Talk:Transfer factor

message: 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)
thread_title: Ill. Dictionary of Immunology, 3rd ed. (2009, {{ISBN|9780849379871}})

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: PDR.net

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Transfer factor research vs transfer factor marketing and sales 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History section