Talk:Elysium Health

Ref

Would need a good ref for this "scientifically-sound natural health products" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello! I work at Elysium Health. I am proposing that the text "; the two ingredients could be purchased separately for a total of $25." be removed.

According to the cited article, the total of the referenced products that can allegedly be used to get the same supplement dosages as Elysium's product, Basis, is $31 ($19 + $12), not $25. The reason the original editor wrote $25 is likely because the price on Amazon for the referenced nicotinamide riboside (NR) supplement went down since the TechCrunch article was published, so the editor is using the Amazon product page as a reference for the price. Even then, the referenced NR supplement provides 100mg of the supplement whereas Basis provides 250mg, which means you would have to buy $45 worth of the NR product to get _at least_ as much NR as Basis, bringing that total to $57 for a comparable supply. Alternatively, an editor could just change the text to read $57 and add the Amazon product pages as references, but I am not sure that Amazon product pages are considered a WP:SOURCE.

Thanks! ~ Rick305 t·c 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

N Deleted I removed all the information on prices, per WP:NOTCATALOG Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks! ~ Rick305 t·c 20:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rick. The source doesn't support the sentence and the sentence is misleading to the reader. The source article currently says that you can get the two ingredients for $31, not $25. However if try to look at the cost, the $19 NR quoted in the article is only for 100mg, where Elysium has 250mg. Looks like you can get two bottles though for $26.25, but as Nick stated, this is really Amazon sourcing. The Pterostilbene for $12 is for 60 pills, instead of Elysium's 30. The only intent of including the price is as a point of comparison, so in such a comparison, you have to compare apples to apples. I have no doubt you can get the ingredients cheaper.. and I would probably be ok with just saying that if we want, but I don't really see the point. It's not something you usually do in company articles. I don't expect we say other companies sell ibuprofen for less on the Motrin article, or similarly Acetaminophen cheaper on the Tylenol article. Morphh ^(talk) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes everybody knows that generic drugs are cheaper than drugs still under patent. And we actually do have content in the Society and culture sections about drugs where we discuss actual prices and how the price compares to other available products for similar use. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Part of the business model here - the key part - is marketing of a slickly re-packaged product, for a higher price than the ingredients separately. I took out the numbers but the notion needs to stay in. There is some validity to not giving the exact numbers, yes. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Different arguments could be made about their business model and what actually constitutes the price, such as funding clinical trials, investigating the efficacy of new health based drugs, etc. That's a different model than repackaging ChromaDex. I don't agree with the inclusion, but I can grudgingly accept the current wording. Morphh ^(talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the "for the less money than the price of Basis" part should not be included for a few reasons: 1) Elysium offers plans that allow customers to purchase Basis's NR/PT supplement at a lower price than the referenced competitors when prepaid, so the sentence is quite arguable. 2) I have reservations about keeping it when the main argument for it is a seemingly personal view that the "business model" is to charge higher for individual orders because of "slickly re-packaged product." I wholeheartedly agree, however, that "the two supplements from which Basis is made are available separately from other companies" is relevant. ~ Rick305 t·c 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits are based on what RS say and this is following the techcrunch source. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's one sentence in the article and likely falls short of WP:WEIGHT when you take the sources as a whole. They spend three paragraphs after that in that article talking about the quality of other products, but we don't mention that. We shouldn't be cherry picking to make points, particularly when the other POV in the article is not even presented. Morphh ^(talk) 03:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost every ref talks about how it is a combination of two known and available supplements and several whistle at the price itself. Again check other articles about health products; it is common that we discuss costs. One sentence is not UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If we want to include points on price, then we should follow up with the rebuttal pov regarding quality. At this point, we only have three people commenting and consensus is not to include. Maybe someone else will join the discussion or maybe we can put something together that is more balanced. Morphh ^(talk) 04:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

break for different issues

Not sure why you undo some of those changes saying "hell no". One was source to the wired article. The other is not an opinion - it's just a statement of fact and that source is fine. Also not sure why you changed the phrasing as all the companies are doing the same thing regarding those supplements, not just Elysium. I'd undo your edit, but just seems like you're edit waring over silly stuff. Morphh ^(talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

