Talk:Transfer factor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Where

Where are the citations for the "two international studies"? The allusions to anecdotal evidence should be assumed to be non-factual and irrelevant to this article unless these anecdotes can be confirmed through sources who have no vested interest in the sale or promotion of transfer factor products. The relevance of the "landmark" Social Security case is also questionable. Furthermore, has the "How Transfer Factors Work" section been reviewed by anyone who works in immunology? The section provides no outside references, which is especially alarming when it is makes a claim as bold as "transfer factors are essentially the brains of the immune system."

Resources that deal with transfer factor are mainly under the control of 4Life Research, LC, whose business is the marketing and sale of transfer factor products through a multi-level marketing model. While the article as it stands alludes to the fact that there is no peer reviewed research on the efficacy of transfer factor, it glosses over this fact much in the same way that 4Life literature does: it skips through the lack of peer-reviewed research to discuss voluminous anecdotal evidence.

As this article presents its information in a similar manner to that of 4Life's brochures (unsupported histories and definitions of transfer factor, anecdotal evidence), my guess is that this article was set up by a 4Life salesperson as an indirect shill for 4Life products. I have deleted the 3 links that were previously on the page: 2 were owned by 4Life and presented information on transfer factor much as a business looking to sell a product would, and 1 was maintained by a person who promoted and sold 4Life products on the website.

My feeling is that this article should be removed entirely or replaced with a more rigorous definition of transfer factor. I would hope that someone in the Wikipedia community is able to shed some light on transfer factor in a more equitable fashion than that of the article currently listed--someone who is hopefully not allied with 4Life and has no interest in promoting or selling transfer factor products.

Regarding previous comment

I agree with the previous comment. I am a graduate student in microbiology with a quite strong immunology background, I have been doing some research to attempt to find some references regarding the true nature of what "transfer factors" really are, but the data is still not clear. There is this person: Charles H Kirkpatrick, who seems to have plublish in the Journal of Immunology (a highly reputable journal)about this subject but the articles are quite outdated in the 80's. My impression is that many scientists were looking for these "transfer factors" and later turned out to be other things around this time people were starting to understand how the immune system works. The literature seems to be quiet about what they are. So far, based on old data they seem to be short peptides (very small proteins) "produced by T cells". However, the closest thing to these peptides that I know of are defensins which are non-specific but seem to kill pathogens by disrupting their membrane. I may post something later after I ask one of my immunology professors to get his/her opinion. I'm just a little upset that organizations try to market stuff taking advantage of the ignorance of most people by claiming to know science. My main concern is that if what 4Life sells is really that miraculous it would have been approved by the FDA immidiately!! I WANT TO BE CLEAR: THEIR PRODUCT IS NOT APPROVED BY THE FDA!!!! If anyone is interested in looking through the scientific literature go to www.pubmed.com. This is the database of research with biological relevance organized by the National Institutes of Health.

Added links to papers

Since questions have been raised above about the motives and qualifications of previous contributors to this article, I will preface my remarks with the following: I am a layman in this area of knowledge. I became aware of these products through a friend who swears by them. Although she has personal experience of some pretty amazing anecdotal results in both humans and animals, I haven't been able to prove to myself that they work for me. I found the links I added through Web searches. While most of them are to the company's Web sites, hopefully they provide enough details and references to facilitate objectively examining the evidence. I added the NIH summary on NK cell research because it relates to the company's claims that the products affect NK cell levels. As for the suggestion to delete the article, I would think that even if evidence is found proving that it is all bunk, that is useful information for people to have. It seems to me that the NPOV way to deal with it is to describe the reasons for believing it is bunk, describe the reasons for believing it isn't, and if there hasn't been enough peer-reviewed research to reach a conclusion one way or another, describe that too. Palmpilot900 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I want to add something. In 2004, the FDA considered 4life's products as illegally sold on the internet (http://www.fda.gov/cder/warn/cyber/cyber2008.htm). The FDA then issued a warning to 4life, telling the company that since their claims suggest that 4life is a "new drug", they first need to be approved by the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/cder/warn/cyber/2004/CL108e.pdf). Thus, they are actually being illegally sold since they have not (up to that point)been approved by the FDA or backed by scientific data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.24.40 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

