Jump to content

Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Dispute Tags

With regard to the dispute tags placed on the following text:

  1. …the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits [dubious – discuss],
  2. …complaints that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits [dubious – discuss]

The specific supporting references have been clarified so as to eliminate confusion, and the dispute tags have been removed. The first disputed point is supported by the article Juice Plus—and minus from the University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter (reference 32), which stated:

  • "No matter how compressed these capsules are, or what they contain, it’s impossible to deliver the nutrients of five to ten servings of fruits and vegetables in several capsules weighing 800 to 850 milligrams (about one-thirtieth of an ounce) each. It would take two dozen 800-milligram capsules just to provide all the nutrients in six ounces of carrot juice."

The second disputed point (i.e. “that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits”), is backed up by references 4, 25, 27, 30, and 34, which stated the following:

"Many studies have shown similar effects with supplementation with antioxidant supplements, but whether this has practical value is not known and the effect can be achieved with very inexpensive products... NSA's "Preferred Customers" who buy a four-month supply of Juice Plus+ capsules at a time, pay about $480 per year. If every American did this, the total annual cost would exceed $100 billion. Do you think this would be a wise allocation of our national resources?" [#4 MLM Watch]
"The JuicePlus product contains added vitamins, and as such may have some value, although regular vitamins cost only a fraction of the JuicePlus product." [#25 Rosemary Stanton]
"…pricey supplement… Juice Plus is distributed through a multi-tiered marketing scheme with exaggerated value and cost..." [#27 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center]
Moreover, Juice Plus is distributed through a multi-tiered marketing scheme with exaggerated value and cost. [#30 University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter]
"Salespeople armed with impressive sounding promotional literature are selling these products and making money. A month’s supply of capsules costs $90.00. A gallon of fresh orange juice costs $ .09 per serving. The promotional literature for Juice Plus billed as a whole food concentrate is a carefully worded blend of incorrect information, misleading health claims, and nonscientific jargon… Juice Plus probably won't harm you, but can hurt your pocketbook." [#34 Kansas State University]

Rhode Island Red 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the above statements, cited as 'proof' of the disputed statements, are themselves simply statements of opinion without scientific corroboration. This reminds me of the story of the old lady who believed that the world was carried on the back of a giant tortoise; when asked what supported the tortoise, she replied that it was carried by another tortoise. When pressed about what supported 'that' tortoise she replied "Don't be silly; it's tortoises all the way down!". So where's the proof behind these opinions? Or is it assertions all the way down? --TraceyR 20:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee Schwendinger

This dietitian is cited with an opinion about Juice Plus, but is she 'notable' enough to warrant being cited? Google returns the amazing total of seven (!) hits on "Renee Schwendinger", two of which refer to an assistant manager at Book World. Of the other five, one is this article, two are wiki mirror sites and one is a dead link (to valuemedica.com) What are we left with? The (notoriously biased) so-called 'research blog'. Even the original source cited there is a newspaper article from Missouri which can only be accessed for a $2.95 fee!

A Google search on "Schwendinger dietitian" brought much the same result - 49 hits, with the blog being the only relevant, non-wiki site to mention Renee Schwendinger.

I suggest that this 'expert' is not an authority worthy of being cited in a wikipedia article and propose that this material be deleted. --TraceyR 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Schwendinger is not directly cited as the source. The source that is cited is an article from a reliable publication, the newspaper St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which clearly meets WP:RS. Schwedinger was refered to in the original article as a dietician at St. Anthony's Medical Center in St. Louis. The article was published on Jan. 15, 2007. It was available free online for quite some time and Schwendinger's comment in that article was accurately quoted by Elonka, who wrote the section in question on July 5, 2007.[1] The fact that the article is no longer posted online is not a basis for deletion under WP policy. Furthermore, Schwendinger's basic point (that people should eat real fruits and vegetables -- not Juice Plus -- and failing that, should take a multivitmain) is very much the same as that of other reliable sources that have written about Juice Plus; for example, nutritionist Rosemary Stanton, whose credentials are impeccable. Most of the other sources who have commented on Juice Plus were far more critical than Schwendinger. Shall we also quote a few of those sources so that Schwendinger's comments don't stand alone? Rhode Island Red 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

appox. 50 tedious, minor and opinionated edits in 48 hours from Rhode Island Red, now that all the moderation and review failed, despite being directly told to stop editing this page--just couldn't stay away could you? Is Wiki/JuicePlus now back to ownership/dictatorship of one editor? Not an attack, an obesrvation. Schwendinger did not read ONE research paper on Juice Plus, based her decision on reading on line. Goodness, reading MLM, quack and researchblog and Wiki would make even a 3rd grader much less a "researcher" like Schwendinger come to the conclusion it is a bad product--however, biased agenda filled sites are NOT the place to get the whole picture. As for Stanton, she is the most closed minded biased person, she looked at the title of a book and summed up it's contents without taking even 5 minutes to skim the material before making her negative expert opinion about it. She's Austrailia's expert? Whoppie! We have our own here in the States, Dr. David L. Katz for one and his research on Juice Plus is sound and his opinion on the product is positive, but you don't read about him here because YALE isn't nearly as credible as the outback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.211.228 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Much as I understand your frustration, it would be more productive to cite alternative opinions (such as Dr. Katz) in the article itself than to make intemperate 'observations' here. --TraceyR 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that Schwendinger, Stanton et al are, to say the least, ill-informed and, inasmuch as their opinions were expressed later than 2002, out-of-date with their recommendations to take a 'multivitamin'. A benchmark study published in The Lancet, 2002; 360: 23-33 available here left little room for doubt:

  • In the Conclusions section the authors wrote: "But, in light of the unpromising results during at least 5 years of treatment in several large randomised trials, the lower risks of vascular disease and cancer found in observational studies among people with higher intake of these antioxidant vitamins [vitamin E, vitamin C and beta-carotene] must have been largely or wholly artefactual (ie, due to other differences in lifestyle that were actually responsible for the lower risks). Hence, continued recommendation of supplementation with such vitamins is difficult to justify." (my emphasis).

    The article should not be giving an airing to the out-of-date opinions of ill-informed 'experts'. --TraceyR 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You quote comments on the effects of three vitamins on two forms of disease. When I hear "multi-vitamin", I usually think of something with quite a long list of vitamins. Schwendinger said you should eat sufficient fruits and veggies; a multi-vitamin was suggested as a second-rate alternative. Schwendinger did not suggest everybody should have a "higher intake", which is what the research you quoted refers to.
Schwendinger talked about multi-vitamin supplementation for people who eat insufficient quantities of the right food; the study in The Lancet spoke of a "higher intake" of only three. Given such a significant difference, I'm confused as to how you can call Schwendinger "ill-informed." Do you have any studies that refute Schwendinger's actual advice? Bhimaji 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Was the characterization of Rosemary Stanton and Renee Schwendinger as “ill-informed” intended as an argument that their criticism of Juice Plus should be expunged from the article? If so, the suggestion seems to be based solely on unsubstantiated opinion and is not supported by published sources; it sounds like soapboxing.
The Lancet article cited above is not even remotely supportive of an argument that Schwendinger’s criticism (and now Stanton’s as well) should be removed. It was a study on antioxidant supplementation (vitamin A/C/E combo) for the prevention of heart disease. It’s not even current (published in 2002) and it is only one of hundreds of articles written on this topic in the past few years, but most importantly, it was quoted out of context. The author’s statement “continued recommendation of supplementation with such vitamins is difficult to justify” was specifically in reference to trials on antioxidant supplementation for the prevention of heart disease (for which the authors instead recommended several standard pharmacological therapies, such as aspirin, ACE inhibitors, and beta-blockers, and lifestyle changes such as exercise and quitting smoking).
The Lancet article had no bearing whatsoever on general recommendations regarding multivitamin use in healthy populations (Schwendinger is quoted in the article as saying “the average person should eat actual fruits and vegetables, not take a supplement such as Juice Plus… barring that, a single multivitamin will give you all the nutrition you need if your diet is lacking, and it's less expensive”) nor did it mention Juice Plus, so it is irrelevant to the WP article. It does not even remotely refute Schwendinger’s and Stanton’s statements or support the accusation that they are “ill informed” or otherwise unreliable. Stanton didn’t even recommend using a multivitamin; she was quoted in the article as saying “Juice Plus…contains added vitamins, and as such may have some value, although regular vitamins cost only a fraction of the Juice Plus product". Rhode Island Red 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that no-one aware of the science disputes the importance of eating fruits and vegetables for general health and the prevention of disease. I'm not sure why it is considered axiomatic that "a single multivitamin will give you all the nutrition you need if your diet is lacking". Where is the science to back up this assertion?
The Lancet study did not report solely on the effects on antioxidant supplementation (vitamin A/C/E combo) for the prevention of heart disease:

Findings: There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality ..., or in deaths due to vascular ... or non-vascular ... causes. Nor were there any significant differences in the numbers of participants having non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death ..., non-fatal or fatal stroke ..., or coronary or noncoronary revascularisation ... . For the first occurrence of any of these “major vascular events”, there were no material differences either overall ... or in any of the various subcategories considered. There were no significant effects on cancer incidence or on hospitalisation for any other non-vascular cause. Interpretation: Among the high-risk individuals that were studied, these antioxidant vitamins appeared to be safe. But, although this regimen increased blood vitamin concentrations substantially, it did not produce any significant reductions in the 5-year mortality from, or incidence of, any type of vascular disease, cancer, or other major outcome.(my emphasis)

As the editorial comment in the same issue of the Lancet stated:

"These findings emphasise the need to generally view claims of treatment benefit from observational studies with considerable scepticism, unless confirmed by large well-designed randomised trials."

