Talk:Protandim/Archives/2011/September

Article bias?

This article seems somewhat biased, much like an advertisement. The references linked have a disclaimer saying, "Important Disclaimer: The author of this document is a parent of a child with DMD and this document has not been peer reviewed." I can see the difficulty in creating an article about a drug that seems too good to be true, but there doesn't seem to be any criticism or counter-arguments against it. Anyone else have similar thoughts? JoeMP (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This reads exactly like it was written by a marketing department to be used for SEO value (take the suspicious use of "we" in the article, not a very common practice in Wikipedia). I say that unless some peer reviewed study can be produced, this article either be axed or rewritten from a more neutral stance.Mogman1 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree of the 8 papers actually discussing Protandim, 7 are co-authored by Joe McCord, the other from a colleague of his. Without questioning his brilliance in any way, I note that this is hardly an independent peer review. This company is organized as a a pyramid marketing system and therefore is quite probably illegal in many countries. Promoting this in Wikipedia may be misleading. 120.144.150.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Peer reviewed scientific studies are vetted by colleagues. Assuming that McCord had no undue influence over this process, McCord's contributions as a co-author were validated and are free of bias, distortion and inaccuracy. I agree, this article should not be a promotional piece for LifeVantage nor should it be used by competitors or those who's bias against network marketing clouds objective judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicAdvocate (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)