Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Reverted revision

I have reverted the article to this version. It's the most stable and reflective of consensus -- from my perspective, with the exception of the Adverse Effects section which is still under discussion. Most of the rest of the sections have already been discussed to death (diffs. available on request, naturally). Matthew 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just one question about the revert: I know there was a discussion about removing the detailed nutrient values in the products, but it seems like more than that is missing from the Product Description section. For instance, I believe pieces from the two removed paragraphs need to be put back in some form:

Some of the nutrients in Juice Plus are purchased from third-party suppliers and added as fortifiers to the product's plant powders. According to the manufacturer, the additives are used to restore the levels of micronutrients lost during processing and to ensure uniformity.

Juice Plus Gummies, a candy-like supplement for children, were shown to consist of a 85% corn syrup and 10% beef gelatin base in addition to the nutrients listed on the label.

I'm sure it can be worded better. If this has already been discussed, feel free to point me at it :) Shell ^babelfish 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm still not entirely happy with the version that Matthew reverted to, I'm willing to accept it as better than the alternative. As for the paragraphs that Shell pointed out, they weren't in the article, or at least haven't been for a long time. I think Matthew reverted back to Rhode Island Red's last edit on June 17, which did not include those sections.[1] As for other information in the article, the main section that I have concerns about is the Adverse Effects section, which is reliant on the 1999 Inserra study, which has been criticized as a poor study since it was not randomized, blinded, or placebo-controlled. As such, I think that any information which is sourced solely from that one study should be removed.[2] What do other editors think? Shall we proceed with removing information which is sourced exclusively to the 1999 Inserra study? --Elonka 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, no, actually the version immediately preceding Matthew's odd revert contained the text I mentioned [3]; it would be more correct to say they have been there for quite some time. Aside from that major change and the re-addition of a plus sign and a long winded section discussing the merits of each study, I really can't figure out why this revert even happened. What is more stable or more in line with consensus about those sections? Considering the ongoing problems with edit warring and disruption of this article, its very depressing to see a major change like this made without any kind of prior discussion.

If you'd really like to discuss the merits of scientific studies again and again attempt a wholesale removal of the criticism section, we can discuss it again. Please carefully read the current discussion of the studies Matthew re-added to the article(you may also want to look at the older version of the article that indicated which had proper scientific controls) and understand that if consensus is that poorly designed studies should be removed from the article, most, if not all of the positive claims about Juice Plus will need to be removed on the same basis. Shell ^babelfish 23:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I really have no preference if the studies present positive or negative information, I just don't want to use unreliable ones. As far as I'm concerned, any study which was not randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled should be removed from the article as a source. Based on everyone's prior comments above, it seems that there's consensus to remove unreliable studies. I'm just proceeding cautiously here, one study at a time. The 1999 Inserra study seems like a clear removal candidate, both because it was poorly run, and because it was specifically criticized by Memorial Sloan Kettering. --Elonka 00:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops - hang on; I missed Ned Scott's recent revert which changed the content that Matthew just changed back. I still think the text from those paragraphs has value and should be included somewhere, but I think we've lost a lot with all these revert wars :( Anyways, please ignore the silliness coming from my direction and thanks Elonka for pointing out I'd missed the original revert. Shell ^babelfish 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The material that Shel pointed out (i.e., regarding the addition of added nutrients to the product) was inexplicably deleted, along with the RDI information, by Elonka some time ago.[4] I too was at a loss as to why this information was arbitrarily deleted with no discussion whatsoever. It was properly referenced and should therefore be replaced immediately. Secondly, when the discussion of the RDI information came up, no solid consensus was reached. It was mostly an argument between me and Elonka,[5] to which a couple of other editors merely added me-too responses.[6][7] Once again I will point out that these types of me-too responses are not the basis for a meaningful consensus. The information violated no policies but instead was deleted by Elonka initially on the basis that she had deemed that it was duplicative and not referenced (both of which are untrue), and then it was again deleted later because she stated that she thought it made the article appear cluttered (even though it was only a few lines of additional text and nicely rounded out the section entitled Product Description, which in fact contained no descriptive details of the product). It was suggested that the material in question would be moved to an infobox,[8] but instead it was deleted outright and no attempt was made to relocate it. IMO the material should be restored in the main text and if someone can find a way to make it work better in an infobox, then they should do so. Merely deleting it outright seemed to be somewhat underhanded.

The information regarding the RDI provided by the product is of obvious importance to anyone who is researching the product, particularly with respect to Juice Plus Gummies. The information about the nutrients provide by the Gummies was referenced to a published article and the data pointed out that the product provides more than 5 times the RDI or beta-carotene. This is extremely important information to include because beta-carotene supplementation has been linked to an increased risk of certain cancers (reference available on request) and the effects of megadose beta-carotene supplementation in children is completely unknown at present.

As to the Inserra study, this has been discussed exhaustively in several sections of the talk page and has its own dedicated thread,[9] so I suggest we continue the discussion there instead of splitting it into this unrelated thread. Contrary to what Elonka stated, the hive-like rash side effect is sourced to MSKCC, a reliable secondary source; not to Inserra et al. 1999. As I have repeatedly pointed out, MSKCC described the adverse effects of Juice Plus (hive-like rashes) quite clearly and did not qualify the statement in any way whatsoever. They did not even mention the Inserra study in relation to adverse events and they most certainly did not say that it causes hive-like rashes “however…it was a poorly-designed study”, which is essentially what Elonka added to the sentence in question. The addition of that comment creates the false impression that MSKCC denigrated their own conclusions about the product causing adeverse effects, which they did not.

Once again, just because a study may have been poorly designed does not mean that it should not be mentioned. Non-controlled studies may be looked at with suspicion by scientists, but they are not treated as though they do not exist. The norm for scientific reviews is that such studies are mentioned and any weaknesses in their designs are pointed out. This is the case in several of the critiques of Juice Plus, including the one published by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. There is no WP policy that would prohibit the use of non-controlled studies in an article; they still would meet WP:VER and WP:RS. Furthermore, most of the product claims made by NSA about Juice Plus are based on precisley these non-controlled studies that Elonka is arguing to delete. The fact that they are core marketing claims stablishes clear relevancy and failing to even mention them would appear to be an error of omission on our part. Rhode Island Red 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorting out the referenced studies

I found that earlier article version which identified which studies were controlled and which were not [10]. This list looks like this:

Not Controlled

• Wise JA, Morin RJ, Sanderson R, Blum K (1996). "Changes in plasma carotenoid, alpha-tocopherol, and lipid peroxide levels in response to supplementation with concentrated fruit and vegetable extracts: A pilot study". Curr Ther Res 57 (6): 445-61
• Leeds AR, et al. (2000). "Availability of micronutrients from dried, encapsulated fruit and vegetable preparations: a study in healthy volunteers". J Hum Nutr Diet 13: 21-7
• Smith MJ, Inserra PF, Watson RR, Wise JA, O'Neill KL (1999). "Supplementation with fruit and vegetable extracts may decrease DNA damage in the peripheral lymphocytes of an elderly population". Nutr Res 19 (10): 1507-18
• Panunzio MF, et al. (2003). "Supplementation with fruit and vegetable concentrate decreases plasma homocysteine levels in a dietary controlled trial". Nutr Res 23: 1221-8.

Controlled

• Kiefer I, Prock P, Lawrence C, Wise J, Bieger W, Bayer P, Rathmanner T, Kunze M, Rieder A (2004). "Supplementation with mixed fruit and vegetable juice concentrates increased serum antioxidants and folate in healthy adults" (pdf). J Am Coll Nutr 23 (3): 205-11.
• Samman S., et al. (2003). "A mixed fruit and vegetable concentrate increases plasma antioxidant vitamins and folate and lowers plasma homocysteine in men" (pdf) 133 (7): 2188-93.
• Bloomer RJ, et al. (2006). "Oxidative stress response to aerobic exercise: comparison of antioxidant supplements". Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 1098-1105.
• Nantz MP, Rowe CA, Nieves C Jr, Percival SS. (2006). "Immunity and antioxidant capacity in humans is enhanced by consumption of a dried, encapsulated fruit and vegetable juice concentrate". J Nutr 136: 2606-10.
• Bamonti F, et al. (2006). "Increased free malondialdehyde concentrations in smokers normalise with a mixed fruit and vegetable juice concentrate: a pilot study". Clin Chem Lab Med 44 (4): 391-6.
• Plotnick GD, Corretti MC, Vogel RA, Hesslink, Jr. R, Wise JA. (2003). "Effect of supplemental phytonutrients on impairment of the flow-mediated brachial artery vasoactivity after a single high-fat meal". J Am Coll Cardiol 41 (10): 1744-9.

It wouldn't hurt to look a little more at that version - I think a lot of product information has been lost (not counting the detailed nutrient information that everyone agreed was overkill). Shell ^babelfish 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's add the Inserra 1999 study to the "Non-controlled" batch. And I'd support removal of all information from those studies. There may be bits and pieces that we can talk about re-adding, but for clarity, I think it'd be better if we removed everything sourced to them, and then ensured consensus for anything that we wanted to re-add. --Elonka 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful in this discussion to review the guidelines on reliable sources specifically as they relate to scientific studies. Non-controlled studies are listed as something to watch out for. Shell ^babelfish 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the guidelines[11]; they seem vague and offer little guidance on the issue of study controls. It says that controls are something that we should “look for”, but it does not really say anything else that would seem to apply here. I think commonsense and outside examples are our best guidelines. We would not want to rest extraordinary claims, positive or negative, solely on the results of non-controlled studies. However, these studies are placed in their proper context in the article by noting where there are design issues and whether the results were confirmed or refuted by better-designed studies. I can safely say from my own experience in this area that non-controlled studies are never ignored but instead identified as such so that the results can be placed in proper context. This is exactly what has been done in the present version of the Juice Plus article and it seems to be handled very effectively.

Two relevant facts also need to be considered. First, the secondary sources that have written articles on Juice Plus do discuss non-controlled studies (e.g. Wise et al. 1996 and Inserra et al 1999), which establishes a precedent for how the product should be discussed here. Secondly, NSA hinges many of their core marketing claims on the results of these non-controlled studies. Both of these facts seem to clearly establish the relevancy of inclduing those studies here. To ignore such studies would create the appearance that the WP article is incomplete, and in my opinion, this would be a glaring error of omission and might lead the reader to believe that the editors who worked on the article were simply unaware of the existence of theses studies. Rhode Island Red 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are some good points. I think that by identifying which studies had rigorous controls and which didn't, we are meeting the guidelines given for studies; in essence, we are indicating the weight given to the research for the casual reader and even providing instances where better controlled studies contradicted the findings. I don't think its necessary to mention the poor controls on the Inserra study a second time and including the information on the other study that reported adverse effects but then determined they were not due to the product falls under NPOV; this way the article is covering all reported adverse effects in the studies listed as references. Shell ^babelfish 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea

I have an idea. The effort being used here by both sides on an article about a mediocre dietary supplement could be used to improve dozens of articles to GA/FA status. Hmm........ — Deckiller 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well, continue your bickering :) — Deckiller 07:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Deckill, it is an excellent idea. There is a problem here, however. I think what is going on is we have a perfect storm of Wikipedia interests here. (Pardon the editorial, its not relevant to the article, but might be interesting to some.) First we have the company here, interested in making this a favorable article to their product (see above). Then we have juice plus fans, folks who are believers in the product. This group will not be happy as long as the article has negative information. So next we have some folks who see some weaknesses in this product. I (one of them) believe they (we) are well informed, NPOV and don't want this site to become a marketing conduit for a product. Naturally if both sides here can adhere to WP policy, we might make wonderful use of Wikipedia to arrive at something informative and NPOV for readers. In a sense I see that happening, if not painfully slow. All the back in forth between these two groups is what makes this mediocre supplement such a big issue, and touches a deeper issue on how corporate interests intersect with Wikipedia. Which brings us to a third group of folks here who are showing up to debate because they are true Wikipedia enthusiasts (the admins, etc). I personally believe these editors really see this article as a great chance to iron out and teach wikipedia policy. And, I must admit, they seem to be really amazing people who can really see NPOV and pick up diverse topics, and, somehow, have lots of time. So yes, I think this whole thing seems silly at first glance -- so much more could be accomplished by devoting energy elsewhere, but I think we are really doing something important here. And I think we are all learning something. So I don't think this debate will end anytime soon. So hop on in :) Tbbooher 02:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's like the origins of World War I in a sense :) — Deckiller 02:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Revisions/reverts getting out of hand

The recent spate of revisions and reverts has led to the resurrection of material, the deletion of which had been agreed upon on the talk page. Careless reverts are not the way to sort this article out. I have just removed the SNAEMS stuff for the umpteenth time. This chaos is negating much valuable work over recent weeks. --TraceyR 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good edits are being restored. POV-pushing is being reverted. Flawed logic and a misunderstanding of consensus will not prevent relevant content from being included in the article. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus had been reached that effects which were deemed not to be due to the supplement should not be included, nor should the Wake Forest consent form (which provides no source for its list of effects). This material is not verifiable - it has nothing to do with "POV-pushing" and "flawed logic". --TraceyR 06:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored the article to Rhode Island Red's last version from June 17.[12] Can everyone please signoff to agree that this is the closest thing we've got to consensus, so that we can stop with the edit wars? --Elonka 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's very misleading, you're trying to suggest that RIR endorsed the entire version of the article when that edit was removing the plus sign. I've read what you guys have considered "consensus", and to be blunt, you're wrong. Elonka, I've taken you to arbcom over proving how wrong you were about what was or wasn't consensus, please don't waste my time and force me to do it a second time. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is the second time someone has said "months" of consensus. It seems this dispute started about one month ago. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think which version we use matters since aside from a couple of points, not much is terribly different. I am concerned though Ned that you are re-adding the information from the retracted FDA report and the Wake Forest consent form. Both were thoroughly discussed; the FDA report fails to meet the reliable sourcing standard and the consent form indicated that some of the adverse effects were actually due to blood draws and other study methods and not the product itself. Shell ^babelfish 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you already removed that? -- Ned Scott 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah - you reverted to my version; this is just a bit confusing. Looks like I got the FDA but missed the consent form. I'll fix that. Shell ^babelfish 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I'm happy to prove consensus to you. Feel free to pick any one section that you have questions about, and I'll provide diffs showing where it's been discussed, and who thought what. --Elonka 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, lets talk about the actual differences between those two revisions - we'll call Elonka's preferred version A and Ned's B:

• Version B has a great deal more product information. All of it is referenced and it is well written. Is there any reason this should be excluded?
• Version B lists the adverse effects from two additional studies. Again, it is referenced and well written. Is there any reason this should be excluded?
• Version B is missing details on which studies were well defined. Ned added this information back in subsequent edits, so there doesn't appear to be a difference of opinion on that section.
• Version A returns the + sign to the article that was recently discussed as being improper under WP:MOS. I believe we can just look up a couple of sections and see consensus on this.