IMHO considerable scepticism is also required for the generalisations à la Schwendinger (who is still non-notable, although her Google hit-count has now no doubt reached double figures).
The supplements used in the study (alpha-tocopherol, ascorbic acid and beta-carotene) are also found in mega-doses in many multi-vitamin formulations, so its findings can be considered relevant to the massive, long-term, uncontrolled and indiscriminate trial currently in progress in the western world. Caveat emptor!
It is also insufficient to state that this 2002 study is "not even current" without citing later studies which have contradicted its results. --TraceyR 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This seems like an exercise in futility. No valid reasons have been raised to warrant removal of the comments by Stanton and Schwendinger or to support the opinion that they are “ill informed”, and the quoted sections from the Lancet article are irrelevant. Once again I will point out that the Lancet study examined the effects of A/C/E on disease incidence. It has no bearing on Schwedninder’s general recommendation regarding multivitamins vs. Juice Plus for healthy individuals. Lastly, most multivitamins do not contain megadoses of A/C/E; they merely contain RDI amounts of each. If anything, it is Juice Plus that contains megadoses of these vitamins (250%, 390%, and 150% of RDI, respectively). I will consider this case closed unless anyone has anything relevant to add. Rhode Island Red 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Spoken like a true Article Owner, Rhode Island Red; by all means consider it closed if it makes you happy! However, Schwendinger's opinion should not be cited because (a) she is not any sort of recognised, published authority and (b) her opinion about "a single multivitamin" has not been supported by any evidence. You did not refute these point before closing the case (which you are not empowered to do, by the way).
In addition, although not essential to the arguments for removing the Schwendinger/St. Louis Post-Dispatch reference, the Lancet article showed that isolated antioxidants (which are used in many of the multivitamins she would prefer on cost grounds) "did not produce any significant reductions in the 5-year mortality from, or incidence of, any type of vascular disease, cancer, or other major outcome". --TraceyR 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Scwendinger is not the source, the St Louis Post-Dispatch is. Do you have some reason for doubting their reliability or fact-checking? You're now making assumptions about which multi-vitamins the dietitian was recommending; that's going far, far past the bounds of original research. You are welcome to disagree with a source and provide alternate viewpoints, but attacking the sources statements by producing a single research study that only tangentially addresses the topic at hand (and I'm being generous there) is not a reason to remove the text.

Additionally, please refrain from discussing other editors and try to stick to discussing the article. You and Rhode Island disagree on many things about the article; this does not make either of you wrong - you two need to learn that and find a way to work together. Shell babelfish 19:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported correctly what Schwendinger said; as I stated at the beginning of this section, Schwendinger herself is not an authority and, whatever the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's standards, she doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria in this regard. My previous entry here made it perfectly clear that my arguments for the removal of Schwendinger's comment do not depend upon the relevance of the Lancet article. However I think that you would be hard pressed to find a multivitamin which does not contain the three antioxidants used in the study - the fact that Schwendinger doesn't specify which multivitamin she is referring to implies that she means any multivitamin - which must undermine her putative 'expert' status even further. My comment on Rhode Island Red is relevant to the article and its content: his statement "I will consider this case closed unless anyone has anything relevant to add" indicates that he has once again assumed proprietorial authority over this article, which is in contravention of Wikipedia's WP:OWN guidelines and is therefore actively to be discouraged. --TraceyR 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
She was apparently authority enough for a reasonable media outlet like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to take her word for it. I will not speculate about which multi-vitamin she meant or infer that she mean just "any" multi-vitamin; these types of things are WP:OR - we repeat what other sources say - Wikipedia isn't a primary source or a place for synthesis of things you know or believe. I imagine the reason that Rhode Island Red made that statement is because discussions seem to go on forever on this page; since no other editors agree with your points, the discussion would seem to be closed unless you have further points to make. Shell babelfish 00:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Post Dispatch is the only paper in a major city, they can write what they want, they really don't have any competition to keep them "honest", but it should be noted that their syndication is very low, most people in town don't even read the paper. Swhindinger is a staff nutritionist at a lower teir health facility in a town with some of the best medical facilities in the nation--the "health editor" doesn't do her own research she calls who she can get on the the phone and had the journalistic audacity to print ONE no-name staff nutritionist OPINION as FACT. She didn't source other "experts" she didn't offer differing opinions. The only place that anyone has listened to Schwindinger is on this forum.

And Shell, how dare you as a voice of authority on Wiki not admonish one editor from commanding from high "I will consider this case closed" and further enable ONE editor's obvious bias and ownership of this site. It is this type of biased editing that makes 80% of teachers in this nation instruct their students NOT to use Wiki as a reliable source.

Let's discuss this small ommission from Schindinger's "opinion", what about the fact that most americans do NOT eat enough fruits and vegetables? Are we to just suck down a lab created "multi-vitamin" as she recommends or maybe, just maybe might the nutrients from actual whole foods/fruits and vegetables benefit our health more.

what is the big deal with this article? Fruits and Vegetables shredded up and stuck in pills, no one is making you take it. But this article as edited by a few, would certainly make one think that vitamins created in a lab are better than what nature gives us. we do not have to agree with you RED and this case is far from closed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.25.138 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for RiR, but I just have trouble not speaking up when I see blatantly misleading statements - such as yours, for example. You refer to JuicePlus as being natural products "shredded up and stuck in pills," but those pills are awfully small. You carefully gloss over the lab processing that is done in the production of JuicePlus, and you also ignore the fact that JuicePlus contains added nutrients supplied by the same "lab creation" process you are so much against.
Nature gives us many things; many of them are good, and many of them are bad. I remember when I was younger, reading through a book on poisonous plants that my dad had. It went into a lot of detail about what these different plants would do to you - I remember that when I see people suggest that "what nature gives us" is automatically, axiomatically better. Sometimes it is better, sometimes it isn't. Nature does not give us JuicePlus. Nature gives us fruits and vegetables. JuicePlus is a man-made processed product, made in a lab. It may be better than traditional multi-vitamins, it may not be - but it is very unreasonable to suggest that it is obviously inherently better because it fits your definition of "natural." JuicePlus does not fit my definition of natural. Which reminds me, time for breakfast; I have some real bananas and apples that look just about ripe enough to eat. Bhimaji 13:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that the vitriolic anonymous user at IP 70.130.211.228 and 72.255.25.138 seems to be a sock puppet for Julia Havey, a Juice Plus distributor with a COI who previously deleted all her comments and said that she was leaving WP permenantly?[2][3][4] The IP address traces to the same server and block as previous unsigned comments posted by Havey several times in 2006 (e.g. [5][6][7]) Is this user willing to confirm or deny that their identify is Julia Havey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.236.110 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
One anonymous editor asking another to identify him/herself? That's a bit rich! --TraceyR 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In view of the above comments on the way Juice Plus is produced ("Fruits and Vegetables shredded up and stuck in pills" from 72.255.25.138 and "Juice Plus is a man-made processed product, made in a lab" from Bhimaji) I have tried to identify, as far as possible, the process involved. From what is available online (and mostly not from company sources, which are not very informative - perhaps this is something the company representative who offered help some time ago could contribute to this discussion) the process appears to be:
  1. Harvesting fruits and vegetables when they are ripe
  2. Cleaning them (separately)
  3. Juicing them (separately) in an oxygen-free environment
  4. Removing water at low temperature/pressure in an oxygen-free environment, leaving dried powder (proprietary process; temperature range involved is said to be non-destructive of vitamins)
  5. Mixing the fruits powders together and adding some natural (i.e. not synthetic) vitamins (to meet regulatory requirements?) and encapsulating them
  6. Mixing the vegetable powders and adding some natural (i.e. not synthetic) vitamins (to meet regulatory requirements?) and encapsulating them
The degree of processing, i.e. juicing and drying, would therefore appear to be minimal and certainly less than for most packaged products available for human consumption; describing it as a "man-made processed product made in a lab" or as "fruits and vegetables shredded up and stuck in pills" would both appear to be incorrect.
Years ago I looked up how instant coffee and Coca-Cola are produced and the processing involved there really is 'awesome' (in the sense of "shock-and-awe" awesome). They really are man-made processed products made in a lab. Yet most of us have consumed instant coffee and Coke at some stage in our life without giving it a second thought. --TraceyR 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The comment above is unrelated to the topic of this thread. Rhode Island Red 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red: Then why didn't you comment first upon the off-topic comments I was commenting upon? Was it because the earlier comments might be construed as negative and were therefore OK to you? Please be consistent. My previous entry was in response to something written here, so it 'was' on topic. --TraceyR 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article was nominated for GA on 3 September. The article is fairly well-developed but I have some concerns in relation to WP:WIAGA:

  • Jargon: although most technical terms are linked, it may still be difficult for some readers to to determine the significance of "a non-randomized, non-blinded, non-controlled study", for instance.
  • Broadness: there are five headings about product research, but it's not clearly stated what the product marketers claim about the product.
  • Neutral: overall tone seems a bit on the critical side. Critical views should certainly be reported, but usually controversial products have at least two sides: see Baby Gender Mentor. Similarly, the significance of John Wise (at the end) seems overplayed. For example, what is implied by saying he "co-authored several other Juice Plus research studies"? Is it appropriate to link to "insider trading", which has overtones, rather than merely link or define "insider" in the SEC sense?
  • Stable: Although it appears mainly one editor edits the article, there seems to be unresolved issues on the talk page.

