Talk:Herbalife/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Herbalife. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Clinical Study Concern

I have reviewed one of the studies for herbalife cited (A controlled trial of protein enrichment of meal replacements for weight reduction with retention of lean body mass), and I think the section on clinical studies should be edited (I would do it myself, but I am new to wiki editing and not familiar with the process). This particular study compares two groups, both taking a meal replacement drink. One group received a "high protein" drink (30% protein, 30% fat, and 40% carbohydrate) and the other received a "low protein" placebo drink (15% protein, 30% fat, and 55% carbohydrate), essentially comparing a group receiving a high protein shake (low caloric density) to a higher carbohydrate protein shake (higher caloric density). This seems to be an inappropriate placebo control for a study analyzing a meal replacement drink efficacy.

An important concern is the fact that the study is only a single blinded analysis, meaning that researchers conducting/interacting/assigning groups/assigning meal plans to participants were well aware of which particular group each individual fell into. There is no logistical reason this study should not have been double blinded.

Individuals were assigned to an "individualized menu plan(s)", which is very concerning considering the lack of double blinding of the research.

Another issue with the study deals with the small group study (100 total, 50 in each group), significantly reducing the study's power. An additional 15 participants withdrew from the study (6 from high protein group, 9 from low protein group), further reducing the study's power.

Finally, the study's results show NO statistical difference in weight loss or blood lipid counts between the two groups. It showed only a weak difference between FAT weight loss (p<.05), which is questionable considering the previous study size, withdrawn participants and poor choice in placebo.

Considering the above reasons, I would call into question the suitability of using such a source to support claims of efficacy for herbalife products. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.157.28 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I have subsequently deleted a portion of the clinical studies section, and written it t state that the studies do not support claims made. This has been changed back several times, but I feel it is appropriate statement to make. I have no vested in interest in Herbalife's success or failure, only science, and as far as clinical studies go, these are poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.157.28 (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please identify yourself before making changes to a section. You can contact me at georgef@herbalife.com so I can put you in touch with the doctors who conducted this study at multiple universities to further explain the results. In the meantime, here is a response to your comments. And I am changing 'do not' as the results and expertise differ.

This study was single-blinded to guarantee fidelity in the distribution of product. The carbohydrate placebo was used to make the two groups isocaloric and maintain the ability to individualize protein doses using a pure protein supplement in the high protein group based on lean body mass. This was the unique aspect of the Herbalife program and was shown to be effective here in producing weight loss. The study size of 50 per group was based on power calculations and previous experience with these types of studies using meal replacements. The study was not a controlled feeding study so the fact that both groups lost weight was significant demonstrating that compliance overrode the influence of the protein on satiety. Nonetheless, an effect on maintenance of muscle mass was detectable. These assertions are further born in a study conducted in Korea by Belong Cho and colleagues at the National Seoul University. Using a similar study design, they found that the increased loss of abdominal fat by CT Scan was seen with the added protein but only in the subgroup with greater than 70% compliance with the program. This was not assessed in the UCLA study but it is likely that if subjects do not follow a diet they do not benefit. Georgefischer (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

George I do not need to speak with the researches, the study speaks for itself.

"Single Blinded to guarantee fidelity"? Fidelity to what? The researchers simply needed to make sure that participants were doing as they were instructed, the researchers needed to make sure participants were consuming the supplement and diets in accordance with the study, this would make NO difference as to which particular group each participant fell into (placebo or herbalife drink).

If the drinks were isocaloric, then increasing the amount of carbohydrate is irrelevant as you have stated,however the study does not list the specific recipe of each supplement drink, simply general percentages of included ingredients(everything else being equal; decreasing protein content and increasing carbohydrate content would generally increase caloric content).

"Effective here in producing weight loss"? No it was not. The two groups were not statistically different in weight loss.

I understand calculating power study and sample size, my point was simply that the p value was just significant in fat weight loss differences, and considering the numerous flaws in the study, if you increased the sample size, it would be less likely that we would see a statistically significant effect. The study does not ellaborate on meal plans or any exercise plans participants were placed on either, and considering the lack double blinding, this would open the door to researchers selectively pushing participants based on group assignment towards activities which could impact "fat weight loss" levels (either consciously or subconsciously).

I will not speak on the Korean study, I do not have access to anything more than the abstract, and as such, I cannot say one way or another whether it supports or undermines your statements.

I still think you should consider at least removing the "A controlled trial of protein enrichment of meal replacements for weight reduction with retention of lean body mass" as a supporting source for the statement in clinical trials about effectiveness.

I have absolutely no interest in the success or failures of Herbalife, simply the science and statistical research. This particular study was poorly done, irregardless of who the researcher conducting the work was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.157.28 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you have doctors from "multiple universities" isn't 100% proof that everything is right. People do come out from universities and commit all sorts of corruption. There are corporations that do it all the time, and the Bernie Madoffs of the world are all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.135.42 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The results were published in several journals. If this person continues to object, then I suggest the section 'Clinical Studies' be removed, rather than anyone being able to post something that is contrary to what was published.63.192.82.30 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)George Fischer, georgef@herbalife.com

Unexplained deletions of sourced material

An editor who has acknowledged working for the company has recently deleted a considerable amount of sourced material without explanation.[1][2][3][4] That is tantamount to vandalism, so I (and another ediot) have restored the deletions. Sourced material should not be removed without a reason. In situations where there is a conflict of interest, it is preferable to suggest the edits on this talk page and then let unconflicted editors make the final decision, per WP:COI. Will Beback talk 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've never been described as an 'ediot' before. :)evildeathmath 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The real "ediot" is the one typing now. Will Beback talk 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your interest in presenting an honest representation of the company as I've tried for a while to work with someone to get updates done, it's not vandalism. this restored version isn't unbiased, ie., The company promised riches to distributors who remained loyal to its selling and dietary proselytizing. There's also a lot of old, out of date information on here. I asked a while ago why the whole sports sponsorship section was removed, because someone thought it read like a commercial. It was all facts. This is the frustration in trying to keep this page to present a fair picture. Others can come and and or delete whatever they want. so how do i work with you to update this info (like including 2008 financials) that's fair and accurate? thanks, George Georgefischer (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC) The company promised riches to distributors who remained loyal to its selling and dietary proselytizing.

