Talk:Mannatech/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Glycobiology Article

Glycobiology, the scientific journal that represents the Society for Glycobiology, has recently published a mini-forum on this subject grouped around a main article entitled 'A Glyconutrient Sham'. The journal has also published a response from Mannatech. Makes for interesting reading. Reference is,

Glycobiology, vol 18(9)september 2008. http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol18/issue9/

Carba (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Glyconutrients and MLM

Earlier this year I stumbled into what turned into the most acrimonious and least-well-resolved edit war that I ever hope to see, the one involving glyconutrient. I had no idea where some of the other editors of that article were coming from and I really didn't understand why they were so vehemently insistent that their perspective dominate the article (which, incidentally, it currently does.)

The information I've added to this article, Mannatech, immediately places everything into context - it's about money, and particularly, multi-level marketing. It should have been obvious from the beginning, no? -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC

In answer Ikkyu2's bemusement, there are three primary groups editing Glyconutrient: (1) the anti-Mannatech, anti-glyconutrient editor(s) that had attempted to blank & prematurely delete the whole subject, then tried to damage or to negatively dominate the article, in some cases appearing to have a potentially competitive interest with related components; (2) the editors who see technically based literature relevant to "glyconutrient" components and felt that a NPOV descriptive article was in order to address the science, food sources, the marketing, the use of these mixtures to a public that has few good sources of information to get beyond the ubiquitous marketing spamlinks; and (3) the episodically recurring marketing representatives who try to inject company name, spam sites, marketing claims & hype into the article, including the notorious "8 essential sugar" nonsense alleged as a ploy to support a thin, dubious patent and to misassociate their product with the work of recent Nobel prize winners. Ikkyu2 was the able referee in the head-on collosion of 1 & 2 principals above, both of whom got more than they bargained for.--I'clast 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

reverts

I've added references for the stmt. The substantiation gap occurs concerning cellular assimilation of the 8 specific "essential" sugars and, to a slighly lesser degree, hydrolysis of the polymers in the small intestine. There are apparently positive failures, or at least great difficulty, on cellular assimilation of some/most of the sugars after glucose 3 maybe 4 sugars absorbed, from Talk:Glyconutrient. This is an entirely different issue than glyconutrient benefits that may be associated with or that originate with gut related problems, which should be the primary basis of techinical references for "glyconutrients".--I'clast 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

this is a hugely biased article. i'm a nurse in contact with bacteria and viruses all day long. i've had a terrible immune system since childhood- sick every month. Since taking just one of these so-called "sugar pills", i no longer get sick. I can't remember the last time i was sick. I'm quite a cynic. I don't make any money off of mannatech. And i'm sure that if I were an idiot, I would read this article and believe everything you miserable uninformed people have to say. I'm not some religious kook who can't think for myself. I'm a well-educated nurse. And yet I see the benefits of giving your body what it needs to fix itself, which is the only thing that mannatech claims its products can do. The information you need in this article should come from the individuals who take this stuff and benefit from it. Mannatech's business scheme is such that people can, and do, make quite a bit of money as sales associates. Selling hokum? Maybe. But all the people buying that hokum, and feeling better because of it, are no less wrong than those of you who believe everything you read.

I completely agree, I have absolutely no vested interest - only members of my immediate family who also order ambrotose are under my line on the marketing side of things, but I never sell the product to anyone and earn about $10 a year of them - my parents and siblings...but the real issue here is that the product simply works. Time and time again I've seen my families health improve - we rarely get sick on ambrotose, and when we do our symptoms are always very mild. I suffered aches and pains for many years before discovering ambrotose, and honestly since taking ambrotose, I dont feel them anymore. My husband and I will fully testify to the fact that it just works, and he's a skeptical scientist !

My point here is that I think the way you've written about this product on wikki is clearly biased, and I did expect a more comprehensive exploration of the science of glyconutrients, so I'm a bit dissapointed and hope you will all get off your wikkihorses, and clean up this post - everything is personal, everything is loaded and everyone has an agenda, but the least we expect is a broad and fair view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.227.215 (talk • contribs) 07:48, November 28, 2008

That's great. Feel free to expand and improve the article with material supported and verifiable with reliable sources.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Advert?

The laundry list of products in the article makes it read more like an ad and less like an encyclopedia article about the company -- Whpq 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest, I've explained the situation at length User talk:Mfiddy.--I'clast 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

stem the tide

yep, it's an advert, IMO. Please help me clean this up with NPOV!! True manna 00:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take a few runs at it. I'll help as needed.--I'clast 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, will do. is there a way to block you know who from this page?True manna 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

ok, did a major pruning to remove the laundry list and re-organized into headings. we'll see how this flies. I'clast, thanks for the help and cleanup on the links, etcTrue manna 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

ok, fair enough. thanks for the help. in the end, a balanced article is what we're aiming for, after all. 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i've looked over the new article referenced by Mfiddy and concluded it can stay, but that it needed further context. it does discuss clinical trials for MT products, but the results do not necessarily help the case for MT. The article has almost a NPOV on glyconutrients, but its presentation as proof of meaningful clinical studies (as suggested by Mfiddy) was lacking. hence the re-write. I've also re-introduced the link to the Texas AG article. Mfiddy, please discuss your reasons for wanting to trash that link here before just deleting stuff. thanks. True manna 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

pov signs

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

Further background to Mannatech

The link below is a letter written by Sam Caster (Founder of Mannatech)in reply to Dr Jarvis of Quackwatch - I hope it will clarify some of the 'mixed messages' https://associates.mannatech.com/CAN/UnmixingMixedMessage.pdf

About Quackwatch, Here is background on who runs quackwatch here: http://groups.google.com.sb/group/misc.kids.health/msg/c2c7690a88d26539 This site provides the fact that Barret is a de liscenced psychiatrist. Do you really think his putting down alternatives is to protect us?

Cheers Mfiddy 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

this letter, while giving us Caster's opinion, brings no new evidence to the table. The "explore" article is a good reference (it's peer reviewed in a respectable journal), however, it does not show "promising" results. not even the authors go that far - they discuss the limitations of the studies. Amazing how the tone from MT scientists changes once they publish in a peer-reviewed journal.

Mfiddy, your last edit was certainly NOT from a NPOV. If you make your point that aggressively, and missrepresent the facts to do it (there is certainly a class-action lawsuit -which, ironically I have yet to post anything about - and the Texas AG has released a statement saying they are investigating MT) then chances are it won't be considered NPOV. If you want to promote MT, that's fine, but not here. Wikipedia is for balanced, well referenced information - not personal opinions. Please get in line with the Wiki ethos and discuss your proposed changes/concerns here before making major deletions again. thanks. True manna 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mfiddy, I've now looked over the Kornfeld & Kornfeld reference. Are you claiming to understand this article? It's pretty technical. I can understand it (I have a PhD in Cell Biology, which encompasses glycosylation) and I can tell you that nothing in that article has anything to do with glyconutrients. Nothing. Zip. Nada. It has to do with glycosylation - the process by which carbohydrates are attached to proteins, and the subcelluar compartments and enzymes involved in the process. There is NO evidence that the human body requires carbohydrate supplementation beyond glucose. There is overwhelming evidence that the body can convert glucose into any sugar it needs. Thus there is no need for glyconutrient supplementation - you might as well eat table sugar - and thus any clinical trial for glyconutrients will come back as having no effect unless it is open-label (and the response you see is merely placebo effect).

Unless you can provide documented scientific evidence to support your claims please stop reverting my edits. If you can find such evidence, by all means, post it. True manna 05:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be careful about positively asserting placebo not well cited, given what the various formulas are, vs simple carbs. They variously have components that can include (1) various large, indigestible polysaccharides fermented in the colon with variable, claimed enhanced yields of n-butyrate (the most favorable organic acid) similar to indigestible, prescription lactulose, (2) some specific higher polymers of which may have gut immunostimulatory properties, (3) some formulas have physiologically interesting lower peptide components, (4) some sugars, like glucosamine, are functional for other reasons. I have to say these things have a largely empirically based following, but I am not dismissive because some of us can see valid, conventionally recognized mechanisms as well as some interesting claims of clinical results. That said, MT is liable to many criticisms.--I'clast 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm using "glyconutrient" in the sense of "something your body digests and absorbs". I'm not sure what "nutrient" might otherwise mean. Yes, fibre has known beneficial effects, some of which might be due to limited fermentation in the intestine, but I've yet to find any claim from MT that their products work based on fibre. Yes, there are some known effects for things like glucosamine - fair enough - but MT doesn't sell or pitch it. Every MT claim I've seen is trying to convince consumers that they need to supplement what they style as essential sugars - and monosaccharides at that. The K&K article is classic - as linked by Mfiddy, it is a huge, dense, technical review article, followed by an added page in the PDF that then makes all sorts of wild claims that have nothing to do with the article. The idea is to overwhelm the consumer with stuff they haven't a hope of understanding and then fool them into thinking the science supports their claims. As a scientist this irks me - especially since MT's scientists should know better- <sarcasm>perhaps they have a conflicting interest?</sarcasm>. True manna 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right of course about the COI, misnomer & malapropism aspects. It would appear the vendors need things like the starch fillers so that even some part digestion makes the funky claims vaguely literal for *any* monosaccharide (glucose). The way that this problem has been handled here for the commercial "glyconutrient" mixtures sold & identified as "glyconutrients" is to address the general category as a fiat accompli and then say, well what's in them and what do they do? Else how do we address the "thing" in a manner identifiable to an otherwise ignorant public? (I'm wary not dismissive) The idea being that an empirical approach might still have some means of perhaps having 2-3 more informed shots at "try different versions", see what you think, dump the mysticism & plain hucksterism. Also this approach provides a rational basis for generic shopping or self formulation. Certain mystic & monopolistic entities charge upwards of $500/lb, whereas other well known formulas, that are not identical with identifiably different active components/sources, and probably serve a different perhaps overlapping group, probably can be small batch formulated for ~$15/lb. Probably, if these things were ever intelligently rationalized, a Costco/Sam's would be able to do meaningful versions for $10-20/lb from existing sources. (MT's original formula actually has some components that are *somewhat* more expensive and have technically interesting claims)

There has been speculation on the internet that one of the orignial driving forces for the "8 essential sugars" bs was to create a basis for the "new and unique" legal as well as marketing claims, given that the componenets have often been items of commerce, medicine and foodstuffs for literally centuries and millenia. I don't have good or magic answers for how to deal with the misinformed momentuum of literally thousands of spamsites and books, other than here, focus on mechanistic and factual information in NPOV stmts in the articles and explain clearly the situation. I've had hopes that a more expert medico-scientist type with a more independent clinical b/g would edit the glyconutrient article to deal with a number of issues that could fill in the clinical b/g more like the lactulose literature and better organize & present the true, conventional literature references (you can find some of them in the debris of the glyconutrient Talk meltdown from early 2006).--I'clast 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3 scientists mentioned

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

Products and Scientific Evaluation

The products and scientific evaluation section comes off as POV. The contents of the section do not actually address scientific evaluation. It is a list of doctors who have associations with Mannatech. What it contributes to the article is unclear.

Consequently, I am recommending this section for deletion. The first sentence (As of December 31, 2005, the company offered 25 nutritional products, 3 topical products, and a weight-management system consisting of 4 different products. Mannatech is most widely known for Ambrotose, its lead product.) could/should be merged with the preceding paragraph. Antelan ^talk 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra material

I'm removing this from the article:

In June 2006, Mannatech signed a research agreement with Hyperion Biotechnology, Inc., in which Mannatech agreed to fund a research study related to Ambrotose. In 2005, the Small Business Administration (SBA) of the U.S. federal government certified Hyperion Biotechnology as a "small disadvantaged business" under the SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program on the basis that Hyperion Biotechnology is a "socially and economically disadvantaged" firm.

In December 2006, Mannatech signed a research agreement with St. George's Hospital & Medical School, in London, England to aid in the funding of a "three-year clinical trial related to dosing and optimization study" on Ambrotose."

The information about Hyperion is immaterial, and the remainder doesn't contribute to the content of the article. It just lists things that Mannatech has done. I left the press release, because it made an actual statement, but the rest of this is unwarranted in this article. Antelan ^talk 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored this section and added additional information to it. This information is absolutely material and relevant to this section, "Scientific Evaluation." Please realize that Mannatech deemed the above information material enough to disclose it its most recent annual 10K filing, one of few statements in the public filing that dealt with its direct involvement in its products' scientific evaluation. If Mannatech wishes to advertise on a global scale with representations that scientists have concluded X, Y, and Z about its products, then the public should know the credentials of the firms and scientists involved in that process. With all due respect to Hyperion Biotechnology, the firm's credentials and experience are unclear. If someone wants to make Hyperion Biotechnology a new Wikipedia page and include all the information, I support that idea.(Note: Mannatech's 10K filing may contain further information about Mannatech's scientific evaluation that should be included in this section, and I suggest that others assist in looking through that document.) In addition, this section does not contain any other statements about the scientific evaluation about Mannatech's products with the exception of the IHTI's recently announced relationship, and that paragraph merely focuses on IHTI's potential and insinuated equity interest in Mannatech. So, the bottom line from my perspective is that we need to build on this section, and not make it smaller. Granted the information at issue is not extremely compelling, but it is relevant to the subject at hand, and it is all that I can tell Mannatech is putting out there for public consumption. I think we should be very careful, however, not to take this section too far and unfairly construe the actions of Mannatech as wrong (i.e. those actions to to commission its own studies by those who have equity interest or otherwise), as this practice is a common one within the pharmaceutical and nutritional supplement industries.(James.DC 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC))(James.DC 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Again, the details on Hyperion's status as a disadvantaged corporation are not relevant here, and should be removed. My concern with including the other details that you have restored is that they are not noteworthy. I completely agree that it is common practice for pharma companies to pay for their own studies. Because this practice is so common, one would not make a note in the Pfizer article stating that they had commissioned a firm to do a new study for them. One would make a note when the study had some results (positive, negative, neutral, anything). The most lengthy statement that should be made here, given what has been written, is, "Mannatech has commissioned two studies relating to the efficacy of its lead product, Ambrotose. The first results are expected in 2010." Antelan ^talk 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the text about Hyperion Biotechnology's SBA status, but left one sentence that notes a study was commissioned to Hyperion. I believe this compromise is a reasonable one. Secondly, I left the text about the St. George's Hospital & Medical School study, since Dr. John Axford is a director at Mannatech and is also in charge of the study. His pecuniary interest in Mannatech makes the statements about his role in the study relevant. I am unaware of any studies underway at Pfizer in which members of the board of directors are also lead investigators of clinical trials of their products. Note that the facts as they are presented in the article are completely objectively presented. Finally, information about both the Hyperion and St. George studies are worth noting because it is one of very few kernels of information actually released by Mannatech concerning the scientific evaluation of its products, which is the purpose of this section, "Products and Scientific Evaluation." (James.DC 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

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

Antelan, thank you for the new language. However, I believe you are assuming without basis that Mannatech will make public the results of its clinical trial. Many such studies in this and similar industries are conducted for internal purposes only, and positive findings that have a potentially beneficial marketing quality may be selectively released. Since the most recent St. George clinical trial, which was described, and which you deleted, is simply a renewal of the 2004 clinical trial, which was a renewal of the original 2002 trial (all 3 of which had Mannatech board member Dr. John Axford as its lead investigator), it is not reasonable to assume that Mannatech will eventually release the trial's results in some official capacity. You are advocating that Wikipedia readers wait indefinitely, since the contract is apparently renewable, and since no results from the trial have been formally released to date since the trial began in 2002 (in a way that ties any such statements back to this particular study). The public should have the opportunity to learn about a Mannatech board member's involvement as lead investigator in a clinical trial of Mannatech's own products. The study's lead investigator's pecuniary interest in the very product he is studying makes this information germane and fair game. As for your deletion of the Hyperion Biotechnology statement, it remains one of two studies (excluding the Intergrative Health Technologies' study, which perhaps should also be restored since it may have an equity interest in Mannatech) that Mannatech has publicly disclosed and is, therefore, relevant to that end. Consequently, I have restored the information about the two studies and have left your new sentence concerning Mannatech's efficacy in treating illness and curing disease.(James.DC 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

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

some of the recent edits

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

Requesting discussion about keyword Mannatech

The keyword for Mannatech has several issues with it that I hope to open up for discussion before attempting to make edits and before encouraging others to make edits.

Because there is a fundamental issue with the definition / overview of this keyword I am first seeking to learn the motivations of the present moderator. Does the moderator have any personal experience or ties, whatsoever, to Mannatech or have you known anyone personally who has taken their products, etc? Is that a reasonable question before starting? I am very open to any suggestions before proceeding.Cosmochao 07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

==I have elaborated under my 'talk' section. I am going to start in here with a 'soar thumb' issue, but I'm still eager to hear more about any possible involvement you have had that could possibly impact your objectivity (I mean this in the most respectful way).

While we're waiting for that, I do have a question, which I will post under a specific topic as it deserves its own 'area'.Cosmochao 10:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable source referenced for Mannatech

Is there really a consensus that the resource cited under Mannatech (footnote 12) is a reliable source? I think we can do much better when qualifying our sources, don't you? I have an issue with it for several reasons.

One, the source is called 'Pyramid Scheme Alert,' which already shows strong bias toward any form of MLM distribution.

Second, the article within the 'Pyramid Scheme Alert' website is very weak itself, which the footnote is basing a major point upon. It is discussing how the Texas Attorney General's Office received a 'memo' from a stockholder who simply submitted a complaint. So that's the source? A person who was short selling Mannatech's stock and lost money? The article states that the Texas State Attorney General has not filed suit or taken legal action but was simply investigating the allegations in the memo. So if I file a complaint against 'any' company tomorrow do you really think it's worth including in the company's definition at Wikipedia! Mannatech is clearly a target on so many levels in this example. I think we can show the controversy about Mannatech, including complaints, etc in a more professional way with credible sources.