GA nomination is on hold awaiting responses. Gimmetrow 03:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for some great comments, it's good to get an outside opinion. My own main concern is about stability. I don't feel that the article reflects consensus. If it's "stable" right now, it's simply because other editors (including myself) got sick of the edit-warring and went off to do something else for awhile. See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red. Though I think that this can be a Good Article someday, my own recommendation would be to fail the nom for now, until the issues can be addressed, and we're sure that we're dealing with a stable article, with readable text, that accurately reflects all points of view in a neutral fashion, without giving undue weight to anything, and without violating WP:NOT. --Elonka 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
My concern about tone relates to a sort of "undue weight" with the selection of information. For instance, while it appears true that NAI/etc. funded most of the studies, has any reliable source noted this point as important? If not, relating it here gives it a significance that seems to me undeserved. (I suspect most clinical trials are funded by the drug manufacturer.) Things of this nature create an overall negative tone, rather than a dispassionate tone. Gimmetrow 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I frequently read news stories concerning the funding of studies by parties with a conflict of interest; insufficient disclosure of interests is something that is often raised. I think any list of product research should include clear information about any conflicts both in funding and in study design.
Regarding specific news coverage about NAI, I would only expect coverage of a particular company or researcher if there were some sort of egregious problems. Bhimaji 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Bhimaji: Are you saying that there is an automatic COI if the manufacturer funds a study, or only if there is a failure to disclose the source of funding? As far as I am aware, there has been no failure to disclose NSA/NAI funding of research into Juice Plus. If the article in its current form creates the impression that there is something egregious about a company funding research into its own products, then it needs amending to prevent this happening. This issue has been raised here in the past but no consensus was reached - an example of the reasons for the inherent instability of the article.
I agree with you on the subject of specific news coverage about NAI in the absence of problems with the company and researchers and also with Gimmetrow on the issue of general tone of the article, as shown by the overplayed coverage of John Wise. This too was raised here, to no effect. --TraceyR 19:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Notability of Company Involvement in Juice Plus Research
There is ample evidence that the company’s funding of the studies is notable, and in previous discussion of this issue on the talk page, various editors favored inclusion of funding information.
Several sources, which are referenced in the article, have referred to the issue of the studies having been sponsored and/or written by the manufacturer, thereby establishing notability. For example registered dietician Kathleen Goodwin noted that “while there have been some clinical research studies about the effectiveness of Juice Plus, the evidence overall is inconclusive, the research flawed, and the funding provided by the manufacturer of the supplements themselves."[8] Nutritionist Rosemary Stanton also commented on the company’s involvement in the research, noting that “the same distributors were also given proof in the form of results of a pilot study on 15 people, with one of the researchers being a principal of the company selling the supplement. It was a particularly poor study…”[9] MLMWatch also noted that an executive (John Wise) of the company that manufactures Juice Plus had authored some of the Juice Plus research and referred to the fact that “several” of the studies were “sponsored by Juice Plus”.[10] The true source of the Juice Plus research funding is also relevant given that NSA (which markets Juice Plus) and various Juice Plus distributors have deceptively referred to the studies as “independent”, “third-party” research. [11] [12][13][14][15][16][17](see “What Juice Plus clinical research shows”) [18](see page 24)
Other articles which have discussed past Juice Plus research and clinical trials that are currently in progress have also noted that NSA paid for the studies.[19][20] In one case, it was not only noted that NSA paid for the study but also that they had apparently attempted to hide their involvement after the study's results turned out to be unfavorable to the product.[21][22]
Additional evidence of notability stems from a lame-duck defense issued by NSA regarding their role in funding the research.[23]
We have discussed the funding issue previously on the talk page and various editors agreed that the funding source was relevant, notable, and merited inclusion. For example:
"Even if the study is controlled, there's still a subtle implication that when the manufacturer funds it, there's pressure to present findings that the manufacturer wants, otherwise the manufacturer isn't going to fund more studies there. --Elonka 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)"
I believe that knowing which studies were financed by the manufacturer is useful information and I know that medical journals have requirements that their authors disclose conflicts of interest. I think this is sufficient evidence that disclosure is worth doing, besides the common-sense argument. EdJohnston 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Also relevant is the position expressed in the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which are followed by virtually all top-tier medical journals. The guidelines state:
“Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process—author, reviewer, and editor—has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether judgment is, in fact, affected. Financial relationships with industry (for example, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important conflicts of interest."
"Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Bias can often be identified and eliminated by careful attention to the scientific methods and conclusions of the work. Financial relationships and their effects are less easily detected than other conflicts of interest. Participants in peer review and publication should disclose their conflicting interests, and the information should be made available, so others can judge their effects for themselves. Because readers may be less able to detect bias in review articles and editorials than in reports of original research, some journals do not accept reviews and editorials from authors with a conflict of interest.”[24][25]
As an aside, the position of the ICMJE clearly answers TraceyRs question as to whether “there is an automatic COI if the manufacturer funds a study”; that answer is yes. Rhode Island Red 01:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Curious. According to http://www.icmje.org/#conflicts, a "conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties)." So, is a COI a tie which "could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether judgment is, in fact, affected", or one which "inappropriately influencE[s] his or her action"? Answer: both. COI has two senses, one the mere potential, which is reported in most journal articles and carries no particular negative connotation, and the other which is revealed in the actual twisting of the scientific process. The line in this article, by its placement and phrasing, implies, by innuendo, the second. Is that justified? Gimmetrow 02:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not inclined to agree that there is a dual meaning behind the ICMJEs position. Their 2006 version of the guidelines (the source of the quote above) also states: “The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself.” It seems pretty clear that, according to the ICMJE guidelines, a COI exists merely by virtue of the company funding the research. However, the issue of whether a COI exists is not of paramount importance because the WP article doesn’t mention anything about COI; it merely identifies the sources of funding. Nonetheless, to avoid any untoward implications as a result of the placement and phrasing of the funding source information, I reset it as a separate paragraph. I also took you up on your suggestion to include some of the product claims. Rhode Island Red 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, as you will find, you may have an opinion on this article, but unless it is in line w/ Rhode Island Red it will not be allowed by him to stay in the article. and the only points he allows are those critic to Juice Plus. Regardless of any polite suggestions not to edit or act as owner, w/ less than 2 month break...He's Back! and w/ 50 edits in 24 hours. If that doesn't spell "OBSESSION", I don't know what would. It would take an act of God to make this article non biased or fair. It is negative, meant to be negative and ain't nothin changing it unless Red says it can be so from his roost on high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.178.9 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn’t dignify an off-topic personal attack like that with a reply, but just for the record, I had only made 2 edits on the page in the past week, not 50 edits in 24 hours. Rhode Island Red 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, you are correct, this week you didn't do as many, 67.108.178.9 may have been talking about about 14, 15 of September. You seem to be fairly proficient on Wiki, in the event you don't know how to see your edit history just go to History of this page or your contributions and you can count up your numerous contributions. Without knowing much more about the article, it would certainly appear that you have a real interest in maintaining control on this site. I think that goes against the spirit of Wiki and concerns me. I agree with Gimmetrow that many references on this page are here simply to imply a negative opinion of the product. And, editor RIR seems to be very hostile to other editors if they do not share his opinion or seem to want a nonbiased article. Artice should not be considered a good article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.148.181 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I counted, from September 13-28th RIR had 58 edits and numerous comments on the talk page of Juice Plus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.148.181 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that RiR's main hostility is to people who want to remove anything at all negative from the article. While some editors have been un-biased, I've seen others comment on the talk page that, essentially, the article would correctly describe JuicePlus as a really great product as soon as RiR's biased input went away. I know that's not what everybody here feels, but it's certainly what some editors feel, and that's the reason I think that RiR continues to be involved here. There are editors with an avowed interest in making the article say that JuicePlus is wonderful. Given the ambiguity in the sources, the article is not going to sound wonderful and positive. If you think that RiR's position is biased, the best answer would be to find some better sources of positive info about JP. Bhimaji 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Bhimaji: I'm sure that that is one of the reasons for RIR's (obsessive?) involvement here. His own assessment of Juice Plus (on the RIR RfC talk page) is that it is a "a trivial and insignificant small-fry product" [26], which is hardly conducive to NPOV editing on his part. Attempts to rephrase statements to make them more objective or to remove obviously contentious references are resisted resolutely by RIR. There have been very few attempts by Juice Plus distributors (i.e. those "an avowed interest in making the article say that JuicePlus is wonderful.") over the last year to present Juice Plus as a "really great product", but there has been a constant stream of edits by RIR designed to present it in a poor light. A detailed analysis of the article's edit history since RIR's involvement began would be interesting. One fact: of his approx. 1,200 wikipedia edits to date, some 800 have been concerned with this "trivial and insignificant small-fry product"! Some might think that sad!--TraceyR 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Since gentle reminders seem to be a problem, let me try to be more specific. The talk page of this article is for discussing article content only. Comments like the ones being made by TraceyR and anon ips are completely unnecessary and cross the line into personal attacks in places. If you have a problem with another editor, use dispute resolution. Any further nastiness on any person's part may result in a block. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy or how to use dispute resolution, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks. Shell babelfish 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a game of deception that these anonymous SPAs are playing by implying that my making 58 edits in a 2-week span somehow constitutes ownership. Roughly 50 of those edits are listed as minor edits (e.g. fixing typos, wikilinks, etc.) and the remainder were addition of new content to the article; content which I believe made significant improvements. I also made some changes based on the suggestions from Gimmetrow regarding GA status. If anyone has a problem with the content, then their comments should focus on the content itself and not personal attacks and harassment of other editors. It is transparently dishonest to make an accusation that my merely having made some edits to the page constitutes article ownership.
There is a very simple yardstick that can be used to determine fair balance in an article. Count the number of independent sources that have commented on Juice Plus (well over a dozen) and then determine how many were negative (100%) and how many were positive (0%). A NPOV article should reflect the prevailing opinion from published sources. The Juice Plus advocates who have in the past alleged that the article is biased have repeatedly been asked to present favorable commentary on Juice Plus from reliable sources; they have failed to do so in every case. Many editors have pointed this out repeatedly, and despite their comments, we have seen no new positive sources emerge; just more taunts and harassment. After a while, this kind of incessant harping falls on deaf ears. Now would it be too much to ask that we use the talk page for for its intended purpose? If anyone has conduct issues that they wish to take up with an admin, then they should follow Shel's advice and do so rather than misusing the talk page and violating WP:NPA. Rhode Island Red 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it considered "an attack" when one points out the obvious obessions or "ownership" efforts by one person? to make 58 edits, 50 of them in 2 days, no matter how minor beg the question "WHY?" If they are "minor" edits and if as Tracy said, the editor himself called the product "trival and insignificant" why would someone as obviously intelligent, science minded and detail oriented have the time OR put the time in that it takes to do the edits--1200 of them? I may be missing something, but is that a normal day (or year) in the life of a dedicated Wiki editor? 1200 edits, minor or not.

