Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Errors need corrected

I've noticed a few errors on the Juice Plus+® page. Under the first section, it says that Juice Plus is "fortified with added vitamins and nutrients." This is not true. Juice Plus is not a multi-vitamin, but instead whole foods with naturally occuring vitamins and nutrients. I would like the real description of the product displayed on Wikipedia, and for it to read like this:

"Juice Plus is an all-natural, whole food nutritional product made by juicing over 17 fresh fruits and vegetables, then concentrating the juices into powders using a proprietary, low-temperature process. It comes in both capsule and chewable form."

Secondly, the page says that "marketing claims made about Juice Plus products suggest benefits such as reducing oxidative stress and promoting cardiovascular health." This is not true either. Marketers are not the ones to claim such health benefits. Instead, the benefits have been found by independant clinical research conducted by major hospitals and universities. I would like this section to read like this:

"The health benefits of taking Juice Plus have been found by independant clinical research conducted by major hopsitals and universities worldwide. Research has found that Juice Plus helps 1) Delivers key phtonutrients that are absorbed by the body, 2) It reduces oxidative stress, 3) It helps support a healthy immune system, 4) Helps protect DNA, and 5) It postively impacts several key indicators of cardiovascular wellness.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klhilborn (talk • contribs) (04:35, 15 December 2009)

1. The exisiting statement about fortification with added vitamins/nutrients is accurate. The statement is attributable to several sources cited in the article including (a) Watzl and Bub and (b) Rosemary Stanton. The process by which Juice Plus is manufactured, as well as the product's constituents, is already thoroughly described based on WP:RS.

2. The marketing claims referred to above are already phrased accurately and therefore should not require any modification. None of the research to date has been "independent" as suggested above (this detail is made clear in the article in the section describing the funding and coordinators of the research). The new text proposed seems like it came directly from a Juice Plus brochure. It is not NPOV and the results stated in the proposed text are innacurate overall (ie, contradicted by various studies -- see summary in article).

Also, when proposing new text, as in the the first example above, supporting references should be cited. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to mention the relevant statement from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI): "According to CSPI, the labels say the capsules contain high levels of vitamins A and C and folate naturally, but 'do not disclose that these vitamins and minerals are added to the capsules during processing and are nutrients only characteristic of the original fruit and vegetable sources'.”

The issue regarding fortification of Juice Plus with exogenous vitamins/nutrients has been a critical one, and this detail has been discussed by at 3 different expert sources (Watzl & Bub, Rosemary Stanton, and CSPI). I can't support any proposal for replacing this information with new text impying that the product is something other than what independent experts have described it as being. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin fortification is, IMHO, an important and very relevant thing to include. The whole point of the product is to not be a synthesized multi-vitamin. Bhimaji (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting point. Specifically it is often the "whole point" of the sales promotion as done by low level sales representatives, but the actual packaging and official company publications play down this distinction. There is no prove or evidence in any of the "scientific" studies that Juice Plus is any better, or less "synthesized," than other multi-vitamins. Perhaps Juice Plus has the same benefits as other vitamins, but there is nothing to suggest it is any better. It is however, significantly more expensive than ordinary multivitamin tablets. Tumacama (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps User:Jackie JP can help with information about the relative effectiveness of multivitamins and Juice Plus. Have clinical studies into multivitamins demonstrated their effectiveness, as implied above? What are the reasons for the addition of some vitamins to Juice Plus? Are the added vitamins synthetic? Is there proof that Juice Plus is "any better or 'less synthesized' than other multi-vitamins" (Tumacama suggests that this is not the case)? --TraceyR (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No Drive-by NPOV Tagging Please

Please do not insert drive-by NPOV tags on this article. Kindly refer to and comply with WP:NPOVD.

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort...you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution."

Thank you in advance for your compliance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting, verbatim from WP:NPOVD ("What is an NPOV dispute?"):

Often, authors can view "their" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it probably is not neutral—or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.