If this ridiculous edit warring continues, we may need to escalate dispute resolution - its pretty clear at this point that there is more than one party involved in creating disruption on this article. Please can we just remember that no puppies are going to die if your preferred version of the article isn't the version showing at the moment? Shell ^babelfish 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the consensus on the "+" was that we should mention it once in the lead paragraph and not in the rest of the article, but I really have no strong preference on that one. As for the Adverse Effects section, here's what I propose for what it should look like. We haven't had it like this in the article yet, but I think it should address everyone's concerns (at least I hope so): "Reported adverse effects have been rare, having only been mentioned by three studies which were neither randomized, blinded nor placebo-controlled. In one 1999 study, some of the subjects who took Orchard Blend and Garden Blend developed a hive-like rash.[13] Another study reported adverse effects (upper-respiratory tract, urinary, and musculoskeletal) in roughly a third of the participants who took the products for 7 days. However, these events resolved spontaneously and were deemed by the researchers to be unrelated to treatment.[10] In a third study, some subjects withdrew due to gastrointestinal distress, but it was unconfirmed as to whether or not this was caused by the Juice Plus regimen (a combination of Orchard Blend, Garden Blend, and Vineyard Blend).[22]" Will that work for everyone? --Elonka 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that we once had (almost) unanimous agreement that, if the study's researchers deemed that a reported adverse effect was unrelated to treatment, then this adverse effect should not be mentioned. --TraceyR 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

wrt the '+' sign, my recollection is in agreement with Elonka's. --TraceyR 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I too recall a consensus against the '+' sign except for the first use, and that adverse effects that were deemed unrelated to treatment should be excluded. However, since Elonka has provided a new compromise summary just above, I am happy to accept that version. EdJohnston 00:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EdJohnston and others. Elonka's compromise works in my opinion. Tbbooher 02:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the plus sign either way, sorry I misunderstood the discussion. I like Elonka's rewrite. Shell ^babelfish 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks everyone for weighing in. I have updated the "Adverse effects" section of the article with the compromise text (I also added the years of the studies). Hopefully this will help stabilize things a bit. I do still feel that the third study is questionable, since it's not confirmed to even have anything to do with Juice Plus. But if listing it in the article for awhile helps the article to remain stable, that works for me.  :) --Elonka 05:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of tweaks to the last version of the Adverse Effects section. First, saying that AEs were rare and only reported in only 3 studies creates the false impression that other studies looked for AEs but did not find them. This is in fact not the case. Only these 3 studies made any attempt whatsoever to monitor AEs. Secondly, the correct terminology to describe the cause of AEs in the Houston et al. study is that they were deemed to be "possibly due to" the Juice Plus regimen. This is preferred/standard terminology vs. saying that the cause was unclear. Also, including the publication dates of the studies doesn’t seem to serve any great purpose, and since we have not done so in the discussion of other research, it didn’t seem consistent to do so here. As it stands now, the discussion of these 3 studies is acceptable to me. Rhode Island Red 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see how rare might be a bad choice of words; we don't have a secondary source backing up that statement and that's inserting our own opinion. I don't think possibly due or the cause being unclear is much of a change; the study itself does say possibly though. I'm not sure why the publication dates were there and not anywhere else; aren't those in the refereces? Shell ^babelfish 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if it seemed like I was stirring the pot by making the last set of changes. They seemed reasonable enough so I didn't think it would be a transgression to go ahead and make them. I'll wait for further comment. Rhode Island Red 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I'd be willing to remove the word "rare". As for the publication dates, I think we should include them because they provide useful context. For example, with the 1999 Inserra study, I find it useful to know that none of the studies since then have reported similar effects. Whereas if it would have been a 2007 study, there might have been the implication that this was something new that was now being studied. I'd also like to again discuss whether or not we should even include the Houston study, which says that adverse effects were "possibly due to" the Juice Plus regimen. Since it's not a confirmed AE that's related to Juice Plus, I think that wording should be removed altogether from the AE section. What do other editors think? Years or no, Houston study or no? --Elonka 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's drop the word 'rare'. It's OK to include the dates. Omit the Houston study. I added an arbitrary section break (above) to make it easier to follow the thread. EdJohnston 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Detailed product description and Adverse Effects

Having had time away from the article to think about this, I'm still uncomfortable with letting the removal of content from Juice Plus#Product description slide. The so-called consensus was developed at Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 4#Excessive detail, were a flawed interpretation of WP:NOT was used, and very little discussion was generated. It seemed more a head count than what we consider a consensus on Wikipedia. Even if you want to go by numbers alone, it's four supporting removal and three supporting inclusion, which would not be considered a consensus. WP:NOT is about indiscriminate information, things of little relevance to the topic of the article, or information that is generally not helpful in an encyclopedia, etc. This information has very significant relevance to the article and directly aids in the readers understanding of the topic. We're not about lists of ingredients, unless that information is not excessive and is encyclopedic. Same thing with plot summaries or addresses, which can be correctly used in articles, but can also be abused. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The extra information seems to make the article boring and hard to read, in my opinion. We are supposed to take the reader quickly to the high points that he ought to retain. Is he really going to retain '0.64 mg of pyridoxine and 0.72 mg of iron'? That hardly makes for good water-cooler conversation, or good understanding for that matter. EdJohnston 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see placing the detailed information further down in the article, if that's what you are getting at. (as in, getting too detailed too soon in the article, when the reader is still looking for general-info). As for it being boring, the same can be said for a lot of encyclopedic information. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue that some seem to be missing is that not a single one of the studies actually set out to measure AEs. If they had, then a method of monitoring AEs would have been described in the Methods sections of the studies; none of them did. Studies that properly monitor AEs will clearly state this as an intention in the Purpose/Objective section of the article and they will descibe how they attempted to capture such information (e.g. using patient questionnaires, etc). None of the Juice Plus studies did so. So one cannot say that the absence of AE reports in these studies is indicative that Juice Plus did not have AEs, because you cannot find what you do not look for. Elonka’s justification for including the publication dates of the studies (and the assumption that AEs were “rare”) is based on an erroneous assumption that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, a common logical fallacy and a pitfall to be avoided.[13]

Even though none of the studies properly monitored AEs, several of them noted AEs nonetheless. In one case it was hive-like rashes (Inserra et al. and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), in another it was AEs that were deemed to be unrelated to treatment (Leeds et al.), and in another it was gastrointestinal effects that were deemed to be “possibly related” to treatment and which caused some subjects to drop out of the study (i.e. the Houston et al. study) “Possibly related to treatment” is standard terminology for describing AEs; i.e. they are graded as unrelated/possibly related/likely related. In many cases, such as when a product’s AEs have not been thoroughly studied (e.g. Juice Plus), it can be difficult to make a firm conclusion as to whether an AE is likely caused by the treatment. The GI side effects noted as possibly being related to treatment in the Houston et al. study are, however, consistent with the reports by SNAEMS, the Wake Forest study protocol, and the Juice Plus distributor’s manual (references #21-23 in old version[14]). While there might be some dispute as to whether these references should be included in the article, commonsense interpretation of these sources suggests very strongly that Juice Plus causes GI side effects and that that we could be fairly certain that inclusion of the Houston et al. study results would not misrepresent the product.

As for the RDI list[15], I agree with Ned Scott (see above) as to both the value of the information to readers and his interpretation of WP policy (WP:NOT#INFO). (Shell_Kinney also echoed similar sentiments).[16] The relevant portion of that policy would not preclude inclusion of the RDI information; it states:

"Statistics: Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."

The RDI information is clearly not “a long and sprawling list of statistics” and the article contains “sufficient explanatory text” to put the information in “proper context”. Neither is the article “primarily comprised of statistical data”. If the readability of this information, and the article as a whole, would be improved by including the RDI info in an infobox, then that might be a possible alternative location for it. IMO, it is better situated in the Product Description section,[17] which currently contains no information whatsoever that describes the product; instead it merely refers to the companies that manufacture and distribute Juice Plus. It clearly needs to be populated with some information that describes the product, and the RDI values describe the exact nutritional value provided by the suggested daily regimen of (a) Orchard/Garden Blend and (b) Gummies. This information is non-duplicative of the current infobox details. Precise RDI information is of fundamental importance to readers of an article such as this, who let’s face it, are probably interested as consumers and researchers rather than passive readers. The information points out where the product regimens might be deficient or overloaded with nutrients. For example, Gummies, which are intended for children, contain more than 5 times the adult RDI for beta-carotene, and beta carotene has been linked to a higher risk of certain cancers in adults. The effects of chronic high-dose beta-carotene supplementation in children is unknown but current guidelines discourage the general population from supplementing at levels exceeding RDI.

We also have to find a home for the referenced information about the use of vitamin additives purchased from third-party sources, which was mentioned alongside the RDI details in the previous version [18]. This is an important, fundamental product characteristic, which has been acknowledged by the manufacturer (Wise et al. 1996[19]) and has served as the basis for criticism (i.e. Watzl and Bub[20].Rhode Island Red 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to the addition of the detailed nutrition information. We already have an infobox which goes into detail on one representative product, we don't need to have every nutrient of every Juice Plus product, especially since it's coming from a primary source (the label). This falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If someone really wants the information on the web (assuming it's not out there already), just make a webpage, and then we'll link to that webpage. --Elonka 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not indiscriminate. This is product information with specific points made about it. If this were "Famous people who take Juice Plus", I can see this argument. Shell ^babelfish 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shel’s interpretation of WP:NOT above. There is nothing indiscriminate about the information in question. Elonka previously raised the issue (Feb 14, 2007) as to whether a product label could be used as a source and several editors commented that it was acceptable.[21] The current infobox provides some representative information but does not answer the basic question as to the nutrient amounts provided by the suggested daily regimen – which is a very basic product characteristic of obvious relevance. Rhode Island Red 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so how about this then? We'll replace the values that are in the current infobox, with the RDI info that Red wants to include. I'm okay on including one set of detailed data, in a separate box. I just don't think we should include multiple such sets of data. --Elonka 22:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the infobox is just a summary, and not always seem as the article content itself. I've often argued for information to be listed in both infobox and in article text for this reason. The infobox is simply an at-a-glance section for quick facts. -- Ned Scott 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ned. As I already stated above, I don't think an infobox would be the best location for this information because (a) it would not solve the issue that there was no descriptive information about the product under the Product Description section (b) an infobox is not an ideal location for the information about nutrient additives in the product, and (c) the information is sufficently important that it would warrant inclusion in the body text rather than a sidebar. Rhode Island Red 01:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide sources for how you are judging that it is important? --Elonka 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well product labeling laws (which deem that such information is mandatory) and common sense would be a good place to start, not to mention the comments of several editors who deemed that the information is not only important but also accurate and sufficiently referenced. Beyond that, the importance of the information was only one of the three reasons for inclusion presented above. Unless there are valid reasons to disagree with all 3 points, then it seems that this question is splitting hairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 01:26, June 26, 2007

I still have concerns that the current wording of the AE section and inclusion of publication year for the 3 studies reporting AEs creates the false impression that the remaining studies looked at AEs and did not find them (when in fact none of the studies undertook to properly monitor AEs). This constitutes an argument from ignorance, [22]. For greater clarity I propose the following addition (or something similar) to the beginning of the section:

“As of 2007, no published studies have reported systematic monitoring of adverse effects associated with the use of Juice Plus. However, adverse effects have been mentioned anecdotally in three studies, none of which were randomized, blinded, or placebo-controlled.”