I applaud Gimmetrow for taking the time to see through this. I am NOT condoning, nor trying to make this article say that Juice Plus, nor any other product on wiki, is "wonderful" but I do not think it is appropriate to go to such lengths to call it a "Horrible" one as the article currently leans. This is NOT off topic, I was in a store yesterday and Dr. perricone's line of nutrtional supplements/vitamins for "weight control" and overall health cost $160 for one month. Juice Plus is only $39 a month and is what it says it is, fruits and vegetables incapsulated. In today's food supply delivery system, we could argue about the processing a potato gets from farm to fridge. Not much is 100% natural unless you live on the farm--everything gets some man-made treatment. To argue that Juice Plus gets that, well argue that everything you eat does too. Bottom line, juice plus doesn't force anyone to take it, some distributors misspeak and over "sell" the benefits, but the product shouldn't suffer for that. The company and it's material is sound and many well respected people back it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.131.83 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about the article's nomination for GA status, so it is relevant to mention factors which affect this status. Pleae note that it was another editor (Bhimaji) who pointed out RIR's hostility to some other editors. I reminded others, who might have forgotten, about RIR's opinion, i.e. that Juice Plus "is a trivial and insignificant small-fry product", because this is also relevant to the GA issue (POV of the most frequent editor by far). Is pointing out the stated POV of the most frequent editor of this article about a product considered by him to be "trivial and insignificant" a personal attack?
Turning to more serious matters, no-one who is seriously interested in creating an objective article will object to critical sources being cited, if they meet meet Wikipedia's criteria. This is not at issue. What is at issue, and this has been noted by editors new to this article, is its the critical tone. The issue is not what is cited, nor what is referred to as "fair balance", but the way in which sources are cited and information presented. An encyclopedia should adopt a neutral tone, even when citing critical sources; the POV of the editors should not be apparent. If we can move towards a neutral tone then significant progress towards achieving stability and GA status will have been made.
On 13 February 2007 RIR wrote the following (see [27]) about my contributions: "her edits have been consistently in the direction of softening or arguing for removal of content that is critical of the product". I did not complain about this attack but it is instructive to discuss it here in the GA context. The first part of this attack is simple to explain: I have consistently tried to introduce an objective tone where the tone of the article is not neutral. This is presumably what RIR refers to as 'softening' and is perfectly understandable when seen from his POV. If we are to achieve GA status then we need to achieve neutrality of tone. The second attack is also revealing: at various times sources have been cited which are critical of the product and I have argued for the removal of some of these. This is not, as RIR claims, because they are critical but because they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. If we are to achieve GA status then we have to meet these criteria. In most cases a consensus was reached (usually, it must be said, without RIR's active approval) and the offending content was removed (e.g. the competitive flyer from GNLD cited as an study; e.g. the SNAEMS website which had been withdrawn and deprecated by its publisher; e.g. the 'boilerplate' wording from a study protocol which, it was claimed, showed that the product could endanger the unborn fetus; this is the only deletion which I can recall with which RIR eventually felt able to concur). Content which fails to satisfy WP criteria needs to be removed as part of the process of achieving GA status. That should go without saying. If we can work towards that this discussion will not have been in vain.
IMO the article still contains too much that is not relevant (e.g. the history of John Wise at USAI, referred to above as "overplayed" by the originator of the GA nomination Gimmetrow), but attempts to trim it have so far been resisted. We have a long way to go but perhaps one day GA status will be achieved.-- TraceyR 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I pointed out hostility "to people who want to remove anything at all negative from the article." I am also hostile to people who want to remove cited information merely because they don't like the tone of the article. I'm simply commenting here because I don't want anybody getting the mistaken impression that I was complaining about RiR's general tone.
Regarding the question about whether this is an appropriate place to discuss interpersonal issues among editors - it isn't. There are mechanisms on Wikipedia for resolving interpersonal disputes. While this thread is indeed about the article's GA nomination, I don't think that it's appropriate to get into a debate about individual editors' behaviours. Bhimaji 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not GA

The article should certainly contain criticism of this product. Since most external commentary is negative, it should not be difficult to find verifiable criticism, and simply relating that would provide extensive criticism. Why make up stuff, then? One curious example: "State and federal enforcement actions drove USAI out of business in 1987" is cited to six sources, three of which are from 1986. Also beware interpreting primary sources. I've now read some of the sources, and a number of statements in the article seem to mischaracterize the cited sources, leading to WP:V and WP:NOR concerns in addition to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. For instance, at least one of the studies characterized as "non-controlled" in the text was considered "controlled" in some sense by the study authors, and with another I could not find the cited fact in the journal article. I am ending this GA nomination. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take it up at WP:GA/R. Gimmetrow 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate any well-intentioned efforts to review this article for GA status, I have a few follow-up comments regarding Gimmetrow’s review.
First, I fail to see the justification for the question "why make up stuff?" in reference to a couple of possible instances of minor inaccuracies (which, it seems, could be easily rectified) – there is a world of difference between a minor mistake and a deliberate attempt at misinformation, and there is no evidence of the latter.
Secondly, if one rejects an article’s GA nomination, then it would be expected, based on WP guidelines for assessing GA candidates, [28] that specific actions needed to get the article to GA status would be provided. WP GA guidelines state:
“When reviewing an article, try to do more than just tell what is wrong with the article, give suggestions to fix it.”
In contrast with these guidelines, I found Gimmetrow’s most recent comments to be vague and, except for one example, non-actionable.
Third, with respect to the “curious example” that Gimmetrow mentioned about USAI, all 6 of the articles cited describe that state and/or federal enforcement actions were taken against USAI, although only 3 mentioned that the company went out of business in 1987. It is a well-established fact that state and federal enforcement actions were taken against USAI in 1986 and that the company declared bankruptcy amidst those allegations in early 1987 (it doesn’t seem that Gimmetrow is contesting these facts but merely which citations specifically confirmed that USAI went out of business in 1987). The comments in the article about regulatory/prosecutorial actions against USAI are undeniably accurate and the perceived problem with the citations is a very minor one; it can easily be corrected by moving a few of the citations earlier in the same sentence, as follows:
Instead of:
“State and federal enforcement actions drove USAI out of business in 1987.[51][52][53][54][55][56]"
"State and federal enforcement actions[51][52][53][54][55][56] drove USAI out of business in 1987.[51][53][56]"
Fourth, moving on to the other justification provided by Gimmetrow for failing the GA nomination:
“I've now read some of the sources, and a number of statements in the article seem to mischaracterize the cited sources… For instance, at least one of the studies characterized as "non-controlled" in the text was considered "controlled" in some sense by the study authors, and with another I could not find the cited fact in the journal article.”
Why so vague? Might you share with us specific examples of these alleged mistakes so that we can fix them? The 2 unspecified examples mentioned sound as though they would be minor and/or easily rectified: (1) which study do you believe was misrepresented as “uncontrolled” and (2) which statements in the article do you believe were not supported by the cited sources? If there are in fact “a number of statements” that “seem to mischaracterize the cited sources” beyond the 2 vague examples given, please tell us so that we can correct them and get this article to GA status. Rhode Island Red 00:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've listed various actionable things to improve, eg tone, neutrality, jargon, but you chose not to fix these. Try "writing for the enemy" to deal with neutral point of view. In the process, you will no doubt address issues with verifiability and original research, will avoid overstating things, and will avoid conveying things by innuendo. I only mention a few examples. I am not going to debate about this. Gimmetrow 01:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to improve the article if necessary and I would greatly appreciate if you could share with us the specific inaccuracies that you detected so that we can fix them. You mentioned that one reference did not support the statement for which it was cited and another study that was incorrectly characterized as non-controlled. Please help us out by specifying the 2 citations to which you were referring. You also said that a “number of statements in the article seem to mischaracterize the cited sources”. If you found numerous examples during your review, beyond the 2 mentioned, please assist us by pointing them out.
Remedial actions were already taken in response to (a) the suggestion that some of the company’s marketing claims should be added and (b) the question raised about the notability of company funding. The only other specific content mentioned in the review was whether it was appropriate to wikilink insider trading rather than insider. The link to insider refers mostly to general definitions that are not applicable (i.e. not related to business/finance), whereas the insider trading article is specific to business/finance. It also specifies that insider trading “may be perfectly legal” and it has a separate definition for [| “illegal insider trading”], so it seemed to be the best choice, given that Wise’s name appears on NAIs insider stockholder list. Rhode Island Red 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I said, RiR. "Insider trading" has overtones of illegality; to avoid that, you can define an insider in the SEC sense in the text. A rather simple fix, yet it is rejected. Oh well.
The most serious problem here is tone. This involves selection of information, wording and phrasing, and even the citation system. Explaining this all in excrutiating detail is becoming enormously time-consuming. For instance, I asked if any reliable source had asserted this is notable. I don't see any secondary sources relating to this in the article. Rather than fixing this, or rewording it, or adding a reliable secondary source (rather than citing seven independent primary sources, which is also misleading), there was argument. And this is just one example.
As for the "controlled" issue, surely you can find that by looking for "non-controlled" in the text. That limits your search to two studies, one of which uses "controlled" in its title. So there you go. You might also want to look at how studies are characterized—why some are identified as "sponsored by the manufacturer" and others, also funded by the manufacturer, are not so identified, and why this particular piece of information is reported. That all relates to tone. It would also be helpful if all citations included links to available online resources, so people can get to the published papers.
It is obvious that dealing with this article would be a major time-sink. I will not be drawn into that. Gimmetrow 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you might have misinterpreted me. I am in no way rejecting constructive suggestions about the "insider trading" issue; I am just unclear on what you are suggesting -- i.e. how do we define "insider" in the SEC sense? I thought that linking to the corresponding WP article was provoiding the definition in the SEC sense. Can you please clarify exactly how you think this should be dealt with?
With regard to notability of funding information as described by secondary sources, I provided numerous links to secondary source commentaries on the Juice Plus research that showed the notability of company funding.[29] Kindly double-check my previous post to confirm that these were secondary and not primary sources as you suggested above. I understand your not wanting to get too sucked into this subject but it would be great to get more clarity on some of these issues that were raised. Rhode Island Red 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Arbitrary section break

