Talk:Protandim/Archives/2011/February

Double standard

The clinical study section at one time described the statistical test that was applied to the data: "student's t-test". This study is criticized for its small scale and there is the suggestion that the results are not meaningful for this reason. However, it uses a commonly accepted rationale that would normally be accepted without question in the case of a more orthodox study such as evaluation of an antibiotic drug. My impression is that there is a sort of double standard which is the reason for the note about the type of statistical test used and the comment should be included in the article. (Entropy7 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

I don't think it's relevant (particularly the long description of the test, instead of simply naming it). Pointing out every single choice they made and deciding whether it's good or bad is not really Wikipedia's role.

My bottom line is that you wouldn't explain this point in a regular drug article, and therefore you shouldn't do it here.

Similarly, if a regular pharmaceutical medication's sole clinical support were human testing involving 20 people at a full dose and 4 people at a half dose, for just 30 days in most cases, with statstically insignificant results, on a biomarker instead of a real outcome, then it would get criticized just as much. Which button you push in the stats software doesn't change these facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I must add that the results are "highly" significant despite the low numbers. There was high consistency of effect across all participants bar one. It is conclusive and impressive scientific validation actually.

I couldn't disagree more, but regardless, what point were you trying to make? The talk page is to be used exclusively for discussing specific editorial issues related to the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Patent Details

Re: recent removal of patent details characterized as spam. I agree that patent details are often used in a spammy manner for product promotion, and normally I am not big advocate of such information being included in articles because the claims made in patents are often outlandish and not subjected to peer review. However, in this case I think the details regarding the patent holder (Paul Myhill) are critical because I have noticed a lot of contradictory promotional claims about Protandim in which it is implied or stated that scientist Joe McCord invented the product. This is untrue, obviously. Myhill is a non-scientist (odd for an inventor of a dietary supplement). I just wanted to explain the rationale for inclusion of this information and why I think it's important. I welcome your suggestions as to how to modify the text so as to minimize the spamminess without omitting the identification of Myhill as inventor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited it down to just the key details -- "The inventors of Protandim are Paul R. Myhill and William J. Driscoll" and cited the first patent. That should do the trick. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that works for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation formatting

Chris, I don't understand the point behind this change. Are you have problems with the citations? If you think they're creating a sprawling mess that interferes with editing (a common complaint), then there are some solutions available, but removing all the details just prompts one of the bots to come fill them in again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)