Talk:Protandim

Advertising and sponsorship

I've made a new addition about Elizabeth Somer, one of the people hired by the company for PR, in the advertising and sponsorship section of the article.[1]. The entry includes a couple of online citations and I'm worried about their shelf life, so I have included verbatim quotes of the material from these 2 sites (as it appeared yesterday) with the citation notes for verification should the link go dead.[2][3] For the Primadonna PR footnote, I added the following material quoted verbatim from the webpage:

This Primadonna PR webpage shows Protandim as part of the company’s portfolio of clients. Services provided by Primadonna included: 'increased public awareness of the health supplement considerably through a strategic partnership with nationally recognized nutritionist and author Elizabeth Somer'; 'successfully placed Protandim on ‘Today’ health segments—twice in one year—leading to dramatic spikes in Protandim’s Web traffic'; 'coordinated successful media tour during which Protandim was discussed on more than 20 local television and radio stations, including the nationally syndicated Health Radio Network; and 'landed interview for Protandim scientist with More magazine, which resulted in coverage in an Anti-Aging special section'.

From the Elizabeth Somer's blog, I added the following verbatim quote from Somer as a footnote:

"Not only have I heard of Protandim, but I was the spokesperson for the product the first year it came out. Dr. Joe McCord, the researcher that first discovered the antioxidant enzyme, superoxide dismutase, developed the supplement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Recent edits

Rhode Island Red you reverted my recent edits - which I explained with edit summaries and which are in my opinion very obvious improvements (natch ;)). Do you have any material objection to them or are you just objecting to the WP:BOLDness? Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but it was rather drastic and looks like it threw the baby out with the bath water in many cases, and there was no consensus or discussion about these major revisions, so I am reverting back to the original and suggesting that we begin discussion here. Cool? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really, as I have no idea what you want to discuss. Just reverting because there hasn't been "discussion" is bad form, and inhibits improvement to the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies if I wasn't clear enough. When I referred to throwing out the baby with the bath water I meant that it looked like in many cases large blocks of texts, which seemed to be properly sourced, were deleted for reasons that are unclear. Since so much material was deleted it seemed that the simplest way to approach the edits would be to revert back to the last stable version and begin discussing proposed changes here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit summaries said it. We have a bunch of fringey medical material sourced to unreliable sources; unsourced material and material/WP:OR which fails WP:V. All of which you have now made yours by re-adding it (there are other minor problems like use of honorifics). I am just baffled by your wanting this stuff. I'll raise a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, since your edit was reverted, the onus is on you to justify the edits. Can you please cite specific instances of unreliable sourcing? I have no issue with changes to honorifics BTW. Just would like to get some clarity on the edits you are proposing beyond the short summaries that were provided and which in several cases did not seem to me to be accurate. Editorial discussion is a good thing. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed that you you modified the intro to include statement that it is "marketed with bogus claims..." I agree with that characterization fully but I don't see a source that backs it up. Do you know of one or was that editorializing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As an FYI, WP:BRD states: "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." So, in keeping with that policy, please feel free to discuss. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD is just an essay, and often unhelpful (it can be used to stonewall). WP:V is core policy: by adding this stuff back you have taken responsibility for it. Alexbrn (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The onus is on both editors — and Alexbrn has provided examples of specific instances of bad sourcing, through the use of edit summaries. Certainly his edits do not have the benefit of WP:IMPLIED consensus, that is to say they are not WP:STABLE. However, the onus on you Rhode Island Red is to at the very least bring forth a rationale, beyond "that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater". When removing content for violation of WP:RS there is no requirement to guide those on the talk page through the policy — and the only way you can defend it is through saying that the content is WP:RS, at which point there is a debate. For now, it's just you being wrong. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nevertheless, WP:BRDR states:

• "Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit"
• "Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit"