Bhamaji, whether this is the correct place to debate, it is the only one. There was a request for mediation, RIR shot it down. There was a review in which respected editors here suggested politely that RIR stop editing this article, that obviously was fruitless. So let me ask you, the majority disagrees with RIR's negative tone, but those people should just put up and shut up so? Going through appropriate channels didn't work. Are you suggesting trying the same thing but hoping for a different response? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.131.83 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, as has been said multiple times, go back to dispute resolution. If all else has failed, the next step would be Arbitration. Shell babelfish 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Shell, arbitration was attempted twice to no avail. are you saying that the same thing should be attempted over and over again in hopes of a different outcome? There is a name for that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.131.83 (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're confusing dispute resolution in general with my specific comment about taking this to the Arbitration Committee. As far as I know, no case about the actions of the editors involved in this article has ever been presented. If I'm wrong and it was declined, could someone point me at the link? Shell babelfish 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
What Shel is saying should, by now, be crystal clear; it has been said time and time again by various editors: the talk page is not a place for airing grievances, soapboxing, or attacking other editors -- it is for discussing content only. Responding to Shels’ polite guidance by (mis)quoting the definition of insanity (i.e., “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”) is also unlikely to earn respect or the assumption of good faith. Please stop exhausting the patience and goodwill of your fellow editors and use the appropriate channels to air your greivances. Rhode Island Red 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

it is beyond laughable that RIR is calling for proper channels when he is the reason for mediation being stalled. This article is proof that Wiki's self-government only encourages ownership and bias. Red true understanding of a word allows for using it with out having to use the exact definition, my point is quite accurate. The proper channels have proved fruitless and this IS the point of the talk page, to make a GA non biased article--and YOU are what is hindering it. Hid behind Shell and the "rules" but if that is your stance, allow the process to work. You were told to stop editing, why are you back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.158.183 (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And, what you are doing RIR, by now, is crystal clear.72.254.158.183 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you misread my comment as there is one step in dispute resolution that hasn't been tried. Also, I would hate to have to block the entire hotel's internet access, so please, lets try to be civil and stop discussing other editors. Rhode, please stop responding, it is not helping the situation at all. Shell babelfish 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

It's been quite some time since we tried this, so I'd like to check again... May I suggest Mediation? It is an entirely voluntary process, and is non-binding. However, with the help of a neutral mediator, it might be possible to find better ways to communicate, and find an acceptable compromise position for some of the disputed elements of this article. If the key participants agree, I'm willing to file the paperwork to get it started. So, who is willing to join mediation? --Elonka 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

List of participants (please add your name below if you are willing to participate in mediation)

Summary of Edits in Response to GA Review

In response to the recent GA review, the following changes have been made to the article.

  1. Added some company marketing claims.[30]
  2. Offset description of funding sources to a separate paragraph to avoid unintended judgmental implication.[31]
  3. Removed mention of funding source from antioxidant section, since funding is discussed elsewhere in article.[32]
  4. More specific wording was substituted for the study that was originally described as “non-controlled” (i.e. now says “not double blinded or placebo controlled”)[33]
  5. Distinguished between the citations that specifically mentioned USAIs 1987 demise[34]
  6. I left the wikilink to insider trading rather than insider for the reasons mentioned previously.[35] Open to suggestions.

Rhode Island Red 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertising removed

The extended list of product specifications is surely available at the Juice Plus website. There's no need to host this advertising in Wikipedia. I've deleted it. Feel free to re-add if you can find an example of any other vitamin or health supplement article that includes such detailed product specifications. I can't. - Jehochman Talk 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the information is not available on the company’s website or from any other internet source that I am aware of. I found several examples of other articles on brand name vitamin supplements (i.e. ones that contain a mixture of various ingredients) that did include similar information, such as Enzyte, Myers' Cocktail, SlimFast and Airborne all of which did in fact include a list of ingredients.
A list of the product’s contents is very useful as an accompaniment to the research discussion. I am deadest against advertising and would not have included the information had I felt that it was serving a primarily advertorial purpose. The information is neither intrinsically positive nor negative; it is, however, certainly useful information for anyone who seeks to understand the product. Comparable products to Juice Plus, such as those made by GNC (see http://gnc.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pGNC1-2331337_gnclabel_pdf.pdf) and Puritan’s Pride, include a detailed list of ingredient amounts on the manufacturer’s websites, but oddly the only ingredient information that Juice Plus provides online is this very uninformative list.[36] Rhode Island Red 01:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents of Juice Plus Vineyard Blend capsules?

It would be useful for the contents of the Juice Plus Vineyard Blend capsules to be provided. There are more published studies into this product than Juice Plus Gummies, which could be replaced by the Vineyard Blend details in the infobox. Can anyone oblige? TraceyR 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vineyard Blend Ingredients: Fruit juice powder and pulp from Concord grape, blueberry, cranberry, blackberry, bilberry, raspberry, red currant, black currant, elderberry, green tea, ginger root, grape seed and artichoke; L-arginine, L-carnitine, vegetable derived capsule (pullulan), silicon dioxide, vegetable derived magnesium stearate, natural enzyme blend, coenzyme Q10. Autoharp (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits re: Nantz et al. (2006)

A couple of comments on the recent edits by Mnantz (talk · contribs · count) concerning the study by Nantz et al. (2006):

  1. The Nantz reference was recently removed from the statement describing that some studies had shown that Juice Plus did not increase zeaxanthin levels.[37] However, page 2608 of Nantz et al. explicitly states: “The 2 groups did not differ in plasma concentrations of zeaxanthin, alpha-carotene, alpha-cryptoxanthin, or beta-cryptoxanthin at any of the time points (data not shown).” The citation has therefore been restored in reference to zeaxanthin.
  2. The Nantz citation was removed from the statement referring to studies showing that Juice Plus did not significantly affect DNA oxidation.[38] However, Table 3 in the Nantz study shows that the p-value for DNA oxidation was 0.55, which exceeds the cutoff for statistical significance (p<.05). Therefore it is correct to cite Nantz et al. as among the studies that failed to find significant effects on DNA oxidation. The citation has now been restored.
  3. Mention of γδ-CD3+ T cells was removed from statement that “The percentage of circulating γδ-CD3+ T cells and αβ-CD3+ T cells did not change significantly in subjects who took Juice Plus”.[39] However, the article states that “The percentage of γδ-CD3+ T cells in the FVJC group after 77 d of treatment was 30% greater than at baseline (P = 0.091)” Since the p-value is 0.091 (which greatly exceeds the cutoff for statistical significance) it is correct to say that “ γδ-CD3+ T cells… did not change significantly in subjects who took Juice”. The original wording has therefore been restored. The article also originally stated that γδ T cells were significantly higher in the JP group vs. the placebo group, which is correct (p-value = 0.049, just meeting the criteria for statistical significance), and this has not been modified.

