Talk:Juice Plus

Errors need corrected

I've noticed a few errors on the Juice Plus+® page. Under the first section, it says that Juice Plus is "fortified with added vitamins and nutrients." This is not true. Juice Plus is not a multi-vitamin, but instead whole foods with naturally occuring vitamins and nutrients. I would like the real description of the product displayed on Wikipedia, and for it to read like this:

"Juice Plus is an all-natural, whole food nutritional product made by juicing over 17 fresh fruits and vegetables, then concentrating the juices into powders using a proprietary, low-temperature process. It comes in both capsule and chewable form."

Secondly, the page says that "marketing claims made about Juice Plus products suggest benefits such as reducing oxidative stress and promoting cardiovascular health." This is not true either. Marketers are not the ones to claim such health benefits. Instead, the benefits have been found by independant clinical research conducted by major hospitals and universities. I would like this section to read like this:

"The health benefits of taking Juice Plus have been found by independant clinical research conducted by major hopsitals and universities worldwide. Research has found that Juice Plus helps 1) Delivers key phtonutrients that are absorbed by the body, 2) It reduces oxidative stress, 3) It helps support a healthy immune system, 4) Helps protect DNA, and 5) It postively impacts several key indicators of cardiovascular wellness.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klhilborn (talk • contribs) (04:35, 15 December 2009)

1. The exisiting statement about fortification with added vitamins/nutrients is accurate. The statement is attributable to several sources cited in the article including (a) Watzl and Bub and (b) Rosemary Stanton. The process by which Juice Plus is manufactured, as well as the product's constituents, is already thoroughly described based on WP:RS.

2. The marketing claims referred to above are already phrased accurately and therefore should not require any modification. None of the research to date has been "independent" as suggested above (this detail is made clear in the article in the section describing the funding and coordinators of the research). The new text proposed seems like it came directly from a Juice Plus brochure. It is not NPOV and the results stated in the proposed text are innacurate overall (ie, contradicted by various studies -- see summary in article).

Also, when proposing new text, as in the the first example above, supporting references should be cited. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to mention the relevant statement from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI): "According to CSPI, the labels say the capsules contain high levels of vitamins A and C and folate naturally, but 'do not disclose that these vitamins and minerals are added to the capsules during processing and are nutrients only characteristic of the original fruit and vegetable sources'.”

The issue regarding fortification of Juice Plus with exogenous vitamins/nutrients has been a critical one, and this detail has been discussed by at 3 different expert sources (Watzl & Bub, Rosemary Stanton, and CSPI). I can't support any proposal for replacing this information with new text impying that the product is something other than what independent experts have described it as being. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin fortification is, IMHO, an important and very relevant thing to include. The whole point of the product is to not be a synthesized multi-vitamin. Bhimaji (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting point. Specifically it is often the "whole point" of the sales promotion as done by low level sales representatives, but the actual packaging and official company publications play down this distinction. There is no prove or evidence in any of the "scientific" studies that Juice Plus is any better, or less "synthesized," than other multi-vitamins. Perhaps Juice Plus has the same benefits as other vitamins, but there is nothing to suggest it is any better. It is however, significantly more expensive than ordinary multivitamin tablets. Tumacama (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps User:Jackie JP can help with information about the relative effectiveness of multivitamins and Juice Plus. Have clinical studies into multivitamins demonstrated their effectiveness, as implied above? What are the reasons for the addition of some vitamins to Juice Plus? Are the added vitamins synthetic? Is there proof that Juice Plus is "any better or 'less synthesized' than other multi-vitamins" (Tumacama suggests that this is not the case)? --TraceyR (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No Drive-by NPOV Tagging Please

Please do not insert drive-by NPOV tags on this article. Kindly refer to and comply with WP:NPOVD.

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort...you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution."

Thank you in advance for your compliance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting, verbatim from WP:NPOVD ("What is an NPOV dispute?"):

Often, authors can view "their" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it probably is not neutral—or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.

--TraceyR (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This was not so-called 'drive-by' tagging. I'm re-instating it, with good reason, per OTRS #2009112110028804 - please do not remove it again. RIR - you've been asked - gently - by three separate admins over the last 6 months to step down from your OWNership of this article, yet you have refused. Ok, it's Christmas day, and this is not appropriate for today. Consider this ongoing, but everyone needs to disconnect from this for a day or so. Especially you, RIR, given that there are serious issues around this article - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Made an edit just now prior to reading this message. Didnt see that this was OTRS, so I'll kick back and wait to see what pans out. The major issue here is not one of my ownership but rather COI editing and sock puppetry, but I welcome some additional input from uninvolved, experienced editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually everything to do with your WP:OWN issues here. Please read the note I've left on your talk page - Alison ^❤ 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone could elaborate on the POV issues that would be appreciated. As the tag was 6 month old and I was unable to figure out the reasons for it being added I have removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

USAI and Juice Plus

The article currently states: "In a critique of Juice Plus,[1] Stephen Barrett of MLMWatch remarked upon the early association between Juice Plus and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI), a multilevel marketing company that sold vitamin supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases.[8][9][10][11][12][13] State and federal enforcement actions[8][9][10][11][12][13] drove USAI out of business in 1987.[8][10][13]".

In fact this is misleading: not even Barrett makes a direct connection between Juice Plus and USAI; his 'critique' mentions that two scientific advisors to USAI (Wise and Morin) were later (co-) authors of early Juice Plus studies, but this is not an "association between Juice Plus and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI)". USAI ceased to exist in 1987, well before Juice Plus was introduced in 1993. This wording ought to be changed to make this clear. The many citations with respect to USAI have no relevance to the Juice Plus article (and are good examples of citation overkill). --TraceyR (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the latest version of this paragraph has done anything to improve the accuracy:

An early association may have existed between Juice Plus and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI), a multilevel marketing company that sold vitamin supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases.[8][9][10][11][12][13] State and federal enforcement actions[8][9][10][11][12][13] drove USAI out of business in 1987,[8][10][13] well before Juice Plus was introduced in 1993.

How can an association have existed between the two - six years went by between the disappearance of USAI and the introduction of Juice Plus. Why is there no discussion about this? --TraceyR (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

mlmwatch is the only source and is WP:SPS, and doesn't even directly address the claims made. The other sources predate Juice Plus, so quite obviously don't mention the company at all. This leaves the entire section unsourced with a series of BLP claims, at best OR, and as such should be deleted. --Icerat (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

