Wikipedia:Peer review/Methylsulfonylmethane/archive1

Methylsulfonylmethane
Please, someone review the Wiki article on the dietary supplement Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM). The current page content reads almost like stock sales material for a supplement vendor. Here is a key segment from the conclusion:

"This remarkable nutrient has many valuable applications to human health. The basic science to back up these applications is well established and the clinical science is emerging."

In fact, the current Wikipedia page on MSM has no independent reference links at the bottom of the page. I did basic Google and Medline searches on Methylsulfonylmethane and found the following info:

(1) The #1 Google result is from quackwatch.com. Their lengthy discussion of MSM casts great suspicion on any health claims, and thus by comparison one has to wonder why the Wikipedia page contains mainly pro-MSM statements and few if any real caveats. For example, why doesn't the Wiki page mention the 10/2000 FDA action against Karl Loren to stop his extravagant therapeutic claims for MSM.

(2) Medline has few articles on Methylsulfonylmethane. However, one particularly disturbing 2002 study that came up was this one: "Accumulation of methylsulfonylmethane in the human brain: identification by multinuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy." The abstract ends on this sombre note: "Appearance of MSM in significant concentrations in the human brain indicates ready transfer across the intact blood-brain barrier, of a compound with no known medical benefits."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11641045

In short, I strongly believe that Wikipedia users are being presented unreviewed, highly biased information about MSM. -- 205.179.101.138


 * Added TotallyDisputed message at the top. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 21:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have added dubious tags to several sections and have requested feedback on the talk page. I have also removed a whole section called "MSM myths" because that shouldn't be there at all (we do not do original research). I am going to wait for a fortnight for feedback and fixups on those sections. If nothing is said, then all of those sections are getting removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)