![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't think opinions expressed at a trade show should trump a JAMA source. We've all seen how the tobacco industry twisted facts and I don't think the natural foods industry, or any other industry for that matter, is above such tactics. Badagnani 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Stefano, you must see the distinction, however, between vitamin-rich plant foods and the processed vitamin tablets, powders, or serums that were likely used in the studies you reference. There can't be anything wrong with a varied diet including vitamin-rich plant foods. Although as the new sources claim, an overabundance of antioxidants may have the unintended consequences of stopping the body from healing itself after the stresses of exercise. It's something to think about. Badagnani 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The bottomline of the above discussion (to the kind attention of Blaxthos) is: no need to mention the JAMA reference on the goji article. -- Stefano 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
This is exactly' what we are doing over here. (Jeah. I've removed my Walt-Disney joke) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstefano ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed a speculative section that contained several sweeping claims unsubstantiated by sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that the removal is due to complaints sent to WP:OTRS. I have no other interest in the article and am merely assisting in resolution of the emailed complaint. '
The first paragraph of the section in question contains leading text that presumes that FreeLife International has made "numerous unverified health claims" and that "none of the more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife...has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity." The first statement is sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.
The second paragraph cites four sources. Three of them do not even mention wolfberries. The fourth does but the reference does not support the assertion that "wolfberries ... require[s] regulatory review of label and marketing claims..."
The third paragraph summarizes a possibly related case involving a mangosteen juice product and speculates that the FDA action taken with regard to that product may auger similar actions with regard to wolfberry juice products. While perhaps true, it is not our place at Wikipedia to infer such conclusions, and no source is cited.
These paragraphs paint FreeLife International in a poor light and may be libellous if untrue. Since they do not meet our sourcing requirements, it is inappropriate for us to include them until the sourcing problems are addressed. Accordingly, I have again removed the text and protected the page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
removed section with added content and references
In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by CBC Television's consumer advocacy program Marketplace [12]. During interviews with the product spokesperson, Earl Mindell, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made by the product's manufacturer, FreeLife International LLC, as stated in Mindell's booklet on wolfberries (Bibliography below). None of more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife and Mindell has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity.
By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that consuming goji would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways: 1) no such project has ever been undertaken at Sloan-Kettering, 2) no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown by peer-assessed research to prevent cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.
It is not appropriate to infer such benefits from abstracts of Chinese literature retrieved by PubMed, as Mindell asserts. The Chinese literature cited on PubMed is laboratory research, preliminary human research for which clinical trial design is insufficiently described, and unacceptable for making health claims.
Having significant nutrient and phytochemical composition, wolfberries are under assessment [13] [14] [15] [16] as a functional food that requires regulatory review of label and marketing claims being conducted in 2007 by the European Union (above).
By other example in the United States, such a process was applied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2006 to challenge a manufacturer of another novel fruit product, mangosteen juice, to provide scientific and clinical evidence for health claims asserted in marketing materials and the juice product label [17]. Without compliance, the FDA letter warned that enforcement was imminent, including seizure and/or injunction of products. This position by the FDA essentially requires the manufacturer to abandon all unverified health claims from its marketing materials because no such research has been done, as is the case for wolfberries and any goji juice product.
end removed section
In Chapter 2 of Earl Mindell's booklet, Goji, The Himalayan Health Secret, Ed. 1, 2003, are listed the "Top 24 Health Benefits of Goji" including
and 16 other claims, not one of which is scientifically validated or approved for use on consumer products by a regulatory agency such as the FDA.
Not one of the 24 claims listed in his book nor the claim made by Mindell in the CBC Marketplace interview that consuming goji berries or juice prevents cancer [18] has even been demonstrated adequately in preliminary laboratory research. Mindell's history of fraud is discussed on Wikipedia [19] and Quackwatch [20].
Mindell and FreeLife make the preposterous claim that goji polysaccharides are "master" molecules in the human body, serving as "directors and carriers of the instructions that cells use to communicate with each other"
All of this is fabrication, as none has been proved in science, postulated by other scientists, nor is it even a recent research topic of scientific interest, as there are no North American or European studies published to support the scant and mostly in vitro Chinese research done to date on goji polysaccharides.
Neither is the concept even a good hypothesis to test, as polysaccharides consumed in whole fruit or juice are subjected immediately upon ingestion to the acid and digestive enzyme environment of the stomach which would alter their structure -- and therefore their function -- in ways impossible to measure in vivo. Polysaccharides are simply sources of dietary fiber, as discussed on Wikipedia [21].
In advertisements for Himalayan Goji Juice, Mindell, FreeLife and distributors or marketers of this product use the same invalid claims, as any Google search shows. The Tanaduk Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company make similar unsupportable statements on their website [22], leading one to believe that the Mindell and Tanaduk fabrications may derive from the same source of misinformation and outright lies.
In the view of basic researchers and eventually that of the FDA, the fraud is all linked. Any fraudulent statement made in relation to a consumer product is the responsibility of the manufacturer providing the product to the general public -- in this case, FreeLife, to either prove scientifically or stop using the claim.
The FDA takes this position: such claims "cause the product to be a drug" (see example letters about goji and Xango below) requiring all the stringent peer-evaluated research that drugs must achieve before approved as safe agents for sale to the public.
"Safety" in this sense does not only imply "free from harm" but also means that such a product must be proven specifically for the effect it is claimed to have -- in Mindell's and FreeLife's case, for each of at least 25 diseases or conditions of health. As this process has not taken even its first adequate scientific step for any one claim, FreeLife has a seemingly steep road ahead of it to present its case satisfactorily to the FDA.
To my knowledge, there has never been a peer-reviewed goji research publication by Earl Mindell and neither has FreeLife ever financed independent, peer-reviewed research with resulting publications on any aspect of the goji berry, as has been done for other fruits such as cranberry [23] or pomegranate [24]. Yet the FreeLife website states "Working together, FreeLife and Earl Mindell have been pioneers in the research of goji polysaccharides." [25]
A PubMed search shows that Earl Mindell has never published a research study listed by the US Library of Medicine which catalogues all medical research published in the world. This is where credible scientists with peer-reviewed publications have their work listed.
The FDA currently has two goji distributors on notice with letters issued in the middle of 2006
and
In both cases, there is little doubt that the marketing statements under question extend from those fabricated by Mindell (only the words are changed), as is evident from the content of the above two FDA letters.
The FDA's position for these fabrications is that asserting such health benefits of Goji Juice whether by Dynamic Health ("Lycium Barbarum Goji Juice") or Healthsuperstore.com (Goji Juice by FreeLife) implicates FreeLife as the juice manufacturer making the claim, as that is the position the FDA takes.