ChromaDex does sell the supplements separately to consumers.. why are you removing that? Morphh ^(talk) 04:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from Wired source that is cited, where it says that Chromadex sells directly; its says very clearly that they are an ingredients company - I copy/pasted that into my edit note. And adding the content about effects based on the primary source was absolutely not OK. You can take that all the way to ANI and you will hear "no" every step of the way. I left you a notice about sourcing health content on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The product is called Tru Niagen and you can buy it directly from their website. As for the other, I only included Elysium's intent, not a claim as to it's effectiveness, but that can be reworded without removing it. It is important to include that they did do a human clinical trial in order to show the products efficacy. That's a fact statement that requires no interpretation. You can even use their website to support that. Morphh ^(talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There are also plenty of secondary sources regarding the human trial, so we can just reference those. Also, why did you remove the material source to wired regarding Cockayne syndrome?

There is no reference in the article that discusses "Tru Niagen"; they do appear to be selling that now. I dealt with that vis RELTIME in this diff. And again we do not source content about health to primary sources like that paper (nor popular media reporting on it). If you will insist on adding it, others will remove it, and if you keep trying you will get blocked and then eventually topic banned from editing about health. Please read and follow WP:MEDRS. The content about Chromadex' drug development activity was about Chromadex and about drug development; the current content is about the dietary supplement business. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded it so it's just a statement of fact regarding their conducting a human clinical trial to study levels of NAD+, which can easily be sourced to the existing references. As for the FDA, I think it's important if we're going to chide them for avoiding the FDA, we include that it's not something the FDA would even review as aging is not a disease or condition. The only thing that can be done is already being done Chromadex, which is to test NR on a disease that has similar symptoms. I think it's fair to include that since it's the main ingredient of Basis and it's something the sources also cover. Morphh ^(talk) 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted and self-reverted and asked for more input from WP:MED. I've warned you about abuse of WP for advertising and edit-warring. You and I are not going to reach consensus because we are not pursuing the same mission. The things you are writing here and your edits are very promotional, especially here with regard to your comments, if we're going to chide them for avoiding the FDA, we include that it's not something the FDA would even review as aging is not a disease or condition and If we want to include points on price, then we should follow up with the rebuttal pov regarding quality and I think it's fair to include... which have nothing to do with NPOV but are clear effort to try to "sell" and "balance" to benefit the company. Your edits do the same. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The balance you describe is called WP:NPOV. The sources include these points of view and with sufficient weight. It's not a mission or promotional and I'm not trying to sell anything. I just find the article very unbalanced and I'm trying to improve it. I don't understand why it's a problem to include they conducted a clinical trial, when most recent sources include the fact. It takes two to edit war and I think I've been constructive in my changes and followed with discussion. Please stop trying to WP:BULLY - I've been around Wikipedia longer than you and know the rules. Morphh ^(talk) 17:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me include here what the article said before my edits "By selling the product as a dietary supplement the company doesn't have to invest in clinical trials to prove to the FDA that it is safe and effective". They do invest in clinical trials and NR is going through the FDA in the only way it can. You call my changes promotional, but I see it removing bias and including the complete picture. Morphh ^(talk) 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

While I shouldn't have to do this, I'll say this just to alleviate and preempt any Jytdog concerns. Aside from trying Basis, I have no affiliation with Elysium or COI. I am just interested in longevity research. Morphh ^(talk) 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask if you have a COI (I would have, if I thought you did). You are very, very clearly editing as an advocate. See WP:ADVOCACY and please do actually read it. We get a lot of problems in articles about health from advocates in the longevity and related transhumanism space. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Or just a guy trying to balance a pov article. Morphh ^(talk) 19:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my last response and please try to become self-aware. The advocacy is unambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The text in question

Can we take this one step at a time for the benefit of uninvolved editors, please? As far as I can work out the dispute principally revolves around this text:

The FDA doesn't consider aging a disease, but the main ingredient in Basis, nicotinamide riboside, has been submitted for FDA approval by ChromoDex as a way to treat a rare, genetic disease in kids called Cockayne syndrome, which has symptoms similar to aging. Along with at least 12 other human trials, Elysium Health has conducted their own human clinical trial to study the efficacy of their product in increasing NAD+ levels.

sourced to:

• Zhang, Sarah (July 6, 2016). "The Weird Business Behind a Trendy "Anti-Aging" Pill". Wired.
• Buhr, Sarah (January 16, 2017). "A new lawsuit alleges anti-aging startup Elysium Health hasn't paid its sole supplier". TechCrunch.

