Talk:Mannatech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Earlier this year I stumbled into what turned into the most acrimonious and least-well-resolved edit war that I ever hope to see, the one involving glyconutrient. I had no idea where some of the other editors of that article were coming from and I really didn't understand why they were so vehemently insistent that their perspective dominate the article (which, incidentally, it currently does.)

The information I've added to this article, Mannatech, immediately places everything into context - it's about money, and particularly, multi-level marketing. It should have been obvious from the beginning, no? -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC

In answer Ikkyu2's bemusement, there are three primary groups editing Glyconutrient: (1) the anti-Mannatech, anti-glyconutrient editor(s) that had attempted to blank & prematurely delete the whole subject, then tried to damage or to negatively dominate the article, in some cases appearing to have a potentially competitive interest with related components; (2) the editors who see technically based literature relevant to "glyconutrient" components and felt that a NPOV descriptive article was in order to address the science, food sources, the marketing, the use of these mixtures to a public that has few good sources of information to get beyond the ubiquitous marketing spamlinks; and (3) the episodically recurring marketing representatives who try to inject company name, spam sites, marketing claims & hype into the article, including the notorious "8 essential sugar" nonsense alleged as a ploy to support a thin, dubious patent and to misassociate their product with the work of recent Nobel prize winners. Ikkyu2 was the able referee in the head-on collosion of 1 & 2 principals above, both of whom got more than they bargained for.--I'clast 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 reverts 2 Advert? 3 stem the tide 4 pov signs 5 Further background to Mannatech 6 The 3 scientists mentioned 7 Products and Scientific Evaluation

[edit] reverts

I've added references for the stmt. The substantiation gap occurs concerning cellular assimilation of the 8 specific "essential" sugars and, to a slighly lesser degree, hydrolysis of the polymers in the small intestine. There are apparently positive failures, or at least great difficulty, on cellular assimilation of some/most of the sugars after glucose 3 maybe 4 sugars absorbed, from Talk:Glyconutrient. This is an entirely different issue than glyconutrient benefits that may be associated with or that originate with gut related problems, which should be the primary basis of techinical references for "glyconutrients".--I'clast 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advert?

The laundry list of products in the article makes it read more like an ad and less like an encyclopedia article about the company -- Whpq 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest, I've explained the situation at length User talk:Mfiddy.--I'clast 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stem the tide

yep, it's an advert, IMO. Please help me clean this up with NPOV!! True manna 00:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take a few runs at it. I'll help as needed.--I'clast 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, will do. is there a way to block you know who from this page?True manna 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors from various walks of life are welcome at Wikipedia, simply they are asked to attempt a neutral point of view (NPOV), to provide reliable, verifiable references. Sometimes this is difficult and points of view clash. Editors should discuss them as knowledgeably & fairly as possible. In this area, I am sure some editors, past and present, have been exposed to well prepared, convincing marketing materials where even for highly degreed individuals it can be hard to independently spot the flaw(s) if not intimately familiar with the field. However, when these flaws are surfaced, they should be much easier to correctly resolve for the majority. As for "blocks", there are various mechanisms to lock the articles, administratively block errant editors, discuss & vote (RfC), and to discuss & arbitrate (RfArb), let's try reason, facts, discussion and editing first.--I'clast 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, did a major pruning to remove the laundry list and re-organized into headings. we'll see how this flies. I'clast, thanks for the help and cleanup on the links, etcTrue manna 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. You've made some major changes, I'm pretty sure we'll see a response. Hopefully it will include measured improvements. I have moved your last sentence, here, for discussion because there several issues that affect it: (1) It concerns Sam Caster, I think still a living person, we have a policy called WP:BLP that is pretty stringent about negative material, so we get out our radioactive tongs and look at this a little more carefully; (2) It isn't really a current issue, Mannatech said "I'm sorry", we have made appropriate changes and cleaned up the mess (I know,...), so it is a historical background issue; (3) presented exactly as it is, without more context, it is something of a poisoned statement, so I would recommend that it be worked in a better way with other historical material; (4) one might choose a better source, Jarvis' essay is of course entertaining but with a definite POV, see (1), and NCAHF may not be a reliable source (it is very small with a checkered situation, of which you can see I have my own doubts) taking on a megabuck corp with lawyers. It can be hard to tell where they bury the knife (errant POV) in these things. So again let's handle with care, as well as due respect for the feelings and hopes of other new editors.--I'clast 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, fair enough. thanks for the help. in the end, a balanced article is what we're aiming for, after all. 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i've looked over the new article referenced by Mfiddy and concluded it can stay, but that it needed further context. it does discuss clinical trials for MT products, but the results do not necessarily help the case for MT. The article has almost a NPOV on glyconutrients, but its presentation as proof of meaningful clinical studies (as suggested by Mfiddy) was lacking. hence the re-write. I've also re-introduced the link to the Texas AG article. Mfiddy, please discuss your reasons for wanting to trash that link here before just deleting stuff. thanks. True manna 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pov signs