The result of such FDA review is that the manufacturer must cause change in the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is identical to that underway against Xango for their scientifically unfounded health claims about a mangosteen juice product [28].
This is the underlying story for the article section entitled "Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States". These issues were introduced before on this Discussion board (above) but have yet to see any reponse to address any claim supported with even minimum science by Mindell, FreeLife, the Tanaduk Institute or Tibetan Goji Berry Company. -- Paul144 16:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
From Uninvited's remarks above: Second, if we do include the paragraph (either here or elsewhere), each assertion must be sourced. If we're going to say that FreeLife is implicated, we must have a source that says "FreeLife is implicated in <whatever>," rather than trying to connect the dots ourselves. Even if the reasoning is straightforward and sound, we can't include it unless there is a reliable source that connects the dots for us.
That section was fine as it was, intentionally avoiding direct implication of FreeLife, but rather associating FreeLife with the source of the fraud -- Mindell. What sources are needed? I feel the CBC Marketplace interview is a respectable source. Published sources countering Mindell's writing don't exist because scientists would not waste their time arguing with such nonsense.... as I am doing now. Science does not create sources for untested hypotheses.
Two new paragraphs were offered in the Discussion section above:
By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that consuming goji would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways: 1) no such project has ever been undertaken at Sloan-Kettering, 2) no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown by peer-assessed research to prevent cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.
It is not appropriate to infer such benefits from abstracts of Chinese literature retrieved by PubMed, as Mindell asserts. The Chinese literature cited on PubMed is laboratory research, preliminary human research for which clinical trial design is insufficiently described, and unacceptable for making health claims.
Let's focus on revising the offered revisions so the section can be restored. And, Uninvited, when the complaints still come to you, as they will, bring them here as you should have done in the first place. -- Paul144 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in verbatim content of the complaints or who made them. As you can see from the history of the discussion page and the article, no advocate of Mindell's positions has opposed what has been stated with supportable content or sources. When I suggest you "bring them here", I mean send them here for debate and discussion, i.e., the healthy discourse that bares the facts.
We don't seem to be making progress toward resolving the language you would deem acceptable for the relevant section on "Marketing claims under scrutiny...". Can you provide some specific feedback please?
I believe this is your summary of the complaints, quoting you in italics followed by my responses
1. The first paragraph of the section in question contains leading text that presumes that FreeLife International has made "numerous unverified health claims" and that "none of the more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife...has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity." The first statement is sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.
CBC Marketplace to Canada is like 60 Minutes or The Washington Post are to a US scandal like Watergate. I see nothing wrong with investigative reporting as a source when there is no scientific argument available. The burden of proof against Mindell's fraud lies not with me to disprove him, but with him or his supporters to provide scientific evidence for his statements (which of course do not exist, explaining why they do not contribute to the Article).
2. The second paragraph cites four sources. Three of them do not even mention wolfberries. The fourth does but the reference does not support the assertion that "wolfberries ... require[s] regulatory review of label and marketing claims..."
As stated above, three of the four sources mention goji (same as wolfberry) and the fourth is relevant to this debate.
3. The third paragraph summarizes a possibly related case involving a mangosteen juice product and speculates that the FDA action taken with regard to that product may auger similar actions with regard to wolfberry juice products. While perhaps true, it is not our place at Wikipedia to infer such conclusions, and no source is cited.
I have provided above two references to current FDA actions against goji juice distributors/marketers who are making unfounded health claims similar to (or derived from) those of Mindell. By its history, the FDA will not identify similar violations one by one, but will use decisions that apply generally across violations. FreeLife's fate will be similar to those under investigation now.
4. These paragraphs paint FreeLife International in a poor light and may be libellous if untrue. Since they do not meet our sourcing requirements, it is inappropriate for us to include them until the sourcing problems are addressed.
If FreeLife has credible information to add to the Article, why is it not offered as a contribution? The answer is that they know Mindell's information is fraud but, in this case, the fraud is moving product sales at a lucrative rate. This is all revealed adequately in the CBC Marketplace report. -- Paul144 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to the following entertaining clip from youtube. I would really love to have your opinion on that. It looks like Dr Marcial-Vega decided to stop sharing his cutting edge research with the rest of the Medical world on 1994, the year of his last publication avaiIable in Pubmed. Try however "Marcial-Vega" in google and discover that his name as a "renowned cancer specialist, Oncologist" and "recognized as being in the top one percent of medical doctors in the U.S" is only one click away from the one of "Dr Mindell" and his Himalaian Goji. His motto appears to be: "Acid Is For Batteries! Not For Healthy People". I am speechless. -- Stefano 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As a PhD physiologist, I can say the video has all the scientific sophistication of a high school science fair project where the student was given the parameters of a microscope, blood cells and a magical fruit, then asked to make up a story. Addressing any part of it may dignify it as having a gram of plausibility, which it doesn't, so I'm leaving it alone.
As with all fabrications, myths and outlandish theories characteristic of Mindell, there exists a channel to gain credibility: publish a series of studies in good journals involving the rigors of peer-review, then build on it the way all scientific hypotheses are tested, tried under peer scrutiny and redefined before being acceptable to the FDA. There isn't a single hypothesis about specific health values or lowered disease risk from consuming goji berries or juice that is ready for good animal experiments, let alone statements on food labels for general consumers.
I'm working on a re-draft of the disputed section and hope to post it in the near future. -- Paul144 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We know nothing about the conditions of the experiment. In vitro, in vivo or in dreamo? All the experimental conditions necessary to establish good science need to be available for the most skeptical fellow-scientists to review and even try to reproduce the results in their own labs. This is the purpose of rigorous peer analysis in scientific research and publishing. If there is anything to be believed from Mindell or Marcial-Vega, then they should publish in one of the sections of American Journal of Physiology [29] or a similar research journal. Let's not waste time on this. -- Paul144 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I fully agree with Paul that the clip loos very much a commercial lacking a scientific base (disclosing the conditions used and the means to reproduce his "experiments" is science's first rule - Paul, I loved "in dreamo"!). However, Badagnani is very right in that scientists should warn against such a nonsense. This is the biggest issue with Internet: everything is immediately available to everybody. Contrary to Velikovsky, who was shut out entirely, Dr. Mindell's sites are spreading everywhere in the web and I could not find one single site disputing Dr Marcial-Vega findings, which are often even used to support the effects of Mindell's juice (see for example the comment of Ms [ Yvonne Weatherbee] to the cbc investigation).
