Talk:Protandim/Archives/2011/November

Science-based medicine reference

The external reference at the end of the article: "Quackbuster report on Protandim" might be changed to this. It is a more recent article by the same author. The author never intended the original article for publication on the internet. It was simply an informal reply to an e-mail. Googling various quotes that Dr. Hall uses to support her arguments in the original article produce no results suggesting that they have long since been deleted. This author would probably appreciate a reference to the more carefully reasoned and researched version of her work. (Entropy7 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

Good idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need to have the opinion page from Dr Hall listed here as a references link, anymore than one would link to current day distributor website for any valid source of information. Dr Hall has done no research on Protandim, and her comments in her blog are not peer reviewed, not substantiated or contain anything more valid than any other blogger. Her title as a Dr doesn't gives her no more credibility than hundreds of doctors who give Protandim to their patients, yet would never be allowed their links to appear here as affirmative references. (Jan 2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.120.126 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The website is a cooperative endeavor by a number of medical experts on many subjects, especially looking at various subjects and judging them by EBM standards. It's no ordinary blog and is considered a RS here, especially as the POV of scientific skeptics. As such the link qualifies since it's non-promotional and adds a significant POV on the subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The website might be cooperative, the author's opinion is not. Dr Hall is expressing her opinion without research and without any degree of scientific measure, she's speaking as a skeptic not as a doctor. If we allow her contribution based on this, do we begin to allow LifeVantage distributors's websites to be included as reference links? Lets keep this article unbiased by leaving out both references for (or against) Protandim unless they contribute to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.57.161 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Hall's article is fact-based and looks reasonable. She presents ample evidence to support her assessment. I don't see how one can objectively tell whether a doctor is speaking as a "skeptic not as a doctor". The slippery slope argument (i.e., if we use Hall's article then we have to use distributor websites as links) is inappropriate and borders on a threat to purposely use unreliable sources to counterbalance Hall's article. If there are distributor sites that contain notable salient information and meet WP:RS, then they could, in theory at least, be proposed for inclusion; but that has no bearing on whether Dr. Hall's article is included. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Very thought-provoking points, everyone! I appreciate the discussion. I still feel that Dr. Hall's review of 8 peer-reviewed studies meets the standards of WP:RS. Science-Based Medicine is not an ordinary blog, and Dr. Hall's assessment of Protandim is not merely an opinion, but a summary of the literature. This is intended to be a WP:SECONDARY source of information. The issue of whether Dr. Hall is speaking as a doctor or a skeptic, I don't think should matter. I don't think her identification with scientific skepticism should preclude her from being able to write objective assessments of medical literature.Dustinlull (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr Hall did not conduct any research on Protandim. The placement of this in the "Research" section of the wiki is misleading, even if it is WP:SECONDARY information. By adding her opinion here at all, we justify the inclusion of reviews from other individuals as bloggers about the research regardless of their title or background, including Dr Royal which Rhode Island Red was not a supporter. The section called "Research" should remain as a list of research, and not commentary of such, unless we want to introduce a new standard of commentators, and there are many. Id suggest this article from Hall be restricted to the External links section of the article only. --PublicAdvocate (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hall is providing a medical opinion on Protandim and the body of research behind it. As other editors above have pointed out, she is not a random blogger. There is no need for her to have conducted any lab bench research in order to have her opinion qualify for inclusion; the fact that what she wrote was essentially an independent secondary source review makes this ideal for inclusion. Remember, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, and hers appears to be the only independent medical review on Protandim to date. Dan Royal certainly doesn't qualify as independent; he is a distributor and spokesperson for the company. Various reasons for supporting the citation of Hall's review have been voiced above by several editors in response to your objections. At this point, your objection represents a minority opinion. You definitely had no basis for ignoring those opinions and repeatedly trying to unilaterally (see WP:CON) delete the reference and accompanying text.[1][2] It constitutes WP:DE/WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Studies

There seems to be some disagreement on who's to be listed on the various studies as the author or contributor of the study. Certainly the first 2 studies are paid for and completely authored by Dr McCord, the remainder are done by universities, the studies show this, and list many authors. Dr McCord is named as one of the authors on them, because of his contribution in providing Protandim, and contributions to them from that perspective, but the studies themselves were conducted by the universities, why is Rhode Island so bent to remove all references to all but Dr McCord?