My advice to you is to examine the articles on other companies. Find the best (articles) and see how to emulate them. Picking a company at random, ExxonMobil has some financial info in its infobox, and some under headings in the text: "Revenue and profits" and "Financial data". Why don't you copy that format? Will Beback talk 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made some (big, I guess) changes as suggested. Moved the sections into a more logical order, similar to other articles. History->Business->Products->Controversies->Related stuff. There was a lot of weird hyped-up language going on on both sides, and it jumped all over the place. It should make more sense now. Hopefully people will keep updates in the correct sections in future. As usual, feel free to shuffle further if you wish. Shax (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I should mention, in case anyone gets snippy, I removed about 3 dead references and removed quite a few unreferrenced statements when a quick Google search couldn't verify them either. Shax (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

here are updates that should be made to our page: 1. This reference is 24 years old and completely used out of context. Critics of Herbalife contend that it is a Pyramid scheme[27] and that the company has not made enough effort to curb abuses by individual distributors.

Agreed. I have reworded that section Shax (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

2, This information is out of date and irrevelent. In its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), company management specifically noted problems with inappropriate business practices many years ago, their subsequent long-lasting effects and the need to avoid any repetition. Herbalife's September 2006 quarterly report to the SEC describes a distributor network that is relatively easy to enter and exit, financially, by comparison with those of many other network marketing companies. The company tracks distributor retention by annually "re-qualifying" active distributors; most recently, 41.5% of distributors were still active after twelve months, up from 39.7% a year before. Company management considers the number and retention of distributors a key parameter and tracks it closely in financial reports. As of early 2006, the company had over 240,000 qualified distributors around the world, up 21% over the previous year; over 80% of these distributors were outside North America.[29] The company reports the difference between the listed retail price and the actual amount distributors pay the company as "distributor allowances"; in the third calendar quarter of 2006, these allowances totaled $368 million. Assuming distributors always sold their product at listed prices, this amount spread over the qualified distributors would amount to an average "allowance" of about $500 per distributor per month. The company also paid out $109 million that quarter in "royalty overrides" – basically commissions and bonuses – to qualifying distributors.

Up-to-date info: As of December 2008, we have 1.9 million independent distributors in 70 countries. We refer to supervisors who qualified in 69 countries under our traditional marketing plan plus China sales employees collectively as ‘Sales Leaders’The company had 456,858 supervisors worldwide and 48,236 sales employees in China, for a total of 505,094 sales leaders worldwide.

Went to update this, but someone beat me to it. Shax (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

3. This info is irrevelent since as of July 2008, the rules have still not been issued and are subject to further revision. Please delete: In April 2006, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission proposed new rules to regulate all sellers of "business opportunities" in the United States. Under the proposed rules, sellers such as Herbalife would be required to (i) implement a seven day waiting period before entering into an agreement with new distributors, (ii) provide prospective distributors with substantial written information regarding the business opportunity, including: the earnings experience of other distributors, contact data for new distributors in their area, cancellation or refund policies and requests within the prior two years, certain legal actions against the company, its affiliated companies and officials. In its quarterly report, the Herbalife notes "if implemented in its original form, would negatively impact our U.S. business". Many other publicly-traded network marketing stocks have since suffered, based on investor expectations the new rules would go through as proposed, substantially choking company profits[30]; Herbalife's stock, however, has fully recovered since the initial announcement. As of July 2008, these rules have still not been issued and are subject to further revision.

4. The section on Crazy Fox may refer to an Herbalife independent distributor, not the company. There’s no reason for this to be a part of a company profile.

This has to stay, as it was reported on a notable news website, establishing notability. Shax (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Please update the clinical studies section with this info that includes results of a third published study. Three clinical studies have been completed that show the effectiveness of Formula 1.

The studies, conducted at University of California, Los Angeles; University of Ulm, Germany; and Seoul University National Hospital, Korea, showed that using Formula 1 meal replacements twice a day led to effective weight loss. Individuals in the studies who had certain weight-related conditions showed improvement in those conditions as a result of using Formula 1 shakes for weight loss.

The studies in Germany and Korea were conducted by members of our Nutrition Advisory Board, Drs. Marion Flechtner-Mors and Belong Cho, respectively. The results of the UCLA study were published in Nutrition Journal (August 2008) (reference #34); while the Korea results appeared in The International Journal of Clinical Practice (February 2009). Dr. Flechtner-Mors (reference #35)presented in October 2008 at the annual meeting of The Obesity Society in Phoenix, Arizona and at the European Congress of Obesity in Geneva, Switzerland.

Done, with references. Shax (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Please add a section on Philanthropy as it is a big part of the company. Company founder Hughes started the Herbalife Family Foundation (insert link to www.herbalifefamilyfoundation.org) in 1994 to help children at risk. In 2005, the organization started its Casa Herbalife program, named after an orphanage the company built in Brazil. HFF establishes Casa Herbalife programs at charities serving children to help bring good nutrition to the children. There are currently 40 such programs on six continents. After the initial funding, local independent distributors provide financial support and volunteerism.

Done. I believe donations (6.5 million dollars) are big enough to establish notability. Shax (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Why was the sports sponsorship section removed? it's a major part of the company. thanks, George Fischer63.192.82.30 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added this back in, and provided a list to some sports teams. I believe notability is self evident. Shax (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to archive talk section

Next person who agrees, go ahead. Shax (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Shax for the updates. Okay, last thing... A parody is funny but controversial? It has nothing to do with our profile.Georgefischer (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)George Fischer

Hi George. I see your point, but it's important to understand this isn't a company profile, it's an encyclopedia page. It is intended to contain all the information about Herbalife, and like it or not a parody in a popular TV programme is worthy of inclusion. You could also argue it's a good thing that your company is big enough to attract a parody! If you really want to improve the article, make sure you drop a note into this talk page every time your company gets national or international press, so it can be integrated into the article by someone. Shax (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with that. Here's an update for the second paragaph under Product Range: The company acquired a manufacturing facility in California to begin making its own products for North America and certain other international markets.

