Talk:Goji/Archive 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

2805:, so that's where I started. That doesn't mean that the third opinion is in any way binding. However, since the third (and fourth) opinion did not agree with me, I did not remove the source again, but continued arguing those arguments that were incorrect (like the misunderstanding of what WP:SELFPUB means, or even the general misunderstanding about what self-published means). The third opinion was to me completely unconvincing as I failed to see any logic in its reasoning, yours was clearly better thought out but I did not share your interpretation of the policies and the precedence of them (AGF doees not trump WP:V). If multiple people come to a wrong conclusion because they miusinterpret some of our policies and assume too much good faith by just believing the statements made by the editor of the article, who has a clear 3728:- look more like product placement than useful references. Many of the links are unreliable in the mundane sense of links dying because they're at transient one-horse sites (for instance, http://www.zgycsc.com/affix/3238088/%D5%D5%C6%AC%20127.jpg). Plus it's just not done to link in mid-stream out to individual images at sites of no particular credentials. If we want images, we can find some we can get rights to. It's also bad sourcing and skating on the edge of original research to build sections saying "Wolfberry is used for X (photolink), Y (photolink) and Z (photolink)", and not a substitute for finding reliable sources that say wolfberry is used for X, Y and Z. 3174:

out and it should be permanently redacted out. The remaining items do not describe him in any fashion - they only outline the CoI on the part of the publisher/wolfberry-importing company. In addition, a grossly-misleading description of the books' coauthors as uninterested parties is debunked. Per Paul144's own description, they have no known involvement with Knowledge (XXG). Even if they are involved with Knowledge (XXG), this information doesn't say anything about such an identity - much less "out" them.

1206:"!). However, Badagnani is very right in that scientists should warn against such a nonsense. This is the biggest issue with Internet: everything is immediately available to everybody. Contrary to Velikovsky, who was shut out entirely, Dr. Mindell's sites are spreading everywhere in the web and I could not find one single site disputing Dr Marcial-Vega findings, which are often even used to support the effects of Mindell's juice (see for example the comment of Ms to the cbc investigation). 307:. I'd say that the last paragraph of the last citation summarizes it all: "Those who wish to supplement with antioxidants because they are either not able or not inclined to consume enough antioxidant-rich foods would be wise to purchase combinations that do a reasonable job of approximating the mixture found in an antioxidant-rich diet, for which there is a wealth of evidence of benefit, and avoid single-substance formulations, with the possible exceptions of vitamin C and selenium." 2331:

book can be printed within weeks of submitting a manuscript, but at a cost often reasonable to the author. The publisher in question -- Booksurge for the Gross book -- does do editorial reviews (if paid by the author), is owned by Amazon.com and specializes in "print-on-demand" publishing, meaning no physical inventory is kept (a prohibitive cost usually borne by the author), but rather prints a book from the digital manuscript when each new order is received.

31: 779:"Safety" in this sense does not only imply "free from harm" but also means that such a product must be proven specifically for the effect it is claimed to have -- in Mindell's and FreeLife's case, for each of at least 25 diseases or conditions of health. As this process has not taken even its first adequate scientific step for any one claim, FreeLife has a seemingly steep road ahead of it to present its case satisfactorily to the FDA. 3515:, an external links section isn't just a collection of "oh, and here's another interesting item about the topic" links. External links are mostly for resources that can't be integrated into the article, whereas most of these are just individual news items. If any of them have anything substantial to say, that can be integrated into the article and the item cited as a source. If not, what are they there for? 1534:"All circumstantial evidence indicates that Tibet Authentic, and with them most other goji companies, buy their berries from producers who cultivate Lycium barbarum at the northern and eastern foot of the Tibetan plateau (ed: in China), but not in Tibet. With that, the claim that “Tibet Authentic’s goji berries are certified grown in the wild on the pristine Tibetan Plateau” appears to be completely bogus." 3138:"Native Chinese, long involved in the wolfberry growing industry and with insight only Chinese could have, wished to publish a book with an English-speaking physiologist able to interpret the wolfberry nutrient data and medical literature. This was a fresh perspective on an old literature still not actively interpreted or studied by western scientists." (earlier in the talkpage, from Paul144) 905:

marketing of Himalayan Goji Juice and likewise Tibetan Goji Berries, and 2) educate parties like Uninvited who seem persuaded that Mindell's fraud holds kernels of truth. This misunderstanding was apparently combined with the mentioned complaints so was worthy of attention and respect sufficient to have stimulated withdrawing the section "Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada...".

1167:, isn't it? Even though he had some interesting ideas, he was shut out entirely, with no scientist even willing to debunk him. And the non-science-minded folks were left to make up their minds on their own. How could a M.D. just make things up like this? Did you see the part where the juice magically turned the hemoglobin dark at the end? Is it all a fabrication? 633:

derived evidence for such effects under the scrutiny of peer-review and regulatory examination as currently being conducted on the mangosteen juice product, Xango (FDA reference provided in original section). As this is precisely the process that wolfberry or any goji juice manufacturer must pass to make health claims, it is very pertinent to include in the article.

617:. Without compliance, the FDA letter warned that enforcement was imminent, including seizure and/or injunction of products. This position by the FDA essentially requires the manufacturer to abandon all unverified health claims from its marketing materials because no such research has been done, as is the case for wolfberries and any goji juice product. 2021:. If there are good non-American sources about it, use those. If the only good sources are in other languages, use those (sparingly). If the other books listed are not from reliable publishers, remove them. But this book is not a source "about itself": this would mean that the article is about either the author or the book, which it obviously isn't. 2449:

a sentence like "Soil origins in the Yellow River basin of Ningxia have stimulated interpretation about the exceptional nutrient qualities of the Ningxia wolfberry". This is sourced to Gross. It may be correct, but as long as we don't have a good source for it, we don't include it. AGF is about the motives of users, not the inclusion of material.

1531:"TibetInfoNet contacted the Prefectural Agriculture Department in Nyingchi and officials reiterated that there is no commercial cultivation of Lycium/wolfberries/goji in the prefecture to the best of their knowledge, although there is no doubt that Lycium chinense does grow naturally in Nyingchi, as in many other areas on the Tibetan Plateau." 563:, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made by the product's manufacturer, FreeLife International LLC, as stated in Mindell's booklet on wolfberries (Bibliography below). None of more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife and Mindell has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity. 2833:

Published Sources is worded in such a way that nothing is 100% excluded just by virtue of being self-published. I am open to the possibility that the book could be considered a reliable source, but the arguments above have not been sitting right with me, from a logic perspective. A lot of arguing the omissions in the policy, etc.

3780:, was very, very wrong. We can all work together to improve this article if we don't edit in a unilateral and hyperaggressive manner. That is, in fact, WP's original ethos, to which we should always aspire, because we all do want the same thing--to have the best, most encyclopedic, and best-sourced article on this subject. 1958:

long history retained in China until recently, the subject is obscure to North American and European scientists. One wonders, who other than a scientist specifically interested in wolfberry would review a book about it? So with these conditions, it's difficult to meet the criteria of peer-review as described in WP:RS.

850:," rather than trying to connect the dots ourselves. Even if the reasoning is straightforward and sound, we can't include it unless there is a reliable source that connects the dots for us. If one of you want to rework the paragraph, or find more sources, great. But it can't go back in the way it is. 3828:

The berries are marketed by some sellers as coming from "the Himalayas" or "Tibet," or "the Tibetan and Mongolian Himalayas." Those sources show such verbiage to be in current use by such sellers. That should be clear. This user has become well known for removing sources, then tagging huge amounts of

3131:

Nice catch on the (redacted to avoid "outing") CoI, Gordon - I completely missed it, and CoI changes the entire basis for discussion. I still think the claims are relatively mild, and that it's still open to debate whether it should be included, but you appear to have the matter well in hand and I'll

3007:

the publisher, Booksurge, should be viewed with neutrality. Booksurge operates a GPS digital manuscript allowing low-cost, rapid editing and print-on-demand fulfillment, requiring no high-cost hard-copy inventory which is often a discouraging cost factor for individual authors. Because it is owned by

2832:

A couple of comments by way of full disclosure, then a question for discussion on this. I saw this dispute posted at COIN, and have read through the article and the discussion on the validity of the Gross book. I agree with the sentiment that Arimareiji and Paul144 brought up, that the policy on Self

2709:

The title of the Gross book is "Wolfberry". This discussion would go a long way toward improvement of the article if you took a constructive attitude and made edits or recommendations that actually enhanced what we know about the subject. This may require reading the book which seems like the logical

2448:

I don't understand your change of heart. This self-published book is not reviewed, not used as a reference, ... but because an editor claims it is good nonetheless, you AGF and let it pass? If there are no reliable sources for some information (e.g. nutrution contents, we should not include it). Take

2318:

unfortunately has a negative connotation, implying that a self-published author only has self-aggrandizing motives for publishing. All of the books listed in the Bibliography appear to be self-published. I would assert that most book authors with credible credentials and sincere intent write to share

2260:

On the face of the arguments presented here, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Fram. But that could easily change based on the following questions, which haven't been answered: Is there any evidence of peer review, and is there any evidence that the authors are considered to be knowledgeable on the

1625:

Most of the goji berries that are sold in this country are cultivated in China, but they also grow in Mongolia and on vines in the sheltered Himalayan valleys of Tibet and Nepal, where they have been eaten for centuries and are nicknamed "happy berries" because of the sense of wellbeing they are said

1149:

As with all fabrications, myths and outlandish theories characteristic of Mindell, there exists a channel to gain credibility: publish a series of studies in good journals involving the rigors of peer-review, then build on it the way all scientific hypotheses are tested, tried under peer scrutiny and

934:

It is not appropriate to infer such benefits from abstracts of Chinese literature retrieved by PubMed, as Mindell asserts. The Chinese literature cited on PubMed is laboratory research, preliminary human research for which clinical trial design is insufficiently described, and unacceptable for making

578:

516:

For what it's worth, I object that I and others seeking the truth about wolfberry have to respond to a heavy-handed administration of this article and the misinformation promoted by commercial motivations. It should be those parties having to state their case here first on the Discussion page -- that

436:

The third paragraph summarizes a possibly related case involving a mangosteen juice product and speculates that the FDA action taken with regard to that product may auger similar actions with regard to wolfberry juice products. While perhaps true, it is not our place at Knowledge (XXG) to infer such

428:

The first paragraph of the section in question contains leading text that presumes that FreeLife International has made "numerous unverified health claims" and that "none of the more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife...has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity." The first statement is

335:

nothing more than the ongoing attempts of a medical profession dominated by the pharmaceutical business. The trick is not to condemn such articles outright, but to use the information contained (from all sources) to find truth. And truth, in medical "peer-reviewed" articles, is sadly hard to come by.

188:

Stefano, you must see the distinction, however, between vitamin-rich plant foods and the processed vitamin tablets, powders, or serums that were likely used in the studies you reference. There can't be anything wrong with a varied diet including vitamin-rich plant foods. Although as the new sources

2743:

I'm sorry, but you seem to be starting from a profoundly wrong point of vue: "Generally, only books that are solicited by a publisher, are a summary of a conference or are assembled by an editor would not be self-published." This is of coures not at all what is meant by "self-published" on Knowledge

2415:

If this is only a toehold that later gets rapidly expanded with new claims, I'd suspect that my current opinion was a mistake. But the claims are not unreasonable, and I think there's a lot of reason to AGF here. Fram was absolutely right to suspect a self-published book and reflexively kick it back

2339:

books that summarize literature and present tables of nutrients as done in the book by Gross et al. are outside the typical literature used in publishing new science on a plant like wolfberry. Other than by Gross, there seem to be no other authors interpretating wolfberry for the general public over

2240:

Aspro does bring up a relevant point, Fram. If the book were being used as a source for one or two "claims" statements, it would be fair to include it. (I.e. XYZ has claimed that ABC.) But when I looked at the history of the page, I can understand why you don't feel this is relevant. It's being used

2171:

The reasons for such strict regulations? In studies of foods, it's difficult – if not impossible -- to isolate the health benefit of a single nutrient (in this case, lycopene) when so many other nutrients may be at play following dietary intake, even in a well-controlled clinical trial. As a result,

2162:

This is absurd. The article repeatedly make the current lack of knowledge clear. Fram's conclusion would justify medical insurance companies making a lot of clinicians redundant, if they only paid out for medical treatments with “good” sources for effectiveness -and it would also prevent the

1492:

I added some references but even w/o them, the text needs rewording because it is opinion not fact. ie "No published large randomized double blind tests for Wolfberry can be found in PubMed" is fact but "this regulation provides important safeguards for consumers" is opinion and must be presented as

1390:

The result of such FDA review may be that the manufacturer must change the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is similar to the 2006 FDA enforcement action against a manufacturer of

1209:

Knowledge (XXG) may help people make up their mind by providing a correct information. Since The Uninvited Co. is "uninterested in doing this", it is up to us to describe Mindell's marketing operation in a more objective way. (How?) Good luck to Paul with the reformulation of this difficult section.

1145:

As a PhD physiologist, I can say the video has all the scientific sophistication of a high school science fair project where the student was given the parameters of a microscope, blood cells and a magical fruit, then asked to make up a story. Addressing any part of it may dignify it as having a gram

1116:

from youtube. I would really love to have your opinion on that. It looks like Dr Marcial-Vega decided to stop sharing his cutting edge research with the rest of the Medical world on 1994, the year of his last publication avaiIable in Pubmed. Try however "Marcial-Vega" in google and discover that his

1003:

982:

917:

That section was fine as it was, intentionally avoiding direct implication of FreeLife, but rather associating FreeLife with the source of the fraud -- Mindell. What sources are needed? I feel the CBC Marketplace interview is a respectable source. Published sources countering Mindell's writing don't

768:

In the view of basic researchers and eventually that of the FDA, the fraud is all linked. Any fraudulent statement made in relation to a consumer product is the responsibility of the manufacturer providing the product to the general public -- in this case, FreeLife, to either prove scientifically or

528:

If it is the band of Goji Juice marketers following Mindell's exaggerations and lies, let them come here where everything is fair game for debate to establish the truth. That offer has been made often in the past, still stands, and should have been Uninvited's first remedy rather than autocratically

3401:

Not for use. The "free goji berry sample" popup marks it as commercial, and Googling shows it's entirely populated with advertorial from free-syndication sites. And as a completely anonymous site (right down to the obfuscated domain ownership) with zero reputation as a source, it ain't going to be

2925:

What's the evidence of the asserted CoI? I dug around a little myself when this was first posted at 3-O, and didn't find anything suggesting it. (But that doesn't mean that there isn't something I just didn't find.) Additionally, I'm curious - how many more forums has this been posted to since 3-O?

2809:

wrt the book, then I'll continue arguing my point and look for advice from people with more knowledge of both reliable sources and conflict of interest. If this is to be an exception to our policies, then it will need stronger arguments than those yet given. I notice that meanwhile, two more people

2748:

self-published. If, however, yo sent it to some enhanced copycenter, where all they do is pack your stuff, make X copies, and list it on Amazon, all because you pay for this, then the work is "self-published". This is the case here. A work that is unsolicited by a publisher is not "self-published".

2411:

Looking through the links provided and doing some of my own digging, I see no compelling evidence for CoI. I sharply disagree that industry journals are evidence of peer review, but I'm willing to accept that there's been enough exposure that someone could have called shenanigans - and I can accept

2324:

Some of the Bibliography books are objective summaries of what is known about wolfberries, combined with scientific interpretation and no marketing intent, as in the Gross book. Others contain exaggerations, misleading statements or fabrications about health benefits with full intent for marketing,

1117:

name as a "renowned cancer specialist, Oncologist" and "recognized as being in the top one percent of medical doctors in the U.S" is only one click away from the one of "Dr Mindell" and his Himalaian Goji. His motto appears to be: "Acid Is For Batteries! Not For Healthy People". I am speechless. --

1090:

FreeLife has no responsibility to come here and make their case. Basically, where I am at with this is that the material I removed is unacceptable as written. I am on the whole unconvinced by your rebuttal. If people interested in the page are willing to fix the section so that each assertion is

987:

CBC Marketplace to Canada is like 60 Minutes or The Washington Post are to a US scandal like Watergate. I see nothing wrong with investigative reporting as a source when there is no scientific argument available. The burden of proof against Mindell's fraud lies not with me to disprove him, but with

228:

Paul, an extract from your link above: “Killer”Antioxidants? New Study Contains Serious Flaws". "Despite the widespread attention to this new study, it’s important to put its findings into context and remember that there is well-demonstrated evidence that antioxidants may improve or prevent certain