The user name for Mnantz is the same as that of the author of the study in question. Potential WP:COI issues are raised by the fact that the authors of Nantz et al. (2006) have received funds from NSA, the manufacturer of Juice Plus. Rhode Island Red 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the source of finance for a study, which after all does not entail the transfer of money from a sponsor to a scientist but rather to his/her employer, should be considered as grounds for a WP:COI. This would seem tantamount to impugning the integrity of every scientist who has ever worked on a study financed by a manufacturer. Is this what Rhode Island Red, presumably him/herself some sort of scientist, is implying? TraceyR 06:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No that is not even remotely what I am implying. If a user has in fact received funds from the manufacturer of Juice Plus then they probably have a COI with respect to editing this article. Rhode Island Red 14:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The term "conflict of interest" does not mean that anybody has necessarily done anything wrong. It means that there is a situation in which two interests are in conflict - the interest of a scientist in doing good research, and the business interests of the lab being paid to do the study. The key is disclosure. JAMA requires an explicit statement of any potential conflict of interest in the Acknowledgments section of submitted papers [40]. "Impugning the integrity" is a very strong and extremely inaccurate statement. Statistical analysis of funding sources vs. research outcomes is an openly discussed research topic [41] [42] [43] Bhimaji 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly "Potential conflict of interest" is not necessarily an indication of wrong-doing but as used by Rhode Island Red in conjunction with the receipt of finance it comes very close. When two NEJM commentary authors wrote favourably about Redux and were then found to have been "paid consultants" to the manufacturer, this was a clear financial conflict of interest, since they had personally received money and had not declared this fact. The (incorrect) statement here that "study authors received funds from NSA" and that there is therefore a potential COI issue is unjustified. IMO we should welcome published scientists with knowledge in this field, not make hints of "potential" COI. As regards WO:COI, there seems to be no basis whatsoever for the remark. What potential WP:COI issues with respect to editing this article were feared? --TraceyR 13:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that the authors of this study received funds from NSA. This information is listed on the first page of the Nantz article. Someone who has a financial relationship with the manufacturer of Juice Plus would almost certainly be viewed as having a COI with respect to editing this article. It’s ultimately not our call to make, but it might be necessary to report this on the COI noticeboard[44] and let the admins decide. Rhode Island Red 14:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In cases of financial conflicts of interest those involved receive funds personally; in this case the funds were provided for the study, not e.g. for services rendered by the authors as paid consultants. They had no financial relationship with the manufacturer, nor did they receive funds from NSA, two incorrect claims you make above. The source of the study's funding was declared and everything was above board. But please answer the question: What "potential WP:COI issues" with respect to editing this article could warrant referral to WP admin? --TraceyR 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems beyond the purpose of this discussion page to delve to deeply into a debate on this issue (which seems pretty striaghtforward), but in a nutshell, the authors of the study have a financial relationship with National Safety Associates and Juice Plus (based on NSAs funding of their study) and as such appear to have a COI with respect to editing this article, as outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:COI guidelines. The user Mnantz (the same name as the lead author of the study in question) has been cautioned and advised to refer to WP guidelines, and other editors have now been alerted to the possible COI, so maybe we can move on now. Rhode Island Red 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits on Cardiovascular Section

A few comments regarding the last change to the section on the Plotnick cardiovascular study.[45]

  1. The name of the journal was added to the text in the last edit; however, we have not referred to journal titles in the text for any of the other studies described so there seems to be no reason to do so in this case. The source journal is contained in the citation and does need to be explicitly stated in the text.
  2. The fact that Vineyard Blend did not have an additive effect with Orchard/Garden Blend on brachial artery vasoactivity and led to an increase in LDL/cholesterol vs. the Orchard/Garden Blend regime was a finding of Plotnick’s study AND was stated explicitly by Freedman. However, the recent addition of the text “According to a comment by Freedman in the same issue” seems to imply that this was only Freedman’s opinion, when in fact it was plainly evident from the data. Freedman doesn’t need to be mentioned specifically in the text, nor is it noteworthy that the comment appeared “in the same issue”. I therefore removed the text in question.
  3. The addition of the quote “led to an increase in total lipoprotein] and LDL ‘as compared with the juice concentrate’ (i.e. Orchard Blend/Garden Blend) ‘alone’” is awkward. In my last edit I removed mention of “juice concentrate” because it is ambiguous and doesn’t distinguish between Vineyard Blend vs. Orchard/Garden Blend, which are all juice concentrates. The newly added quote seems to muddy the distinction. I’ve modified the text for clarity by referring to the specific products in question. Rhode Island Red 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


re 1. It seems relevant in a section on "Cardiovascular effects" to mention that the study in question was published by the most authoritative US journal in the field; this might be a useful guideline to use for the other sections too.
re 2. We have discussed this before and will obviously not be able to agree on this. The Results section of the JACC study summary states

Four weeks of the JP-V combination blunted the detrimental effect of the high-fat meal (-47.5 +/- 23.4% at baseline vs. -1.7 +/- 9.7% at four weeks [p < 0.05]). Four weeks of JP alone had a similar beneficial effect (-45.1 +/- 19.7% at baseline vs. -16.6 +/- 10.3% at four weeks [p < 0.05]), whereas there was no substantial effect of the placebo.

While Rhode Island Red prefers to base his argument on the use of the words "similar beneficial effect", I noted the difference between the JP and the JP-V groups' baseline and 4-week endpoint results: -45.1% to -16.6% for JP compared with -47.5% to -1.7% for JP-V (omitting the +/- figures for the sake of presentational clarity here). I would just note that the results are "similar" in the sense that both groups experienced "beneficial" results; the degree of reduction of impairment to vasoactivity was obviously greater for the JP-V group (-16.6% is obviously not 'similar' to -1.7%). Freedman's comments demonstrate that she is unfamiliar with the product philosphy behind Juice Plus, since she notes the failure to "identify the active components" of the supplement. While this is natural for a scientist educated in the reductive, analytical school of medicine, this should not be allowed to distort the study's results.
re 3. I am all in favour of not "muddying the distinction" between JP and JP-V. Furthermore I am delighted to note that Rhode Island Red now realises that "Vineyard Blend vs. Orchard/Garden Blend, ... are all juice concentrates". Progress! Unfortunately Freedman uses the terms "herbal extract" and "vitamin supplement" to refer to Juice Plus Vineyard Blend - perhaps she should read the article! --TraceyR 10:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We have discussed this already ad nausem. Please refer to past discussions[46][47][48], and particularly, the comments from Shell.[49][50][51] Rhode Island Red 15:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly we can agree on the ad nauseam. But you never did explain why you think that -16.6% is the same as -1.7%. --TraceyR 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This assertion has been addressed several times already in great detail. Once again, please refer to the past comments on this topic. Rhode Island Red 23:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits Regarding Manufacturing, Ingredient Sources, and Nutrient Additives

That last round of edits[52] seemed to obscure some of the key details of how Juice Plus is produced, and the new interpretation strayed from what the cited sources actually said. One of the key references that was cited in the previous version was also curiously omitted. For review purposes I am quoting the relevant passages from those citations below and have modified the section so as to be more consistent with these sources.

“The Company (NSA) sells a line of nutritional products called Juice Plus which includes an encapsulated, concentrated nutritional supplement product, a chewable version of the encapsulated product, and a low calorie powdered drink mix called Juice Plus Lite. The main ingredients of the Juice Plus product line are…ordered on a purchase order basis from an unrelated supplier. The concentrates are then shipped to another unrelated manufacturer which has contracted with the Company to encapsulate the powder into Juice Plus capsules and prepare the chewable form of the capsules. A third unrelated manufacturer utilizes the powder to produce the Juice Plus+ Lite on a purchase order basis for the Company.”[53]
“the products are encapsulated by a company called Natural Alternatives International”[54]
"Our major criticism relates to the fact that the fruit and vegetable capsules used in this study, according to the manufacturer, were enriched with pure beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folic acid, which was not stated in the article.”[55]
“the manufacturer acknowledges that some micronutrients are added to restore the levels of micronutrients lost during processing and to ensure uniformity in the final product. These micronutrients are beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folate.”[56]

Based on these quotes, the latest version of the WP article now reads:[57]

"The main ingredients used to make Juice Plus are purchased from unrelated third-party suppliers,[7][8][9] including the Henkel Corporation (now doing business as Cognis Corporation)[10][11] and Schweizerhall Pharma,[12] which are then blended and encapsulated to produce the finished product by NAI. Juice Plus capsules are enriched with pure beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E, and folic acid,[13] which according to the manufacturer are used to restore the levels of micronutrients lost during processing and to ensure uniformity.[14]"

The fact that manufacturers such as Henkel (now Cognis) and Schweizerhall were the source of some of these raw materials is listed in the citations by Wise et al. (1996) and Leeds et al. (2000) shown in the WP article's reference list. Rhode Island Red 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This new version is itself misleading and strays from what the cited sources actually state. The full sentence from the 1996 NSA Form 10-K states:

"The main ingredients of the Juice Plus+(TM) product line are vegetable and fruit juices, fibers, plant enzymes, and food actives which are reduced to powder through a proprietary process and ordered on a purchase order basis from an unrelated supplier."

The edited version of the article claims however:

"The main ingredients used to make Juice Plus are purchased from unrelated third-party suppliers."