mlmwatch is by an expert in the field. Thus restored.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, no it's not. As you're no doubt aware use of Barrett's quackwatch site has been the subject of much debate on RS/N and consensus is it should be used, at best, with care. Barret has zero "expertise" in business/multi-level marketing and the mlmwatch site is not RS. Barrett's mlmwatch piece is being used with regard to business issues, not medical ones. Furthermore they would appear to be BLP issues as well. --Icerat (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes as I remember consensus at the RS/N was that quackwatch should be used. We could bring this back there for clarification if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) there was no real consensus (b) at best it's been "with care" for "medical opinion" (c) quackwatch isn't the source being used here (d) it's not being used for medical opinion. This is very clear so I'm not sure where the conflict is? But since there is, yes should be raised on RS/N, particularly since it involves BLP issues. --Icerat (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS clearly states this is unusable. If you disagree then as a BLP issue it should remain out of the article until cleared up. --Icerat (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is referenced to more than mlmwatch. You have been removing the NEJM ref aswell. The RS noticeboard does not appear to agree with you at this point. BTW the article is not a BLP thus what you link does not apply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been one uninvolved editor comment and they displayed a failure of NPOV from the outset. WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", not just BLP articles. --Icerat (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you wait for others to weight in on this issue. I see many refs to the peer reviewed literature.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Those references are taken straight from Barrett's piece, which is OR. Without Barrett's self-published piece it would require OR on our part. If you can verify those sources say what he is claiming then I'll cede the point. From the limited amount I've been able to track down so far they don't, and can't, since they predate JuicePlus. I'm more than happy to weight for others to weigh in - so should you. BLP clearly states this kind of material should be immediately deleted. It is clearly trying to disparage these people --Icerat (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources outside of WP are allowed to be OR. There is no BLP issue with using Quackwatch, and RS/N has no issue with using articles from Quackwatch, particularly those realiting to medical matters. Shot info (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the only link between USAI and Juice Plus is that someone who used to work for USAI 6 years later worked for NAI, the company which makes Juice Plus. Why are editors so determined to include what is at best a very tenuous link? --TraceyR (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention we're (a) not talking about using quackwatch as a source and (b) the source in question is not being used for a medical matter.--Icerat (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is significant, the source is reliable, and Juice Plus distributors (past or present) shouldn't be weighing in on such discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain which WP rule prevents distributors (past or present) taking part in such discussions. AFAIK WP:COI applies to COI edits, not talk pages. --TraceyR (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI doesn't preclude participation of COI editors on the Talk page, but it states that COI editors are "strongly encouraged" to reveal the COI and it also states: "COI editing is strongly discouraged...Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.". Is everyone here in compliance with that recommendation? Has everyone with a COI refrained from making controversial edits to the article in the past? We can make COI a separate issue for discussion if its necessary, but in the meantime, this particular line of argument against inclusion of content about Wise/USAI won't fly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Both past and present distributors are welcome to participate in the discussion, and are not prevented from editing the main article, as long as they abide by the rules. One of those rules are that self-published sources should never be used for BLP material. mlmwatch.org is a self-published source and not a reliable source by wikipedia standards, and furthermore WP:BLPSPS explictly states that self-published sources should never be used for BLP material. That's exactly what's happening here. RIR, instead of trying to discourage people from contributing to wikipedia, I suggest you instead try abiding by the rules yourself. Tracey, you are encouraged to join the discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard, here --Icerat (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As per the BLP notice board mlmwatch has been deemed a tertiary source created by an expert in the field. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) that's not true (b) even if it was, so what? I repeat the policy you keep ignoring - "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject"self-published source"--Icerat (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is no one else agrees with your interpretation and you have an obvious WP:COI Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) Lay off the childish and false personal attacks (b) Which part of "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject"self-published source" are you disagreeing with my "interpretation" of? --Icerat (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So after being blocked twice in one week for edit warring,[1] Icerat comes out swinging -- i.e., wikihounding me and wikilawyering about a straightforward factual statement. Stephen Barrett and the Quackwatch network of websites are considered reliable sources and are cited in many WP articles,[2] in addition to having been cited and lauded by many high profile, extremely reputable, and authoritative organizations.[3] Aside from trying to attack the reliability of the source, no one has disputed any of the facts in the matter. I could perhaps understand apprehension if Barrett had said something about Wise/USAI that was contentious or contradicted by other sources, but that’s not the case. Barrett merely remarked on the fact that one of two of the authors (Wise and Morin) who were responsbile for most of the Juice Plus research were previously key players at USAI, which is a well known extremely high-profile MLM/vitamin/pyramid scam. Is anyone seriously questioning his expertise to make such an observation? What he said was painfully obviously true. Wise was a key player at USAI (an extremely controversial company). Wise did author most of the the JP research (which has been widely criticized by very reputable secondary sources) and Wise had a considerable financial interest in Juice Plus (well documented and undisputed). All of Barrett’s observations can be easily confirmed by other reliable sources. This is an airtight slam dunk. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You sure are right that it's an airtight slam dunk. It's a self-published source being used for BLP information. WP:BLP explictly says it's out - indeed it even says it should be removed while under discussion. You and Doc James continue to completely and utterly ignore this. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF BARRETT IS THE WORLD'S FOREMOST EXPERT ON JUICEPLUS. It's irrelevant, we don't need to argue about it (not for this particularly issue) - though you're also wrong about acceptance of Barrett's sites, WP:RS/N is clear it should be taken on a case by case basis and generally avoided if possible. --Icerat (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

To repeat, these are incontestable facts from a de facto reliable source about a non-controversial issue. Icerat must stop this wikilawyering and wikihounding (the latter is yet another troubling example in a long line of disruptive and tendentious conduct on Icerat’s part -- it shows very poor discretion to pick a new fight with me on this page right after the expiration of a second block for edit warring a few days ago). The community is telling Icerat that he is wrong on this issue but yet again he won’t listen.[4][5] Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, WHICH PART OF WP:BLPSPS are you disagreeing with? --Icerat (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch isn't just Stephen Barrett, as RS/N has determined several times in the past, so it's disingenous to keep using SPS. I'm find it difficult to see the stretch in even applying BLP. In anyrate, consensus is that the source is ok, one editor disagreeing does not fail a consensus per CON. But in saying that, if you keep disagreeing, take it RS/N. Don't forget that people have called for outside viewpoints and they have started to come in. Continuing to argue your viewpoint(s) in the face of more editors is merely an exercise in IDIDNTHEARTHAT which tends to divorce one from consensus (which then leads to editwarring and the inevitable blocking then topic banning). Shot info (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Icerat: I am following this page, and while I haven't done anything yet, please include me when listing editors who disagree with you. So that's Rhode Island Red and Doc James and Shot info and me. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Bruce Grubb, and possibly AndyTheGrump as well over on the BLP board.[6] This is getting to be a huge problem with Icerat. Fringe POV positions, contentious editing, edit warring, wikilawyering, and ignoring community input. To resolve even the simplest matter requires endless futile debates and numerous posts on various noticeboards that require the attention of multiple editors. This is getting to be a ridiculous waste of WP resources, and when combined with the user's apparent COI issues this case just screams for a community ban. An editor with any good intentions would take a time out after being blocked twice in one week,[7] but instead this one is intent on charging head first into battle. It's got to stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet NOBODY CAN TELL ME why WP:BLPSPS does not apply. Is it self-published? YES. Is it being used to report information on living people? YES. --Icerat (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually I can see in the thread above various editors telling you why they don't believe it. The fact that you don't appear to be getting it is one reason why you feel frustrated. Let it go, take a break, you don't have to win every battle here in Wikipedia, move onto the next article, they're plenty of them out there that need editing. Shot info (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Treat my like a 5yr old. Explain to me, in simple terms (a) how the source isn't self-published (b) how this material does not relate to a living person. Despite your claims nobody has yet done that. --Icerat (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP refers specifically to material that is contentious. It's not contentious that Wise was a senior executive with USAI and NAI, that he authored the majority of the research on Juice Plus, or that the research has been widely criticized by RS sources. There is nothing contentious here. I second Shot info's appraisal regarding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and his advice that Icerat should move on to other articles, particularly given that Icerat's actions here constitute WP:HOUND and he is repeating the hounding now on a second article John A. Wise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) your are incorrect in your characterization. I quote. AGAIN. Direct from WP:BLP - Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject . Which part of this do you not understand? (2) The text you are insisting on including is clearly disparaging and contentious.--Icerat (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone actually checked whether Wise "authored the majority of the research on Juice Plus", or that "the research has been widely criticized by RS sources"? The first statement could easily have been validated by "an editor with good intentions": I checked a list of 10 studies published since 2000 (summarised in the Swiss Journal of Nutrition Medicine (SZE) in 2008 here (in German, but the list is self-explanatory)) and found that he was the lead author in precisely none of these studies; he is mentioned as a co-author in three of them. So the above claim that "there is nothing contentious there" is false. The second statement ("the research has been widely criticized by RS sources") is vague enough not to be verifiable and is therefore unencyclopaedic and possibly contentious - it's hard to form a judgement. It is also contentious, actually impossible, for there to have been "an early association between USAI and Juice Plus", for the reasons mentioned several times above. As for lecturing another editor about hounding and contentious editing, I would have thought that Rhode Island Red, having recently sat out a 6-month ban from Wikipedia for hounding an ex-Juice Plus distributor, would exercise a little more caution before making such accusations. He's the one who should be moving on (or perhaps back - to all the articles about MLM and nutritional supplements where he seems to spend a lot of his time and claims to have an NPOV). It would be polite, before leaving, to answer Icerat's questions re WP:BLPSPS, so that this thread can reach some sort of conclusion. Surely it is not contentious (in the usual meaning of the word) that mlmwatch and quackwatch are self-published by Barrett (who, as a psychiatrist, is qualified to pontificate about neither mlm nor dietary supplements).--TraceyR (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that a Juice Plus distributor who has repeatedly deflected questions about their COI and lied about it would have enough good sense to take a back seat in these discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How about trying to address issues rather than continually resorting to personal attacks? --Icerat (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In reply to comments by TraceyR -- the article does not state that Wise was the author of the majority of the research on Juice Plus not does it say that he was the lead author; it says merely that he authored "several" of the studies (5 in total) on Juice Plus, which is dead-on accurate. Secondly, the section on Wise does not state that "the research has been widely criticized by RS sources". Arguing about nuances of talk page comments is even more pointless than the rest of this inane thread. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Pure obfuscation from Rhode Island Red, who knows that I was replying to his previous remarks (and who makes an unsubstantiated personal attack without having the decency to sign it!). No, the article does not state that "Wise was the author of the majority of the research on Juice Plus", but Rhode Island Red did, just a few lines above. And now we hear that Wise (co-)authored "several of the studies", whereas a few lines above Rhode Island Red claimed that "Wise authored the majority of the research on Juice Plus". How about a little character here: sign your posts, don't obfuscate and please admit mistakes, otherwise this is not going anywhere. Those who have followed this article for years will recognise these tactics, I'm afraid. --TraceyR (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