3173:

Paul144 removed a wide swath of information demonstrating heavy conflict of interest on his part in editing the article, as well as on the part of others in publishing the book he's citing. One item which "outs" him (despite its probative value in showing his MAJOR conflict of interest), I've left

2330:

Couldn't self-publishing be motivated by expedience and affordable cost, two factors important to most unsponsored authors? A solicited book defined as above might require one year to be published after the manuscript is submitted, at no cost to the author, but only by invitation. A self-published

1408:

Note to Uninvited: your process here is inequitable. Those of us refuting Mindell's claims are providing objective information based on science in support of our argument, whereas supporters of Mindell's claims have provided no evidence or written defense. In a discussion such as this, siding with

1288:

In a review of medical literature pertaining to each proposed claim, Gross et al. (2006, book chapter 6; see Article Bibliography) summarized that 22 of 23 claims had no evidence for providing a health benefit beyond that inferred from preliminary in vitro or laboratory animal research. For cancer

837:

This is the underlying story for the article section entitled "Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States". These issues were introduced before on this Discussion board (above) but have yet to see any reponse to address any claim supported with even minimum science by Mindell,

754:

Neither is the concept even a good hypothesis to test, as polysaccharides consumed in whole fruit or juice are subjected immediately upon ingestion to the acid and digestive enzyme environment of the stomach which would alter their structure -- and therefore their function -- in ways impossible to

440:

These paragraphs paint FreeLife International in a poor light and may be libellous if untrue. Since they do not meet our sourcing requirements, it is inappropriate for us to include them until the sourcing problems are addressed. Accordingly, I have again removed the text and protected the page.

3112:

Except for the chapters on TCM (translation by X. Zhang) and horticulture (translated from Mandarin by Chinese authors), the book was proposed, planned, written and produced entirely by Gross, a freelance author who approached the Zhangs for wolfberry information. Also, as best as I know, the two

1957:

An independent editorial review was submitted to Booksurge with the book manuscript. Given the subject of wolfberry is hardly in the view of American science (there are no US-derived publications on wolfberry at PubMed), it's no surprise scholarly reviews of this book haven't been done. Given its

1019:

If FreeLife has credible information to add to the Article, why is it not offered as a contribution? The answer is that they know Mindell's information is fraud but, in this case, the fraud is moving product sales at a lucrative rate. This is all revealed adequately in the CBC Marketplace report.

969:

I am not interested in verbatim content of the complaints or who made them. As you can see from the history of the discussion page and the article, no advocate of Mindell's positions has opposed what has been stated with supportable content or sources. When I suggest you "bring them here", I mean

848:

First of all, this is an article about Wolfberry, the plant. Knowledge (XXG) is not a vehicle for activism, but to the extent such material is appropriate for inclusion it would be more topical in an article about the marketers in question. Second, if we do include the paragraph (either here or

643:

Fourth, having to address these issues, Uninvited, changes the encyclopedic nature of the article, converting it into debate. I've addressed the matters as you requested, but this was not necessary. The original article is factual. If the goji juice marketers wish to contest it, they should bring

352:

Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may

3016:

in the way we respect it works for scientific or other professional literature has not been and cannot be achieved. In the functional food or beverage industry, the book is one of three on wolfberry. The other two -- by Mindell or Young as listed in the article Bibliography -- were promotionally

2529:

It would be a mistake to dismiss the nutrient data used from the Gross and Young books, as only from sources like this would the public have access to such information. Likewise, throughout the Gross book, are insights from how common Chinese perceive wolfberry's value -- from TCM to growers and

2140:

independent expert review of this book and the reviews supposed purpose . Instead one must consider the books possible merits like any other book i.e, based on the academic standing of the author/s and his/their supposed competence (this aspect has already been addressed to some extent).

2139:

Editor Fram seems so confused as to the duties of a publisher that I'll leave that area well alone, but mention it to point out that his comments about what he believe they do only help to create a 'circular augment' that leads nowhere. This last point also includes the question about any

1592:

Goji berries scored a spectacular 25,300 per 100g, while prunes, which came second, had a mere 5,770 per 100g. According to Gillian McKeith, the presenter of Channel 4's You Are What You Eat, they have 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges. They also

1177:

We know nothing about the conditions of the experiment. In vitro, in vivo or in dreamo? All the experimental conditions necessary to establish good science need to be available for the most skeptical fellow-scientists to review and even try to reproduce the results in their own labs. This is the

929:

in New York had completed studies showing that consuming goji would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways: 1) no such project has ever been undertaken at Sloan-Kettering, 2) no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown by peer-assessed research to prevent

826:

The FDA's position for these fabrications is that asserting such health benefits of Goji Juice whether by Dynamic Health ("Lycium Barbarum Goji Juice") or Healthsuperstore.com (Goji Juice by FreeLife) implicates FreeLife as the juice manufacturer making the claim, as that is the position the FDA

657:

So. here we are, with a mountain of "sources" below and above, waiting for Mindell, Freelife International and/or their disciples to come and substantiate their point of view, instead of compianing with Mr Uninvited. I am looking forward to see this article unblocked at his earliest convenience.

632:

Second, it is not my or any objective person's responsibility to provide sources for information that does not exist (as applies to Mindell's numerous health claims about goji juice benefits). In the scientific process, the person making such claims must present the laboratory- or clinical trial

626:

First, I disagree with Uninvited that an investigative reporting resource like the CBC Marketplace team, staffed by experienced reporters who had completed extensive objective research of their own, is an insufficient reference for this article. It is an open forum to reply to such reporting for

572:

251:

In addition to the NPI Center summary of reports responding to the JAMA study are other recent industry articles shown below. I believe it is valid to bring industry discussions into this analysis as industry is sensitized to the stringent requirements of bodies like the FDA to be accurate about

3200:

you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Knowledge (XXG) as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations

2987:

two of the coauthors are native Chinese with extensive backgrounds on wolfberry and the lead author is a retired scientist now a freelance author -- Gross, whose record of scientific publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals can be readily assessed using PubMed, search = gross pm. This is

1684:

A good point. The purpose of the section is to create a perspective for people unfamiliar with a plant food mostly new to the western world. The current information covers historial significance in the first paragraph with economic significance in the second, whereas nutritional significance --

1008:

I have provided above two references to current FDA actions against goji juice distributors/marketers who are making unfounded health claims similar to (or derived from) those of Mindell. By its history, the FDA will not identify similar violations one by one, but will use decisions that apply

904:

The section written under "Earl Mindell's fraud.." was not intended for the Article and, reviewing it, I don't see anything I'd want in the Article from what I've written. It is background to 1) raise a debate with proponents of Mindell and so further expose his/their fraud used pervasively in

334:

Got to say I agree with removing JAMA sources - speaking as a medical doctor, and resident of a part of China (with family ties to Ningxia, but that is another story) - goji berries are a major part of my life. In tea. But the hype against natural medical sources as seen exemplified in JAMA is

3212:

is an exception as you may derive monetary gain from editing Knowledge (XXG), due to the fact these are usually rewards for featured or good article status; which should not introduce bias. However, be wary of editors asking you to make specific edits or to "clean up a hatchet job" as you may

3028:

In the consumer industry since 2006, Gross has been the only author of science-for-consumer articles on wolfberry published online. Scientists would not seek this literature as reference support for scientific publications. One other author, Dharmananda, a PhD traditional medicine expert, has

2979:

as of early 2006, iv) a chapter on TCM written by a coauthor Chinese general practice physician with TCM training, v) the botanical origins of Lycium barbarum and vi) new horticultural methods written by Chinese scientists who permitted translation specifically for this book. As there were no

2511:

Your interpretation is counter-productive to the native knowledge, research and publishing intent of the Gross book. Native Chinese, long involved in the wolfberry growing industry and with insight only Chinese could have, wished to publish a book with an English-speaking physiologist able to

150:(There is currently no evidence to support recommending vitamins such as alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene or retinol, alone or in combination, to prevent lung cancer. A harmful effect was found for beta-carotene with retinol at pharmacological doses in people with risk factors for lung cancer) 2376:

In the final analysis, someone motivated to learn about wolfberry would have to read the self-published books listed in the Bibliography and judge for her/himself. Even in scientific journal publication of new research, however, findings and interpretations by one author may exist for years

2051:

As an experienced editor of many Knowledge (XXG) pages, particularly of the wolfberry article, I can say this article is well-referenced across subsections with science from many sources, and the books listed in the bibliography are acceptable sources of information. I don't understand your

2662:

Just like I argued in my post below, you have a significant misunderstanding of both what is and what isn't a self-publisehd book, and of what is acceptable use of a self published book. Selfpub says: "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about

1467:

I am pretty happy with the current version of the disputed section as it is now. Especially thanks to the book of Dr. Gross, each statement made is now clear and substantiated. If people still believe Mindell after reading this paragraph, that's their problem. We've done what we had to do.

