Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 3

message: Right now we're using a pic from the NSA website as "fair use", but it's problematic to declare fair use on it since a free image could probably be created fairly easily.  Could someone here with access to the actual product, snap a few photos?  Like of the jars, of some individual capsules, etc.  Then you can either send them to me and I'll upload them for you, or I'll talk you through how to upload your own images to Wikipedia or to the Commons.  The trickiest part is the licensing issue, but as long as you're uploading your own pics, a simple GFDL or CC-by-SA license should do fine. --Elonka 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image needed

message: Since the material on adverse effects that Rhode Island Red has added is well-sourced, it's hard to argue against it. Just one line caught my attention: These events resolved spontaneously and were deemed by the researchers to be unrelated to treatment [13]. Why would we be carrying this as an adverse effect if it's unrelated to treatment?  Does anyone have access to the full text of the study? 
::That’s a totally reasonable question. In studies that monitor adverse events in subjects while taking a test agent, all adverse events are reported even if the investigators deem them to be unrelated to the treatment. This is because it’s usually impossible to know with certainty whether an adverse event has been caused by a test agent or some other unrelated factor, particularly for test agents that have unknown safety profiles, so any and all adverse events are reported. This uncertainty is reflected in the standard-use terminology “the investigators deemed…”, meaning that they are taking a best guess that the adverse event is unrelated to treatment but cannot say so definitively. Rhode Island Red 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s another reasonable point. The relevant background information is that safety testing and adverse event monitoring/reporting are not required for dietary supplements. Rigorous safety studies, such as the kind required for drugs, track large numbers of subjects over relatively long periods of use and they employ careful study designs and surveillance methods to establish the safety profile and adverse events for the agent under investigation. Feel free to insert the appropriate verbiage if you feel taking a crack at it. Rhode Island Red 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Turning the clock back - the article as re-written by Elonka was objective and met with a general support. It seems to me that Rhode Island Red is now trying to turn the clock back and turn the article into the less than balanced article that we had before (which led Elonka to invest her time and effort into the rewrite).  Are we returning to the previous situation in which negative comment was permitted but positive comment dismissed as either not NPOV or because of what was deemed (usually by him) to be due to "conflict of interest". I had hoped that these "bad old days" were over. I'm disappointed by this trend. If "well-sourced" "adverse effects" are allowed, are well-sourced references to the "positive effects" to be permitted too? TraceyR 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, Talk:Juice_Plus#Article_rewrite_section_break_.231, where Elonka asked for suggestions of what material to restore in the Adverse Effects section. We already have large sections on antioxidant and cardiovascular effects, in which positive effects are mentioned. Perhaps Elonka will give an opinion of how to proceed. EdJohnston 00:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adverse effects do not constitute “negative comment”. They are simply relevant facts without an inherent POV, positive or negative. Rhode Island Red 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if such 'adverse effects' are well-documented and specific. If, as RIR says,  "it’s usually impossible to know with certainty whether an adverse event has been caused by a test agent or some other unrelated factor" then such 'effects' have no place here. We don't want any "danger to fetus" 'effects' creeping back in, do we? Well, I don't. TraceyR 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word 'fetus' does not occur in the article at present, so 'danger to fetus' does not seem to be a very visible claim.  Also the adverse effects section is rather short in terms of prose.  On my monitor there are only eight lines in the 'Adverse effects' section. Do you have a specific concern with what still remains?  EdJohnston 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, you'd have to scan back through the talk to check the interesting background to that remark. TraceyR 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adverse effects 

message: I see that the reference to the "Virtual Franchise Owner's Manual (December 2002)" has re-appeared, in spite of a consensus (or so I thought) a short time ago that this was neither a generally available nor a secondary source. On this basis it was removed. Now it is back. With what justification? TraceyR 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on here? 

message: From Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ.
An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.
This should unfortunately give the coup de grâce to our reference to the GNLD flyer, since it's not on their website any more. Though it's rather interesting that they don't find any lycopene in the product. I'm sure if this is important it may eventually show up in some other study.
:The problem with the GNLD reference for me (apart from the facts that it is obsolete/withdrawn and from a non-neutral source) is that it just specifies several test methodologies without providing the evidence that tests were done! It looks impressive to quote such things, but where's the beef? TraceyR 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I *did* look at the new study. It had 51 subjects, of whom 45 persevered to the end of the two years. Unfortunately there's no control group, no placebo, no blinding, no randomization, their diet was uncontrolled, and the selection of the participants certainly could have had an effect. (The measurement of benefit in calcium scores was by comparison to a historical database, which might contain sicker people than those enrolled in the study).  The lowering of blood pressure seems good. Τhe investigators didn't notice any serious adverse effects, so that's good as well. EdJohnston 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good insights Ed. I noticed the same things and a few more serious problems with this study. I’m preparing a summary of the issues which I’ll post in the next day or two. The study did not describe an a priori experimental plan for monitoring side effects so any observations made about a lack of side effects must be considered anecdotal at best and, therefore, unreliable. Furthermore the authors noted that the product caused gastrointestinal side effects, which they described as minor but in fact were severe enough to cause 3 subjects out of the initial 54 to dropout of the study prematurely. The reasons for 5 of the other 6 dropouts were not listed. More to come…Rhode Island Red 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed it from the article. EdJohnston 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had established that the article need not have an active link in order to merit inclusion and we did in fact have an archived link. Also, I had suggested that it could be used in the criticism section, and that section does require that the sources be published in journals exclusively. So are their any grounds for not including it in the criticism section? Rhode Island Red 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it's not on line any more suggests that it's been withdrawn. Also calling it an 'article' is a stretch. It's a marketing claim that's no longer being made (like a TV commercial that used to run at one time). EdJohnston 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The GNLD reference was removed a few days ago (see talk above). TraceyR 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small update on our usage of the GNLD reference 

message: http://www.environmentalnutrition.com/pub/25_3/asken/150372-1.html and this reference, it is a reference? you can not access their "opinion" without creating an account AND providing payment info so that after 30 days of "free" access you then pay for it-- subscribing to their newsletter and pay $24. Do we want to have legitmate references listed if they are only accessible if you utilize a pay for opinion research listing? Just my thoughtsJulia 06:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The publication Environmental Nutrition apparently has ISSN 0893-4452, and is in the collection at a number of libraries, according to Worldcat. So the publication itself has some respectability, and may be citable. The question in my mind is, is that reference any good? No authors' names are included in the reference, and we don't know if it's more like a scientific publication or an editorial. I wonder if the person who added that reference has access to the article, they could tell us something about it? --EdJohnston 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Nutrition reference

message: The link to the study by Wise et al. , which was added by TraceyR to the reference section, links to a Juice Plus distributor’s website, and the version of the article in question is not an official reprint from the journal. Linking to this article would unfortunately constitute a violation of the publisher’s copyright.
Wikipedia’s official policy WP:C states the following:
“If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.”
If a link exists to a version that does not violate copyright, that link shld be substututed. Otherwise, the exiting link should be removed. Rhode Island Red 14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These types of things are easy to fix; there's no need to provide an online source for every reference, its just convenient.  Citing the journal entry properly is enough for its use as a reference. Shell babelfish 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Link has been removed. Rhode Island Red 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Wise Study Violates Copyright  

message: A gentle reminder to all participants on this talk page as per WP:TPG.
Rhode Island Red 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not threatened to have you banned because you disagree with me, I have merely stated that you are violating policy by misusing the talk page in violation of WP:TPG, and that you are harassing (WP:HAR) me rather than focusing your comments on specific areas of content in the article. You cannot continue to flagrantly disregard policy. Rhode Island Red 06:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off Topic Warning