Talk:Mannatech/Archive 1

message: Glycobiology, the scientific journal that represents the Society for Glycobiology, has recently published a mini-forum on this subject grouped around a main article entitled 'A Glyconutrient Sham'. The journal has also published a response from Mannatech. Makes for interesting reading. Reference is,
Glycobiology, vol 18(9)september 2008.
http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol18/issue9/
Carba (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Glycobiology Article

message: Earlier this year I stumbled into what turned into the most acrimonious and least-well-resolved edit war that I ever hope to see, the one involving glyconutrient.  I had no idea where some of the other editors of that article were coming from and I really didn't understand why they were so vehemently insistent that their perspective dominate the article (which, incidentally, it currently does.)
The information I've added to this article, Mannatech, immediately places everything into context - it's about money, and particularly, multi-level marketing.  It should have been obvious from the beginning, no?    -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC
:In answer Ikkyu2's bemusement, there are three primary groups editing Glyconutrient: (1) the anti-Mannatech, anti-glyconutrient editor(s) that had attempted to blank & prematurely delete the whole subject, then tried to damage or to negatively dominate the article, in some cases appearing to have a potentially competitive interest with related components; (2) the editors who see technically based literature relevant to "glyconutrient" components and felt that a NPOV descriptive article was in order to address the science, food sources, the marketing, the use of these mixtures to a public that has few good sources of information to get beyond the ubiquitous marketing spamlinks; and (3) the episodically recurring marketing representatives who try to inject company name, spam sites, marketing claims & hype into the article, including the notorious "8 essential sugar" nonsense alleged as a ploy to support a thin, dubious patent and to misassociate their product with the work of recent Nobel prize winners.  Ikkyu2 was the able referee in the head-on collosion of 1 & 2 principals above, both of whom got more than they bargained for.--I'clast 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glyconutrients and MLM

message: The laundry list of products in the article makes it read more like an ad and less like an encyclopedia article about the company -- Whpq 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest, I've explained the situation at length User talk:Mfiddy.--I'clast 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert?

message: yep, it's an advert, IMO. Please help me clean this up with NPOV!!
True manna 00:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you take a few runs at it.  I'll help as needed.--I'clast 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Editors from various walks of life are welcome at Wikipedia, simply they are asked to attempt a neutral point of view (NPOV), to provide reliable, verifiable references.  Sometimes this is difficult and points of view clash.  Editors should discuss them as knowledgeably & fairly as possible. In this area, I am sure some editors, past and present, have been exposed to well prepared, convincing marketing materials where even for highly degreed individuals it can be hard to independently spot the flaw(s) if not intimately familiar with the field. However, when these flaws are surfaced, they should be much easier to correctly resolve for the majority. As for "blocks", there are various mechanisms to lock the articles, administratively block errant editors, discuss & vote (RfC), and to discuss & arbitrate (RfArb), let's try reason, facts, discussion and editing first.--I'clast 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, thank you.  You've made some major changes, I'm pretty sure we'll see a response.  Hopefully it will include measured improvements.  I have moved your last sentence, here, for discussion because there several issues that affect it:  (1) It concerns Sam Caster, I think still a living person, we have a policy called WP:BLP that is pretty stringent about negative material, so we get out our radioactive tongs and look at this a little more carefully; (2) It isn't really a current issue, Mannatech said "I'm sorry", we have made appropriate changes and cleaned up the mess (I know,...), so it is a historical background issue; (3) presented exactly as it is, without more context, it is something of a  poisoned statement, so I would recommend that it be worked in a better way with other historical material; (4) one might choose a better source, Jarvis' essay is of course entertaining but with a definite POV, see (1), and NCAHF may not be a reliable source (it is very small with a checkered situation, of which you can see I have my own doubts) taking on a megabuck corp with lawyers. It can be hard to tell where they bury the knife (errant POV) in these things. So again let's handle with care, as well as due respect for the feelings and hopes of other new editors.--I'clast 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: stem the tide

message: POV sign moved [here]. The POV sign says see Talk - there is no such discussion.  Also the Intro and Product sections look pretty neutral to me, if sparse, so the article-sized ((POV)) sign does seem inappropriate. It is good practice to write the Talk part first, *then* do something major. This helps all understand more clearly, slows down hot edits, reduces edit conflicts (two or more editors writing at the same time), and reduces hard to defend stmts by thinking & spelling it out first.--I'clast 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pov signs