Is that correct? I can see there may be further issues, but perhaps we can make progress on this one.

I have some concerns with the neutrality of that wording.

First, neither of those sources are high quality secondary medical sources, so are unsuitable for making any claim – or even an inference – about the efficacy of any drug in treating any condition.

Secondly, the FDA's opinion on ageing is immaterial; the majority of our readers live in countries where the FDA has no jurisdiction, and MEDRS is very clear about the quality of sourcing required when discussing the use of any intervention for treatment of any kind. It is not acceptable to lead readers to conclude that because a drug is being tested, that it may be effective – particularly when the assumption is made that any effect on an a condition with symptoms similar to ageing will then have the same effect on ageing. Thousand of trials take place that show no effect or are inconclusive. We require trials to have been completed and analysed by independent third-parties before we deem their conclusions worthy of inclusion in our articles. Jumping the gun in the way that this text does is unacceptable.

Thirdly, phrases such as "clinical trial to study the efficacy of their product" mislead the reader by making the assumption that there is an efficacy to study. If you were to write that trials have been made to investigate whether their product has any efficacy or not, that would be closer to what an unbiased observer could deduce from the sources. Even then, I'm doubtful about the WEIGHT being given to a few trials. This is an encyclopedia, not a news journal, and our articles wait for results and conclusions confirmed by secondary sources before reporting on them.

In summary, I wouldn't support the inclusion of any of that text, based on the current sources. When we have reviews and meta-analyses of completed trials, we might be in a better position to state something. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, which is why I reverted (then self-reverted). thx for the analysis. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see the sentence as making a statement regarding efficacy, only that they had a clinical trial to study it, which I think is a true statement based on the sources. I'm fine with rewording. My point is, we should include that they're funding research to study the supplement. Morphh ^(talk) 19:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As a point of reference, the clinical trial study was published here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-017-0016-9

Based on your explanation, I can understand how the first sentence could give that false impression. It was a response to the prior wording. I'd welcome a rewording, but can live without it now that the earlier statement is more neutral. Morphh ^(talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the first sentence and reworded the second to Morphh ^(talk) 20:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Along with other human trials into NR, Elysium Health has conducted their own trial on if their product increases NAD+ levels in humans.

additional source:

• Weintraub, Karen (January 6, 2017). "Critics Blast Star-Studded Advisory Board of Anti-Aging Company". MIT Technology Review.

Unacceptable still - still promotional. This is exactly how dietary supplement companies sell. "tested in clinical trials!" I suggest that you revert back to before you added this promotional content. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't just dismiss content because it favors or disfavors the company. That's not the basis of content inclusion. It's free of puffery and verifiable with independent, third-party sources. If you have a better wording, I'm open to it. Morphh ^(talk) 20:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

V is a minimum - necessary but not sufficient. Please see what Rexxx wrote about clinical trials and what I wrote - it is promotional. I have said what content I prefer. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I reworded it based on RexxS's comments. The results and conclusions are reported by secondary sources. We're not even reporting on them though as he suggests, just stating the company did a trial. You balked at actually reporting the conclusions. Morphh ^(talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No both Rexxx and I said that it is not worth mentioning that they did a clinical trial much less that others have done so. That is misrepresentation.Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. That would be a question of WP:DUE then and we have several sources that report on the study, so I think one sentence is not unreasonable. ~~

it violates WP:PROMO which is policy. Every edit you have made to the article and talk page is advocating for the company. Every. One. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So any inclusion that is not negative is apparently a violation of promo in your opinion. Maybe if you'd stop attacking me and actually work with me, explain your views instead of appealing to authority, we'd get something done. May great articles are done by people with views on either side. Morphh ^(talk) 21:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