Wikipedia may help people make up their mind by providing a correct information. Since The Uninvited Co. is "uninterested in doing this", it is up to us to describe Mindell's marketing operation in a more objective way. (How?) Good luck to Paul with the reformulation of this difficult section.
Concerning the [ theory of acidity and alcaniliny of blood], the existence of which I discovered 30 minutes ago, here is an interesting [ discussion] and [ its destruction].-- Stefano 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Badagnani, I'm copying this discussion on the one of Marcial Vega. If you agree we'll discuss over there about that. Please Paul do contribute as well: I am not a medical doctor. -- Stefano 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States
In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by CBC Television's consumer advocacy program Marketplace (Canadian TV program) [30]. During interviews with the product spokesperson, Earl Mindell, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made in marketing materials for Himalayan Goji Juice, a product manufactured by FreeLife International LLC and promoted by Mindell.
None of 23 health claims asserted in this marketing information has been scientifically proved [31] or accepted by a regulatory authority such as the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health Canada or the FDA.
In a review of medical literature pertaining to each proposed claim, Gross et al. (2006, book chapter 6; see Article Bibliography) summarized that 22 of 23 claims had no evidence for providing a health benefit beyond that inferred from preliminary in vitro or laboratory animal research. For cancer specifically, four studies were reviewed in Chapter 4 of their book, but Gross et al. (2006) concluded the research was too preliminary to allow any conclusion about an anti-cancer effect of consuming goji berries or juice.
By one specific example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that use of goji juice would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways:
Significant in nutrient and phytochemical composition, goji berries are being developed [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] as new products in the functional food industry, currently under FDA regulatory review for label and marketing claims [45] as being conducted in 2007 by the European Union (above). As described by the Institute of Food Technologists [46], rigorous standards of scientific evidence will be required for FDA approval of health claims made for natural food products such as those from goji berries.
At present, the FDA has two goji juice distributors on notice with warning letters about marketing claims with language similar to that used by or derived from Mindell:
The result of such FDA review may be that the manufacturer must change the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is similar to the 2006 FDA enforcement action against a manufacturer of a fruit juice product containing mangosteen juice, XanGo LLC, for making scientifically unfounded health claims in their marketing materials [49]. -- Paul144 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Paul144 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have again removed unsourced claims and speculation from the main article. Please do not re-add them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty happy with the current version of the disputed section as it is now. Especially thanks to the book of Dr. Gross, each statement made is now clear and substantiated. If people still believe Mindell after reading this paragraph, that's their problem. We've done what we had to do. -- Stefano 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a cite for the opposing views? If they're notable, they need included, but it does need to be shown they're notable. Adam Cuerden talk 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Useful perspective published June 29, 2007 [50].
Quotes and highlights:
-- Paul144 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Captivating reading [51] [52]. Mentions Earl Mindell and the CBC Marketplace interview, FreeLife Himalayan Goji Juice, the Tanaduk Research Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company owned and managed by Bradley and Julia Dobos from their Orcas Island location in Washington state, USA and goji MLM activity.
The site purports to expose scams and just tell the truth, so is worthy for each person to read and make one's own judgment. -- Paul144 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This article might be useful as a reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/main.jhtml?xml=/gardening/2007/10/12/garden-superfruit-superfood-goji112.xml -- Ronz 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's evident the author(s) of this newspaper article did not absorb information provided in the Wikipedia article. For example, the italicized excerpts below are baseless.
1. Goji berries scored a spectacular 25,300 per 100g, while prunes, which came second, had a mere 5,770 per 100g. According to Gillian McKeith, the presenter of Channel 4's You Are What You Eat, they have 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges. They also contain beta-carotene (their ability to improve vision has been documented for more than 1,500 years in China).
An ORAC of 25,300 has not been published under peer-review; there is no objective source of this information.
Is Gillian McKeith a reliable scientific reference? I think not, as the 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges are pure Mindellian fabrications. Such numbers are not even remotely credible.
How well could improved vision be convincingly documented in 500 AD?
2. ...claimed that they enhance longevity (a Chinaman, Li Quing Yuen, who ate them every day, is said to have lived to the age of 250).
Li Quing Yuen, a JK Rowling character created by the wave of a wand? What reasonable person would believe this? More misleading fable perpetuated by Mindell.
3. Most of the goji berries that are sold in this country are cultivated in China, but they also grow in Mongolia and on vines in the sheltered Himalayan valleys of Tibet and Nepal, where they have been eaten for centuries and are nicknamed "happy berries" because of the sense of wellbeing they are said to induce.
Researched, refuted and discussed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfberry#Tibetan_goji_berry
-- Paul144 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be attracting more than its fair share of spam, therefore I have added the somewhat contentious No more links template (only visible when editing). Experienced editors, will I am sure, just be able to ignore it; as will -I think- most of the spammers but there we go. -- Aspro 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What's up with the sales pitch under "Significance?" This otherwise interesting article and discussion suffers from it, I think. At least the title of the paragraph should be changed to Economical Significance if the main information provided will be marketing numbers. Remmelt ( talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The lead paragraph ( WP:LEAD), Significance section and data for commercial growth were edited today. Following Remmelt's comments, the commercial information was removed to the section on Commercial Products where it certainly has a better fit. -- Paul144 ( talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any information we could add about the cost of wolfberries? The price runs ~$15/pound US for individual pounds. Considering food imported from China tends to be quite cheap, is there a reason the price is so high other than the relatively low volume? -- Karuna8 ( talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It looks like a commercial site to me. Badagnani ( talk) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:Fram to get more editors involved)
You reverted my removal of a self-published book from Wolfberry and other articles [53]. The problem is not that the book does not exist, but that it is not a reliable source. Anyone who is willing to pay the production costs can publish a book with BookSurge, and every book that is printed by BookSurge is available through Amazonand a number of other online sellers. Perv WP:V#Self-published sources, this is not an acceptable source. Fram ( talk) 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've requested a third opinion on this. Fram ( talk) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I am not going to spend too much time on this because the removal is based on a logical fallacy... Here is a simple brake down:
First sentence: “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field.”
If this statement is TRUE then there is nothing to prevent an expert from also self publishing.
So far so good.
Second sentence:
For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.
Wholly would admit no exceptions, however it states largely. This is a subjective value judgement clause and so requires a judgement to be made on each individual source regarding its suitability for inclusion. Therefore: Self publication is in itself not enough for automatic exclusion.
Editor Fram seems so confused as to the duties of a publisher that I'll leave that area well alone, but mention it to point out that his comments about what he believe they do only help to create a 'circular augment' that leads nowhere. This last point also includes the question about any independent expert review of this book and the reviews supposed purpose . Instead one must consider the books possible merits like any other book i.e, based on the academic standing of the author/s and his/their supposed competence (this aspect has already been addressed to some extent).
as an aside: Academics do self publish (for instance in Public Library of Science if they wish it to be peer reviewed etc). Why -one might ask- should they feel they need to self publish?