message: are clearly living people. Do they accept the statement of the company that they are directors or advisors, or do they not currently hold such a role? I would be leary of even referring to them in this role without their consent. The company refers to at least one of them as having received a grant from the company. Ditto. . DGG 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The 3 scientists mentioned

message: The products and scientific evaluation section comes off as POV. The contents of the section do not actually address scientific evaluation. It is a list of doctors who have associations with Mannatech. What it contributes to the article is unclear.
Consequently, I am recommending this section for deletion. The first sentence (As of December 31, 2005, the company offered 25 nutritional products, 3 topical products, and a weight-management system consisting of 4 different products. Mannatech is most widely known for Ambrotose, its lead product.) could/should be merged with the preceding paragraph. Antelan talk 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Products and Scientific Evaluation

message: I'm removing this from the article:
In June 2006, Mannatech signed a research agreement with Hyperion Biotechnology, Inc., in which Mannatech agreed to fund a research study related to Ambrotose.Mannatech, Incorporated, Form 10K SEC Public Filing for FY 2006 Retrieved on April 14, 2007.  In 2005, the Small Business Administration (SBA) of the U.S. federal government certified Hyperion Biotechnology as a "small disadvantaged business"Hyperion Biotechnology Corporate Web Site, About Us Retrieved on April 14, 2007. under the SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program on the basis that Hyperion Biotechnology is a "socially and economically disadvantaged"U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Information for Small Disadvantaged and 8(a) Small Businesses Retrieved on April 14, 2007. firm. 
 
In December 2006, Mannatech signed a research agreement with St. George's Hospital & Medical School, in London, England to aid in the funding of a "three-year clinical trial related to dosing and optimization study" on Ambrotose."Mannatech, Incorporated, Form 10K SEC Public Filing for FY 2006 Retrieved on April 14, 2007.
The information about Hyperion is immaterial, and the remainder doesn't contribute to the content of the article. It just lists things that Mannatech has done. I left the press release, because it made an actual statement, but the rest of this is unwarranted in this article. Antelan talk 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the details on Hyperion's status as a disadvantaged corporation are not relevant here, and should be removed. My concern with including the other details that you have restored is that they are not noteworthy. I completely agree that it is common practice for pharma companies to pay for their own studies. Because this practice is so common, one would not make a note in the Pfizer article stating that they had commissioned a firm to do a new study for them. One would make a note when the study had some results (positive, negative, neutral, anything). The most lengthy statement that should be made here, given what has been written, is, "Mannatech has commissioned two studies relating to the efficacy of its lead product, Ambrotose. The first results are expected in 2010." Antelan talk 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the specific details about the studies found in the SEC filing and have replaced them with a simpler sentence that encompasses all relevant details. When these studies have results, it will be appropriate to disclose both the results and the relevant details that you have noted (such as the involvement of a director of Mannatech in the research itself). Antelan talk 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: James.DC, I appreciate your comments on the talk page. The meaning that I take away from reading your comments is quite different from the meaning that I think is conveyed by the text in the article. I think that something to the extent of "none of the results from the first study have been made public" (which is the gist of your commentary on the talk page, and which I found illuminating) would do a great deal for this article. As it stands, stating the mere fact that the company is doing research seems to validate its products (regardless of results), which is something that we shouldn't be doing. If I find time next week I'll try to reword this, or if you have time and you agree with my thrust, please do the same. Thanks. Antelan talk 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra material

message: have not been constructive, and I have reverted to the last stable version and protected the page for 24 hours. If nonsense continues to be added, the only practical way to deal with it might be to reduce the article to a stub.DGG 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: some of the recent edits

message: The keyword for Mannatech has several issues with it that I hope to open up for discussion before attempting to make edits and before encouraging others to make edits.
Because there is a fundamental issue with the definition / overview of this keyword I am first seeking to learn the motivations of the present moderator.  Does the moderator have any personal experience or ties, whatsoever, to Mannatech or have you known anyone personally who has taken their products, etc?  Is that a reasonable question before starting?  I am very open to any suggestions before proceeding.Cosmochao 07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting discussion about keyword Mannatech 

