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

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. 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)