3. The biggest issue is this statement in the article, "An October 24 memorandum in response to a public information request says the state's top cop has "anticipated filing suite against Mannatech" for a number of alleged violations. This is clearly biased and irresponsible journalism at best, because there have been no violations on record at the Texas Attorney Generals; there are only alleged violations or actually complaints. That is a huge important distinction and alone should merit immediately removing this from Wikipedia. This also points to the overall issue with the fundamental viewpoint selecting these as sources for drawing up a definition for keyword Mannatech.

I believe it's time we open up a real discussion on the objective of Wikipedia and ask if the entire slant seen on keyword mannatech is appropriate. It seems quite reasonable to include a source to counter-balance each CREDIBLE source presently shown for that keyword, and it seems reasonable to remove sources like footnote 12 that are not credible at all. Cosmochao 10:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the source being unreliable. The correct source is this MarketWatch article. I'll correct that when the page is unprotected. Antelan ^talk 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points. The other is why the present definition is full of sources that are either not credible or not valid. There are many credible sources that support that Mannatech is a company of integrity and that support Mannatech as a positive organization; the bigger question here that should be openly discussed is why the definition presently slants toward 'shady' articles such as the one you just mentioned in footnote 12, as opposed to seeking a balanced viewpoint?

Neutral, not balanced, is the policy of Wikipedia. Antelan ^talk 10:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Note my point in #3 above about the irresponsible journalism that uses the word 'violations' rather than allegations or complaints. Show me one peice of evidence from the TX attorney general that there are violoations. There aren't any there! What is really going on here in this definition? I think it's time to bring in some political power here. I am willing to work with you if you can truly show some effort in creating a neutral tone to the definition. With an email list of 40,000 on my blog RSS, all well educated on this matter, I believe we may make a bigger point as a group.

Keep in mind that WP is not a democracy — consensus is not achieved through weight of numbers. Jim Dunning | talk 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I did read that in policies but do not recall what DOES create a consensus here?Cosmochao 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cosmochao, the article says, "Mannatech is also currently under investigation by the Texas Attorney General for alleged violations of that state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act." The source that is cited says, "The memo further states that the company has been under investigation by the attorney general's Consumer Protection and Public Health Division since July 2005 regarding possible violations of the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act "and other related consumer protection statues."" To me, this seems to be a fair interpretation of the text of the article. Antelan ^talk 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I retract this--I wasn't operating on any sleep that night and made an error. It's nice to see we are linking to the correct source now; however, the big question still remains: Alghough it is within policy to have an article unbalanced, it seems very appropriate for potential contributers (at least I'd like to be a contributor some day) to ask why. Does anyone else think it might be appropriate to discuss that fundamental question before suggesting more changes?Cosmochao 08:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to ask you in a few different ways, but I haven't been able to ask it in the right way, I suppose: Most simply stated, what is the "fundamental question" or "big question" that you are referring to? Antelan ^talk 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The fundamential issue is as I've been saying: The article is bias toward negativity about Mannatech, and follows the pharmaceutical industry standards and values. And although this may be within Wikipedia's policies, it is also within Wikipedia's policies to change this bias, or to be more balanced, or even to be bias in the other direction (more positive toward the wellness industry's values and beliefs). The fundamental issue with the article is that it is so heavily sided that the main contributers believe it's an opinion that a scientist specializing in glycobiology is a reliable source to comment on diet and nutritional needs! As I said before this is as false and obvious to those in the 'wellness paradigm' as to say that a farmer who uses heavy pesticides and GMOs is a reliable source to comment on organic farming practices!Cosmochao 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the Mannatech key word article really neutral?

There is something fundamentally biased (not neutral) about the entire keyword definition for Mannatech and you helped me pin point it--many of the sources there are not neutral. If a main goal is to have neutral sources, we have to remove many of the present sources referenced.

For example, the definition currently sites sources that work for the pharmaceutical industry or whose research is funded by drug companies seeking to make pharmaceutical drugs that are glycoprotein based. Is that a neutral source?

How can it be when Mannatech is a R & D company marketing glyconutriens that they claim support the bodies' natural ability to build the glycoprotein structures on its own? Cosmochao 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you're transferring some of our discussion from your talk page to this talk page, I'll transfer my response for the sake of people who haven't visited your talk page:

The article cites ABC's 20/20, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, MarketWatch, the lawyer who is bringing a class-action lawsuit against Mannatech, the SEC, and the Mannatech corporate website. What are the pharmaceutical industry sources you are talking about? Antelan ^talk 10:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

==Many of those interviewed or cited by those sources work directly for the pharmaceutical industry (or their research is funded by them) and those particular articles and the 20/20 program certainly are not neutral, which I am sure you would not disagree with, correct? Are you saying that the 20/20 program and Wall Street Journal article was neutral? If we are to give value to Wikipedia, we should be careful about choosing neutral articles, programs, etc should we not? The lawyer who is bringing a class-action lawsuit against Mannatech is obviously not neutral! Also note that there is a financial tie between ABC, The Wall Street Journal(a very large sum of monthly revenue) to market their present drugs and future drugs, yes or no? Many things should be considered when choosing a neutral source in our reference and certainly for basing the entire definition upon. We should be resonsible and honest about what is a neutral source and what is not. We can't selectively choose specific media articles and programs that are negative in nature, and selectively not choose postive media articles to slant a definition. Do you agree or not agree with that statement?Cosmochao 11:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Will we ever learn what the motivation is for selectively choosing media articles and programs (and other sources) that are clearly not neutral?Cosmochao 11:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the discussion between your user_talk page and this talk page creates duplication of effort, and allows for strange discrepancies. For example, you originally listed ABC, WSJ, and Forbes in your complaint on your talk page. On this page, you initially listed all three sources but later went back and removed Forbes from the list of sources that you dislike. Notably, the Forbes article is sympathetic to Mannatech, while the ABC and WSJ references illuminate the company in a less positive light. Strange that you should mention selectively choosing sources. Antelan ^talk 11:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not as strange as why both the admin and you are ignoring the more important question. That being why we are selectively choosing articles from the media that are not neutral when there are plenty of articles that are. I am simply attemping to clarify my point in order to assist you in seeing the bias here. But I am not certain you seek to discuss it openly. May I ask again: is there a motivation you may want to share? I assumed good faith but again, the avoidance of the questions require to ask again. I am truly interested in discovering the true motivations behind this keyword definition for Mannatech. I will ask again: Why are we selecting only the media articles that either show Mannatech as a financial success or that they have complaints against them (referencing sources that are knowingly giving inaccurage information, which I gave specific example for earlier) and why is the definition full of points of view supported mainly by media programs or articles that are not nuetral? Why are you avoiding the questions? Seriously? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cosmochao (talk • contribs). Antelan ^talk 11:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin is not allowing for neutral definition for keyword Mannatech

It is clear that no effort is being made by the admin for a neutral definition for the key word Mannatech. It is obvious that 'ownership' has been declared here and I will take all possible actions to bring some neutrality to this area. I will be asking anyone here and my subscribers of 40,000+, to review the points I have made here and to offer a more neutral definition to be created collaboratively and neutrally. Of course, the points will be formulated more cautiously so not to give the administrator any way of avoiding the point. I will be in an out of here over the next couple of weeks and using this as a focal point on my radio visits as well as on my website. I am seeking collaborators who may be reviewing this (assuming the admin does not delete this post)!Cosmochao 11:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This comes perilously close to a threat to disrupt wikipedia to make a point and would constitute a serious violation of policy. If you make the threat again I will block you. alteripse 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is actually the second time he has made the threat. The first time was on his user talk page, where he threatened to report my abuse of admin priveleges (I am not an admin) and recruit 40,000 people to "bring a more objective perspective" to the "definition". He withdrew the threats when I told him I would continue to discuss the topic with him if he did so. His retraction was apparently short lived, as it has appeared here again. Antelan ^talk 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that; it is why I left the promise to him or her. alteripse 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a major difference between a threat and a willingness to involve others to help bring mindfulness to this issue. A block has no meaning since I use a differet IP typically. I have been asking for involvement and there is none.Cosmochao

1. Please sign your posts. 2. And I was trying to make you "mindful" of how such an action would be received here. 3. A block means that a senior member of the community is pointing out to you that you are seriously offending policy or customs here; whether you can evade it by changing your IP is up to your conscience and the way you want to relate to us. 4. You have the attention and involvement of at least 3 editors here today, so I do not understand what you mean by saying "there is none". alteripse 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is involvement and for the first time I do sense a genuine interest in an unbiased environment. I realize now that I may simply be up against a 'social conditioning' bias, rather than a bias with an intent to do harm to Mannatech (which I was confused at the time as to the motivation). Again, I am realizing my mistakes and will be more patient here. Regarding any threats, that is a misunderstanding. I should have been more specific about how exactly I would involve others, which I have started to do for help on my writing and organization of thoughts. Now that I am getting some good dialogue here I may make more progress here, I'm not sure yet. I truly do not mean to disrupt Wikipedia. My intention is to prepare my suggestions for a new description for 'Mannatech' with several thousand people assisting me in doing it. With my blog I have a means for including the input of many people similarly to what Wikipedia has here (although not as extensive of course). I thought that if I bring attention about this issue to them I'd get some help on their thoughts, editing skills, finding sources, referencing, etc. Again, I do not mean to 'disrupt Wikipeida' in any way, and that is not my personality. I'd rather bring more construction to it. I could see that my writing skills were preventing me from making headway here but I am certain that my points deserve, at the very least, consideration, and at best, inclusion. As I said to Jim, please accept my apology for not being more clear about my intent to simply involve more people for the embetterment of the Wikipedia purpose, rather than to 'disrupt' it.Cosmochao 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know if the involvement in the context I described more clearly above is still considered offensive. I am having some unusual challenges relating to the culture here although I am sincere in my intention to do better at it and believe I can.Cosmochao 08:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 10 goes to a DEAD LINK

Maybe we should choose a definition that's a little more static eh?Cosmochao 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Interesting you are selectively choosing dated media articles to construct a definition!

Who is selecting these articles versus others?Cosmochao 12:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for response.Cosmochao 02:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources are being selected by the contributors — any contributor, including yourself. Feel free to challenge the validity of any source, and go ahead and provide sources you feel present a more objective perspective (if lacking); just ensure they meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If a link is dead, do your best to find an active link for the same information, or a suitable replacement. If unable to, then flag it with a {{fact}} maintenance tag to enlist others to help. If no one is successful, then the material should be considered for removal from the article. Jim Dunning | talk 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jim, I will be doing so. Please understand my original intent was to better relate to the 'environment and motivations / intentions' in here before deciding the best way to go about contributing to this article. I feel I have some work to do in either better understanding the 'paradigm' of the contributers so far, or in them understanding mine before I put in a bunch of work and hunt down sources. Once we make a little more headway on that I will submit some properly cited sources to work on the article. Thank you again for your invitation and recommendation.Cosmochao 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the link, which now points to the original source. Antelan ^talk 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 12 links to incorrect page - not to sited source

Footnote 12 links to a website (demonstrating that our administrator is NOT concerned with being nueutral in this definition) called,"Pyramid Scheme Alert" when the correct source should be MarketWatch.Cosmochao 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for response.Cosmochao 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the link. Antelan ^talk 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Following Source clearly not reliable...

In Mannatech definition, the following information is not valid for the definition.

Prominent glycobiologist Dr. Ronald Schnarr of Johns Hopkins told 20/20 in a June 1, 2007 interview, "All of the sugar building blocks that we need in our body are made from the most common foods we eat."[6]

Dr. Ronald Schnarr is a glycobiologist, not a nutritionist OR a dietician. Therefor, he is not qualified to make a statement in this context about whether "all of the sugar bulding blocks that we need in our body are made from the most common fodds we eat."Cosmochao 12:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for response.Cosmochao 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a verifiable source that disputes Dr. Schnarr's credentials on this point, then please include it in the article. Keep in mind that your opinion doesn't matter (nothing personal, mine doesn't either), you can't present original research, only the work of others. Jim Dunning | talk 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I need a little more 'help' on this one please. You suggest that it may be an 'opinion' that a scientist who specializes in glycobiology research is not a dietician or nutritionist? Please clarify.Cosmochao 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Schnarr's status as a glycobiologist is verifiable. It is your opinion that a glycobiologist is unqualified to make the statement that you contested. Antelan ^talk 07:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys and/or gals are asking that I reference a reliable source to substantiate that a glycobiologist is not a dietician and therefor is not a good source for information about whether or not we get a certain set of nutrients in our diet, would you please suggest a few examples of who would be a sufficient reliable source for me to find? To me this is like suggesting a reliable source is needed to substantiate that a pesticide farmer is not a good source of information on organic farming. Please clarify this.Cosmochao 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that only a dietician, and not a glycobiology researcher at the medical institution which receives more NIH funding than any other, can comment on the body's cellular needs for sugar molecules. Antelan ^talk 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe now we have openned a door for the first time. Thank you. You said: "It is your opinion that only a dietician, and not a glycobiology researcher at the medical institution which receives more NIH funding than any other, can comment on the body's cellular needs for sugar molecules." I would agree that he is qualified to comment "on the body's cellular needs for sugar molecules." Absoultely. And he has provided the scientific community a lot of information on that biochemistry / glycobiology subject. But are you also meaning to say that he is qualified to comment on whether or not those nutrients are available in our diets?Cosmochao 08:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Knowledge of cellular biology and biochemistry is critical to understanding what is and what is not accessible in the diet. Without knowledge of beta-linkage in cellulose, for example, one would assume that 5oz of lettuce and 5oz of starch have the same accessible energy content. Because the body does not process beta-linked saccharides, the fiber largely remains unabsorbed, while the alpha-linked starch is processed and taken up completely. However, it is my opinion that someone with this kind of knowledge is qualified to talk about biological accessibility of nutrients, and my opinion is not relevant. What is relevant is that a reliable, verifiable source found him to be an expert on the topic. Antelan ^talk 08:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your point above is comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about what may or may not be accessible in our diets due to absorption. But the verifiable fact is that our diets do not contain the same level of these glyconutrient sugars as they once did 10,000 years ago when we rumaged the forests (yes I can hunt down a source for that if it is to go in an article). This is a topic for a dietician or nutritionist. The issue of absorption makes it possible for a glycobiologist to be considered as a reliable source--but it is misleading because it's out of context; I mean to say, the controversy is much bigger than that. I know it's not Wikipedia's goal to be balanced and complete, however, if it is a consensus for contributors to make a certain article more complete or balanced it's not against Wikipedia's policies to do so. The bigger issues here around all this is that:

1. Absorption is a small peice of the controversy... to make it more complete there is also the understandign that glyconutrients are in certain food types that have been used by cultures for 1000's of years for medcines (verifiable--I'll do the research if I can put it in the article). 2. On the issue of absorption, there are some other common sense indications that is is absorbed.. (i.e. mothers breast milk contains 5 of these sugars (why would it if it is not absorbed, one may ask). 3. Why are there so many observational results from consumers if it is not absorbed? I can refer to Fox news who interviewed many of them (can that go in the article? is Fox news a reliable source?)Cosmochao

Not too many years ago, pharmaceutical-funded biologists believed from their research that there was no benefit from vitamin supplementation, while many certified nutritionists and dieticians did believe there was benefit. JAMA consistently reported it was a waste of money. It wasn't until pharmaceutical companies started to do research in this area in order to develop their own vitamins that their opinion and even their research findings changed. It would take a considerable amount of hours for me to verify this statement with reliable sources, but for the purposes of arriving at an understanding of what can or cannot be included in my article suggestions (as per consensus potential), I would like to postpone doing that research until I understand the contributors' (including your) input (again, to understand where I might arrive at consensus and 'what' exactly I should pursue as to include in the article to best arrive at consensus). I am assuming that you agree it is 'easy' to verify my above statement if an adaquate researcher invested 2-15 hours. If you are over the age of 30 you will remember it was common knowledge at one time in our lives that the AMA and pharmaceutical-influenced biologists agreed vitamin supplements were not absorbed or assimilated, and/or that all we needed was found in our diet (sound familiar) and there was NO value to supplementation. (Again, is it worth it for me to spend time researching for sources.. if consensus is yes and if this would be included in the artilce if I DID.. then I would). If you are over 30 you remember then a shift began to take place in the pharmaceutical-influenced research findings and soon after various versions of vitamins were available from a typical doctor with the overall belief (in the scientific community) that supplements did have benefit. If you agree with that, then do you see my point that biochemists, while looking down a very narrow scope of tunnel vision, emersed in their own agenda and purpose for using science and discovery for pharmaceutical uses (not nutritional), have tremendous limitations in applying what they learn in the micro world to the real world. My statements require research to validate... but this is not an article it is a discussion (isn't there a difference). If you are to require me to find validation to continue this discussion then I will prefer to go about my objective through other forms of discussion (my objective being to learn more about how I may improve the article with consensus). If you are interested in entertaining this line of discussion for the sincere attempt to discover one another's core beliefs, which are what are presently leading to a complete difference in where we place our values (upon pharmaceutical science, which I concur I can find ample evidence to show severe limitations as per my example above... vs. wellness industry science, which relies on observational science as much as it does pharmaceutical standard science) then let's continue in a 'any' context you are satisfied with to address my points.Cosmochao 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when you said, "What is relevant is that a reliable, verifiable source found him to be an expert on the topic" ... Please tell me what that reliable, verifiable source was who found him to be an expert. I believe you mean 20/20 adn WSJ? If that is what you mean then my big question is if I substantiate that there is a major debate between the pharmaceutical industry and the 'nutrition and wellness' industry about what model of science should be required for nutritional supplements to make claims about their product, can that be included in the article. If I found suitable sources within Wikipedia's policies, would we have consensus to include that debate to help everyone understand what the controversy surrounding Mannatech is really all about?Cosmochao 09:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What a list of unsupportable premises!

1. The opinion of a neurosurgeon about a putative dietary requirement for complex sugars is more reliable than that of a glycobiologist!