Herbalife

I had been taking herbalife products for about 6 months, when I started getting severe pains thru out my body. After seeking medical attention and having blood work done they found that my liver ensymes were way too high and the Dr told me to immediatley quit taking anything to do with herbalife because he did research on it and found that it can actually poison the body. They are still running tests on me because my whole body is still in pain (muscular & joint) so far they have come up with fibromyalgia......3 months ago I was out with all the kids (I'm 47) playing volleyball and having a good time. Today, I'm lucky if I can fix dinner. There is nights when my husband actually has to undress me and put me to bed at night thats how much pain I am in and I feel I owe it all to Herbalife.

You should inform your doctor or pharmacist about the dietary supplements you take. Share the product lable or other informatin, as s ome health care professionals may not be familiar with the composition of that particular dietary supplement. If you have any unusual symptons after taking a dietary supplement, stop using the product and consult your doctor. If you have been using Herbalife products, please also contact the company, or ask your doctor to, at this toll-free number 866-617-4273. Georgefischer (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Please semi-protect this article and block the latest IP who keeps vandalizing it with huge copyvios. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you to ask for semi-protection in WP:RFP and/or report the IP at WP:AIV. Cheers, Ilyushka88 Talk to me 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

i put in a request for semi-protection but i'm not sure if i did it correctly.Georgefischer (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Co info

Pls update the following exec positions in the box on the right hand side. Leave info as is for Johnson, Chapman and Henig. Change: Richard Goudis, Chief Operating Officer Add: Des Walsh, President Add: John DeSimone, Chief Financial Officer The order should be Johnson, Chapman, Walsh, Goudis, DeSimone, Henig Georgefischer (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 updates

I made updates to reflect current information for 2009 under Product and Business sections. Both previously had information dating back to 2006 and 2007. If there is other info you would like posted, just let me know. It's all public info posted in our 2009 year end press release and 2009 10k filing. I also updated the section on the Herbalife Family Foundation with more recent information. George Fischer, VP, Worldwide Corp Comm. georgef@herbalife.com Georgefischer (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusations Against Critic

This claim does not match the reference. If Barry Minkow served time, it needs to be properly cited! "The Fraud Discovery Institute was founded by fraudulent entrepreneur Barry Minkow, who served seven years in jail for stock fraud,[34]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.109.54 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's own entry for Barry Minkow relates, Minkow was convicted on fraud charges and received a seven-year sentence after a rapid rise to prominence in Southern California as entrepreneurial founder of ZZZZ Best company. Probably would be best to just create a cross-link to his entry in Wikipedia, but I don't know how to do that yet. DLBinLA (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)DLBinLA

Ooops, to further clarify, Minkow Barry Minkow served seven years of a 25-year prison sentence after being convicted for fraud and other charges. DLBinLA (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)DLBinLA

Updates as of May 2010

The following updates were made: increased number of countries to 73; increased number of distributors to 2.1; updated Herbalife Family Foundation section to reflect 52 programs; added Santos FC to sponsorships.

Citation #8 is 25 years old and request the related sentence be removed.Georgefischer (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)georgef@herbalife.com

Is there a reason that this article doesn't mention Herbalife's sports sponsorships? I know (from various football club websites and team strips) that Herbalife sponsor Barcelona, LA galaxy and some other high profile clubs, should that be included under popular culture? --Dotkate (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2011 updates

Here's the new section I want to add to the site: Title: Herbalife Nutrition Institute

In December 2010, the company launched the Herbalife Nutrition Institute to serve as an educational and informational resource on a variety of topics related to nutrition and health. The Institute’s website (www.HerbalifeNutritionInstitute.com) will be the primary communication vehicle for the general public as well as the scientific community. Editorial board members with expertise in various fields, including nutrition, sports medicine, and public health, will contribute original articles and commentary each month on a range of timely issues in nutrition. <ref>http://ir.herbalife.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=183888&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1508227&highlight=</ref> Georgefischer (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)george fischer, vp, corp comm

This is promotional, at least as listed. Listing a second official link at the bottom (and especially in the main part of the article) is against policy, but the main problem is that it isn't written from a neutral point of view. If reliable sources cover it, the section would be easier to add. tedder (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Herbalife Pressures once you join their program

I had recently thought I would give their program (sales and products) a try. I found while they do sell product, you must "buy" your way up their sales ladder. You are pressured into purchasing more product in order to get a higher profit percentage. It doesn't only begin with their product, you have to buy your starter kit for $200, the very basic of web pages start at $20....the list goes on. I was very disappointed with the product and the program itself. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.245.179 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be pressured to buy web pages or products. If you email me at georgef@herbalife.com, we'd like to learn more about your experience.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.82.30 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Updates

I made 2010 year-end updates to opening paragraph and financials in call-out box. Also updated retention figures in the Business section and added info on a new extraction facility to the Products section. George Fischer, VP, corp comm, georgef@herbalife.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgefischer (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of date Information

Please remove the following from the Business section as the citation is 16 years old from a 1985 article: Supporters of MLM contend this is a fair compensation system, whilst critics of MLM contend that it is similar to a pyramid scheme.Thanks, George Fischer, VP, Corp Comm, georgef@herbalife.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.82.30 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

seems like a fair point. altho i am personally skeptical, if there are no recent examples of pyramid-like complaints, it seems unfair to leave this nealry 2 decade old refrence without pointing out the time gap. maybe herbalife company is different now? or maybe not. idk. --96.28.210.1 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

it's a very different company than from what people perceived it to be 2 decades old. That information should not be part of a current description, feel free to contact me at georgef@herbalife.com to clarify any facts about the company.Georgefischer (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)george fischer, vp, worldwide corporate communications

Controversy section

Per WP:STRUCTURE, we should be avoiding "Controversy" sections in articles. This tends to give the text before the Controversy heading more "truth", and the controversial text less "truth". Controversies with business model/marketing will need to go to the business model section. Product controversies will need to into the product section

Crazy Fox commercial sounds like a business model issue. Herbalife and Israel is product-based

The La Fea Mas Bella was a sponsorship, so that could go in the sponsorship area.