message: Is there really a consensus that the resource cited under Mannatech (footnote 12) is a reliable source?  I think we can do much better when qualifying our sources, don't you?  I have an issue with it for several reasons. 
One, the source is called 'Pyramid Scheme Alert,' which already shows strong bias toward any form of MLM distribution. 
Second, the article within the 'Pyramid Scheme Alert' website is very weak itself, which the footnote is basing a major point upon. It is discussing how the Texas Attorney General's Office received a 'memo' from a stockholder who simply submitted a complaint. So that's the source? A person who was short selling Mannatech's stock and lost money? The article states that the Texas State Attorney General has not filed suit or taken legal action but was simply investigating the allegations in the memo.  So if I file a complaint against 'any' company tomorrow do you really think it's worth including in the company's definition at Wikipedia!  Mannatech is clearly a target on so many levels in this example.  I think we can show the controversy about Mannatech, including complaints, etc in a more professional way with credible sources.
3. The biggest issue is this statement in the article, "An October 24 memorandum in response to a public information request says the state's top cop has "anticipated filing suite against Mannatech" for a number of alleged violations. This is clearly biased and irresponsible journalism at best, because there have been no violations on record at the Texas Attorney Generals; there are only alleged violations or actually complaints. That is a huge important distinction and alone should merit immediately removing this from Wikipedia.  This also points to the overall issue with the fundamental viewpoint selecting these as sources for drawing up a definition for keyword Mannatech.  
I believe it's time we open up a real discussion on the objective of Wikipedia and ask if the entire slant seen on keyword mannatech is appropriate.  It seems quite reasonable to include a source to counter-balance each CREDIBLE source presently shown for that keyword, and it seems reasonable to remove sources like footnote 12 that are not credible at all.
Cosmochao 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the source being unreliable. The correct source is this MarketWatch article. I'll correct that when the page is unprotected. Antelan talk 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral, not balanced, is the policy of Wikipedia. Antelan talk 10:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, neutral, not balanced, is the policy of Wikipedia.  Consider this:  If I come here with a sincere attempt to collaborate with you before making changes to the keyword Mannatech, and I see clearly that the articles, media sources, quotes, etc are consistently not showing readers a balanced perspective (which is within Wikipedia's policies), isn't it STILL very relevent for me to bring this all to your attention and to ask for the motivations and reasoning behind this unbalanced keyword product?  Isn't it appropriate for me to attempt to understand why... BEFORE I go about figuring out the best way to discuss with you my suggestions; and before I make specific proposals or do specific research to find sources that may not be included simply because of the goal here is for an unbalanced keyword?  Again, isn't it appropriate for me to try to understand why the article is not balanced?Cosmochao 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that WP is not a democracy — consensus is not achieved through weight of numbers. Jim Dunning | talk 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read that in policies but do not recall what DOES create a consensus here?Cosmochao 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Cosmochao, the article says, "Mannatech is also currently under investigation by the Texas Attorney General for alleged violations of that state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act." The source that is cited says, "The memo further states that the company has been under investigation by the attorney general's Consumer Protection and Public Health Division since July 2005 regarding possible violations of the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act "and other related consumer protection statues."" To me, this seems to be a fair interpretation of the text of the article. Antelan talk 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I retract this--I wasn't operating on any sleep that night and made an error.  It's nice to see we are linking to the correct source now; however, the big question still remains:  Alghough it is within policy to have an article unbalanced, it seems very appropriate for potential contributers (at least I'd like to be a contributor some day) to ask why.  Does anyone else think it might be appropriate to discuss that fundamental question before suggesting more changes?Cosmochao 08:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to ask you in a few different ways, but I haven't been able to ask it in the right way, I suppose: Most simply stated, what is the "fundamental question" or "big question" that you are referring to? Antelan talk 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamential issue is as I've been saying:  The article is bias toward negativity about Mannatech, and follows the pharmaceutical industry standards and values.  And although this may be within Wikipedia's policies, it is also within Wikipedia's policies to change this bias, or to be more balanced, or even to be bias in the other direction (more positive toward the wellness industry's values and beliefs).  The fundamental issue with the article is that it is so heavily sided that the main contributers believe it's an opinion that a scientist specializing in glycobiology is a reliable source to comment on diet and nutritional needs!  As I said before this is as false and obvious to those in the 'wellness paradigm' as to say that a farmer who uses heavy pesticides and GMOs is a reliable source to comment on organic farming practices!Cosmochao 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source referenced for Mannatech 