Yes, because the glycobiologist is only looking for synthetic drug applications and does not have a broad enough scope to talk on diet. But it may be easier to find reliable sources to make other points just as revealing.Cosmochao 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The most likely reason a person would express an opinion that Mannatech and its founder(s), scientists, and distributors have been accused too many times by a wide variety of people of being misleading with respect respect to scientific facts, company research, benefit claims, potential for disease treatment, and investment value is that he must be employed or paid off by the "pharmaceutical industry"!

No, this is not entirely a correct recap of my statements. Your recap here encompasses much more than I discussed. I agree that many people who represent Mannatech give misleading information (because they are uneducated themselves, not because they are intending harm). But they are typically associates who received benefits and tell others about them without the proper language to stay within the present model of what is legally accepted. But yes, there is a big movement and a lot of money being spent on the side of the pharmaceutical industry to either slow down the growth of the nutritional industry or completely take it over (I can site sources that show there are political lobbiest groups working for the pharmaceutical industry to take the nutritional industry for themselves). This creats an influence through media and other means (like now Wikipedia) to disseminate information that leads very intelligent people to be ignorant of the merit but quite versed in the 'yellow journalism claims.' You used the word 'Paid off' and that is a strong term (more like financially linked or their perspective is influenced and therefor limited) or it's someone in the general public who is paradigm-influenced by the pharmaceutical industry's values.Cosmochao 11:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The most common reason a scientist or doctor would be skeptical about the value of vitamin supplementation to the general public is that he is in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry!

Or, as with the former note, he is peripherally blinded by a narrow scoped paradigm and his values are heavily influenced. So your description of my premise is quite weighted.Cosmochao 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. A "typical doctor" now dispenses "vitamin supplements" from his office now that the evidence that we all need more vitamin supplements is no longer suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry!Cosmochao 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)It was a factor, yes. Need you be reminded that the pharmaceutical industry is a business?Cosmochao 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
2. There is a "major debate" going on between the "pharmaceutical industry" and the "wellness industry" over how to conduct scientific research on the value of dietary supplements!

That's an easy one to support (will take a few hours to find the best and I still need to study your policies before I even begin.. as well as to know if there is consensus here on any ONE of these topics for inclusion in the article if supported.Cosmochao 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Mannatech's products are not sold to treat disease but any negative opinions about the company or its products most likely originate from a conspiracy by companies that sell products to treat disease out of fear of competition!

Again, you recap is very wieghted... but I may reword the word 'any' to 'many'

And you are going to offer us evidence of which of these? alteripse 10:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I will offer evidence of any refined premises and article suggestions I make if I know that there is a consensus here, that if I do this work and find reliable sources as per Wikipedia's policies, that it would be included in the article to help describe the true nature of the controversy. How do I learn if there would be a consesus granted I find reliable sources? Please advise.Cosmochao 11:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that your 'take' on my premises is weighted and is not reflective of my perspective most of the time (see above). However, there are many points that I have made that can be clarified and supported. I still dont' understand how to discover a consensus other than me simply making a suggestion. I hope to get more dialogue though from you guys because I do learn about what areas to focus on first and details about Wikipedia that I cant' learn as quickly without these discussions (and your input)Cosmochao 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am getting excited about learning from you -- you have an element of insight that I need refinement in. I do know I can substantiate many of the above premises with reliable sources. I just have to know that my work would not be wasted. I still do not understand how we determin what is added to an article even when there is a reliable source. I do not understand yet how the contributers in here qualify what is added (judging by what is currently in the article it appears that there should be 'negative element' to the article). If I could learn more about how you qualify what is add or not added to this article, it would great assist me in being motivated or not motivated to go substantiate my premises above with reliable sources. Please advise.Cosmochao 11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cosmochao, you expressed annoyance that most of us value proper language use, but proper grammar and semantics will help you avoid saying what you do not mean. Go back and look at your first additions to the article and your first arguments here and you will see exactly why I described your arguments the way I did. In all of those edits, the only reason you suggested for scientists or doctors or news reporters or financial analysts or even Wikipedia editors to be skeptical or critical of Mannatech and its products is that they must be part of a conspiracy by the "pharmaceutical industry" to suppress them. If you now want to change that to something as meaningless as "paradigm-influenced", my reply is that that concept is so indefinably vague as to be unprovable/unrefutable and not worth discussing- I suspect it simply means what most of us would describe as "agreeing with the generally accepted standard for scientific evidence". If that is the case, and your standards of evidence are based on other criteria, then your contributions here will probably not be considered worth keeping. Also, your interpolated answers have made an unreadable hash of my list and separated my sentences from my signature. It will probably not surprise you if I tell you that we prefer you not do that. Please move your reply to a signed section following mine. Thanks. alteripse 12:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, alteripse, I will work on all that. As we all know, much of my posts here on my first day only served the purpose to understand one another's paradigms... I think we've gotten that out of the way. Now that I've put in another 6 hours, I think it's time to move to the next phase of introductions. See the bottom of this entire discussion for a more productive continuance. Thank you.Cosmochao 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd glycobiologist researcher's quote not neutral

This must also be removed from the definition:

Dr. Hudson Freeze, another leading glycobiologist[6] said this about glyconutrients: "There are authentic, scientific studies that have looked at people drinking these kinds of materials, and it doesn't really do anything except increase flatulence."[6]

Reason this must be removed:

In the definition about Mannatech it states that: In an SEC filing, the company claimed that its products "are formulated with predominately naturally-occurring, plant-derived, carbohydrate-based ingredients that are designed to use nutrients working through normal physiology to help achieve and maintain optimal health and wellness, rather than developing synthetic, carbohydrate-based products, as other companies are doing."

Mannatech and the 'drug makers' who fund Dr. Freeze's research are competitors and therefor Dr. Freeze is not a neutral source to directly quote in the definition.Cosmochao 14:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

First, you might want to stop using the word "definition" because the article is not a definition and it weakens your statement. Also, you may want to become familiar with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for response to the real issues.Cosmochao 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that a more balanced set of verifiable sources should be incorporated into the article, then by all means go ahead and find them, melding the information objectively into the article. Jim Dunning | talk 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will and thank you for the invitation to do so. Before doing that I had read at Wikipedia that it is best to first have a discussion here and that is what I attempted to do. Needless to say I didn't see much interest in a discussion from others, except Antelan, who focussed a great deal on my mistakes in Wikipedia rules and little on my point (except the weakest points). I have made some clear, valid points in my correspondence here but everyone so far likes to focus mainly on the weakest points I have made. I came to have a discussion and to hear feedback from you guys before working on the article. I haven't heard any serious attempt by anyone here to address my best points and suggestions / ideas... only my weakest points, so far.Cosmochao 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems like we've been focusing on what you call your "weakest points". Things you've brought up, such as the dead links and incorrect sources, are important to the integrity of the article. Thanks to your interest, Jim Dunning and I have corrected the errors.

Regarding the "bigger points": Looking through your edits, I see you coming back to the same themes, suggesting that ABC, WSJ, Forbes - and even myself personally - are working in concert with the pharmaceutical companies, which you suggest are running a PR campaign against Mannatech. While this seems to be rather unlikely a priori, you could certainly convince me (well, not of my own complicity, of course, but of others') with the use of reliable sources. In fact, such claims must be documented by a reliable source if you want to get them published in Wikipedia. If you are looking to publish opinion or your own original research, Wikipedia isn't the place. It's not just a Wikipedia rule - in general, encyclopedias summarize verifiable information; they are not the source for authors to publish original ideas.

I am still willing to work with you despite your allegations against me, because my main concern is to produce high quality articles. It would be helpful if you wouldn't mind briefly summarizing your main points. Bullet points or very brief sentences would help all of the other editors to understand your thoughts. You can make a bullet point by using the * at the very beginning of a new line. Press "show preview" to see if it looks right. Antelan ^talk 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, my 'coming back' to the suggestion that the stories at ABC and WSJ (actually I did not mean to include Forbes but I mistakenly included them in a post) were originated by a pharmaceutical PR campaign ARE NOT verified (yet) as I stated and I did not suggest they should EVER be considered in an article! I shared this with you to help clarify my perspective, because I do not collaborate as if we are playing chess. I openly share my perspective and even biases (motivations and other intentions related to the subject) because we all have these things at the base of our idealology. I believe it assists us in conversation to let collaborators know where I am coming from. IF we are truly sincere to work together for the common good these kinds of tings would be useful to know (to some extent or another) about each other; no one should have to ever fear critism from others, or that another contributor here would use ones words 'against' them in an attempt to expose their communication weaknesses. I do not sense a willingness from others here, yet, to share these things about themselves (motivations, biases, etc). I realize this is either out of fear of criticism and/or to simply keep the dicussion area within the same 'policies' that would be required for the article area (to not risk emotional dialogue and to keep it 'safe'). I did not know originally that we would ask for the same policies for the discussion area as we do for the article area; although many of the policies regarding respect to others, how to 'quanlify points' etc are very necessary, I still think it would be quite useful for more openness (about motivations, why you may lean to a certain perspective, other projects you are working on that may 'influence' you, etc) in the discussion of those ariticles that invite bias from many sides.Cosmochao 08:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Please review Resolving disputes carefully to see if the process there can help resolve this dispute that's turned into an edit war. All contributors involved have been having a discussion about the edits, so it's safe to say they're at the first step, Talk to the other parties involved. Since the article has now been protected by an admin, this may be an opportunity for all involved to engage in the second step of the process, Disengage for a while. This will give editors time to step back, cool off, and review the other options offered in the dispute resolution process and choose an appropriate course.

As further edits are made, please ensure that reliable third-party sources are used and fully cited, use Edit Summaries to minimize inadvertent or impulsive reverts, and assume good faith. Consideration of forking the article content and creating a specific section addressing the controversy surrounding the company and its products may be an option as well; this would allow segregation of controversy vs. fact, enhancing the neutrality of the article. Jim Dunning | talk 14:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Forking the article content would most likely result in a POV fork in this case. Also, any claim about the existence of controversy would have to be WP:V backed by WP:RS. Antelan ^talk 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Forking the article to allow removal of this company's controversies from notice of a reader seeking a comprehensible overview would would be both inaccurate and misleading. alteripse 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer — I'm sorry. I meant an internal fork, the creation of a section within the article that addresses the controversy as documented by reliable third-party sources. This may include only the legal issues facing Mannatech, or the "scientific" disagreements as well. I don't want anything hidden from the readers. The goal would be to address the controversy separately from the verifiable facts about the company as much as is possible (which may be impossible).

I am concerned about the statement made by Cosmochao: "This is nonesense and all that can be done to bring focus to that fact will be done--my above posts show clear bias and a lack for a sincere attempt to provide reliable sources." (italics added) I'm uncertain whether this is an admission of bias and refusal to use verifiable sources or his/her words were garbled in the typing. If the former (and combined with his/her earlier statements about recruiting others to edit the article his/her way and admitting to using sock puppets), then I share alteripse's concerms about Cosmochao disrupting WP. Jim Dunning | talk 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I'm not sure if I'm suppose to post my response to your above post here, or below (please let me know). I truly do not mean to disrupt Wikipedia. I should have been more clear to specify that my intent is to prepare my suggestions for a new description for 'Mannatech' with several thousand people assisting me in doing so. With my blog I have a means for including the input of many people similarly to what Wikipedia has here (although not as extensive of course). I thought that if I bring attention of this issue to them I would then have the help of many people much more skilled at writing, editing, referencing, etc. than I am, as this is not a refined skill for me. Again, I do not mean to 'disrupt Wikipeida' in any way, but rather to bring more orginazation to it. I could see that my writing skills were preventing me from making headway here but I am certain that my points deserve at the very least consideration, and at best, inclusion. Accept my apology for not being more clear about my intent to simply involve more people for the embetterment of the Wikipedia purpose, rather than to 'disrupt' it.Cosmochao 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, regarding this 'internal fork,' this is very much what I was asking would be possible without knowing the proper wording. In my original diolgue here I was just trying to engage people in a conversation to see where people were coming from because there are some fundamental issues with the entire article with what I would say is a biased-selection of articles, quotes, etc... when there are plenty of positive verifiable items (which I am preparing for you). In any case, if we can find verifiable sources that satisfy you, do I understand that we may include them to bring a more valuable description to the Mannatech keyword?Cosmochao 07:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If they're reliable and verifiable, most definitely yes. (You may actually want to read WP:RS and WP:V in this case to get a sense of which sources will probably be accepted and which ones probably won't.) Antelan ^talk 08:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is nonesense and I don't think anyone who has communicated in the process has a concern for that. It is possible that this can only be nonesense under the circumstance. I have learned a great deal here and am eager to learn more about the extent of the bias and its true motives--quite interesting. In any case, I am still waiting for responses to the above issues. Cheers!Cosmochao 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I retract the statement that there is no willingness to collaborate and realize the bias I see is a social one and rather innocent, and is not motivated by those simply out to cause harm.Cosmochao 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. Then we are agreed that one article should suffice, and that the controversies that have distinguished the company since its inception are an important aspect of an encyclopedic account. Nice to see you grasping the methods here. alteripse 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cosmochao, if you are intent on getting new material into this article, it would help us understand what you'd like to add if you'd make some precise statements here. Is there a sentence or a paragraph that you have been working on to add to the article that we can take a look at to see what you're aiming for? It's not necessary for you to do this, but it would help bring clarity to this extended and somewhat convoluted conversation. Antelan ^talk 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I appreciate your suggestion and it gives some hope. I will work on this and return with it. As should be obvious by now to anyone reviewing all of this, I am not a Wikipedia 'head' and it may take some time for me to become one. I am seriously considering it for a number of reasons. That will take time so please be patient as I continue to 'try' to contribute with a fresh pespective. It seems a lot of people here are a little too much interested in symantics, spelling, grammer, etc rather than getting better and more valuable content on this site. That seems odd to me, and while it is understandable that a certain 'type' of personality would collect here to monitor Wikipedia, it would be beneficial to include the voice of a larger audience. I am a reasonable person although I am of a different character than the typical 'Wikipedia' head here--I will try to adapt to the culture as it has merit. Please consider being more open to the bigger points I have made; rather than focusing only on rules and symantics (though important, rules exist to help us create better content and should not be the ONLY focus in collaborating, correct). I was initially trying to learn what was really going on here becuase the present word 'Mannatech' is very biased. That caused me to start on the defense (not to my benefit of course) and I am still quite unsure about the motivations here. This process is entirely new to me at Wikipedia but I am willing to move forward in good faith, even though that is a challenge. Antelan, your main posts are for Mannatech, Glyconutrients and John Hopkins. This immediately made me skeptical as a am naturally a critical thinker. Why would someone interested in John Hopkins also be so interested in Mannatech and Glyconutrients as a keyword. I am presently writing a book to uncover the PR campaign that certain pharmaceutical interests have started to target Mannatech, which led to the Wall Street Journal article (and also started the 20/20 episode). There are no references to site on that one yet but it may help some of you understand a second reason I am here (the first being a genuine interest in clearing up the confusion about what glyconutrients do and don't do). I saw the same references here for the word Mannatech as I saw for 20/20 and the Wall Stret Journal, so I started this conversation a bit skeptical and was trying to uncover any connection. Is this group here really just a group of independent citizens enjoying a controversy and being involved in 'setting things' right as they see it, or are there people here with some connection to the PR campaign? That is what I would like to find out ultimately. In the meantime, I am also interested a more sensible description for the word, Mannatech. I will work on that and post it here within a week or so. I work 15 hour days in my consulting business so this entire process here at Wikipedia has been a little much. Thank you again, Antelan; although I still am quite unclear about your motivations and role in all this, your last suggestion gives some hope that you are possibly sincere in creating a sensible description for 'Mannatech' (please, no need for anyone to remind me of the 'good faith' rule, got that already. I make my points for transparency in the hope you will be more open with me as well.Cosmochao 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I continue forward here I feel I have been too emotional and I do apologize. There is a considerable amount of education apparently required to understand this subject and I am just now beginning to realize that what may first seem as an emotional (or in some other way motivated) bias here may just be social one. Social conditioning is so powerful. You guys seem much smarter than I am and so it was hard for me, at first, to accept your bias was innocent. Now I am beginning to realize the power of social conditioning. Many of you seem to innocently believe pharmaceutical scientits are authority, and scientits who work for nutritional companies are quacks. I apologize I have been emotional so far-understand I am just now beginning to realize the challenge I face to bring awareness to this issue. I will keep trying. Please assist me in following the rules and correct my symantics along the way. I will be more patient.Cosmochao 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The position elaborated in the Mannatech article is that no results from Mannatech's research have been made public. The article also states that the man running at least one of the studies that Mannatech is running has financial ties to Mannatech. This is sourced to Mannatech's own SEC filing and Forbes. Given all of this, which seems pretty neutrally stated to me, I don't exactly see where you get the idea that the editors here are calling nutritional scientists "quacks" here.

You keep alluding to some sort of conflict between pharmaceutical companies and nutritional companies. Many of your arguments are predicated upon the existence of this conflict. You haven't provided any evidence that this conflict actually exists, so the first step in making others understand your position is really going to be finding some reliably sourced, verifiable evidence that this conflict is real. Until you can do so, this belief cannot be given any more weight than opinion. While it may inform your point of view, it can't be used to distort the goal of a neutral POV for the article itself. Antelan ^talk 08:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note, I will find plenty of sources to show a clearly defined conflict between pharmacetuical companies and nutritional companies... it is easily identified in each side's efforts to influence the writing of DSHEA.Cosmochao 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, a 2nd door has been openned! Before I even begin; however, making an article suggestion with appropriate cited sources, I'd like to first get more understanding on our 'above' discussion about why you don't believe it's an opinion that a glycobiologist whose research and knowledge-base is in glycobiology (a discipline of cellular biology that deals with the structure and function of oligosaccharides) is not a reliable source to comment on diet and nutrition.Cosmochao 08:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's stating my position backwards; to the contrary, I most certainly think that's an opinion. You can see fuller explanation above. Antelan ^talk 08:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can a Glycobiologist who is funded by glycoprotien drug makers be a reliable source?

