points out that I said "the paper The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus by Joerg Gruenwald et al is published not by an independent peer-reviewed journal, but by www.omaprem.com", and goes on to say it's just re-published there, but originally in a journal about asthma, giving [ http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-asthma-allergy-and-immunology/volume-8-number-1/treatment-of-children-s-asthma-with-a-lipid-extract-of-the-new-zealand-green-lipped-mussel-perna-canaliculus-lyprinol-a-double-blind-randomised-controlled-trial-in-children-with-moderate-to-severe-chronic-obstructive-asthma.html this link]. However, Amatulic seems to have made a mistake, as that link is to a completely different paper, namely, Treatment Of Children’s Asthma With A Lipid Extract Of The New Zealand Green Lipped Mussel (Perna Canaliculus) (Lyprinol®) - A Double Blind, Randomised Controlled Trial In Children With Moderate To Severe Chronic Obstructive Asthma, by Lello, Liang, Robinson, Leutenegger, and Wheat. That paper contains a one-sentence mention of PCSO-524.


 * There are also suggestions, both on this page and in Amatulic's message on my talk page, that there are now more and better references thatn there were before, so I have looked at all the references currently in the article, both those used as citations and those listed as external links in the section headed "Other references". Unfortuantely, although the number of "references" has been increased, I see no improvement in the quality. There are still several "references" that don't mention "PCSO-524", though several of them mention related matters, such as Omega-3 fatty acids. Then there are two "references" to http://trademark.markify.com, which merely lists information from the European Union trademark database, and therefore tells us nothing other than that a company has taken out a trademark on the name "PCSO-524". Then there is a page on the website of ASRC, which describes itself as "A service of the advertising indusrty and Council of Better Business Bureaus", which would scarcely count as an independent source, even if it did more than just mention PCSO-524, which it doesn't. Then there are other pages which just mention PCSO-524, some of which look as though they may be from respectable peer-reviewed journals, However, the situation is still, as MelanieN said six days ago, that there is only one peer-reviewed study actually about this product. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is the assertion that Lyprinol actually is PCSO-524 (see here) - perhaps the article should be renamed to use the more common name? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The author of the article (Romano Writes) has spent a week trying to show that there are suitable sources, and written at great length on the supposed sources. Amatulic has also put a good deal of work into trying to establish notability. The combined effect of both their efforts is that we are no further forward than at the beginning. There is still no evidence that the subject has significant coverage in more than one independent source. If that is the best that can be achieved by two editors who are clearly trying their best to show notability, including an administrator with many years of experience, then it looks very likely that no evidence of notability exists. (Also, although it is not a reason for deletion, I will mention another thing. The author of the article was unblocked on various conditions, including that he must not edit in ways where his potential conflict of interest might be seen as problematic. It seems to me that some of his edits to this page come close to being breaches of that condition.) Elton Bunny (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One independent source? I count seven.  Seven university studies, peer reviewed and published. I'd say that, along with no further mention of hoax and fraud brings us a quite a bit further down the road than we were when this discussion started.  Also, you loosely mention that I have in some way come close to breaching the conditions of my unblocking because of some edits I have made.  I think if you are going to make such an accusation that you should at least point out where, specifically, this near breach has occurred. --Romano Writes (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note again the relevant information in the "study design" section: "Lyprinol® contains 50 mg of a unique combination of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (mostly eicopentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) the product of a patented extraction process. The unique combination of fatty acids produced by the extraction process is named PCSO-524. This product is then dissolved in 100 mg olive oil. It is a commercial product sold under the brand name Lyprinol® and Omega XL®. "  The reference for the ASRC was merely to point out that a third party, independent watch dog agency noted that PCSO-524 contained what it purported to contain and the claims made for it were found to be valid.
 * Comment * As mentioned above, the two studies that did not contain citations in peer reviewed journals would be replaced with different studies that were, in the hope of better compliance. Also stated earlier, several times actually, and made reference to, is the fact that, "PCSO-524" is the patented generic backbone of several commercial OTC preparations including lyprinol, modulox, lyprinex, and Omega XL.  The trademark office substantiating that fact is here: (http://trademark.markify.com/trademark-owner/ctm/pharmalink+international+limited/81024) and the following study, peer reviewed and published, proves Omega XL is PCSO-524 ( http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-asthma-allergy-and-immunology/volume-8-number-1/treatment-of-children-s-asthma-with-a-lipid-extract-of-the-new-zealand-green-lipped-mussel-perna-canaliculus-lyprinol-a-double-blind-randomised-controlled-trial-in-children-with-moderate-to-severe-chronic-obstructive-asthma.html

To rename the article using the more common name would be disingenuous. It would be the same as renaming an article on Paracetamol because the brand name "Tylenol" was named in a cited reference. There is sufficient compliant citation that shows PCSO-524 is the underlying raw material in all of the commercial OTC preparations listed in the cited studies.

What has been aptly cited is that PCSO-524 has been identified as a patented, proprietary raw material containing a unique array of 30 fatty acides, including DHA ad EPA, that is the backbone of several commercial OTC preparations that have been extensively studied and proven efficacious. Every study cited (SEVEN in total) that shows efficacy has been peer reviewed and published in a prestigious, independent journal, and is therefore in accordance with the WP:SIGCOV section of WP:GNG.--Romano Writes (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

*Note If an admin reviews this discussion, and if they are thinking of deleting the article, I request that they either relist the discussion, or simply leave it open for now. I think my comments above may be mistaken. A combination of mis-citing sources, walls of text that make it difficult to see the central points of the comments, and various other presentational problems may have led me to fail to see the relevance of several citations, and it may be that the topic is more notable than I thought. At the moment I don't have time to check this, but if I can be given another day or so I will check, and it may be that I will change my "delete" to a "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks to Amatulic, without whose efforts this discussion would no doubt have been closed as a very clear "delete". Both the original article and the early contributions to this discussion left the impression that there was very little coverage of this subject, and the true situation was obscured by such distractions as (1) the inclusion of multiple "references" to material on related subjects but not mentioning PCSO-524, (2) the inclusion of sources referring to the same subject under different names, without any explanation that this was the case, (3) the very odd changing of the title of an article which did not include "PCSO-524" to make it appear that it did, (4) large quantities of text in which the essential points got lost and obscured, (5) etc etc. However, it now seems that Lyprinol is a trade name for what is essentially PCSO-524, and that there are several peer-reviewed articles about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.