751:, as none has been proved in science, postulated by other scientists, nor is it even a recent research topic of scientific interest, as there are no North American or European studies published to support the scant and mostly in vitro Chinese research done to date on goji polysaccharides. 3034:

These articles do not receive the same desirable rigor of peer-review subjected to scientific papers, but they did receive scrutiny by the editors of those online journals confidentially using referees as 3rd party reviewers. The online journals that published Gross' articles such as NPI

2975:

the book in question is a non-commercial summary of the status of wolfberry science dated to 2006. It was written as a nutritional source reference for consumers. Its contents include i) extensive nutrient data tables produced by independent contract labs, ii) discussion of all wolfberry

2762:

As long as you start from such a misunderstanding, I have a hard time accepting your conclusion. If all this book does is publishing an uncontrolled summary of previously controlled (peer-reviewed) studies, then we should not link to the uncontrolled summary, but to the original studies.

122:(Combined vitamin C and E supplementation during pregnancy does not reduce the risk of preeclampsia, fetal or neonatal loss, small for gestational age infant, or preterm birth. Such supplementation should be discouraged unless solid supporting data from randomized trials become available) 830:

The result of such FDA review is that the manufacturer must cause change in the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is identical to that underway against Xango for their

1522:"Many companies distributing goji products appear to cynically take advantage of the naivety or serious health problems of western consumers, as well as of inaccurate Tibet images in order to market a Chinese crop as a Tibetan product without providing any apparent returns to Tibetans." 2779:

I don't understand... why request a third opinion if you're going to ignore both of the ones offered? I do agree that self-published books are almost invariably full of crap, but they keyword is "almost." The statements referenced to this one don't exceed the scope of its believable

3253:

They have no interest in "punishing" you, only in getting your information out pronto. But please note that editing an article without disclosing that you have a major financial conflict of interest will also need to be dealt with, if you continue to do it after this point in time.

2407:

I'm willing to accept this as a rare exception to the strongly-suspect nature of self-publishing. The key word is nature - just as peer review is not suspect by nature but sometimes produces drivel, self-publishing sometimes produces information that's worthwhile, credible, and

1557:. Mentions Earl Mindell and the CBC Marketplace interview, FreeLife Himalayan Goji Juice, the Tanaduk Research Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company owned and managed by Bradley and Julia Dobos from their Orcas Island location in Washington state, USA and goji MLM activity. 1450:

I am a pipeline for FreeLife only in the sense that I am seeing to it that their complaints about unsourced derogatory claims are handled in a fashion consistent with our policies. I, of course, remain Uninvited throughout the project; my involvement continues nonetheless. :-)

222:

Yes Badagnani, it's definitely something to think about. I actually find appropriate your comparison with the tobacco industry: although various studies seem to indicate that (some ?) antioxidant supplements have - at best - limited (no ?) effect, the nutraceuticals industy is

522:

User Uninvited states above that "We get 100 of these a day, and in most cases no one is following the page". What does that mean? 100 what? No one is following this page? On the contrary, the wolfberry page has been under active new contributions, editing and review for many

2209:

I'll ignore your ramblings and reply to the conclusion; my objections are simple: why is this self-published book that is not reviewed (niether by scientific media nor by mainstream media), and is not used as a source by other authors, ... considered an acceptable source per

1932:, not a publisher where someone reads the books before they decide to publish them or not. No "independent editorial review" is done at BookSurge. Furthermore, a book on science should have reviews, being used in scholarly publications, and so on. This book has 21 Google hits 241:

The amount of scientific and credible industry information supporting dietary use of antioxidant-rich foods so vastly outweighs the few negative studies like the flawed JAMA report that it would be like making a synopsis of a dissertation to bring them into a point-by-point

867:

Articles about plants often include an extensive "Medicinal use" section. As the FreeLife company is one of the largest marketers of the berry in the English-speaking world, presenting it as a "cure-all" it is certainly relevant to discuss this aspect of the plant's use.

782:

To my knowledge, there has never been a peer-reviewed goji research publication by Earl Mindell and neither has FreeLife ever financed independent, peer-reviewed research with resulting publications on any aspect of the goji berry, as has been done for other fruits such as

1525:"The example of the goji berry demonstrates that, unless transparent structures are established within and outside the PRC to verify the authenticity of Tibetan products, the name of Tibet is destined to be misappropriated as a convenient label that profits non-Tibetans." 3737:

The links were crucial to the article's text and the implication that I am some sort of spammer is absolutely unacceptable! Please restore those links. Summary removal was very wrong. Further, the editor insisting on the removal does need to familiarize him/herself with

2153:

Ans. The advantage is the same as offered by Booksurge, in that you can keep all your publishing rights. It looks like that Paul Gross has done a review of the current evidence sufficient to give a qualified opinion of his own and wants to control publication of this

1150:

redefined before being acceptable to the FDA. There isn't a single hypothesis about specific health values or lowered disease risk from consuming goji berries or juice that is ready for good animal experiments, let alone statements on food labels for general consumers.

1668:

What's up with the sales pitch under "Significance?" This otherwise interesting article and discussion suffers from it, I think. At least the title of the paragraph should be changed to Economical Significance if the main information provided will be marketing numbers.

794:

A PubMed search shows that Earl Mindell has never published a research study listed by the US Library of Medicine which catalogues all medical research published in the world. This is where credible scientists with peer-reviewed publications have their work listed.

761:

In advertisements for Himalayan Goji Juice, Mindell, FreeLife and distributors or marketers of this product use the same invalid claims, as any Google search shows. The Tanaduk Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company make similar unsupportable statements on their

1723:

Is there any information we could add about the cost of wolfberries? The price runs ~$ 15/pound US for individual pounds. Considering food imported from China tends to be quite cheap, is there a reason the price is so high other than the relatively low volume?

2052:

motivation which seems narrow, limiting and exclusive. The book in question is one I have researched extensively and it stands as the best scientific, non-commercial reference text available, easily meeting the needs of RS. It deserves to stay by all criteria. --

3229:

policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Knowledge (XXG)'s ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do

2749:

Harry Potter was not solicited, but it was not self-published either. If I sent a paper to the Lancet tomorrow: it will be rejected: if I sent the same paper to BookSurge, it will be published, no matter how good or bad it is, as long as I pay for it.

2352:

Professional recommendations would fall under #1 above, but it's likely this type of book is not pertinent to the new research of basic scientists. Rather, it is written for general consumers, and may or may not be reviewed by the publisher's editorial

252:

label information. As no antioxidant chemical has been conclusively linked to disease prevention, watching the industry trends is a way to see how antioxidants will be tested to become eligible as ingredients highlighted on common consumer products. --

1791:. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging 1739:

Label anything "natural/organic/ancient/magic/Tibetan...", you are out there to make big bucks. Although the berry itself is healthy and has many disease-fighting properties, blow it out of proportion to target stupid white hippies is the way to go.

3715:

I've reverted, as I agree with Ronz. This kind of overblown description of edits - "hyperaggressive, highly damaging and disruptive, WP:POINTy" - isn't helpful. Outside links within the body text are at the least discouraged and may well be against

3775:

Your highly rude response notwithstanding, the links were crucial in backing up many aspects of the text. Summary, hyperaggressive removal of them rather than reformatting or careful working together to find replacements for them, combined with

2493:

You removed the reference to the Gross book for the discussion of traditional medicinal applications of wolfberry. I am restoring that. Two coauthors of the Gross book are native Chinese, one of whom -- an MD trained in TCM -- contributed that

3855:

OK, but that small amount of information needs weighing against the overall weight of the sites, whose main aim is to sell Goji berries. Are there third-party reliable sources mentioning the claims? If there aren't, why should we even include

129:(Our meta-analysis showed no evidence of a protective effect of antioxidant or B vitamin supplements on the progression of atherosclerosis, thus providing a mechanistic explanation for their lack of effect on clinical cardiovascular events.) 89:

I don't think opinions expressed at a trade show should trump a JAMA source. We've all seen how the tobacco industry twisted facts and I don't think the natural foods industry, or any other industry for that matter, is above such tactics.