--TraceyR (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This was not so-called 'drive-by' tagging. I'm re-instating it, with good reason, per OTRS #2009112110028804 - please do not remove it again. RIR - you've been asked - gently - by three separate admins over the last 6 months to step down from your OWNership of this article, yet you have refused. Ok, it's Christmas day, and this is not appropriate for today. Consider this ongoing, but everyone needs to disconnect from this for a day or so. Especially you, RIR, given that there are serious issues around this article - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Made an edit just now prior to reading this message. Didnt see that this was OTRS, so I'll kick back and wait to see what pans out. The major issue here is not one of my ownership but rather COI editing and sock puppetry, but I welcome some additional input from uninvolved, experienced editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually everything to do with your WP:OWN issues here. Please read the note I've left on your talk page - Alison ^❤ 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone could elaborate on the POV issues that would be appreciated. As the tag was 6 month old and I was unable to figure out the reasons for it being added I have removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

USAI and Juice Plus

The article currently states: "In a critique of Juice Plus,[1] Stephen Barrett of MLMWatch remarked upon the early association between Juice Plus and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI), a multilevel marketing company that sold vitamin supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases.[8][9][10][11][12][13] State and federal enforcement actions[8][9][10][11][12][13] drove USAI out of business in 1987.[8][10][13]".

In fact this is misleading: not even Barrett makes a direct connection between Juice Plus and USAI; his 'critique' mentions that two scientific advisors to USAI (Wise and Morin) were later (co-) authors of early Juice Plus studies, but this is not an "association between Juice Plus and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI)". USAI ceased to exist in 1987, well before Juice Plus was introduced in 1993. This wording ought to be changed to make this clear. The many citations with respect to USAI have no relevance to the Juice Plus article (and are good examples of citation overkill). --TraceyR (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the latest version of this paragraph has done anything to improve the accuracy:

An early association may have existed between Juice Plus and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI), a multilevel marketing company that sold vitamin supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases.[8][9][10][11][12][13] State and federal enforcement actions[8][9][10][11][12][13] drove USAI out of business in 1987,[8][10][13] well before Juice Plus was introduced in 1993.

How can an association have existed between the two - six years went by between the disappearance of USAI and the introduction of Juice Plus. Why is there no discussion about this? --TraceyR (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

mlmwatch is the only source and is WP:SPS, and doesn't even directly address the claims made. The other sources predate Juice Plus, so quite obviously don't mention the company at all. This leaves the entire section unsourced with a series of BLP claims, at best OR, and as such should be deleted. --Icerat (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