message: It is clear that no effort is being made by the admin for a neutral definition for the key word Mannatech.  It is obvious that 'ownership' has been declared here and I will take all possible actions to bring some neutrality to this area.  I will be asking anyone here and my subscribers of 40,000+, to review the points I have made here and to offer a more neutral definition to be created collaboratively and neutrally.  Of course, the points will be formulated more cautiously so not to give the administrator any way of avoiding the point.  I will be in an out of here over the next couple of weeks and using this as a focal point on my radio visits as well as on my website.  I am seeking collaborators who may be reviewing this (assuming the admin does not delete this post)!Cosmochao 11:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually the second time he has made the threat. The first time was on his user talk page, where he threatened to report my abuse of admin priveleges (I am not an admin) and recruit 40,000 people to "bring a more objective perspective" to the "definition". He withdrew the threats when I told him I would continue to discuss the topic with him if he did so. His retraction was apparently short lived, as it has appeared here again. Antelan talk 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of that; it is why I left the promise to him or her. alteripse 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 1. Please sign your posts. 2. And I was trying to make you "mindful" of how such an action would be received here. 3. A block means that a senior member of the community is pointing out to you that you are seriously offending policy or customs here; whether you can evade it by changing your IP is up to your conscience and the way you want to relate to us. 4. You have the attention and involvement of at least 3 editors here today, so I do not understand what you mean by saying "there is none". alteripse 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is involvement and for the first time I do sense a genuine interest in an unbiased environment.  I realize now that I may simply be up against a 'social conditioning' bias, rather than a bias with an intent to do harm to Mannatech (which I was confused at the time as to the motivation).  Again, I am realizing my mistakes and will be more patient here.  Regarding any threats, that is a misunderstanding.  I should have been more specific about how exactly I would involve others, which I have started to do for help on my writing and organization of thoughts.  Now that I am getting some good dialogue here I may make more progress here, I'm not sure yet.  I truly do not mean to disrupt Wikipedia. My intention is to prepare my suggestions for a new description for 'Mannatech' with several thousand people assisting me in doing it. With my blog I have a means for including the input of many people similarly to what Wikipedia has here (although not as extensive of course). I thought that if I bring attention about this issue to them I'd get some help on their thoughts, editing skills, finding sources, referencing, etc. Again, I do not mean to 'disrupt Wikipeida' in any way, and that is not my personality.  I'd rather bring more construction to it. I could see that my writing skills were preventing me from making headway here but I am certain that my points deserve, at the very least, consideration, and at best, inclusion. As I said to Jim, please accept my apology for not being more clear about my intent to simply involve more people for the embetterment of the Wikipedia purpose, rather than to 'disrupt' it.Cosmochao 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me know if the involvement in the context I described more clearly above is still considered offensive.  I am having some unusual challenges relating to the culture here although I am sincere in my intention to do better at it and believe I can.Cosmochao 08:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin is not allowing for neutral definition for keyword Mannatech 

message: Maybe we should choose a definition that's a little more static eh?Cosmochao 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are being selected by the contributors — any contributor, including yourself. Feel free to challenge the validity of any source, and go ahead and provide sources you feel present a more objective perspective (if lacking); just ensure they meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If a link is dead, do your best to find an active link for the same information, or a suitable replacement. If unable to, then flag it with a  maintenance tag to enlist others to help. If no one is successful, then the material should be considered for removal from the article. Jim Dunning | talk 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jim, I will be doing so.  Please understand my original intent was to better relate to the 'environment and motivations / intentions' in here before deciding the best way to go about contributing to this article.  I feel I have some work to do in either better understanding the 'paradigm' of the contributers so far, or in them understanding mine before I put in a bunch of work and hunt down sources.  Once we make a little more headway on that I will submit some properly cited sources to work on the article.  Thank you again for your invitation and recommendation.Cosmochao 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have corrected the link, which now points to the original source. Antelan talk 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 10 goes to a DEAD LINK 

message: Footnote 12 links to a website (demonstrating that our administrator is NOT concerned with being nueutral in this definition) called,"Pyramid Scheme Alert" when the correct source should be MarketWatch.Cosmochao 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the link. Antelan talk 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 12 links to incorrect page - not to sited source 