Let's just look at this for a moment as I have covered a lot outside the context of what can be included in an article.

Can a Glycobiologist who is funded by glycoprotien drug makers be a reliable source here?

Isn't it a conflict of interest? I thought I read in policies that this is a problem, no?Cosmochao 11:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for claiming that the "glycoprotein drug makers" are funding the glycobiologists? Most academic medical research in the US is funded by the NIH. Dr. Schnarr is an academic at Johns Hopkins. An allegation of undisclosed conflict of interest is a pretty big deal in academia, and since this is about a living person, such a claim, if unsubstantiated, may even be libelous. Consider this letter to the New England Journal of Medicine about a similar libel case. Antelan ^talk 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's almost like you don't realize the economical influences at play in all this, and it is difficult to believe. The fact that there is a money trail shouldn't be surprising to you! Who is it--do you think--that encourages Congress (and non-profits) to give money for certain areas of research that lead to pharmaceutical applications? Lobbiests who work for pharmaceuical companies. That is not a secret! It doesn't mean that people are evil or doing anything wrong, it's just that this is how it all works. If you look back in recent history there are extensive examples of when people and culture was so heavily influenced by those in power that the mainstream public believed things or accepted things as 'normal' when now they are outrageous. Our present pharmaceutical industry represent so many outrageous atrosities but they think they are doing good, just as other in history who harmed so many thought they were doing good (have to buy my book for substantiations.. maybe u can be my editor) Anyway, let me ask you this: if I did find sources substantiating that lobbiest groups working with the pharmaceutical industry lobbied for a $34 million dollar research grant for glycobiology, much of which directly went to finance Dr. Schnarr's lab, would that satisfy you that their is a conflict of interest, or is that not a srong enough tie?Cosmochao 09:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure Dr. Schnarr would love to have "much of" $34 million of NIH funding. It would mean that he would be receiving nearly 8% of all of the NIH funding that goes to Hopkins. His lab would stand in stark contrast to the rest of Hopkins' researchers, who would have to subsist (relatively speaking) on an average research grant of $200,000 per year. In fact, if you can solidly document that Dr. Schnarr receives more NIH funding than do the entire Schools of Medicine of Mercer, Northeastern Ohio, East Tennessee State, East Carolina, Texas Tech, Creighton, East Virginia, U of South Carolina, Southern Illinois, Rosalind Franklin, U of North Dakota, Wright State, South Alabama, Albany Medical College, Michigan State, West Virginia, LSU, University of Nevada, Loma Linda, George Washington University, Howard University, SUNY Upstate, Texas A&M, UCLA-Drew, U of Hawaii, SUNY Brooklyn, Loyola University, New York Medical College, Drexel University, Temple University, SUNY Buffalo, Morehouse, or Meharry, you could probably write a book just on that fact alone. I would gladly be your editor without pay just to get my name attached to such a book, which would undoubtedly be read by most researchers. Antelan ^talk 10:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming your response is due to the word I mistakenly used 'much' -- I mean to write 'much of which directly went to finance glycobiology research labs such as Dr. Schnarr's... I other words, if his funding is the result of pharmaceutical lobbiest to any degree, does it make a difference in this subject of conflict of interest?Cosmochao 11:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Many politicians put their money into blind trusts, so that they can invest without knowing what stocks they own. Since they don't know what they own, their decisions that might affect corporations or even entire sectors of industry can be made without conflict of interest, since they don't know whether or not any decision would help or harm their specific portfolio.

If an individual is unaware that someone is lobbying on their behalf, it's pretty tough to consider that individual to have a conflict of interest, since the individual didn't even realize that there was an interest in the first place. Antelan ^talk 11:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I wasn't refering to potential conflicts of interest for the politician, I was asking if it would considered a conflict of interest if I verified that Dr.Schnarr's research funding came from the lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical industry? I'm not saying that it is; I am asking you IF it might be considered a conflict of interest it that were the case and it was verified? This helps me to know what areas of research to puruse to make my point later this year at WikipediaCosmochao 06:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Fox News a Reliable source by the way?

If so, may I include in the article that many consumers are claiming benefit to many disease conditions even though the comapny cannot legally claim that their products treat disease. Fox News interviewed many of them and in an interview with a doctor MD it was said that many doctors are using this in their practice to see how they work and if they work... Can that go in the article for starters?Cosmochao 12:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Show us your source. alteripse 13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I searched around and couldn't find an article that matched this description from Fox News, but I'd be interested to read more. Antelan ^talk 23:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Source: Fox News, Channel 9, Oklahoma City, OK. 1st, 2nd, 3rd episodes the News episodes are following the story of a family who is trying to save their baby's life, with there being no real hope from modern medicine. Here are direct links to those if you want the 'background' -- http://newsok.com/article/ for 1st story (no glyconutrients discussed yet or known to family--baby is dying). Then http://newsok.com/article//?template=health/main for follow up story (still no glyconutrients talked about -- baby is dying). Then http:newsok.com/article//?template=health/main (3rd follow up story -- baby still dying; no glyconutrients used or known about yet as of September 29, 2005). Then on January 19, 2006 they check up on the family and learn the baby was being fed on feeding tube, dying.. intervened with glyconutrients and she started eating on her own again and doing better, go to http://newsok.com/article//?template=news/main Then on March 31, 2006, follow up included interviews with MD about doctors using this on patients to test it's affects (good and bad affects, etc) and showed numerous poeple who had seen baby Hadley's story, called news station, found products and all gotten better... http://http:newsok.com/video/

If it doesn't play any of the video I found it plays correctly (I think this may just be the last one, which is the most important to watch) by searching by date for the video for March 31, 2006 (then choose 'baby's struggle inspires family').

I find it much easier just to go to www.the-wellness-channel.org (log in and then click on the video clip of baby face and it will play a few of these episodes from Fox one after another. It is easier. While you are there why not watch Dr. Ben Carson speak at a Mannatech convention about why he believes these products helped save his life. It's baffling to me that people here at Wikipedia wouldn't at least be curious about what sources Dr. Ben Carson is convinced (With his reputation and voted by Newsweek a few years back as one of the top doctors in the world, you must at least be curious about what he knows that you don't--and about finding the sources he may have found that you haven't)!Cosmochao 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a television Fox News story (similar to the 20/20 but only positive spin)... it was actually 4 or 5 of them over a 7 month period. The first news show just told the story of a baby girl that was dying of a rare disease that was not curable. At that time it was just about the family's ordeal and they had no knowledge of glyconutrients at the time. There was a 2nd follow up to 'check in' on the family a monht or so later and still no mention of glyconutrients--just about how the community was coming together to help the family and raise money for treatments, etc. Then a month or so later they did a follow up again but this time it focussed on how the baby (who was close to dying) had just started being fed by a tube with glyconutrients and that the baby was showing imrovements that were supposed to be impossible according to doctors. She was starting to be able to move again and eat without a tube. Next show a month or so later followed up and she was even better and this Fox News show mentioned that after the last show aired, hundreds of calls poored in from doctors and people wanting to know more. Over the course of a couple months they followed the stories of several poeple in the community who had dramatic benefits according to them and their doctors. They interviewed MDs who said doctors were trying them out on thier patients, etc. I will go find it.Cosmochao 09:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If we can include Fox New's as reliable source...

Can we then clarify the issue about why the company cannot claim their products treat disease even though tens of thousands of consumers speak at their events (i.e. 20/20, WSJ, Fox News) about how the products eliminated symptoms of disease? If I have verifiable sources to back up the entire subject?Cosmochao 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the reason the company cannot claim their products treat disease is that Congress passed laws in the early twentieth century that a company cannot make promises to consumers that a product will treat a disease unless the company has submitted evidence to the FDA that their product is at least somewhat safe and at least somewhat effective. Prior to that, all kinds of companies were selling products falsely claiming that "thousands of consumers claim that their products eliminated symptoms of disease" with no evidence beyond testimonials. Is your understanding different from mine? Further, I understand that Congress passed the dietary supplement laws in the 1990s with the stipulation that a product sold as a dietary supplement can be sold without evidence of safety or therapeutic value as long as the company does not claim it will treat a disease. Lastly, my understanding of supporters (like you) of companies like Mannatech is that they want to have it both ways: they want to propagate claims of therapeutic efficacy but they do not want to have to produce any evidence for it. It is my understanding that that is the main reason why Mannatech has so little respect or credibility among "tens of thousands" of doctors, scientists, consumer advocates, financial analysts, and state attorneys general. Is that "clarified" enough for you? alteripse 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of your opinions in here, alteripse, particularly intriguing again on the issue of your biased motivations when you have made such efforts to ask for cited sources from me when I made my points earlier.Cosmochao 08:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, consumer safety laws prevent companies from making unsubstantiated claims. See the FDA page addressing this question here. Or, if you're interested, the following page from the FDA gives a nice background in the first several paragraphs: here. Antelan ^talk 22:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the FDA's present stance on the issue is those who sell these 'functional food' products can refer to educational materials and studies (including those related to 'quality of life improvement' who have specific diseases), and they define what consistutes an 'educational material' in DSHEA. It is also my understanding that products must be classified as drugs in order to be considered a product able to make a 'disease claim.' I also understand that toxicity is one of the phases of FDA testing/approval for drugs. Since many nutritional products (like Vitamin C, which are non-toxic in any typical diet consumption) can never be labeled to treat disease under present FDA law, and since it IS accepted by mainstream science that vitamin C (or even just oranges) do 'cure' disease (in this case Scurvey) even though they are not drugs, it seems a ligitamate consideration for the article to explain this issue, yes?Cosmochao 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Scurvy is a disease of Vitamin C deficiency. Vitamin C no more "treats scurvy" than water "treats dehydration". Vitamin C's role in scurvy prevention is well documented. In fact, a chemical name (ascorbic acid) is related to the term "scurvy". Can you elaborate on why you feel that Vitamin C's health claims belong on Mannatech's page? Or, if you were simply trying to draw a parallel, can you provide WP:V documentation of specific health benefits provided by Mannatech's products that belong on this page? Antelan ^talk 10:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, vitamin C does not 'treat' scurvy so why is it that 20/20 uses the word 'treat' in connection to Mannatech associates' claims that their conditions were 'helped' by the glyconutrients (which we believe many are deficient in). When vitamin C was first discovered it was discovered by a sailor -- he had no scientific basis to substantiate that he was correct except observational science. Biochemisty did not exist at that time nor did the FDA (plase don't tell me I need sources for that one). This is all the major point Mannatech and the wellness indsutry is making (source Glycoscience.org -- an appropriate source to validate what Mannatech's opinion is).Cosmochao 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "When vitamin C was first discovered it was discovered by a sailor -- he had no scientific basis to substantiate that he was correct except observational science." This simplifies to "he made this discovery on the basis of observational science" without the loss of meaning. Observational science is, in a sense, the basis for making medical discoveries. At present, anecdotal evidence causes scientists to investigate further with small case-control or cohort studies, which if successful trigger larger cohort studies or clinical trials. There is nothing wrong with anecdote, but it is far too early in the stepwise process of verification and validation to likely merit publication in an encyclopedia. The credibility of those announcing the anecdotes is also important, as is the verifiability of the claim. Antelan ^talk 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand this and agree Antelan.

OK, so if I can show reliable sources that there is a paralel between Sir Richard Hawkins' challenge to demonstrate to the doctors and health professionals that citrus fruit would help save the lives of hundreds of thousands of men who went out at sea, and Mannatech's challenge to demonstrate to our present health system that glyconutrients also have a profound benefit even though we also right now only have observational science predominently (as he did)... can that go in the article. Note it was hundreds of years after Sir Richard Hawkins died before his claim was accepted by the mainstream. http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/vitamins/c.htm (I will find better sources I give this to you here for quick reference to assist you in answering my question). Note that Mannatech has a lot of observational science at this time and they also have a challenge because the discovery is new (see 20/20, glycoscience.org, etc)Cosmochao 11:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response above. Sir Hawkins has been vindicated by history. If and when history vindicates Mannatech, such a parallel would be a fitting addition to this article. Antelan ^talk 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the process of history vindicating Mannatech. Let me know when we have hit the threshold!Cosmochao 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Murray (author of 1996 Harper's Biochemistry textbook) reliable source?

Could we consider including a quote in the article if it were sent in a signed letter directly to Wikipedia from Dr. Murray who co-authored the first edition of Harper's Biochemistry textbook and the chapter on glycobiology in 1996? Or, in order to be a reliable source does the quote have to come from the media?Cosmochao 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a "letter to wikipedia" with information not published elsewhere is not a prefered source-- can you imagine seeing that in Britannica? On the other hand, you can certainly cite the textbook for facts about basic biochemistry. See wp:cite or a referenced article such as the first sections of hypoglycemia for examples of how to do that. alteripse 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Glycobiology is distinguishable from glyconutrients. His textbook, though now fairly dated, might still make for useful additions to the glycobiology article. Without knowing the contents of the letter that Dr. Murray would write, it's difficult to respond to your question. However, it would essentially be a non-published source that would be difficult to utilize due to WP:V. If you would like to refer to a pertinent, previously published article, that would be the much more standard way of sourcing statements. Antelan ^talk 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have to spend some time researching more about what is considered a source here--it seems odd that 'yellow journalism' style media shows like 20/20 qualify so that's my next area of focus. If you feel up to explaining how a 20/20 show does qualify when it's a lot like the Enquirer in many aspects, please let me know your input. Thank you.Cosmochao 08:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yellow journalism is unethical or unprofessional journalism. 20/20 is investigative journalism. Your question is asking for negative proof, which is an atypical burden of proof to be asked to bear. In general, the burden of proof lies with the proponent of a claim. Because to the best of my knowledge 20/20 is not generally considered to be yellow journalism, you would want to document that 20/20 a lot like the Enquirer in a substantive way to make a successful claim here. Antelan ^talk 10:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, maybe the west coast is a bit more advanced in our level of awareness of these kinds of things :-) I'm partly kidding and partly serious. It is yellow journalism by anyone's account here. I don't know what they mean by investigative journalism when they had an agenda from the beginning (see Angie's website who was the one focussed on in that story who is publicly stating the journalist 'tricked' her to get the story he wanted and literally lied to her to get what he wanted in clips: (http://www.angie-rhoads.blogspot.com). Also see how Sam Caster clearly states what glyconutrients do but how that was left out of the interview in order to get the 'piece' he wanted. See 20/20 and then Raw Interview with Caster: http://www.livetest.the-wellness-channel.org/20-20.htm Cosmochao 10:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is yellow journalism by anyone's account here'" - See bandwagon fallacy. Are you saying that, in contrast to what Angie said on video, her cancer did in fact shrink while she was taking Mannatech products. Are you saying that Sam Caster was misquoted on video as saying that Mannatech products do not cure, treat, or mitigate cancer, HIV, etc.? Antelan ^talk 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that Angie claims she was lied to by the journalist in order to 'collect' the story he already planned to make regardless of what his investigational findings led him to... and he apparently took quotes (including from the doctor) to create a story that he already planned to create, even to the extent of creating a misleading representation of the facts about the tumor (the tumor wasn't there but the journalist selected quotes from the doctor to make us think it was still there).Cosmochao 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC) That is yellow journalism because it is misleading, irresponsible and unethical according to my journalism instructors in the 90s. Have ethics changed that much?Cosmochao 12:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, have you ever met Dr. Schnarr personally?Cosmochao 09:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not. In the interest of full disclosure, are you still selling Mannatech products or receiving income in any way from Mannatech or any other glyoconutrient/glyconutritional/nutriceutical company, via methods including but not limited to direct sales, royalties, partnerships, investments, or contacts made while selling company products?

In anticipation of your good faith response, I will tell you that my answer to all parts of the question that I asked you are "no". Likewise, if you rephrase that question to ask about pharmaceutical companies, my response remains "no" to all parts of the question. Antelan ^talk 10:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I receive no income directly from Mannatech or the sell of any other nutritional produts but I have in the past, and I will admit that I am very biased because I personally believe there is a huge need for this, regardless of what some biochemist thinks.. his 'science' seems like quackery and even harmful in the face of what I have seen personally. (I don't think he intends harm but his blindness and arrogance is harming a lot of people who would otherwise receive benefits from glyconutrients but won't because of his recklessness). I know that it means little to you but I was involved in Mannatech for 12+ years (it took me 2 yrs to believe what people were saying however)... I personally saw over 100 people that I met and assisted in trying the products get results that are controversial... and I saw this consistently for years (a number of them were very conservative types where it was short of a miracle that I just got them to take it). I'm not a sales type by nature but rather quite analytical and critical in thinking so I attracted many of the same people. Many of those I saw get results were not gullable type people or easily influenced by suggestion -- it was just too damn consistent and dramatic and so I am quite biased, yes . I can tell you that most of the people who claim benefit from mannatech prodcuts have no financial interest and many who do have the financial interest only developed it because of what the products did for them. It's comical and frustrating to see an article like we have here that focusses on the financial side of the company when the heart of the average person in the company is so uniquely and unusually different. Seeing all of this has made me bias, yes, and quite irritated at times when something beneficial is met with so much skepticism. Looking back in history we see this is common but when you are living it it's quite bewildering. Just because I am bias doesn't mean I don't have something to offer here. What I don't understand is why you are not more curious to want to help me find reliable sources when you know Dr. Ben Carson is not a silly person and you know that he has become convinced personally. Why would a person of his integrity and stature put his reputation on the line for no financial benefit to speak of and say the products helped save his lfe? How can that alone not motivate a person like you who spends as much time as you do helping write an article for the key words "glyconutrients, mannatech and Johns Hopkins"! It is also bewildering to me.Cosmochao 10:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

evidence, source reliabiliy, and scientific epistemology 101 for cosmochao

You seem to have a very naive or at least idiosyncratic understanding of evidence and reliability. Sources and evidence, both here and in the wider academic and scientific world, have different levels of reliability for different purposes. As evidence of medical efficacy, testimonials are close to the bottom in terms of quality and reliability-- I was trying to remind you of why in the answer above. A "personal communication" from a name the reader is likely to recognize is more acceptable for a simple, single, unpublished fact that a person is unlikely to lie about (e.g., "As of early 2007, the girl is still alive (Ima Emdee, personal communication)"), but much less so to support a general and possibly debatable opinion (e.g., "glyconutrients are the best thing since sliced bread (George Murray, personal communication)") or some tremendously important fact that would have been quickly published if true (e.g., "glyconutrients cure cancer (Alice Onkolgizt, personal communication)").