I also propose that we delete the year of publication from the text in the AE section because again, (a) it creates a misleading impression and (b) does not follow the format used throughout the rest of the article (i.e. no publication dates are included in the body text for any of the other studies discussed in this section). Rhode Island Red 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be trying to creep back to the old wording. I think what we've got now is fine. We can't say "no published studies," or "anecdotally" because that's original research. I also feel that we should include years on all the studies in the article, because they provide useful context. It's also standard Wikipedia practice to include years on works. And, I'd like to repeat that we should remove the Houston study, since it didn't provide any confirmation that the effects were related to Juice Plus. Anyone else have an opinion on that? --Elonka 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether it creeps backward of forward matters little to me; I am trying to address a specific and legitimate concern, which is that the text creates an argument from ignorance[23] by implying that some studies looked for yet failed to find AEs. This needs to be solved one way or another because it is a glaring problem. With regard to the modified text I proposed: (a) I would be willing to omit the word “anecdotally”, as suggested, although I don’t see why using the term would be problematic in any way; and (b) I don’t see how stating that none of the published studies systematically monitored adverse effects would qualify as original research. Is anyone claiming that any of the published studies systematically measured AEs, because it is true and verifiable that none of them did, and it is important to state so to provide proper context when writing about the studies that anecdotally reported AEs. The Juice Plus spokesperson who visited the discussion page last week provided a list of Juice Plus publications; it did not contain any studies that were not already referenced in the article. None of the studies mentioned in our article systematically measured AEs; this is a verifiable fact and therefore to say so would not constitute original research.

And if there is some uncertainly as to whether there may be additional published Juice Plus studies that we are not aware of and which measured AEs (which, I can assure you, there are not) then a simple solution would be to merely include the references to which we are referring to as the body of published studies. For example

“As of 2007, none of the published Juice Plus studies [1-15] have reported systematic monitoring of adverse effects associated with the use of the product.”

Adding the years to every study? It seems odd to argue on the one hand that inclusion of RDI information is “excessive detail” and hinders the readability of the article and then on the other hand argue that inclusion of the publication year of every study helps to improve the article. Not only is the publication year of every study irrelevant in the main text, including the information would make the article virtually unreadable (not to mention that the dates are already listed in the reference section). As an example, if publication years were added to this portion of the text in question, we would end up with something like this:

“Studies on nutrient absorption, published in 1999, 2003, and 2004, respectively, showed that subjects taking Juice Plus had elevated blood levels of folate and beta-carotene[11][12] [14] but the effects on blood levels of vitamin E and vitamin C were inconsistent. Some studies, published in 1996, 2000, and 2004, respectively, have shown significant increases in vitamin E[6][11] and C levels,[6][11][10] while other studies, published in 2002 and 2003, respectively, have shown much weaker effects on vitamin E[10][14] and C levels[14], and, according to studies published in 1999 and 2006, respectively, that the levels of the two vitamins are not significantly increased.[12][15]

This would be a far greater hindrance to readability (bordering on the absurd) than inclusion of the RDI information and would give undue weight to publication dates rather than study results.

As for the suggestion to delete the Houston et al. reference, we have had 3 editors that have already stated that they think it should be kept in the article, since it was properly referenced and accurately represented, and it was deleted without prior consensus. Elonka inserted new text yesterday that included the Houston study[24] so her suggestion today that the study should now be deleted seems very counterproductive. Can we please stop going around in circles here. The study is now back in the article and I think it will be very difficult to raise a consensus favoring its removal. Rhode Island Red 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, by that logic, then we shouldn't have removed the word "rare". Also, could you please stop citing and linking "argument from ignorance"? It's starting to feel a bit uncivil. As for the years, if you get rid of all the "respectively" clauses, I think it sounds fine. As for the Houston study, the reason I included it a few days ago, was because I was trying to find a rapid compromise to stop the chaotic edit wars. But there are still good faith concerns about the inclusion of the Houston study, since it said that the adverse effects were possibly due to Juice Plus, and I think that that's too vague to really warrant inclusion. Though I'll also say that I'm getting really sick of discussing this one paragraph. We have written thousands of words about this article, discussing it to the point of absurdity, and I wish we could say, "Okay, we've got a compromise version of that one paragraph, let's leave it alone and talk about something else." Instead, it feels like we've got this endless stalemate, where every word is argued about ad nauseum. As for other information to go into the article, I've been doing more research, and there's plenty of JP-related info that hasn't found its way into the article yet. For example, sales figures that have appeared in newspapers and magazines, and info about the celebrity endorsers. JP was also in the news in the 1990s, because it came up during the press about the O.J. Simpson trial. That kind of information is definitely notable, and should be included. So, can we just declare a truce and move on? Please? --Elonka 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that we are in a stalemate; I see that we are inching closer to a consensual and stable version of the article through discussion and input from a wider group of editors. I apologize if you took offense to the term “argument from ignorance” but this is the correct term for the logical fallacy that was introduced into the article and I had hoped that linking it to the corresponding WP article on the subject would make it clear that I was not referring to anyone as being “ignorant” but rather to a widely accepted term that is applicable in this context.

As to the inclusion of dates, I reiterate that you were previously concerned with excessive detail but you are now arguing for inclusion of publication dates throughout the article, which I believe would be detrimental. This proposed addition seems unnecessary, redundant, distracting, and would give undue weight to dates vs. data. More importantly, you originally presented the rationale for including publication dates in the AE section as a specific means for showing that AEs were reported infrequently over a span of time.[25] As I have tried patiently to explain in my previous comments, this conclusion is fallacious. No reliable source has ever stated that AEs with Juice Plus are rare or infrequently reported and it would be incorrect to imply otherwise. It seems that you are now proposing using dates throughout the article to justify an erroneous implication in the AE section about the rarity of reported side effects over time.

It seems counterproductive to propose including the Houston study for appeasement and then reverse direction a day later for no apparent reason. But that aside, I also don’t see the any basis for the argument that the AEs reported by Houston et al. and described in our article as being "possibly due to Juice Plus" is overly vague. As I have stated previously, this is the exact terminology used by the authors of the study and it is standard terminology when reporting AEs. It is not overly vague as long as we quote it accurately and state that these effects were deemmed to be “possibly” due to use of Juice Plus. I fail to see any issue in reporting this. As I stated above, these gastrointestinal AEs are consistent with those reported by several other sources including the manufacturer, so we can be safe in the knowledge that we are not misrepresenting the product in any way. Rhode Island Red 03:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

MCKCC as a Source

It is incorrect to use the MSKCC as a corroborative source of the adverse effect "hive-like rash" (see RIR's mention above: "hive-like rashes (Inserra et al. and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center"). The MSKCC did not conduct its own research and report findings, but simply refers to "hive-like rashes" as reported by Inserra et al. As such it doesn't even qualify as a secondary source and IMO should be removed from the article. Any objections? --TraceyR 09:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)?

This assertion seems arbitrary and inaccurate. It is obvious that MSKCC qualifies as a valid secondary source. They need not have conducted their own clinical research to arrive at their conclusion that Juice Plus causes hive-like rashes; if they had, then their findings would be considered a primary source. Since, in this case, MSKCC commented on the findings of a primary source (Inserra et al.), MSKCC is clearly a secondary source, and as such, would be considered a preferred source of information on AEs. I think that it will be exceedingly difficult to convince anyone that MSKCCs article does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. Rhode Island Red 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect for you to state that MSKCC "arrive[d] at their own conclusion that Juice Plus causes hive-like rash". All MSKCC did was to write "Adverse Reactions: Some test subjects developed a hive-like rash during treatment.(2)", where the (2) points at the Inserra study. So merely 'parroting' Inserra's research findings without adding value somehow makes MSKCC "a preferred source"? How bizarre!

It is misleading and therefore incorrect for you to insinuate, as I quoted in my entry above, that there were two separate sources which independently noted the same adverse effect. The second source merely cites the first. Perhaps re-wording is needed: "...hive-like rashes (observed by Inserra at al, cited without further comment by MSKCC)...". In this way the reader is not misled into thinking that two different sources observed the same adverse effect. --TraceyR 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don’t see any basis for an ongoing argument that this reference should be omitted. I stated specifically and unambiguously above that “MSKCC commented on the findings of a primary source (Inserra et al.)”. In no way did I imply that MSKCC carried out a separate study, and in fact I specifically indicated that they did not. MSKCC is clearly a secondary source because they commented on the findings of a primary source (i.e. Inserra et al.). The text that was previously in the article prior to the edit warring was as follows: “Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center noted[10] that in one of the studies,[21] some subjects who took Orchard Blend and Garden Blend developed a hive-like rash.” There is certainly no ambiguity in that statement and it accurately represents MSKCC's comment as originating from a secondary source. The basis for your complaint above was that, as you put it, MSKCC “doesn’t even qualify as a secondary source”. This is obviously untrue. The bottom line is that a valid, reliable, verifiable secondary source (MSKCC) that meets with WP policy looked at the Inserra study, and based on their evaluation of that study they felt that it was warranted to state that Juice Plus causes hive-like rashes as an adverse effect. This seems very simple and clear cut. Rhode Island Red 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of a secondary source is that somebody outside of the original group, but who is knowledgeable in the field, looked at the original research and found it credible. Sometimes things are published which are misleading, so a reliable secondary source's commentary can help. For example, there has been question about the study disclaimer, I believe, and what that means. If a reputable medical secondary source looked at that and considered it relevant enough to count as a risk, it would indicate that somebody in the field interpreted the warning as something other than boiler plate legalese. In this case, I think that MSKCC's comments seem appropriate to include. Bhimaji 04:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Watching this back-pedalling is fascinating! RIR wrote above

"Even though none of the studies properly monitored AEs, several of them noted AEs nonetheless. In one case it was hive-like rashes (Inserra et al. and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)", my emphasis of course,

I know there might be a temptation to think that this is 'just' the talk page, but please let us be accurate here too. The original text RIR quotes (“Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center noted[10] that in one of the studies,[21] some subjects who took Orchard Blend and Garden Blend developed a hive-like rash.” ) would be fine by me.

I'm afraid my understanding of what constitutes a "reliable secondary source" differs from the simplistic "me too" repetition of someone else's finding without analysis, commentary, comparison with other work in the field etc. The MSKCC webpage is simply a consumer information sheet, not a contribution to our knowledge about Juice Plus and as such IMO doesn't warrant inclusion. --TraceyR 08:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Backpedaling? I hate to say it but this just seems like pointless bickering. But if accuracy on the talk page is a paramount goal then please be advised that the MSKCC article is not a “consumer information sheet”; the article is intended for consumers and healthcare professionals, and is clearly labeled as such. Rhode Island Red 14:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am okay on the wording, but if we're mentioning MSKCC, we should also mention that MSKCC specifically criticized the study. I have added that wording to the article, and hope this will be an acceptable compromise. If not, I recommend that we backup to the compromise version from a couple days ago, and then re-discuss additions rather than doing them too quickly. --Elonka 17:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: It is irrelevant that the MSKCC is intended for 'healthcare professionals' as well as consumers - the point was that MSKCC merely referred to Inserra et al; there was no analysis, no commentary (as claimed by Bhimaji), no conclusion reached by MSKCC (as you claimed), no addition to our knowledge about Juice Plus, just a reference. This does not constitute a second source, so your and ("hive-like rashes (Inserra et al. and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center") was and still is incorrect. I would like you to recognise this fact, not distract from it by making a less than civil allegation of "bickering". --TraceyR 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

MSKCCs conclusion is self-evident from their inclusion of a statement listed under the heading "Side Effects" that hive-like rash occured in some users after taking Juice Plus. I regret if my use of the word "bickering" offended you but it seemed an appropriate description of your comment that I was backpedaling and innacurate in my interpretation of MSKCC, even after you agreed with the revised text I proposed. I dont understand why you are still arguing about the issue after agreeing to the new text. Rhode Island Red 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Juice Plus? NSA? NAI?

