User talk:Cosmochao

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ante lan ^talk 04:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mannatech[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Ante lan ^talk 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Antelan[edit]

Antelan,

You referenced that one of the core policies at Wikipedia is that we keep a neutral point of view. Although you make an effort to appear objective, your definitions are not. My question is: What financial incentive do you have to monitor 'Mannatech' and 'Glyconutrients?' Briefly, I would be interested in your view on Dr. Ben Carson's opinion and interviews on glyconutritional supplementation and I am certain that you would not object to us including him (cited and unbiased) in the definition, correct?

Remember to assume good faith. If you have specific comments about edits that I have made and how they conforms to policy, I would appreciate constructive feedback. Based on your comments about Mannatech and glyconutrients, I can see that this is not your first time on Wikipedia. What other accounts do you edit under?

Dr. Carson is a renowned neurosurgeon and professor of medicine, and a profound speaker. I have had the pleasure of hearing him lecture on multiple occasions about the area of his expertise - neurosurgery. If he has conducted scientific studies on Mannatech's products, I am unaware of them, but would be glad to learn more. Ante lan ^talk 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first hour on Wikipedia. Regarding Dr. Ben Carson, he has not completed double-blind studies to my knowledge, but your question is already showing your subjective viewpoint. To help create an objective viewpoint, I'm suggesting we consider his professional opinion about WHY he believes glyconutrients should be a complimentary part of health care regardless of the fact that more research is needed in this new field. What is he basing his opinion upon other than the research? Your definitions focus entirely upon the negative issues surrounding the controversy on Mannatech and glyconutrients. Shouldn't we include the professional opinions of medical leaders (who you also apparently respect highly) on this controversial topic to have an objective definition?

It seems reasonable to include the professional opinion of a neurosurgeon at John Hopkins who is directly quoted as saying the following (these quotes are taken from Dallas Weekly in an interview with Dr. Carson):

"I do not see glyconutrients as unnatural. I see them as complementary to traditional medicine. Dietary supplements should become an integral part of health care in this country."

"Medicine has become a significant business and there are a lot of people who invest a lot of money into drug development who are not going to look at these things (glyconutrients) in a friendly manner."

Regarding Mannatech he says, "I was impressed that Mannatech did not make any wild claims. The majority of their science pointed to how glyconutrients supported teh body's normal functions of regeneration and repair." --That quote will help balance your present information that overly emphasizes the media's recent attention to the claim that Mannatech makes disease claims.

"Because of my experience with Glyconutrients I was able to return to work in three weeks," he said.

Now, if we are going to give an objective definition on glycnonutrients, their validity and the circumstances surrounding a present debate, it makes sense we would include a perspective that takes into account the viewpoint of credible medical leaders like Dr. Carson. Do you agree or disagree with these suggestions for possible inclusion? I am open to working on the precise wording as well.

Your edits to the article were very strongly POV. You asked about my financial incentives (I have none). What are yours? Ante lan ^talk 05:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do suggest you reconsider your decision to remove my ability to edit the definitions. I am open to discussing the definition with you before making changes to the post granted you are showing good faith to create an objective definition. For starters, I ask that you begin by answering my question above regarding your opinion on the relevence of Dr. Carson professional opinion in favor of glyconutrients for complementary health care even in absence of sufficient research. Here are the two actions that will be taken next if you do not show an objective motivation on defining this topic:

I do not WP:OWN any articles; all editors are free to make appropriate edits in conformance with Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate it if you would retract the two explicit threats that you made so we may resume a productive discussion. Ante lan ^talk 06:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my remarks about the proactive and political actions I anticipated taking if I was unable to have an open discussion about the need for a more objective description of these topics. I apologize if it offended you and realize I may have been presumptuous. Please accept my apology. May we continue?