Both of these don't seem to have happened before this revert - edit summary: Gutted without consensus. "Gutted without consensus" is not a valid reason for reversion. Nobody needs consensus to make an edit: the assumption is always that the editor intends to improve the article. But you do need a valid reason to revert. The previous edit summaries seem clear enough: trim primary sources / fails WP:V; cite reviews, don't write reviews; rmv. primary; etc. is there a disagreement with removing primary sources from a medical article? If not, why restore them? --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This could lossely be defined as "a medical article" but it is in fact not a medical article becuase the subject in question is not medicine nor is it intended to be such. It is merely a product. WP:PRIMARY does not preclude the use of primary sources; it merely states: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". So merely saying that something in the article was backed up by a primary source is not sufficient reason to delete it. I also disagree with many of the instances in which it was claimed that the material failed verification. Implicit in my reversion was the notion that the material in question does in fact pass verification and is reliably sourced; hence the reversion of the edit. Once challenged, the editor has a responsibility to provide a more detailed explanation. Also restored was an unsourced description of the product as bogus. Again, as I stated above, I don't disagree that the product is bogus, but the claim is unsourced and my query has so far been ignored. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ledes summarise bodies; bogus is a fair summary of the conclusion of the SBM source and FDA warning, and per WP:PSCI we need to be up-front about fringe claims. So anyway, now at last we have a reason for reversion. You think primary biomedical sources are okay here and WP:V is satisfied. So could you point me at the source which (per WP:V) directly supports this bit of analysis: "Thirteen peer-reviewed research studies of Protandim were published as of 2013; all but two[29][4] were conducted in in vitro or in vivo animal models. Twelve of the studies were conducted, authored, or co-authored and/or funded in whole or in part by LifeVantage and/or its employees, or by the company's predecessor, Lifeline Therapeutics" ? This looks to me like an attempt to write secondary commentary based on primary sources. Wikipedia should be a tertiary publication (based on secondary sources). Alexbrn (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red — That statement is ignorant enough to immediately question your WP:Competence — to the point where one may ask if you are WP:NOTHERE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll pit my competence against yours in this subject area any day. Your personal attack is counterproductive and most unwelcome. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, I'm sorry if that was unecessarily rude, but seeing as one of the most common strategies for alt-med pushers is to claim that it "isn't a medical article"; I reacted strongly. MEDRS applies to all articles, and almost never is the attempt to skirt around MEDRS made in good faith. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Carl, I appreciate your reply. I understand the itchy trigger finger with respect to alt-med pushers. However, I am the antithesis of that. I stand firmly on the side of debunking that sort of thing and my edit history proves it in spades. Glad we could get past that. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

My bafflement increases, especially when looking at the article history I see (good) edits like this.[4] Alexbrn (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It seems quite clear you understand that it is not whether or not an article "is medical", but whether it "contains medical statements". Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging Alexbrn. Understand first of all that I fully assume good faith behind your edits and I believe that your intention is purely to make the article better. Defending the product from being described as bogus is not the hill I want to die on, believe me, but it is taking great license to interpret the opinion of Harriet Hall (who said no such thing) and the FDA letter (a primary source, which also said no such thing)) to support describing the product as being bogus in the lead. I won’t necessarily fight it, but that is clearly editorializing and WP:SYNTH.

As for the example you pointed out, I have come across this issue of counting before. I’ve always seen it as a bit of a gray area. If there are 13 studies published, and it is verifiable, then simply counting them up isn’t much of a transgression of WP:OR IMO, at least not if the editors involved can agree that it’s accurate. But I also wouldn’t strongly object to not doing a count if there are no secondary sources that have done so.

Also, making comments about the funding sources in a research article is not WP:OR if it is clearly stated by the authors of the article in question that there is a conflict of interest. I’ve seen similar cases like this where editors involved argue that it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to not indicate instances in which research is associated with COI. Anyhow, that example is not one of the ones that I took issue with the most. I was more concerned with instances in which you claimed verification failure when the sources in question actually seemed to verify the details as presented in the article. I can dig up a few specific example if you like. Probably not today though. Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: Any statement in any article that makes a biomedical claim is required to meet WP:MEDRS. That is intended to make sure that only the best quality sources are used for biomedical information. It encourages the use of secondary sources such as reviews, systematic analyses and position statements from major health bodies. Take the example of this edit by Alexbrn: it removed a claim about the efficacy of Protandim (clearly a biomedical claim) sourced to a bunch of clinical trials (primary sources). We insist on reviews or similar to support any conclusions (even negative ones) of that sort. You should never have restored that. When Alexbrn added the phrase "marketed with bogus claims that it is effective in treating a number of serious medical conditions" that summarised the paragraph in Legal issues regarding illegal advertising claims, cited to the FDA and reported in the media. A warning letter from the FDA is a primary source for the fact that a letter was issued, but it is a MEDRS-compliant statement of the FDA's conclusion that the advertising claims were illegal. Statements such as this by the FDA, a major health authority, carry considerable weight as far as biomedical claims are concerned and it is no stretch to characterise the claims of effectiveness for Protandim as "bogus". You should not have removed that. --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

“Any statement in any article that makes a biomedical claim is required to meet WP:MEDRS.”