oh, you don't need to have followed just this article to recognise (and have experienced it). Interestingly on his talk page admins instructed him to no longer edit this page or face a ban. He is clearly ignoring that request. --Icerat (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record RS/N has no issues with Quackwatch and MLMwatch being used as a source. The only issue is whether or not it is in BLP violation. Can recommend it end up at BLP/N (have popcorn). Shot info (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

COI and Advert tags

Surely the addition of these tags should have been discussed here. Who is the putative COI editor? Which bits are like an advert? What about consensus? Being WP:Bold is one thing, failing to establish WP:Consensus another. --TraceyR (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree the addition of tags needs discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Juice Plus or Toxicity Plus

Interesting research:

• Juice Plus or Toxicity Plus, The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 123, Issue 1, Pages e1-e2 (January 2010)

Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This communication is indeed interesting. The authors' conclusion is: "Our patient had hepatotoxicity related to the use of complementary and alternative medicine. The injury was reversible after discontinuation of the drug. As clinicians, it is important for us to investigate our patients' use of complementary and alternative medicine, as well as prescription drugs, in the event of an abnormal liver injury or otherwise deleterious clinical event."

The authors also note the the "patient's regular medications included ramipril, calcium/vitamin D, ciprofloxacin, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, and ibuprofen". One website listing drugs' side-effects notes with specific reference to ciprofloxacin: "This list is not complete and there may be other drugs that can interact with Cipro. Tell your doctor about all the prescription and over-the-counter medications you use. This includes vitamins, minerals, herbal products, and drugs prescribed by other doctors. Do not start using a new medication without telling your doctor."

In other words, the negative interaction between ciprofloxacin and vitamins, minerals, herbal products (i.e. not just Juice Plus) was known about and should have been taken into account by the doctor(s) involved. Interestingly, in the same section the use of ciprofloxacin in conjunction with ibuprofen is also deprecated.

For those interested in the side-effects of the drugs mentioned, here are some links:

• rampiril

• ciprofloxacin

• hydrocodone/acetaminophen

• ibuprofen

This is a good example of the importance of looking beyond the alarmist headlines for the facts.--TraceyR (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice OR and deflection there, but it won't work. The scientists are trained to do what you're saying, and their conclusion was as stated. Let's face it, concentrated nutrients can have drug-like effects and shouldn't be played with lightly. That's why there are questions about things like megavitamin therapy, with newer research showing increased risk of cancers and other things when people take too many vitamins. Just because a little is good doesn't mean a lot is better. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but it really wasn't my aim to do OR or deflect anything. Perhaps it would be contructive to reflect upon the purpose of the discussion page here at WP. OR is deprecated in articles, but the function of a talk page is to discuss improvements to articles, so allegations of OR are out of place here, where background information ought to be appreciated, not criticised.

I realise that many, if not most editors here have an axe to grind; some obviously spend a lot of time trawling the web for negative mentions of Juice Plus, other are distributors who disagree with so much negativity! I don't know if you are in either category. The article you found refers to Juice Plus as a drug - which is clearly incorrect, but the authors, like many in the medical profession, live in a world of "this disease is treated by that drug", so it would have taken an effort for them to have stepped out into the real world, where prevention is better than cure. You liken Juice Plus to megavitamin therapy, but it is only a food supplement, not a treatment for disease. A quick look at the ingredients would have shown that it has small quantities of vitamins; the bulk is concentrated juice (not "concentrated nutrients" as you describe it). It would be interesting if the authors had asked themselves where the toxins came from! Also note that they said "related to CAM, not caused by it. --TraceyR (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many drugs are preventative. There are also numerous drugs that are indicated for by symptom rather than a particular disease. Your disdain for medical researchers shines through in your attitude. Bhimaji (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I fear that Bhimaji doth generalise too much. I'm not sure how he concludes that I "disdain medical researchers". I referred to "the authors, like many in the medical profession" - please, Bhimaji, note "many", which is not a synonym for all, not even for most, at least not in my book. I am concerned that many (note: not "all") medical professionals (yes, including researchers) have yet to appreciate that many (note: not "all") diseases are preventable without drugs.