mlmwatch is by an expert in the field. Thus restored.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, no it's not. As you're no doubt aware use of Barrett's quackwatch site has been the subject of much debate on RS/N and consensus is it should be used, at best, with care. Barret has zero "expertise" in business/multi-level marketing and the mlmwatch site is not RS. Barrett's mlmwatch piece is being used with regard to business issues, not medical ones. Furthermore they would appear to be BLP issues as well. --Icerat (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes as I remember consensus at the RS/N was that quackwatch should be used. We could bring this back there for clarification if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) there was no real consensus (b) at best it's been "with care" for "medical opinion" (c) quackwatch isn't the source being used here (d) it's not being used for medical opinion. This is very clear so I'm not sure where the conflict is? But since there is, yes should be raised on RS/N, particularly since it involves BLP issues. --Icerat (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS clearly states this is unusable. If you disagree then as a BLP issue it should remain out of the article until cleared up. --Icerat (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is referenced to more than mlmwatch. You have been removing the NEJM ref aswell. The RS noticeboard does not appear to agree with you at this point. BTW the article is not a BLP thus what you link does not apply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been one uninvolved editor comment and they displayed a failure of NPOV from the outset. WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", not just BLP articles. --Icerat (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you wait for others to weight in on this issue. I see many refs to the peer reviewed literature.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Those references are taken straight from Barrett's piece, which is OR. Without Barrett's self-published piece it would require OR on our part. If you can verify those sources say what he is claiming then I'll cede the point. From the limited amount I've been able to track down so far they don't, and can't, since they predate JuicePlus. I'm more than happy to weight for others to weigh in - so should you. BLP clearly states this kind of material should be immediately deleted. It is clearly trying to disparage these people --Icerat (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources outside of WP are allowed to be OR. There is no BLP issue with using Quackwatch, and RS/N has no issue with using articles from Quackwatch, particularly those realiting to medical matters. Shot info (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the only link between USAI and Juice Plus is that someone who used to work for USAI 6 years later worked for NAI, the company which makes Juice Plus. Why are editors so determined to include what is at best a very tenuous link? --TraceyR (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention we're (a) not talking about using quackwatch as a source and (b) the source in question is not being used for a medical matter.--Icerat (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is significant, the source is reliable, and Juice Plus distributors (past or present) shouldn't be weighing in on such discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain which WP rule prevents distributors (past or present) taking part in such discussions. AFAIK WP:COI applies to COI edits, not talk pages. --TraceyR (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI doesn't preclude participation of COI editors on the Talk page, but it states that COI editors are "strongly encouraged" to reveal the COI and it also states: "COI editing is strongly discouraged...Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.". Is everyone here in compliance with that recommendation? Has everyone with a COI refrained from making controversial edits to the article in the past? We can make COI a separate issue for discussion if its necessary, but in the meantime, this particular line of argument against inclusion of content about Wise/USAI won't fly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Both past and present distributors are welcome to participate in the discussion, and are not prevented from editing the main article, as long as they abide by the rules. One of those rules are that self-published sources should never be used for BLP material. mlmwatch.org is a self-published source and not a reliable source by wikipedia standards, and furthermore WP:BLPSPS explictly states that self-published sources should never be used for BLP material. That's exactly what's happening here. RIR, instead of trying to discourage people from contributing to wikipedia, I suggest you instead try abiding by the rules yourself. Tracey, you are encouraged to join the discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard, here --Icerat (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As per the BLP notice board mlmwatch has been deemed a tertiary source created by an expert in the field. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) that's not true (b) even if it was, so what? I repeat the policy you keep ignoring - "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject"self-published source"--Icerat (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is no one else agrees with your interpretation and you have an obvious WP:COI Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) Lay off the childish and false personal attacks (b) Which part of "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject"self-published source" are you disagreeing with my "interpretation" of? --Icerat (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So after being blocked twice in one week for edit warring,[1] Icerat comes out swinging -- i.e., wikihounding me and wikilawyering about a straightforward factual statement. Stephen Barrett and the Quackwatch network of websites are considered reliable sources and are cited in many WP articles,[2] in addition to having been cited and lauded by many high profile, extremely reputable, and authoritative organizations.[3] Aside from trying to attack the reliability of the source, no one has disputed any of the facts in the matter. I could perhaps understand apprehension if Barrett had said something about Wise/USAI that was contentious or contradicted by other sources, but that’s not the case. Barrett merely remarked on the fact that one of two of the authors (Wise and Morin) who were responsbile for most of the Juice Plus research were previously key players at USAI, which is a well known extremely high-profile MLM/vitamin/pyramid scam. Is anyone seriously questioning his expertise to make such an observation? What he said was painfully obviously true. Wise was a key player at USAI (an extremely controversial company). Wise did author most of the the JP research (which has been widely criticized by very reputable secondary sources) and Wise had a considerable financial interest in Juice Plus (well documented and undisputed). All of Barrett’s observations can be easily confirmed by other reliable sources. This is an airtight slam dunk. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You sure are right that it's an airtight slam dunk. It's a self-published source being used for BLP information. WP:BLP explictly says it's out - indeed it even says it should be removed while under discussion. You and Doc James continue to completely and utterly ignore this. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF BARRETT IS THE WORLD'S FOREMOST EXPERT ON JUICEPLUS. It's irrelevant, we don't need to argue about it (not for this particularly issue) - though you're also wrong about acceptance of Barrett's sites, WP:RS/N is clear it should be taken on a case by case basis and generally avoided if possible. --Icerat (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