Ans. The advantage is the same as offered by Booksurge, in that you can keep all your publishing rights. It looks like that Paul Gross has done a review of the current evidence sufficient to give a qualified opinion of his own and wants to control publication of this work.
Fram say: “If there are no good sources on the medicinal aspect of wolfberry, then the whole section should be removed as WP:FRINGE.” This is absurd. The article repeatedly make the current lack of knowledge clear. Fram's conclusion would justify medical insurance companies making a lot of clinicians redundant, if they only paid out for medical treatments with “good” sources for effectiveness -and it would also prevent the introduction of any new advances on the bases that they were not yet main stream. See figure One at the bottom of: [57]
Also, Gross clearly does not make medical claims; instead he is reviewing the evidence so far: If we take this as an example of his work: The reasons for such strict regulations? In studies of foods, it's difficult – if not impossible -- to isolate the health benefit of a single nutrient (in this case, lycopene) when so many other nutrients may be at play following dietary intake, even in a well-controlled clinical trial. As a result, FDA concludes there has been insufficient credible evidence to support a link between tomato lycopene in any form (as a supplement or as part of whole food) and a lower risk of prostate cancer.
Likewise for currently marketed goji berries or juice, there is no health claim validated by acceptable human research criteria, as there have been no well-controlled clinical trials on goji, any of its nutrients or individual goji phytochemicals.
Bottom line: There's just not enough evidence to recommend that we eat tomatoes or goji to gain specific health benefits or prevent diseases.
[58]
Therefore, it appears that bases for the objections to this book are confused and unclear.--
Aspro (
talk)
14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
On the face of the arguments presented here, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Fram. But that could easily change based on the following questions, which haven't been answered: Is there any evidence of peer review, and is there any evidence that the authors are considered to be knowledgeable on the subject by their peers? I've seen a lot of utter tripe in self-published books. I've also seen extremely valuable information - but this is the exception, not the rule. Paul144, do you have examples of any of these?
By professional, I do not mean exclusively mainstream - I mean verifiable recognition of qualifications by a group with no obvious CoI. arimareiji ( talk) 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you seem to be starting from a profoundly wrong point of vue: "Generally, only books that are solicited by a publisher, are a summary of a conference or are assembled by an editor would not be self-published." This is of coures not at all what is meant by "self-published" on Wikipedia. If you send your work to a scientific magazine, a publisher, ... and they accept to publish it after having read it, then the work is not self-published. If, however, yo sent it to some enhanced copycenter, where all they do is pack your stuff, make X copies, and list it on Amazon, all because you pay for this, then the work is "self-published". This is the case here. A work that is unsolicited by a publisher is not "self-published". Harry Potter was not solicited, but it was not self-published either. If I sent a paper to the Lancet tomorrow: it will be rejected: if I sent the same paper to BookSurge, it will be published, no matter how good or bad it is, as long as I pay for it.
Another thing you state: "The publisher in question -- Booksurge for the Gross book -- does do editorial reviews (if paid by the author)". Yes, they have authors like Ellen Tanner Marsh who write five-star blurb texts if you pay for it. So? This makes it less' reliable, not more so.
As long as you start from such a misunderstanding, I have a hard time accepting your conclusion. If all this book does is publishing an uncontrolled summary of previously controlled (peer-reviewed) studies, then we should not link to the uncontrolled summary, but to the original studies.
Fram (
talk)
08:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of comments by way of full disclosure, then a question for discussion on this. I saw this dispute posted at COIN, and have read through the article and the discussion on the validity of the Gross book. I agree with the sentiment that Arimareiji and Paul144 brought up, that the policy on Self Published Sources is worded in such a way that nothing is 100% excluded just by virtue of being self-published. I am open to the possibility that the book could be considered a reliable source, but the arguments above have not been sitting right with me, from a logic perspective. A lot of arguing the omissions in the policy, etc.
So, rather than poking holes in a deliberately non-all-inclusive policy, lets look at this the other way.
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.
This is from WP:SOURCES which is a policy and not a guideline as is WP:RS. Please explain how the book fits this criteria, specifically the parts in bold. Arakunem Talk 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding to points requested by Arakunem
WP:SOURCES defines sources as having three related meanings: 1) the piece of work itself, 2) the creator of the work, and 3) the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.
For this book, peer-review in the way we respect it works for scientific or other professional literature has not been and cannot be achieved. In the functional food or beverage industry, the book is one of three on wolfberry. The other two -- by Mindell or Young as listed in the article Bibliography -- were promotionally self-published to help sell products, violating WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. But they nevertheless do represent history on the subject of wolfberries possibly sought by Wikipedia users.
In the consumer industry since 2006, Gross has been the only author of science-for-consumer articles on wolfberry published online. Scientists would not seek this literature as reference support for scientific publications. One other author, Dharmananda, a PhD traditional medicine expert, has self-published an article for the TCM community. [73]
These articles do not receive the same desirable rigor of peer-review subjected to scientific papers, but they did receive scrutiny by the editors of those online journals confidentially using referees as 3rd party reviewers. The online journals that published Gross' articles such as NPI Center [74] and Natural Products Insider [75] are considered "mainstream" in their industry, as would Dharmananda's for TCM.
One would have to judge quality and objectivity of these articles and the book by reading them.-- Paul144 ( talk) 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you fit either of these descriptions:
- you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,
- you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;
- Generally speaking, the Reward Board is an exception as you may derive monetary gain from editing Wikipedia, due to the fact these are usually rewards for featured or good article status; which should not introduce bias. However, be wary of editors asking you to make specific edits or to "clean up a hatchet job" as you may unwarily become their meatpuppet.
then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.