As for Bhimaji's assertion that "many drugs are preventative", this of course depends upon one's definition of prevention. One website (found using google searching on "primary prevention") states:

"The effectiveness of global and local disease prevention programs largely depends on the extent to which individuals take personal responsibility for their own health by avoiding health risks such as tobacco use, substance abuse (misuse of alcohol and drugs), and unsafe sex. People who eat healthy diets; get adequate exercise and rest; wear seatbelts in automobiles and helmets on bikes, motorcycles, scooters, and the like; successfully manage stress; and maintain positive outlooks on life are on the front lines of disease prevention. Similarly, individuals who effectively use health care resources by obtaining recommended immunizations, physical examinations, and health screenings are actively working to prevent disease and disability.
Prevention involves governments, professional organizations, public health professionals, health care practitioners (physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals), and individuals working at three levels to maintain and improve the health of communities. One level, known as primary prevention, is inhibiting the development of disease before it occurs. Secondary prevention, also called "screening," refers to measures that detect disease before it is symptomatic. Tertiary prevention efforts focus on people already affected by disease and attempt to reduce resultant disability and restore functionality."

Bhimaji's claim that "many drugs are preventative" refers, I imagine, largely to tertiary prevention. Primary (i.e. true) prevention takes effect before symptoms present. Only then do drugs (possibly) come into play, but lifestyle changes can still be effective in many cases (e.g. cardio-vascular disease, diabetes). I hope that Bhimaji has a healthy diet, gets adequate exercise and rest etc etc, rather than relying on drugs to lock the stable door after his horse has bolted! Don't get me wrong: If I develop a disease I shall probably not refuse medical treatment, but my priority is to prevent that from happening. --TraceyR (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I rock climb, tend to get about 1/4 protein, 1/4 starch and 1/2 green veggies on my plate, consume zero trans fats, and have completely stopped consuming beverages with sugar. I wear a helmet when I ski or bike. I also keep a bronchodilator handy, and take prescription medication every day.Bhimaji (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good (apart from the dilator and medicines, of course). According to the LOGI food pyramid (Prof. David Ludwig) 1/4 starch might be overdoing it! He has fruit, veg. and oils as the foundation, with starch at the top, I think (last time I looked). But there are so many pyramids and so many opinions - and it's getting way off-topic anyway! --TraceyR (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

just your stating that someone has a disdain is pointing to an obvious bias Bhimaji?! Again, this entire discussion is off topic. It is irrelevant what Bhimaji's health condition, or lack there of, or Tracey is. this article is, or should be about Juice Plus. ONE person having preexisting conditions doesn't prove Juice Plus caused her issues, stupid article if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.51.43 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article exhorts doctors to be vigilant and to ascertain whether their patients are taking some herbal, vitamin or mineral product(s) which could interfere with the drugs they are taking - something the doctor(s) in this case had failed to do. The fault lay with the doctor(s), not Juice Plus. What is incorrect and biased and reminiscent of the yellow press is the alarmist headline, which does not summarise the article's content. I had never heard of the American Journal of Medicine, but that ia, no doubt, ignorance on my part. Judging by this example alone, I haven't missed much! --TraceyR (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

doctors want health insurance to pay for drugs, surgeries etc, rather than the common sense health ensurance that all americans should be responsible for....living healthfully and taking care of their bodies! Drugs can't do what nature can--you need the drugs to cure you when you dont live as healthfully as possible. Obviously some things are not avoidable and healthcare has it's very necessary and important place, but most of what ails us is preventable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.51.43 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Out-of-date image

Since the original thread has been archived, I'm asking the question here again - can anyone provide an image of the current packs, to replace the old one currently shown? There was one for a time, supplied by Jackie JP, but for some obscure reason it was removed. The article is inaccurate as it stands. --TraceyR (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

you can google the image or grab it off of the official site, www.juiceplus.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.165.131 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. As I understand it, copying an image from a website doesn't satisfy WP criteria for image use, unless the website specifically states the the image is freely available for general use. Actually it seems that the current image was grabbed without consent having been obtained, but it would be better to get the up-to-date image through proper channels. --TraceyR (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What could be wrong

I'm confused--what could be wrong with powdered fruits and vegetables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.29.236 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason for your question - why are you confused? --TraceyR (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

There is no clear indication of POV in this article. I have thus removed the tag. Aswell the tag was being used in third party advertising efforts per here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I would attempt to fix the POV issues if people would explain what they are. Alison place this tag over issues of WP:OWN. I come to this article as an independent editor concerned regarding this tags usage as advertising.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced Non notable

Wikipedia health claims should be based on review articles per WP:MEDRS. Much of this is non notable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Which health claims in the article are you referring to? --TraceyR (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this:

Immune system: A non-randomized, non-blinded, non-controlled study in elderly cigarette smokers and non-smokers examined the effects of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend on 9 immunologic parameters

::I guess my concern is 1) it is mostly primary research which is non notable, reviews are required to show notability. 2) I agree that what is writen is technically correct but is written at the level of a post graduate biochemistry student 3) so my question is what is the clinical significance? One could summarize this as "No evidence shows that Juice Plus has a meaningful effect on health outcomes" 4) this does not say anything about endpoint of immune system function, it actually says nothing about the immune system as it is a "non randomized non blinded non controlled study" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the health claim is here, since the statement in the example is simply that "9 immunmologic parameters" were examined. Are you worried that very existence of the study could create the impression that Juice Plus has a positive impact on immunologic parameters and that this possible impression comprises a health claim? The description of the study as "non-randomized, non-blinded, non-controlled" is surely enough to counteract that impression. Having said that, several of the changes detected were highly significant: From the abstract - "Results: Significant increases were found in the serum antioxidants when baseline values were compared with day 80; lutein/zeaxanthin (p < .005), α-carotene (p < .0001), β-carotene (p < .0001), lycopene (p < .05), and α-tocopherol (p < .005). Spontaneous proliferation of PBM cells increased significantly (p < .0001). Natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity significantly increased at effector to target cell ratios of 100:1 (p < .0001), 50:1 (p < .0005), and 25:1 (p < .005). Supernatant from PBM cells stimulated with phytohemaglutinin (PHA; 10 μg/mL) resulted in significant twofold increases in interleukin-2 (IL-2) (p < .0001)." I'm well-versed in meither statistics nor biochemistry, but my understanding is that significance starts at p < 0.05, so e.g. p < 0.0005 is two orders of magnitude more significant. Would a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial have produced different results in these subjects? Unless the trial is repeated with a stricter protocol we'll never know. But even then, this wouldn't constitute a health claim, as long as the relationship between phytochemical levels and health outcomes remains conjecture. --TraceyR (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No my concern is that this type of evidence is not notable ( ie not encyclopedic ). Are there any review articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW an unblinded uncontrolled trial cannot demonstrate "including stimulated T-cell cytokine production (IL-2, IL-6, TNF-α and IFN-γ) and the activity of various immune cells (peripheral blood monocytes, natural killer [NK] cells, T-helper cells, and cytotoxic T cells)". A controlled experiment is required to demonstrate this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any review articles that mention this study. However, given (1) that this article is about a food supplement and (b) that there aren't many food supplements with the number of published studies which are available for Juice Plus (i.e. studies, some of them RCTs, done with the product itself, not one or more isolated components), would it not be unencyclopedic not to mention them? Of course we also need to ask whether WP:MEDRS is relevant for an article about a fruit and vegetable juice concentrate. It's not a drug, after all!--TraceyR (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The DASH diet has review articles that discuss it ( but our page could sure us some work ). There are no reviews on this stuff this I question its notability. It does not matter greatly. It does due a decent job balancing the points. It just could be summed up in 25% of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Balance??