message: Let's take a moment to review the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This conversation has strayed from an explanation of what probably can and probably cannot go into an article into a conversation on the merits of various individuals' beliefs. Let's keep this on-topic, productive, and within guidelines. Antelan talk 12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Antelan, but surely you understand why this entire dialogue has been extremely benefial in my understanding about how to go about doing so.  I am still eager to learn your personal motivation for monitoring this key word so dilligently.  Will you ever share. I believe it is such an important part of this discussion when seeking a way to find consensus on possible directions to take this article.  I have a lot of research to do to meet your requirements because this is all new (as it was new in the 1500s and hard to prove efficacy of limes for Scurvey).  Therefor, having the above dialogue and knowing your motivation for being here could greatly assist me in knowing where to focus my points in order to seek consensus.Cosmochao 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosmochao, from this point on please refrain from inquiring further about Antelan's (or anyone else's) motivations for editing this article. I've reviewed all other editors' contributions and communications with you, and they are all consistent with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and, most importantly, supporting content with reliable sources and verifiability. Their motivations for involvement in WP are irrelevant as long as their efforts conform to WP practices and are respectful of other editors. Focus on the contribution, not the contributor. You have brought up the issue of "motivation" at least 20 times, but it is irrelevant here since all other editors have asked for only what WP requires. Even if you were, say, a chiropractor with existing financial ties to Mannatech (for example) no one would question your motivation for editing here as long as your contributions complied with the above-mentioned WP policies. I, for example, have little interest in glyconutrition, but am interested in ensuring this article is the best it can be, so I stay involved. So assume good faith and address content only. Jim Dunning | talk 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, I appreciate the suggestion and will keep it in mind; however, without me directly accusing anyone of bias at this time (out of respect of your last post) may I ask you what a person's next steps would be to challenge this article if they believe there is a real issue with neutrality?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Guidelines

message: Question:  Can we change the structure of the first sentence slightly to emphasize Mannatech's role in glyconutrient R and D rather than on 'engaging in MLM?'  For example, presently the first sentence of the article emphasizes MLM when it says,"Mannatech, Incorporated, is a multinational firm engaged in multilevel marketing, etc.  First, this does not read as well as my suggestion here: Mannatech, Incorporated, is a multinational firm engaged in the research, development and distribution of glyconutrient products through multi-level marketing.  Second, we should consider adding 'development' as they surely 'develop glyconutrient products' as it states on their site which we already use as a source.  How do we get into a discussion about the structuring of sentences in order to change emphasis? Cosmochao 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but my understanding is that this is a company that sells distributorships, not therapeutic products, which is why they do not want to be judged and held to FDA standards. If you can supply us with the evidence of published research we can certainly include it in the description. alteripse 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else here with a response to my question other than alterprise?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way Alterprise, see DSA and FTC websites regarding laws concerning selling distributorships vs. selling products.  It is illegal, according to FTC website for associates to earn money on the sell of distributorships.  Therefor your statement is not valid in this case.  Can anyone else here comment?  Let's not let egos get too much in the way in this process!Cosmochao 06:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't let my ego distract you; it isn't distracting me from trying to evaluate the validity of your statements and attempting to be precise and accurate as to what things are. As I have freely admitted, occasionally you have been correct. You, however, do not seem to have the ability to evaluate your own beliefs when multiple people have patiently offered you much evidence that many of them are erroneous. So what is the major source of Mannatech's income? Is it sale of its products or is it sale of opportunities to sell its products? I am willing to be educated. Are you? alteripse 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to change structure of first sentence of article 

message: Is it my understanding that if Mannatech gives a grant for a study than the researchers in that grant cannot be quoted in the article; or, can the researcher be quoted with the financial link indicated?Cosmochao 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about 'reliable source' 

message: To answer Cosmachao's questions listed below all at once:
*Anyone else here with a response to my question other than alterprise?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, me.
*Is it my understanding that if Mannatech gives a grant for a study than the researchers in that grant cannot be quoted in the article; or, can the researcher be quoted with the financial link indicated?Cosmochao 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, as long as the article meets WP's standards for NPOV, no original research, reliability and verifiability.
*Jim, I am curious if you read the article at www.glycoscience.org under the FAQ entitled, "Can You Tell Me About the Peer Reviewed Process for Articles Published in GlycoScience & Nutrition?'Cosmochao 06:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I did, and most of the "peer review" process GlycoScience described is not peer review. It makes it sound and look like peer review, but it forgets the "independent" aspect of the process. In fact, to make it sound good it refers to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' standards for peer review, stating it meets them. However, the ICMJE specifically says that "A peerreviewed journal is one that submits most of its published research articles for outside review." Despite what GlycoScience says about its peer review process, this crucial step is specifically lacking from that process.
*I ask you what a person's next steps would be to challenge this article if they believe there is a real issue with neutrality?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply this: add material to the article that cites sources that comply with WP's requirements. WP is not a forum for original research, so by definition, you can only include information from third-party sources (that is an encyclopedia). You could very well be right about the conspiracy, but it doesn't matter. WP can only publish what is verifiable from reliable third-party sources. If the existing sources do not support your perspective, then work to get some published first elsewhere so you can include them in WP. That's what you need to do.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would hate to suggest that the editors of Wikipedia are biased. However, if an article by PubMed Central, that lists a journaled article by J Int Soc Sports Nutr. was removed and vandalized, questions must be asked. I would understand the general policy for company funded research. However, this particular study was done by 3 well known Universities in independent studies.  Shaunholmberg (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are urged by Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy to reveal your financial relationship with Mannatech before making contributions to this article.Jim Dunning | talk 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once and for all, sources are not verifiable 