I'm going to start a separate section on discussion of the parodies of Ugly Betty and King of the Hill. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made an initial pass moving the "controversy" items into the applicable section. I would appreciate a review, and some of the items may need to be moved around chronologically within the section. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS}

Parodies mentioned is OR

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the Ugly Betty and King of the Hill parody. This is currently a WP:NOR issue, not to mention trivia. Although I personally found it humorous, it does not belong in this WP article. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nutrition Advisory Board

The text about Lou Ignarro is a non-issue and should be removed. There are currently 23 members of the Nutrition Advisory Board located throughout the world.Georgefischer (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-objective

Throughout the article, I noticed that it is written in a non-objective way, the careful use of negative words and statements is somewhat fishy. Fellow Wikipedians, please keep it objective. If you cannot resist to write some filth about someone else (this includes companies) - maybe you're in the wrong place. 84.228.147.235 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clinical Studies

Four clinical studies have been conducted using Herbalife products. Three of the studies used Formula 1. Conclusions published in journals differ from what a user posted, yet my information was completely removed.It is as follows: Three clinical studies have been completed that show the effectiveness of Formula 1, and one study using Niteworks was completed.

The Formula 1 studies, conducted at University of California, Los Angeles; University of Ulm, Germany; and Seoul University National Hospital, Korea, showed that using Formula 1 meal replacements twice a day led to effective weight loss. Individuals in the studies who had certain weight-related conditions showed improvement in those conditions as a result of using Formula 1 shakes for weight loss.

The studies in Germany and Korea were conducted by members of our Nutrition Advisory Board, Drs. Marion Flechtner-Mors and Belong Cho, respectively. The results of the UCLA study were published in Nutrition Journal (August 2008); the Korea results appeared in The International Journal of Clinical Practice (February 2009); and the Ulm study was published in Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (June 2010).

A clinical study using Niteworks showed avid cyclists over the age of 50 had an improvement in their performance after taking arginine supplements for three weeks. The study was published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition

Georgefischer (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is add'l info on the clinical studies as we do not agree with teh result that is posted. Also, three clinical studies were conducted and the results published (not two).

In both studies listed, the comparison was between increased and usual amounts of protein delivered in two shakes per day. There was no comparison made to usual food intake, because the effectiveness of meal replacements has been proven in over 50 studies over the past 15 years. Therefore, weight loss was achieved in both studies, but there was no increased weight loss with increased protein. In the Treyzon et al study both groups lost weight, but there was no difference in weight loss between the two groups. The composition of the weight loss was different with greater fat loss in the high protein group. While increased protein reduces hunger and maintains muscle mass during weight loss, free living individuals eat when they are not hungry, and weight loss is dependent on compliance with overall diet. In the Korean study, compliance was evaluated and there was reduced intra-abdominal fat in the group receiving more protein as well as greater weight loss. In a study by Flechtner-Mors et al in Germany, there was again weight loss both with usual and increased protein, but greater decrease in waist circumference in the high protein group. Therefore, Herbalife products are effective at both usual and increased amounts of protein. The evidence is consistent with greater fat loss in the group receiving higher protein shakes, but compliance is still important for successful weight management. Feel free to email me at georgef@herbalife.com for add'l info.Georgefischer (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC) george fischer

This line is solely opinion, with no citation noted. By your own rules, it should not be included on the posting, so please remove. If you want to talk to the doctors who conducted these studies, we are happy to arrange that. "By and large, these studies do not provide convincing evidence that Herbalife products produce more weight loss than other products or than a proper placebo.[citation needed]" Georgefischer (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)george fischer, georgef@herbalife.com

Efficacy of Herbalife products for weight loss

We've been trying to straigten this out for several months when someone posted a closing sentence to this section that the studies are wrong. Here is another response to this. If we can't agree on this, I suggest the section just be removed rather than going back and forth again.

The person who posted misinterpreted the studies. We are more than happy to have a conversation with them rather than go back and forth with anonymous posts. 1. In the Treyzon study, weight loss differences were never expected between the two groups since both groups received meal replacement plans with Herbalife Formula 1 – one group was supplemented with a protein supplement (Performance Protein Powder) while the other group received a carbohydrate placebo. The results showed a greater loss of fat at 12 weeks. (-1.65 vs. 0.63kg P=0.05) and greater retention of lean body mass (-2.78 HP vs. – 4.06 SP) P <0.0001) Both groups lost weight demonstrating the efficacy of the Herbalife products for weight loss 2. The Lee study was done in Korea on an Asian population of 75 subjects where abdominal fat reduction rather than weight loss was the primary outcome variable. Non-compliant subjects were excluded but 70% of the 75 subjects were included in the analysis which showed a significant reduction in truncal and whole body fat in the HP group. truncal whole body fat

                              -2.2.kg vs. 1.5kg     and    3.5kg vs. 1.9kg

3. The goal of the Flechtner-Mors study was to investigate the efficiency of a protein-rich shake diet in comparison with a conventional protein diet on weight loss, body composition on subjects with metabolic syndrome Flechner-Mors instructed 110 obese subjects to reduce calorie intake by 500 calories/day which would lead to one pound of weight loss per week, not 50% as stated. The first twelve weeks compared a whole formal conventional diet to a meal replacement plan incorporating Herbalife Formula 1 and Performance Protein Powder. The comparison conventional diet group received three meals and two snacks (providing 0.8kg protein/kg body weight) and the high protein group received a high protein meal and two protein enriched meal replacement and two snacks as bars or low curd fat with fruit (providing 1.34g/kg body weight). For the remaining nine months of the study both groups received one meal replacement per day at conventional or increased protein levels. At three months a significant weight loss difference was seen demonstrating the efficacy of these products for weight loss. Both groups not only maintained their weight loss for one year but the weight loss was greater in HP vs. the conventional diet group (8.96kg vs. 6.41kg P <0.05) The loss of fat mass was 80.5% of total weight loss in the protein group compared to 60.2% of total weight loss on the conventional protein group. Both groups for nine months of the year received only a single meal replacement per day and both groups lost and maintained significant weight loss. This was accompanied by significant changes in biochemical and hormonal biomarkers associated with obesity. Regarding Busetto et al in their review article “High- protein low-carbohydrate diets: Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews; volume 27, issue 3, 230-232, 3/2011 raised a couple of points regarding a high dropout role and providing shakes and bars to the high protein group and not the conventional diet group. The explanation is just straight forward. The high protein diet was designed to provide 1.34 grams protein/kg body weight us 0.8 grams of protein/kg of body weight thus requiring higher protein loads. (The caloric content of the two diets was equal). After three months the drop our rate in the high protein group 55 to 49. At the end of the study, there was further drop in the high protein group to 31 subjects but it was sufficient for a valid statistical analysis. Georgefischer (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)george fischer, VP, corp communications, georgef@herbalife.com