I'm not sure why the history of NSA and NAI (and names of NAI's other customers) merit mention in an article about Juice Plus. This sort of information would certainly be relevant in an article about the respective companies but surely it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. --TraceyR 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just created an article on National Safety Associates. If you see anything that's not JP-related that you want to move there, feel free. --Elonka 23:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(followup) I moved some of the information out, let me know if you have concerns about anything else.  :) --Elonka 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I find it very distasteful and disrespectful that you continue to revert war over the product description section, and attempt to do so with misleading edit summaries. As pointed out before, this does not violate WP:NOT, and you have no consensus to remove. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[26] --Elonka 01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So, are you going to respond to the substance of Ned's accusation? Responding to a direct and specific accusation with a link covering an un-related block seems sorta like changing the topic. Bhimaji 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping on the bandwagon, but this type of deletion of referenced content without consensus is what led to our last round of conflicts and resulted in Elonka launching a red-herring user conduct RfC against me.[27] These heavy handed tactics really have to stop. Rhode Island Red 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, the RfC wasn't a red herring. It was a direct response to your excessive editing and rude behavior towards your fellow editors. Thanks.Citizen Don 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus emerging on the RfC page suggests otherwise. Rhode Island Red 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Independent peer review

On the whole, the article is very good. I find it kind of silly that this has spawned so much stress and debate. Anyway:

• • Lead section should be two+ paragraphs. You could probably split the current lead into two paras and expand each by a sentence or two.
  • Numerous one- or two-sentence paragraphs. They're probably so many because of all the controversy that seems to have surrounded this article, but they should be integrated into slightly larger paras.
  • A few questionable words, such as "claim" and "supposedly", but that probably has to do with the debate.
  • No major issues with the first section.
  • History section has a few flow/organizational issues: a large paragraph and then a sentence paragraph. The sentence "The company's business..." should be chopped into two. "Had decreased"?
  • No major issues in the research section, except some needed para integration and copy-editing ("6 different studies" should be "six different studies" or even just "six studies" depending on the need for emphasis). Some of the study criticism and negative details might be better suited for the criticism section.
  • From then on, it's mostly prose glitches.
  • Any other images avaiable? Perhaps of the pills?
• Overall, it's definitely A-class right now. Too bad stability is an issue because all these factions have problems with the content or each other. Ridiculous. If you can hit a stable version for a week, definitely send it to GAC. — Deckiller 04:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I gotta disagree with your assesment. The article on this "mediocre dietary supplement" as you say is quite poor. From my research, Juice Plus appears to be a good product that has been besmirched by an extremely aggressive editor (Rhode Island Red) who has scoured the internet for every negative article (biased and few as they may be) and made sure all those sources are trumped up to the greatest possible degree. This is why we get several uses of sources like Stephan Barrett, a man who has been disgraced in a court of law on many occasions for inaccurate statements. If anything, this articel succeeds in creating controversy where there is none. Regardless the problems with the article's objectivity, it's generally not an easy article to read with the numerous weasly words and excessive detail.Citizen Don 05:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Point has been proven. Thanks :) — Deckiller 06:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the the constructive suggestions Deckiller. Now that we have more editors contributing, we seem to be getting pretty close to a stable version. There are a couple of outstanding issues with the Adverse Effect section that await final resolution, and I think a few tweaks can be made to the newly added history section, but aside from that, GAC would be a good next step. Rhode Island Red 15:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don, this harassment is getting very tiresome. You have had ample opportunity to present positive commentary about the product to counterbalance what you ses as a negative bias and yet you have not done so. Providing good content would be far more constructive than continuing to make hostile accusations about other editors. Please stop with the personal attacks already. Rhode Island Red 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, I'm sorry but I'm not going anywhere. I treat people with respect and, in return, I get respect. No one else complains about me. I think perhaps you object to the fact that I have an opinion contrary to yours and I'm not capable of being bullied. Who are these other editors you accuse me of harassing? Did your post to me have anything to do with Deckiller's topic? Who's harassing who?

Dec, I'm not sure if I understand your response but I hope my post gave you a general idea of the major problems with this article. I bet most people think Juice Plus is a "mediocre" product when they read this article and that's a testiment to how skewed this article really is.Citizen Don 04:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Un-skewing the article would be a great idea. The best place to start would be the research section. Some better research supporting the positive effects of Juice Plus would help immensely in portraying the product in a more positive light. Bhimaji 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Positive effects

I've heard several people on this page comment that they think that the current Wikipedia article is too negative, and that they'd like the product to be presented in a more positive light. However, in order to do this, we need reliable sources which do this. Are any of you aware of reliable sources about Juice Plus, which present positive effects, but which have not yet been adequately represented in the article? If so, could you please bring them up here? Thanks, Elonka 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I considered the Plotnick et al study to be positive, because of its headline result, i.e. the percentage decrease in brachial artery vasoactivity after a high-fat meal was approx. -37% in the placebo group, approx. -17% for the Juice Plus (O+G) group and approx. -1.7% for the Juice Plus and Vineyard Blend group. These are big reductions in cardiovascular impairment and ought be positive for anyone on the typical American diet! But if you read the section on "cardiovascular effects" what do you discover?

1. "(Plotnick et al) found slight decreases in cholesterol (6%) and LDL (9%) in subjects that took Orchard/Garden Blend, but no reductions among subjects who took Juice Plus Vineyard blend in addition."

OK, so perhaps total cholesterol and LDL aren't involved in the mechanism being studied, but hey, why not mention it, since it creates a negative impression!?

2. "One study (Plotnick et al) found that Juice Plus had no effect on blood pressure in healthy subjects."

Oh dear! The blood pressure wasn't reduced! Another negative! But wait a minute ... these are healthy subjects ... why should one expect their blood pressure to be reduced. They were already healthy. If their blood pressure had been reduced, you can be fairly sure that it would have turned up under "Adverse effects" ("Beware: The blood pressure of healthy subjects was reduced by this dangerous product!").

3. "This study (Plotnick et al) also reported that a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal; however, the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen had no additional effect on brachial artery vasoactivity and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein."

This is even more Machiavellian: first state the (positive) headline conclusion "that a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal" - that should do to demonstrate 'objectivity' and 'NPOV' - but then claim that "the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen had no additional effect on brachial artery vasoactivity" ... What was that? Didn't the study report that the addition of Vineyard Blend had a further positive effect on brachial artery vasoactivity? Didn't it reduce to -1.7% (compared with -17% in the Juice Plus group and -37% in the placebo group)? Well, yes, that's what Plotnick et al wrote, but that would be positive. Can't have that, so let's change it. And then distract attention from the lie by following it immediately by a half-truth (from a 'reliable' secondary source) that "the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen ... led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein". Yes, that's what Freedman wrote, so it's OK to quote it - Vineyard Blend led to an "increase in total and LDL lipoprotein". Once again, lipoprotein isn't necessarily involved in the mechanism being studied but it sounds negative so let's slip it in! An "increase in total and low-density lipoprotein"! But what does the study really say? "Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol decreased significantly (p < 0.05) in the group that received JP over the four-week study period, but they did not change in the groups taking JP-V or placebo." Did not change? Oh dear! That doesn't sound negative at all! So let's not use the words from the study but from a 'reliable' secondary source which mis-states the conclusion. I've been over this ground with RIR but in the end I gave up - apparently Freedman is correct because the group taking Vineyard Blend and O+G Blends didn't have a decrease, so two negatives make a plus and Vineyard Blend leads to an increase! QED.

So in summary, just on this one example, a study with a positive main outcome can be presented as negative by methods such as those highlighted above. It's not that there aren't studies of Juice Plus with positive results; it's just that they can be and are twisted into negatives. --TraceyR 20:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR, it’s disappointing to see old issues like this resurrected yet again, and I have to admit that I found your arguments a bit hard to follow. We have already discussed the Plotnick study quite thoroughly, [28][29], and in those discussions, you were essentially suggesting substitution of the opinion of a reliable secondary source (Freedman) with your own interpretation of the Plotnick study; an interpretation with which I strongly disagreed and which was directly opposed by the secondary source.

The Juice Plus article already reports the main finding to which you referred; i.e. it states “a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal”. And it also accurately states:

“however, the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen had no additional effect on brachial artery vasoactivity and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein”, which were findings noted by a secondary source (Freedman) that commented on the study. Freedman stated:

"Whereas the fruit and vegetable concentrate appeared to be of benefit, the addition of the vitamin supplement appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as compared with the juice concentrate alone."

These findings are accurately represented in the Juice Plus article and are of obvious relevance to the overall question of whether the product might have cardiovascular benefits. As to the article mentioning the lack of effect of Juice Plus on blood pressure in healthy subjects, this could just as easily be deemed a positive finding as a negative one, but in either case, it is another important piece of information regarding the effects (or lack of effects) of the product on cardiovascular function and it is presented with complete neutrality. I simply refer all interested parties to the past discussions on this topic [30][31]. I don't see any basis for your claims that this study has been misrepresented. Rhode Island Red 23:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracey, could you please phrase your suggestion, in terms of an actual change to the current article text? What wording would you recommend? --Elonka 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Elonka, that's a positive suggestion. First let me point out that the current "Cardiovascular effects" section does not "accurately represent" Plotnick's findings, as RIR claims. He is ignoring the contradiction between what the study reports ("Thus, JP and JP-V at three and four weeks significantly decreased the detrimental effect of the high-fat meal on endothelial function."; the figures were -37% placebo, -17% JP and -1.7% JP-V) and what Freedman inexplicably claims ("addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen had no additional effect on brachial artery vasoactivity"). This may be an "old issue" but it still detracts from the accuracy of the article and therefore needs to be addressed.

For the time being I would substitute the following for the final paragraph of the CVE section:

One study on healthy subjects reported that a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal; the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen further decreased the impairment on brachial artery vasoactivity to an almost undetectable level (-1.7% +/- 9,7%). Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol decreased significantly in the group that received Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend over the four-week study period, but they did not change in the groups taking the placebo or Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend in combination with Juice Plus Vineyard Blend. The same study found that Juice Plus did not affect their blood pressure.

This removes the inaccuracies in the current version, which were introduced by citing Freedman. --TraceyR 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your change appears to be reasonable, but I'd still recommend including the Freedman editorial, perhaps like this?

One four-week trial in 2003, which was a randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled study on healthy subjects, reported that a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal; the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen further decreased the impairment to an almost undetectable level. Other significant decreases were also noticed in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in the group that received Orchard Blend and Garden Blend, but levels were unchanged in the groups taking the placebo or Orchard Blend and Garden Blend in combination with Vineyard Blend. The same study found that Juice Plus did not affect their blood pressure. However, an editorial in the same journal as the published study, said that though the study presented "intriguing data", that it was notable but not yet clinically relevant until there was further and more precise testing. The editorial further stated that the study's findings should not lead to the recommendation of phytonutrients for the modification of cardiovascular disease, "nor should these findings suggest that the clearly established diseases associated with high-fat or high-calorie diets can be offset by the use of nutritional supplements...this study does not suggest that a phytonutrient or vitamin supplement is the solution for high-fat, low-fiber, low-nutrient diets but instead reinforces the positive effects of nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables." (pdf)

How's that? --Elonka 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is very well-written. One caveat though, and that is the "clinically relevant" aspect. It is natural for a scientist to look at this, but it's not really relevant when considering a nutritional supplement (i.e. not a drug), for which no clinical claims are made. Freedman falls into this trap hook, line and sinker - no-one is recommending Juice Plus for the modification of cardiovascular disease, although it may well happen that one day scientists will 'discover' a use for phytonutrients in this area. Quoting Freedman's comments links Juice Plus with this whole issue of treatment rather than prevention, something I wanted to avoid in the article. Most of Freedman's comments don't add much apart from confusion, when we should be aiming for simplicity. The last sentence, however, starting at "... this study", is valuable for the interested reader and IMO merits inclusion. So ...

One four-week trial in 2003, which was a randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled study on healthy subjects, reported that a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal; the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen further decreased the impairment to an almost undetectable level. Other significant decreases were also noticed in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in the group that received Orchard Blend and Garden Blend, but levels were unchanged in the groups taking the placebo or Orchard Blend and Garden Blend in combination with Vineyard Blend. The same study found that Juice Plus did not affect their blood pressure. However, an editorial in the same journal as the published study, said that "this study does not suggest that a phytonutrient or vitamin supplement is the solution for high-fat, low-fiber, low-nutrient diets but instead reinforces the positive effects of nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables." (pdf)

Sorry to hack at your contribution - it's just a suggestion, of course! --TraceyR 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The newly proposed text contains some major inaccuracies/misrepresentations, essentially, these are the same misinterpretations that we discussed in detail already.[32][33] First of all, the proposed statement -- that “the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen further decreased the impairment to an almost undetectable level” -- is simply incorrect, and again, I will point out the evidence showing that the statement is incorrect:

• The authors did not make such a statement; they in fact stated that the effects of the two regimens were “similar”
• No statistical data (i.e. p-values) were presented to show that there was a difference between the Orchard Blend + Garden Blend group and the Orchard Blend + Garden Blend + Vineyard Blend group, so again, it cannot be said that addition of Vineyard Blend caused a further reduction.
• Most importantly, Freedman’s commentary (a secondary source) says exactly the opposite, namely “the addition of the vitamin supplement (i.e. Vineyard blend) appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function” and "The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this extract did not lead to any significant additive effects when given with the juice concentrate powder." It couldn't have been stated any more clearly.