The highest level of scientific evidence is multiple, published, peer-reviewed research papers from different groups finding the same thing. While there are cases of someone falsifying research and fooling peer reviewers, they are usually caught, with the end of their academic and research career and widely publicized scandal. This is why drug companies want independent researchers to test their drugs at early stages of development. If something looks promising, other researchers and companies quickly test similar or closely related substances. You seem to have this bizarre fantasy that if something looks promising, other companies will band together to pay off hundreds of doctors and scientists to suppress or persuade everyone to ignore it, or that thousands of doctors and scientists will not be able to recognize that it has potential value.

There is no better counterexample to the ridiculousness of your fantasies than what is currently going on with vitamin D. Vitamin D is a perfect example of an unpatentable dietary supplement; in the last 5 years it has become red-hot in terms of research interest because of mounting evidence that it plays a role in immune regulation, resistance to cancer, resistance to autoimmune disease, and even regulation of insulin sensitivity. Many doctors have conducted and are conducting studies to see if supplementation is beneficial in terms of treatment. Reports about these were among the most crowded sessions of The Endocrine Society annual scientific sessions in Toronto earlier this month. Amazingly, not a single pharmaceutical company has tried to suppress this information, and amazingly (considered how blinded you think most doctors and scientists are by the pharmaceutical industry paradigm) there is no one saying the research shouldn't be done! And vitamin D cannot even be patented! How can that be happening?

And here is a another example that doesn't fit your world view: there is a huge debate going on right now as to the safety of rosiglitazone (Avandia), a multimillion dollar product of Glaxo, a major pharmaceutical company. There was strong evidence that it improved insulin sensitivity and even prevented development of diabetes in those close to getting it. Yet, in a big study of about 10,000 patients, there were about 6 more cases of heart attack death in the patients taking Avandia than those not taking it. So we are going through a highly public debate over the value of the drug, based on clinical trial statistics, publicly discussed. Nearly all of the doctors publicly quoted about this have been financially associated with Glaxo or other pharmaceutical companies, and whenever they talk about this at medical meetings (like the Endocrine Society meetings earlier this month), they are required to disclose this. It doesn't mean no one listens to what they have to say, but we take it into account.

It is an imperfect process, but compared to this, the nutraceutical industry operates in secret and hides its research data. Its companies donate huge amounts to politicians to subvert attempts by the FDA to address simple safety concerns (e.g., the ephedrine scandal of a few years ago). It isn't that most doctors and scientists trust drug companies and hate nutraceutical companies-- it's that most of us mistrust all big corporations to act in the public interest if it will cost them money. However, most of think that those corporations that fail to disclose evidence of safety and efficacy and pay politicians to continue to be allowed do so are far more dangerous and far less credible. So please spare us your naive nonsense about our inability to recognize bias. If any Mannatech product had any therapeutic value, the company would have sponsored trials long ago to publicly demonstrate this. The orphan drug laws are a gold mine for a company that has a product that helps a little girl with a devastating, untreatable disease. Watch what is happening with the company making a drug for Farber disease, so rare that as of last year they hadn't even treated anyone. So tell us why Mannatech chose to use a poor child who died of Tay-Sachs disease as an advertising example, even after the child was dead and the parent asked them to stop because it hadn't helped [1]. When you tell us there are "tens of thousands" of cases of therapeutic efficacy, why do you think the company advertised a single example of failure, misrepresenting it for years as an example of success? Is it because Mannatech is in the business of selling distributorships, not drugs, so they can distance themselves from those who have to lie to sell a worthless product? How can you have any respect for a company that wants people to think its products treat diseases but wants people like you and the distributors to tell the lies so it can deny them? alteripse 11:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked you elsewhere but it's worth asking right near your incredible question directly above. Are you saying that Dr. Ben Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ben_Carson ), a famous neurosurgeon still at Johns Hopkins, voted by Newsweek as one of the top doctors in the world not long ago... was lying when he got up in front of thousands of poeple and said that Mannatech products saved his life? http://www.livetest.the-wellness-channel.org/Wellness_Website_Option_B.htm I tend to believe him and thousands of others I have met. Why wouldn't I? I would be a damn fool if I didn't believe what I have seen. Cosmochao 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I want to make sure I understand (and perhaps to help you understand something as well): Are you calling Dr. Ben Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ben_Carson) a liar when he spoke to thousands of people about how the products helped save his life http://www.livetest.the-wellness-channel.org/Wellness_Website_Option_B.htm Cosmochao 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You said: As evidence of medical efficacy, testimonials are close to the bottom in terms of quality and reliability. Can you provide a source for that?Cosmochao 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you clarify this more and verify it as well? You said: The highest level of scientific evidence is multiple, published, peer-reviewed research papers from different groups finding the same thing.

Also, please explain how your above premises stand up to the following page in history where it took 339 years for the science you speak of to validate what observational science had already known (how many lives were harmed): The history of Vitamin C is well known. When sailors showed symptoms of scurvy, scientists tried to find the cause. In 1593, Sir Richard Hawkins noted that the condition lessened considerably when sailors ate citrus fruits, but it was not until the mid 1700's that Hawkins' antidote was revived. In 1804, the British Navy finally made it mandatory that each sailor be alloted limes on their voyages. Hence, the name "limies" was given to them. Finally, in 1932, a Hungarian scientist isolated and identified Vitamin C as the nutrient responsible for the age-old disease of scurvy. He called it "ascorbic acid," which literally means "no scurvy." Cosmochao 11:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a good analogy — in Hawkins' time (late 16th century) the Scientific Method was still in its infancy, and anecdotal evidence was often the only method available to identify treatments for disease. It wasn't until James Lind conducted structured trials (possibly the first-ever clinical trials) 150 years later that citrus fruits gained widespread recognition as the cure and prevention for scurvy they are. In the mean time, yes, some used citrus fruits as a treatment, but they also used thousands of other treatments that were variously effective or ineffective, and frequently damaging. In other words, while people knew that foods like citrus fruits could help, they didn't understand why. It wasn't until 1932 through consistent use of the scientific method that vitamin C was identified as the key (thus enabling us to accurately and methodically identify other foods that could treat scurvy and actually create specific medicines).

Where the analogy fails is that since we now have a useful tool (the scientific method) that Hawkins and others didn't, we can avoid the delays and dangers that reliance on only observation and anecdotal experience entail. In hindsight we can point to Hawkins and say, "What an unappreciated genius!", but we are also ignoring all the other "geniuses" and their "cures" that were ineffective (like sauerkraut, malt, good morale, scurvy grass, exercise, good hygiene, etc.). If only Hawkins and others had the scientific method, then they would not be unappreciated. So comparing Mannatech's situation to them is not only faulty, but proves the counter-argument. Jim Dunning | talk 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is sense to your comments in the context that you established to make your point. What your point is missing, however, is that there are tremendous financial and political limitations of conducting adaquate trials--it takes a lot of time and money to do adaquate trials and research. Note that Mannatech is starting the process without funding from the government or non profits (as you can see reference to in the Wikipedia article). Mannatech does not have established lobbying groups who work with Congress on a regular basis to encourage government funding for specific areas of research that would greatly assist proving efficacy (as the pharmaceutical industry does). Nor do the Universities or non-profits know much about glyconutrition to be encouraged to direct money into proving it's efficacy. So it's left to Mannatech to do so, at least during these early stages of the game, and they are (see Wikipedia article and the site glycoscience.org). Where else can they start then where they have? Note how long it took for it to become scientifically accepted that antioxidants are beneficial. You may know better than I how long it took from when they were first sold by nutritional companies to the day it was 'accepted.' My point is that there is a long gap even with modern science to provide what observational science and 'reasoning' may already show us (while of course we still use caution at the same time). 20 years ago the nutritional industry (with their 'weak science' could have been wrong about antioxidants... but they weren't. And the scientific community was eventually able to figure out what many people who were once called 'quacks' already knew. There is a terrible gap and a lot of limitations in coming up with clinical trials that satisfy modern science overnight... there is a process that starts with simple peer or acedemic reviewed case studies or group studies and by visiting www.glycoscience.org you will see Mannatech has taken great strides to begin the process accertively. A little more consideration should be taken into the limitations of creating 'satisfying' research and more should be taken into considering th evidence that leads up to why the scientific community finally takes the time to do the FIRST expensive study. For example, before an adaquate study was ever done on antioxidants, there was a termendous amount of data that was known and talked about, which finally led up to doing the first adaquate study. Why not take into account those items accumulatively that support glyconutrients, when discussing this topic? Also, why not mention in an encyclopedia that many people are turning to these products (and other nutritional or alternative products) [see 20/20] that are not proven to treat disease even though the scientific community has not proven their efficacy, BECAUSE of this accumulative evidence or observations, or the sharing of observations. Why not add this creates a controversy for reasons you have explained.Cosmochao 07:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph appears to have been plagiarized. Try not to post copyrighted material to Wikipedia - it's against the law (and policy). Antelan ^talk 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You also said, "If something looks promising, other researchers and companies quickly test similar or closely related substances. You seem to have this bizarre fantasy that if something looks promising, other companies will band together to pay off hundreds of doctors and scientists to suppress or persuade everyone to ignore it, or that thousands of doctors and scientists will not be able to recognize that it has potential value."

But note that thousands of doctors and scientists ARE able to recgonize the value of glyconutrients and this number grows daily (see www.fisherinstitute.com, glycoscience.org for peer reviewed studies and references for names of scientists and doctors) in spite of the pharmaceutically influenced social paradigm (impacted by lobbing, advertising, and held also status quo that slows all progress such as the discovery of connection between citrus fruit and scurvey).Cosmochao 11:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that you lack citing sources all throughout your remarks as I do--that allows us to have a discussion.Cosmochao 11:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a typical explanation of hierarchy of evidence: [2]. The ranking is in descending order of reliability: the most reliable evidence is least likely to be wrong. Notice that commercial testimonials provided by the company that sells a product have such a poor level of reliability that they are not even ranked. The history of such commercial testimonials and the reason they have been outlawed from drug advertising is recounted in detail in books like Young's "The Medical Messiahs"James Harvey, Young. The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America. Princeton Univ Pr..

Thank you for offering the vitamin C example as it illustrates exactly what I am describing. During the same years that some people thought limes were efficacious, many people thought bleeding was efficacious. It wasn't until James Lind actually conducted a trial [3] that the antiscorbutic efficacy of limes was reliably demonstrated. As medicine began to rely more on scientific investigation to separate out treatments that worked from treatments that didn't, practices like bleeding were abandoned. If you want pointers to the Endocrine Society meeting or the rosiglitazone controversy you can google them or I will provide them. Now please answer my questions about Mannatech. alteripse 11:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "The history of such commercial testimonials and the reason they have been outlawed from drug advertising is recounted in detail in books like Young's "The Medical Messiahs""--- Do you ever watch television!?

I see commercial testimonials EVERYWHERE for drugs on TV, from people (actors) who are paid, who most likely never took the drug! And you trust that more than a person who is sick who takes Mannatech's product, gets results (like Dr. Ben Carson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ben_Carson ) .. they tell others about their results and you call them a liar?Cosmochao 12:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that DRUGS are the 4th leading cause of death in the US according to their own JAMA! And that is only accounting for properly prescribed and used medications, and only counting people at home (not at the hospital like when my grandma died from a bad reaction to pain killers while being sedated). Just counting the ones they caught and recorded that (I repeat) happen at home and are properly prescribed and taken... it's the 4th leading killer... and they have commercial testimonials on TV telling them to ask their doctor about... and you are angry at Mannatech. The pharamaceutical influence on your mind is strong.Cosmochao 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe my eyes. You seem to be suggesting the pharmaceutical companies delayed recognition of the value of limes to prevent scurvey! I couldn't even have caricatured the idiocy of that argument! alteripse 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that over 300 years passed before mainstream caught on ... I don't need any more science to know what I have seen any more than sailors who used limes needed it in the 1500's. I enjoy to watch what sience discovers that I didn't know about, and I enjoy watching science catch up to what I already know (to explain it in more detail, etc).Cosmochao 12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But again, please answer my questions about Mannatech. alteripse 11:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You also said, "If something looks promising, other researchers and companies quickly test similar or closely related substances. You seem to have this bizarre fantasy that if something looks promising, other companies will band together to pay off hundreds of doctors and scientists to suppress or persuade everyone to ignore it, or that thousands of doctors and scientists will not be able to recognize that it has potential value."

But note that thousands of doctors and scientists ARE able to recgonize the value of glyconutrients and this number grows daily (see www.fisherinstitute.com, glycoscience.org for peer reviewed studies and references for names of scientists and doctors) in spite of the pharmaceutically influenced social paradigm (impacted by lobbing, advertising, and held also status quo that slows all progress such as the discovery of connection between citrus fruit and scurvey).Cosmochao 11:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that you lack citing sources all throughout your remarks as I do--that allows us to have a discussion.Cosmochao 11:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your questions here: You said: So tell us why Mannatech chose to use a poor child who died of Tay-Sachs disease as an advertising example, even after the child was dead and the parent asked them to stop because it hadn't helped [4]. When you tell us there are "tens of thousands" of cases of therapeutic efficacy, why do you think the company advertised a single example of failure, misrepresenting it for years as an example of success? Is it because Mannatech is in the business of selling distributorships, not drugs, so they can distance themselves from those who have to lie to sell a worthless product? How can you have any respect for a company that wants people to think its products treat diseases but wants people like you and the distributors to tell the lies so it can deny them?

First, you say 'tell us why Mannatech chose to use a poor child..." When I read in the source you link to that, "In February 2005, Sam Castor and Dr. Kathryn Dykman were voluntarily dismissed as defendants, but the suit continues against the others." the others left in the suite are not Mannatech! It looks like they are a chiropractor and how can I speak to those events? There are 1 million people with Mannatech. I can speculate but that doesn't seem appropriate. Have you any word on the outcome of the suit? There is a MAJOR difference between suing someone and winning the suit. It's understandable to ask about such things but to draw conclusions from this about the efficacy of Mannatech's products is rediculous. Niether you nor I know anything about it and Mannatech was dismissed, and I am sure Mannatech never knew a thing about this until it was brought to their attention. You are looking through very tainted glasses, my friend.

Your premise that .. the company advertised a single example of failure, misrepresenting it for years as an example of success? is based on what again? A suit that ended with what conclusion do we know? And what did Mannatech have to do with it again?

And you said, "Is it because Mannatech is in the business of selling distributorships, not drugs, so they can distance themselves from those who have to lie to sell a worthless product?" -- this is so sad. But what can I say. You call me a liar. How can I possibly respond to that constructively?Cosmochao 11:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you also believe that Dr. Ben Carson at John Hopkins Hospital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ben_Carson is a liar when he gets in front of thousands of Mannatech associates and proclaims the products played a major role in saving his life? http://www.livetest.the-wellness-channel.org/Wellness_Website_Option_B.htm Cosmochao 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I lost my temper and expressed my frustration at the general dishonesty/stupidity of your arguments and your company's behavior. You are correct that actors pretending to benefit from a drug in a tv commercial is pretty close to testimonials as worthless evidence. You were also correct to draw a distinction between advertising by the company and advertising by distributors, and I had assumed the company personnel named in the suit were indeed responsible for the deceitful advertising. However, as you correctly pointed out, perhaps it was simply one of those overenthusiastic "tens of thousands" of distributors over whom the company has no control or responsibility. The company has done an impressive job of disclaiming all the lies and dishonest claims while continuing to foster the beliefs and behaviors among the distributors that their product does indeed do all those things. It is an impressive job of earning a fortune by mining the gap between the spirit and the letter of the law. According to you, Mannatech's products have been restoring health and saving lives of thousands for over a decade now. All they would have to do to convince the world is sponsor some controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the benefit, just like Lind produced convincing proof of the efficacy of limes with a simple controlled trial. Think of all the lives that would have been saved and improved! Why have they not done this? Does this not bother you even a little bit? Can you really make these claims without a shred of shame? alteripse 23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see glycoscience.org, fisherinstitute.org, and the Wikipedia article for information on extensive investment by Mannatech into substantiating its products efficacy through peer-reviewed research. Also, I am still interested in hearing your response about Dr. Ben Carson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ben_Carson) who speaks publicly about how the products saved his life and why he thinks nutrition, including glyconutrition, should be included as complimentary medicine along with standard of care http://www.livetest.the-wellness-channel.org/Wellness_Website_Option_B.htm Cosmochao 07:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Where? Please give me one simple direct link to a controlled trial showing that a Mannatech product produced a benefit for a single health problem. Not speculation, not advertising hype, not investor propaganda, not an uncontrolled case study or testimonial. For a product with "tens of thousands" of cases of people helped, that should not be difficult. I will publicly modify my opinion of this company and its way of doing business, and will even help describe the study in a paragraph of the article. Your inability to provide one single direct link to a peer-reviewed, published, controlled study, however, will confirm my most uncharitable suspicions about the whole operation, though I would still be curious as to your speculation as to why none exist. As to Ben Carson, I assume you are linking to a paid testimonial and we have already reviewed the evidence value (as opposed to advertising value) of those. alteripse 22:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source showing Dr. Ben Carson was paid. Also, you may want to refer to the title of this discussion, which you created, entitled: "evidence, source reliabiliy, and scientific epistemology 101 for cosmochao" and replace the username with alteripse! I will be eagerly awaiting evidence and source reliability for your very significant statement about Dr. Ben Carson at Johns Hopkins. Cosmochao 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the link-- it is a testimonial. I don't know whether he was paid (it is reasonable to assume so), nor even whether he is telling the truth (it is reasonable to assume so), but a testimonial is not scientific evidence-- it is advertising. It certainly does not belong in this article as anything else. I don't know how else to help you understand this distinction. alteripse 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the www.glycoscience.org site (which states that it "is designed to provide information on nutritional saccharides -- glyconutritionals -- that form the scientific underpinnings for Mannatech's™ product line to health professionals, consumers, and research scientists), and followed a link labeled "Glyconutritional Studies". This presented me with a list of "GLYCONUTRITIONAL STUDIES" broken down into categories of Chemistry, In Vitro, Animal, Human Observational: Case Report, Human Interventional: Clinical Trial, etc. The first article under the Human Observational heading is from the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association (JANA) and presents a study on "Observed Improvements in Developmental Dyslexia Accompanied by Supplementation with Glyconutritionals and Phytonutritionals". Nine of the 14 paragraphs in this paper focus on an explanation of dyslexia and the background of the study's subject. Of the remaining five paragraphs, two were summaries, the other three anecdotally describing the possible treatment results, concluding, "It will be necessary to continue to observe the child’s progress to determine if the improvement is a normal cyclic event of the dyslexia or related somehow to the dietary supplements." By the way, the persons making the observations were not even aware there was a "study" taking place.