To repeat, these are incontestable facts from a de facto reliable source about a non-controversial issue. Icerat must stop this wikilawyering and wikihounding (the latter is yet another troubling example in a long line of disruptive and tendentious conduct on Icerat’s part -- it shows very poor discretion to pick a new fight with me on this page right after the expiration of a second block for edit warring a few days ago). The community is telling Icerat that he is wrong on this issue but yet again he won’t listen.[4][5] Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, WHICH PART OF WP:BLPSPS are you disagreeing with? --Icerat (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch isn't just Stephen Barrett, as RS/N has determined several times in the past, so it's disingenous to keep using SPS. I'm find it difficult to see the stretch in even applying BLP. In anyrate, consensus is that the source is ok, one editor disagreeing does not fail a consensus per CON. But in saying that, if you keep disagreeing, take it RS/N. Don't forget that people have called for outside viewpoints and they have started to come in. Continuing to argue your viewpoint(s) in the face of more editors is merely an exercise in IDIDNTHEARTHAT which tends to divorce one from consensus (which then leads to editwarring and the inevitable blocking then topic banning). Shot info (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Icerat: I am following this page, and while I haven't done anything yet, please include me when listing editors who disagree with you. So that's Rhode Island Red and Doc James and Shot info and me. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Bruce Grubb, and possibly AndyTheGrump as well over on the BLP board.[6] This is getting to be a huge problem with Icerat. Fringe POV positions, contentious editing, edit warring, wikilawyering, and ignoring community input. To resolve even the simplest matter requires endless futile debates and numerous posts on various noticeboards that require the attention of multiple editors. This is getting to be a ridiculous waste of WP resources, and when combined with the user's apparent COI issues this case just screams for a community ban. An editor with any good intentions would take a time out after being blocked twice in one week,[7] but instead this one is intent on charging head first into battle. It's got to stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet NOBODY CAN TELL ME why WP:BLPSPS does not apply. Is it self-published? YES. Is it being used to report information on living people? YES. --Icerat (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually I can see in the thread above various editors telling you why they don't believe it. The fact that you don't appear to be getting it is one reason why you feel frustrated. Let it go, take a break, you don't have to win every battle here in Wikipedia, move onto the next article, they're plenty of them out there that need editing. Shot info (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Treat my like a 5yr old. Explain to me, in simple terms (a) how the source isn't self-published (b) how this material does not relate to a living person. Despite your claims nobody has yet done that. --Icerat (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP refers specifically to material that is contentious. It's not contentious that Wise was a senior executive with USAI and NAI, that he authored the majority of the research on Juice Plus, or that the research has been widely criticized by RS sources. There is nothing contentious here. I second Shot info's appraisal regarding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and his advice that Icerat should move on to other articles, particularly given that Icerat's actions here constitute WP:HOUND and he is repeating the hounding now on a second article John A. Wise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) your are incorrect in your characterization. I quote. AGAIN. Direct from WP:BLP - Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject . Which part of this do you not understand? (2) The text you are insisting on including is clearly disparaging and contentious.--Icerat (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone actually checked whether Wise "authored the majority of the research on Juice Plus", or that "the research has been widely criticized by RS sources"? The first statement could easily have been validated by "an editor with good intentions": I checked a list of 10 studies published since 2000 (summarised in the Swiss Journal of Nutrition Medicine (SZE) in 2008 here (in German, but the list is self-explanatory)) and found that he was the lead author in precisely none of these studies; he is mentioned as a co-author in three of them. So the above claim that "there is nothing contentious there" is false. The second statement ("the research has been widely criticized by RS sources") is vague enough not to be verifiable and is therefore unencyclopaedic and possibly contentious - it's hard to form a judgement. It is also contentious, actually impossible, for there to have been "an early association between USAI and Juice Plus", for the reasons mentioned several times above. As for lecturing another editor about hounding and contentious editing, I would have thought that Rhode Island Red, having recently sat out a 6-month ban from Wikipedia for hounding an ex-Juice Plus distributor, would exercise a little more caution before making such accusations. He's the one who should be moving on (or perhaps back - to all the articles about MLM and nutritional supplements where he seems to spend a lot of his time and claims to have an NPOV). It would be polite, before leaving, to answer Icerat's questions re WP:BLPSPS, so that this thread can reach some sort of conclusion. Surely it is not contentious (in the usual meaning of the word) that mlmwatch and quackwatch are self-published by Barrett (who, as a psychiatrist, is qualified to pontificate about neither mlm nor dietary supplements).--TraceyR (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that a Juice Plus distributor who has repeatedly deflected questions about their COI and lied about it would have enough good sense to take a back seat in these discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 May 2011