Adverse Events

I suggest this section be removed as this section is no longer relevant since accusations by Minkow were retracted, a fact that the reader doesn't learn until the very end of the section.

and i suggest it is removed. In May 2008, the Fraud Discovery Institute, which claims to be a consumer watchdog organization, reported that laboratory test results of Herbalife products showed lead levels in excess of limits established by law in California under Proposition 65.[19][20] The Fraud Discovery Institute was founded by Barry Minkow, who served seven years in jail for stock fraud,[21] and since disclosed that his company was profiting from the allegations by shorting Herbalife stock.[22] Herbalife responded stating its products met federal FDA requirements[23][24] and released independent lab tests it said proved the products did not exceed Proposition 65 limits.[22] On 10 May 2008 a suit was filed on behalf of a woman who developed lead-related liver complaints that she claimed were a reaction to a combination of Herbalife products.[21][25] The suit was filed by lawyer Christopher Grell, cofounder of the Dietary Supplement Safety Committee and an associate of Barry Minkow.[21] On 17 June 2008, the suit was expanded to add distributors who had supplied the woman with the Herbalife products, with Grell launching a website to offer persons who believe they were harmed by Herbalife products the chance of redress.[26] In August 2008, Minkow retracted all accusations against Herbalife and removed any mention of the company from his web site.[27]

Georgefischer (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)george fischer, VP, corp comm, georgef@herbalife.com

Criticism

The citations for this section aren't working. There are numerous studies that show the benefits of meal replacement shakes. The fact that a magazine called products expensive is simply an opinion. The point about hypnosis makes no sense and references to grasses and animals with exotic names has nothing to do with us. I won't delete this section myself but the fact that anyone can write anything without valid proof also needs to be considered in these postings. Criticism

The specialists of the German Society of Food (German Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung) concluded that the use of Herbalife products do not solve the problem with weight. [37] In independent studies of the German magazine Konsument (Zeitschrift Ökotest 11/2003) states that the products of Herbalife at the time of research were among the most expensive products, "healthy eating". [38] In 2004, the United States, Herbalife company was accused of creating a financial pyramid selling. In order not to bring the matter to court, the company paid the sum of six million dollars for a waiver of proceedings, so the question was settled out of court. In the case appear the names of dealers 8700. [39]. Criticism of the company can be divided into three main categories: Criticism of network marketing as such because of its similarity to the financial pyramids. Criticism of obsessive direct sales [40], which holds the company. In addition, there is criticism of the opinion that some of Herbalife distributor using NLP techniques, similar to the method of hypnosis. A typical criticism of the cosmetic and nutritional companies, as well as companies that sell any food or consumer goods, exaggerate the dignity of their products. For example, the emphasis on their "natural" origin of the grasses and animals with exotic names, no preservatives and low in fat. Total culture and organization of some distributors Herbalife. Typical organization of sales of Herbalife is as follows: an initial increase in the discount on the company's products depends on the quantity of goods purchased during the month. Further, these discounts do not depend on the volume of procurement activity or distributor (though you can not buy anything at all) if it has not reached the level of supervisor. Procured goods are distributed for personal use and for sale. Education by the methods of sales going to the special training.

23:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)george fischer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgefischer (talk • contribs)

This section still doesn't make any sense, is not substantiated by certifed sources and should not be a part of the write-up. We are working per your rules to raise topics in this section but haven't had any contacts since original post in April. Georgefischer (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)george fischer, georgef@herbalife.com

Well, a lot of the section consisted of repetition of info that's already in previous sections, and of vague unsubstantiated statements about MLM companies in general. I've removed all that, keeping only the specific claims that were't already in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 14:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to FDA "Sales of Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids (Ephedra) Prohibited"

Reference 25, "Sales of Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids (Ephedra) Prohibited", doesn't seem to work correctly, and I'm not quite sure how best to fix it. Initially, I tried Googling "site:fda.gov". I got an article and just sort of assumed it was the correct one. But then I realized that was a Bad Idea so I undid it.

Someone who has maybe edited this more than me, please see if you can find the exact article that Ref #25 is supposed to go to and patch it. TIA

-- Furry cows moo and decompress. PragmaticallyWyrd (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"The lee study"

According to the study- Results: The overall mean weight loss was 5 kg in the HP-plan group and 4.9 kg in the C-plan group (p = 0.72). Truncal fat mass decreased 1.6 kg in the HP-plan group (p < 0.05) and 1.5 kg in the C-plan group (p < 0.05), while whole body fat mass decreased 2.5 kg in the HP-plan group (p < 0.05) and 2.3 kg in the C-plan group (p < 0.05). Between-group losses did not differ significantly for truncal (p = 0.52) or whole body (p = 0.77) fat mass. Among subjects with ≥ 70% dietary compliance, however, truncal and whole body fat mass decreased more in the HP-plan group (Δ2.2 kg and Δ3.5 kg respectively) than in the C-plan group (Δ1.5 kg and Δ1.9 kg respectively) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The HP- and C-plans had a similar effect on weight and abdominal fat reduction, but the HP-plan was more effective in reducing body fat among compliant subjects.

Please fix the article. 80.246.133.198 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Fix" it how? The article text should not be a verbatim copy of the source, and including jargon serves no purpose. The section on the Lee study correctly represents the results of the study, including the part you bolded above, using appropriate language. --bonadea contributions talk 22:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Efficacy of Herbalife products for weight loss

[NB! This section is written by a person affiliated with Herbalife.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.127.109 (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I’ve posted here several times that it doesn’t make sense that an unidentified person can say these studies are inaccurate while we've provided an abundance of proof that the studies are valid, and have also been published (citations provided). We are happy to talk directly with whoever would like additional information on our studies. Their comment (the last line of the section) has no citation or backup and should be removed. We are working hard to follow Wikipedia rules yet you must help provide a level playing field.