I've heard a lot of great things about this product, backed by some very prestegious institutions, yet none of that appears in this article. It appears to be very one sided and biased. Can we at least see a balanced report of this product? Including, for example, studies like that conducted at the Medical University of Vienna, (http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/205) which concluded that supplementation with mixed fruit and vegetable juice concentrates effectively increased plasma levels of important antioxidant nutrients and folate? Most of this article seems like it's straight from the "opinion" section of a periodical than based in fact. Jala7777 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)jala7777

We use review articles not primary research typically. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, a research article directly assessing the product is a gold standard type of source, cited correctly. --Icerat (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS review articles are required to support the benefits of a treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't see the problem (well, apart from the fact that it contradicts policy at one point!) it says "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge". As long as it's straightforward and no WP:SYNTH a primary source is perfectly acceptable. --Icerat (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You could ask for a second option over at WT:MED. The study in question discusses no hard end points that people care about. Thus no health claims can be made using it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As Jala7777 stated it, there was no health claim, merely a claim about increased plasma levels. Not our job to decide if "people care about" it. --Icerat (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears there's been some serious POV editing problems on this article. I've been reading for example the "Memorial Sloan-Kettering" reference [9] and it is used numerous times in the article to support critical statements of JP, but never once used to support positive claims, which the source has a number of. That's some serious cherry picking going on. --Icerat (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary studies are generally not notable ( so yes we do care ). The reason why the statements are critical of JP is that the source is critical.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability of a source is not an issue on WP, whether they are WP:RS and WP:V is the primary concern. Your second statement avoids the point. Yes, the source reports on critical studies of JuicePlus, and it's used in the article to support critical comments. That's fine. The thing is the source also reports on supportive studies of JuicePlus. It is never once used in the article as a source for supportive studies. There's no basis I can see for that and it's clearly not WP:NPOV editing to do so. --Icerat (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

mlm watch is a subdivision of quackwatch [10] which is a non profit corporation. Thus it is not self published but published by a corporation. The site also states "This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy healt information." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Jmh. Shot info (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Princeton_University.27s_website_and_Diabetes.2C_Obesity_and_Metabolism_journal shows the issues that rise with WP:MEDRS; it simply has a higher bar then WP:RS does.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But MEDRS isn't applicable here. This product is a supplement, not a drug. The fact that clinical trials are performed on a supplement doesn't make it into a drug. If studies suggest that it has positive effects on some aspects of health, e.g. circulation, such results don't make it into a drug. Forget MEDRS, it's irrelevant.

As for Quackwatch, even Barrett slips into the first person when explaining who runs and funds Quackwatch:

• I have no financial tie to any commercial or industrial organization.
• My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
• Standard medicine and "alternative medicine" do not actually compete for patient dollars. Well-designed studies have shown that most "alternative" methods are used in addition to—rather than instead of—standard methods.
• The total cost of operating our many Web sites is approximately $7,000 per year. If donations fall below what is needed, the rest comes out of my pocket.

So it has no paid employees and Barrett pays for it out of his own pocket if donations dry up. Seems like a one-man-band, doesn't it. Maybe he has tax advantages from incorporating it, but it remains his project and it is obvious that he publishes it.

Oh yes, one other thing: This site (Wikipedia) complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information. So now we know. Does that make it so? I don't think so.--TraceyR (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tracey, MEDRS is applicable any time health claims are made, whether it's a drug or a supplement or a breathing technique. Barrett is highly identified with Quackwatch and I'm not persuaded by separating the two entities further in our treatment. Though Quackwatch receives support from many donors, the vast majority of the work has always been one man. That's neither a mark for or against Quackwatch, I just think it cautions against treating the organization like a separate corporation rather than a small, dedicated group group headed by a single, opinionated expert. Ocaasi ^c 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the FDA's Overview of Dietary Supplements followed by Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 2003 ("FDA will continue to identify and take appropriate enforcement actions against fraudulently marketed dietary supplement products that make unsubstantiated medical claims in their labeling."), and Criminal Investigations, November 22, 2010: Co-conspirators Sentenced in $11.9 Million Dietary Supplement Fraud Scheme ("Under federal law, a dietary supplement may not claim to treat, cure or prevent a specific disease or class of diseases.")--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb: What has this to do with this article? Are you suggesting that this product is a "fraudulently marketed dietary supplement product" that makes "unsubstantiated medical claims in its labeling" or that it "claims to treat, cure or prevent a specific disease or class of diseases"? Has the FDA taken action against the makers of Juice Plus? None of the links you provide would support such claims. Please explain. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You stated "But MEDRS isn't applicable here. This product is a supplement, not a drug." These quotes from the FDA shows that regarding medical claims in the eyes of the FDA it does not matter--if it makes a medical claim it falls under their jurisdiction even if what is involved is neither a food or a drug (as shown by Medical Claims on Labeling and Promotional Materials of Infant Mattresses and Infant Positioners Distributed in the United States).

The FDA has a very simple definition of a medical claim: "A statement on labeling that declares or implies that the product will heal, lessen, manage, or prevent disease." In addition to drugs this also covers medical devices and supplements. Logically anything that would fall under the FDA's definition would fall under WP:MEDRS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm no gambler, but I am fairly certain that if there were any health claims on the product labelling, this fact would have been mentioned somewhere in the article. Assuming therefore that this is not the case, I'm not convinced of the relevance of the links you provided. Of course supplements come under FDA control because they are classed as foods, but if no claims are made that "the product will heal, lessen, manage, or prevent disease" then surely MEDRS doesn't apply. --TraceyR (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This product lived and died by the claim that it would improve health and wellness dramatically. I'm not an enemy of alternative medicine (I took Juice Plus in 2005), but the assertion that Juice Plus' nutritional evangelism didn't rise to the level of health or medical claims seems a real stretch to me. Even if Juice Plus didn't make such claims, the product was researched for its medical efficacy anyway, so MEDRS applies anywhere that took place, including any studies Juice Plus conducted, of which the article reviews several. Even the JPCRF's mission suggests "improved nutrition leads to healthier lifestyle and overall better health", which is a medical claim. Although in alt-med world, health and nutrition are not medicine, in medical-world, they are. You're confusing a distinction between nutrition and drugs that modern medicine--and hence our guidelines--simply does not make. Chemicals enter the bloodstream and are utilized or excreted. The results, good or bad, are medical. Ocaasi ^c 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to reply to this without 'someone' jumping in and accusing me of 'wikilawyering' or some such term, but here goes: We're talking about two different things here. The first point is about claims made by Juice Plus about the product, which, of course, would fall under the FDA's jurisdiction. Those are what are given above as reasons for MEDRS being invoked here, i.e. if the FDA regards it as making health claims, MEDRS is relevant. Surely the fact that a university somewhere performs a study, into e.g. bioavailability, doesn't automatically bring a product under the FDA's jurisdiction - it's a health claim that would do that (see above). The second point is about what is in the article. You say (in an edit summary) that the article is full of health claims; if by "health claims" you mean the reporting of the results of clinical studies, these are not claims but results. The distinction is important, since the results are not controlled by the company but are the objective assessments of those who conduct the studies, reviewed by the journals which publish them; claims (were there to be any) would come from the company. If explicit claims were made in the article which were not made by the company, then these would (long ago) have been deleted, I'm sure. There's a difference between "a statement on labeling that declares or implies that the product will heal, lessen, manage, or prevent disease" and a claim that a product will "improve health and wellness dramatically" (was such a claim made by the company?). The statement that "improved nutrition leads to healthier lifestyle and overall better health" is not about the product but is a truism about nutrition in general; is it a medical claim? Hardly. Even if it were, it 's about improved nutrition, not Juice Plus. Would apples fall under the FDA's drug rules (and therefore MEDRS) if someone were to claim (heaven forbid) that eating an apple a day would keep the doctor away? --TraceyR (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to "biomedical information in articles". There is certainly an ample amount of that in the article. I can see how editors would be concerned about MEDRS in this case because a lot of the research discussed is from primary sources. I realize that primary sources in such cases can be problematic and that they must be presented cautiously, particularly in cases where the research is company-sponsored because such studies are often guilty of cherrypicking and overstatement of the significance of the results. For example, a company might publish a test tube study on isolated cells and then have a bold overstatement in the conclusions along the lines of "...and our results suggest that product x may be useful in stopping cancer progression". When I went through the JP research, I was careful to make sure that the data were represented accurately and that no such overstatements were included. Nonetheless, it's still problematic because it is primary research. We could instead simply rely on what third-party sources have said about the research -- that would be highly unflattering for JP because such commentary has been universally negative. Still, it's an option. I'm curious to hear what those who aren't hawking JP have to say about this.