How about trying to address issues rather than continually resorting to personal attacks? --Icerat (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In reply to comments by TraceyR -- the article does not state that Wise was the author of the majority of the research on Juice Plus not does it say that he was the lead author; it says merely that he authored "several" of the studies (5 in total) on Juice Plus, which is dead-on accurate. Secondly, the section on Wise does not state that "the research has been widely criticized by RS sources". Arguing about nuances of talk page comments is even more pointless than the rest of this inane thread. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Pure obfuscation from Rhode Island Red, who knows that I was replying to his previous remarks (and who makes an unsubstantiated personal attack without having the decency to sign it!). No, the article does not state that "Wise was the author of the majority of the research on Juice Plus", but Rhode Island Red did, just a few lines above. And now we hear that Wise (co-)authored "several of the studies", whereas a few lines above Rhode Island Red claimed that "Wise authored the majority of the research on Juice Plus". How about a little character here: sign your posts, don't obfuscate and please admit mistakes, otherwise this is not going anywhere. Those who have followed this article for years will recognise these tactics, I'm afraid. --TraceyR (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

oh, you don't need to have followed just this article to recognise (and have experienced it). Interestingly on his talk page admins instructed him to no longer edit this page or face a ban. He is clearly ignoring that request. --Icerat (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record RS/N has no issues with Quackwatch and MLMwatch being used as a source. The only issue is whether or not it is in BLP violation. Can recommend it end up at BLP/N (have popcorn). Shot info (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

COI and Advert tags

Surely the addition of these tags should have been discussed here. Who is the putative COI editor? Which bits are like an advert? What about consensus? Being WP:Bold is one thing, failing to establish WP:Consensus another. --TraceyR (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree the addition of tags needs discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Juice Plus or Toxicity Plus

Interesting research:

• Juice Plus or Toxicity Plus, The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 123, Issue 1, Pages e1-e2 (January 2010)

Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This communication is indeed interesting. The authors' conclusion is: "Our patient had hepatotoxicity related to the use of complementary and alternative medicine. The injury was reversible after discontinuation of the drug. As clinicians, it is important for us to investigate our patients' use of complementary and alternative medicine, as well as prescription drugs, in the event of an abnormal liver injury or otherwise deleterious clinical event."

The authors also note the the "patient's regular medications included ramipril, calcium/vitamin D, ciprofloxacin, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, and ibuprofen". One website listing drugs' side-effects notes with specific reference to ciprofloxacin: "This list is not complete and there may be other drugs that can interact with Cipro. Tell your doctor about all the prescription and over-the-counter medications you use. This includes vitamins, minerals, herbal products, and drugs prescribed by other doctors. Do not start using a new medication without telling your doctor."

In other words, the negative interaction between ciprofloxacin and vitamins, minerals, herbal products (i.e. not just Juice Plus) was known about and should have been taken into account by the doctor(s) involved. Interestingly, in the same section the use of ciprofloxacin in conjunction with ibuprofen is also deprecated.

For those interested in the side-effects of the drugs mentioned, here are some links:

• rampiril

• ciprofloxacin

• hydrocodone/acetaminophen

• ibuprofen

This is a good example of the importance of looking beyond the alarmist headlines for the facts.--TraceyR (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice OR and deflection there, but it won't work. The scientists are trained to do what you're saying, and their conclusion was as stated. Let's face it, concentrated nutrients can have drug-like effects and shouldn't be played with lightly. That's why there are questions about things like megavitamin therapy, with newer research showing increased risk of cancers and other things when people take too many vitamins. Just because a little is good doesn't mean a lot is better. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but it really wasn't my aim to do OR or deflect anything. Perhaps it would be contructive to reflect upon the purpose of the discussion page here at WP. OR is deprecated in articles, but the function of a talk page is to discuss improvements to articles, so allegations of OR are out of place here, where background information ought to be appreciated, not criticised.