message: I suggest that ALL discussion on the neutrality and completeness of this article cease now until someone — anyone — can produce sources that support the views Cosmochao has put forward. It would be hard for anyone to argue that the voluminous and repetitive discussion on this page can go forward at this point productively. It's time for everyone to disengage from this for awhile. At a minimum, a hiatus of one week should do. Jim Dunning | talk 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jim, I agree with your recommendation that I disengage, at least for now, from seeking to understand where we may find consensus.  One of my goals was to construct a more positive tone for the article.  Doing so would NOT require the introduction of new points, new sources, or any removal of present sources.  We will simply accept that for the moment, we cannot discuss that topic with this particular group.  This is one of many examples where Wikipedia falls short, and understandably so, as administrators, moderators and the public's egos interfere with open discussion and a true spirit of collaboration.  You, and others here, have given your time and I have benefited tremendously from your willingness to do so.  I'm grateful for that.   I realize that many of my opinions, points and questions frustrated some here but note my aim was more fundamential than just to 'improve' the article.  I was seeking to learn where we may find consensus for changes of tone, which required I learned more about you and your values (all contributors of the article). I have learned all I can over this interface. I understand that, in addition to the egos, there are many values that are interfering with an open discussion here.  This was all inspired by a sincere eagerness to discover the fundamental reasons why this Mannatech article is presently written with a tone of negativity toward the company.  I believe that was uncovered partly and while working with collarborators outside of Wikipedia I may be able to come up with a more objective approach to finding consensus.  Wishing you the best, Cosmochao 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moratorium recommended