As for medical "claims", Juice Plus has a long history of making them. The company has disseminated such claims about JP prevention and treating cancer via their key spokespersons (e.g. Jim Sears,[11] Susan Silberstein[12]) and even the chair at Sloan-Kettering (Cassileth) commented that "aggressively promoted to cancer patients based on claims of antioxidant effects"[13]. Then there's also the issue about the claim that the products are "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables". That misleading claim has been the cause of considerable consternation, as indicated by the Better Business Bureau,[14], CSPI[15] and Australia's TGA[16] (and yet suprisingly the company continues to use it). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Some more interesting (but incorrect) assertions, e.g. (1) that the company publishes the results of studies. This is so obviously incorrect that it is a shame that it needs to be stated explicitly: the studies are published by the journals which accept them for publication, not by Juice Plus. The same applies (2) to the statement about cherry-picking, of course: the results are published, whether the results are positive or not. This is stated in the article in an edit reinstated by Rhode Island Red today, so there's no excuse for not knowing this fact (the reason it was ignored was probably that it contradicted his cherry-picking assertion). Another statement is (3) that primary sources are problematic: not so. There are WP guidelines indicating how to use them (already mentioned above). No problem there either. Another error (4) is to assert that Sears et al are company spokespersons; of course you know that they are not employed by the company. However they do recommend and do make speeches in support of the products, presumably because they think that the products are useful. Now (5) about that claim that Juice Plus is "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables": is this misleading? If so, in what way? It's no good to say "I don't like it, so I'll say that it is misleading". If it is misleading (and indeed "the cause of considerable consternation" - wow!) to make this claim, then something else must be the next best thing instead. If so, do the world a favour, Rhode Island Red: tell us what is? --TraceyR (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That was a non-rebuttal and did not pertain to the comment about MEDRS. As for primary sources, they can indeed by problematic as outlined in WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. As for the banal indictment about "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables" being an "I don't like it" argument on my part, well that's just silly. I cited three reliable third party sources that criticized JP specifically as a result of that claim. If there is any fingerpointing to be done, it can be ponited at the BBB, CSPI, and Australia's TGA; but it will be a waste of time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the sequence has been established: (1) you throw in loads of irrelevant, unsubstantiated and/or incorrect statements (2) I and/or others point out some of your errors and (3) you say that it's all irrelevant because it wasn't about MEDRS anyway. Brilliant, you may think, but why spout all that irrelevant rubbish in the first place? Stick to the subject and progress may eventually be made. But I'm not holding my breath - I've experienced this before. I'll just wait for you to overstep the mark (again) and get banned for 6 months (again). Aah, the very thought stimulates endorphine excretion! ---TraceyR (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I had wondered why you were pursuing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT while maintaining WP:CPUSH—you have just revealed your plan. However there are more people watching this article than Rhode Island Red and your POV is contrary to consensus. Attempts to promote or whitewash products on Wikipedia will not succeed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

More irrelevant POV comment. Amazing! But by all means keep on watching if it does things for you. --TraceyR (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TraceyR I advise you to immediately tone down the bombast and personal attacks. I don’t plan to tolerate a resurgence of this behavior from you yet again. You have been violating WP:COI and POV pushing on this article for years and it’s been tolerated for far too long. Incidentally, I was never banned; I was blocked, as you well know, for a matter related to inadvertently outing one of your fellow Juice Plus distributors, who had likewise terrorized this article (and made repeated personal attacks against me) in violation of WP:COI for years. I won’t make the mistake a second time. If you continue along this line of conduct, I will report the matter privately to WP admin. I have a right to edit in peace without your constant badgering and harassment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Rhode Island Red, Doc James, et al., From what I'm reading throughout this entire discourse, it doesn't appear you're any more qualified to be editing this article than TraceyR is. I realize it's difficult to not form an opinion about JP, but you do seem to lack the skills to write about it objectively. You obviously dislike the product on a personal level, and it shows quite clearly in the article (you mention OJ Simpson but not Bear Grylls--that doesn't seem like a minor slip-up). Would you want Charles Manson as presiding judge over a murder case? Likewise, one who has a personal vendetta against JP is not capable of writing a neutral article about it.

Bringing this back around to the original point of this section, this article is indeed unbalanced. No matter how much you sling the WP:MEDRS excuse, it's apparent you just don't want to present a balanced view. There's enough information out there, even presented on this talk page, that you could.

For the rest of us who are not so passionate either way about the product, please re-write this article with a balanced view.

Jubican (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I propose this article and the National Safety Associates article should be merged, probably into this article since JuicePlus seems to be the more notable name and the one the company promotes itself under these days. Makes little sense to have both --Icerat (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of +

Some mentions of Juice Plus include the + after the name and others don't. If they're the same product they should be the same. Which one is correct? Ocaasi ^c 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had a brief look at the home page and the "+" is used consistently. It appears to be part of the registered name (see the browser header), so ideally the article should have the "+" too. --TraceyR (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

From WP:MOSTM: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used". Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Studies "funded" - to what extent?

The article creates the impression that the peer-reviewed studies were paid for in full by NSA, the implication being that this is why the results were favorable. This might be deemed a slur on the reputation of the scientists involved, so ought care to be taken with the wording to avoid legal problems for WP? It would be useful to get information about the degree to which the studies were funded by NSA and whether they were independent studies, i.e. whether the company exerted any sort of pressure on the scientists. --TraceyR (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What do the sources say? If the Wikipedia article agrees with the sources then there is probably little legal recource (per Barrett v. Rosenthal). Of course if the article performs some editorialising, then then is original research. From my reading and looking at a couple (not all) of the provided sources, I would say that you cannot get much simplier than: "Of the published peer-reviewed studies on Juice Plus products, the majority were funded and/or authored by the manufacturer, Natural Alternatives International (NAI);[12][13][30][31][32][33][34] or the main distributor, NSA.;[31][35][36][37][38][39][40] two were funded by individual Juice Plus distributors;[41][42] and one was conducted independently.[43]". However perhaps the term "funded" could be amended to "fully or partly funded"?