Much appreciated. I'm going back to the previous version so that I can follow along as we talk. If you would prefer to keep this page short, I'd appreciate if you archived the earlier parts of the discussion so I can refer back to them. This is your talk page, though, and you are free to do just about anything. Back to your question: In a September 10, 2006 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Dr. Carson is quoted as saying, "I do believe in the products," he said. "But, as a scientist, I cannot and will not make scientific claims about them until the science has been proven." You asked about my thoughts on his professional opinion. As is shown pretty nicely in this quote, he personally believes in the products, but is reserving his professional opinion until he sees validation through normal scientific processes. I think that his personal belief is no business of mine, and his professional opinion is appropriately neutral. Ante lan ^talk 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Antelan, I appreciate you brought this up as it gets to a previous remark Dr. Carson made that helps us uncover the real missing element in the definitions.. He said, "Medicine has become a significant business and there are a lot of people who invest a lot of money into drug development who are not going to look at these things (glyconutrients) in a friendly manner." He has made other comments more specific that illustrate his challenge: Because he works in a pharmaceutical environment he cannot make claims outside of what the pharmaceutical industry allows. This is understandable and responsible anyway. Since this is not an approved drug (and never will be as it doesn't function as one) he "...cannot make scientific claims about them until the science has been proven." Since he personally believes in the products, continues to take them and suggests that others who are concerned with optimal health take them, he gives us a credible opportunity to show a very important part of the Mannatech/ glyconutrient controversy (which is a big part of understanding the definition). That is the fact that while glyconutrients are 'new' and therefor do not have the scientific validation behind them to satisfy the present pharmaceutical model of standard of care treatment for disease, glyconutrients DO have credible sources and other validational material giving merit to their benefit for quality of life improvement (which should adhere to different standards for validation than drugs). This paradigm and sources to support it should be included in a discussion so controversial if we are to have an objective definition. We can find many such validational references like Dr. Carson that support the benefits for improvement of quality of life (not treatment of disease). I am interested in what you think about this perspective. Cosmochao 08:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in interpreting that paragraph to mean that you'd like to add a sourced statement stating that people state that they feel better after taking the product? I'm going for brevity to ensure that I followed you correctly. Ante lan ^talk 08:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==It goes much further than that. It seems reasonable to consider adding credible sources to counter-balance each present pharmaceutical-biased or funded source that is all throughout the definitions now. It also seems it would bring value to the definition by describing why there is such a controvery (i.e., why the pharmaceutical industry and it's employees /business leaders might reasonably ask for 'standard of care' validation, which they would need to seek approval for a toxic drug and specific disease claim ... vs. why advocates of glyconutritional supplementation and other non-toxic food supplements may reasonably seek a new 'scientific standard' and basis for validating products that support the body's natural phsyiology to heal and repair, which can be shown to 'compliment' standard of care treatments). And because this is a very new discovery and the contoversy is more focussed than it has ever been, it seems valid to mention that although more research is said to be needed from both sides, there are many credible sources showing reasonable optimism for benefit. It seems valid (and would make a lot of people satisfied about this definition) to site sources that are credible that do show there is some level of validation out there even if it does not meet the standards for disease claims (because complimentary care by supporting the body does have scientific basis). Cosmochao 08:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look into WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. I encourage you specifically to look into the WP:RS link as you seek out sources to back the statements that you think need to be in the article. I suggested WP:OR because I am not familiar with claims that a new scientific standard is being sought, and think it may be original research. Sorry for throwing all these links at you, but it probably makes more sense for you to read them than for me to recapitulate them here. Ante lan ^talk 09:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Thank you. There are hundreds of credible sources validating my point above (medical doctors, authors, etc), and the debated has existed before Mannatech; it's just that Mannatech is at the center of the controversy which makes it appropriate to include the discussion in the definition on Mannatech--again, the pharmaceutical model is one for drug treatment and so they seek that level of validation. Mannatech provides products that support the body's natural physiology, which creates more complexity to proving results on benefits for one specific disease (as there are many variable involved in the body's abilty to heal and repair to the extent at which it can actually reverse disease, etc). There is an article at www.glycoscience.org in FAQ there are two articles that may assist you in understanding the topic better. The article is written by a researcher in glyconutrition and has an extensive background that I believe makes her credible. If not, there are much better sources I refer you here if you are interested for a quick introduction. One article is, "Why are there so few double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on natural products?" The other is, "What is Complimentary / Alternative Medicine and what is it's status in the U.S. At the bottom of that article is a quote from Wayne Jonas, MD, former director of the OAM in the NIH, saying, "The ultimate decision in medical care must rest with the patient and the caregiver, but it is the role and obligation of the physician to provide information on the existing scientific evidence as well as expert opinion to assist patients in making informed decisions. It is no longer sufficient for physicians to make recommendations based solely on familiarity with therapeutic option or to await a biological explanation or consensus panel opinion. Evidence-based choices and the skills necessary to make them shoul become a routine part of all medical practices." Source referenced there. But there is hundreds of validational sources to support this need for new standards and practices to make it easier to integrate complimentary products that are not drugs and do not have the same level of scientific basis. My question to everyone here is that if you agree it is worth my time to validate my statements above?

Check out WP:RS, because reliable source, not credible source, is the standard typically strived for at Wikipedia. You mentioned articles from glycoscience.org, which is owned by Mannatech. The verifiability guideline generally excludes self-published material from being considered as acceptable sources. I don't particularly see why a critique of study funding (the first article you cite) or an appeal for evidence-based medicine (the second article) would belong in the Mannatech article. However, they could be valuable additions to other articles on Wikipedia (as always, provided they are verifiable and can be attributed to a reliable source). Ante lan ^talk 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Well, I referred you to that article to assist you in understanding the debate. There are hundreds of 3rd party sources supporting that two-decade old issue. I will dig for those later... there is still something fundamentally biased about the entire keyword definition and you helped me poinpoint it--the sources are not credible. If a main goal is to have credible sources, we have to remove most of the present sources referenced for that key word as they are far from credible. For example, the definition currently sites sources that work for the pharmaceutical industry or whose research is funded by drug companies seeking to make pharmaceutical drugs that are glycoprotein based. Is that a credible source? How can it be when Mannatech markets glyconutriens that they claim supports the bodies natural ability to build the glycoprotein structures on its own? I oringally figured that if we are quoting people who are funded by glycoprotein drug R and D companies, we should quote the other side for an objective view, but perhaps instead, many of the present sources used on the keyword definition should be removed. Also, look to the source used to cite footnote 12. That source is called, 'Pyramid Scheme Alert' and is a website dedicated (in its mission statement even) to single out companies that use MLM as a distribution model and to find the dirt on them. That certainly isn't a credible source but quite biased by its own existance and highlighted in its name. What is going on here? You don't agree this is all quite slanted? Seriously?