And why is Rhode Island doesn't want to have the Ohio State Study listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.57.161 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not true that McCord merely provided Protandim for the study, and that wouldn't be a sufficient contribution to merit authorship (it would be fraudulent to claim authorship under such circumstances). Please refer to the ICMJE requirements for scientific authorship.[3]. The claim that you made about McCord only being directly involved in the first two studies (i.e., Nelson et al 2006 and Velmurugan et al 2008) is false. The 2008 study by Liu et al confrims that McCord wrote the article (see acknowledgements).[4] The 2010 study by Robbins et al shows that McCord conceived and designed the experiments.[5] The other studies don't give a breakdown of author contributions. Suprisingly, in most of the articles, McCord fails to disclose that he has an intimate financial connection with the company, although in a couple of cases he deceptively admits only to being a "consultant". McCord is the only common author on each of the studies, and since he is a company director,[6] insider shareholder (holding stock options that don't expire until 2017),[7][8] and key product spokesperson,[9] as well as major contributor to all of the research, the information is highly significant and should not be whitewashed. The institutional affiliations are largely immaterial. Most of the studies involved multiple institutions and it would not benefit the article if a long list of institutional names were included, since they would overshadow the key content. The full citations are listed so anyone interested in knowing all the affiliations of all the authors can get the information merely by clicking the links. The study that you refer to as the "Ohio State Study" has been cited in the article all along (reference #15 -- Joddar et al.). This is a good example -- it would be arbitrary and misleading to list only one participating institution (eg, Ohio State) since multiple institutions were involved in the research (ie, Ohio State University, RIKEN Nanomedical Engineering, and Joe McCord of LifeVantage). Lastly, you misleadingly tried to list one of the studies (Qureshi et al 2010) as as being a Harvard University study when in fact, the primary institutional affiliation was Texas Tech University in El Paso (only 1 of the authors listed a current affiliation with Harvard). I hope this put this issue to rest and you'll stop making these unconstructive edits. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with listing McCord as an author, to the degree he participated, but list ALL the authors, and also list who funded them and who actually conducted the research, including the institutions. To reduce it down to just Dr McCord in the way in which you perceive is not an accurate reflection of those studies or the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.57.161 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate a few key points. Universities do not conduct studies; people at universities conduct studies. The wording you have added now (“a study conducted by X University”) attributes the studies to the universities themselves rather than to the individuals involved in the studies – that is inappropriate. Secondly, as I mentioned before, there were multiple institutions involved in each study, in almost all cases, but you’ve only listed a single university for each. The study that you attributed to Virginia Commonwealth (Bogaard et al) also involved institutions in Holland and Colorado. The study you attributed to Harvard University involved mostly researchers from Texas Tech University. And you have omitted reference to the fact that McCord, company director, was intimately involved in these studies. You also added a duplicate reference to the study by Joddar et al after I had explained that the article had already been cited. Lastly, the newly added news section is inappropriate, since WP is not a news reporting agency; instead relevant news is cited where appropriate and integrated into the body text in an encyclopedic manner. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, lets list the authors all of them, don't pick and choose for your own political agenda, which is clear in your bias, which doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear who or what you are agreeing with. No one proposed adding the names of the 50+ authors to the article. That's what reference lists are for. McCord is the common thread throughout these studies, and he is an executive of the company that manufactures and markets the product. Anyone who wants to know who the additional authors are in the studies can simply look at the reference lists. And it's not a good idea to fly off the handle and accuse other authors of bias, especially when you've only been here for a day or two. Please refer to WP:AGF (and WP:SPA). Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with other contributors here Rhode Island Red's edits distort much of what the studies reflect in terms of who conducted, funded and authored the studies. The exception clearly being the first 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.112.201.151 (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's swell that you drove by to share that, but this isn't a polling booth for WP:SPA Protandim distributors. It's a place to explain one's position and make constructive comments to guide the writing and editing of the article. See WP:TPG. If you think there is distortion in the article, then explain why you think it is so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this study by Daniel F. Royal relevant in the progression of new Protandim studies to list? https://www.explorepub.com/current-issue-203/499-adaptogen-complex-found-to-correct-nutritional-deficiencies.html Its a small non-controlled human clinical. I wouldn't have suggested it if the magazine was not a peer reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss the nature of the latest Oct 2011 study here, how it should be described on the article instead of just reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red has now reverted twice the article without discussing his disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[10] are inappropriate on several fronts. I indicated this in my edit summaries when I reverted your changes. Further explanation than that shouldn't have been necessary. You should have consulted and assimilated the relevant WP policies that were cited rather than ignoring them and launching yet another edit war. First, in the opening section you changed this text:

"Four of the studies were conducted, written, and/or funded in whole or in part by LifeVantage and its predecessor Lifeline Therapeutics"

...to this:

"Three of the studies were funded in whole or in part by LifeVantage and its predecessor Lifeline Therapeutics".

You also deleted two of the supporting references that were cited in the original text. You provided no explanation for this erroneous edit. With the addition of the new study, there are now 5 papers published in which LFVN/LFLT was directly acknowledged as being involved in the conduct, writing, and/or funding, and this has now been corrected. Secondly, the material you added regarding the new study is similarly inappropriate -- you have inserted text implying that Protandim can treat various diseases when in fact doing so is inconsistent with WP:MEDRS (not to mention US laws regulating advertising claims for dietary supplements). The newly added text in question was as follows:

"This study outlines the potential of Nrf2 activation for the therapeutic potential of 200 human diseases involving various physiological processes".

The study provided no evidence whatsoever regarding the therapy of human diseases (this in vitro study wasn't even conducted in human subjects), and in any event, such a contentious claim would have to be backed by reliable secondary sources as outlined in WP:MEDRS -- I indicated this in my edit summary when I reverted your edit, and you seem to be completely ignoring the point. A primary source study funded by the manufacturer of Protandim and written by its executives/shareholders clearly does not qualify in this regard. Please refrain from using this article as a soapbox to promote contentious medical claims. You've already been warned[11] and blocked[12] previously in regard to your conduct (POV pushing, contentious editing, and edit warring) on this article so kindly tread lightly from here on in. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Only 3 of the studies were funded by LifeVantage, and written is not correct. McCord contributed to some, but your comments are misleading. On the latest study, I quoted from the study, which talks about the power of Nrf2 activation which you recently whitewashed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to articulate more clearly than that because it is not constructive to merely say, without providing specific examples, that the article is "incorrect" and "misleading". Again, if you refer to WP:MEDRS as suggested, it should be clear why the material in question was deleted (not "whitewashed" as you allege). Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)