I appreciate you trying to clarify that but in actuality you simply moved the goalposts. What you had said originally was that this is a “medical article”. It’s not. As I pointed out it’s an article that has business aspects, marketing aspects, and biomedical aspects. I never implied that a biomedical claim in the article wouldn’t be subject to WP:MEDRS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

“Take the example of this edit by Alexbrn: it removed a claim about the efficacy of Protandim (clearly a biomedical claim) sourced to a bunch of clinical trials (primary sources). We insist on reviews or similar to support any conclusions (even negative ones) of that sort.”

Who exactly is the royal “we” you speak of? As I pointed out already, WP:PRIMARY does not preclude the use of primary sources but rather merely states: “primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them…A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge".

“A warning letter from the FDA is a primary source for the fact that a letter was issued, but it is a MEDRS-compliant statement of the FDA's conclusion that the advertising claims were illegal.”

Again, moving the goalposts. You seems to be rather arbitrary as to which primary sources are absolutely verboten and which are absolutely OK. How about we just stick to stated policy instead of improvising.

‘Statements such as this by the FDA, a major health authority, carry considerable weight as far as biomedical claims are concerned and it is no stretch to characterize the claims of effectiveness for Protandim as "bogus".’

Actually, that statement is hugely problematic. It's taking a primary source, interpreting it (a violation of WP:PRIMARY) and substituting harshly recriminating language that was not in the original source, and highlighting it by putting it in the lead. Like I said before, I have complete faith that the product is as bogus as bogus can be, but no matter how strongly we believe that, our role as editors is not to paraphrase primary sources to fit our personal beliefs.

I stepped through the diffs, and I have these comments:

• The language about their "bogus claims", added here, is not written in an encyclopedic tone, no matter how accurate it is.
• This edit seems to be based upon a misunderstanding; SBM itself (as well as the Wikipedia article about it) says that it is a blog.
• I admire the scrupulous even-handedness in this edit, but I think that MEDRS usually supports including basic information about products, even if that means occasionally citing a less-than-stellar source. It would probably be ideal to find an academic source on the subject, but if we can't find an ideal source, then we should use the best source that we can find.
• The previous text on human-subject research was less than ideal. However, boldly blanking it doesn't necessarily result in a net improvement for readers. The best possible result is to find an independent secondary source that considers them. Towards that end, I would like to suggest that https://doi.org/10.3109/21678421.2015.1088707 be considered. It's a 2015 review article (focused on ALS), and I don't think that it's been cited in the article yet.