432:

The second paragraph cites four sources. Three of them do not even mention wolfberries. The fourth does but the reference does not support the assertion that "wolfberries ... require regulatory review of label and marketing claims..."

2385:

Nutrient contents of plant foods are not usually found in scientific literature but rather are generated from contract assays paid to third-party labs by growers or product manufacturers. All of the wolfberry nutrient data tabled in the

1131:. Is this one of the people promulgating the blood alkalinity/acidity theory? For about a year, people have been popping into our natural foods store asking if certain foods are "acid" or "alkaline." One guy was asking about a grain, 3060:

the book in question is a non-commercial summary of the status of wolfberry science dated to 2006 ... As there were no promotional intentions for the book other than stating the extraordinary nutrient qualities of wolfberry, there is

3864:

I asked you to stop this. If you have a genuine complaint, take it to Wikiquette alerts or WP:ANI or start an RFC or something. You've mentioned WP's original ethos: I don't recall that including constant open display of bad faith.

2870:

are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are

2178:

Likewise for currently marketed goji berries or juice, there is no health claim validated by acceptable human research criteria, as there have been no well-controlled clinical trials on goji, any of its nutrients or individual goji

1837:

The site derives from recycled Mindellian fabrications on the goji story, naturopathic nonsense on several other topics, and contains numerous spelling errors and bad writing. As it is a commercial site, I have removed it as spam.

2783:

I'm already familiar with the arguments you're still making, and could amplify them with a number of examples I've seen myself. But I still believe that this is a rare exception; a situation where those arguments don't hold sway.

2475:

The reference to the Yellow River basin soil origins was corrected to the original source last week. If there are other references in question, you should either correct them yourself or post them here for someone else to do the

1201:

I have to say that I fully agree with Paul that the clip loos very much a commercial lacking a scientific base (disclosing the conditions used and the means to reproduce his "experiments" is science's first rule - Paul, I loved

1519:"This Special Report shows that the purported Tibetan origin of goji berries is bogus... there are no indications that the berries that have swamped worldwide markets have actually been grown commercially in any Tibetan region" 1289:

specifically, four studies were reviewed in Chapter 4 of their book, but Gross et al. (2006) concluded the research was too preliminary to allow any conclusion about an anti-cancer effect of consuming goji berries or juice.

1223:

Stefano, I think we should have an article on this blood acidity-alkalinity thing. I think many thousands of people are believing in this, and it is dictating their food choices. But I couldn't find any sources about it.

993:

911:

Second, if we do include the paragraph (either here or elsewhere), each assertion must be sourced. If we're going to say that FreeLife is implicated, we must have a source that says "FreeLife is implicated in <whatever:

1267:, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made in marketing materials for Himalayan Goji Juice, a product manufactured by FreeLife International LLC and promoted by Mindell. 1704:), Significance section and data for commercial growth were edited today. Following Remmelt's comments, the commercial information was removed to the section on Commercial Products where it certainly has a better fit. -- 1178:

purpose of rigorous peer analysis in scientific research and publishing. If there is anything to be believed from Mindell or Marcial-Vega, then they should publish in one of the sections of American Journal of Physiology

727:

Mindell and FreeLife make the preposterous claim that goji polysaccharides are "master" molecules in the human body, serving as "directors and carriers of the instructions that cells use to communicate with each other"

1014:

3833:

me here and is doing the same thing. Information about uses of this plant in China have had many, many sources simply wiped away, without consensus. Careful and thoughtful discussion is needed prior to such "wiping."

3932:

that collects climate/geographical information and growing conditions in order to debunk a Tibetan origin for goji berries. Unless some third party has brought the same data together to make that analysis, it's OR.

1685:

probably the main reason users would consult this page -- may need better emphasis in a separate middle sentence. Or perhaps economic significance should be provided only in the marketing section later. Thoughts? --

822:

In both cases, there is little doubt that the marketing statements under question extend from those fabricated by Mindell (only the words are changed), as is evident from the content of the above two FDA letters.

3204:

you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Knowledge (XXG); for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are

3756:

I'm not making any such implication. I looked at the article as I found it. Please stop these attacks and statements of bad faith. As Ronz said, take it to an appropriate conduct forum if you want to complain.

2547:

It's evident you haven't read the book. Before writing off resources having potential value for the Knowledge (XXG) article, it seems reasonable to first invest sufficient research of your own to fairly assess

954:

policy is that incoming mail is confidential. I can summarize the nature of the complaints, as I have done. I cannot provide them verbatim and cannot put you in touch with the people who have contacted us.

1436:

You appear to be a pipeline for FreeLife people protecting their fraud, and are not useful to the factual improvement of this article. You should "uninvite" and recuse yourself from further involvement here.

178:

Waiting for the "clinical and industry experts" gathered at ExpoWest, I do believe that at least the JAMA citation shall have its place back in the article. And I'll be soon visiting the "Antioxidant" entry--

940:

Let's focus on revising the offered revisions so the section can be restored. And, Uninvited, when the complaints still come to you, as they will, bring them here as you should have done in the first place.

1896:

The book had independent editorial review by the publisher and is an accurate scientifically-based text, the only one available not associated with a commercial product. There is nothing invalid about this

973:

We don't seem to be making progress toward resolving the language you would deem acceptable for the relevant section on "Marketing claims under scrutiny...". Can you provide some specific feedback please?

3159:

I'm less concerned at this stage about the specifics - the book's reliability is open to analysis - than whether Paul144 has sufficient conflict of interest to not be making the call about its inclusion.

1872:. Anyone who is willing to pay the production costs can publish a book with BookSurge, and every book that is printed by BookSurge is available through Amazonand a number of other online sellers. Perv 1135:. It seemed strange to ask this about a grain, but for people like this, people can jump behind a theory with such vigor that it dictates everything they eat. What is your own opinion of the video? 2944:(since the third opinion was in my view not adequate, and this noticeboard was the most logical for these problems), and another user posted it to COI noticeboard. As far as I know, that's all. 2172:

FDA concludes there has been insufficient credible evidence to support a link between tomato lycopene in any form (as a supplement or as part of whole food) and a lower risk of prostate cancer.

1330: 1328: 1326: 1333: 913:," rather than trying to connect the dots ourselves. Even if the reasoning is straightforward and sound, we can't include it unless there is a reliable source that connects the dots for us. 1091:

properly sourced (a process which may require removing or modifying some claims), then we can put it back in the article. I myself am uninterested in doing this and leave it up to you.

189:

claim, an overabundance of antioxidants may have the unintended consequences of stopping the body from healing itself after the stresses of exercise. It's something to think about.

1234:

Badagnani, I'm copying this discussion on the one of Marcial Vega. If you agree we'll discuss over there about that. Please Paul do contribute as well: I am not a medical doctor. --

3284:

Mindell's literature is relevant in that he is likely the only Western marketer of "Himalayan goji berries" that actually states which provinces of China the berries are grown in.

3668:

I removed the links to photos. Perhaps a couple of the better images from links that aren't dead could be downloaded and included in the article instead per image guidelines? --

1587:

It's evident the author(s) of this newspaper article did not absorb information provided in the Knowledge (XXG) article. For example, the italicized excerpts below are baseless.

1933: 474:

We get 100 of these a day, and in most cases no one is following the page. I did prepare a response as soon as I protected the page, but it took about ten minutes to compose.

3924:

But it is, because (as far as I'm aware) no third-party commentator has made those observations and comparisons between where different vendors say the berries from. The whole

3687:. The latter is very important to avoid, yet you appear to be engaging in such behavior, which is quite against our project's highest ideals. Thank you for this consideration. 3069:

We can start by calling bullshit on that? A quick Google finds the book was produced by Rich Nature Nutraceutical Laboratories, which sells wolfberries and wolfberry products (

2512:

interpret the wolfberry nutrient data and medical literature. This was a fresh perspective on an old literature still not actively interpreted or studied by western scientists.

2265:

of utter tripe in self-published books. I've also seen extremely valuable information - but this is the exception, not the rule. Paul144, do you have examples of any of these?

