User talk:Mfiddy

Hello, Mfiddy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You have started to edit on two very controversial topics, MannaTech and Glyconutrients, here at wikipedia. You may want to consider gaining experience with other articles as to how wikipedia works. The editors that have only MT sales based literature, based on its 8 sugar glycobiology hypothesis, have usually met with increasing degrees of skepticism about various theoretical claims. I am probably your most agreeable technically based editor at Wikipedia on Glyconutrients, many of the other editors just as soon flush the whole thing. Again I suggest that you review the Talk pages at Glyconutrients carefully to see what I mean. Also you might want to review the discussions of Duane Lowe/Loweduane elsewhere (Google with glyconutrients), who supports the *benefits* of glyconutrients (as well as probiotics & prebiotics) but who also categorically rejects the popularly touted 8 essential sugar hypothesis.

Again, welcome! I'clast 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Glycobiology

Most of the information we are debating here is covered at length in Harpers Biochemistry - particularly in Chapter 56 of the 24th edition 1996. It is a very helpful (& complicated)resource for anyone to gain an insight into this very interesting field of glycobiology. Harpers is a totally independent publication (used by Doctors in their training) and is not connected with Mannatech. Another person to research is Dr John Rollins who was employed by the US Patent office when assessing the patent (which has now been granted) called it "one of the most important discoveries of the 21st Century."

Check out No 5 on https://www.healthyworlddistributing.com/top_10_manna.php

As Arthur Schopenhauer is quoted as saying: “All Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” - I believe we are somewhere between the 1st & 2nd stages.

As for the mention about dubious marketing practices, Direct selling is a method used by many of the top companies in the world and I see it as being a very fair and cost effective method of distribution - especially with something as unique as Glyconutrients.

I look forward to further discussion once you have had a chance to check these out.

cheers Mfiddy 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit situation is not about a paradigm shift, it is about a persistent lack of data to justify a very tenuous scientific claim that finds no continuous thread of scientific support to Harpers and contradicts conventional science on the fate of carbohydrates in the intestines. The situation seems to be about sales scripting, which I am sure most Mannatech representatives are disposed to believe & usually have little independent techical background, and possibly other economic-technical-legal matters. Some independent authors who definitely believe in (their clinical expierence & biochemical insights) the benefits of "glyconutrient" formulas, have documented conventional science papers that support those benefits, and totally demolish the "8 essential sugar" claims - scientifically. Here is one practitioner's attempt ^{[1]^{to examine & explain to a nontechnical public and the MT reps. Please stop the (s)low revert war. You are of course welcome to edit here, just be aware that the company influenced sites that you may use for your information sources may be considered quite compromised in science and objectivity.}}

If the revert situation persists, that means other editors may become involved, editors who often think that I am being far too charitable here. Their edits and adminstrative skills might be less satisfying to you.--I'clast 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read those links, to understand what I am trying to tell you what the complaint of the glycobiologists & Nobel prize winners are about the advertised "science". Your quoted mktg sites' technical papers, those with experimental data are small groups about efficacy, not the claimed mechanism in the crucial areas of digestion and assimilation. Your sales training version of the "science" of 8 essential sugars through dietary means has been considered at length previously and found w/o substantiated support by multidegreed editors from several branches of science, medicine, biotech and industry. Please stop. Wikipedia has administrators to aid with issues of POV warring and edit wars.--I'clast 08:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The “revert situation” is only neccessary to remove the defamatory remarks and incorrect references from the information.

I am sorry that you think there is a "very tenuous scientific claim " to Harpers - I have personally met Dr Robert K Murray the author of Chapter 56 on two separate occasions in relation to Mannatech - he travels the world educating Doctors etc on this new science and speaks at Mannatech conferences on a regular basis He is not employed by Mannatech but obviously receives a speakers fee for his work. If you are genuinely interested in researching the real truth then I suggest you check out http://www.solutions2health.com/files/kornfeld.pdf - this is important independent info from 1985 which gives further credence to the link between the 8 essential sugars and optimal health.

In fact the whole timeline at http://www.solutions2health.com/timeline.asp is very interesting and credible evidence.

There is a saying "Condemnation without investigation is the height of arrogance" and unfortunately there are many newspaper reporters etc who fall into this category because of an unwillingness to thoroughly research Mannatech and the science that it is closely connected with. (No doubt many of these are more interested in sensationalism than true facts) eg. The NZ article which refers to ‘sugar pills’ is like referring to Diamonds as ‘just lumps of carbon’.

I see you are a regular editor re Dr Mercola – I receive his newsletters and have a great deal of respect for him.

I am confident that if you are prepared to objectively research Mannatechs’ strong connection with glycobiology and the positive potential to change healthcare (rather than the current 'sickcare') as we now know it, you would realise that Mercola & Mannatech are on very similar wave lengths in the quest for Wellness. As well as a healthy alternative to big pharma.

Another individual I have had the privilege of personally meeting and talking with is Dr Rayburne Goen a 92/93 year old doctor from Tulsa Oklahoma who has this to say “In my whole life as a Doctor, I have never seen anything so AWESOME as I am now seeing : that taking these nutrients orally has enabled the body to heal itself of almost any disease known!!” refer http://www.resultsproject.net/dr_goen_letter.html

Please advise your multidegreed editors to also investigate this information because contrary to your comment - this is a paradigm shift.

Cheers Mfiddy 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to hand

This is a very interesting article from "Explore The Journal of Science and Healing" that contains an article titled:

Glyconutrients: The State of the Science and the Impact of Glycomics.