Herbalife clinical studies have demonstrated that the addition of protein to its Formula 1 shakes with Protein Performance Powder resulted in increased fat loss, retention of lean body mass during weight loss (Treyzon et. al) and in one study improvement in the risk factors for obesity associated diseases (Flechtner-Mors). The criticisms of the studies are in error and should be deleted. Herbalife has a 33 percent share of the global meal replacement slimming market (Euromonitor 2010). In 2010, The European Food Safety Authority reviewed the available evidence from 47 studies and concluded that meal replacements are safe and effective for weight loss and weight maintenance (EFSA Journal 2010).

Therefore, the weight loss products provided by Herbalife are more effective than conventional calorie-restricted diets.

The methods of analysis are standard for these types of studies including consideration of compliance (Lee et al). There are no other products in the studies and the name ShapeWorks is a sub-brand assigned by Herbalife to their weight management category and not a separate product. Furthermore, the EFSA concluded that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the consumption of meal replacements in substitution of regular meals in the context of energy restricted diets and reduction in body weight. Therefore, the entire tone of the criticism of the Herbalife studies is in error. The studies of Treyzon et al., Flechtner-Mors, et al., and Lee et al. were reviewed and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. While all studies have limitations and special scientific considerations apply, the impression left by this section of the Wikipedia article is factually incorrect. Herbalife products are effective for weight loss and weight management, and the studies demonstrate the additional effects of protein enrichment of shakes. The EFSA concluded that “biologically plausible mechanisms have been proposed by which meal replacements could exert the claimed effect, mostly in relation to their controlled energy content and relatively high protein, low fat content.” The Herbalife studies explored these mechanisms and found evidence for them. Georgefischer (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)george fischer, georgef@herbalife.com

Agree; I just removed some inaccurate wording from the history section. Like you I hold back from doing major edits because I am a shareholder of your excellent company. Maybe your management should study Mary Kay Cosmetics, same marketing style, but you never hear anything negative about that company. On the point of the study I think you have a delicate balancing act. It says "high compliance" users exhibit good results. These kind of people could just use improved diet and increased exercise and get results without your products.Mea (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Financial Chicanery Allegations

To xobportal, when a stock drops by ca. 45% over a few days, wiping out more than $2bn of shareholder value, stakeholders will ask questions as to why that is. Explaining that a rather famous investor is short the herbalife and describing in a few words why that is, is not a subjective article entry (or POV or whatever you want to call it) but an educative one meant for the wider public, shareholders, distributors and consumers alike.

Ignoring the short investors and their reasoning will not make the stock go back up or prove/disprove their allegations of a pyramid scheme. On the contrary, this is exactly the kind of behavior that will strengthen their arguments.

Readers will welcome any form/style/wording comments/improvements you would have on the entries but eliminating them altogether clearly highlights on the contrary your own subjective standpoint. Divingroom (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To whom was the above argumentation addressed? It seems to me that the concerns about stock price and so on and so force reside entirely outside the purview of our concerns here at Wikipedia about this article. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, the comment was addressed to "xobportal." Whatever that is, you would think it is sentient and deserves an initial cap. I have seen other articles blown apart for the merest hint of POV, often to ridiculous lengths. I feel like I have a conflict of interest since I own shares of the company. It is an extremely well-run publicly traded company. Stock drops can occur for many reasons. The well-educated and probably well-intentioned Sen. Markey of the great state of Massachusetts caused an over 10% drop today with his unfounded comments. Our lives are plagued with this group of largely lawyers who have very little scientific training as a group.Mea (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Objectivity

Once again, throughout the article, I noticed that the way it's written is in a non-objective way, the careful use of negative words and statements is unpleasant to read. Fellow Wikipedians, please keep it objective. If you cannot resist to write some filth about someone else (this includes companies) - maybe you're in the wrong place. 80.246.133.198 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to argue that it's not objective in the opposite way and are more a puff piece than an wikipedia article. The edits by Herbalife employees/victims are abundantly clear. DavidJakobsson (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree that it is non-objective. It is biased. If herbalife really was what it claims to be, it would be sold as a normal supplement product (with distribution to stores specilized in these kinds of products) and definitely not through "multi-level marketing" which is a "refined" and legal variant of the more classic pyramid ponzie scheme. If you go to herbalife's webpage you can find essentially no "real" (real in a sense that it's not just misleadig words or sentences used purely for marketing purposes. For example: for formula 1 it says it's low in calories but it has 9g of sugar/ 25g meaning more than a third of this product is sugar). If you however check for ingridients you realize that the only "special" thing about herbalife is it's extremely high price. Also if i'm not mistaken not too long ago herbalife used ephedrine in its products which is an active substance - a stimulant drug which is similar to amphetamines and can be very dangerous. It was removed when food regulating authorities basically forced them to. Meaning this companies ethical standards are very low.

-profo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.8.42 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV 37.142.20.81 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an unfriendly reminder is warranted. I checked this article because I recently invested in the company. This is a well-run public company that meets all SEC reporting obligations. This is one of the most biased articles I have seen. One dopey senator's opinion does not reinforce claims that come from a company whose original private owner is dead. They use direct sales - so what - I guess I'll check out the Mary Kay Cosmetics article next.Mea (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

{{help me}} Thank you, Mea. I wish more Wikipedians would pay attention to the nature of this highly biased article. It should be re-written entirely from scratch. 82.102.141.202 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you needed help with, but I have gone ahead and added a reference for the text you added. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I hve removed some copy-pasted content. The main article, however, is well-sourced and doesn't seem particularly biased, certainly not against Herbalife. If you have specific objections, please point out what exactly you think is inappropriate. Huon (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You post a link about a "neutral" point of view say this is biased against herbalife and than immidiately admit to being an investor in this company. Do you not see the irony? How can you be neutral if you invested in the company? You can't. You're biased by default.