there are no "sides" here. There is writing an encyclopedia and there is advocacy. These are different missions. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Everyone has bias. Morphh ^(talk) 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As is acknowledged in WP:YESPOV. Each of us needs to try to check their passions at the login page. No editor experienced in editing about health has supported your edits here. Again, please be self-aware of your advocacy concerning longevity research Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And if there was a good reasoning and discussion with it, I'm fine with removing it. But just keep repeating that I'm bias, promo, advo, whatever... because that bullying works to change my viewpoint of the content. Morphh ^(talk) 21:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-reflection, that your advocacy is driving you to take a stance that contradicts experienced medical editors, should lead you to change your stance. Martin Luther said that reason is a whore and he was correct - one starts with assumptions and has goals, and reason can connect dots to get you from the assumptions to the goals. In WP goals are set by WP's mission but there is no rational discussion possible when the goals are different. That is why you should reflect on what you are doing in this article. Your edits clearly show advocacy and no experienced health editor agrees with them. You can hear that or not. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, my stance is changing based on actual discussion of the content and the policy points. I'm perfectly fine with Wikipedia's mission and rational discussion works great. That didn't happen here - you just attacked my intentions and wikilayered, so I dug my heels in. What should have been easy was made difficult, not because of my viewpoint, but because of your condescension and attitude. Maybe some self-reflection is due for both of us. Morphh ^(talk) 22:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad the editing issue has been solved up to this point. As Jytdog and RexxS pointed out, the statement in its various forms does not conform to WP:MEDRS. One study has no value for supporting such a statement. Same with news sources, which tend to inflate results because its garners an audience. And MEDRS plainly says this: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information..." and even says why. Consensus here supports this and it makes sense. This is not your regular run-of-the-mill topic. What is published in this article has implications for the general public:

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information." Wikipedia cannot imply this has reverse-ageing effects based on the available sources ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Reads like a press release for the company

I would shorten the article to:

Elysium Health is a dietary supplement company founded in 2014 by biologist Leonard Guarente, Dan Alminana, and Eric Marcotulli.[1] As of December 2016, Elysium had raised $26.2 million from investors including General Catalyst and Robert Nelson from ARCH Venture Partners.[8]   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Content

"Along with other human trials into NR, Elysium Health has conducted their own trial on if their product increases NAD+ levels in humans."

Does not really say anything?

References

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources report on the conclusion, but the point was just to say that Elysium completed human clinical trials on the supplement. Readers can follow the sources if they want to know more, but I'm fine to include more. Morphh ^(talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What MEDRS sources report on the conclusion? Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought the Nature publication was, but as you can tell, I'm not a MED editor. I don't know the quality of that source vs any other med journal. Wikipedia seems to have special rules for this topic. Morphh ^(talk) 22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No it is primary. See WP:MEDDEF. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. I understand the argument and conceded the sentence. Morphh ^(talk) 22:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. If you like please see the "summary" section of WP:Why MEDRS? which might help you understand why the WP community is so intense about sourcing health claims. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Series of edit requests

Hello again. I work for Elysium Health. I am not being commissioned directly by them for these changes. I am simply interested in the article not having incorrect information.

There are a lot of statements in this article that are not really accurate based on the sources being references. Some of them are inaccurate because they are outdated and there is other information out there to show that it is out of date.

I have structured it as multiple request edits so each one can be tackled separately. Hopefully, this is a useful way of structuring the requests so that conversations about each point can be organized accordingly and not get lost if it turns into lengthy discussion. Feedback is appreciated! ~ Rick305 t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way to do multiple requests. Meters (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave some comments but I won't make any immediate changes, pending comments by other editors. Meters (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to Sirtris Pharmaceuticals

I request that ", and is pursuing a similar "anti-aging" marketing path as did Sirtris Pharmaceuticals with resveratrol." be removed. The reference mentions Sirtris Pharmaceuticals only in that one of the founders of Elysium Health was previously involved with that organization. The company has never said, nor does the article say, that Sirtris's "marketing path" was being followed or that their history is of any influence to how Elysium Health markets its products or itself. ~ Rick305 t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be more germane to mention that one of the founders (Leonard Guarente) had previously been involved with Sirtris Pharmaceuticals than to make the vague similar marketing path claim, particularly when the source actually says "Elysium’s approach to the anti-aging market represents a change of strategy for Guarente". Meters (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

the comparison is common as dirt. i tweaked the content. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit makes sense to me. Thanks. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Marketing on social media

I request that "Like other companies in the supplement industry, Elysium marketed the product heavily on social media." be removed.