I realise that many, if not most editors here have an axe to grind; some obviously spend a lot of time trawling the web for negative mentions of Juice Plus, other are distributors who disagree with so much negativity! I don't know if you are in either category. The article you found refers to Juice Plus as a drug - which is clearly incorrect, but the authors, like many in the medical profession, live in a world of "this disease is treated by that drug", so it would have taken an effort for them to have stepped out into the real world, where prevention is better than cure. You liken Juice Plus to megavitamin therapy, but it is only a food supplement, not a treatment for disease. A quick look at the ingredients would have shown that it has small quantities of vitamins; the bulk is concentrated juice (not "concentrated nutrients" as you describe it). It would be interesting if the authors had asked themselves where the toxins came from! Also note that they said "related to CAM, not caused by it. --TraceyR (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Many drugs are preventative. There are also numerous drugs that are indicated for by symptom rather than a particular disease. Your disdain for medical researchers shines through in your attitude. Bhimaji (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I fear that Bhimaji doth generalise too much. I'm not sure how he concludes that I "disdain medical researchers". I referred to "the authors, like many in the medical profession" - please, Bhimaji, note "many", which is not a synonym for all, not even for most, at least not in my book. I am concerned that many (note: not "all") medical professionals (yes, including researchers) have yet to appreciate that many (note: not "all") diseases are preventable without drugs.

As for Bhimaji's assertion that "many drugs are preventative", this of course depends upon one's definition of prevention. One website (found using google searching on "primary prevention") states:

"The effectiveness of global and local disease prevention programs largely depends on the extent to which individuals take personal responsibility for their own health by avoiding health risks such as tobacco use, substance abuse (misuse of alcohol and drugs), and unsafe sex. People who eat healthy diets; get adequate exercise and rest; wear seatbelts in automobiles and helmets on bikes, motorcycles, scooters, and the like; successfully manage stress; and maintain positive outlooks on life are on the front lines of disease prevention. Similarly, individuals who effectively use health care resources by obtaining recommended immunizations, physical examinations, and health screenings are actively working to prevent disease and disability.
Prevention involves governments, professional organizations, public health professionals, health care practitioners (physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals), and individuals working at three levels to maintain and improve the health of communities. One level, known as primary prevention, is inhibiting the development of disease before it occurs. Secondary prevention, also called "screening," refers to measures that detect disease before it is symptomatic. Tertiary prevention efforts focus on people already affected by disease and attempt to reduce resultant disability and restore functionality."

Bhimaji's claim that "many drugs are preventative" refers, I imagine, largely to tertiary prevention. Primary (i.e. true) prevention takes effect before symptoms present. Only then do drugs (possibly) come into play, but lifestyle changes can still be effective in many cases (e.g. cardio-vascular disease, diabetes). I hope that Bhimaji has a healthy diet, gets adequate exercise and rest etc etc, rather than relying on drugs to lock the stable door after his horse has bolted! Don't get me wrong: If I develop a disease I shall probably not refuse medical treatment, but my priority is to prevent that from happening. --TraceyR (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I rock climb, tend to get about 1/4 protein, 1/4 starch and 1/2 green veggies on my plate, consume zero trans fats, and have completely stopped consuming beverages with sugar. I wear a helmet when I ski or bike. I also keep a bronchodilator handy, and take prescription medication every day.Bhimaji (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good (apart from the dilator and medicines, of course). According to the LOGI food pyramid (Prof. David Ludwig) 1/4 starch might be overdoing it! He has fruit, veg. and oils as the foundation, with starch at the top, I think (last time I looked). But there are so many pyramids and so many opinions - and it's getting way off-topic anyway! --TraceyR (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

just your stating that someone has a disdain is pointing to an obvious bias Bhimaji?! Again, this entire discussion is off topic. It is irrelevant what Bhimaji's health condition, or lack there of, or Tracey is. this article is, or should be about Juice Plus. ONE person having preexisting conditions doesn't prove Juice Plus caused her issues, stupid article if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.51.43 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article exhorts doctors to be vigilant and to ascertain whether their patients are taking some herbal, vitamin or mineral product(s) which could interfere with the drugs they are taking - something the doctor(s) in this case had failed to do. The fault lay with the doctor(s), not Juice Plus. What is incorrect and biased and reminiscent of the yellow press is the alarmist headline, which does not summarise the article's content. I had never heard of the American Journal of Medicine, but that ia, no doubt, ignorance on my part. Judging by this example alone, I haven't missed much! --TraceyR (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

doctors want health insurance to pay for drugs, surgeries etc, rather than the common sense health ensurance that all americans should be responsible for....living healthfully and taking care of their bodies! Drugs can't do what nature can--you need the drugs to cure you when you dont live as healthfully as possible. Obviously some things are not avoidable and healthcare has it's very necessary and important place, but most of what ails us is preventable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.51.43 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Out-of-date image