Mindell's literature is relevant in that he is likely the only Western marketer of "Himalayan goji berries" that actually states which provinces of China the berries are grown in. Badagnani ( talk) 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What about mentioning it's an edible fruit in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.231.82 ( talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup needed per WP:MOS on all the URLs in the body text; also all the deep links, such as in the Culinary section, to images at random websites. 86.140.182.71 ( talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Removed from article "external links" per WP:EL. placed here as potential sources for improving the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the links to photos. Perhaps a couple of the better images from links that aren't dead could be downloaded and included in the article instead per image guidelines? -- Ronz ( talk) 04:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I started formatting links that appear to be references. Because there were so many, I didn't even try to check them against WP:V and WP:RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
See [76]. Badagnani ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't think opinions expressed at a trade show should trump a JAMA source. We've all seen how the tobacco industry twisted facts and I don't think the natural foods industry, or any other industry for that matter, is above such tactics. Badagnani 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Stefano, you must see the distinction, however, between vitamin-rich plant foods and the processed vitamin tablets, powders, or serums that were likely used in the studies you reference. There can't be anything wrong with a varied diet including vitamin-rich plant foods. Although as the new sources claim, an overabundance of antioxidants may have the unintended consequences of stopping the body from healing itself after the stresses of exercise. It's something to think about. Badagnani 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The bottomline of the above discussion (to the kind attention of Blaxthos) is: no need to mention the JAMA reference on the goji article. -- Stefano 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
This is exactly' what we are doing over here. (Jeah. I've removed my Walt-Disney joke) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstefano ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed a speculative section that contained several sweeping claims unsubstantiated by sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that the removal is due to complaints sent to WP:OTRS. I have no other interest in the article and am merely assisting in resolution of the emailed complaint. '
The first paragraph of the section in question contains leading text that presumes that FreeLife International has made "numerous unverified health claims" and that "none of the more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife...has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity." The first statement is sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.
The second paragraph cites four sources. Three of them do not even mention wolfberries. The fourth does but the reference does not support the assertion that "wolfberries ... require[s] regulatory review of label and marketing claims..."
The third paragraph summarizes a possibly related case involving a mangosteen juice product and speculates that the FDA action taken with regard to that product may auger similar actions with regard to wolfberry juice products. While perhaps true, it is not our place at Wikipedia to infer such conclusions, and no source is cited.
These paragraphs paint FreeLife International in a poor light and may be libellous if untrue. Since they do not meet our sourcing requirements, it is inappropriate for us to include them until the sourcing problems are addressed. Accordingly, I have again removed the text and protected the page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
removed section with added content and references
In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by CBC Television's consumer advocacy program Marketplace [12]. During interviews with the product spokesperson, Earl Mindell, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made by the product's manufacturer, FreeLife International LLC, as stated in Mindell's booklet on wolfberries (Bibliography below). None of more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife and Mindell has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity.
By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that consuming goji would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways: 1) no such project has ever been undertaken at Sloan-Kettering, 2) no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown by peer-assessed research to prevent cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.
It is not appropriate to infer such benefits from abstracts of Chinese literature retrieved by PubMed, as Mindell asserts. The Chinese literature cited on PubMed is laboratory research, preliminary human research for which clinical trial design is insufficiently described, and unacceptable for making health claims.
Having significant nutrient and phytochemical composition, wolfberries are under assessment [13] [14] [15] [16] as a functional food that requires regulatory review of label and marketing claims being conducted in 2007 by the European Union (above).
By other example in the United States, such a process was applied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2006 to challenge a manufacturer of another novel fruit product, mangosteen juice, to provide scientific and clinical evidence for health claims asserted in marketing materials and the juice product label [17]. Without compliance, the FDA letter warned that enforcement was imminent, including seizure and/or injunction of products. This position by the FDA essentially requires the manufacturer to abandon all unverified health claims from its marketing materials because no such research has been done, as is the case for wolfberries and any goji juice product.
end removed section
In Chapter 2 of Earl Mindell's booklet, Goji, The Himalayan Health Secret, Ed. 1, 2003, are listed the "Top 24 Health Benefits of Goji" including
and 16 other claims, not one of which is scientifically validated or approved for use on consumer products by a regulatory agency such as the FDA.
Not one of the 24 claims listed in his book nor the claim made by Mindell in the CBC Marketplace interview that consuming goji berries or juice prevents cancer [18] has even been demonstrated adequately in preliminary laboratory research. Mindell's history of fraud is discussed on Wikipedia [19] and Quackwatch [20].
Mindell and FreeLife make the preposterous claim that goji polysaccharides are "master" molecules in the human body, serving as "directors and carriers of the instructions that cells use to communicate with each other"
All of this is fabrication, as none has been proved in science, postulated by other scientists, nor is it even a recent research topic of scientific interest, as there are no North American or European studies published to support the scant and mostly in vitro Chinese research done to date on goji polysaccharides.
Neither is the concept even a good hypothesis to test, as polysaccharides consumed in whole fruit or juice are subjected immediately upon ingestion to the acid and digestive enzyme environment of the stomach which would alter their structure -- and therefore their function -- in ways impossible to measure in vivo. Polysaccharides are simply sources of dietary fiber, as discussed on Wikipedia [21].
In advertisements for Himalayan Goji Juice, Mindell, FreeLife and distributors or marketers of this product use the same invalid claims, as any Google search shows. The Tanaduk Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company make similar unsupportable statements on their website [22], leading one to believe that the Mindell and Tanaduk fabrications may derive from the same source of misinformation and outright lies.
In the view of basic researchers and eventually that of the FDA, the fraud is all linked. Any fraudulent statement made in relation to a consumer product is the responsibility of the manufacturer providing the product to the general public -- in this case, FreeLife, to either prove scientifically or stop using the claim.
The FDA takes this position: such claims "cause the product to be a drug" (see example letters about goji and Xango below) requiring all the stringent peer-evaluated research that drugs must achieve before approved as safe agents for sale to the public.
"Safety" in this sense does not only imply "free from harm" but also means that such a product must be proven specifically for the effect it is claimed to have -- in Mindell's and FreeLife's case, for each of at least 25 diseases or conditions of health. As this process has not taken even its first adequate scientific step for any one claim, FreeLife has a seemingly steep road ahead of it to present its case satisfactorily to the FDA.
To my knowledge, there has never been a peer-reviewed goji research publication by Earl Mindell and neither has FreeLife ever financed independent, peer-reviewed research with resulting publications on any aspect of the goji berry, as has been done for other fruits such as cranberry [23] or pomegranate [24]. Yet the FreeLife website states "Working together, FreeLife and Earl Mindell have been pioneers in the research of goji polysaccharides." [25]
A PubMed search shows that Earl Mindell has never published a research study listed by the US Library of Medicine which catalogues all medical research published in the world. This is where credible scientists with peer-reviewed publications have their work listed.
The FDA currently has two goji distributors on notice with letters issued in the middle of 2006
and
In both cases, there is little doubt that the marketing statements under question extend from those fabricated by Mindell (only the words are changed), as is evident from the content of the above two FDA letters.
The FDA's position for these fabrications is that asserting such health benefits of Goji Juice whether by Dynamic Health ("Lycium Barbarum Goji Juice") or Healthsuperstore.com (Goji Juice by FreeLife) implicates FreeLife as the juice manufacturer making the claim, as that is the position the FDA takes.