Also on an aside, why does that section have a tag on it? Reading through the section it appears it's only issue is that it's overlinked. Shot info (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Yes, my concern is that the impression is created that NSA gets the results it pays for. Something along the lines you suggest would mitigate against readers getting that impression. It certainly seems very unlikely that any scientists whose professional ingerity has been thus smeared would stand much chance of legal redress, but that makes it all the more important for WP to deal fairly with them. There is a recently published study which contains a statement specifically denying that NSA had any opportunity to influence the results (perhaps they had read this article and wanted to clarify the issue). Perhaps there are others such statements in other studies. The fact that NSA refers to the studies as "independent" indicates that no influence is brought to bear. I'll dig out the recent study statement and post it here some time. --TraceyR (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Roll et al.: Reduction of common cold symptoms by encapsulated juice powder concentrate of fruits and vegetables: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In: Br J Nutr. 2010 Aug 23: 1-5. DOI:10.1017/S000711451000317X

Mittel kann Ausgaben für Medikamente langfristig senken / Remedy can reduce expenditures on medications in the long term.

"Die Neutralität der Studie wurde dadurch gewährleistet, dass dem Hersteller des Präparats als Sponsor der Studie keine Studiendaten übermittelt wurden und dass dieser auch nicht an der Interpretation der Studienergebnisse beteiligt war." Charité University Clinic, Berlin

"The neutrality of the study was ensured by the fact that as a sponsor of the study, no study data were transmitted to the manufacturer of the preparation and they were also not involved in the interpretation of the study results." Cambridge University Press Office

It would be interesting to know whether the authors of other studies into Juice Plus had taken such care to ensure that their results were treated fairly and their reputations not besmirched. Can anyone help here?--TraceyR (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Study funding information in itself is neutral. Funding does not imply that the grantor directly influenced the results; such information is simply reported as an SOP. As an interesting aside, the article by Canham discusses how NSA pulled its name off a study that it funded becuase the results were unfavorable: "Juice Plus+ decided to remove its name from the research after its anti-oxidant supplement, in the form of a gummy bear, had no effect on healthy children. The company approached the University of Utah's Division of Foods and Nutrition with the idea for the study and $30,000 to pay for the research. It hoped the supplement would reduce the level of oxidative stress in children, but the results showed otherwise."[17] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this detail (Canham) has already been added to the article. What is the point in bringing it up here again?

The information about the Charité study is not mentioned yet, however. --TraceyR (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tracey - can you post your proposed changes to how you would like the section to appear here, so that editors can comment? Shot info (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Investigators are required to give Information about affiliations, and grants from sponsors have to be mentioned (but not the amount). The article wording must therefore make it clear that the sponsor's funding need not cover the total cost. How about "Of the published peer-reviewed studies on Juice Plus products, the majority were funded to some extent by grants from the manufacturer ... or the main distributor ...". To say "in part or in full" would imply that there is at least one source stating that a sponsor bore the full cost of a study. We don't know that.

The mention of authorship needs to make it clear that John Wise was the lead author of one (or two?) of the early pilot studies performed by NAI itself; he is mentioned as co-author on approx. 50% of the more recent studies, which were all done by universities etc. elsewhere.

One way of reducing the ugly over-citation would be to have a table of the studies which would include this sort of information. A source for such a table can be found here.--TraceyR (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a list of NAI's "Sponsored Clinical Research Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals and Presented at Scientific Conferences" here. --TraceyR (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you've IDed what you think are the problems - now, what do you want the pertinent section actually changed to. I've noticed that there is very little discussion on actually editing the article on this talkpage. So I'm not interested in discussing any of the "issues", I'm only interested in seeing what you propose to actually change the article to. Until then, there is very little discussion to actually be entered into. Shot info (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The NAI document cited above is innacurate and unreliable. I looked up two Juice Plus studies (Bloomer et al 2006; Nantz et al 2006) from the list of studies which NAI says they sponsored and in fact the articles themselves list the funding support as coming from NSA, not NAI (and in the case of Nantz's study, NAI spelled her name wrong -- i.e., Nance). So in other words, there are is a serious problem with that source. I would deem it to be essentialy useless. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Section "Conflicts of interest in studies"

Which type of "conflict of interest" is supposed to be highlighted here - the fact that J.Wise was employed by NAI and is named as a co-author of several studies? If so, what is the relevance of the paragraph about USAI to "Conflicts of interest in studies"? --TraceyR (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, can you propose the changes you would like to see? Shot info (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's easy: just remove the section altogether. The whole USAI paragraph is irrelevant to this article and the information about John Wise in no way notable enough to warrant a section of its own. This information could be included elsewhere in the article. --TraceyR (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah not a complete whitewash, but I agree with reducing it down to Juice Plus related bits. ie/

NSAs Juice Plus website cites various research articles in support of the company's marketing claims about the biological effects of Juice Plus, maintaining that these “studies were conducted by independent researchers” at various universities.[65] Several of the studies were authored by John A. Wise [12][32][33][66] and Morin.[12][66] Both these authors have been criticised by consumer health advocate and alternative medicine critic Stephen Barrett of MLM Watch [1] [12].

Incidently it's not out of the ordinary in Wikipedia for information tangentially related to the subject to be included in the subject's article because there isn't a "home" for it yet. Shot info (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the correct term for Wise and Morin is "co-authored" (see recent entry here); Wise was lead author on one study only, published in 1996. ...Two early studies were co-authored by John A. Wise, Morin and others [12][66], two other studies by Wise [32][33] ... As for Barrett, let's not get into that one again. He's a self-publishing self-publicist retired psychiatrist, for heaven's sake, with a bee in his bonnet about all things MLM and 'natural'. He's certainly not neutral!

It is normal for a manufacturer (e.g. a pharmaceutical company) to conduct pilot studies into new products. To highlight this with a section title as being a "conflict of interest" in unusual.

It's not about whitewashing but article neutrality (i.e. colourless rather than white). The mention of USAI is just "blackwash" in this article. It (USAI) should be mentioned in the article about John Wise, of course, which this article links to anyway. USAI has its own article too, so the USAI/Wise stuff has a good home. --TraceyR (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please post what you want the article changed too rather than going into things that you brought up but then don't want to go into. BTW, you might want to redact your statement above - BLP applies. Shot info (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The argument about whether Wise/Morin were co-authors or lead authors is irrelevant in the context of a discussion about company-influence in the research and COI. In that context, where these authors appear in the author list is not important; it's only important that a company executive (and insider stockholder in the case of Wise) was an author at all. And just for the record, Wise was an author on 6 of the JP studies, not two as stated above. The article only listed 4 of them, but I just updated it to show all 6. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Poorly Written

As an avid WP reader, I read through this article today and was very disappointed with how it's written, and that no WP writers have done anything about it. The writer is clearly biased based on these observations:

1) Comments on the studies of each section opens with a statement of doubt. However, the product has plenty of well-documented and neutral studies available which were not highlighted.

2) The whole feel of the article is aimed at swaying the reader to form a negative opinion. For an encyclopedia, that's a huge no-no. Take a look at the article on Adolf Hitler. While few, if any, consider the man to be helpful to the human race, the article is written quite neutrally. This article on Juice Plus, however, appears to be written by someone who is skeptical of the product, rather than simply presenting the facts.

3) I feel like I've been subtly-gossiped to. How did this article get through QC?

4) OJ Simpson reference is quite negative. Yet no mentioned of Bear Grylls.

This article needs to be completely re-written by someone who is not emotional either way about the product. It's distastefully written and lacks mature authoring.

I am not a writer, so I appeal to someone who is: please re-write this article, and write it encyclopedically. I would be glad to offer my assistance in information gathering.