The suppliers of the additional ingredients need to be mentioned separately to avoid the misleading impression that they are "main ingredients". The Leeds and Wise, which are the sources of the information re Henkle and Schweizerhall, both state that these companies provide "natural beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, and alphatocopherol"; these are therefore not produced through the "proprietary process" and are therefore not the "main ingredients" referred to by Form 10-K. The same obviously applies to folic acid (which was inadvertently omitted in an earlier edit). --TraceyR 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It could be argued that the vitamin additives are not the "main constituents" referred to in NSA's Form10K, although it worth noting that the vitamin C in the capsules accounts for roughly a third of the capsule weight and would reasonably be considered a main ingredient. But I have no major objections to making the distinction. However, the last round of edits[58] failed to mention that NAI encapsulates the finished capsules -- this has been added back. Also, the rewrite misattributed information regarding the additives to Watzl and Bub (2003) and Samman (2003); these sources only referred to ascorbic acid, folate, vitamin E, and beta-carotene. They did not mention what the sources of those vitamins were (i.e. they did not mention acerola cherry, Dunaliella salina, etc.). I have corrected the misattributions in the revised version.Rhode Island Red 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not correct to state in the article that Wise et al and Leeds et al were "conducted by NAI". Certainly Wise was an NAI employee at the time, but there is no evidence that the research was conducted by the company. The fact that the corresponding author for the Wise study was Kenneth Blum of the Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas would suggest that the research was conducted there. Leeds was at King's College, London and certainly not at NAI. --TraceyR 17:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems unreasonable to suggest that these studies were independent of the manufacturer (NAI) when one of the authors (John A. Wise) was employed at the time as the Chief Science Office of NAI (the company is acknowledged in the author affiliation section in one of the articles) and both studies were paid for by NAI (also acknowledged in the articles). Nonetheless, this a pretty minor point, and I modified the relevant text by just refering to "NAI-sponsored studies".
Some of the last round of re-revisions were reasonable, but again some information was misattributed to Watzl and Bub (2003), and for reasons that were unclear their quote was removed. Note that neither Watzl and Bub (2003) nor Samman (2003) referred to the micronutrient additives mentioned as being derived from acerola cherry, soy, and Dunaliella salina (they only mentioned that the product were "enriched with pure β-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E, and folic acid"), so it is incorrect to cite these sources when referring to this information. It is important to cite Watzl and Bub because they commented specifically on the failure of Samman et al. (2003) to disclose the fact that Juice Plus is enriched with added vitamins and that its effects can be attributed to those additives alone, which makes their comment highly notable -- especially so given that they are a secondary source commenting on the work of a primary source mentioned in the WP article.
There are no labeling laws in the U.S. that require supplement manufacturers to add vitamins to their products, so it is difficult to justify including a manufacturer claim to the contrary when it is known to be blatantly false. The applicable regulations on supplement labeling requirements are the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act[59] and 21 CFR Part 101 of the US Code of Federal Regulations.[60] I am quite familar with both and neither support the manufacturer's claim.
Let’s also bear in mind that NSA has provided other information about additives in their products. For example, the capsules contain unknown amounts of other vitamin- and not-vitamin additives such as calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, guar gum (a thickening agent), niacin, pyridoxine HCI, thiamin hydrochloride, and coenzyme Q. We might want to incorporate this information as well.Rhode Island Red 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not claimed that the Wise/Leeds studies were "independent of the manufacturer (NAI)", as you state. In fact it was explicitly mentioned that Wise was an NAI employee at the time of the study. The wording under discussion referred incorrectly to the studies as being "conducted by NAI". It doesn't help the discussion to misrepresent what is written by others.
I'm not sure that Watzl/Bub's letter can be considered a more "reliable source" of information about the additives than Wise/Leeds; since both Leeds and Wise refer to the natural (as opposed to synthetic) sources of the vitamins this fact should be mentioned.
Please don't be so insular about labelling laws (and Wikipedia) - last time I checked there were English-speaking countries in the world other than the USA (where US laws do not apply). Please note too that this statement comes from Samman, working in Australia, and was not made with specific reference to the USA. Could it be that Australia has such labelling laws? You need to be more careful before making accusations of "blatantly false" claims, be they by NSA or a published scientist. The EU (European Union) certainly has labelling laws; the United Kingdom is a member of the EU and an English-speaking country. --TraceyR 08:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we have a different understanding of what constitutes “conducted by the company”, but nonetheless, this seems to be a moot point now.
I never said that Watzl and Bub were a “more reliable source” -- please do not misquote me – I said that their statement was notable because they commented specifically on the failure of Samman et al. (2003) to disclose the fact that Juice Plus is enriched with added vitamins and that its effects can be attributed to those additives alone. They said:
“Our major criticism relates to the fact that the fruit and vegetable capsules used in this study, according to the manufacturer, were enriched with pure beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folic acid, which was not stated in the article. The only significant changes due to the intervention were an increase in beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folic acid. The supplemented micronutrients explain much of the reported effects and leave the question open as to whether the fruit and vegetable supplement itself induced any significant effects. Knowing that the capsules contained added micronutrients, it is not surprising that the reported increase in plasma folic acid concentration correlated with the increases of beta-carotene and alpha-tocopherol concentrations… Overall, the conclusions of this article mislead the reader by suggesting that the mixed fruit and vegetable concentrates increase plasma antioxidants and reduce plasma homocysteine, and subsequently cardiovascular disease risk.”
I restored the full quote from Watzl and Bub (i.e. “enriched with pure beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folic acid”) once again (please do not delete it again), while merging some of the information and incorporating NAIs claim about the additives being “natural” and intended by the manufacturer to provide “standardized levels” of these vitamins. It looks like this section should be stable now.Rhode Island Red 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Much as Rhode Island Red would like to think that this section should now be stable, no-one, not even Rhode Island Red, owns this article. Everyone has equal right to work towards improvement. By what right does he/she demand that the Watzl and Bub quote not be deleted again? If achieving a good article requires that it be deleted, so be it.
As it happens, I shall indeed remove most of the Watzl and Bub quote, simply because it is less informative than the quotes from the Wise and Leeds studies and Samman's reply to Watzl and Bub's letter. The only useful fact that Watzl and Bub contribute is the addition of folic acid, which my edits have been careful to preserve. Watzl and Bub's use of the word "enrichment" is covered Samman's reply ("the manufacturer acknowledges that some micronutrients are added to restore the levels of micronutrients lost during processing and to ensure uniformity in the final product."). The Leeds and Wise studies are also more informative about the origins of the other micronutrients, so there is no objective reason to insist on the rest of the Watzl and Bub quote; also neither Watzl nor Bub has been involved in conducting studies with Juice Plus. It is in this sense (not explicitly stated but readily to be inferred from previous edits) that Watzl and Bub's contribution is less reliable than Wise and Leeds. The latter have had closer contacts with the manufacturer and are therefore better placed to comment on the added micronutrients and their sources. For example, Watzl and Bub refers to "pure beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E", whereas Wise and Leeds give fuller and presumably more accurate information. There is no need to diminsh the article by insisting on a poorer description than theirs. --TraceyR 22:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleting properly-referenced content from reliable secondary sources is not an advisable approach to editing an article; this issue has been raised on this Talk page many times (e.g. [61][62]). Additionally, TraceyR seems to be making several very arbitrary and inapprorpiate inferences -- e.g. saying that it can be "inferred...that Watzl and Bub's contribution is less reliable than Wise and Leeds" and that "Wise and Leeds are better placed to comment on the added micronutrients and their sources". Such inferences are inconsistent with WP:OR, and this issue has also been raised several times.[63][64][65][66].
Juice Plus is promoted as a supplement that provides essentially nothing but fruit and vegetable powders – none of the product marketing materials mention that Juice Plus contains added vitamins. Therefore it is highly notable that Watzl & Bub (2003), a secondary source, were the first independent source to reveal the use of vitamin additives in Juice Plus. They found it noteworthy that Juice Plus was “enriched with purified” vitamins (i.e. folate, beta-carotene, ascorbate, and vitamin E) and their comment merits inclusion, particularly since they clearly had a different perspective from that of the manufacturer regarding the nature and significance of vitamin additives in Juice Plus and how this would affect the interpretation of the research. They accused Samman et al. of misleading readers by not disclosing the use of vitamin addiitives. Samman’s reply to Watzl & Bub, which seems to merely relay a whitewashed explanation by the manufacturer as to why vitamins are added, is no more authoritative than the comment from Watzl & Bub, yet Samman’s comments from the manufacturer are now mentioned exclusively, while Watzl and Bub’s comment has been deleted again. This does not give fair balance and equal weight to the 2 sources -- it inappropriately gives 100% weight to select comments from the manufacturer. Furthermore, Watzl & Bub specify that their information also came from the manufacturer, so perhaps Watzl & Bub and Samman were given conflicting information by the manufacturer via different regional product labels or by direct communication. We have now way of knowing and the article should not contain speculation, improper synthesis, or original research as to the meaning behind the comment by Watzl & Bub. To be fair and equally weighted, the section obviously needs to describe (a) what Watzl & Bub (a secondary source) said (b) what the manufacturer said in reply (via Samman,), and (c) what the 2 company-sponsored studies (Wise et al. 1996 and Leeds et al. 2000 – primary sources) said 3-7 years prior.
Since the information provided by Wise et al (1996) and Leeds et al (2000) about vitamin additives was provided 3-7 years prior to the comments by Watzl & Bub (2003), these sources cannot supersede the comments from Watzl & Bub that came years later. Also, neither Watzl & Bub nor Samman mentioned Dunaliella salina, soy, or acerola cherry as the source of these added nutrients. For all we know the product formulation could have changed in the intervening years between the Wise/Leeds studies and the commentary by Watzl & Bub in 2003. No article after Leeds et al. (2000) ever referred to additives in Juice Plus, so we have no way of knowing whether the additives described by Wise/Leeds were still being used in 2003, or for that matter, whether they were the same additives referred to by Watzl & Bub (who also mentioned the addition of purified folate, which Wise/Leeds did not mentioned).
One needs to recognize that fair balance in this case means reasonably weighting each of these sources, not to preferentially quote the most favorable claims made by the manufacturer. The primary aim should not be to make this section more marketing-friendly for Juice Plus, which is what the recent edits seem to be moving towards, bur rather to accurately relate what the different sources said.
Other information from NSA regarding nutrient additives should also be included, i.e.: “Other ingredient is Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend capsules include calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, guar gum (a thickening agent), niacin, pyridoxine HCI, thiamin hydrochloride, and coenzyme Q.”Rhode Island Red 04:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, how can it be, as you claim, highly notable that Watzl & Bub (2003) was the first independent source to reveal the use of vitamin additives in Juice Plus? As you yourself admit, the information "about vitamin additives was provided 3-7 years prior to the comments by Watzl & Bub" by Wise and Leeds in studies funded by the manufacturer. Wise et al (1996) was the first published study about Juice Plus and the information was in there: there was nothing to "reveal", independent source or not! Surely the criteria for wiki-notability are more stringent than merely repeating something which has been in the public domain for seven years.

I'm sorry that you have resorted to making an unfounded accusation that my edits 'seem' to be moving towards making "this section more marketing-friendly for Juice Plus". This is an attack, something others have warned you about before. I am trying to present the available information in a neutral way. If that means removing redundant information from some of your edits or rephrasing the text you have entered, get over it. Your non-NPOV is a matter of public record here: I shall quote what you wrote during a recent User Conduct RfC about you:

"(Juice Plus) is a trivial and insignificant small-fry product".