3464: 849:

elsewhere), each assertion must be sourced. If we're going to say that FreeLife is implicated, we must have a source that says "FreeLife is implicated in <whatever: -->

2971:

defines sources as having three related meanings: 1) the piece of work itself, 2) the creator of the work, and 3) the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.

2389:

came from either the Young book or the Gross book which are two of only four sources I know for wolfberry nutrient data. The other two are from private growers in China.--

2325:

as in the books by Mindell (a former spokesperson for FreeLife, maker of Himalayan Goji Juice) and Young (owner/CEO of Young Living, maker of NingXia Red Wolfberry Juice).

1788: 287: 2752:

Another thing you state: "The publisher in question -- Booksurge for the Gross book -- does do editorial reviews (if paid by the author)". Yes, they have authors like

2377:

unchallenged by other scientists. Standing alone with that "self-published" idea does not disqualify the author from the scientific literature, as Fram proposes to do.

2412:

his credentials as legitimate. Last, on a gut level I don't smell bull5#!7 (i.e. someone trying to cover reasoning flaws or suspect motives with scientific jargon).

2297:

This discussion does have merit as it bears not only on the objectivity of self-publishing but also on all of the nutrient data mentioned in the wolfberry article.

3077:. The two other co-authors, Richard Zhang and Xiaoping Zhang are the founders of Rich Nature. And it was just written out of sheer fascination with wolfberries? 2349:

In the functional food industry where books of this nature apply, there are limited reviews of published works. I have searched but did not find any book reviews.

3225:

encourage you to avoid editing Knowledge (XXG) in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Knowledge (XXG)'s

2360:

Parts of the wolfberry book by Gross have been republished in online industry journals whose content is peer-reviewed and approved by an editor/publisher, e.g.,

2013:"An independent editorial review was submitted"? Either you are making this up, or you are very closely connected to the author... Knowledge (XXG) is not about 1368:, rigorous standards of scientific evidence will be required for FDA approval of health claims made for natural food products such as those from goji berries. 918:

exist because scientists would not waste their time arguing with such nonsense.... as I am doing now. Science does not create sources for untested hypotheses.

715:

Not one of the 24 claims listed in his book nor the claim made by Mindell in the CBC Marketplace interview that consuming goji berries or juice prevents cancer

316:

In other words, "there can't be anything wrong with a varied diet including vitamin-rich plant foods". Badagnani said it first. (Ahhh, the good-old "synergy").

115:(Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.) 1620:

Li Quing Yuen, a JK Rowling character created by the wave of a wand? What reasonable person would believe this? More misleading fable perpetuated by Mindell.

1316:; specifically, there are no completed or ongoing clinical trials in the United States testing the effects of goji berries or juice on breast cancer outcomes 988:

him or his supporters to provide scientific evidence for his statements (which of course do not exist, explaining why they do not contribute to the Article).

2582:. If the only information is in unreliable sources (not meaning they are incorrect, only that Knowledge (XXG) policies don't consider them acceptable), then 2340:

the past two years. There have been numerous publications of research papers that cite other journal literature, as shown by searching "wolfberry" on Pubmed,

774:"cause the product to be a drug" (see example letters about goji and Xango below) requiring all the stringent peer-evaluated research that drugs must achieve 1796: 2136:

to be made on each individual source regarding its suitability for inclusion. Therefore: Self publication is in itself not enough for automatic exclusion.

136:(We found no convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements have significant beneficial effect on primary or secondary prevention of colorectal adenoma.) 2992:

for scientific and NPOV interpretation. The only other way to assess objectivity of Gross' writing is to read the book and numerous online articles, e.g.,

2112:

Second sentence: For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are

1654:(only visible when editing). Experienced editors, will I am sure, just be able to ignore it; as will -I think- most of the spammers but there we go. -- 409:

An abuse of admin powers RFC is going to be implemented immediately unless the editor playing games with this page begins to present his/her case here.

2578:

It is not the function of Knowledge (XXG) to make information public. It is our function to gather and summarize information from reliable sources, per

2017:

science, it is about science in general. If there are no good sources on the medicinal aspect of wolfberry, then the whole section should be removed as

156: 148: 141: 134: 127: 120: 113: 1911:

Your objections are unclear. I can think of no book interpreting wolfberry science that has higher qualifications or more independence than this one.--

638:

Third, three of the four references used in original paragraph two (now four) refer directly to wolfberry (goji) and the fourth is directly pertinent.

3065:... two of the coauthors are native Chinese with extensive backgrounds on wolfberry and the lead author is a retired scientist now a freelance author 3008:

and integrated with Amazon.com, Booksurge facilitates a published book to gain visibility via Amazon's online store and affiliations. Simple as that.

2941: 1375:

has two goji juice distributors on notice with warning letters about marketing claims with language similar to that used by or derived from Mindell:

143:(We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality.) 1575: 1296:

in New York had completed studies showing that use of goji juice would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways:

3957:

I started formatting links that appear to be references. Because there were so many, I didn't even try to check them against WP:V and WP:RS. --

1317: 2319:

their interpretations about a subject with the public. Each reader would make her/his own judgment about the validity of those interpretations.

1293: 926: 201:

Please review articles here -- I'll provide other alternate views of the industry and medical professional response in a few days after my trip

708:

and 16 other claims, not one of which is scientifically validated or approved for use on consumer products by a regulatory agency such as the

3545: 2744:(XXG). If you send your work to a scientific magazine, a publisher, ... and they accept to publish it after having read it, then the work is 2186:

Bottom line: There's just not enough evidence to recommend that we eat tomatoes or goji to gain specific health benefits or prevent diseases.

322:

The bottomline of the above discussion (to the kind attention of Blaxthos) is: no need to mention the JAMA reference on the goji article. --

234:

I'd have appreciated to see some literature references at the end of this Healthnotes Newswire Opinion. Preferably published in this century.

2168:

Also, Gross clearly does not make medical claims; instead he is reviewing the evidence so far: If we take this as an example of his work:

1750: 789:. Yet the FreeLife website states "Working together, FreeLife and Earl Mindell have been pioneers in the research of goji polysaccharides." 2315:

be self-published. Would that be perhaps just 25% of all books on plants and nutrients? The Knowledge (XXG) definition of self-publishing

765:, leading one to believe that the Mindell and Tanaduk fabrications may derive from the same source of misinformation and outright lies. 3334: 3310: 2282:

By professional, I do not mean exclusively mainstream - I mean verifiable recognition of qualifications by a group with no obvious CoI.

1987:

and is recognized by other publishers as the authoritative text on wolfberry, making it a valid objective and comprehensive reference.--

1792: 1777: 1274: 3250: 158:(After 7.5 years, low-dose antioxidant supplementation lowered total cancer incidence and all-cause mortality in men but not in women.) 3407: 3226: 1482:

Can you provide a cite for the opposing views? If they're notable, they need included, but it does need to be shown they're notable.

1030:

Ok. Let's try to be constructive. If all is needed are "proper sources for the material", we can provide them. Here is what I found:

787: 3387: 1616:...claimed that they enhance longevity (a Chinaman, Li Quing Yuen, who ate them every day, is said to have lived to the age of 250). 1258: 718:

has even been demonstrated adequately in preliminary laboratory research. Mindell's history of fraud is discussed on Knowledge (XXG)

554: 511:. I did not do this originally because it gives undue recognition to the conspicuous marketing fabrications of Mindell and FreeLife. 1313:, no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown in prevention studies to fully prevent breast cancer, only to reduce its risk 3141:"Richard Zhang, a Seattle-based importer of Chinese goji berries" (wolfberry.org/documents/ParryFruitlessSearchforGoji12-06.pdf) 277: 2096:

I am not going to spend too much time on this because the removal is based on a logical fallacy... Here is a simple brake down:

614:

juice, to provide scientific and clinical evidence for health claims asserted in marketing materials and the juice product label

3135:

If you hadn't already noticed, I'm feeling kinda dumb about not having caught this gem of an insinuation and its counterpoint:

1560:

The site purports to expose scams and just tell the truth, so is worthy for each person to read and make one's own judgment. --

2311:

1) Generally, only books that are solicited by a publisher, are a summary of a conference or are assembled by an editor would

1366: 3604:

I notice that the article has needed basic formatting of references for a few years now. How about working on that first? --

400:

Section in the article is restored. Bring your issues here first. Please state them and let's hear your side of the story. --

371: 569: 272: 2160:“If there are no good sources on the medicinal aspect of wolfberry, then the whole section should be removed as WP:FRINGE.” 282: 3333:

on all the URLs in the body text; also all the deep links, such as in the Culinary section, to images at random websites.