The result of such FDA review is that the manufacturer must cause change in the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is identical to that underway against Xango for their scientifically unfounded health claims about a mangosteen juice product [28].
This is the underlying story for the article section entitled "Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States". These issues were introduced before on this Discussion board (above) but have yet to see any reponse to address any claim supported with even minimum science by Mindell, FreeLife, the Tanaduk Institute or Tibetan Goji Berry Company. -- Paul144 16:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
From Uninvited's remarks above: Second, if we do include the paragraph (either here or elsewhere), each assertion must be sourced. If we're going to say that FreeLife is implicated, we must have a source that says "FreeLife is implicated in <whatever>," rather than trying to connect the dots ourselves. Even if the reasoning is straightforward and sound, we can't include it unless there is a reliable source that connects the dots for us.
That section was fine as it was, intentionally avoiding direct implication of FreeLife, but rather associating FreeLife with the source of the fraud -- Mindell. What sources are needed? I feel the CBC Marketplace interview is a respectable source. Published sources countering Mindell's writing don't exist because scientists would not waste their time arguing with such nonsense.... as I am doing now. Science does not create sources for untested hypotheses.
Two new paragraphs were offered in the Discussion section above:
By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that consuming goji would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways: 1) no such project has ever been undertaken at Sloan-Kettering, 2) no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown by peer-assessed research to prevent cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.
It is not appropriate to infer such benefits from abstracts of Chinese literature retrieved by PubMed, as Mindell asserts. The Chinese literature cited on PubMed is laboratory research, preliminary human research for which clinical trial design is insufficiently described, and unacceptable for making health claims.
Let's focus on revising the offered revisions so the section can be restored. And, Uninvited, when the complaints still come to you, as they will, bring them here as you should have done in the first place. -- Paul144 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in verbatim content of the complaints or who made them. As you can see from the history of the discussion page and the article, no advocate of Mindell's positions has opposed what has been stated with supportable content or sources. When I suggest you "bring them here", I mean send them here for debate and discussion, i.e., the healthy discourse that bares the facts.
We don't seem to be making progress toward resolving the language you would deem acceptable for the relevant section on "Marketing claims under scrutiny...". Can you provide some specific feedback please?
I believe this is your summary of the complaints, quoting you in italics followed by my responses
1. The first paragraph of the section in question contains leading text that presumes that FreeLife International has made "numerous unverified health claims" and that "none of the more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife...has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity." The first statement is sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.
CBC Marketplace to Canada is like 60 Minutes or The Washington Post are to a US scandal like Watergate. I see nothing wrong with investigative reporting as a source when there is no scientific argument available. The burden of proof against Mindell's fraud lies not with me to disprove him, but with him or his supporters to provide scientific evidence for his statements (which of course do not exist, explaining why they do not contribute to the Article).
2. The second paragraph cites four sources. Three of them do not even mention wolfberries. The fourth does but the reference does not support the assertion that "wolfberries ... require[s] regulatory review of label and marketing claims..."
As stated above, three of the four sources mention goji (same as wolfberry) and the fourth is relevant to this debate.
3. The third paragraph summarizes a possibly related case involving a mangosteen juice product and speculates that the FDA action taken with regard to that product may auger similar actions with regard to wolfberry juice products. While perhaps true, it is not our place at Wikipedia to infer such conclusions, and no source is cited.
I have provided above two references to current FDA actions against goji juice distributors/marketers who are making unfounded health claims similar to (or derived from) those of Mindell. By its history, the FDA will not identify similar violations one by one, but will use decisions that apply generally across violations. FreeLife's fate will be similar to those under investigation now.
4. These paragraphs paint FreeLife International in a poor light and may be libellous if untrue. Since they do not meet our sourcing requirements, it is inappropriate for us to include them until the sourcing problems are addressed.
If FreeLife has credible information to add to the Article, why is it not offered as a contribution? The answer is that they know Mindell's information is fraud but, in this case, the fraud is moving product sales at a lucrative rate. This is all revealed adequately in the CBC Marketplace report. -- Paul144 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to the following entertaining clip from youtube. I would really love to have your opinion on that. It looks like Dr Marcial-Vega decided to stop sharing his cutting edge research with the rest of the Medical world on 1994, the year of his last publication avaiIable in Pubmed. Try however "Marcial-Vega" in google and discover that his name as a "renowned cancer specialist, Oncologist" and "recognized as being in the top one percent of medical doctors in the U.S" is only one click away from the one of "Dr Mindell" and his Himalaian Goji. His motto appears to be: "Acid Is For Batteries! Not For Healthy People". I am speechless. -- Stefano 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As a PhD physiologist, I can say the video has all the scientific sophistication of a high school science fair project where the student was given the parameters of a microscope, blood cells and a magical fruit, then asked to make up a story. Addressing any part of it may dignify it as having a gram of plausibility, which it doesn't, so I'm leaving it alone.
As with all fabrications, myths and outlandish theories characteristic of Mindell, there exists a channel to gain credibility: publish a series of studies in good journals involving the rigors of peer-review, then build on it the way all scientific hypotheses are tested, tried under peer scrutiny and redefined before being acceptable to the FDA. There isn't a single hypothesis about specific health values or lowered disease risk from consuming goji berries or juice that is ready for good animal experiments, let alone statements on food labels for general consumers.
I'm working on a re-draft of the disputed section and hope to post it in the near future. -- Paul144 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We know nothing about the conditions of the experiment. In vitro, in vivo or in dreamo? All the experimental conditions necessary to establish good science need to be available for the most skeptical fellow-scientists to review and even try to reproduce the results in their own labs. This is the purpose of rigorous peer analysis in scientific research and publishing. If there is anything to be believed from Mindell or Marcial-Vega, then they should publish in one of the sections of American Journal of Physiology [29] or a similar research journal. Let's not waste time on this. -- Paul144 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I fully agree with Paul that the clip loos very much a commercial lacking a scientific base (disclosing the conditions used and the means to reproduce his "experiments" is science's first rule - Paul, I loved "in dreamo"!). However, Badagnani is very right in that scientists should warn against such a nonsense. This is the biggest issue with Internet: everything is immediately available to everybody. Contrary to Velikovsky, who was shut out entirely, Dr. Mindell's sites are spreading everywhere in the web and I could not find one single site disputing Dr Marcial-Vega findings, which are often even used to support the effects of Mindell's juice (see for example the comment of Ms [ Yvonne Weatherbee] to the cbc investigation).