As another editor wrote (in response to an NSA staff member) some time ago:

Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. [WP:NPOV] is absolute and non-negotiable.

I have edited the section accordingly. --TraceyR 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Red’s comments about the content seemed very well thought out and quite reasonable, while TraceyR just ignored most of the content issues that were raised and complained about personal attacks (Rhode Island Red said that Watzl and Bub were the first independent source to comment on the additives…Wise and Leeds were not independent since they were connected with the manufacturer). And it is not a personal attack when another editor politely observes that someone’s edits seem to be trying to make the article more marketing friendly for Juice Plus. Based on what I saw in TraceyR’s editing history on Juice Plus, I totally agree with Rhode Island Red and would go a step further – these edits look like the user is working for Juice Plus and trying to do damage control on their behalf. What’s even more astonishing is that TraceyR has made many shrill personal attacks against Rhode Island Red[67][68][69] and then had the gall to accuse of Rhode Island Red of a personal attack over a very innocuous and seemingly well-founded observation. The Juice Plus folks here need to play by the rules – stop sabotaging the page, add reliable sources and good content if you can find any, and stop whining. 152.3.5.114 02:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would ignore such comments from someone who prefers not to be identified by a username, but since I am being accused of "shrill attacks" by 152.3.5.114, (someone who is au fait enough with wikipedia to reference other comments, as above, so probably has a username he/she prefers not to use here - who could it be?) and being subjected to a further accusation of bias, I feel it necessary to respond. 152.3.5.114 considers those three edits to be "shrill attacks" - this is a very strange idea as to what comprises a "shrill attack". I would ask other editors to check them out and form their own opinion. By the way, I don't consider it an attack of any sort to remind editors in general about Rhode Island Red's opinion of Juice Plus, since it was freely expressed on wikipedia, is directly relevant to this article and has not been revoked.
FWIW, the issue of "independence" raised by this anonymous editor is also irrelevant; the point was whether Watzl and Bub could 'reveal' something which the manufacturer had not attempted to hide and which had been in the public domain for 7 years. I maintain that this is not possible and is therefore not "notable". Claims of the "revelation" of such information smack of boulevard journalism and have no place in wikipedia. As I have pointed out several times, the only contribution made by Watzl/Bub was the mention of folate; I don't know whether this was a 'revelation' or was also already in the public domain, so I have mentioned this possible contribution in my edits. ---TraceyR 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is freaking insane. If you can't see that RIR's 1000+ edits on this article are a clear and blantant attempt to make it an 'anti-marketing' article and VERY unfriendly. From what I obeserve Tracey and other "friendly" accussed and attacked editors are simply trying to NOT make it "unfriendly" It amazes me how vehemently editors here defend someone who obviously wants to keep a negative slant but jump on a person asking for what wiki is suppossed to stand for, nuetrality. RIR has an obvious vendeta against NSA. Oh my, I have attacked, but told the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.147.180 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that last comment (another personal attack against Rhode Island Red) should be ashamed. The article is not unfriendly towards Juice Plus – reality is!
As for Tracey’s reply, Rhode Island Red had said that Watzl and Bub, in addition to being independent, are also a secondary source. It’s my understanding that secondary references, like Watzl and Bub, are preferred over primary references. This article is excellent but will remain unstable as long as their are Juice Plus dealers around to try and pervert it. They seem to be contributing very little in terms of content and are just taxing everyone’s time and patience. Scienceslave 11:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. These personal attacks are just pathetic. It's too bad that so many threads seem to denegerate into this. The anonymous IP at 64.132.147.180 [aka JuliaHavey (talk · contribs · count) the Juice Plus distributor] is really crossing the line again. Rhode Island Red 05:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

edited comment out, really not that interested in arguing a stupid point67.108.178.9 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

COMMENT: The neutrality of the original article should be disputed. It seems to have been written by a Juice Plus critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfwalton (talk contribs) 07:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the text of the article is the result of extensive discussions by multiple editors, towards presenting a very neutral summary of the subject, per Wikipedia's neutrality policy. You may wish to review this talkpage and some of the archives to see previous discussions. --Elonka 07:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Elonka: Your reply, while it states the facts, doesn't actually invalidate Wfwalton's comment. If the article still creates this impression, we need to try even harder to comply with wikipedia's neutrality policy. Maybe Wfwalton could tell us which aspects of the article he/she thinks are not neutral. --TraceyR (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to brush up on the main thing hindering the creation of a truthful, unbiased Juice Plus article, look no further than Rhode Island Red. I can see the fiefdom continues. Citizen Don (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
How many times do the Juice Plus hucksters need to be reminded about the 'no personal attacks policy'. Is it really that hard to grasp? 76.68.122.72 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

This cancer center was established and thrives as a provider of chemotherapy treatment for cancer. This is big buisness for them and the Rockefeller family funded them. Their monopoly over cancer treatment could only be challenged by alternative treatments right? This being the case, why include the center's opinion of Juice Plus in the article? It's clearly biased and they show no research on Juice Plus to back their negative claims. I ask people to consider the fate of Max Gerson, a man who invented an all natural cancer treatment which cured late stage cancer in a person I know. Unfortuantely, very few people know of Gerson's miracle treatment which makes extensive use of juiced fruits and vegitables. Gerson died unexpectedly in 1959 and guess who his grandson blames for the presumed murder, the big money behind Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They are a competitor and their random detraction of Juice Plus should be removed from the article in my opinion.Citizen Don (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

ROFL!!! 76.68.134.234 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't like "random detraction", yet you come up with this un-substantiated conspiracy theory? Gerson died at age 78, and there is apparently no evidence beyond his own un-specified self-testing that backs up the allegations of murder. Gerson's list of 50 cured cases of cancer doesn't even list 50 actual cancer cases, and a significant number were either also treated with other techniques or weren't actually cured. I don't understand how you can describe Gerson's treatment as a "miracle" when he himself was unable to provide anything resembling appropriate evidence that it was miraculous.
Perhaps, Don, your time would be better spent working on the Gerson articles and adding some citations for the efficacy of Gerson Therapy? That would be far more effective than trying to remove cited material from other articles based on un-substantiated speculation. Bhimaji (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with this article. I suggest that this discussion be moved elsewhere. --TraceyR (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to make a joke or promote some conspiracy theory. I guess I would laugh if read a post similar to mine too but I do think MSKCC's comments on Juice Plus should be looked at more critically. I'm trying to bring a bit of awareness. People wonder why certain people would try to dominate the Juice Plus article and maintain it's negative slant so fervently. Alternative medicine is a threat to the multi-billion dollar medical establishment and it will fight back any way it can. There is no basis for MSKCC negative statments about Juice Plus and they offer no research. I suppose writing a baseless negative article is much easier than killing somebody.Citizen Don (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You speak of the "medical establishment" in the singular. You speak of the thousands of companies and millions of people as if they are acting together with a singular purpose - to suppress products just because they're competition. Whether that is correct or not, it is a conspiracy theory. Echinacea alone has sales of around $300m/year [70] - 'alternative medicine' is clearly also a multi-billion dollar industry. The term 'alternative medicine' means nothing beyond 'unproven'. 'Conventional medicine' is conventional not based on how it works, on why it works, on who can make money from it. It is conventional because it has been subjected to tests and found to work. Conventional does not mean that it works in some specific way, or even that it's known how it works. I've read enough prescribing information sheets to realize how many 'conventional' medications work in ways that aren't fully understood. You can get FDA-approved leeches for treating certain kinds of wounds. Foecal transplant is used for certain kinds of intestinal problems - you don't want the details. Penicillin was derived from a fungus. I'm sure that there are some people involved in the medical establishment that think about profit above all else, but the people at the research level are dedicated to finding treatments for problems. The same is true of alternative medicine - the lobbyists that push for the ability to market alternative therapies without any testing of how well they work - they're looking at profits not at the well-being of their patients. The homeopaths that claim they can sure HIV are, I'm sure, sincere in their beliefs - that doesn't make their false claims any less dangerous.
Getting back on-topic, you say that MSKCC offers no research. That statement is factually incorrect. They list four research papers in the article as well as discuss what sort of research is lacking. If you believe that the research they discuss is lacking or inappropriate, please explain what is wrong with it. Also, you refer to the article as negative. The article says that NSA's claims about the benefits of JuicePlus+ have not been substantiated. They are not saying the product does not work. It is incumbent upon NSA to prove that JuicePlus+ works, not the other way around. Bhimaji (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bhimaji’s comments wholeheartedly. MSKCC’s comments about Juice Plus should not be removed merely because one user (a fervent Juice Plus advocate) has concocted a conspiracy theory about conflict of interest between MSKCC and Juice Plus. This brings us back to the guidance we have repeatedly given to other Juice Plus advocates who have argued for changes to the article – Wikipedia relies only on published information from reliable sources, not idle speculation from individual editors. If a published, reliable, independent source had written about a conflict of interest between MSKCC and Juice Plus, then that is something we might consider including; absent that, this discussion seems totally pointless. 70.181.86.249 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I, like 70.181.86.249 (aka Rhode Island Red, it would seem), also agree in the main with Bhimaji's comments. His last point is valid: it is indeed incumbent upon NSA to prove that Juice Plus works. Perhaps the relevant section on Research needs to be re-worded to take this into account, since in its present form it seems to imply that research funded by NSA is in some way suspect - or is that just my interpretation? --TraceyR (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This thread is about MSKCC's comments and we seem to be in agreement that there is no reason to change or remove them. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juice_Plus/Archive_8&oldid=444285887"