1348: 1310: 587: 1650:

This article appears to be attracting more than its fair share of spam, therefore I have added the somewhat contentious

3683:

Please undo these highly damaging edits pending discussion and consensus for such removals, and also a consideration of

3579:

The above editor just removed links supporting text in the article, which is impermissible and damaging to the article.

607: 3099:" By the lead author, yes. Cynicism and healthy skepticism have their useful place, but wouldn't it be fair to assume 3002: 2976:

phytochemicals published in the scientific literature, iii) review of all 81 studies reported about wolfberry on PubMed

2370: 1024: 998:

As stated above, three of the four sources mention goji (same as wolfberry) and the fourth is relevant to this debate.

945: 842: 679:'s booklet, Goji, The Himalayan Health Secret, Ed. 1, 2003, are listed the "Top 24 Health Benefits of Goji" including 495:

100 a day? Who knew??? ;) Thanks for the explanation. It should not be difficult to fix the text beyond reproach.

2998: 2996: 2366: 2364: 2188: 3025:. But they nevertheless do represent history on the subject of wolfberries possibly sought by Knowledge (XXG) users. 4010:

Both versions are 56 kilobytes long. No sourced material was removed. Anyone care to discuss specific changes? --

3601:. I see absolutely nothing that's "impermissible" here. I'm having a hard time seeing anything "damaging" either. 2980:

promotional intentions for the book other than stating the extraordinary nutrient qualities of wolfberry, there is

2903:

I go with that. The book is not automatically out, and its inclusion as a source should be considered entirely per

2163:

introduction of any new advances on the bases that they were not yet main stream. See figure One at the bottom of:

1456: 1427: 1359: 1346: 1096: 960: 890: 855: 585: 479: 446: 391: 38: 163:

Paul, I'd be grateful if you could provide us with something valuable to balance the weight of these two groups. I

3938: 3888: 3870: 3819: 3762: 3541: 3520: 3357: 3164: 3082: 2916: 2145: 1576:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/main.jhtml?xml=/gardening/2007/10/12/garden-superfruit-superfood-goji112.xml

1306: 302: 3529:

If they are already used as sources in the article, then they shouldnt be attached as a seperate external link.

2810:

have at least expressed their doubts or reservations, so I am not the only one who still needs to be convinced.

2241:

as a source for several outright assertions. (I.e. ABC causes DEF. GHI is true. JKL and MNO have PQR benefits.)

353:

mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

3481: 2110:

If this statement is TRUE then there is nothing to prevent an expert from also self publishing. So far so good.

1804: 1754: 1593:

contain beta-carotene (their ability to improve vision has been documented for more than 1,500 years in China).

573:

cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.

1597:

An ORAC of 25,300 has not been published under peer-review; there is no objective source of this information.

1048: 425:. I have no other interest in the article and am merely assisting in resolution of the emailed complaint. ' 3814:- Links normally to be avoided - #5: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". 3795:

We can all work together to improve this article if we don't edit in a unilateral and hyperaggressive manner.

3338: 3314: 1971:

Looking at every book listed in the Knowledge (XXG) wolfberry article, all would be removed by your criteria.

1191:

He also stated that he was using "goji juice," which contains only a small amount of wolfberry in any case.

930:

cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.

3411: 3249:

Paul144 - if you haven't already posted a request for oversight to permanently redact your information out,

2148:

if they wish it to be peer reviewed etc). Why -one might ask- should they feel they need to self publish?

1128: 508:

To be fair to the process, I am posting the original section below and adding content and references for it

3533: 3454: 3383: 3306: 3214: 2836:

So, rather than poking holes in a deliberately non-all-inclusive policy, lets look at this the other way.

2667:, i.e. in an article or a section about either the book or the author. Not in an article on wolfberries... 1746: 359: 296:

Welcome back Doc. It looks like every expert (you included) is strongly against the infamous JAMA article:

3537: 1422:

I have again removed unsourced claims and speculation from the main article. Please do not re-add them.

1350: 1344: 1253:

In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by

589: 549:

In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by

2859:

journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and

1314: 386:

I have removed a speculative section that contained several sweeping claims unsubstantiated by sources.

3391: 1452: 1423: 1092: 956: 886: 851: 475: 442: 387: 2343:

but these papers mostly cite other scientific publications, not summaries about science for the public.

1674: 644:

their evidence and proposed new text to this Discussion where we can expose it to the test of truth. --

3434: 3000: 2368: 3934: 3866: 3815: 3758: 3516: 3259: 3160: 3146: 3078: 2931: 2912: 2789: 2431: 2287: 2246: 1651: 755:

measure in vivo. Polysaccharides are simply sources of dietary fiber, as discussed on Knowledge (XXG)

722: 299: 3598: 2968: 2880: 2621: 2105:

can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field.”

1213:

Concerning the , the existence of which I discovered 30 minutes ago, here is an interesting and .--

4000: 3977: 3915: 3839: 3785: 3747: 3692: 3644:

Please take your behavioral complaints to an appropriate venue. I'll continue to ignore them. --

3635: 3584: 3502: 3444: 3289: 3070: 1827: 1800: 267: 76: 64: 59: 3209: 3018: 2018: 977:

I believe this is your summary of the complaints, quoting you in italics followed by my responses

3044:

One would have to judge quality and objectivity of these articles and the book by reading them.--

2893: 2753: 1164: 790: 457:

You should have taken the time to explain yourself in this way before your blanking took place.

367: 3929: 3830: 3777: 3739: 3684: 3627: 3512: 2993: 2361: 2346:

The reader has to make this judgment alone based on credentials given in the author biographies.

1494: 1009:

generally across violations. FreeLife's fate will be similar to those under investigation now.

305: 3487: 1270:

None of 23 health claims asserted in this marketing information has been scientifically proved

799:

The FDA currently has two goji distributors on notice with letters issued in the middle of 2006

206: 3122: 3049: 2719: 2629: 2553: 2530:

horticulturalists. Only from a self-published book could information like this be made public.

2416:

at first, but I think this one is an exception to the usual pattern and definitely a case for

2394: 2057: 1992: 1916: 1843: 1729: 1709: 1690: 1483: 3811: 3022: 2904: 1766: 1701: 951: 597:

that requires regulatory review of label and marketing claims being conducted in 2007 by the

422: 3972:

Reformatting of links is fine, if crucially important links are not removed in the process.

3881:

Those sources show such verbiage to be in current use by such sellers. That should be clear.

3851:

Those sources show such verbiage to be in current use by such sellers. That should be clear.

2192:

Therefore, it appears that bases for the objections to this book are confused and unclear.--

2164: 1153:

I'm working on a re-draft of the disputed section and hope to post it in the near future. --

970:

send them here for debate and discussion, i.e., the healthy discourse that bares the facts.

336: 3717: 3330: 3178: 3114: 3100: 2908: 2806: 2417: 1352: 1033: 591: 584:

Having significant nutrient and phytochemical composition, wolfberries are under assessment

3470: 3255: 3142: 2927: 2785: 2427: 2283: 2242: 2197: 1505:

Tibetinfonet: The commercial legend of goji: selling a Chinese crop under the Tibetan flag

1355: 594: 3884: 3594: 3403: 3353: 2884: 2802: 2798: 2711: 2215: 2076: 1935:, and no Google News, Books, or Scholar hits. The book has no qualifications whatsoever. 1869: 1553: 1528:"...there is no mention of any name close to goji in Traditional Tibetan Medicine texts." 784: 4015: 3996: 3973: 3962: 3911: 3835: 3781: 3743: 3706: 3688: 3673: 3649: 3631: 3609: 3580: 3558: 3498: 3285: 2949: 2815: 2768: 2672: 2591: 2454: 2223: 2084: 2026: 1940: 1881: 1859: 1823: 1741: 1362: 1343:

Significant in nutrient and phytochemical composition, goji berries are being developed

1336: 1254: 1225: 1192: 1168: 1136: 869: 598: 550: 496: 458: 410: 356:

This is exactly' what we are doing over here. (Jeah. I've removed my Walt-Disney joke)

190: 91: 3626:

Please undo the damage first and cease editing in a hyperaggressive manner. A look at

2579: 2211: 1903: 1873: 429:

sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.