The referenced article mentions the word "social" only once and in a completely different context than "social media." Also, you can say about a lot of companies that they heavily market on social media as it is now a normal channel of advertisement. That is not unique to Elysium Health and seems to be irrelevant. ~ Rick305 t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The reference says "By the time I bought it, the brand had been pummeling my awareness for weeks, the ads barreling into my Facebook feed with claims of being the “world’s first cellular health product informed by genomics.” Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. That counts as social media to me, too. I don't see justification (in this ref) for "like other companies"though, but it could probalby be found. Meters (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that sentence in the ref for me. Even then, however, I think it's giving undue weight to something that is common practice for any modern Internet advertiser (behavioral retargeting). I could understand if this is something seen as unique to Elysium Health or something that has garnered widespread controversy or coverage outside of that single source. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I 'm inclined to agree with Jytdog's leaving this one. Positioning an anti-aging product with a scientific basis as a simple dietary supplement and then arguing that heavily promoting it on social media is normal for such a product is a bit much. Meters (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Source of ingredients

I request that "It buys the ingredients in Basis from a company called ChromaDex, that as of December 2016 sold the two ingredients to other supplement companies that also marketed products containing them." be removed or updated for relevance and WP:RELTIME.

Elysium Health no longer purchases its ingredients from ChromaDex. You can see that in one of the TechCrunch articles referenced: "Elysium stopped ordering from the company thereafter.". ~ Rick305 t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

FDA's regulation on dietary supplements

I request that "By selling the product as a dietary supplement, Elysium is able to avoid the lengthy process of FDA drug approval, but is restricted from marketing it as treating any disease or condition." be removed.

It is already mentioned in the referenced "dietary supplement" article and I don't see how the fact that a dietary supplement company doesn't need to go through the separate FDA drug approval processes is relevant or unique to Elysium Health. It is true of any dietary supplement company that sells in the United States. Elysium Health does not currently sell any product that is intended to diagnose, treat, or prevent any disease, just like any other company whose only products are dietary supplements. ~ Rick305 t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think i tmatters if it is mentioned in the linked article. The source discusses the approach Elysium Health is taking as "a savvy way of sidestepping the FDA’s more onerous regulations around drugs". Meters (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The sentence does seem to be misplaced though. The following sentence refers to te preceding sentence, not the dietary supplement sentence. Meters (talk) 00:21, 14 Janeuary 2018 (UTC)

fine, removed. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. Just to make the article clean, I think the sentence for "Elysium originally bought ..." should be the first sentence of the following paragraph so that there is one clean paragraph discussion the ChromaDex relationship. Also, "Chromadex" has incorrect capitalization in that following paragraph. Might as well be consistent. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Head of manufacturing"

I request that "Elysium recruited the head of manufacturing" be updated. According to the article referenced, Elysium did not hire their head of manufacturing but hired their "VP of business development." ~ Rick305 t·c 23:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

yep that was a dumb mistake. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to be accurate, not all "heads" of departments are the VP. Sometimes they are C-level. Might as well just finish that fix with changing "head" to "VP." I have no idea if he was actually the "head" of business development there, I have no idea how they structure that. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposed grouping

I work for Elysium Health.

I'm hoping to make the article read a little bit better with more logical grouping. Here is what I propose to replace the first paragraph. It also removes the second last paragraph as it merges that paragraph with the content here:

Proposed content for beginning of article

Elysium Health is a dietary supplement company founded in 2014 by biologist Leonard Guarente, Dan Alminana, and Eric Marcotulli. It is one of several companies founded at around the same time by people with backgrounds in the tech industry and Silicon Valley who saw opportunities in the health and biomedical industries. The company is widely described as being in the anti-aging field and similar to Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, which was developing resveratrol.

In 2015, the company started selling a dietary supplement called Basis that packages two supplements, nicotinamide riboside (NR), a form of B vitamin found in yeast, and pterostilbene, a polyphenol found in blueberries, into one capsule. The company says that these two ingredients help cells make nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) and that they stimulate sirtuins.