I pointed these facts out twice already (see [34] and [35] so it is frustrating to see that inclusion of statements that are incorrect and contradicted by reliable secondary sources is again being proposed. This was what was stated in my previous posts:

• "I will however quickly point out a couple of problems with your interpretation. The study did not show a statistical difference between the effects of Orchard/Garden Blend versus Orchard/Garden/Vineyard Blend. If the difference is not statistically significant, then in effect, there is no difference. Hence, Freedman’s conclusion that Vineyard Blend did not have an additive effect. I will repeat what I said before, because apparently it did not register the first time. Plotnick stated "...similar results were seen with a more complex supplementation regimen incorporating various nutrients and herbal extracts (i.e. Vineyard Blend) in addition to the fruit/vegetable juice concentrate." Note that the article states that the effects of the two regimens were "similar", not that Vineyard Blend had an additive effect. Plotnick’s conclusion was consistent with that of Freedman; namely, addition of Vineyard Blend did not significantly enhance the effect of the OB/GB regimen. Furthermore, while OB/GB produced a small effect on LDL and cholesterol, this effect was eliminated when Vineyard Blend was added to the regimen. This finding is consistent with the statements made by Freedman; namely: “the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen had no additional effect on brachial artery vasoactivity and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein”. Can we put this issue to rest now? Rhode Island Red 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)"

• The effect of Juice Plus Vineyard Blend was not additive. First, Plotnick stated that the effects of the 2 regimens were “similar”; the authors never stated that the effect of VB was additive. Secondly, Freedman’s published comments specifically stated that the effect of Vineyard Blend was ‘’not’’ additive. Third, your own analysis of the data is incorrect. Plotnick’s study did not report a statistically significant difference between the OG/GB group and the OG/GB/VB group. Without such statistical support (i.e. a p-value showing that the magnitude of effect in these 2 groups differed from one another), one cannot say that there was a significant difference, no matter how large the apparent difference were in terms of percentage response. Those are hard and fast rules. While you may think the difference is significant, there is in fact no difference according to universally accepted criteria for data analysis in scientific research. We cannot add your unpublished analysis/interpretation of the data, particularly when it is so clearly contradicted by both the authors of the study in question, as well as by the published comments from Dr. Freedman. Rhode Island Red 00:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that statistical analysis of research data may be difficult to grasp for the layperson, but I highly suggest that interested parties do some reading on the meaning of “statitical significance” as it pertains to research data. Here might be a good place to start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance. If anyone still has doubts, then I suggest that they file an RfC to solicit verification from another outside editor with some expertise in this area. But regardless of the nuances of statistical analysis, we have a reliable secondary source that clearly states that Vineyard Blend did not lead to additional reduction in BART impairment.

Also, the changes in LDL/cholesterol levels observed in the Garden Blend/Orchard Blend group were rather small (6% and 9%), and it is important to indicate the magnitude of the effect, rather than just saying that they were reduced. These percentage decreases were included in the original text of the WP article but were omitted in the newly proposed text. I don’t see how it would improve the article to omit this information. If the aim here is to present the product in a more positive light (which incidentally should not be the aim), then this would best be accomplished by bringing new information to the table rather than by deleting exisiting information that is relevant and accurate.

As to the rest of the text, it seems that what we had before was a fairly concise and accurate summary of the study, but the new verbiage just seems to add extra text without really providing any additional information. I think it would be OK to include more of Freedman’s commentary, but not really necessary. If we do add it, then we should add all of the text proposed by Elonka, rather than selectively quoting only the statements suggested by TraceyR. The argument presented by TraceyR regarding clinical relevance and Freedman falling into a trap is speculative opinion and non-verifiable, and there are no other citable sources that echo these sentiments.

Here are some other portions of Freedman's conclusions that would warrant inclusion, if we decide to go in the direction of expanding Freedman's commentary:

"Because the active components of this supplement were not identified, and the compounds were not monitored either directly or utilizing surrogate biomarkers, it cannot be assumed that subsequent preparations of this or similar supplements will retain their vasoactive properties. Also, because the herbal extract was not tested alone, it is impossible to know if it has any beneficial effects when used in isolation."

We might also consider citing another commentary which criticized the experimental model used by Plotnick:

“Dr Plotnick and colleagues describe the use of duplex ultrasonography to determine changes in the brachial artery diameter associated with a high-fat meal. The authors claimed a significant alteration in arterial diameter, but although the differences may be statistically significant, they should not be construed as clinically significant. Based on the physics of ultrasound probes, the measurements reported by Plotnick et al are within 0.3 mm at best, presuming their machine is properly calibrated by the manufacturer. Their ultrasound machine will give caliper-derived data to within 0.1 mm. The authors report tabular data taken to the nearest 0.01 mm, based on a sample size of 20. The supposedly significant results they report are based on vasoreactivity measurements on the order of 0.2 mm. Can one really believe these data when the measured effect is less than the hidden “noise” of the machine? This article is an excellent example of a modern quandary: How does one interpret data when the measured effect exceeds the accuracy of the instrument used to make the measurement?” (Kauffman. JAMA. 1998;279:1069-70). Rhode Island Red 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Red, I appreciate your passion for this issue, but please be advised that the longer your posts, the less likely that anyone is going to actually read them. As I understood your above post, you are feeling some frustration that people aren't hearing what you're saying. My recommendation is to keep posts very short, and to focus on specific article changes. For example, "I like version (A)," "I like version (B)", "I don't like either version (A) or (B), but here's my proposal for (C)". I think it would help a lot towards consensus, thanks. --Elonka 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is an annotated version for those who might have difficulty getting through the full details. There is no reason to change the existing content because the results have not been misrepresented, as was alleged by TraceyR. The simple rebuttal to TraceyRs proposed text: “the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen further decreased the impairment to an almost undetectable level” is that it is contradicted by (a) the authors’ statement that the effects of the 2 regimens on BART were “similar” (not additive), (b) by the fact that no statistical data in the article showed a difference between the 2 regimens, and (c) the statements by Freedman (a reliable expert secondary source) that “the addition of the vitamin supplement (i.e. Vineyard blend) appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function” and "The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this extract (i.e. Vineyard Blend) did not lead to any significant additive effects when given with the juice concentrate powder." Since there seems to be no substance to TraceyRs argument that the section misrepresents the data, there is no reason to be proposing a rewrite. As to your proposal to expand Freedman’s comments, I don’t think it’s necessary but I have no major objections to inclusion of such information, as long as we are not overly selective in what we quote. Regarding TraceyRs comments about clinical relevance, her assertion that Freedman fell into a trap “hook, line and sinker” is untenable. We can’t discount a reliable published expert source solely on the basis of one editor’s personal opinion. Rhode Island Red 04:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(copied from RIR's RfC):

RIR, something here still doesn't add up. Why are you spending so much of your time editing and discussing an article on a product about which you write: "...just imagine what an infinitesimally small percentage of total US supplement sales that Juice Plus accounts for; in the grand scheme, it is a trivial and insignificant small-fry product whose market share would barely be a blip on the radar." [hardly NPOV!)? Get things in perspective! Why don't you spend your time and your apparent talents for analysis and exhaustive presentation on something worthy of them? --

And your previous comments (you must be nearing three hard-back books now) came after your statement that you were taking a rest here and going to look for other articles to 'improve'. I for one am going to have a few days off from this - it'll give you a chance to check Plotnick et al for p values (look for "< 0.05" and "< 0.02" in the context of the decrease in the impairment on brachial artery vasoactivity). I'm not fixated on the formulation "to almost undetectable levels" - I think that will be fine if we just quote "-37% (placebo), -17% (JP) and -1.7% (JP+V)" . --TraceyR 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR, let’s just focus on the facts and not throw up diversions to the issue at hand. You are arguing that the existing version misrepresented the data and you have continually argued for changes so that the article would state, in one way or another, that Vineyard Blend caused additional reductions in BART impairment. It clearly did not. Any proposed rewrite that obscures this fact is inappropriate. Your arguments to make such changes are contradicted by the statements of the author and of Freedman, a reliable expert secondary source.

As to the p-values, the ones to which you referred showed significant differences in the Orchard/Garden/Vineyard Blend group from (a) baseline to day 21 and from (b) baseline to day 28 (imilar to what was seen in the OB/GB group); no p-value was shown to indicate that the effect at any of these time points differed between the OB/GB group vs. the OB/GB/VB group. This is a pretty straightforward observation for anyone who has familiarity with statistical design, but if you don’t want to take my word for it, request comment from other editors who have experience in this area. Rhode Island Red 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks, let's please stay focused on actual article wording. Red appears to agree with my proposed change:

One four-week trial in 2003, which was a randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled study on healthy subjects, reported that a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal; the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen further decreased the impairment to an almost undetectable level. Other significant decreases were also noticed in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in the group that received Orchard Blend and Garden Blend, but levels were unchanged in the groups taking the placebo or Orchard Blend and Garden Blend in combination with Vineyard Blend. The same study found that Juice Plus did not affect their blood pressure. However, an editorial in the same journal as the published study, said that though the study presented "intriguing data", that the study's findings should not lead to the recommendation of phytonutrients for the modification of cardiovascular disease, "nor should these findings suggest that the clearly established diseases associated with high-fat or high-calorie diets can be offset by the use of nutritional supplements...this study does not suggest that a phytonutrient or vitamin supplement is the solution for high-fat, low-fiber, low-nutrient diets but instead reinforces the positive effects of nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables." (pdf)

Tracey, are you willing to accept it as well, or if not, what further changes would you suggest? --Elonka 19:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I agreed with the proposed rewrite, because I did not. Aside from other reasons, it still contains the misleading statement about the effect of Vineyard Blend, so it seems that the main point of my previous comments with respect to the lack of effect of Vineyard Blend is still being neglected. The statement “the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen further decreased the impairment to an almost undetectable level” is contradicted by Freedman’s statements that “the addition of the vitamin supplement (i.e. Vineyard blend) appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function” and "the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this extract (i.e. Vineyard Blend) did not lead to any significant additive effects when given with the juice concentrate powder."

I went over the text in our article carefully and I can see several ways to modify it so that it retains its accuracy while still making some concessions to the points TraceyR raised. First of all, I agree with her comment that it is not ideal to lead off with the statement about the lack of effect on blood pressure, since this was not the primary goal of the study. It is still noteworthy, but in terms of weight/relevance, it would be better placed at the end of the discussion of Plotnick’s study. Secondly, I noticed that we have already cited Plotnick in the preceding discussion of LDL/cholesterol, so there really is no need to reiterate Freedman’s comment about Vineyard Blend raising LDL/cholesterol levels (even though it is valid). Lastly, I would not recommend adding the additional comments from Freedman in the Research section, since the comments are rather long and we have generally avoided including lengthy quotations from secondary sources in the Research section. These comments seem to be better suited to the Criticism section.

Here is what I propose for the discussion of the Plotnick study in the Research section:

One study in healthy subjects reported that a combined regimen of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend significantly decreased the impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal; however, the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen had no additional effect on brachial artery vasoactivity.[26] This study also reported that Juice Plus had no effect on blood pressure.[1]

In the Criticism section, I would add the following information regarding Freedman’s comments.

Dr. Jane Freedman, commenting on a Juice Plus study conducted by Plotnick and associates, noted that although the study presented "intriguing data", the findings of the study should not lead to the recommendation of phytonutrients for the modification of cardiovascular disease, "nor should these findings suggest that the clearly established diseases associated with high-fat or high-calorie diets can be offset by the use of nutritional supplements". According to Freedman, "the study does not suggest that a phytonutrient or vitamin supplement is the solution for high-fat, low-fiber, low-nutrient diets but instead reinforces the positive effects of nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables." Freedman also commented that “because the active components of this supplement were not identified, and the compounds were not monitored either directly or utilizing surrogate biomarkers, it cannot be assumed that subsequent preparations of this or similar supplements will retain their vasoactive properties.” Rhode Island Red 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A certain editor expressed delight in TracyR's exasperated departure from this page so I would like to express my delight in her return! I think Elonka's suggested addition to the Juice Plus page is spot on.Citizen Don 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

---

'Plotnick's results and Freedman's comments'

These, for those who have not seen the original data, are the relevant Plotnick study results ("Results" section):

Data from Plotnick et al
Group	Baseline	+21 days	+28 days
Placebo	-40.9%	-37.1%	-37.6%
OB+GB ('JP')	-45.1%	-22.3% (p < 0.05)	-16.6% (p < 0.05)
OB+GB+VB ('JP-V')	-47.5%	-13.7% (p < 0.05)	-1.7% (p < 0.02)
"Postprandial decreases on brachial artery vasoactivity at 0, 21, and 28 days after a single high-fat meal in patients randomized to placebo, JP, or JP-V supplementation."

Freedman however wrote as follows:

"The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this extract (i.e. Vineyard Blend) did not lead to any significant additive effects when given with the juice concentrate powder. Whereas the fruit and vegetable concentrate appeared to be of benefit, the addition of the vitamin supplement (she is again referring to Vineyard Blend) appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function ... ."

I have highlighted in orange and yellow the two relevant values. From the above table it would appear self-evident that Freedman's conclusion is incorrect. Perhaps she just looked at the summary, where Plotnick et al wrote

"Four weeks of the JP-V combination blunted the detrimental effect of the high-fat meal (-47.5 ... at baseline vs. -1.7... at four weeks .... Four weeks of JP alone had a similar beneficial effect (-45.1... at baseline vs. -16.6 ... at four weeks..., whereas there was no substantial effect of the placebo. In the subjects treated with supplements, concentrations of serum nitrate/nitrite increased from 78 +/- 39 to 114 +/- 62 µm/l (p < 0.02)."

