Talk:Souvenaid

Note

It would be nice to add the ingredients of the proprietary blend in the article. •Eicospentaenoic acid, 300 mg •Docosahexaenoic acid, 1200 mg •Phospholipids 106 mg •Choline, 400 mg •Uridine monophosphate, 625 mg •Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol equivalents), 40 mg •Selenium, 60 µg •Vitamin B12, 3 µg •Vitamin B6, 1 mg •Folic acid, 400 µg Here is the reference. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/767960 I don't know where it would fit best in the article. If someone wants to add it, then go ahead.

This is the initial study on the supplement. There was no long-term examination and shorter term results were mixed. http://www.j-alz.com/issues/31/scheltens_supplement.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.181.105 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to correct incorrect information regarding Fortasyn Connect

I pasted the note below that was left on my talk page in this diff and fixed the formatting. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, thank you for helping with Fortasyn Connect. Elifkos transmitted the problems before to you and you requested that no changes are done directly before contacting you by this talk page. I declare that I have a personal and academic link to Fortasyn Connect as I had been critically involved in the development my self and this would be an actual or conceived COI, which I herewith declare. I further declare that the wiki article I'm referring to was neither generated or modified by me before, nor did I or do I receive payment for my wiki contributions. My links are entirely academic. My motivation is that the current content is incorrect and both as academic scientist as well as someone who has been involved personally I want that the incorrect information is corrected. I do understand that wiki rules request that because of the COI changes should preferentially be reviewed and done by others. The paragraph on 'Development of concept' is incorrect in content, and without any suitable sources which would substantiate the currently presented (incorrect) content. Historical edits show that the content of this paragraph had never been correct and/or correctly sourced. I'm herewith asking you to exchange the unsubstantiated paragraph by the following substantiated paragraph. It does include primary sources, including primary peer reviewed scientific publications, peer reviewed scientific review source, presse releases and research web page links.

<redacted>

References 1. de Wilde MC, Farkas E, Gerrits M, Kiliaan AJ, Luiten PG: The effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid-rich diets on cognitive and cerebrovascular parameters in chronic cerebral hypoperfusion. Brain Res 2002, 947(2):166-173.

2. Farkas E, de Wilde MC, Kiliaan AJ, Meijer J, Keijser JN, Luiten PG: Dietary long chain PUFAs differentially affect hippocampal muscarinic 1 and serotonergic 1A receptors in experimental cerebral hypoperfusion. Brain Res 2002, 954(1):32-41.

3. de Bruin NMWJ, Kiliaan AJ, de Wilde MC, Broersen LM: Combined uridine and choline administration improves cognitive deficits in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 2003, 80(1):63-79.

4. https://idw-online.de/de/news647626

5. http://www.lipididiet.eu/index.php?id=16065

6. Hogyes E, Nykas C, Kiliaan A, Farkas T, Penke B and Luiten PGM: Neuroprotective effect of developmental DHA supplement against excitotoxic brain damage in infant rats. Neuroscience 2003, 119: 999–1012

7. de Wilde MC, Hogyes E, Kiliaan AJ, Farkas T, Luiten PG, Farkas E: Dietary fatty acids alter blood pressure, behavior and brain membrane composition of hypertensive rats. Brain Res 2003, 988(1-2):9-19.

8. Levi O, Lutjohann D, Devir A, von Bergmann K, Hartmann T, Michaelson DM: Regulation of hippocampal cholesterol metabolism by apoE and environmental stimulation. J Neurochem 2005, 95(4):987-997.

9. Grimm, M.O., H.S. Grimm, A.J. Patzold, E.G. Zinser, R. Halonen, M. Duering, J.A. Tschape, B. De Strooper, U. Muller, J. Shen, and T. Hartmann, (2005). Regulation of cholesterol and sphingomyelin metabolism by amyloid-beta and presenilin. Nat Cell Biol, 7: p. 1118-23 10. Oksman M, Iivonen H, Hogyes E, Amtul Z, Penke B, Leenders I, Broersen L, Lutjohann D, Hartmann T, Tanila H: Impact of different saturated fatty acid, polyunsaturated fatty acid and cholesterol containing diets on beta-amyloid accumulation in APP/PS1 transgenic mice. Neurobiol Dis 2006, 23(3):563-572.

