Talk:Protandim/Archives/2016/July

Human Clinical Studies section

The wiki mentions two clinical studies. It describes the one that's favorable the product as "non-randomized" and "non-controlled" and the other (which is not favorable to the product) as "randomized" and "placebo-controlled". But the controlled study is only 7 days. In the other study effects weren't even seen until 30 days. The wiki seems to discredit the product in this section. I think the studies should be discussed more. Surely we can represent the studies more fairly. at least mention that the uncontrolled one was 120 days (much longer than the controlled study). I mean 7 days for a supplement is nothing. It's hardly worth mentioning imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.160.33 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A randomized controlled trial is much, much more useful for medical claims. I'm not sure why you're saying that seven days isn't enough. How long should it take to show changes in alveolar epithelial permeability, oxidative stress, epithelial growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, interleukin-1β, and interleukin-10 levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid? I'm not qualified to say, but even if I thought I were, Wikipedia can only go by what the sources say on this matter. Judging by the sources, the mentions seems fine to me. Can you find additional reliable sources which discuss the studies and are independent of LifeVantage? Grayfell (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out study duration differences and the time to appearance of effects in the longer one, just like 98.174.160.33 did but more briefly, would illustrate the point and not need any further references. (Since the product targets low-level cellular biology, the time to appearance of effect shouldn't be very tissue-specific, as in lung-specific).--Bstard12 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)