Since the original thread has been archived, I'm asking the question here again - can anyone provide an image of the current packs, to replace the old one currently shown? There was one for a time, supplied by Jackie JP, but for some obscure reason it was removed. The article is inaccurate as it stands. --TraceyR (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

you can google the image or grab it off of the official site, www.juiceplus.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.165.131 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. As I understand it, copying an image from a website doesn't satisfy WP criteria for image use, unless the website specifically states the the image is freely available for general use. Actually it seems that the current image was grabbed without consent having been obtained, but it would be better to get the up-to-date image through proper channels. --TraceyR (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What could be wrong

I'm confused--what could be wrong with powdered fruits and vegetables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.29.236 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason for your question - why are you confused? --TraceyR (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

There is no clear indication of POV in this article. I have thus removed the tag. Aswell the tag was being used in third party advertising efforts per here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I would attempt to fix the POV issues if people would explain what they are. Alison place this tag over issues of WP:OWN. I come to this article as an independent editor concerned regarding this tags usage as advertising.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced Non notable

Wikipedia health claims should be based on review articles per WP:MEDRS. Much of this is non notable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Which health claims in the article are you referring to? --TraceyR (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this:

Immune system: A non-randomized, non-blinded, non-controlled study in elderly cigarette smokers and non-smokers examined the effects of Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend on 9 immunologic parameters

::I guess my concern is 1) it is mostly primary research which is non notable, reviews are required to show notability. 2) I agree that what is writen is technically correct but is written at the level of a post graduate biochemistry student 3) so my question is what is the clinical significance? One could summarize this as "No evidence shows that Juice Plus has a meaningful effect on health outcomes" 4) this does not say anything about endpoint of immune system function, it actually says nothing about the immune system as it is a "non randomized non blinded non controlled study" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the health claim is here, since the statement in the example is simply that "9 immunmologic parameters" were examined. Are you worried that very existence of the study could create the impression that Juice Plus has a positive impact on immunologic parameters and that this possible impression comprises a health claim? The description of the study as "non-randomized, non-blinded, non-controlled" is surely enough to counteract that impression. Having said that, several of the changes detected were highly significant: From the abstract - "Results: Significant increases were found in the serum antioxidants when baseline values were compared with day 80; lutein/zeaxanthin (p < .005), α-carotene (p < .0001), β-carotene (p < .0001), lycopene (p < .05), and α-tocopherol (p < .005). Spontaneous proliferation of PBM cells increased significantly (p < .0001). Natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity significantly increased at effector to target cell ratios of 100:1 (p < .0001), 50:1 (p < .0005), and 25:1 (p < .005). Supernatant from PBM cells stimulated with phytohemaglutinin (PHA; 10 μg/mL) resulted in significant twofold increases in interleukin-2 (IL-2) (p < .0001)." I'm well-versed in meither statistics nor biochemistry, but my understanding is that significance starts at p < 0.05, so e.g. p < 0.0005 is two orders of magnitude more significant. Would a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial have produced different results in these subjects? Unless the trial is repeated with a stricter protocol we'll never know. But even then, this wouldn't constitute a health claim, as long as the relationship between phytochemical levels and health outcomes remains conjecture. --TraceyR (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No my concern is that this type of evidence is not notable ( ie not encyclopedic ). Are there any review articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW an unblinded uncontrolled trial cannot demonstrate "including stimulated T-cell cytokine production (IL-2, IL-6, TNF-α and IFN-γ) and the activity of various immune cells (peripheral blood monocytes, natural killer [NK] cells, T-helper cells, and cytotoxic T cells)". A controlled experiment is required to demonstrate this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any review articles that mention this study. However, given (1) that this article is about a food supplement and (b) that there aren't many food supplements with the number of published studies which are available for Juice Plus (i.e. studies, some of them RCTs, done with the product itself, not one or more isolated components), would it not be unencyclopedic not to mention them? Of course we also need to ask whether WP:MEDRS is relevant for an article about a fruit and vegetable juice concentrate. It's not a drug, after all!--TraceyR (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The DASH diet has review articles that discuss it ( but our page could sure us some work ). There are no reviews on this stuff this I question its notability. It does not matter greatly. It does due a decent job balancing the points. It just could be summed up in 25% of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)