11. Hooijmans CR, Rutters F, Dederen PJ, Gambarota G, Veltien A, van Groen T, Broersen LM, Lutjohann D, Heerschap A, Tanila H and Kiliaan AJ: Changes in cerebral blood volume and amyloid pathology in aged Alzheimer APP/PS1 mice on a docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) diet or cholesterol enriched typical western diet (TWD). Neurobiology of Disease 2007, 28(1):16-29.

12. Sakamoto T, Cansev M, Wurtman RJ: Oral supplementation with docosahexaenoic acid and uridine-5'-monophosphate increases dendritic spine density in adult gerbil hippocampus. Brain Res 2007, 1182:50-59.

13. Teather LA, Wurtman RJ: Chronic administration of UMP ameliorates the impairment of hippocampal-dependent memory in impoverished rats. J Nutr 2006, 136(11):2834-2837.

14. Wurtman RJ, Ulus IH, Cansev M, Watkins CJ, Wang L, Marzloff G: Synaptic proteins and phospholipids are increased in gerbil brain by administering uridine plus docosahexaenoic acid orally. Brain Res 2006, 1088(1):83-92.

Thank you for your help WDMSID (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am declining the request because the sources are not appropriate for content about health and do not support the content. The content is also too promotional. Please see the welcome message on your talk page and the links there. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I add here that the language that was above, starting with "The multi-nutrient combination (Fortasyn Connect) is supported by..." is a COPYVIO from the blurb in the "*About Fortasyn Connect" section of this press release. We don't allow copyright violations in WP, so I have redacted it. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Response to Jytdog decline

Thank you for your comments. Your comments are vague, you provide statements for which no evidence is given. Your statements are general in nature and do not identify which part/parts of the proposed changes you are referring to. I assume you as much as I want to improve the quality and accuracy of that page, let's work together to get it sorted out.

• Please substantiate your claim that the sources are not appropriate for content about health and do not support the content.

• Please substantiate your claim that the content is also too promotional. Please identify which word or words are too promotional, on my end there is no intention to introduce promotional aspects.

• Please identify which specific WP rule, if any, is violated in which way by the proposed changes. General referral to what in the end amounts to the totality of WP guidelines is neither helpful, nor justifies it your denial of a edit request as long as you are unable to clearly identify an actual violation.

• I checked the guidelines/rules and especially verified that they do comply with WP:RS, shows appropriate balance between the first primary sources and very recent sources according to WP:AGE MATTERS they follow the rules according to WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, as well as WP:NOR and use of WP:PRIMARY

• If you think that use of one or more of the sources violates one of those rules, please identify that source and identify the respective rule it violates. Your referral to the links on the welcome page are very kind, but this kind of referral is too unspecific to aid the way.

• Currently the paragraph on Development of concept is unsourced and incorrect. Wikipedia articles violate rules (see e.g. WP:PRIMARY ″Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.″ Wikipedia should not continue to be the primary source for the statements in question. For now you are factually enforcing to keep unsourced statements to remain on Wikipedia, making Wikipedia in fact the primary source for this content. Please remove that paragraph. I'm happy to continue to keep the talk process going to add new content which is in agreement with Wikipedia standards.

The requested is to now correct an unsourced paragraph, alternative action requested is to now delete the unsourced paragraph which may lead at any later point in time to correctly sourced content.

Thank you for commitment to Wikipedia WDMSID (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS, which you sources fall afoul of. Your edits are obviously promotional. Also don't try and WP:WIKILAWYER an argument based on cherry-picked bits of the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I have worked over the article, basing the health content on MEDRS sources and the rest on independent sources. My sense is that what you care about is either the role of Kiliaan or the LipiDiet consortium. As for the latter we generally don't discuss who ran clinical trials much. The role of Amanda Kiliaan is more.. interesting. The blurb from the press release said that fortasyn is based in part "initial preclinical research by Prof. Kiliaan" but that blurb is the only place I have seen that. I spent a not insignificant amount of time looking for some independent discussion of that. All I found was this ORCID record (which is still not independent) showing that Kiliaan worked for Nutrico from 1997-2003 - Nutrico is the company that first developed this product. But nothing like what the press release said. We do generally include content about inventors and I would be happy to include something about Kiliaan's role if we had good sources for that. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Response to Jytdog

Dear Jytdog, thank you for your efforts on clarification and keeping the page to Wikipedia standards. Please find answers to your questions below. I am hoping this helpful and provided in the correct way?