How Freedman came to the conclusion that there was no additive effect is puzzling, to say the least: 16.6% and 1.7% differ by an order of magnitude! If I have made some error of logic here I'm sure someone will put me straight. Otherwise, as I believe I have said before, if we include the raw data (e.g. the above table) in the section, the interested reader can come to his/her own conclusion as to how similar they are. --TraceyR 19:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just a short comment here that might help with a great deal of this debate. Everyone might want to take a look at the original research policy - we do not interpret or make decisions on data, we report what other sources have said. Shell ^babelfish 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

This doesn't apply here. 'Plotnick et al' is a published work (JACC), so is Freedman. Plotnicj interepreted his results; Freedman did so too. If there is a contradiction between the two, both must be cited so that the reader can form his own opinion. Freedman isn't automatically 'more' authoritative by virtue of being a secondary source. --TraceyR 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I am aware of the term, which is why I pointed it out. Had you read the entire policy as I politely suggested, you would have read the section on Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. As specifically stated, "An article...that relies on a primary source should...make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." I was not suggesting that both references not be used, simply that displaying results of a study and telling the reader what they mean is original research, whereas re-stating what the primary and secondary source said is not. You may believe Freedman is incorrect based on your interpretation of the data, but that opinion has no place in the article. Shell ^babelfish 21:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

... which is why I suggested putting both sources in and letting the readers draw their own conclusions. We are in agreement on this. However, simply stating Freedman's opinion in the knowledge that is misrepresents the original research would be misleading and do a disservice to Wikipedia. I imagine that you also agree that the OR policy should not used to stifle discussion on the talk pages. --TraceyR 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not judge, interpret or explain for the reader, so yes, simply stating things already recorded by other sources in exactly what we have to do. You'll also notice that Rhode Island has quoted statements from the study that seem to disagree with your assertion that Freedman is in the wrong - you're relying on your own interpretation of data to make that judgment; again, this is the soul of the original research policy. I don't think its necessary to insinuate that I was trying to stifle discussion here. I had hoped by pointing out that your reasoning, while valid, unfortunately violates one of Wikipedia's policies it would encourage you to re-think your arguments and use a more productive angle. Shell ^babelfish 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shell, I'm sorry that you interpreted my comment about "stifling discussion" to be directed at you. This was not my intention - I was assuming that you agreed with this standpoint. I mentioned it simply because this has been attempted by others on this article in the past. The OR policy also states that "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should ... only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ...",. which is what I hope we can achieve. Would presenting the primary data and a secondary conclusion ostensibly based on these data violate the OR policy? --TraceyR 07:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to TraceyRs comment: “If I have made some error of logic here I'm sure someone will put me straight.”

TraceyR is in fact making an error of logic, and I have tried to put this straight several times already to no avail. But here goes one more time. Freedman’s conclusion is not puzzling in the slightest, nor does a contradiction exist between her comments and what was reported by Plotnick et al. TraceyR is simply misinterpreting the data.

In the Orchard/Garden Blend (JP) group at day 28 there was a significant (p<0.05) reduction from baseline (to 16.6%). In the JP + Vineyard Blend (JP-V) group there was also a significant (p<0.02) reduction (to 1.2%) from baseline. However, no significant difference was noted between the effect of JP and the effect of JP-V; i.e. the 16.6% value (JP group) did not differ significantly from the 1.2% value (JP-V group).

So, regardless of the apparent difference, no difference actually exists according to the statistics presented in Plotnick’s article. Plotnick (a primary source) rightly noted this and said that the effects of the 2 treatments were “similar”, as did Freedman (a secondary source) who stated that Vineyard Blend added to the regimen did not have an additive effect. Nowhere did Plotnick state that Vineyard Blend had an additive effect, nor did he state anything that would contradict Freedman’s conclusion as to the lack of an additive effect.

As a side lesson in statistics -- although TraceyR quoted the mean values from the article, she failed to mention the standard error of the mean (SEM), a measure of data variability. Figure 1 in Plotnick’s article shows error bars (the thin lines atop the data bars), which depict the SEM, and in the case of the JP-V group, the variability was very large (considerably larger than in the other groups). This reflects that the response to treatment varied widely. Statistical analysis takes such variability into consideration so that outliers do not unduly influence the interpretation of the data.

TraceyR has repeatedly argued that we should, in one way or another, denote that the effect of Vineyard Blend was additive (i.e. caused additional reduction in BART beyond that of JP alone). Such a denotation would constitute original research (e.g. if we were to replace Freedman’s comments with TraceyRs unsubstantiated opinion), but more importantly, it would clearly be incorrect and contradicted by the statements of Plotnick et al. and Freedman and by the data itself. Furthermore, contrary to TraceyR’s suggestion that we should “let the readers draw their own conclusions”, we should in fact do exactly the opposite and eliminate any possibility that the reader will draw the erroneous conclusion that the effects of the two treatments (JP vs. JP-V) differed, or that Vineyard Blend had an additive effect. Hopefully, all of this is clear now and we can finally put the issue to rest. Rhode Island Red 16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Was Referenced Gummie Information Deleted Again?

Regarding the recent deletion of the referenced Gummie RDI information,[36] the options that were on the table were to leave it under the Product Description heading or to move it into the infobox. I also thought we had also agreed to discuss changes to this information and reach a consensus before making such changes. No consensus was reached to remove this information outright, so why has it been removed again? I, Shel and Ned Scott did not support outright removal, and compelling arguments were raised against the claim that this information violated WP:NOT and as to why the information should remain in the Product Description section rather than being moved to the infobox.[37] This information should be restored in either the Product Description section or the infobox ASAP. Rhode Island Red 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's consensus to do so, we can definitely put the Gummie info into another infobox, but I'd like to make sure that we doublecheck the values. For example, the "4-capsule" data seemed to have some substantial discrepancies with the "2-capsule" data: "Vitamin A" under the 2-capsule serving was listed as 140%, but there was no mention of what the 4-capsule value was. Vitamin C was the opposite: No mention of the 2-capsule value, but 4-capsule it was listed as 390%. Calcium was listed as 4% for 2-capsule, but only 6% for 4-capsule. Folate was listed as 70% for 2-capsule, but 105% for 4-capsule. Logically, the 4-capsule values should be double the 2-capsule values, shouldn't they? So if Folate is 70% for 2-capsule, it should be 140% for 4-capsule. Calcium that's 4% for 2-capsule should be 8% for 4-capsule. So why are the numbers so far off? There was also no mention of what the 4-capsule values were for sodium, carbs, fiber or protein. I'd like to make sure that we get the numbers right, but I don't have access to the product labels. Can someone please verify what the correct values should be? Thanks, Elonka 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my question and instead raised an unrelated question about the 4-capsule regimen. Again I ask, why was the Gummie information deleted? It was referenced and accurate and we had previously narrowed the discussion down to two options: (a) keeping the Gummie information where it was in the Product Description section or (b) moving it to the infobox. Several editors opposed outright deletion and noted that the WP:NOT argument was without merit, and good reasons were provided as to why the infomration would be more appropriate in the body text rather than in the infobox. The onus for raising a consensus is on those seeking to delete referenced content, so please restore the Gummie information. Thanks. Rhode Island Red 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, I challenge the accuracy of the information, as I mentioned above, which I have the right to do per WP:V. I took a close look at the numbers as I was moving things into the infobox, and the quantities are contradictory. If we can find reliable sources for the information though, I'll even help make the necessary modifications to the {{foodbox}} templates, since it doesn't include all the nutrients that were listed for the Gummies. But first, I'd like to make sure that we're getting it right, because we're not doing anyone any good if we are including false information. I am also concerned that the way that the information was presented, it showed that there were more nutrients in the Gummies, than in the actual capsules. This, too, seems contradictory. I would be happier with secondary sources on this information, rather than primary. --Elonka 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify one more time. You are challenging the accuracy of a completely different piece of information. You are referring to the RDI amounts in the 4-capsule regimen, which comes from the bottle label. But the information in question is the Gummie nutrient amounts, which was referenced to a published article by Stewart, and it does not appear that you are questioning the accuracy of its claims. If you are in fact now questioning the claims made about Gummies in the Stewart article, then raise your concerns here, but please do not delete the information merely because you have some undefined concerns about accuracy. This really is counterproductive and against policy, and I fail to see any basis for deleting this content. Rhode Island Red 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like the Stewart source better than the label source, I agree. So, how about if we put the info on the Gummies into the main infobox, instead of the capsules? Would that be a satisfactory compromise? It would get detailed nutritional info out there, that came from a reviewed source. --Elonka 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(followup) The more I'm researching it, the more that I'm concerned that we shouldn't be mentioning any nutrients at all, even in the infobox. The product appears to have been criticized repeatedly for having inaccurate labeling, and we even mention these concerns in the "Criticism" section. In terms of the infobox, even if we had a study that showed the ingredients at one point in time, those values appear to change.[38] If we do include the Stewart information, we should clearly label it as a dated "point in time" analysis, instead of an accurate representation of current values. --Elonka 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that these concerns would just dawn on you now after having been familiar with both Stewart's Gummie data and the product labeling innacuracies for several months prior. You actually included the statement at the top of the infobox about accuracy of product labeling[39] so it is odd that you would have this revelation now, in the midst of trying to defend your prior deletion. But regardless, the Gummie data from the Stewart study was not based on product label information; it was based on their chemical analysis of the product, so concerns about accuracy of product labeling are irrelevant to their data. On that basis alone it should be restored now.

Even though your WP:NOT argument was opposed, it seems that you are still determined to delete this content, and it also seems that you are now grasping at straws looking for reasons to keep it out. But this smells a lot like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Concerns should be raised here and a consensus reached before deleting referenced material, not afterwards. I don't see how this arbitrary deletion is helping to improve the article, nor does it seem to show much respect for the discussion process and the opinions of other editors. Rhode Island Red 01:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the current version of the infobox contains innacurate/misleading information. It lists combined RDI percentages for Orchard Blend plus Garden Blend together (information moved from the product description), yet misleadingly lists the ingredients for only one of the 2 products. This process really would be far less disruptive if the original version of the infobox and product description were restored. Rhode Island Red 02:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the information in the infobox is a concern. Did you read my comment above, about replacing it with the Gummie information? --Elonka 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that Gummies are insignificant compared with the encapsulated product, so putting details about Gummies in the infobox would be inappropriate. --TraceyR 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but do we have any reliable source information on the actual ingredients? --Elonka 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We could ask Cindy HT. If anyone has access to reliable contents, she has. Of course they might be confidential. Was there a reference to an analysis in the (since archived) list of sources she provided? --TraceyR 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The information in the infobox has only become a concern because the RDI and ingredients lists are now mismatched as a result of the recent edits that were made to it by Elonka. I fail to see how a mismatched infobox is an improvement over the previous version, not do I understand why the Gummie information has not been restored. There seems to be no valid reason for either of these changes.

As for the label information, Elonka has over the past months intermittently tried to have the information removed based on 3 successive reasons:

1. Her claim that label is not a reliable source
2. Her claim that WP:NOT justifies deletion
3. Her concerns about accuracy

1. Reliability of Label as a Source

Elonka had previously raised the question of whether the product label could be used as a source, and several editors (seemingly constituting a consensus) commented that it was acceptable. Nonetheless, Elonka seems to be again challenging the reliability of the source and using that as a basis to justify her recent deletion of the content in question.

These were some of the previous comments on the issue:

“As for product labels, many acceptable sources do not include a publication date. This is especially true for web sites.” (Gerry Ashton on 18:05, 14 February 2007 UTC)

“IMHO there is no problem in principle with listing the contents verbatim from the label, since it would appear to be the only source of information.” (TraceyR 16:16, 14 February 2007 UTC)

“I believe it is OK to use the product label as a source. (EdJohnston 16:37, 16 February 2007 UTC)

Note that the label reliability argument would have no bearing at all on the Gummie RDI information that was also deleted, since this was quoted from Stewart et al. and not from the product label.

2. WP:NOT

Three editors indicated that WP:NOT did not apply to the RDI data, that the information was noteworthy, and that it should remain in the article.[40] No consensus was established to delete the content.

3. Concerns About Accuracy

Although Elonka never expressed concerns about this issue in the past, she recently brought it up for the first time as justification for the deletion.[41] However, this is not a valid reason for deleting referenced content. If Elonka had facts to show that the information was incorrect, that would certainly be valid grounds, but her merely having a vague suspicion that it might be incorrect is not sufficient justification. Using Elonka’s rationale, any editor could remove referenced content based solely on the reason that they claim to have personal suspicions about accuracy, in the absence of actual evidence of inaccuracy. I think it is easy to see how disruptive that would be.