restored stub

I have restored a stubbified unvandalised version. It needs further editing. DGG (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, this is (1) an outdated term for unidentified factors that have since been identified (although I don't know if they are just antibodies or other proteins as alluded to above by the microbio grad student, and (2) a marketing term for a product produced by the company 4Life. At present, it is most relevant as a supportive adjunct to the marketing literature. Its vagueness supports the marketers; it doesn't tell you how transfer factor is transferred, and it sounds like a panacea ("species nonspecific"). Does this species-nonspecific substance survive the acidic environment of the stomach and the proteolytic environment of the small intestine? Also, this article appears to neglects or attempt to deny the fact that IgG antibody does cross the placenta and provides immune protection of newborn fetuses for months after birth. I would be in favor of scrapping this, because I think we do a disservice by keeping it up. Any other thoughts? I don't want to delete usable material, but I'm just not convinced that any recent scholarly material exists on the subject. Antelan ^talk 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

4Life needs their own Wikipedia entry

They can do their marketing in that space. I recently edited out text from the article from 'transfer factor.' Previous comments support that there exists no peer reviewed articles on 'transfer factor.' The previous text, which strangely included 4Life in what is supposed to be a relatively objective medical article, made the claim that 'transfer factors' had been studied for over 50 years and this research was detailed in over 3000 articles. Yet that text did not link to a single article that might have defined 'transfer factor' in more rigorous terms.

The only source the deleted text provided was a link to a letter from the FDA to 4Life warning them of their marketing practices for their 'transfer factor' products. Note that the deleted text did not even bother to source research from a supposed Russian academy or association that conducted a study on 4Life's products, 'research' that may have been conducted or heavily supported by 4Life. It's hard to say when no sources are provided.)

Until someone can define transfer factor using objective, peer reviewed research, the only purpose a Wikipedia entry on 'transfer factor' serves is as a straw dummy for 4Life's pyramid salespeople. The page is edited to appear a 'third-party' source to reinforce 4Life's marketing.

The current state of the page to me seems the most reasonable definition if that is in fact an accurate definition of the term. However, deletion of the page is most certainly warranted if more knowledgable members of immunology/microbiology feel the term 'transfer factor' is a term that has no analogue in biology/medicine/etc., which is to say it exists simply as a marketing term for 4Life's product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.164.63 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to NPOV Here?

Suppressing most of the article seems awfully drastic. People are hearing about this product through word of mouth. Where are they supposed to go for unbiased information about it? It seems to me that the NPOV thing to do would be to summarize the arguments for and against it. Palmpilot900 (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the last version of the article mentioning it looks like ad copy. I support that it was deleted. However, there's nothing wrong with presenting a discussion of the product, so long as independent reliable sources back up what's in the text. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikification

... is something this article needs a whole lot of. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Existing Article is Biased and One-Sided

This article uncritically expresses only the point of view in support of the legitimacy of transfer factor. Absent is any presentation of the scientific consensus that transfer of specific immunity by transfer factor does not occur. Nor is there any mention of the instances of scientific misconduct involving transfer factor (Rosenfeld, etc.) Perhaps in contentious subjects like this one there should be two separate and opposing articles, one in support and the other opposed. That way the proponents would be allowed to express their position, but then it could be refuted by an honest, full, and rigorous discussion. Jrfelton (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The present article does seem to need expansion to cover the actual biology. which it seems is supported by papers in major journals. As for possible medical use again the solution is to add reiiable published material about the claimed use, and the response to it. We do not write pro or con articles, we describe what is in the reliable sources. DGG (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69399.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.138.240 (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)