-profo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.8.42 (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Allegations about market manipulation

I removed the last sentence of the first paragraph, which discussed "federal prosecutors" investigating Pershing Square to see if they had done anything untoward before attempting their short sell. This article is not about Pershing Square or about Ackman, it's about Herbalife and the FTC. The fact that the short sell bet occurred is relevant, but the moral character of the shareholder is not. Short selling is a legitimate trading tactic that is used when an investor senses that a company is in a position to experience a decline in share price.

The WSJ article is about potential dangers to activist investors, and it really shouldn't be surprising that Herbalife would deny all allegations and say that Pershing Square must have created a conspiracy against them. However, I don't think the WSJ article is a sufficient RS to support the suggestion that Ackman did something illegal nor do I think it's relevant to this article. If it is necessary to continue the tit-for-tat allegations, a stronger and more direct source is needed. Roches (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Gross compensation

OK, so I also added details from HLF's gross compensation of US members 2013 document to the lead. The company says 88% of members evidently only joined to get discounts on products, because they had not recruited anyone else. 45,000 of that group had "sales leader" status, meaning they planned to run an HLF business, and paid extra to qualify as a sales leader, but they hadn't recruited anybody.

Also, of the 22.2% who had downlines (116,100), 97,286 (84%) received less than $1000 (average $105 for non-sales leaders, $302 for the 40,020 sales leaders who had downlines but got no money). This is their income from HLF. It doesn't include their retail sales figures, which would only be their personal retail sales figures, and some of the products they bought would be used by the member. Nor does it include any expenses. Members pay for product, for advertising, for training, and so on. They pay sales tax on the product. Their net income each year, if any, is taxable.

I think the data should be in the article, but others will no doubt object. Note that HLF doesn't in any way misrepresent the fact that most of the members fail to earn money: the source document says "We want you to have realistic expectations of the possible income you can earn." Roches (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Herbalife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Logo

The company seems to be using both the Herbalife Logo and the Herbalife Nutrition Logo, however it seems to be using the Herbalife Nutrition logo as most public-facing web properties, but it is using the Herbalife Logo on official documents. We'll keep an eye on it. Jose Cervantes (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Herbalife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Herbalife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

https://healtharchivee.com/eat-like-a-bear-diet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

New lawsuit

Herbalife has been hit with a class-action lawsuit in Florida [5] [6] [7] [8]. Does that warrant inclusion in the "Pyramid scheme allegations" section? I know class-action suits are a dime a dozen, but given Herbalife's track record, to this seems to be much more notable than your garden variety lawsuit. Kerdooskis (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Where are the archives?

Mizabot is no longer maintained. Did the archives get lost, or is there a url somewhere where they can be recovered? --Nbauman (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Cancer Society exec resigns over Herbalife partnership

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/health/american-cancer-society-brawley-resigns.html
Cancer Society Executive Resigns Amid Upset Over Corporate Partnerships
By Sheila Kaplan
New York Times
Nov. 5, 2018
The official, Dr. Otis W. Brawley, an executive vice president and chief medical officer, resigned his post late last week after 11 years at the society. His departure was largely attributed to his dismay over some commercial partnerships, including with Herbalife International, the controversial supplements company, people close to him said.
--Nbauman (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

POV

Pre-tag found number of unreliable blog posts to substantiate POV content. Too much to tackle alone, so opening discussion board GreerPedal7 (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsure when this was removed but no discussion here thanks.... GreerPedal7 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

The bulk of this article is about two controversies: about 10% on liver problems, and 25% about the its alleged "pyramid" business model. Is there a way to outline the pros and cons of these?

My suggestion would be to say that:

Critics charged that certain Herbalife products [name them, please!] caused liver problems [specifially, what?]
- These claims were evaluated by A, B, and C with the following conclusions
Several sources [be specific!] complained about the company's emphasis on distributors recruiting "downlines", charging Herbalife with running a pyramid scheme.
- The company's response was / has been ...
- Government agencies in the USA have ruled / negotiated ...

Is this a good plan? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Liver disease

I am unable to find any information on the three named 'toxic ingredients': "Herbalife was accused of selling products containing toxic ingredients such as Qua-qua, Kompri, and Kraska." Are these abbreviated plant names? I suggest that this sentence should be removed or rewritten.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Zezen (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

New hepatitis case in India

No time to update it properly in WP, so quick second hand info and the name of the RS here:

https://behindmlm.com/companies/herbalife/herbalife-products-tied-to-acute-liver-failure-in-india/

for my WP colleagues. Zezen (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing we can use here, IMO. Several problems...

The first one is easy. The link is to a blog. However, it refers to a journal article, which is linked.

The article, however, is a primary source, per WP:MEDRS. Basically, it is a single study with a hodge-podge of other reports cited. Typically, we're looking for a metanalysis of studies where authors find published articles within given parameters, assess the quality of the studies, weight the data from the various studies to reach a conclusion. Here the authors have one unique case report and various articles on multiple products.

Next is the journal itself. It is open-access, which is always worrisome. IMO, concerns about the reliability of open access journals is best handled based on impact scores. In the present case, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology has a score of 0.971. While it is for a specialized field, that's still quite low.

Other opinions? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The Dream Podcast

In November of 2018 a podcast series named The Dream had listeners call into talk about their experience. On the podcast many callers claimed to have worked for Herbalife. In one call. A lady stated that an acquaintance had convinced her to invest 300 dollars in an amazing opportunity that could make them rich. The caller claims she later went to the woman's website " swimmingincash.com" to learn more about how they were suppose to be getting rich. Next she states that later that day she was on the phone with both her acquaintance and her new supervisor where she found out that what she invested in was called Herbalife and that by buying 5000 dollars worth of product she could be promoted to supervisor and be running her own team. I had originally posted a short quip about this:

In 2018 podcast series, The Dream had listeners call in too talk about Multi-level marketing organizations they had been apart of. Multiple former sales workers talked about working for Herbalife. Most notoriously one caller described having a supervisor talk to her about how she could spend $5000 dollars and be promoted to supervisor without having to sell any product. On top of that the friend who got her into selling Herbalife's website was described as being named, swimmingincash.com ^[1]

However this was taken down for not having a reliable source. It can not be denied that this podcast exists and that a person spoke describing working for Herbalife stating these things. Though it could be argued that the caller was lying. I have since edited the post to reflect the fact that these were just claims made by the caller and not fact. That being said this was a media source reporting on Herbalife and thus has reason to be in the herbalife's media section on wikipedia.