This was co-authored by Dr Robert Murray, MD, one of the authors of the medical textbook:"Harpers Biochemistry"

Here is a link to the article in, "Explore............"http://www.explorejournal.com/article/PIIS1550830706004162/fulltext

Cheers Mfiddy 09:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The shift is the immunostimulating dietary fiber materials themselves, not the digestive theory of action (8 essential sugars). We've previously looked at Murray's articles. They cite the small group efficacy experimental data of Mannatech, apparently after his satisfactory use of the product(s) and his "conversion" or association with MT, he uncritically accepts MT's story, as just "it worked for me". Looked at this last year, he says so himself. Unfortunately this just doesn't address the mechanistic science gaps I referred to earlier. I am aware MT has a good, convincing song and dance about this as if they really (could) have the data but won't finish / publish it as well as some hydrolysis data at the *end* of the small intestine (a little late in the tubular reactor / absorber). It just doesn't work that way, and MT teased everyone 5-9 yrs ago with this "coming soon story" before other results, and disgusted impatience set in for "waiting on Godot". I know it sounds great, but scientifically it's still just a marketing snow job backed by as much as they can wring out of the lab (the 2000 miles of track previously mentioned). Sorry, no soap.--I'clast 11:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can only deduce from your reply that you didn't read all of the links I mentioned previously - because if you had read Kornfeld & Kornfelds article you would have found that what you mentioned in your last post was incorrect according to their independent research done in 1985. You would have found that although Dr Murray now uses these products they weren't even thought of when he wrote Chapter 56 Of Harpers. If you had read the latest link in the Explore journal you would have read Dr Murray is explaining the mechanics of this science and relating it to the dietary supplements. Furthermore if you had researched the recent "composition of matter" patent which was awarded to Mannatech in the USA (as well as many others around the world) you would have realised that this is what was the "coming soon story" complete with many pages of scientific research re Glycobiology (35 pages from memory), It is a very complex and wide ranging patent - hence the length of time taken to secure it. If you had been able to get beyond the mental block that Mannatech sponsors the award winning website www.glycoscience.org then you would be able to access the extensive research, which you say, does not exist, including the thousands of links to independent websites like Medline etc. So please may I suggest that you do further research on the actual effect of Glycosylation, Glyconutrients, Glycobiology etc on the cells in our body and not just dismiss it as some fiber or prebiotic. (Although Mannatech does have two excellent examples of these in their range).

Cheers Mfiddy 09:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of assertion is precisely why the glycobiologists do howl so. The human cells convert glucose to the 8 sugars internally; per the biochem texts, too. That is a totally different proposition from digestion of "glyconutirents" - hydrolysis of indigestible polyaccharides AND absorption of monosaccharides in the small intestine vs gut immunostimulatory polysaccharides and fermentation in the colon. You haven't moved the ball one inch off the extensive sales scripting. I don't dismiss these as "just some prebiotic", I do recognize that the several components in these formulas are quite different than just, say, inulins. In fact that is a major point of the separate glyconutrient article. I've had enough of this. If you think this article is unsatisfactory to MT/glyconutrients, I assure you the next "mainstream" editors would either delete it or turn it into something smoking, more "mainstream". As it is, the primary glyconutrient guru & licensed medical provider on another large site had this to say about Wikipedia's Glyconutrient article:

"Sometimes it takes too much time to try and sort out the HYPE and sensationalist or misinformed information and claims that people make on this forum.

"...an excellent resource for information and explanation on the internet..their article on "Glyconutrients".

"If you have not read the WIKIPEDIA article on glyconutrients, it is probably the most concise, accurate and objective overview of this topic that 'I have ever read. Amazing enough, I did not write it. However, I was consulted by some of the authors and did give some input. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyconutrients

"Check it out, and feel free to send your friends there for a concise explanation(though it may be a little too scientifically oriented for some).

Duane"

Emphasis added by me. Now if you could convince Duane or Stauffenberg (the PhD glycobiologist), here, that something has fundamentally changed in the past 1-2 years, you probably would have a case for changes. Until then I will revert "8 essential sugars" advertisements on sight.--I'clast 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm new to wikipedia but unfortunately not so new to Mannatech and their outlandish claims. their "journal" (Glycoscience & Nutrition) is a joke that any real scientist can see through easily (and I should know, as I have a PhD in Cellular Biology and Developmental Genetics). GS&N is carefully designed to fool non-specialists into thinking there is scientific validity to Mannatech's claims. Every specific claim I have attempted to track back to a reliable source has been seriously misrepresented in GS&N. True manna 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so that is your thoughts on GS&N, what about Kornfeld & Kornfeld (Link above) and Harpers Chpt 56, and the link above which relates to explore magazines article, plus Acta Anatomica, plus Medline, plus the hundreds of independent articles which have been assembled for easy reference on Glycoscience.org.

Mfiddy 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can comment on Harper's - the chapter is about glycosylation, which has never been demonstrated to have a link to glyconutrient supplementation. as for Medline articles, you're making my point for me: I think they are reliable, but every claim I've tracked back from GS&N to a medline article has been misrepresented. Are you claiming the ability to understand articles in Medline? If so, then please explain to me why you think they articles are being fairly represented. Another issue: why do you keep deleting the link to the Texas AG article about investigating Mannatech? It is relevant for the "controversy" section. It is a documented link to a reliable source. Are you trying to hide this? True manna 18:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]