Wikipedia may help people make up their mind by providing a correct information. Since The Uninvited Co. is "uninterested in doing this", it is up to us to describe Mindell's marketing operation in a more objective way. (How?) Good luck to Paul with the reformulation of this difficult section.
Concerning the [ theory of acidity and alcaniliny of blood], the existence of which I discovered 30 minutes ago, here is an interesting [ discussion] and [ its destruction].-- Stefano 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Badagnani, I'm copying this discussion on the one of Marcial Vega. If you agree we'll discuss over there about that. Please Paul do contribute as well: I am not a medical doctor. -- Stefano 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States
In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by CBC Television's consumer advocacy program Marketplace (Canadian TV program) [30]. During interviews with the product spokesperson, Earl Mindell, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made in marketing materials for Himalayan Goji Juice, a product manufactured by FreeLife International LLC and promoted by Mindell.
None of 23 health claims asserted in this marketing information has been scientifically proved [31] or accepted by a regulatory authority such as the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health Canada or the FDA.
In a review of medical literature pertaining to each proposed claim, Gross et al. (2006, book chapter 6; see Article Bibliography) summarized that 22 of 23 claims had no evidence for providing a health benefit beyond that inferred from preliminary in vitro or laboratory animal research. For cancer specifically, four studies were reviewed in Chapter 4 of their book, but Gross et al. (2006) concluded the research was too preliminary to allow any conclusion about an anti-cancer effect of consuming goji berries or juice.
By one specific example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that use of goji juice would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways:
Significant in nutrient and phytochemical composition, goji berries are being developed [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] as new products in the functional food industry, currently under FDA regulatory review for label and marketing claims [45] as being conducted in 2007 by the European Union (above). As described by the Institute of Food Technologists [46], rigorous standards of scientific evidence will be required for FDA approval of health claims made for natural food products such as those from goji berries.
At present, the FDA has two goji juice distributors on notice with warning letters about marketing claims with language similar to that used by or derived from Mindell:
The result of such FDA review may be that the manufacturer must change the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is similar to the 2006 FDA enforcement action against a manufacturer of a fruit juice product containing mangosteen juice, XanGo LLC, for making scientifically unfounded health claims in their marketing materials [49]. -- Paul144 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Paul144 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have again removed unsourced claims and speculation from the main article. Please do not re-add them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty happy with the current version of the disputed section as it is now. Especially thanks to the book of Dr. Gross, each statement made is now clear and substantiated. If people still believe Mindell after reading this paragraph, that's their problem. We've done what we had to do. -- Stefano 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a cite for the opposing views? If they're notable, they need included, but it does need to be shown they're notable. Adam Cuerden talk 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Useful perspective published June 29, 2007 [50].
Quotes and highlights:
-- Paul144 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Captivating reading [51] [52]. Mentions Earl Mindell and the CBC Marketplace interview, FreeLife Himalayan Goji Juice, the Tanaduk Research Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company owned and managed by Bradley and Julia Dobos from their Orcas Island location in Washington state, USA and goji MLM activity.
The site purports to expose scams and just tell the truth, so is worthy for each person to read and make one's own judgment. -- Paul144 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This article might be useful as a reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/main.jhtml?xml=/gardening/2007/10/12/garden-superfruit-superfood-goji112.xml -- Ronz 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's evident the author(s) of this newspaper article did not absorb information provided in the Wikipedia article. For example, the italicized excerpts below are baseless.
1. Goji berries scored a spectacular 25,300 per 100g, while prunes, which came second, had a mere 5,770 per 100g. According to Gillian McKeith, the presenter of Channel 4's You Are What You Eat, they have 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges. They also contain beta-carotene (their ability to improve vision has been documented for more than 1,500 years in China).
An ORAC of 25,300 has not been published under peer-review; there is no objective source of this information.
Is Gillian McKeith a reliable scientific reference? I think not, as the 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges are pure Mindellian fabrications. Such numbers are not even remotely credible.
How well could improved vision be convincingly documented in 500 AD?
2. ...claimed that they enhance longevity (a Chinaman, Li Quing Yuen, who ate them every day, is said to have lived to the age of 250).
Li Quing Yuen, a JK Rowling character created by the wave of a wand? What reasonable person would believe this? More misleading fable perpetuated by Mindell.
3. Most of the goji berries that are sold in this country are cultivated in China, but they also grow in Mongolia and on vines in the sheltered Himalayan valleys of Tibet and Nepal, where they have been eaten for centuries and are nicknamed "happy berries" because of the sense of wellbeing they are said to induce.
Researched, refuted and discussed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfberry#Tibetan_goji_berry
-- Paul144 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be attracting more than its fair share of spam, therefore I have added the somewhat contentious No more links template (only visible when editing). Experienced editors, will I am sure, just be able to ignore it; as will -I think- most of the spammers but there we go. -- Aspro 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What's up with the sales pitch under "Significance?" This otherwise interesting article and discussion suffers from it, I think. At least the title of the paragraph should be changed to Economical Significance if the main information provided will be marketing numbers. Remmelt ( talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The lead paragraph ( WP:LEAD), Significance section and data for commercial growth were edited today. Following Remmelt's comments, the commercial information was removed to the section on Commercial Products where it certainly has a better fit. -- Paul144 ( talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any information we could add about the cost of wolfberries? The price runs ~$15/pound US for individual pounds. Considering food imported from China tends to be quite cheap, is there a reason the price is so high other than the relatively low volume? -- Karuna8 ( talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It looks like a commercial site to me. Badagnani ( talk) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:Fram to get more editors involved)
You reverted my removal of a self-published book from Wolfberry and other articles [53]. The problem is not that the book does not exist, but that it is not a reliable source. Anyone who is willing to pay the production costs can publish a book with BookSurge, and every book that is printed by BookSurge is available through Amazonand a number of other online sellers. Perv WP:V#Self-published sources, this is not an acceptable source. Fram ( talk) 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've requested a third opinion on this. Fram ( talk) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I am not going to spend too much time on this because the removal is based on a logical fallacy... Here is a simple brake down:
First sentence: “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field.”
If this statement is TRUE then there is nothing to prevent an expert from also self publishing.
So far so good.
Second sentence:
For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.
Wholly would admit no exceptions, however it states largely. This is a subjective value judgement clause and so requires a judgement to be made on each individual source regarding its suitability for inclusion. Therefore: Self publication is in itself not enough for automatic exclusion.
Editor Fram seems so confused as to the duties of a publisher that I'll leave that area well alone, but mention it to point out that his comments about what he believe they do only help to create a 'circular augment' that leads nowhere. This last point also includes the question about any independent expert review of this book and the reviews supposed purpose . Instead one must consider the books possible merits like any other book i.e, based on the academic standing of the author/s and his/their supposed competence (this aspect has already been addressed to some extent).
as an aside: Academics do self publish (for instance in Public Library of Science if they wish it to be peer reviewed etc). Why -one might ask- should they feel they need to self publish?
