Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Earl Mindell

Earl Mindell
I would like a peer review of the claims made in Earl_Mindell. Thanks! SERSeanCrane 04:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I'm only concerned with this material:
 * Mindell's theories on health and nutrition have been met with criticism in the scientific community. For example, Mindell claims that eating foods that are high in DNA and RNA will help reverse the aging process. In truth, these nucleic acids are digested and never reach human somatic cells in such a form that would directly benefit the consumer. Similarly, Mindelll has previously promoted oral supplements of an "anti-aging" enzyme, superoxide dismutase (SOD). There is currently no evidence for the supposed benefits of SOD, and it is known that the enzyme would not survive the digestive process if taken orally.
 * The associated reference is:
 * Schwarcz, Joe (2006-08-19). "Beware of Juices That Claim to Cure". The Montreal Gazette: J11.
 * SERSeanCrane 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not my line, but I suggest the words "In truth, .." be replaced by something like "Scientific consensus suggests that ..". I think you also want sources for both Mindell's claim and the scientific consensus. --Bduke 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Much as I'm all for peer reviewing of scientific articles, I'm not sure we can peer review a dynamic source like WP. I'm not even sure how that would work. I've just had an article accepted that's been in peer review for three months (and those reviews were good ones!). Wikipedia is self-correcting and if there's a problem with the statement you have suggested for review, somebody who knows better will come along and edit it. Basically, Wikipedia, by being open access, will peer review itself. Secondly, Joe Schwarcz (McGill University) is a pretty respectable source, he's not some hack. Famousdog 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This wasn't a knock on Schwarczy, I paraphrased the sections of his article that I used for the Earl Mindell entry and just wanted confirmation that it is "legit."
 * All the best, SERSeanCrane 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)