So IMO this article still needs some work, but overall I think that the recent edits have largely moved it in the direction of a more encyclopedic summary. If we can now improve upon this base, then that would be great. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• in terms of reviews(there is very little)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yup, medically there seems very little "accepted knowledge" about this product, other than the health fraud aspect. Part of the marketing seems to be the sponsorship of primary studies ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree with you 100%. The studies are used as marketing fodder, not to achieve any kind of scientific truth. What's really amazing though is that all of the company's RCTs proved that the product didn't do what it's supposed to do (i.e., act as an antioxidant, upregulate SOD, etc.). I'm just wondering whether you happened to notice that the summaries of the company's studies that you expunged from the article made it clear that the results were negative. I could understand removing primary sources if they were company-funded studies that claimed extraordinary properties, but when the company's own studies prove that the product is "bogus", summarizing that information does not violate WP:PRIMARY. It's also true that there are no reliable reviews in the scientific literature, which leaves us to rely on less than ideal sources like Hall's blog posts. In situation like this I'm OK with lowering the bar, as WP policy dictates for topics that WP:FRINGE or not widely covered, but make no mistake about it, her blog is a far cry way from WP:MEDRS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
      • We have the FDA source which is good. Yes, I did notice that nature of the primary sources but was not influenced by it in removing them. If we allow dodging the WP:PAGs to allow construction of an article based on primary sources that would open the floodgates to all manner of dodgy content from the WP:PROFRINGE crowd. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Alexbrn, I think there are some extenuating editorial circumstances here, one of which I alluded to above; namely, that when a company's own-funded research shows that their product is ineffective, it certainly neutralizes any WP:COI concerns about citing their research -- the finding is so definitive/conclusive that it begs to be mentioned in the article. Secondly, WP:PRIMARY does not preclude using a primary source; it merely says that caution should be exercised to not misinterpret the source. We have enough qualified editors here to do that, and that should also suffice to prevent the slippery slope to all manner of dodgy/fringe content. Various editors watching the article have managed to keep it free from such spamming for many years now, so I don't see the floodgates suddenly opening. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Rhode Island Red, PubMed lists four reviews since 2011. Have you looked at them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
        • The only reviews I have seen on Protandim in the research literature are garbage articles written by company proxies in third-tier publications. Worse than worthless -- downright misleading. If I've missed any that might be useful please let me know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I just noticed that you had asked for an opinion about this article by the ALSUntangled Group.[5] That is the only one that is independent of the company but it in an uncomfortably crappy/obscure journal. If the coin were flipped and some Protandim cheerleader were advocating for a source like that we'd probably reject it out of hand as fringe and unreliable. That said, I still think it could be used to back up some basic background details, many of which were in the previous version of the article prior to the recent butchering, like the putative mechanism of action (alleged to involve SOD, antioxidant effects, and NRF2), the results of the initial study, and McCord's conflict of interest (already mentioned in the article). The rest seems pretty worthless though, particularly the anonymous anecdotal stuff about ALS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
            • That review is in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, which is a niche-subject journal sponsored by the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor Neuron Diseases and which has a "magic number" that is almost exactly the median for a neuroscience journal and above median compared to pharmacology journals. What makes you think that this source was published in "an uncomfortably crappy/obscure journal"? (I agree with using it for general information; ALS-specific stuff is IMO WP:UNDUE.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Having a median impact factor isn't exactly a good thing (the crap factor isn't normally distributed). Journals outside the top 5-10 in any given specialty can be crap journals since they won't be typically read by specialists in the field. Often scraping the barrel at that point; e.g., desperate publishers looking to fill dumping ground journals with work that can't get published in better journals (that have more stringent standards and lower acceptance rates). I am underwhelmed by the journal not because of the impact factor alone but because it published a really bad Protandim review based on anecdotal reports about its use in ALS from one of the company's distributors. It's really bad science. The author list is ridiculous too. All that aside, it could still be cited for background in a limited context as I suggested above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think the top 5 ALS-specific journals are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If you mean what are the highest ranked journals that publish research and reviews on ALS, then that would be the top journals in neuroscience/neurology/motor diseases. There are no high impact journals that I am aware of that deal exclusively with ALS. Just like there is no such thing as a top 5 list of journals devoted to Huntington's Chorea, etc. It's just not that granular. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So you think that niche journals should be avoided? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

The newly modified version of the lead is not an net improvement IMO. The illicit marketing of the product is now given too much weight; i.e., defining the product by the marketing method as "a herbal dietary supplement marketed with unsupported claims that it can treat a number of medical conditions" in the opening line of the lead -- going over the edge of WP:NPOV IMO.

The new lead also states "The manufacturers of Protandim claim it can prevent or cure 126 medical conditions, including diabetes and cancer", citing Harriet Hall's blog, but she did not actually make that statement. She said "Its patent application said it was useful to treat or prevent an astounding 126 diseases and medical conditions". Statements in a patent applications are not the same thing as marketing claims, so the statement in the lead is inaccurate.