Ans. The advantage is the same as offered by Booksurge, in that you can keep all your publishing rights. It looks like that Paul Gross has done a review of the current evidence sufficient to give a qualified opinion of his own and wants to control publication of this work.
Fram say: “If there are no good sources on the medicinal aspect of wolfberry, then the whole section should be removed as WP:FRINGE.” This is absurd. The article repeatedly make the current lack of knowledge clear. Fram's conclusion would justify medical insurance companies making a lot of clinicians redundant, if they only paid out for medical treatments with “good” sources for effectiveness -and it would also prevent the introduction of any new advances on the bases that they were not yet main stream. See figure One at the bottom of: [57]
Also, Gross clearly does not make medical claims; instead he is reviewing the evidence so far: If we take this as an example of his work: The reasons for such strict regulations? In studies of foods, it's difficult – if not impossible -- to isolate the health benefit of a single nutrient (in this case, lycopene) when so many other nutrients may be at play following dietary intake, even in a well-controlled clinical trial. As a result, FDA concludes there has been insufficient credible evidence to support a link between tomato lycopene in any form (as a supplement or as part of whole food) and a lower risk of prostate cancer.
Likewise for currently marketed goji berries or juice, there is no health claim validated by acceptable human research criteria, as there have been no well-controlled clinical trials on goji, any of its nutrients or individual goji phytochemicals.
Bottom line: There's just not enough evidence to recommend that we eat tomatoes or goji to gain specific health benefits or prevent diseases.
[58]
Therefore, it appears that bases for the objections to this book are confused and unclear.--
Aspro (
talk)
14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
On the face of the arguments presented here, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Fram. But that could easily change based on the following questions, which haven't been answered: Is there any evidence of peer review, and is there any evidence that the authors are considered to be knowledgeable on the subject by their peers? I've seen a lot of utter tripe in self-published books. I've also seen extremely valuable information - but this is the exception, not the rule. Paul144, do you have examples of any of these?
By professional, I do not mean exclusively mainstream - I mean verifiable recognition of qualifications by a group with no obvious CoI. arimareiji ( talk) 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you seem to be starting from a profoundly wrong point of vue: "Generally, only books that are solicited by a publisher, are a summary of a conference or are assembled by an editor would not be self-published." This is of coures not at all what is meant by "self-published" on Wikipedia. If you send your work to a scientific magazine, a publisher, ... and they accept to publish it after having read it, then the work is not self-published. If, however, yo sent it to some enhanced copycenter, where all they do is pack your stuff, make X copies, and list it on Amazon, all because you pay for this, then the work is "self-published". This is the case here. A work that is unsolicited by a publisher is not "self-published". Harry Potter was not solicited, but it was not self-published either. If I sent a paper to the Lancet tomorrow: it will be rejected: if I sent the same paper to BookSurge, it will be published, no matter how good or bad it is, as long as I pay for it.
Another thing you state: "The publisher in question -- Booksurge for the Gross book -- does do editorial reviews (if paid by the author)". Yes, they have authors like Ellen Tanner Marsh who write five-star blurb texts if you pay for it. So? This makes it less' reliable, not more so.
As long as you start from such a misunderstanding, I have a hard time accepting your conclusion. If all this book does is publishing an uncontrolled summary of previously controlled (peer-reviewed) studies, then we should not link to the uncontrolled summary, but to the original studies.
Fram (
talk)
08:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of comments by way of full disclosure, then a question for discussion on this. I saw this dispute posted at COIN, and have read through the article and the discussion on the validity of the Gross book. I agree with the sentiment that Arimareiji and Paul144 brought up, that the policy on Self Published Sources is worded in such a way that nothing is 100% excluded just by virtue of being self-published. I am open to the possibility that the book could be considered a reliable source, but the arguments above have not been sitting right with me, from a logic perspective. A lot of arguing the omissions in the policy, etc.
So, rather than poking holes in a deliberately non-all-inclusive policy, lets look at this the other way.
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.
This is from WP:SOURCES which is a policy and not a guideline as is WP:RS. Please explain how the book fits this criteria, specifically the parts in bold. Arakunem Talk 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding to points requested by Arakunem
WP:SOURCES defines sources as having three related meanings: 1) the piece of work itself, 2) the creator of the work, and 3) the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.
For this book, peer-review in the way we respect it works for scientific or other professional literature has not been and cannot be achieved. In the functional food or beverage industry, the book is one of three on wolfberry. The other two -- by Mindell or Young as listed in the article Bibliography -- were promotionally self-published to help sell products, violating WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. But they nevertheless do represent history on the subject of wolfberries possibly sought by Wikipedia users.
In the consumer industry since 2006, Gross has been the only author of science-for-consumer articles on wolfberry published online. Scientists would not seek this literature as reference support for scientific publications. One other author, Dharmananda, a PhD traditional medicine expert, has self-published an article for the TCM community. [73]
These articles do not receive the same desirable rigor of peer-review subjected to scientific papers, but they did receive scrutiny by the editors of those online journals confidentially using referees as 3rd party reviewers. The online journals that published Gross' articles such as NPI Center [74] and Natural Products Insider [75] are considered "mainstream" in their industry, as would Dharmananda's for TCM.
One would have to judge quality and objectivity of these articles and the book by reading them.-- Paul144 ( talk) 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you fit either of these descriptions:
- you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,
- you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;
- Generally speaking, the Reward Board is an exception as you may derive monetary gain from editing Wikipedia, due to the fact these are usually rewards for featured or good article status; which should not introduce bias. However, be wary of editors asking you to make specific edits or to "clean up a hatchet job" as you may unwarily become their meatpuppet.
then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.
Mindell's literature is relevant in that he is likely the only Western marketer of "Himalayan goji berries" that actually states which provinces of China the berries are grown in. Badagnani ( talk) 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What about mentioning it's an edible fruit in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.231.82 ( talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup needed per WP:MOS on all the URLs in the body text; also all the deep links, such as in the Culinary section, to images at random websites. 86.140.182.71 ( talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Removed from article "external links" per WP:EL. placed here as potential sources for improving the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the links to photos. Perhaps a couple of the better images from links that aren't dead could be downloaded and included in the article instead per image guidelines? -- Ronz ( talk) 04:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I started formatting links that appear to be references. Because there were so many, I didn't even try to check them against WP:V and WP:RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
See [76]. Badagnani ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)