Article Improvement Drive
Can we delete portions of the discussion?
Just a thought here, but it would be much cleaner I think if we could remove sections that are presently no longer of much use. Perhaps we could provide links in the contents to "old" topics on archived discussion pages so that they don't have to continue to clutter up the most recent page? I don't know how this is dealt with on wiki, but perhaps others can contribute solutions. I just find it increasingly hard to edit the discussion page and put my comments in the appropriate place since this is becoming very large and convoluted. (Stauffenberg 06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
Questions to be answered
Wow, a lot of work, I'm not sure the topic deserves it, but it is certainly a far cry from the Mannatech commercial it was originally. I still see some major questions that I think need to be dealt with:
1) I like the line describing glyconutrients as a commercially inspired term. I think however that we need to prove that these are really "specially formulated" mixtures. I think this was one of the major stumbling points earlier on. I can find no evidence these formulas have been studied scientifically at all. If one wants to assert that something is specially formulated for a given use, it should be something that can be proven, or am I wrong? Perhaps we could simply describe them as mixtures of polysaccharides until then? Personally, as a skeptic, I believe the people selling these have more than likely specially formulated them to ensure that they have as little effect as possible, thus avoiding the spectre of getting sued, or worse yet, regulated.
2) The section "use as alternative therapy" has some problems. Again, can it be proven that these formulas have been optimised? If not, it shouldn't be in the article, and the absence of such a statement won't affect the informational content. The line starting "Current research supports..." is particularly problematic. If there is such support, specific references linked to this line are absolutely necessary. These sorts of statements should not appear unless appropriately referenced. Or am I wrong? Is that not the wikipedia standard?
3) The controversy and relation to glycobiology section in my opinion is probably unneccessary. There is no controversy as far as I can tell. Glycobiologists don't sell effects that they can't prove, some companies do. As far as any potential beneficial affects of any of these compounds, if there is funding, I promise you, you will find a glycobiologist willing to study it. There seems to be this us vs. them mentality from the majority of those who believe in alternative therapy, with scientists as the them. This is a fabricated controversy, and I think it is probably used to great affect to help sell concepts that haven't been proven, or perhaps can't be. It equates to an ad hominum attack by diverting the debate to the motives and motivations of "soul-less minions of orthodoxy" that scientists presumably are in the context of this debate, rather than focusing on the complete lack of valid research supporting sometimes grandiose claims. The definition of glycobiology as focused on descriptive rather than treatment oriented is pretty innaccurate as well. No glycobiologist can get funding to do research unless they can show a potential payoff as far as disease is concerned. Granted, the medical and research communities have different focuses, the objective is the same. Describing glycobiology as simply descriptive is pretty disingenous, although I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. At any rate, I think the best approach would be perhaps one or two lines somewhere referring to the lack of research on the glyconutrient formulations, and link to the disclaimer on the Society for Glycobiology website. After all, this disclaimer is a consensus of the vast majority (if not all) glycobiologists doing research in this field right now (world wide). Could there be a better reference for a particular viewpoint than that? It seems to me it fits very nicely with the consensus based approach of the wikipedia concept.
I have made these points here in the discussion rather than making changes, even in the case of things that I know I am most qualified to comment on such as the description of glycobiology or what current research supports. My hope is that if there is disagreement with some point that I have tried to make, I can deal with it head on in the discussion first rather than having multiple edits for content. That way, once the content is fixed, only style will be an issue, which I'm sure others are much more suited to fixing than I am.
One other thing that has bothered me from the start. Are there really multiple companies selling this? If yes, can it be shown that they have made any fundamental alterations of the original Mannatech product, or are they purely cosmetic changes so as to allow someone else to get their finger in the pie? This is a pretty fundamental problem as I see it, because if the only existence of "glyconutrients" is in forms fundamentally similar to the Mannatech invention, then we really can't describe this as something multiple companies market. Such a statement tends to imply that this is a prevalent concept, taken up by multiple companies, each researching and marketing the effects, when the reality is quite different. Can we document who makes these supplements, and the origin of their formulation?
As is already noted in the article, any scientific references should be specifically linked to statements. More than likely, most of these will have to go as they simply serve as innuendo of scientific validity otherwise. I don't want to delete them however, in case the person who placed them wants to re-edit and use them. Could we get some feedback on whether anyone has a specific use for any given reference so we can weed out those that don't belong?
Thanks (Stauffenberg 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC))
" 1) ... 'specially formulated'... "
" 2) The section "use as alternative therapy" has some problems. Again, can it be proven that these formulas have been optimised? If not, it shouldn't be in the article,..."
"The line starting "Current research supports..." is particularly problematic. If there is such support, specific references linked to this line are absolutely necessary. These sorts of statements should not appear unless appropriately referenced. Or am I wrong? Is that not the wikipedia standard?"
"1) I reworked the first paragraph... neutral point of view much better..."
"2) ... "Many of these components have long been used in food processing and health remedies."
"3)I significantly altered the final section making it I think cleaner and more succinct and specific."
"4)I deleted all the scientific references which can be returned as specific references to statements made in the text if necessary."
"...The most obvious statement needing specific references is the last line in the Alternative therapy section." (Nevertheless some "glyconutrients" have been associated with health remedies, various forms of medicine, special foodstuffs, and food additives for centuries and even millenia, across cultures, up to the present day.)
"5)I think we will need to discuss the use of external links at the end because we may not want to divert people to either Mannatech, or for that matter, debunkers. They should be able to find those on their own."
"6) ... I'll buy you as much as you can swallow."
"Current research supports" discussion
The following sentence was deleted along with the unlinked reference slug: "Current research supports benefits and mechanisms such as (1) increased beneficial bacteria (e.g. bifidus, lactobacillus) - a prebiotic effect, (2) a decrease in opportunistic pathogens, (3) immune activation and stimulation, (4) increased efficiency of digestion and absorption of nutrients, (5) decreased circulating free fatty acids that cause cellular insulin resistance, (6) decreased luminal ammonia concentration." I have enumerated the points as 1-6 for our convenience. I would appreciate your thoughts point by point but see Duane here.--66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
I am putting this here as a warning. Completely deleting an entire article containing many facts (some even referenced) and replacing it with fabrications is VANDALISM. I am required to make this warning before reporting Vandalism to an administrator. The current article needs to be reworked, or VALID references for all supposed statements of fact need to be provided. You have one week. After that, I revert it back to the original article with my fact based, REFERENCED responses to the innaccuracies in the article. If you can reference your claims in the article appropriately, I will check them out and we can have a nice friendly "consensus" based discussion on the future of the article. DO NOT use scientific references as innuendo as has been done in the past. I am a glycobiologist. If you claim a scientific reference says something that it does not, I will respond in detail as I have in the past. I will not delete what you produce, I will merely respond with facts beneath it. I will give you some help to start by listing the current factual statements in the article in case you aren't sure by now what is and is not the truth:
The last statement is awkward, but can be reworked, but the basic gist of the statement is correct so I'm feeling generous. In addition, becau