The new lead also mentions nothing about the claimed mechanism of action (antioxidant effects, SOD, NRF2, etc.), which seems integral as per WP:LEAD. Here's a diff edit for reference.[6] I have also raised concerns in the previous thread about citing WP:PRIMARY to justify eliminating all the study details, given that the policy doesn't preclude this information; still awaiting a reply. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there decent sources discussing the antioxidant claims? If we're to give such fringe claims space we are going to need to explain they're fringe claims too. In general, primary sources are unreliable for biomedical information, so we mustn't try to use them for that.. Alexbrn (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What!? The statement in the patent is not a "claim"? The new lede is a marked improvement over the previous version, and there is no NPOV issue regarding the false marketing claims. It would be very wrong to treat the claims without countering and stating them to be false in the first sentence. It is totally appropriate to state that the claims are false without even going into what the claims are. This is non-negotiable. As for using non-primary sources, while not officially forbidden, they are strongly discouraged, and this is the exact type of situation where they are especially bad. Also we are not going to present any alleged "mechanism of action" without it at least being supported by a secondary study, and not just hypothesized. It would be very odd to say that something does not work, then to continue with "it does not work by stimulating SOD". Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, no, a medical use patent is not a claim per se. It covers possible medical uses that may or may not pan out and my not be part of the products ultimate marketing. Also, the original patent was in the name of Myhill et al, not the current manufacturer, so the text in question went overboard. But I see that Alexbrn modified so the point is moot for now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, let's ignore marketing, because that is a false distinction. The question is not whether they make marketing claims or not, but whether they make claims — and the patent claims according to Harriet Hall: "usefulness in treating or preventing".

Now your argument is that a: "claim of usefulness" ≠ a "claim of effect"

If this is your argument, surely you jest.

You may however be appealing to the notion that patents often make claims of potential uses where application of the patented item may have use (or effect or be useful etc.) But this is another topic entirely. If a manufacturer of operative equipment claims a device for use in bile-duct surgery may have use in surgery of the urinary tract — that is a different thing than suggesting it is useful.

The secondary sources we have point out that the patent suggests usefulness, not potential use — and that the number of conditions listed is astoundingly high. All this point to it meriting inclusion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Beating that dead horse a little hard there. ;) Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Side Effects

The following text was deleted from the article on the basis of "MEDRS fail".[7] I don't see the basis for that so perhaps the editor can kindly explain which part why this section on side effects would fail the MEDRS test while the section on efficacy cites the same source and somehow passes the MEDRS standard. The secondary source backs up the primary source, and there is nothing in WP:PRIMARY that precludes citing the original article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

RCTs are primary sources. Science-Based Medicine is not a WP:MEDRS. It is maybe useful per WP:PARITY to contextualize the extraordinary/fringe claims made for this product. Alexbrn (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That explanation seems somewhat inconsistent. The side effects section as you left it still cites the company's website (not MEDRS) and SBM (also not MEDRS in your estimation), and you rewrote the effectiveness section with a citation to SBM as well. So what measure are using to determine when it's OK because of WP:PARITY and when it's not OK because of WP:MEDRS. Seems rather arbitrary. I would argue that quoting SBM in the side effects section in my previous edit[8] was no less a case of WP:PARITY; and again, WP:PRIMARY does not preclude citing a primary source as in the instance in question. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

PARITY is useful to contextualize fringe claims. I don't think the side effects claims are fringe, whereas the benefits claims most certainly are. I'd be happy to see that whole side effects section go. Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Unsupported Claims"

Protandim does have a large group of studies and supporters in the medical field. In my opinion, the term "unsupported" undercuts the overall dynamic of the product. Wikipedia is a place to show facts not opinions (WP:NPOV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.66.84 (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised to see no reference to the high-quality NIH study that showed life extension in mice.

Strong, Randy, et al. "Longer lifespan in male mice treated with a weakly estrogenic agonist, an antioxidant, an α‐glucosidase inhibitor or a Nrf2‐inducer." Aging cell 15.5 (2016): 872-884.

Protandim is the Nrf-2 inducer mentioned in the title of the paper. The present article does not mention Nrf-2, the main mechanistic target of Protandim. The article seems to be more about the history, ethics, and internal disputes of LifeVantage Corporation than about the biological properties of Protandim, which are scarcely mentioned. Not informative, not NPOV. It would be better to delete this than to keep it.

2A00:23C7:5989:8E00:15FF:31AF:329E:272E (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Should this article be moved to "LifeVantage Corporation"?

Parts of the article seem to be about the company LifeVantage Corporation rather than the medication Protandim. "Legal and regulatory issues" > "Other" mentions various cases against the company that are not about the medication. "Promotional sponsorship" is about sponsorship by the company with no specific advertisement of Protandim. Perhaps the article should be moved to "LifeVantage Corporation" or those parts of the article should be split into a separate article about the company. FrozenRabbitHole (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)