Here is my suggested editted post.

In 2018 podcast series, The Dream had listeners call in too talk about Multi-level marketing organizations they had been apart of. Multiple callers claimed to have formally worked for Herbalife. Most notoriously one caller stated a supervisor talk to her about how she could spend $5000 dollars and be promoted to supervisor without having to sell any product. On top of that caller stated the person who talked her into joining herbalife's website was named, swimmingincash.com. ^[1]

Dannyb603 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can host a podcast on any topic. With 5 minutes to kill, I could launch a podcast and have my say about Donald Trump. That podcast -- with or without phone calls -- would not belong in Donald Trump.

What would make a podcast possibly belong in the article? Coverage in independent reliable sources. If the New York Times had something to say about my podcast, it might have a place, subject to WP:WEIGHT issues.

Ask yourself: In 10 years, will this podcast be recognized as a significant aspect of the company's history? Probably not, as evidenced by the fact that no one is really pointing to is as significant today. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. While The Dream is a great podcast and received favorable media coverage[9][10][11] it's not what we would typically consider a WP:RS. If it were cited to support significant details, I might consider it on a case-by-case basis, but the text proposed for addition strikes me as random/trivial/non-encyclopedic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b "The Dream - S1 E9: Leaving A Message". Stitcher. November 12, 2018. Retrieved April 2, 2020.

Conflict of Interest Edit Request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hi, my name is Finn. I have a disclosed conflict of interest for Herbalife and would like to request changes to this page. This is my first time requesting changes, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. I've used bold text to mark new text and strikethrough to mark removed text. Here are my requests:

A. Please revise the following sentence as marked: "He structured his company using a direct-selling~~, multi-level marketing~~ model.~~[citation needed]~~^[1]

[that new citation describes a direct sales strategy that differs from multi-level marketing]

B. Please revise the next grouping of text as follows: "In 1982, Herbalife received complaints from the Food and Drug Administration for claims made about certain products and the inclusion of mandrake, poke root, and 'food grade' linseed oil in another. In 1984, the Department of Justice of Canada filed criminal charges against the company for misleading medical claims in advertisements. As a result of the complaints, the company modified its product claims and reformulated the product.~~[21] The Department of Justice of Canada filed criminal charges against the company in November 1984 for misleading medical claims in advertisements.~~

Please replace that removed citation with ^[2]. This reorganization of text should add context to the company's actions as a result of the complaints.

C. After the sentence "The company suffered as a result of the lawsuit and was forced to lay off nearly 800 employees by May 1985," please revise the following to be: The company settled the suit for $850,000 without admitting wrongdoing. That same year, the FDA ended a safety and labeling review that Herbalife volunteered to undergo. The agency stated that two of its products would be considered drugs, though they posed no safety concerns. Herbalife voluntarily agreed to discontinue ~~, but discontinued~~ the sale of the two products.26

Please replace citation 26 with this citation: ^[3]

D. Please remove the sentence "The company was sued in civil court by two former distributors in 1997 for witholding earned income.[31]" -- because this suit occurred over twenty years ago, no available citation provides the outcome of the allegations, and many of the themes of the suit are already covered within the FTC investigation section below.

Thank you so much for your help!

Finn Finncomms8495 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not done: The article is already good as is. Furthermore, implementing the proposed changes would make the article non-NPOV. Quetstar (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Quetstar: Thank you for replying so quickly. With regards to my request in item D above, I understand how you might see this as non-NPOV. With my other above requests, in A, B, and C, can you please explain to me why you consider them to violate NPOV? Finncomms8495 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

All the items are non-NPOV in tone and writing, and they also deform the real nature of the company. Quetstar (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Quetstar: Could you please clarify? Some specific examples would help. Finncomms8495 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

For example, pretty much every source on the web describe Herbalife as an MLM. Item A (and the other 3 items) would introduce inaccuracies, and the source used is from 2000. Do you really think i'd use a 22 year old source to describe a company that still exists? Quetstar (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Quetstar: Thank you for your quick response! the sentence in Item A concerns the history of the company prior to 2000. Therefore the source should be acceptable. Item B takes sentences with chronology 1,3,2 and re-orders them so that they are chronologically 1,2,3. Where is the inaccuracy? Item C, like B and A, adds factual information pulled from a reliable source. My edits use information that is accurately pulled from notable, neutral sources. Can you please reconsider making these edits? Finncomms8495 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No way. These sources are very old, and adding them would be contrary to WP:RSAGE since Herbalife make dietary supplements, a type of medicine. Also, I will restate that every source on the web describe Herbalife as an MLM company, so it will remain described as such on Wikipedia. Therefore, I have no intention to reconsider. Quetstar (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Quetstar: With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point of my comment. These "old" sources describe historical events that came before the sources, and as such, they are acceptable per WP:RSAGE. I would point out to you that many sources currently used on the page, which you seem to accept, are more than twenty years old, such as [24],[25],[28],[31],[32],[33],[34],[37], and [89]. A, B, and C should be considered correctly sourced due to both WP:RSAGE and the precedent on the page which you are agreeing with. A, B, and C are also factual, as evidenced by the sources they are pulling from. I would appreciate your specific responses to the issues I raised in these items. Finncomms8495 (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources themselves can be added to the text that is already in the article. Also, the article is correctly ordered, rendering Item A moot. I am now deferring this to other editors for further review. Quetstar (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

References

[TheDream-1] "The Dream - S1 E9: Leaving A Message". Stitcher. November 12, 2018. Retrieved April 2, 2020.

[2] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/23/business/mark-r-hughes-44-founded-nutrition-supplement-concern.html

[3] ttps://www.inc.com/magazine/19851201/8371.html

[4] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1986/10/17/herbalife-pays-850000-to-settle-suit/09995e39-8f0d-410c-8647-f9336c6dc92f/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]