I almost didn't even read the paper once I went to the JANA website, which is a spam advertising site with a theme of "rheumatoid arthritis" and no mention of dyslexia.

Another article under the same category is about an elderly woman suffering from colon cancer. The study describes her regimen of taking "heaping teaspoons of a glyconutritional supplement" while recovering from surgery. It concludes with "Many anecdotal reports have been received for years regarding cancer patients who have shown similar reductions in expected side effects of therapy when they took glyconutritional supplements . . . There is no evidence that enhancement of nutritional status with glyconutritionals reduces the efficacy of cancer therapy." It closes with the recommendation that "Well-designed clinical investigations are warranted to determine the true value of glyconutritional supplementation in cancer patients who receive standard therapies."

Of the 33 studies listed on this website, only two of them occurred in the past five years; most were in the 1990s.

I find it interesting that the papers I checked have not been peer reviewed, have the commonality of recommending that clinical trials be conducted (but no indication that there was any follow-up), and while any citations were indeed to what appear to be respectable publications, they were for the parts of the article that describe the subject's medical condition, not anything to do with glyconutrition. In fact, a common trait of these papers is to create the gloss of scholarliness by devoting most of the content to descriptions of the ailment, with only about 10 percent devoted to anecdotal descriptions about the "treatment" and conclusions (followed by non-statements about the efficacy of the Mannatech product and a suggestion to study it scientifically). There is no way these "papers" will be mistaken for scientific studies, so they should not be used for sources for this article: they do not meet the standards for encyclopedic verifiability. To expand, I do not let my students cite Wikipedia in their papers. I do, however, allow them to use WP as a tool and they must check each citation for reliability. If any of them used these sources, I would disallow them because they are primarily commercial sites supporting Mannatech's products.

As for the fisherinstitute.org site . . . well, best not to go there. Jim Dunning | talk 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I appreciate you taking the time explain your perspective; You said some things that I think you may find interesting when considering another perspective that is also based on facts of the matter. I am curious how you may respond. For example, you said that you would not allow your students to use glycoscience.org as a source because it is a commerical site supporting Mannatech's products. However, this doesn't take into account an important part of the equation that would be a main point in my article, essay or disertation. That is: because Mannatech owns the patents on glyconutrition (and because it is a brand new discovery) they would be the only commercial force motivated to invest in glyconutritional research at this time. And since they are not in an established position to lobby for research grants as the pharmaceutical industry can to encourage related research that can assist them, Mannatech is at a real disadvantage to meet the requirements at this early juncture. If I were your student doing a paper on glyconutrients and/or Mannatech I would reasonably request that I include glycoscience.org articles as a source for my paper on the condition of including all of these issues and academic concerns. Academic rules are important but so is academics role in helping people understand ALL of the issues (even if not so easy to understand at first glance) revolving around controversial subjects. That is why this discussion should be included in the artile in the context of including your concerns and also the limitations presently at play that explain why there is inadaquate science at this early juncture.Cosmochao 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I am curious if you read the article at www.glycoscience.org under the FAQ entitled, "Can You Tell Me About the Peer Reviewed Process for Articles Published in GlycoScience & Nutrition?'Cosmochao 06:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Glycoscience.org is owned by Mannatech. From the Whois information, you can see:

Domain ID:D-LROR

Domain Name:GLYCOSCIENCE.ORG

Created On:26-Jul-:58:00 UTC

Last Updated On:19-Jun-:08:11 UTC

Expiration Date:26-Jul-:57:59 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)

Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED

Registrant ID:-NSI

Registrant Name:Mannatech, Inc.

Registrant Organization:Mannatech, Inc.

Registrant Street1:600 S. Royal Ln.

Registrant Street2:Suite 200

Registrant Street3:

Registrant City:Coppell

Registrant State/Province:TX

Registrant Postal Code:75019

Registrant Country:US

Registrant Phone:+1.

Antelan ^talk 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As for 'Peer review', Glycoscience.org plainly states, "Solicited and unsolicited manuscripts then undergo a review by R&D Staff." Mannatech's R&D staff reviews the material. This is not classical peer review. Imagine if Pfizer got to "peer review" its own articles; we would call that a farce, and rightly so. This is no different. Antelan ^talk 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And as for fisherinstitute.org, check out the relationship between the person (McCuistion) who registered its website and Mannatech — Charity's links to firm raise questions. The news article from last November says, "Under McDaniel's guidance, the institute has periodically published a journal devoted almost entirely to articles and studies portraying the potential effectiveness of Mannatech's products, known as glyconutrients, in dealing with various diseases and conditions. The journal, called Proceedings, has become a sales tool for Mannatech associates, who build "downlines" by persuading others to buy the company's products. At the same time, McDaniel has accumulated substantial holdings in Mannatech, a publicly traded company that has seen its sales and stock price soar in recent years. At least a portion of the Mannatech stock acquired by McDaniel was sold to him at a steep discount by the company's chairman and chief executive officer, Sam Caster." Yep, that's what I call independent peer review. Jim Dunning | talk 19:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

* In the interest of full disclosure, I realize that the www.rickross.com link above to the Fisher Institute newspaper article is not necessarily a "reliable" source. It contains the text of an article from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The original article is available at the Star-Telegram site for a small fee, so not accessible to all. I viewed the article and the copy at the Rick Ross site is identical. You can decide for yourself if my word alone is enough by spending $2.95 to read the article. Jim Dunning | talk 05:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

Let's take a moment to review the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This conversation has strayed from an explanation of what probably can and probably cannot go into an article into a conversation on the merits of various individuals' beliefs. Let's keep this on-topic, productive, and within guidelines. Antelan ^talk 12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cosmochao, if you want to make changes to this article, you need to start producing encyclopedic statements that are directly relevant to Mannatech and are WP:V. There is no need to attempt to draw other editors into a philosophical debate when you can simply produce material and get it published. Antelan ^talk 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Antelan, but surely you understand why this entire dialogue has been extremely benefial in my understanding about how to go about doing so. I am still eager to learn your personal motivation for monitoring this key word so dilligently. Will you ever share. I believe it is such an important part of this discussion when seeking a way to find consensus on possible directions to take this article. I have a lot of research to do to meet your requirements because this is all new (as it was new in the 1500s and hard to prove efficacy of limes for Scurvey). Therefor, having the above dialogue and knowing your motivation for being here could greatly assist me in knowing where to focus my points in order to seek consensus.Cosmochao 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cosmochao, from this point on please refrain from inquiring further about Antelan's (or anyone else's) motivations for editing this article. I've reviewed all other editors' contributions and communications with you, and they are all consistent with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and, most importantly, supporting content with reliable sources and verifiability. Their motivations for involvement in WP are irrelevant as long as their efforts conform to WP practices and are respectful of other editors. Focus on the contribution, not the contributor. You have brought up the issue of "motivation" at least 20 times, but it is irrelevant here since all other editors have asked for only what WP requires. Even if you were, say, a chiropractor with existing financial ties to Mannatech (for example) no one would question your motivation for editing here as long as your contributions complied with the above-mentioned WP policies. I, for example, have little interest in glyconutrition, but am interested in ensuring this article is the best it can be, so I stay involved. So assume good faith and address content only. Jim Dunning | talk 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I appreciate the suggestion and will keep it in mind; however, without me directly accusing anyone of bias at this time (out of respect of your last post) may I ask you what a person's next steps would be to challenge this article if they believe there is a real issue with neutrality?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to change structure of first sentence of article

Question: Can we change the structure of the first sentence slightly to emphasize Mannatech's role in glyconutrient R and D rather than on 'engaging in MLM?' For example, presently the first sentence of the article emphasizes MLM when it says,"Mannatech, Incorporated, is a multinational firm engaged in multilevel marketing, etc. First, this does not read as well as my suggestion here: Mannatech, Incorporated, is a multinational firm engaged in the research, development and distribution of glyconutrient products through multi-level marketing. Second, we should consider adding 'development' as they surely 'develop glyconutrient products' as it states on their site which we already use as a source. How do we get into a discussion about the structuring of sentences in order to change emphasis? Cosmochao 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but my understanding is that this is a company that sells distributorships, not therapeutic products, which is why they do not want to be judged and held to FDA standards. If you can supply us with the evidence of published research we can certainly include it in the description. alteripse 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else here with a response to my question other than alterprise?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way Alterprise, see DSA and FTC websites regarding laws concerning selling distributorships vs. selling products. It is illegal, according to FTC website for associates to earn money on the sell of distributorships. Therefor your statement is not valid in this case. Can anyone else here comment? Let's not let egos get too much in the way in this process!Cosmochao 06:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't let my ego distract you; it isn't distracting me from trying to evaluate the validity of your statements and attempting to be precise and accurate as to what things are. As I have freely admitted, occasionally you have been correct. You, however, do not seem to have the ability to evaluate your own beliefs when multiple people have patiently offered you much evidence that many of them are erroneous. So what is the major source of Mannatech's income? Is it sale of its products or is it sale of opportunities to sell its products? I am willing to be educated. Are you? alteripse 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about 'reliable source'

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

Once and for all, sources are not verifiable

To answer Cosmachao's questions listed below all at once:

• Anyone else here with a response to my question other than alterprise?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, me.

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

Yes, as long as the article meets WP's standards for NPOV, no original research, reliability and verifiability.

• Jim, I am curious if you read the article at www.glycoscience.org under the FAQ entitled, "Can You Tell Me About the Peer Reviewed Process for Articles Published in GlycoScience & Nutrition?'Cosmochao 06:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, and most of the "peer review" process GlycoScience described is not peer review. It makes it sound and look like peer review, but it forgets the "independent" aspect of the process. In fact, to make it sound good it refers to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' standards for peer review, stating it meets them. However, the ICMJE specifically says that "A peerreviewed journal is one that submits most of its published research articles for outside review." Despite what GlycoScience says about its peer review process, this crucial step is specifically lacking from that process.

• I ask you what a person's next steps would be to challenge this article if they believe there is a real issue with neutrality?Cosmochao 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Jim Dunning | talk 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to suggest that the editors of Wikipedia are biased. However, if an article by PubMed Central, that lists a journaled article by J Int Soc Sports Nutr. was removed and vandalized, questions must be asked. I would understand the general policy for company funded research. However, this particular study was done by 3 well known Universities in independent studies. Shaunholmberg (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And you are urged by Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy to reveal your financial relationship with Mannatech before making contributions to this article.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Moratorium recommended

I suggest that ALL discussion on the neutrality and completeness of this article cease now until someone — anyone — can produce sources that support the views Cosmochao has put forward. It would be hard for anyone to argue that the voluminous and repetitive discussion on this page can go forward at this point productively. It's time for everyone to disengage from this for awhile. At a minimum, a hiatus of one week should do. Jim Dunning | talk 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jim, I agree with your recommendation that I disengage, at least for now, from seeking to understand where we may find consensus. One of my goals was to construct a more positive tone for the article. Doing so would NOT require the introduction of new points, new sources, or any removal of present sources. We will simply accept that for the moment, we cannot discuss that topic with this particular group. This is one of many examples where Wikipedia falls short, and understandably so, as administrators, moderators and the public's egos interfere with open discussion and a true spirit of collaboration. You, and others here, have given your time and I have benefited tremendously from your willingness to do so. I'm grateful for that. I realize that many of my opinions, points and questions frustrated some here but note my aim was more fundamential than just to 'improve' the article. I was seeking to learn where we may find consensus for changes of tone, which required I learned more about you and your values (all contributors of the article). I have learned all I can over this interface. I understand that, in addition to the egos, there are many values that are interfering with an open discussion here. This was all inspired by a sincere eagerness to discover the fundamental reasons why this Mannatech article is presently written with a tone of negativity toward the company. I believe that was uncovered partly and while working with collarborators outside of Wikipedia I may be able to come up with a more objective approach to finding consensus. Wishing you the best, Cosmochao 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

An excerpt from Wikipedia about Wikipedia's weakness

It appears that the Mannatech article may be an example of Wikipedia's weakness as a viable source of information.

In Wikipedia's article where it describes itself (Wikipedia), it states that, "Wikipedia's open nature has critics questioning its reliability and accuracy.[9] The site has also been criticized for its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of false or unverified information,[10] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies.

The lengthy discussion above illustrates a systemic bias in the case of the Mannatech article.76.105.197.64 01:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that this anonymous user points out Wikipedia's willingness to document its negative aspects in addition to its positive ones, while Mannatech and its adherents have a difficult time doing just that about Mannatech. I will point out that I'm surprised at how favorable the Mannatech article appears considering the huge amount of critical press about Mannatech that exists. I stumbled upon this article accidentally, knowing nothing about glyconutrients and even less about Mannatech. I still have little or no interest in the subject itself, but stayed here a bit to foster the NPOV of the article. During that brief time I became amazed at the controversy surrounding the sales practices of the company. I would think that Mannatech supporters would want to lay low and not call attention to this article (about Mannatech) since there are many times more negative articles out there that qualify as reliable sources than positive: they risk someone really going to town and discussing them all.

It's also telling that this user didn't see fit to quote the rest of the paragraph about Wikipedia: "Two scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived and that Wikipedia is generally as accurate as other encyclopedias." I believe one of them was published in Nature magazine, but, then, that magazine wouldn't be on her/his list of reliable sources. I'd like to see Mannatech supporters write an article about Mannatech as well-balanced and with reliable third-party sourcing as the Wikipedia article. Jim Dunning | talk 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, most people do NOT allow the media do the thinking for them, Jim. Enough said.76.105.197.64 11:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cosmochao. Non-content-based talk-page meta-discussions are limited in their ability to improve the page at this point, and you've said as much yourself. You are still welcome to add constructively to this article, whether or not you choose to log in. Antelan ^talk 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

ljames contributions

There were many reasons the material was removed, including some inaccuracies, some irrelevancies, some argumentation that has no place in an encyclopedia article, as well as what we are coming to recognize as the trademark "we want to have it both ways" of a mannatech devotee. If you really want to discuss how some of the material can be made useful, please offer it here, one assertion at a time, and one of us will either explain what needs to be changed about it or help work out a useable way to say it. alteripse 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a conflict with Dr. Freezes statement that Ambrotose causes flatulence, so my question is, how do you expose the fact that Dr. Freeze utilizes glyconutrients orally in research papers concluding significant health improvements?

As you see from this reference here, Dr. Hudson Freezes research paper clearly reveals that he is not being honest with ABC 20/20 http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/3/533, he revealed in his own research paper in 1997 that mannose, one of the listed ingredients which can also be found in Mannatech's Ambrotose , is orally absorbed in both normal individuals and patients with Carbohydrate Deficient Glycoprotein Syndrome.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Dr. Hudson concludes in his own words on his web site, "These results establish the feasibility of using mannose as a potential therapeutic dietary supplement."

Also, the Forbes reference to Dr. John Axford with stock options, doesn't reveal any reference to who this man really is. He is the immediate past President of Immunology and Rheumotology of the Royal Society of Medicine. That is top of the food chain in the medical world.

Would it behoove anyone to give a detailed page on Wikipedia on Dr. John Axford who's research is world renowned?

Also, I want to expose why dietary supplements do not fall under the same guidelines as drug research. Once that is understood, then the reference to FDA approval for a non toxic food molecule becomes irrelevant.

There are no laws set in place to regulate supplements. The FDA can only regulate drugs. Instead, there are Good Manufacturing Practices set up by the FDA for supplement companies to voluntarily adhere to these guidelines. Mannatech does.

This information is very important. To approve Mannatech's Ambrotose as a drug, the pharmaceutical research team must see how much can kill a rat and then a human being to establish an LD50 (lethal Half Dose). Once the pharmaceutical company establishes an LD50, then the FDA can process the approval. Unfortunately, when they were trying to make "mannose" a drug treatment for AIDS, the rats just lived longer and looked better.

Non toxic supplements will not and never will fall under the same research guidelines as a drug, folks.

LLJames

Thank you for responding and making it discussable. It sounds like we all agree on wanting an unbiased description of this controversial company. You are collectively lumping all editors together in writing as if there is a single author-- and I am probably guilty of the same collective stereotyping when I assume all the Mannatech devotees are coming from the same place and have the same intention of turning this article into a dishonest advertisement for a company with a history of misleading activities. In your case the primary thing that makes me doubt your honesty (and perhaps I am wrong and you are simply very uneducated about biological and medical research) was that your references did not support your assertions. So let's address specific points-- and I am assuming enough honesty on your part that I am taking your word for what the documents you describe say.