And again, concerns about accuracy of label information would have no bearing on the Gummie data quoted from Stewart et al. Rhode Island Red 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My concerns about the accuracy of the data are because (1) The information has been challenged in multiple sources; and (2) The numbers, quite simply, do not add up. Literally. If two capsules have 70%, then four capsules should have 140%, yes? But no, they have 105%. If two capsules have 4% calcium, then four capsules should have 8%, right? If two capsules have 0%, then 4 capsules should have 0%, not *390%*. Something here is just plain wrong, and it would be most helpful if you, or someone here with access to the sources, could help by confirming values. --Elonka 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you are simply adding the wrong numbers together and seem to have mistakenly assumed that the Garden Blend and Orchard Blend contain equal amounts of nutrients; they do not. It would have helped if you had checked the article history because you would have found the exact labeled RDI percentages of both products listed in a previous version:[42]. For your convenience, I am providing that data for you so that you can see the numbers do in fact add up.

• Garden Blend: vitamin A 140%, calcium 4%, vitamin E 80%, vitamin C 70%, iron 2%, and folate 70%.
• Orchard Blend (2 capsules): vitamin A 110%, calcium 2%, vitamin E 70%, vitamin C 320%, iron 2%, and folate 35%.

Therefore the combined 4 capsule regimen provides: vitamin A 250%, calcium 6%, vitamin E 150%, vitamin C 390%, iron 4%, and folate 105%. Q.E.D.! Rhode Island Red 14:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have updated the infobox, though we could still use the "units" value for Vitamin A, if you have that? Also, do you think it's worth listing combined values for fiber, carbs, or sodium? --Elonka 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do they even still sell Juice Plus Gummies? To me, "Juice Plus" consists of the Garden, Orchard and Vineyard blends. Perhaps the JP Gummies info would be better off on it's own page.Citizen Don 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they still sell Gummies and it is fairly simple to check facts like these for oneself by simply doing some research (e.g. checking the Juice Plus website). I don’t understand the basis for your perception about the product line (i.e. “to me, "Juice Plus" consists of the Garden, Orchard and Vineyard blends”) but regardless, it is incorrect. Several other vitamin supplement products, including Gummies, are also marketed under the Juice Plus name. Splitting each product into separate WP articles, as suggested for the Gummies, would seem odd to say the least. Rhode Island Red 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, despite my asking several times, you still have not yet provided an answer as to why you deleted the Gummie RDI information when consensus clearly did not favor deletion. The discussion process starts to seem futile when other editors refuse to respect the outcome. Rhode Island Red 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, RDIs themselves are pretty worthless, so IMO they shouldn't even be mentioned. Manufacturers are, I suppose, obliged by law in some countries to give the percentages provided by their products but the basis for RDIs is unscientific. So much depends upon the form in which e.g. vitamins are consumed (e.g. whole food, dried food, frozen food, processed food, irradiated food, natural but isolated vitamins, synthetic isolated vitamins etc) that talking about RDIs without context (including age, gender, state of health etc) is meaningless. See Eberhardt MV, Lee CY, Liu RH. Antioxidant activity of fresh apples. Nature 2000;405:903-4. Half an unpeeled Red Delicious apple (100g = 5,7 mg Vitamin C) had the equivalent antioxidant effect of 1,500 mg of Vitamin C. So what percentage RDI does half an unpeeled Red Delicious apple provide? RDIs even differ between countries across the English-speaking world, sometimes by huge amounts, so they are even less meaningful here on en.wikipedia. --TraceyR 18:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gummies poll

I'd like to get everyone's opinion on this, for clarity. Should or shouldn't the Wikipedia article include the detailed RDI information on the "Juice Plus Gummies" product? 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

vitamin C 107.1 mg (179%); vitamin E 82.6 IU (275%); vitamin A 14.8 mg (494%); thiamin 1.39 mg (93%); riboflavin 0.05 mg (3%); niacin 2.51 mg (13%); pyridoxine 0.64 mg (32%); zinc 0.62 mg (4%); magnesium 13.65 mg (3%), calcium 94.5 mg (9%); potassium 58.4 mg (2%); and copper 0.32 mg (16%).

• Don't include. We already have detailed information on the 4-capsule regimen, we don't need details on every single JP product, per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Elonka 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Don't include. There might be a case for a section e.g. "Other related products" with outline information on Gummies, Juice Plus Complete (?) and Juice Plus Thins. IMO the article should focus on Orchard/Garden/Vineyard Blend. --TraceyR
• Don't include. I've taken Juice Plus for years and I've never even seen the gummies. Citizen Don 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Competitor source

I'd like to delete a line out of the Criticism section, because I question the reliability of the source:

An unpublished chemical analysis of Juice Plus reported by GNLD International, a competing supplement company, is claimed to have shown that Juice Plus Orchard/Garden Blend did not contain detectable levels of alpha-carotene, lycopene, or lutein.(pdf)

The fact that it's both an unpublished source, and one from a competitor with a clear COI, and from an advertising flyer, makes me think that it is inappropriate for use at the Wikipedia article. Do other editors agree? --Elonka 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be removed. Regardless of what company the data originated from, an unpublished study who's conclusions are sent via an advertisement falls below the reliable sources standard. Shell ^babelfish 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I too think that this is an inappropriate source, for all the reasons given by Elonka and Shell. --TraceyR 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violating Material?

I see the link to juiceplusresearch.blogspot.com has been removed. I looked there briefly and didn't see anything that was copyright-infringing.

I'm also concerned that material would be determined to be infringing without any sort of discussion. Fair use allows for many different uses of copyrighted material without the owner's authorization. Since Wikipedia is not hosting the material, their risk is quite minimal. Given that the site in question is a non-commercial criticism site, they can make quite a strong case for fair use exemptions.

I haven't looked at the specific Wikipedia policy in question, but I would expect the intention is to not link to, say, archives of TV shows or something, not sites with commentary that appear non-infringing. Bhimaji 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bhimaji: There was a reference to this blog some months ago, but it was removed by general consensus. I quote a discussion contribution by RhodeIslandRed on 30 May 2007:

"...What is the point in mentioning references to blog sites now when the article doesn’t contain such references? Don’t we have enough on our plate without resurrecting dead issues that have been settled long ago?" (my emphasis)

I'm not sure when this reference crept back in, but it shouldn't have been there. Those who know how to do these things will be able to locate its deletion and resurrection history. --TraceyR 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not part of the original discussions, but for the record, I think it's a useful site, and it is appropriate for us to link to it. --Elonka 18:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The site hosts numerous pages copied from various journals, violating their copyrights (look under Research Library). The copyright status was determined in April or May of 2007 and was the reason for its original removal and the reformatting of all of the references to point to studies in their proper places. For the policy that states we may not link to such sites, see WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Unfortunate, but there you have it. Perhaps someone could try emailing the site's owner? Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."

The link is to a site that contains numerous types of content, some of which is original and some of which is copied without permission. The site appears to primarily consist of original work with other items copied as references to the original content. The link that was in this article was to original material, _not_ a link to an infringing work. How many clicks away does the material have to be before you can't link?

I think that the original content of that blog is significant enough that, if it meets Wikipedia's other criteria, linking to it is clearly not done for the purpose of distributing copyrighted works. Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry is very clearly differentiated from this situation. The linking in that case was for the express purpose of encouraging the viewing of copyrighted material and no other purpose. Given the number of links to copyright infringing material on the Internet, I do not believe that this level of indirection could be considered contributory infringement.

So, to summarize, from a policy standpoint the link is not to infringing material, but rather to original material. The WP:COPY page cites a case which refers to direct linking to copyrighted works by parties intending to distribute them, a totally different case than this one. There's quite possibly a fair use defence for the material in question.

This reminds me of a game that Andy Ihnatko wrote about, "Web That Smut." Type that into google and take a look; it's long out of print. There's a limit to how much responsibility you can take for what is on other peoples' sites. Linking to this site should be evaluated based on its merits. Bhimaji 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please read the rest of the paragraph I pointed you to? Its funny that the policy cites the same case as you, but in a completely different light. In any case, it is not up to us to decide whether or not a site infringes enough or has a fair-use claim. Sites that contain obvious copyright violations should not be linked to. Please see the echo of this in WP:EL - Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Shell ^babelfish 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the court decision? The "completely different light" is based on the facts here being completely different from the facts in the court case. I did, in fact, read the rest of the paragraph the first time. Please, let's try to keep this discussion as mature and insult-free as possible. Your tone was very insulting. I am willing to discuss the factual details of the case if you wish, but I think that a careful reading of it would be sufficient to understand that the actions here are quite different. Judge Campbell explicitly included details about the defendant's conduct and intentions which are quite different than the conduct and intentions here.

I quoted the first sentence because it clearly explains the meaning of the policy: You're not supposed to link to an infringing work. This link is not to an infringing work. It is a link to a non-infringing work. A link to an infringing work would be a link to, say, the Simpsons episode being discussed. The work that is linked to contains links to other works that may be infringing. At what point does responsibility for a user's future actions end? If the blog had links to pirated Hentai, would that be against policy? If it had links to great search engines to help you find great pirated Hentai? Where's the line?

The Wikipedia policies are extremely grey on this. They talk about linking to copyrighted works. One click to the blog does not get you copyright infringing material. A complete removal of all potentially infringing material from the blog would leave significant content. I think that the policy does need to be clarified on this area. Legally speaking, all the cases I've found (and I have not done a properly exhaustive legal search but I have read a fair number of decisions) regarding contributory infringement have found liability when the defendant intended for the infringement to happen. Grokster had a business model based on infringement, for example. Everything I've seen indicates that Wikipedia is in the clear here. Bhimaji 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The current line, determined by the Foundation and the community, is that we do not intentionally link to copyright infringing material - this site obviously hosts such material and posts it on its front page. It would be possible for them, just like it is to Wikipedia, to cite their sources without duplicating the material. If you believe the current policies are in error, it would be a good idea to bring up these arguments on the policy talk page(s) and see if changing that area of policy is possible. This isn't the appropriate place for that sort of decision. Shell ^babelfish 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The copyright issue regarding this site was last discussed in Oct/2006 [43]. I checked the site in Jan/2007 and found that many of the articles in the research library were no longer available. It seems that any articles that potentially violated WP copyright policy are no longer hosted on the site. Rhode Island Red 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the site has sufficient useful information, that a link is appropriate, as long as we clearly label the link as a "critic" site. If there are reasonable challenges to the copyright status of anything at that domain, we can of course re-examine things, but so far I've only heard a generalized "it violates copyright," from a discussion a year ago. Does anyone have anything more specific? --Elonka 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the copyright issue was not the only reason for the removal of the reference to this blogspot. There was also the violation of WP's reliability policy with respect to blogs in general in the context of Self-published sources (online and paper), ([44]) which states

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

As was pointed out at the time of its removal, all of the source referenced by this blog were painstakingly added to this article (by Shell, I think, or possibly Elonka), thereby avoiding the copyright issue by obviating the need to reference the blog. What has changed to require the use of this unreliable (and biased) source? --TraceyR 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose adding it not as a source, but as an external link. Per WP:EL, it contains "meaningful, relevant content". Per the section on "Undue weight", I also think it should be clearly labeled as a "critics" site. And if we have another link to a site that contains more positive information, we can link to that too, as a "proponent" site. But as near as I can tell, this blog contains a wealth of information, and is a major source of JP-related information and commentary. As such, it seems appropriate to provide a link. --Elonka 09:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be more specific (again) as Elonka asked, every single item under Research Library is an obvious copyright violation. Shell ^babelfish 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since early 2007, the only articles in the research library that I was able to access were the ones linked to the publisher’s website. Are you able to access the other articles, because for the past 6 months or so, these have come up as dead links for me.Rhode Island Red 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

refer to http://juiceplusresearch.blogspot.com/2006_07_29_archive.html for another reason why the BLOG was removed--it is a satiricial site and contains obvious bias giving Golden Apples to anyone "against" Juice Plus and Rotten Tomatoes to anyone with anything remotely "positive" to say about it. If this blog has any place on Wiki as anything close to a 'source'because it contains data already quoted and sourced on this page AND satire, than so does www.JuicePlusBenefits.blogspot.com in the name of keeping things neutral. Why are issues long resolved being entertained again? Other than to waste time and incite arguments already resolved I see no reason.70.130.222.230 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's an excellent idea. Let's link to both juiceplusresearch and juiceplusbenefits at blogspot, and clearly label which one is a "critic" blog and which one is a "proponent" blog. I think that both URLs would be useful in the External links section. --Elonka 18:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More specific assignment of references to points of criticism

The paragraph

Doubts have been raised about the benefits of Juice Plus by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the University of California Berkeley and other critics. Specific criticisms include: the product’s marketing being unsupported by research data, the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits, concerns that the effects can be attributed to the inclusion of added exogenous vitamins and micronutrients, and complaints that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits.[7][27][32][30][33][25][4]

implies that each of the points listed was raised by each of the references given. This is not the case. For example, the complaint about the price being excessive related to the potential benefit is not made by all referenced sources. As it stands the article is misleading. In fact some of the criticism e.g. "the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits" is a statement of opinion devoid of scientific research to back it up; the same is true of "complaints that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits". Surely the criticism section needs to demonstrate the same rigorous approach to its criticisms that is expected of positive claims. --TraceyR 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have a question about how to flag criticism based on opinion rather than fact. E.g. if the statement that "the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits" is contained in one of the referenced sources (e.g. Sloan-Kettering or whatever), which itself provides no evidence to support this assertion, how should this be tagged in the article? Tagging it with {{fact}} would seem to be incorrect, since there is a citation (however poor the source); would {{or}} be appropriate, since there is nothing to back up the original assertion? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance. --TraceyR 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism: Barrett link about USAI isn't criticism of Juice Plus

I've checked out the Barrett/MLMWatch link provided to substantiate the 'criticism of Juice Plus' due to the previous connection of John Wise with USAI[45], only to find that it isn't a criticism of Juice Plus at all! The Barrett piece just makes the observation that it is "curious" that Wise, as an author of a study of Juice Plus, previously worked for USAI.