• The Kiliaan group is affiliated at Radbout University. Past affiliations include Numico/Nutricia Research. From this and the current affiliation the Kiliaan group was responsible for a significant part of the preclinical development that led to Souvenaid. Key findings of this contribution are published.
• LipiDiDiet/LipiDiet is a European publically funded research consortium with multiple research arms and headed by Hartmann, affiliated first at Heidelberg University, later at Saarland University. The preclinical research arm of LipiDiDiet/LipiDiet was responsible for a significant part of the preclinical development that led to Souvenaid. Key findings of this contribution are published.
• The Wurtman group was affiliated at the MIT and was responsible for a significant part of the preclinical development that led to Souvenaid. Key findings of this contribution are published.
• It is correct that the clinical trial research arm of LipiDiDiet/LipiDiet was not involved in the preclinical development that led to Souvenaid.

The respective contribution is transparent from the scientific literature cited. The citations also show the contribution from the researchers not mentioned by name above, but nevertheless critically involved.

The list of scientific sources was a basis for the approval process by scientists and ethical commissions to proceed to further evaluation of Souvenaid in clinical trials. The scientific literature cited is from scientifically peer reviewed articles published in respectable scientific journals. The Vancouver Sun articles you recently sourced and linked to the article are very interesting, while they themselves don’t give any detail regarding the development, they do link to original reporting by the same journalist. There one finds actual reporting about the contribution by the Wurtman Group, the identification of uridine monophosphate as a potentially important nutrient in this context (15-17). Uridine monophosphate was evaluated(3) and this nutrient was added to the 10 other nutrients already identified(1,2). The then 11 (and several other) nutrient combination was investigated(9-14) to see whether it may be suitable for clinical investigation. I suggest to replace or amend these sources by the sources presented above and to modify the text accordingly. Most of these references are scientific in nature, and for most no non-scientific secondary’s appear to exist. With the information and references provided a Wikipedia user interested in that preclinical development would be able to understand and trace back the science which led to Souvenaid. Please don’t hesitate to ask if I or anyone else could help to clarify remaining questions.

References

WDMSID (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The piece you say provides "actual reporting" is mostly a long quote from a press release. That is not any kind of "reporting". This is also a press release.

The pile of primary sources that you cite, is not how we derive WP content. We don't generate narratives here in Wikipedia from primary sources; we summarize independent secondary sources. For an orientation to how WP works, please see WP:EXPERT - many academics have a hard time adjusting and find the way things are done here to be frustrating because it is so different from the kind of writing they usually do; it takes time to get used to working within the policies and guidelines that have made WP possible. We summarize secondary sources here; that is how it is possible that WP has been created and maintained by a bunch of editors whose identity is unverified. (The nature of authorship here demands that all authority is placed on sources themselves, not on the person assembling them. Wikipedia simply reflects what high quality, independent, secondary sources say. If nobody has generated such sources, then we cannot say much. I spent a lot of time looking for such sources that discuss the origins of this product and they are sorely lacking.)

If you are aware of independent secondary sources that are not cited in the article, please do cite them here so we can use them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Response to Jytdog

Dear JYTDOG, I came across the discussion on this page, and as a scientist myself, in this instance it would seem to make sense to recognize the different scientific contributions to the invention as requested by WDMSID. The references clearly show a role of several research groups in the development of the concept, even receiving grant funding which I know is not easy to obtain. Thijsvdbroek (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see reply above. Seeing how you are as inexperienced as the person above and have exactly copied their (incorrect) method of using a talk page via headers like this, you would appear to be the same person as WDMSID or working with them. Please do read WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

To Jytdog. It would appear that you easily jump to conclusions. Thijsvdbroek is not me.WDMSID (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"or working with them" which is highly plausible. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

question

Why so high DHA content and low EPA content? Is Souvenaid only effective in people who don't already take a lot of EPA/DHA supplements? ee1518 (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This page is discuss improvements to this article. That question is for the manufacturer. See [{WP:NOTFORUM]]. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)