Jubican (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Better than if written as an infomercial as there is less chance of harm. There is no good research on this product is the issue. Thus it is not possible to display it in a positive light. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, I'm afraid you're wrong. First, "Positive" is not better than "negative". It's just as irresponsible, as it's not fact-based, and therefore not encyclopedic. The article should be deleted if no one is going to write it correctly. Second, unbiased evidence of "anti-product" research is severely lacking. As we've seen in our research labs, if one sets out to prove the sky is purple, they'll somehow be able to prove it. The JuicePlus product has been reviewed positively in prestigious medical and nutrition journals. But the negative research does not appear to have been performed by any organization who is trustworthy to present the facts. For most of these organizations, the goal is to debunk the product, so of course their findings must match their goal in order to get their money (they're typically hired by a competitor).

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in someone's opinion on the product...good or bad. If the article needs to be shrunk down to 2 paragraphs, then so be it. But let's aim to provide an opinion-free article that is consistent with the goals of Wikipedia.

Jubican (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask just what non fact-based information is in this article? Also I might add that WP:PRIMARY per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Princeton_University.27s_website_and_Diabetes.2C_Obesity_and_Metabolism_journal limits just how we can use such sources. Heck, one of my problems with the Weston Price biography is that two articles that show a possible change in attitude by Weston Price are primary sources (Journal American Medical Association and Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) with (so far) no secondary sources for interpretation. Like it or not there are major limits on how you can use primary sources in wikipedia.

There are practical reasons for this. For example the conclusions of K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. regarding Homoeopathy was NOT supported by later studies ([Clinical Trials on Homeopathy Published from 2003 to 2006]) and the quality of the 1997 study was questioned in Linde, K, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366) and shown to be seriously flawed in the August 27, 2005 issue of Lancet.

Focal infection theory is another example as even at the height of the tooth and tonsil extraction binge where were serious questions regarding the quality of the supportive studies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi BruceGrubb--that's a good (and constructive) point. However, for this article, the author clearly hand-selected facts to support his/her own opinion. While this article doesn't have overtly-stated opinions, the writer did purposely include negative research while purposely excluding the positive research performed by well-known and trusted organizations ([see a few here]). Also, as I mentioned previously, the celebrity endorsement section is a joke. The end result is an expression of the writer's opinion by manipulating factual information.

I'm not suggesting that the negative portions of the article be removed simply because they're negative. I am suggesting that the article be balanced and unbiased. There's plenty of research to support both positive and negative positions. For those who are familiar with both sides of the argument, this article is borderline inflammatory and is not neutral.

Let me put it this way. Imagine removing all mention of the Holocaust from Adolf Hitler's article, and only mentioning what wonderful changes he brought about to Germany. No opinions, just facts. Yet, the reader would be left with the impression that Hitler was a great fellow. You see? Stated opinions aren't required in order to get your opinion across. That is the problem with this article.

Jubican (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Godwin's law aside this has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time as you are comparing apples to oranges. A better example would be the full scale migraine that is the Jesus myth theory where despite the article acknowledging the fact there is no one definition for the term much of the counter argument presented is based on the most extreme versions of the concept while more moderate versions like that of John Remsburg get lost in the shuffle. Right now product research section is so full of primary material that I doubt that many laymen can even understand it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Grubb is missing Jubican's point here, which is that being selective in what is mentioned and what is omitted can produce a bias in any article. What is ridiculous about that?

Bruce Grubb also thinks that the primary material in the article is incomprehensible to the layman. Is he suggesting that it be removed? How would this improve the article? --TraceyR (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TraceyR seems to have missed Bruce's point. Bruce said that comparing the Juice Plus article with Hitler and the Holocaust was ridiculous (i.e. he appropriately referenced Godwin's Law, and I fully agree. Such invocations are not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So someone else is missing Jubican's point! Godwin's Law is so gloriously, ridiculously irrelevant, a Red herring, a Straw man, indeed a tacit admission that Bruce Grubb and, of course Rhode Island Red, cannot rebuff Jubican's point. But then there's none so blind as he who will not see. --TraceyR (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jubican, TracyForget the rhetoric... We don't just remove sourced information that meets MEDRS. If you have other sources to balance it, or proposals to make the phrasing more even-handed (but in line with the references) go ahead and mention them. But we're not going to stub a well developed article because the conclusion of the studies is not favorable. Also, accusing the negative studies of setting out to prove the product ineffective is a quite bold claim that I doubt can be reliably sourced. So, what specific suggestions do you have?

I agree that we should not start sections with a 'doubt' but rather with an overview. Do you understand, on the other point, that primary studies are not acceptable as support. We're really looking for systematic reviews. We might be able to mention that 'JuicePlus' cites published primary research' but we probably won't do more than provide a link in the references to where JuicePlus does so. Otherwise it becomes a highly speculative and unencyclopedic game about citing primaries.

@Doc James, 'doing less harm' is an admirable but not encyclopedic goal, in my opinion. Risk aversion is a kind of bias that we should not practice to here so long as we otherwise follow policy...else we slant too strongly towards the mainstream and don't fairly present alternative and fringe views in full. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup article is a prime example of the problem you can have regarding MEDRS with primary sources. Sometime studies are so new that there just are not the type of secondary sources required by MEDRS and other times the follow up are so obscure they might as well not exist. The Weston Price article has the later problem as there is a primary source papers that seems to indicate that he later changed his mind regarding focal infection theory ("I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues" and that "the evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues") but so far no secondary source supporting that reading of the primary material has been found.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, yes you've covered this territory well ;). I think where we encounter a gap between primaries and MEDRS we should consider using a summary-style to let readers know what types of sources are out there and what claims are made within them. Without citing specific results we can at least give the lay of the land regarding that research. Maybe that's an option here, to summarize the primary research that has been done, without advancing any new points. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view article. The first paragraph is quite clear on how to achieve neutrality, specifically, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." On this discussion page alone, many have complained about the bias, which for some reason is not causing the authors to check their own motives. But in particular, I want to point out the second item on the series: proportionately.

There's a very good reason for this. It obviously took a lot of work to find and reference the unfavorable studies. Yet, the same people who located these studies are not / have not put the same energy into locating favorable studies that are suitable for this article. Now, per the 3 core principles of Wikipedia, the article should be proportionate in it's entirety. Some editors have admitted this article is disproportionate in one form or another (Doc James did so in his initial reply in this section). So by an editor's own admission this article is in violation of NPOV--the same editor who previously removed the NPOV warning. In order to achieve proportion, there must be balanced sources. That means either favorable sources must be added, or the unfavorable should be removed. For instance, I've mentioned Bear Grylls 3 times now, yet no one has acted on it. If you were to put the Man vs. Wild hero in this article as an endorser, it would certainly become even more clear to the average reader that there's something wrong with this article (is that why you don't add it?).

Editors should be responsible to remove themselves if they cannot be neutral. Like many people, I visit Wikipedia all the time, and load myself up with all kinds of good information. However, this article is strikingly biased, and if you all allow this kind of "Seattle Times" article-writing to creep into Wikipedia, the integrity of the entire system will begin to fall. I can just hear, "Well, they did it on the JuicePlus article, why can't I do it here!".

Again, I ask that you folks just stick to the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm not a scholar, but I have enough sense to know that what I'm reading is not written by people who are neutral. If you can't fix that part, please be decent and responsible and remove yourselves. Nothing personal, just please fix.

Jubican (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)