It is odd that such a large section of the criticism of Juice Plus is taken up by a detailed description of the USAI affair, which has a very tenuous link (USAI - John Wise - NAI - NSA) with Juice Plus, especially since NAI didn't even come up with the formulation for Juice Plus. This would appear to be an attempt, initially by Barrett, since propagated (uncritically?) into Wikipedia, to prove guilt by association where no association exists.

I suggest that this paragraph be removed from the criticism section.

In passing it is interesting to note that the NAI article doesn't mention the USAI link; it merely links to the John Wise article, which contains a (less detailed!) paragraph about his involvement with USAI. --TraceyR 08:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The USAI/Wise/Juice Plus link does not seem tenuous to me, and Barrett’s criticism seems to be thoroughly warranted. Wise authored more of Juice Plus research studies than any other author, by far, and Wise was one of the key people behind USAI, which was clearly a shady operation. Wise was the key person at NAI responsible for manufacturing Juice Plus, and his research (which was criticized by several sources for being poorly designed) is at the core of many of the Juice Plus marketing claims. Seems like a pretty solid connection to me and the references are there to back it up. Rhode Island Red 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Barrett doesn't offer any criticism; he merely remarks that it is curious. Putting this long spiel in about USAI and Wise is therefore unwarranted. It may be appropriate in the USAI article but not here. --TraceyR 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following instead for the 'USAI' paragraph:

Stephen Barrett of MLMWatch has remarked upon the previous connection of the Chief Science Officer of NAI with the now-bankrupt supplement company United Sciences of America, Inc., (USAI).[4][36] Several of the research articles published on Juice Plus were co-authored by John A. Wise,[1][15][16][17][6] who is also a shareholder of NAI. Immediately prior to joining NAI in 1987, Wise had served as Executive Vice-President of Research & Development for USAI.

Any objections, anybody? --TraceyR 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It’s hard to argue that Barrett’s point wasn’t a criticism of Juice Plus, since: (a) the article is titled “Juice Plus: A Critical Look” (b) the section in which he discussed Wise is titled “The Scientific Veneer”, and (c) at the bottom of the article, Barrett states “In an attempt to counter my criticisms, some Juice Plus+ distributors…”. There really should be no question as to whether Barrett’s comments were “criticism” -- they clearly are. Rhode Island Red 14:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No-one disputes that Barrett is critical of Juice Plus - I think everyone who bothers to read what he writes has got that point by now. But the title of Barrett's article is irrelevant to the 'Criticism' paragraph under discussion, which tries to make out that the USAI affair has some bearing on Juice Plus. Let's take a look at what Barrett says about the USAI connection:

"Curiously, in 1986, two authors of NSA's phytonutrient study were associated with United Sciences of America (USA), a multilevel company that sold supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases. Lead author John A. Wise, Ph.D., was USA's vice president of science and data information; and second author Robert J. Morin, M.D., was a scientific advisor who helped design the products. State and federal enforcement actions drove the company out of business in 1987 [17]. USA's main product was its Master Formula, which included large amounts of beta-carotene and vitamin E [18]. Today, Wise is vice president, science and technology and is a stockholder of Natural Alternatives International (NAI), of San Marcos, California, which manufacturers the Juice Plus+ products. NSA was responsible for at least 16% of NAI's sales during the year ending June 30, 1999 [19]."

There is no criticism of Juice Plus in this paragraph about USAI and therefore no reason to tell the USAI story in the Juice Plus article. Perhaps Barrett intended to smear Juice Plus by linking it to USAI; if so, he didn't do a particularly good job. Neither Wise nor Morin was involved with formulating Juice Plus. It should be quite sufficient to mention that Barrett draws attention to Wise's previous employment by USAI, as in the proposed amendment to the article. Anyone wishing to follow the links to the Wise and/or USAI articles is able and free to do so - that is what the wiki-links are for. Are there any reasonable objections to the proposed amendment? --TraceyR 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I really can’t see any basis for an argument that Barrett’s statements did not constitute criticism of Juice Plus. The portion about Wise/USAI/JP is still criticism even if Barrett didn't explicitly state "I hereby criticize Juice Plus because of John Wise".

To reiterate, the entire article is critical of Juice Plus as evidenced by its title, the title of the section in which the portion of text in question appeared, by Barrett’s footnote at the bottom of the page, and by the nature of the content itself.

The relevancy and validity of the link that Barrett pointed out between Wise/USAI/Juice Plus seems obvious, and it is seems unreasonable to dismiss his statements as a mere smear job:

• Wise was one of the top executives and an insider shareholder at USAI
• USAI, a fraudulent supplement company, was a high-profile scandal and was run out of business by the FDA and state attorney's
• Wise left USAI just as it was imploding in 1987 and joined NSA a few months later‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• Wise was a top executive and insider shareholder at NAI, and as Chief Science Officer, oversaw the manufacturing of Juice Plus‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  and was personally responsible for more of the published research on the product than any other individual
• Wise’s research has been used as the cornerstone of much of the product’s marketing‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Rhode Island Red 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the article on John Wise, he has been an officer of NAI since 1992; USAI 'imploded' in 1987. Did he really join NAI immediately? But even if he started with NAI in 1987, it is irrelevant to the Juice Plus article.

As a scientist it is unlikely that he had anything to do with the marketing aspects of USAI. Surmise, of course, but it seems reasonable to make this assumption.

But this is all irrelevant, since Barrett merely remarks that it is 'curious'. It is 'original research' to claim that this is explicit criticism. Just repeating that the tenor of the Barrett piece is critical of Juice Plus (which, as I have already mentioned, is undisputed) is just muddying the waters; it is the presence of the details of the USAI case in the Juice Plus article which is being discussed here, not the title of Barrett's article, nor a footnotes nor anything else in it.

As I have already said above, the USAI case may have its place in the John Wise article (and I, for one, would have no problem should you choose to put it in there, even though as Scientific Officer he presumably wasn't responsible for marketing) but not in the Juice Plus article. It is therefore 100% correct to write, as I proposed above, that Barrett remarked on the previous connection. Interested readers can follow the links and see the proper context. Barrett is free to use smear tactics on his website; we are not free to do the same here.

Stephen Barrett of MLMWatch has remarked upon the previous connection of the Chief Science Officer of NAI with the now-bankrupt supplement company United Sciences of America, Inc., (USAI).[4][36] Several of the research articles published on Juice Plus were co-authored by John A. Wise,[1][15][16][17][6] who is also a shareholder of NAI. Immediately prior to joining NAI in 1987, Wise had served as Executive Vice-President of Research & Development for USAI.

--TraceyR 07:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed (‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ) tags were added to 3 of my statements above. The disputed statements and replies are as follows:

• Wise left USAI just as it was imploding in 1987 and joined NSA a few months later‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

- It is a matter of public record that Wise joined NAI in 1987, and that he became VP of R&D in 1992, the year before Juice Plus launched.[46]

• Wise was a top executive and insider shareholder at NAI, and as Chief Science Officer, oversaw the manufacturing of Juice Plus‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

- Refer to the WP definition of Chief Science Officer and its synonym, Chief Technical Officer. The roles and responsibilities of a CSO/CTO are consistent with the statement above.

• Wise’s research has been used as the cornerstone of much of the product’s marketing‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

- This statement is well supported by numerous instances in which Wise’s 1996 study in Current Therapeutic Research has been used to promote Juice Plus by NSA and by product distributors.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] As an example, the website of Juice Plus spokesperson Dr. Sears uses the 1996 Wise study in promoting Juice Plus. Sears states:

“Is there any scientific proof that Juice Plus really works? Recent medical research has yielded some very interesting results regarding Juice Plus. In one study, 15 adults consumed regular doses of Juice Plus for 28 days. Blood levels of antioxidants (substances that protect against cancer and heart disease) increased dramatically: beta-carotene 500%; alpha-carotene 120%; lutein/zeaxanthin/ tocopherol 50%; lycopene 2000%. Lipid peroxide (an indicator of poor metabolism) decreased four-fold.”[55]

Other studies authored by Wise are also used widely used in promoting Juice Plus, but the examples above should suffice to back up the point I made about the extensive use of Wise’s research in the marketing of Juice Plus.

Rhode Island Red 15:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks are due to Rhode Island Red for providing evidence from the public record of Wise's employment with NSA. In the interests of verifiability it isn't enough for such things to be 'matters of public record'; Wikipedia policy requires them to be referenced, so perhaps some progress has been achieved.

1. The reference now supplied[56] shows that Wise left USAI in 1986 and started acting as a consultant to NAI in 1987, first becoming an officer of NAI in 1992; the article currently implies that he left USAI in 1987 during the bankruptcy process and immediately joined NAI in an executive capacity. This is not suported by the evidence provided, so the citation needed tag is justified.
2. Claiming that Wise was Chief Science Officer and therefore also (by WP definition!) Chief Technical Officer is a red herring, since Wise did not become Chief Science Officer at NAI until 2001; at the time in question (1987-92) he acted as a consultant to NAI; he did not become an officer of the company (VP R&D) until 1992. "Vice-Presidents of Research and Development" are not (usually) responsible for production issues, so the second citation needed is still justified.
3. Stating that Wise's research is "used as the cornerstone of much of the product’s marketing" is not supported by the references given, since not one of them is an official marketing statement from NSA. They may indeed by examples of how some distributors sell the product, but marketing tends to be a strategic (and therefore central) function distinct from the operational (and often decentralised) business of selling. There are certainly examples of NSA statements which refer to Wise’s 1996 study published in Current Therapeutic Research, since it was the first published study into the effects of Juice Plus, but in the intervening 11 years there have been many other studies, several of which have been more scientifically rigorous than that first one. It might be convenient for detractors to set up the 1996 study as a straw man but that, in the light of the subsequent studies and viewed from a 'good faith' perspective, is at the least disingenuous. Thus falls the last objection: the third 'citation needed' tag is still justified.

But all of this is just a distraction from the "Barrett USAI remark as Criticism" issue. It still has not been shown that Barrett's USAI spiel is hard criticism rather than attempted smear, so I shall go ahead with the edit as proposed above. For the thrid time of asking, are there any genuine objections, anyone? --TraceyR 21:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It’s disheartening to see that the comments on the talk page were ignored and most of the Wise/USAI content deleted[57] in mid-discussion despite the objections that were raised. The last revised version has deleted a significant portion of referenced content and it no longer accurately recounts Barrett’s comments, nor is there sufficient context or detail to understand the gist of Barrett’s criticism. This was Barrett’s original:

Curiously, in 1986, two authors of NSA's phytonutrient study were associated with United Sciences of America (USA), a multilevel company that sold supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases. Lead author John A. Wise, Ph.D., was USA's vice president of science and data information; and second author Robert J. Morin, M.D., was a scientific advisor who helped design the products. State and federal enforcement actions drove the company out of business in 1987 [17]. USA's main product was its Master Formula, which included large amounts of beta-carotene and vitamin E [18]. Today, Wise is vice president, science and technology and is a stockholder of Natural Alternatives International (NAI), of San Marcos, California, which manufacturers the Juice Plus+ products. NSA was responsible for at least 16% of NAI's sales during the year ending June 30, 1999 [19].

I have followed the flow of Barrett’s comments more closely in the newly added revised version, and introduced several other improvements over previous versions, as follows:

In a critique of Juice Plus,[4] Stephen Barrett of MLMWatch remarked upon the previous association between two authors of a 1996 Juice Plus research[6] study and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI), a multilevel marketing company that sold vitamin supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases.[36][37][38][39][40][41] In 1986, lead author John A. Wise, who later co-authored several other Juice Plus research studies,[1][15][16][17] was USAI's Executive Vice-President of Research and Development; and second author Robert J. Morin was a scientific advisor who helped design the products. State and federal enforcement actions drove USAI out of business in 1987.[36][37][38][39][40][41] Wise joined Natural Alternatives International (NAI) in 1987 as a consultant, became Vice President of Research and Development in 1992 and Chief Science Officer in 2002, and is an insider stockholder of NAI. Barrett noted that production of Juice Plus for National Safety Associates (NSA) was responsible for 16% of NAIs sales in 1999. In 2006, NSA accounted for 38% of NAIs sales.[42]

This version accurately recounts Barrett’s comments without going into excessive detail on USAI. Rhode Island Red 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The newer version is an improvement on the previous one, with its long discourse about USAI (which belongs there, if anywhere). However disheartening it may be to see it go, the deleted content was not relevant to Juice Plus and had no place here. --TraceyR 05:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)