POV sign moved [here]. The POV sign says see Talk - there is no such discussion. Also the Intro and Product sections look pretty neutral to me, if sparse, so the article-sized ((POV)) sign does seem inappropriate. It is good practice to write the Talk part first, *then* do something major. This helps all understand more clearly, slows down hot edits, reduces edit conflicts (two or more editors writing at the same time), and reduces hard to defend stmts by thinking & spelling it out first.--I'clast 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further background to Mannatech

The link below is a letter written by Sam Caster (Founder of Mannatech)in reply to Dr Jarvis of Quackwatch - I hope it will clarify some of the 'mixed messages' https://associates.mannatech.com/CAN/UnmixingMixedMessage.pdf

Cheers Mfiddy 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

this letter, while giving us Caster's opinion, brings no new evidence to the table. The "explore" article is a good reference (it's peer reviewed in a respectable journal), however, it does not show "promising" results. not even the authors go that far - they discuss the limitations of the studies. Amazing how the tone from MT scientists changes once they publish in a peer-reviewed journal.

Mfiddy, your last edit was certainly NOT from a NPOV. If you make your point that aggressively, and missrepresent the facts to do it (there is certainly a class-action lawsuit -which, ironically I have yet to post anything about - and the Texas AG has released a statement saying they are investigating MT) then chances are it won't be considered NPOV. If you want to promote MT, that's fine, but not here. Wikipedia is for balanced, well referenced information - not personal opinions. Please get in line with the Wiki ethos and discuss your proposed changes/concerns here before making major deletions again. thanks. True manna 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mfiddy, I've now looked over the Kornfeld & Kornfeld reference. Are you claiming to understand this article? It's pretty technical. I can understand it (I have a PhD in Cell Biology, which encompasses glycosylation) and I can tell you that nothing in that article has anything to do with glyconutrients. Nothing. Zip. Nada. It has to do with glycosylation - the process by which carbohydrates are attached to proteins, and the subcelluar compartments and enzymes involved in the process. There is NO evidence that the human body requires carbohydrate supplementation beyond glucose. There is overwhelming evidence that the body can convert glucose into any sugar it needs. Thus there is no need for glyconutrient supplementation - you might as well eat table sugar - and thus any clinical trial for glyconutrients will come back as having no effect unless it is open-label (and the response you see is merely placebo effect).