message: I suggest we add some references to the article pointing to the extensive research found on MedLine for the individual 'sugars' found in Ambrotose.  
Before you respond, please read the following explanation for a quick brushing up on why Ambrotose does not need to be named in the study to justify inclusion in this article (just as many trademark pharmaceutical drug names are not named in studies that come up on MedLine when you search for a specific trademarked drug name. 
Let's start by asking it this way (a question many have discussed in this area before):
Why don't we have articles available on MedLine for Ambrotose?
1.  Medline covers scientific papers from many parts of the world.
2.  Pharmacuetical (and other) companies with proprietary products have a trade mark name - a proprietary name - for their formulation of a particular chemical.  But this name is not usually used in scientific discourse.  So don't expect to see scientific papers on Panadol, but look for 'paracetamol' or 'acetaminophen'.
3.  How do names work?  Naming of particular chemicals... 
a) Systematic chemical name - this is generally quite long and meaningful only to chemists who work in the particular branch of chemistry - and not useful for even scientific discourse.  The molecular structure of the substance leads to its name. 
International Non Proprietary Name - an agreed 'common name' for scientific work.  (But it depends on which country!)
b) Generic name  - generally used in scientific papers.  This name may be given by the discoverer, or have grown into acceptance. It will usually give a chemist some idea of the class of substance, but not necessarily so.  This is the most commonly used name in MedLine papers.  Often there are versions of this name, depending on the properties being discussed. 
c)Proprietary name - this is a trade-marked name given by the patent holder or formulator of the particular chemical.  It is not usually used in scientific publications, unless it is very well known.  There are many of these - each company has its own! For example:  Consider Panadol a commonly used pain reliever  (from Wikipedia)
•	INN: Paracetamol 
•	IUPAC name: N-(4-hydroxy phenyl )-acetamide   (For chemists) 
•	British Approved Name (BAN): Paracetamol    (UK and Australia - generic name) 
•	United States Adopted Name (USAN): Acetaminophen (USA generic name) 
•	Other generic names: N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, APAP, p-Acetamidophenol, Acetamol, ...  (Just to be more confusing!) 
•	Proprietary names: Tylenol®, Panadol®, Panamax®, Perdolan®, Calpol®, Doliprane®, Tachipirina®, ben-u-ron®,Atasol®,     and others 
4.  As a help, sometimes in the indexing of scientific papers, a Proprietary name may be used, but not generally in the text itself.  And if the proprietary name is used, the INN or USAN will be given as well.  So you may find articles by searching for 'Panadol', but the text will usually use a generic name
5.  So when you look up 'Ambrotose' (Proprietary name), don't expect to find references.  'Ambrotose' is not well known yet in scientific circles
Don't expect to find much on 'glyconutrients' either, as this term was coined by Mannatech (I believe), and is not yet in general use. 
But look up each of the 8 glyconutrients by name, and you'll find hundreds (thousands) of articles.
6. So the gentleman on 20/20, and many of you in here, who say that there are ZERO articles on 'Ambrotose' are being truthful, but not intellectually honest, in my opinion.  You need to check the papers on the individual glyconutrients!
So with this all in mind, I propose that if someone next submits here references to studies found on Medline naming any of the individual sugars that comprise Ambrotose, we consider adding it to this article. Cosmochao
:We know the difference between brand names and chemical names. We have asked repeatedly for citations of independent controlled trials. None have been offered by either of you. None. Just endless nonsense about conspiracies, lies about the relevant laws, and attempts to bury unfavorable facts. All it would take for me to accept that a published trial is relevant would be (1) the rough composition of Ambrotose (i.e., is it all mannose or 90% mannose, or what?) and (2) a published study showing some objectively measurable benefit from a similar amount of a similar substance or combination. If after 15 years of marketing this stuff by this "research company" to thousands of people with implied or explicit health benefit promises, the best you can do is a study showing it simply gets into the body, but doesn't provide a measurable benefit, don't even bother. That would simply confirm every uncharitable suspicion I have about your honesty, knowledge, and/or intelligence, and the honesty of the company. On the other hand, if you can offer us even a single independent study showing an objective benefit, well enough controlled to exclude a placebo effect, for a substance similar in composition and amount to Ambrotose, I will personally format the reference and find a place for it in the article. It is now put up or shut up time. alteripse 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alteriprise has already brought up strong points. I simply would like to address your claim ("many trademark pharmaceutical drug names are not named in studies that come up on MedLine when you search for a specific trademarked drug name"). A search on PubMed for Vioxx yields over 1,500 results. This is one of thousands of drugs whose trade names are included in studies, especially by the time the relevant clinical trials are being conducted. Pharmaceutical drug names, along with their generic names, are used in studies - especially medical studies, which would be the relevant study in the case of Ambrotose. Antelan talk 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, the 'owners' of this article are completely evading the point.  I will put this into simple terms to make it obvious to all who read this discussion that the people who 'watch over this article' are simply feeding their egos (or have some other incentive) by keeping the article for Mannatech as they wish it to be.  Since there are MANY instances on MedLine where a specific search for a 'pharmaceutical trade name' pulls up studies done on the components in that drug (but that do not name the trade name itself) it is reasonable to include in this article that MedLine contains hundreds of studies on the components Mannatech provides in its product Ambrotose (like mannose, a key ingredient).Cosmochao 11:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please respond DIRECTLY to the following proposal or DO NOT respond to this specific discussion at all.  I repeat: I propose that if someone next submits here references to studies found on Medline naming any of the individual sugars that comprise Ambrotose, we consider adding it to this article.Cosmochao 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this has already been suggested by Alteripse four paragraphs above: any independent, peer-reviewed clinical trials of Ambrotose (or provable and relevant components) are welcome. Does anyone know where the results can be located? Also, let's all be civil here; there are no "owners", and I am not feeding my ego. I care not two wits about Mannatech: I just enjoy editing articles. So please STOP accusing me of anything else; it's getting old.Jim Dunning | talk 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Cosmochao, your complaint makes no sense. I responded directly and promised to add to the article any research study that was (1) controlled, (2) independently reviewed, showing a (3) health benefit for any substance or preparation (4) reasonably close in composition to Ambrotose. What answer could have been any less "evasive"? Do you have a reference or don't you? alteripse 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are hundreds of references on MedLine.  I am seeking out those most appropriate here. I simply wanted to learn if they would be accepted if they are generic components.Cosmochao 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the 5th time, YES! I just checked back and found at least 5 occasions in the last month when I begged you or LJames for worthwhile citations. The citation is relevant to Ambrotose and is worthy to be included in this article if (1) it described a trial involving one or more major components (this does require telling what Ambrotose is, so we can tell if it's the same thing), and if (2) it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) is controlled to eliminate a placebo effect, and (4) shows a significant benefit for a health problem. If you have a study that meets all four of those criteria, I will put it in the article myself. alteripse 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose adding Medline references to this article 