1. Regarding your assertion that Dr. Freeze's description of Mannatech glyconutrient products as being of limited digestibility (the point of the flatulence comment) and no therapeutic value: Your addition would be justified if (a) Hudson was disparaging Mannatech products that are primarily digestible, unconjugated mannose and (b) Hudson published a paper showing that a similar mannose preparation produced potentially therapeutic amounts in the body. Are you sure of both of these things, especially that the mannose preparation he tested was similar to the Mannatech product? I tried the link you provided but it didnt work for me. Can you give us a proper citation? If we can find enough info to equate the two preparations, this might be usable if reworded. I am telling you precisely what evidence would validate your assertion. My fear is that you do not know or will be unwilling to reveal enough about the composition of the main Mannatech product that we can evaluate the truth of your assertion, in which case your assertion cannot be justifiably included.
2. Regarding your assertion that Mannatech is not required to be evaluated as safe and efficacious treatment of a disease, you are correct. However, what characterizes Mannatech and similar companies is that they want it both ways-- they want to evade having to show evidence of safety and efficacy as a therapeutic agent, but they want their distributors and customers to buy their products on the basis of an assumed therapeutic efficacy. This is what I meant by "wanting it both ways" and is the fundamental rottenness at the heart of an operation like this. The paradox certainly needs to be a central part of this article, but you evade it.
3. Your removal of the information that John Axford now has a large stake in the financial success of Mannatech, but wanting to emphasize how he establishded his reputation, was completely unwarranted. Every time a doctor gives a talk to other doctors, every time he writes an editorial or research commentary, he discloses his relationship to the relevant company because large holdings and beholdings can corrupt judgement and warp perspective. The whole world (whether doctors looking for treatment guidance or investors looking for investment guidance) think such a relationship is among the most significant and relevant facts to know about him. Will John Axford be the next Darryl See? There is no better illustration of this. How about an article on him? Just another minor episode of dishonesty the company disavows?
4. Your changing a sentence... " claims of scientific links to cellular glycobiology long disputed by the relevant individual Nobel prize winners." to say "The company is known for its literature, websites and multilevel marketing with claims of scientific links to cellular glycobiology. Nobel prize winners who are involved in the research of glycobiology are not familiar with Mannatech nor dietary supplements. They are involved in drug research with these biological sugars not non toxic supplementation." offends on multiple levels. The article does not at all support your assertion, so it is dishonest referencing. It was removal of an extremely pertinent example of scientists so offended by the misleading use of their names and research as to publicly disavow any involvement. There are few dietary supplement companies whose marketers are so misleading as to evoke that kind of disavowal from multiple respected scientists. It is certainly worthy of inclusion here. Even what you inserted is dishonest: the quoted scientists said that Mannatech or distributors had used their names and work misleadingly, not whether glyconutrients were of value or not.

It is time to stop, as my indignance level just topped out and your misleading edits aren't worth another hour of analysis. Maybe later. alteripse 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on your reaction to each point, I can clearly see that dishonesty is not the issue here, its guilty until proven innocent. I agree with you about being unbiased and neutral, however, its your emotional reaction that's surprising me.

These allegations from the media to mess with publicly traded stock are petty and have not been proven and you are speculating dishonesty just as the negative propaganda implies, such as this word you use, "Mannatech devotee" to automatically speculate that I'm dishonest. It appears you are clearly siding with media and throwing logic out the window when it comes to carbohydrate research which does not always fall into the same guidelines as drug research.

I happen to know someone who worked with Dr. Freeze for quite some time and he definitely has an agenda against Mannatech and I think of Dr. See as no different when it comes to small mindedness. There are no short cuts when it comes to honesty and integrity. I believe Freeze will be exposed.

About the mannose preparation? Go to Carrington Labs where Mannatech has contracted that preperation and read about the preparation and the studies behind that mannose on PubMed.org and its revealed for the public to view.

Once mannose is isolated regardless if it comes from Shitaki Mushrooms or Aloe Vera... its absorption and distribution are the same. Ask any biochemist involved in glycobiology/carbohydrate research where they get their mannose preparation or their L-Fucose preparation etc. Once isolated, its the same. Look at Harper's Biochemistry, a definitive medical test book, the absorption is the same. Just look at the V Max diagram on enzymatic reactions to the known carbohydrates.

Sad, I'm seen as dishonest when I'm wanting to expose the truth. Yet, I read your unwarranted point that Dr. Axford is foreseen by you as the next See is again, clearly an emotional reaction and speculation on your part. Please don't lump him in the same league as Dr. Axford, who is a Fulbright Scholar.http://www.iie.org/Template.cfm?section=Fulbright1 and has influenced our medical practices on immunology today.

Since Glucose is an identified sugar for proper brain function on our PubMed.org web site, then I guess we have to think of Ambrotose as one big fat placebo, then.

The conclusion is not about being a Mannatech devotee to make my impact invalid, its that the article about Mannatech sways the reader to believe that studies on Ambrotose are irrelevant if not FDA approved or peer reviewed in a medical format, when one does not understand how drug research and dietary supplement research do not and never will require the same guidelines to prove efficacy.

Does it make sense to go around and ask your doctor if the drug was triple blind placebo before you consume it only to find out later that your phen phen or viox kills people? People are looking for non invasive methods as an option and Mannatech fits into that market place. So what!

The frustration is that over 90% of supplements out there have very little or no biological activity in them whatsoever, and when an R & D company cooperates with FDA guidelines goes out of their way to help support scientific evidence for food based molecules, its disregarded if its not through the same procedures as a drug. That's rediculous, look at GMP FDA web site to know these regulations are strict for dietary supplements and its not required by law for a supplement company to follow those guidelines. However, Mannatech does.

People, how can you test non toxic food molecules like a drug when it doesn't fall into the same guideline as a drug?

The answer is that you can't and you shouldn't. Especially when it is non toxic on any level when phase one testing revealed that the rats just lived longer and looked better.

You won't see Ambrotose in peer reviewed studies, you will see glyconutrients because FDA regulations dictate to keep the branded name separate from the actual study when you can't kill a rat. Triple and double blind studies on Mannatech's Ambrotose that have been peer reviewed (revealed to a panel of medical experts) are on PubMed.org.

LLJames

I need some help. I tried looking for those peer reviews on www.PubMed.org and all I got was—

The following term was not found: Ambrotose.

See Details. No items found.

Did you mean: ambroise (1613 items)

Do you have the links? Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you will NOT SEE the branded name with the study on Ambrotose as FDA guidelines dictate that no branded name is to be attached to the study when a product has NO TOXICITY LEVELS. Sorry about the capitals, but people don't know this about drugs versus non toxic food molecules.

Also, health food stores or independent associates who sell supplements are required by law to reveal the studies separately as educational material, therefore, the appearance is that the associate is being deceptive when revealing peer reviewed studies. Thus, the word dishonest Mannatech devotee comes up from this False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR) when its really about not having the constitutional freedom to openly share studies to back up particular dietary supplements.

I wish we lived in a country where we are allowed to show Mannatech's Ambrotose or any supplement branded name attached to these studies but in New Zealand its far worse. You can't show studies at all!

When you go to PubMed.org type in Glyconutrients and see

Sierpina VS, Murray RK. and

Lefkowitz DL, Stuart R, Gnade BT, Roberts E, Lefkowitz SS. (a triple blind study on Ambrotose, click on them.

By law, I'm not allowed to supply the links because again, non toxic supplementation with no toxicity levels cannot be shared with the branded name of the product. It is a way of restricting our rights to share alternatives. This is fact if you look at how our laws support drugs and not dietary supplementation. Its not a conspiracy, its an economic issue.

Do you see what natural holistic health care practitioners are up against in the US and why the media seems to win in making it appear that Mannatech is somehow dishonest? Our laws do not support non toxic dietary supplements or natural alternatives. Its a real uphill battle.

Read the history of the AMA, how it was formed, how drug research became what it is today and its very shocking to see where the real deception is. Especially when you find out along the way where the quote "Chiropractors are not real doctors" comes into play.

LLJames

Not sure what you mean by "Again" since this is the first time I've asked for this info. I'd like to understand this stuff better (i.e. be educated), so the links to the reviews would be useful. Finding it hard to believe that a Mannatech Associate (whatever that means) is unable to point me in the direction of publicly available government documents, especially when she/he directed me to the website in the first place. I'll try searching for glyconutrients instead. Very interesting.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were responding to previous post. I know its hard to believe that a Mannatech associate cannot give you direct links, but in the US, any health food store owner, vitamin shop owner or independent vitamin sales person cannot include direct links to peer reviewed studies if the branded name of their company is on the same page or e mail. So, since Mannatech is mentioned all over this discussion board, I cannot provide the direct links. I can only describe how to find them.

Further restrictions state that we all cannot say testimonial or we cannot say that the body heals itself. We have to say life experience or the body corrects itself. These are FDA attorneys restricting our freedom of speech because the pharmaceutical industry owns the word cure. In New Zealand its worse, when selling supplements you cannot show any studies. Even if a glycobiologist marketed glyconutrients, they cannot use the word cure due to the fact that it has no toxicity levels.

Even though there are known nutritional deficiencies that can cause illness and disease, you still cannot use the word cure, treat or ameliorate any disease. There is a world unification law trying to stop vitamin/minerals in therapeutic dosages, meaning our freedom to choose is being threatened, type in CODEX in your google search engine and you will see propaganda saying its protecting us and propaganda saying its out to get us. You be the judge.

LLJames

Okay. Thanks for helping me find those. Are there more of them? Is there some other source that provides a list of the rest of the reviews? Thanks, again.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read the research articles cited, you will see that (1) the studies are in vitro, and (2) they are supported by Mannatech (i.e., not strictly independent). These are not controlled "trials" in the medical sense of the term. That said, this info is already present in the glyconutrient article. Antelan ^talk 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More lies, James. The pharmaceutical industry does not own the word cure, and I cannot remember any pharmaceutical advertising that ever used that word. Our government passed consumer-protection laws to prevent a company from claiming therapeutic efficacy unless they are willing to provide the evidence. Nothing prevents Mannatech from offering the same evidence to earn the right to make the claims, except perhaps the fear of those who run the company that truly controlled and honest trials would show no efficacy. I know those laws chafe you something awful. It just aint fair that you can't make unproven claims, is it? alteripse 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, how can it be a lie when a pharmaceutical company is not allowed to use the word cure for a non toxic food molecule with proven efficacy? You know as well as I do that you cannot say limes cure scurvy or its a federal offense. You sure are harsh and emotional to call the FDA a liar, because this information is not coming from me, its coming form government guidelines and law.

There are also fine lines on laws that are designed to protect us and laws that are designed to keep us uninformed. Look at the law passed in 1947, that didn't give consumers the right to see studies to back up particular dietary supplements. That was the time when DDT was good for you and me. It wasn't until 1994, the DSHEA Law that allowed supplements to reveal studies, therefore... this wellness industry and supplementation is all new. Doctors don't even practice nutrition anyway, so what difference does it make to reveal a triple blind study to a doctor who will not utilize nutrition in his/her practice?

You evaded the information on how drug research and supplement research do not follow the same guidelines which restrict the word cure no matter how well its been proven to work, and supplement research with non toxic levels cannot follow the same guidelines, because when a product cannot reveal any toxicity levels through phase one testing, like how much can kill a rat or establish any LD50, then you cannot (no matter how well the product works) you cannot use the word cure. Yet, drugs can use the word cure and there are no drugs that have been proven to cure anyone.

What lies?

LLJames

You again twist the truth. There is no law forbidding controlled, independent trials of non-toxic substances. I don't understand your fixation on the word cure. Are you frustrated that you can't legally claim that your products cure people because you can't meet the evidentiary requirement to make the claim? And there was no law forbidding companies from publishing studies and information before 1994. Do you not understand the difference between permitted and required and forbidden, or are you just hoping we don't? alteripse 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I provided the information that there is an ability for non toxic supplements to be studied with controlled, independent trials and there was nothing I said that made it forbidden. Independent trials have been done.

Yet, ABC and you are saying that independent trials don't count because they are not triple blind. Then, when presenting independent triple blind studies on PubMed.org, they are ignored.

It is FDA law that it is forbidding to use the word cure after a controlled independent study has been completed with a non toxic substance no matter who or how powerful the pharmaceutical company is on its influence on the public or world.

It is LAW. Non toxic = no claim. Therefore, supplements will never be able to make a claim no matter how ethical and how perfect the study was done.

Cure is forbidden when a substance cannot reveal toxicity levels of any kind.http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html See case brought to the US House of Representatives regarding this issue. Its not my words, its law. Calling me a liar is calling the FDA a liar. I'm fixated on why dietary supplements can never make claims even though independent research following the same guidelines as drug research are completed.

LLJames

You are willfully misprepresenting the law. The FDA is simply trying to make a company choose to market their pills as a food item or a treatment. Amazingly, if you want to market your pill as a treatment, then you have to provide some toxicity and efficacy data. It tells us a lot about you and about your company that you feel this is a terribly unfair burden. As I mentioned, trying to market something to consumers as a treatment while trying to evade the laws requiring demonstration of efficacy is the core rottenness in the entire "dietary supplement" industry. Why do you think a law requiring a company that sells something to demonstrate that it works for what they claim it does is wrong, unless it is because you know that your claims are unsupportable? And you also lied when you said you supplied us with independent controlled trial information. Where? alteripse 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(Quoting myself from above:) If you read the research articles you cite, you will see that (1) the studies are in vitro, and (2) they are supported by Mannatech (i.e., not strictly independent). These are not controlled "trials" in the medical sense of the term. That said, this info is already present in the glyconutrient article. Antelan ^talk 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "The FDA is simply trying to make a company choose to market their pills as a food item or a treatment. Amazingly, if you want to market your pill as a treatment, then you have to provide some toxicity and efficacy data."

Now, we agree! TOXICITY LEVEL must be established to move it from a functional food to a treatment. You said it yourself.

If it is a food item that cannot establish toxicity level then you do not have the "right" to say treatment. About the FDA making it simple? It is clearly a law designed to a restrict therapeutic treatment with non toxic supplementation. that's not a good thing if a law passes to keep people from taking vitamin/minerals in therapeutic dosages.

I can make this real simple, all food molecules do not have a direct affect in the body as they do nothing. Its written in every DNA/RNA of every cell in the body that it must get particular food molecules to function properly, thus the body corrects itself with the proper nutritional tools.

See live blood cell analysis here: http://www.healthenlightenment.com/live-blood-cell-analysis.shtml

Does this warrant triple blind studies to prove that soda pop is poison and real nutrition is a treatment?

See list of known deficiencies and their possible affects on brain function:

http://discoveries.typepad.com/Nutritional_deficiency_causes_of_mental_dysfunction1.pdf

Can you imagine a world if those rights to take these supplements are taken away? You would see more of this http://www.breggin.com

The point is, that people are sick and tired of being sick and tired, they are not going to wait for some triple blind placebo test to tell them that broccoli is better for you than a snickers bar.

LLJames

But you are still a dishonest debater. You avoid my questions and argue against something no one has ever done or tried to do. No one has ever tried to prevent people from taking vitamins, and no one has ever tried to make people think snickers bars are healthier than brocolli. To claim so is simply a lie. And our fundamental dispute apparently boils down to two positions: I want the government to regulate corporations and keep thmm from making undemonstratable claims because I do not trust big corporations to do anything except try to maximize their profits at the expense of the rest of us. You apparently want all regulations dropped about what a company can claim about its products. There are two more difference in our positions. History is on my side-- all you have to do is read about what frauds were perpetrated before FDA regulations were put in place. Try this for some description of the good old days, when quacks with radio gadgets told cancer sufferers they were being cured, and quacks with vinegar and saltpeter told children with diabetes they could throw away their insulin. We know what happens when corporations are free to claim anything they want. The other difference between you and me is that you have repeatedly made untruthful claims throughout this dialog and in what you tried to do to the article. I don't think there is anything left to say. alteripse 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are statistics showing the contrary of what you are talking about here: http://www.marketmed.org/history.asp Sicko, the movie is out now, so go and see it.

QuackWatch? The man behind it is a de-licensed psychiatrist, and he is a fraud, and that's all I need to know. He is not a lisenced physician.

See http://www.breggin.com and "Are School Massacres Preventable" by googeling it. Everyone of those kids were on an SSRI. See FDA debacle on killing our own people with medications that were so called "FDA Approved" to learn what the FDA is really here for: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=&q=FDA+AIDS+hemophiliac&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

About no one has ever tried to prevent someone from taking vitamins? See Codex here: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php It is now illegal for any one to buy therapeutic dosages of vitamin c or purchase pharmaceutical grade golden seal in Germany, because they are now controlled by the global Codex that is influencing our FDA and FTC here in the US. Luckily, they can go to Denmark, just next door, to get the therapeutic dosages of vitamin/minerals they need.

About snake oil salesmen? Snake oil is an omega 3 fatty acid, so that's why it worked. The point is that our laws that were supposed to be set up to protect us are not doing a very good job of it and therefore, if you cannot kill a rat with a functional food molecule, you will never be able to make a claim even if it is proven to support the body's ability to necrose cancer tumors, even if the National Cancer Institute themselves backed up a study proving this... you cannot make a label claim because its NON TOXIC. I'm addressing law, fact, not philosophy.

LLJames

LLJames, you are addressing a philosophical point: are our current laws appropriate? This probably is not the place to discuss that, since such hypotheticals aren't going to become a part of this article. Antelan ^talk 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Our current laws, prevent supplement companies, i.e. Mannatech, from making label claims no matter how ethical the studies have been because phase one studies reveal no toxicity levels. One rat died in phase one study, so they thought they had established a toxicity level, but to no avail... It was later revealed that it just drowned in its water dish.

• • First lie. As explained above, the lack of toxicity is not what prevents Mannatech from making a therapeutic claim, but rather their choice to market the product as a foodstuff, not a treatment.

Thus, a supplement company distributor from either a traditional store format or MLM (consumer distribution model), cannot reveal studies with the branded name of the supplement attached to it.

• • Second lie. As was explained to you above, no law prevents a distributor from citing studies. The law prevents them from making a claim when the studies do not prove efficacy to legal standards.

The good news is that, PubMed.org has these studies that were triple and double blind on Mannatech's Ambrotose, but the bad news is that they are ignored or dismissed by the uninformed because you will not find Ambrotose on Pubmed.org.

