Talk:Velvet antler

message: I reverted to prior to the additions of , because the main source, antlerfarms.com, is not reliable. The other two might be reliable for some information, but are obviously extremely biased. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed back the material to what might be verifiable, leaving the two books as references despite their obvious bias and questionable reliability. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that http://www.antlerfarms.com/literature.htm is not a reliable source, nor does it actually verify anything of the disputed content . This isn't just edit-warring, but spamming a website under the guise of it being a reference when it is not. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 29 Dec expansion

message: It would probably be due weight to mention the spray extract form, which is mentioned at Ray Lewis (football), but I think it would be undue weight to mention Lewis in this article. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spray extract

message: I've proposed a merge from Deer Antler Spray, and would like some help from another editor if you feel there's anything from there worth putting into this article.  If not, I'll just make a redirect to velvet antler.  Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirecting and starting over with some sources might be best. That article is nothing but NOT, OR, and MEDRS violations. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the assist.  I'll redirect now!  Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Deer Antler Spray]] 

message: For any write-up of the clinical trial science pertaining to athletic performance, I recommend the references listed below. Gilbey 2012 reviews the published work (including both sports performance and other applications). I consider it an unbiased review. Suttie 2004 includes the unpublished studies on sports performance. I consider it biased in favor of concluding there are benefits.  
A point that needs to be made is the fallacy of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) being the active ingredient in deer antler velvet dietary supplements (powder, drops, spray). First, DAV is pasteurized, which would inactivate this protein hormone. Second, oral consumption of IGF-1 is nonsensical, as the protein cannot be absorbed intact. There is a FDA-approved indication for IGF-1 as an injected drug. Not oral. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job tracking those down! --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in peer-reviewed science journals 

message: Response to third opinion request:
This one is a close call, but I think I have to agree with Jazzix on this one. Although WP:PRIMARY says to use care with primary sources, it doesn't outright prohibit them. At the same time, though, both of you appear to be edit-warring, so I would be careful with that; also, Jazzix, you were instructed to focus on content instead of denouncing Ronz, but then you just did it again anyway, so that isn't a good idea either. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the next step is to take the information that fails verification to WP:ORN. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much appreciate the third opinion. It is nice to be working with ronz now. I apologize for the confusion about original research and that their may appear to be confusion about what a dietary supplement is. I added a source for assistance. That original research is actually about the source FDA source in question. What we need to do is determine if the docket published on the FDA.gov website is a legitimate source for quoting the FDA. That source is selected because it is published on the FDA website. As I am still a newbie around here, please add the appropriate tags ronz to the source concerning its validity. Thank you. Jazzix (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the source in question - US FDA(2015-9-15) Batchelder, Helen J., Velvet Antler: A Literature Review, p.1 fda.gov  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzix (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what to think of this concerning this source - http://www.natraflex.com/VA2.htmlJazzix (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think that settles the worst of it. Looking over the article, I think we're on the right track.  --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: While researching the above, I found:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../CyberLetters/ucm056971.pdf
So the product can only be sold as a supplement, with no medical claims whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ronz is quite confused. no medical claim has been made, do your research, it is amazing a ten year veteran to Wikipedia does not know how to use it or understand and read sources. For example: the document above cites the supplement company saying that velvet antler may be used for arthritis, this is a medical claim. 67.204.178.51 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jazzix. You forgot to log in. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

text: sources added with wiki links and fda citations and legals Jazzix (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The FDA situation: The passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994 allows the sale of substances (if safe and manufactured in a facility that abides by Good Manufacturing Practices) as dietary supplements as long as no disease treatment or prevention claims are made and the label includes the disclaimer statement. IF a company makes disease claims, the FDA may get around to sending a Warning Letter. The gist of these letters: You are making disease claims; if you are making disease claims the FDA will consider your product a drug; it is an unapproved drug; cease the claims. This path is taken whether the claims are supported by science or not. Let's read this again: This path is taken whether the claims are supported by science or not. Having received such a letter, the company may either stop selling the product or continue selling the product, but without the health claims. As of 2017, many U.S. companies sell velvet antler products. Some make no label claims or only vague claims, and are legal. Some make disease claims, and thus might get a FDA Warning Letter in the future. The FDA considers website and social media content an extension of the label, especially if the label contains the website address. If there is a modicum of evidence, a company is allowed to make claims in "Structure:Function" vocabulary. For example, "Helps maintain joint health" if there is some human trial evidence that people with arthritis got better.David notMD (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: FDA velvet antler documents

message: I have read many new sources today and cited the New Zealand and Australian deer industry. It appears the largest size is 12kg. Even the wiki page for Red Deer makes this claim. I am removing the following information from this entry - "Exceptionally large elk and red deer antler pairs can weigh up to 50 lb (22.6 kg)"
If anyone finds a legitimate source making this claim please replace.Jazzix (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of Antler Velvet and Harvesting Timing 

message: It appear this source is much better concerning the news articles that are referenced concerning SWATS - http://www.usada.org/supplement-shutdown-sos-winter-2013-2014/
:Thanks. So the fats in the velvet antler are used as a carrier of other substances. I don't recall any of the other articles on the topic making the connection. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and SWATS 

message: very good source - http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/11/10/how-to-get-snake-oil-from-deer-antlers-and-make-millions/ Jazzix (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Velvet antler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911233432/http://tracking.si.com/2013/09/05/ray-lewis-deer-antler-office-raided/ to http://tracking.si.com/2013/09/05/ray-lewis-deer-antler-office-raided/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To add to this article: powdered velvet antler is used in combination with raw lacquer in the finishing of guqin, a stringed musical instrument that is produced in China. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add to article