message: I was uncomfortable when I saw a recent addition quickly deleted by Antelan (no criticism implied, Antelan), so I searched for some reference to The Royal Society's involvement with Ambrotose and found only material generated by Mannatech employees/contractors. Literally, the same claims  stated almost verbatim hundreds of times on every blog imaginable, some even with links to all sorts of related sites, but not a single one to substantiate the statements about The Royal Society being involved in studies about Ambrotose or Mannatech. Can someone direct me to pertinent, reliable sources? Consequently, I agree that the unsourced statements need to come out until verified.
Also, I see the Royal Society's name being bandied about ad infinitum. Isn't it the analog to the U.S.'s AMA? So, how is its "involvement" with glyconutrition an affirmation of Mannatech's products? It seems that these statements are on par with any American physician who belongs to the AMA coming out in support of glyconutrients. Additionally, I did a search for Ambrotose at the RSM's website and came up with zero results. I also searched for "Axford" and found only one reference to him on their website: the RSM lists him as only one of many contributors at a conference this fall (during a single day on glycobiology). Are all these RSM references any more significant than a reference to the AMA?Jim Dunning | talk 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your caution is appropriate. Likewise, I searched for a source to validate the Scripps claim and found nothing but blog comments. If there is truth to the claim that Mannatech has won these awards from institutions of science, this belongs in the article. However, we need to be able to validate the claims. Antelan talk 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, LLJ. This tells us more about you and Mannatech than anything I could surmise. You have no rebuttal to our recognition that this is all flimflam, exaggeration, and fraud, so you attack some people who have nothing to do with this on issues entirely irrelevant to the honesty of Mannatech claims or your statements here. If you had even a figleaf of evidence to support your claims I assume you would have offered us that instead of the fascinating fact that Steven Barrett flunked his psych board exam. What the hell does Steven Barrett's board certification status have to do with the honesty of Mannatech marketing? What kind of twisted logic thinks that attacking Steven Barrett somehow makes the "Royal Society research" and "Scripps award" claims any less of a deceitful fantasy? alteripse 03:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: LLJames, please do not delete others' comments. I had replied to your original statement (which you have since changed), but you deleted my reply. My response was, originally, ":Please keep your comments on topic; specifically, they should regard some content point in the article at hand, not the subject matter itself. Antelan talk 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: LLJames, I assure you I do not use the word lies and liar lightly or casually, but only when the evidence is clear and overwhelming. I do not think I have ever seen a series of contributions from a single editor that are as deliberately misleading and deceitful as yours. I pointed out each error. Once again, all it would take to refute me would be a reference that actually does so and I will willingly concede my error. At this point I expect nothing except bluster and complaint from you, certainly no evidence, facts or honesty. Why do you persist in the absolute misrepresentation of the difference between FDA supplement regulation and drug regulations and why Mannatech is one and not the other? alteripse 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Society and other recently deleted statements

message: It looks like there's a news article in the current issue of Science which has a lot of good info which should probably be added to the article. A quote:
:Most basic biologists probably don't give much thought to ginseng, herbal teas, and the other dietary supplements that fill the shelves of health-food stores. But one group has been caught up in an escalating controversy over supplements in recent weeks, pitting them against a nutraceuticals company that has been charged with illegal sales practices in Texas. Several prominent U.S. glycobiologists allege that the company, Mannatech, threatens to "taint" their field by linking glycobiology discoveries with claims for sugar pills of unproven medical benefit. The company and its consultants have fired back, urging the withdrawal of a critical commentary and warning of legal action.
:The dispute began when a leader in the field and the editor of the journal Glycobiology co-authored a scathing critique of Mannatech, which was posted as an online preprint in September. Other scientists joined in, urging speakers to reconsider their participation in a scientific meeting last week in Dublin that was partly sponsored by Mannatech. In another twist, after Mannatech and others complained about the Glycobiology editorial, the publisher, Oxford University Press, removed it 3 weeks ago, promising to repost it later with responses.
--NeuronExMachina 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great find. Thank you. Antelan talk 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News article in Science 

message: :My writing skills are not up to par to contribute to the article, but someone may want to put mention of this in the main article - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/12/16/1229189604279.html 150.101.157.14 (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mannatech related to a girl developing brain damage in Australia