The article cites ABC's 20/20, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, MarketWatch, the lawyer who is bringing a class-action lawsuit against Mannatech, the SEC, and the Mannatech corporate website. What are the pharmaceutical industry sources you are talking about? Ante lan ^talk 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those interviewed or cited by those sources work for the pharmaceutical industry and those particular articles certainly are not neutral, each of which aim to support the pharmaceutical-biased sources. The lawyer who is bringing a class-action lawsuit against Mannatech is obviously not neutral! Also note that there is a financial tie between ABC, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes (a very large sum of monthly revenue) to market their present drugs and future drugs, yes or no?

The lawyer is certainly not neutral, but neither is Mannatech, which is also cited. You say "Also note that there is a financial tie between ABC, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes (a very large sum of monthly revenue) to market their present drugs and future drugs, yes or no?" Can you please provide evidence for your claim of monthly revenue as a financial tie between ABC, TWSJ, and Forbes to "market their present drugs and future drugs"? The Forbes article that is cited lists Mannatech as #5 on its list of "200 Best Small Companies" in 2006. It seems strange that Forbes would be in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry but tout Mannatech so highly, does it not? Ante lan ^talk 11:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article written by the media has a tie to a public relations firm but certainly many do and it's fairly easy to point those out if you use critical thinking when reading an article. Note that Angie who is the little girl in interviewed by 20/20 is publicly stating now that he literally lied in the program about some key things her doctor had said. In time I could come up with financial ties between ABC and nearly all main media and drug marketing--we all see the commercials--but we are getting on off point. The real point is why are we selectively choosing media articles and programs that have an obvious slant and are not neutral, such as 20/20 and the Wall Street Journal, when there are plenty of other articles that are clearly not biased. Even the selection of Forbes is showing biase here by trying to demonstrate in the definition that Mannatech is a cash cow success with little or not sources cited from the media about how their products may have validity and benefit. I mean this very respectfully when I say it is impossible for me to believe you do not have an agenda here. Everyone typically does. I explained mine please explain yours. There is block here (I mean this in a respectful way). What I am saying is not complicated. It is clear that the sources sited are not neutral in nature. Is it possible to tell me a deeper truth here that would explain your point of view?

You asked for my financial ties, and I said, truthfully, that I had none. You asked for my personal opinion of Dr. Carson, and I gave you my thoughts. I do not recall having received an explanation of your agenda (to use your word), although you say that you have explained it. Would you mind doing so? Ante lan ^talk 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated I have become passionate, as has Dr. Ben Carson, from what I have learned and witnessed, about educating others about glyconutrition. I onced received commissions for selling glyconutrients but have ended those associations to pursue my passion as an educator without perceived conflict of interest. You say you have no ties and I believe that. But you haven't stated your motivation for communicating so heavily on Mannatech and Glyconutrients here at Widipedia (as shown in your profile). Everyone has a drive for taking consitent action at anything, I really seek to understand yours here on this specific topic? Particularly when you have avoided openly discussing an obvious issue with articles and a 20/20 program that are not neutral in nature -- something that any edcuated or uneducated person would agree with.

the keyword for Mannatech[edit]

mentioned on the talk page just now. I don't really understand the question or the problem you may be referring to, so could you please explain there. thanksDGG 07:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Yes, I would be very happy to and I appreciate your prompt response. First, the controversy surrounding Mannatech and the validity of glyconutrients requires a balanced sharing of viewpoints. Presently, the types of sources referenced in the Mannatech and glyconutrients definitions are very biased in favor of the 'pharmaceutical paradigm' for the treatment of sickness and disease. There are many valid sources that could be included to balance the other side of the controversy (which is the 'wellness' paradigm asking for new standards to be created to validate how nutrition like glyconutrients can compliment standard of care treatment by supporting the body's natural physiology to heal and repair itself). There are many sources from the other side of the controversy (wellness paradigm) that could bring clarity to many issues about validity of benefits, etc (in a balanded way). However, if you, as the moderator, are only seeing the pharmaceutical paradigm as your reference point for choosing valid sources then this discussion is going to be lacking the other viewpoint. If you have experience with Mannatech or their products you may already understand aspects of the other side of this discussion (wellness paradigm), and I seek to learn more about this before continuing if possible so I know where to start.Cosmochao 08:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using edit summaries[edit]

Please consider using Edit Summaries for your edits on both article and talk pages. The volume of your edits coupled with lack of summaries makes it difficult to investigate and understand your WP:NPOV issues and help resolve them. Thanks. JimDunning 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will. For clarity however, just take a look at the last few posts on the main discussion page for keyword Mannatech. Please let me know if you have interest in collaborating on creating a more neutral definition for Mannatech keyword.Cosmochao 13:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]