Proposed formatting for beginning of article

'''Elysium Health''' is a [[dietary supplement]] company founded in 2014 by [[biologist]] [[Leonard Guarente]], Dan Alminana, and Eric Marcotulli.<ref name=Wallace/> It is one of several companies founded at around the same time by people with backgrounds in the tech industry and [[Silicon Valley]] who saw opportunities in the health and biomedical industries.<ref name=Wallace/><ref>{{cite news|last1=Friend|first1=Tad|title=Silicon Valley’s Quest to Live Forever|url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/silicon-valleys-quest-to-live-forever|work=The New Yorker|date=April 3, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=de Magalhães|first1=JP|last2=Stevens|first2=M|last3=Thornton|first3=D|title=The Business of Anti-Aging Science.|journal=Trends in biotechnology|date=November 2017|volume=35|issue=11|pages=1062-1073|doi=10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.07.004|pmid=28778607}}{{open access}}</ref> The company is widely described as being in the [[anti-aging]] field and similar to [[Sirtris Pharmaceuticals]], which was developing [[resveratrol]].<ref name=Wallace/><ref name=Tech/><ref>{{cite news|last1=Stipp|first1=David|title=Beyond Resveratrol: The Anti-Aging NAD Fad|url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/beyond-resveratrol-the-anti-aging-nad-fad/|work=Scientific American Blog|date=March 11, 2015|language=en}}</ref> In 2015, the company started selling a dietary supplement called Basis that packages two supplements, [[nicotinamide riboside]] (NR), a form of B vitamin found in yeast, and [[pterostilbene]], a polyphenol found in blueberries, into one capsule.<ref name=Tech>{{cite news|last1=Weintraub|first1=Karen|title=The Anti-Aging Pill|url=http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534636/the-anti-aging-pill/|accessdate=5 February 2015|date=February 3, 2015|publisher=MIT Technology Review}}</ref> The company says that these two ingredients help cells make [[nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide]] (NAD) and that they stimulate [[sirtuins]].<ref name=Wallace/>

References

Thanks. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

this is just styling and the style is fine. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely not just styling IMO... it's taking two sentences that overlap in context and joining them as a graf. Otherwise it reads with a weird disconnect ~ Rick305 t·c 01:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect reference to "Morningside Partners"

I work for Elysium Health.

The firm "Morningside Partners" referenced in a recent edit, but it is incorrectly referenced as "Morningside Ventures"

Thanks. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it looks like the actual reference is incorrect... Maybe update the reference to use Reuters instead? It's more credible and is already a reference in the article. ~ Rick305 t·c 00:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

References

We follow the refs. Morningside Group appears to be the holding company for several vehicles. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I was just reading the added ref and got thrown off by the mistake it seems the ref made. Thanks. ~ Rick305 t·c 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Change from six Nobel prize winners to seven

I work for Elysium Health.

According to a reference in the Elysium Health article, the company has seven, not six, Nobel Prize winners on its advisory board.

Thanks! ~ Rick305 t·c 01:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

References

See WP:PAYTALK. Enough of this WP:BLUDGEONING over trivia.Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, woah. I am incredibly thankful that you've been responsive for the edits that I am discouraged to make on my own because I have a COI, but I am absolutely not trying to "force" any "point of view" by purposefully creating a "sheer volume of comments".

Forgive me if you are frustrated by the number of edits I have structured, as maybe I should've just waited until I had every edit I could think of queued up like I did above. But accusing me of abusing the process to force a point of view? If you don't want to deal with my edit requests, then don't. I fully respect the volunteer nature of this community and it's one of the things that drives me to participate here and in other WP articles.

So I suggest you take some of your own advice about self-awareness and understand how you can come off as condescending and uninviting, regardless of your well-intentioned passion towards preventing bias from editors with COI. Your discussions with other editors of this page are educational and definitely have me respect the importance of the WP:MEDRS world and its guidelines, so I am super appreciative of that. But that said, I invite you to take some time to self-reflect to see how your communication with others and interpretations of others' intentions affects the spirit of building a collaborative community. ~ Rick305 t·c 01:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Really, this is an encyclopeida. Two nobel prize winners might join tomorrow, and then we would have to update this again. We are an encyclopedia. High level summaries.Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See below for the conflicting change I was writing. See above for self-reflection on whether or not I'm allegedly "WP:BLUDGEONIGN" on purpose. ~ Rick305 t·c 01:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your change from "six" to "several" instead of my proposed "seven" is a smart move because then the statement can't become dated unless somehow all Nobel Prize winners leave the advisory board. And the count doesn't really make or break the article at the end of the day. Thanks for the partial implementation of the edit request. I would call the edit request satisfied. ~ Rick305 t·c 01:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)