• • Third lie. We have repeatedly asked you and your predecessor to cite just a single well-controlled published study meeting peer-reviewed standards that demonstrates clear benefit for a sugar preparation similar to Ambrotose. You could shut us up if you had one, but you are all bluff and bullshit. There are none.

That is why the page about Mannatech is inaccurate. It is a Research and Development company and they are innovators in glyconutrient technology. This company deserves to be categorized as R & D because they've proven to be R & D to the fullest extent of the law and yet... there is yellow journalism parroted on the page with allegations that have not yet been proven.

• • Fourth lie. You have not pointed out a single inaccurate assertion on the page or we will willingly change it. Not one.

The hippocracy is that the wording chose to describe Mannatech is inappropriate because it is more accusatory than it is fair. It is disinformation. Look up "disinformation" on WP.

• • Fifth lie. The article is very restrained in its coverage of Mannatech's critics. I just discovered that there have been something like 10 or more lawsuits or injunctions filed against this company over the past decade, all alleging dishonesty and misrepresentation, and only a couple are even mentioned. Shall we be more complete? I would point out that your sixth lie is that wikipedia is not a society ruled by horses, but we'll assume that is ignorance rather than dishonesty, and you probably wouldn't get it.

LLJames

• • LLJames, you are clearly a worthy defender of this company, with a character and conscience that epitomizes the whole Mannatech operation. I am fully aware I am breaking our usual rules to interpolate answers but this shouldn't stand. alteripse 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum or a chatroom, and is not the place for discussing the company except insofar as it is related to this article. You state that the company "deserves to be categorized as R & D". The very first line of this article satisfies your request already. Regards, Antelan ^talk 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

LLJames, you appear to be educated and passionate, but I have to agree with alteripse: this article is remarkably restrained in its treatment of Mannatech given the number of legal actions taken against it. I would think Mannatech's supporters should be leery of calling attention to it here. I think any chance of credibility Mannatech may have had for me dissipated when I found that the registrant for one of its sister "research" websites has as his own primary website a get-rich-quick scheme. Kind of pulled the curtain aside for me (thanks, Toto).
Jim Dunning | talk 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you mentioned a registrant for one of Mannatech's sister 'research' websites also has his own get-rich-quick scheme website. Could you provide more details here? cosmochao

(moved my last post to its own area below). cosmochao

Propose adding Medline references to this article

I suggest we add some references to the article pointing to the extensive research found on MedLine for the individual 'sugars' found in Ambrotose.

Before you respond, please read the following explanation for a quick brushing up on why Ambrotose does not need to be named in the study to justify inclusion in this article (just as many trademark pharmaceutical drug names are not named in studies that come up on MedLine when you search for a specific trademarked drug name.

Let's start by asking it this way (a question many have discussed in this area before):

Why don't we have articles available on MedLine for Ambrotose?

1. Medline covers scientific papers from many parts of the world.

2. Pharmacuetical (and other) companies with proprietary products have a trade mark name - a proprietary name - for their formulation of a particular chemical. But this name is not usually used in scientific discourse. So don't expect to see scientific papers on Panadol, but look for 'paracetamol' or 'acetaminophen'.

3. How do names work? Naming of particular chemicals... a) Systematic chemical name - this is generally quite long and meaningful only to chemists who work in the particular branch of chemistry - and not useful for even scientific discourse. The molecular structure of the substance leads to its name. International Non Proprietary Name - an agreed 'common name' for scientific work. (But it depends on which country!)

b) Generic name - generally used in scientific papers. This name may be given by the discoverer, or have grown into acceptance. It will usually give a chemist some idea of the class of substance, but not necessarily so. This is the most commonly used name in MedLine papers. Often there are versions of this name, depending on the properties being discussed.

c)Proprietary name - this is a trade-marked name given by the patent holder or formulator of the particular chemical. It is not usually used in scientific publications, unless it is very well known. There are many of these - each company has its own! For example: Consider Panadol a commonly used pain reliever (from Wikipedia) • INN: Paracetamol • IUPAC name: N-(4-hydroxy phenyl )-acetamide (For chemists) • British Approved Name (BAN): Paracetamol (UK and Australia - generic name) • United States Adopted Name (USAN): Acetaminophen (USA generic name) • Other generic names: N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, APAP, p-Acetamidophenol, Acetamol, ... (Just to be more confusing!) • Proprietary names: Tylenol®, Panadol®, Panamax®, Perdolan®, Calpol®, Doliprane®, Tachipirina®, ben-u-ron®,Atasol®, and others

4. As a help, sometimes in the indexing of scientific papers, a Proprietary name may be used, but not generally in the text itself. And if the proprietary name is used, the INN or USAN will be given as well. So you may find articles by searching for 'Panadol', but the text will usually use a generic name

5. So when you look up 'Ambrotose' (Proprietary name), don't expect to find references. 'Ambrotose' is not well known yet in scientific circles

Don't expect to find much on 'glyconutrients' either, as this term was coined by Mannatech (I believe), and is not yet in general use.

But look up each of the 8 glyconutrients by name, and you'll find hundreds (thousands) of articles.

6. So the gentleman on 20/20, and many of you in here, who say that there are ZERO articles on 'Ambrotose' are being truthful, but not intellectually honest, in my opinion. You need to check the papers on the individual glyconutrients!

So with this all in mind, I propose that if someone next submits here references to studies found on Medline naming any of the individual sugars that comprise Ambrotose, we consider adding it to this article. Cosmochao

We know the difference between brand names and chemical names. We have asked repeatedly for citations of independent controlled trials. None have been offered by either of you. None. Just endless nonsense about conspiracies, lies about the relevant laws, and attempts to bury unfavorable facts. All it would take for me to accept that a published trial is relevant would be (1) the rough composition of Ambrotose (i.e., is it all mannose or 90% mannose, or what?) and (2) a published study showing some objectively measurable benefit from a similar amount of a similar substance or combination. If after 15 years of marketing this stuff by this "research company" to thousands of people with implied or explicit health benefit promises, the best you can do is a study showing it simply gets into the body, but doesn't provide a measurable benefit, don't even bother. That would simply confirm every uncharitable suspicion I have about your honesty, knowledge, and/or intelligence, and the honesty of the company. On the other hand, if you can offer us even a single independent study showing an objective benefit, well enough controlled to exclude a placebo effect, for a substance similar in composition and amount to Ambrotose, I will personally format the reference and find a place for it in the article. It is now put up or shut up time. alteripse 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alteriprise has already brought up strong points. I simply would like to address your claim ("many trademark pharmaceutical drug names are not named in studies that come up on MedLine when you search for a specific trademarked drug name"). A search on PubMed for Vioxx yields over 1,500 results. This is one of thousands of drugs whose trade names are included in studies, especially by the time the relevant clinical trials are being conducted. Pharmaceutical drug names, along with their generic names, are used in studies - especially medical studies, which would be the relevant study in the case of Ambrotose. Antelan ^talk 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, the 'owners' of this article are completely evading the point. I will put this into simple terms to make it obvious to all who read this discussion that the people who 'watch over this article' are simply feeding their egos (or have some other incentive) by keeping the article for Mannatech as they wish it to be. Since there are MANY instances on MedLine where a specific search for a 'pharmaceutical trade name' pulls up studies done on the components in that drug (but that do not name the trade name itself) it is reasonable to include in this article that MedLine contains hundreds of studies on the components Mannatech provides in its product Ambrotose (like mannose, a key ingredient).Cosmochao 11:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respond DIRECTLY to the following proposal or DO NOT respond to this specific discussion at all. I repeat: I propose that if someone next submits here references to studies found on Medline naming any of the individual sugars that comprise Ambrotose, we consider adding it to this article.Cosmochao 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this has already been suggested by Alteripse four paragraphs above: any independent, peer-reviewed clinical trials of Ambrotose (or provable and relevant components) are welcome. Does anyone know where the results can be located? Also, let's all be civil here; there are no "owners", and I am not feeding my ego. I care not two wits about Mannatech: I just enjoy editing articles. So please STOP accusing me of anything else; it's getting old.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, there are hundreds of references on MedLine. I am seeking out those most appropriate here. I simply wanted to learn if they would be accepted if they are generic components.Cosmochao 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For the 5th time, YES! I just checked back and found at least 5 occasions in the last month when I begged you or LJames for worthwhile citations. The citation is relevant to Ambrotose and is worthy to be included in this article if (1) it described a trial involving one or more major components (this does require telling what Ambrotose is, so we can tell if it's the same thing), and if (2) it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) is controlled to eliminate a placebo effect, and (4) shows a significant benefit for a health problem. If you have a study that meets all four of those criteria, I will put it in the article myself. alteripse 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on Alteripse emotional out bursts and four letter words and accusations without a clear understanding of laws and logistics when presenting nutraceuticals to the public tells me that this person is clearly unqualified as there is a blatant biased reaction making this person seem more uninformed than a valid contributor.

LLJames

Royal Society and other recently deleted statements

I was uncomfortable when I saw a recent addition quickly deleted by Antelan (no criticism implied, Antelan), so I searched for some reference to The Royal Society's involvement with Ambrotose and found only material generated by Mannatech employees/contractors. Literally, the same claims stated almost verbatim hundreds of times on every blog imaginable, some even with links to all sorts of related sites, but not a single one to substantiate the statements about The Royal Society being involved in studies about Ambrotose or Mannatech. Can someone direct me to pertinent, reliable sources? Consequently, I agree that the unsourced statements need to come out until verified.

Also, I see the Royal Society's name being bandied about ad infinitum. Isn't it the analog to the U.S.'s AMA? So, how is its "involvement" with glyconutrition an affirmation of Mannatech's products? It seems that these statements are on par with any American physician who belongs to the AMA coming out in support of glyconutrients. Additionally, I did a search for Ambrotose at the RSM's website and came up with zero results. I also searched for "Axford" and found only one reference to him on their website: the RSM lists him as only one of many contributors at a conference this fall (during a single day on glycobiology). Are all these RSM references any more significant than a reference to the AMA?
Jim Dunning | talk 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your caution is appropriate. Likewise, I searched for a source to validate the Scripps claim and found nothing but blog comments. If there is truth to the claim that Mannatech has won these awards from institutions of science, this belongs in the article. However, we need to be able to validate the claims. Antelan ^talk 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no truth to the claim. The "Royal Society" is not sponsoring any research, and even if it were, it means nothing until it is reported as completed. This is one of the most common tricks in the quack repertoire: to claim ongoing research that can never be verified and is never reported. There will never be a research report by the Royal Society. In a decade if these folks are still promoting this, they will shrug their shoulders if anyone asks "what happened to the Royal Society research" and act like you are being unreasonable by even asking, but will tell you about how someone at, say, MIT is starting some real important but unverifiable research project. How about if we dig up the claims from the late 90s about the research projects that were just getting started. Has a single one been published? We already got our answer to that one, I think. alteripse 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned Quack repertoire: If you are the subject of derogatory remarks on quackbuster Stephen Barrett's website quackwatch.com or Robert Baratz nachf.org you have legal rights. The purpose of these links, below are to expose the truth about their credibility.

http://www.kospublishing.com/html/quack_busters.html dissecting who these people are and who funds them.

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/23/25/18.html Steven Barrett's court loss.

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html Stephen Barrett conceded in a court of law that he was not a medical board psychiatrist because he failed the board certification exam.

http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article025.htm Robert Baratz revealed in court that he only worked in a dental office for a 2 and a half week period shortly after graduation in 1974, and never since then.

LLJames

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

I provided valid triple blind and double blind placebo studies on Mannatech's from Pumeg.org and sited them and right after Jim Dunning's replies you piggy back on every one of them with personal insults.

You further proved your inability to be a contributing editor of nutraceutical companies and or glyconutrients because of your ignorance of the law. In fact, nutraceutical was mispelled a month ago on this Wikipedia article.

You further try another personal attack by calling me a liar repetitively and four letter words for the world to see and never retracted nor gave me any apology after you ate your words when finding out that indeed, it is law that the FDA cannot approve a supplement as a drug claim unless there is toxicity.

No toxicity equals no claim. However, the FDA recently did the next best thing. They started GMP guidelines to accommodate non toxic products with proven efficacy for nutritional companies. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/32.html

Cells need specific nutritional components to function properly, therefore, disease claims become irrelevant.

LLJames

LLJames, please do not delete others' comments. I had replied to your original statement (which you have since changed), but you deleted my reply. My response was, originally, ":Please keep your comments on topic; specifically, they should regard some content point in the article at hand, not the subject matter itself. Antelan ^talk 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)". My original statement is even more pertinent now; attacking alteriprise is not going to help you get material into this article. It is Mannatech's choice not to pursue licensing of Ambrotose as a drug; were they to choose to do so, they would incur the expense of demonstrating toxicity levels and efficacy for treating specific ailments. Keep in mind that the FDA requires toxicity levels to be established; it doesn't require that the drug be toxic. I think you have been confusing the two.Antelan ^talk 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

News article in Science

It looks like there's a news article in the current issue of Science which has a lot of good info which should probably be added to the article. A quote:

Most basic biologists probably don't give much thought to ginseng, herbal teas, and the other dietary supplements that fill the shelves of health-food stores. But one group has been caught up in an escalating controversy over supplements in recent weeks, pitting them against a nutraceuticals company that has been charged with illegal sales practices in Texas. Several prominent U.S. glycobiologists allege that the company, Mannatech, threatens to "taint" their field by linking glycobiology discoveries with claims for sugar pills of unproven medical benefit. The company and its consultants have fired back, urging the withdrawal of a critical commentary and warning of legal action.

The dispute began when a leader in the field and the editor of the journal Glycobiology co-authored a scathing critique of Mannatech, which was posted as an online preprint in September. Other scientists joined in, urging speakers to reconsider their participation in a scientific meeting last week in Dublin that was partly sponsored by Mannatech. In another twist, after Mannatech and others complained about the Glycobiology editorial, the publisher, Oxford University Press, removed it 3 weeks ago, promising to repost it later with responses.

--NeuronExMachina 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Great find. Thank you. Antelan ^talk 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Society link

Here is the simple fact of why some specify a link between Mannatech and the Royal Society of Medicine. Dr. John Axford served as a Class III independent director on the Mannatech board over a 5 year tenure from 2002, until he stepped down in September 2007. This can be confirmed on the FORM 8-K filed with the United States Securities Exchange Commission, dated September 11, 2007. On this form, it is stated that Dr. Axford resigned in order to allow him more time to concentrate on new research initiatives with Mannatech as well as complete Mannatech's glyconutrient research study, a 3 year project with St. George's Hospital and Medical School of England. Mannatech continues it's ongoing 3 year agreement with St. George's University of London where Professor Axford is serving as Principle Investigator of a Clinical Study on Mannatech's Ambrotose Product.

Dr. Axford is a past section President of the Royal Society of Medicine.

You can confirm these facts on these websites:

The resume Dr. Axford submitted to St. George's Hospital: http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~axford/aumd/resume.html

And also, by viewing his profile on Zoom Info http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=706138987

To see FORM 8-K go to: http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=he1YW0Qo0oEGZkV&ID=5421969

I'm a Mannatech Associate, am I permitted to submit facts? If not, why not? Laelosun (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)lael

No matter who your are, you are welcome to add facts (along with the appropriate context and citations) to this article, as long as they are significant to this article. The statements about a Mannatech/Royal Society connection to which you're referring – that have been deleted in the past – have usually been along the lines of "There are studies being done all over the WORLD on Mannatech products. For example, clinical trials are under way at The Royal Society of Medicine at Oxford, England." There is nothing in the links you provide that substantiates this assertion. No one else has provided reliable sources to support such a connection to the Royal Society. The only thing that the links substantiate is that Dr Axford is a member of the Royal Society and served as a local president of one of its chapters (sections) at one time. Well, I hope every physician in England is a member of the RS; there is no significance to the article that one of Mannatech's employees belongs to a professional society that every physician in Britain belongs to. And that is not the same thing as saying there is a notable or significant connection between Mannatech and the RS, and it certainly does not support that the Society itself is conducting studies of Mannatech's products. Certainly St George's Hospital appears to be conducting studies, but that's already covered in the article. There is no reason to mention the RS in the article since Dr Axford's professional credentials are not at issue, so I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to make that mention?
Jim Dunning | talk 11:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading my post I must apologize for my assumption that you wish to add information to the article that asserts there is a research relationship between the Royal Society and Mannatech. So, for the record, what is it you want to add to the article?

Content aside, however, caution should be used in citing information from the three links you provided (or similar ones). Essentially, all three of them are "self-published" or unreliable sites and there are caveats to consider per Wikipedia's Reliable Sources and Verifiability policies. Axford's resume was posted by him. The ZoomInfo site even states that its information has not been verified ("This profile was automatically generated using 290 references found on the Internet. This information has not been verified."), so it is not a reliable source. And the 8-K filing is essentially self-published (by Mannatech). I'm not saying that there is any fraud involved, just that the basic requirement for sources in Wikipedia is verifiability, not veracity. Take a look at Wikipedia's citation policy before you begin editing any article. Your username is relatively new to WP, so you'll probably find it helpful to review the relevant policies and guidelines on sources, citations, and verifiability. For example, I see you added the statement "The Scripps Institute of La Jolla, California, awarded Mannatech first place prize for its research in regard to the assimilation of monosaccarides (sic) in the lining of the intestinal tract, thus verifying the bio-availability of these same substances." in December. A little bit of research shows that whilst Mannatech did indeed receive a first place award, it wasn't for research per se, but for a poster. The edit you made left the impression it was for research, so be careful how the source material is characterized as well.

I hope this helps and I look forward to your efforts to improve this article. Please feel free to contact me on my Talk page if you have any questions.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just another thought: the RSM does not conduct or sponsor research, as far as I know; it only publishes studies conducted by others in its journal.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mannatech related to a girl developing brain damage in Australia

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

I have taken the supplements in the past and have had great results. Because this is a multilevel product, is that why there is so much bad press? Stephanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.133.176.94 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)