Unless you can provide documented scientific evidence to support your claims please stop reverting my edits. If you can find such evidence, by all means, post it. True manna 05:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be careful about positively asserting placebo not well cited, given what the various formulas are, vs simple carbs. They variously have components that can include (1) various large, indigestible polysaccharides fermented in the colon with variable, claimed enhanced yields of n-butyrate (the most favorable organic acid) similar to indigestible, prescription lactulose, (2) some specific higher polymers of which may have gut immunostimulatory properties, (3) some formulas have physiologically interesting lower peptide components, (4) some sugars, like glucosamine, are functional for other reasons. I have to say these things have a largely empirically based following, but I am not dismissive because some of us can see valid, conventionally recognized mechanisms as well as some interesting claims of clinical results. That said, MT is liable to many criticisms.--I'clast 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm using "glyconutrient" in the sense of "something your body digests and absorbs". I'm not sure what "nutrient" might otherwise mean. Yes, fibre has known beneficial effects, some of which might be due to limited fermentation in the intestine, but I've yet to find any claim from MT that their products work based on fibre. Yes, there are some known effects for things like glucosamine - fair enough - but MT doesn't sell or pitch it. Every MT claim I've seen is trying to convince consumers that they need to supplement what they style as essential sugars - and monosaccharides at that. The K&K article is classic - as linked by Mfiddy, it is a huge, dense, technical review article, followed by an added page in the PDF that then makes all sorts of wild claims that have nothing to do with the article. The idea is to overwhelm the consumer with stuff they haven't a hope of understanding and then fool them into thinking the science supports their claims. As a scientist this irks me - especially since MT's scientists should know better- <sarcasm>perhaps they have a conflicting interest?</sarcasm>. True manna 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right of course about the COI, misnomer & malapropism aspects. It would appear the vendors need things like the starch fillers so that even some part digestion makes the funky claims vaguely literal for *any* monosaccharide (glucose). The way that this problem has been handled here for the commercial "glyconutrient" mixtures sold & identified as "glyconutrients" is to address the general category as a fiat accompli and then say, well what's in them and what do they do? Else how do we address the "thing" in a manner identifiable to an otherwise ignorant public? (I'm wary not dismissive) The idea being that an empirical approach might still have some means of perhaps having 2-3 more informed shots at "try different versions", see what you think, dump the mysticism & plain hucksterism. Also this approach provides a rational basis for generic shopping or self formulation. Certain mystic & monopolistic entities charge upwards of $500/lb, whereas other well known formulas, that are not identical with identifiably different active components/sources, and probably serve a different perhaps overlapping group, probably can be small batch formulated for ~$15/lb. Probably, if these things were ever intelligently rationalized, a Costco/Sam's would be able to do meaningful versions for $10-20/lb from existing sources. (MT's original formula actually has some components that are *somewhat* more expensive and have technically interesting claims)

There has been speculation on the internet that one of the orignial driving forces for the "8 essential sugars" bs was to create a basis for the "new and unique" legal as well as marketing claims, given that the componenets have often been items of commerce, medicine and foodstuffs for literally centuries and millenia. I don't have good or magic answers for how to deal with the misinformed momentuum of literally thousands of spamsites and books, other than here, focus on mechanistic and factual information in NPOV stmts in the articles and explain clearly the situation. I've had hopes that a more expert medico-scientist type with a more independent clinical b/g would edit the glyconutrient article to deal with a number of issues that could fill in the clinical b/g more like the lactulose literature and better organize & present the true, conventional literature references (you can find some of them in the debris of the glyconutrient Talk meltdown from early 2006).--I'clast 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 3 scientists mentioned

are clearly living people. Do they accept the statement of the company that they are directors or advisors, or do they not currently hold such a role? I would be leary of even referring to them in this role without their consent. The company refers to at least one of them as having received a grant from the company. Ditto. . DGG 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Products and Scientific Evaluation

The products and scientific evaluation section comes off as POV. The contents of the section do not actually address scientific evaluation. It is a list of doctors who have associations with Mannatech. What it contributes to the article is unclear.

Consequently, I am recommending this section for deletion. The first sentence (As of December 31, 2005, the company offered 25 nutritional products, 3 topical products, and a weight-management system consisting of 4 different products. Mannatech is most widely known for Ambrotose, its lead product.) could/should be merged with the preceding paragraph. Antelan ^talk 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)