2888: 1784: 1469: 1385: 1380: 1278: 1235: 1214: 1118: 1078: 817: 807: 659: 363: 323: 179: 1396: 1320: 983:

sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.

832: 615: 610:(FDA) in September 2006 to challenge a manufacturer of another novel fruit product, 3118: 3045: 2715: 2625: 2549: 2390: 2053: 1988: 1912: 1906:, the author is an independent expert who has written for several other publishers. 1839: 1725: 1705: 1686: 1670: 1637: 1561: 1539: 1438: 1414: 1399: 1395:

LLC, for making scientifically unfounded health claims in their marketing materials

1264: 1182: 1154: 1021: 942: 839: 676: 645: 627:

which there has been no serious counterpoint presented here or in the public media.

560: 530: 401: 253: 212: 3511:

But The Red Pen of Doom has done the right thing. Per the usual interpretation of

2887:. Please explain how the book fits this criteria, specifically the parts in bold. 1865:

You reverted my removal of a self-published book from Wolfberry and other articles

1261: 716: 557: 3829:

text as unsourced, then removing that text, impoverishing our articles. S/he has

3424: 1510: 3799:

Right. So stop responding as if removing links equates with shooting your puppy.

3041:

are considered "mainstream" in their industry, as would Dharmananda's for TCM.

1339:

or juice having cancer-preventive properties (Gross et al., 2006, chapters 4,6).

763: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1608:

are pure Mindellian fabrications. Such numbers are not even remotely credible.

3073:'s their press release) and is copiously linked from the book's official site 2193: 1655: 1358:

industry, currently under FDA regulatory review for label and marketing claims

1113: 1058: 611: 3475: 155:

This is the only "rather encouraging" study about antioxidants I could find:

4011: 3958: 3925: 3702: 3669: 3645: 3605: 3554: 3425:

The Commercial Legend of Goji. Selling a Chinese Crop Under the Tibetan Flag

2945: 2811: 2764: 2668: 2587: 2450: 2219: 2080: 2022: 1936: 1877: 1579: 1301: 1069: 47: 17: 3030: 1063: 3445:

Mysterious Chinese Berry Brings Solid Profits to Zhongning County, Ningxia

1049:

http://kimklaverblogs.blogspot.com/2007/01/should-freelife-reps-worry.html

606:

By other example in the United States, such a process was applied by the

171:

BTW The "antioxidant" Entry in Knowledge (XXG) has already been updated:

1868:. The problem is not that the book does not exist, but that it is not a 1600:

Is Gillian McKeith a reliable scientific reference? I think not, as the

1555: 4019: 4004: 3981: 3966: 3942: 3919: 3893: 3874: 3843: 3823: 3789: 3766: 3751: 3710: 3696: 3677: 3653: 3639: 3613: 3588: 3562: 3553:

And given the state of the article, there's no need for these links. --

3524: 3506: 3415: 3395: 3362: 3342: 3318: 3293: 3263: 3168: 3150: 3126: 3086: 3053: 2953: 2935: 2920: 2897: 2819: 2793: 2772: 2723: 2676: 2633: 2595: 2557: 2458: 2435: 2398: 2291: 2250: 2227: 2201: 2088: 2061: 2030: 1996: 1944: 1929:

Um, have you actually checked what BookSurge is? It is a self-publisher

1920: 1885: 1847: 1831: 1808: 1758: 1733: 1713: 1694: 1678: 1658: 1640: 1582: 1564: 1542: 1497: 1486: 1472: 1459: 1441: 1430: 1417: 1402: 1238: 1228: 1217: 1195: 1185: 1171: 1157: 1139: 1121: 1099: 1081: 963: 893: 872: 858: 831:

scientifically unfounded health claims about a mangosteen juice product

662: 648: 533: 499: 482: 461: 449: 413: 404: 394: 375: 339: 326: 283:

Other articles on antioxidants from Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals

256: 215: 193: 182: 94: 2278:

Recommendations of this work or the authors by qualified professionals

3720:. Links direct to the front pages of commercial sites - particularly 2756:

who write five-star blurb texts if you pay for it. So? This makes it

1611:

How well could improved vision be convincingly documented in 500 AD?

1132: 1072:. The part in bold looks new, like they were reacting to something... 3303:

What about mentioning it's an edible fruit in the first paragraph?

3039: 3380:

Contains several interesting articles. Looks like a blog, though.

2940:(Redacted to avoid "outing") As for other fora: I posted it on the 1053: 3484:

The Daily Truth by Jack Marx, Sydney Morning Herald, June 25, 2007

1392: 1292:

By one specific example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed the

1271: 921:

Two new paragraphs were offered in the Discussion section above:

838:

FreeLife, the Tanaduk Institute or Tibetan Goji Berry Company. --

3356:. placed here as potential sources for improving the article. -- 2426:

keeping it as a reference, though that conclusion surprises me.

1179: 3373: 3113:

Zhangs do not contribute to Knowledge (XXG) so are not part of

1300:

no such project has been undertaken at Memorial Sloan-Kettering

1249:

Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States

1181:

or a similar research journal. Let's not waste time on this. --

756: 540:

Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States

1372: 1282: 1112:

I'd like to draw your attention to the following entertaining

925:

By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the

719: 709: 568:

By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the

421:

Please be aware that the removal is due to complaints sent to

25: 3803: 3721: 1379:

Dynamic Health Laboratories Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, May 8, 2006

806:

Dynamic Health Laboratories Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, May 8, 2006

670: 3807: 3725: 2316: 1985: 1930: 1365:(above). As described by the Institute of Food Technologists 1332:

and one Chinese clinical trial described only in an abstract

1146:

of plausibility, which it doesn't, so I'm leaving it alone.

885:

Ok. We still have to have proper sources for the material.

671:

Earl Mindell's fraud and its promotion by FreeLife marketers

207:

http://www.npicenter.com/Search/Default.aspx?qs=antioxidants

1822:

a reliable source? It looks like a commercial site to me.

3497:

They already improved the article, some exceptionally so.

2387: 2275:

Periodical (newspaper, magazine, etc) reviews of this work

1631: 2144:

as an aside: Academics do self publish (for instance in

288:

Articles on antioxidants from the Linus Pauling Institute

3593:

I've removed the links again, per the discussion above,

3074: 1034:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2189422&page=1

776:

before approved as safe agents for sale to the public.

229:

medical conditions and improve overall quality of life".

3993: 3036: 2710:

place to begin before writing it off as a violation of

1984:

Bottom line is that the book meets these Wiki criteria

1866: 1819: 1606:

500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges

1108:

While we all wait for the supreme decision to be taken

3097:...written out of sheer fascination with wolfberries? 2907:. However, (redacted to avoid "outing") Paul144 (per 1891:

By those definitions, what book isn't self-published?

1384:

Healthsuperstore.com of Elk Grove, CA, August 7, 2006

816:

Healthsuperstore.com of Elk Grove, CA, August 7, 2006

348:

From Wiki guidelines: "How to use article talk pages"

278:

Media mauls antioxidants after 'inappropriate' review

2977: 2341: 1773:

This article talk page was automatically added with

1632:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wolfberry#Tibetan_goji_berry

1068:

And to conclude, this is the page for lycium at the

1391:a fruit juice product containing mangosteen juice, 1263:. During interviews with the product spokesperson, 559:. During interviews with the product spokesperson, 1409:science is the safer position for Knowledge (XXG). 1273:or accepted by a regulatory authority such as the 2624:are met in the article's use of the Gross book.-- 1335:, there is no scientific evidence for goji berry 3029:self-published an article for the TCM community. 3017:self-published to help sell products, violating 2911:) should let others decide about its inclusion. 517:is the Knowledge (XXG) method of collaboration. 2861:books published by respected publishing houses 1795:. If you have concerns , please inform on the 2336:2) Responding to Arimareiji's comments above 2124:would admit no exceptions, however it states 1574:This article might be useful as a reference: 8: 3177:Please note this for future reference, from 2942:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard 2883:which is a policy and not a guideline as is 3435:Fruitless Search for the Tibetan Goji Berry 1548:WorldwideWarning.net -- Exposing Goji Scams 1059:http://www.henriettesherbal.com/blog/?p=466 3810:. These look to me to come squarely under 3352:Removed from article "external links" per 2964:Responding to points requested by Arakunem 2855:In general, the most reliable sources are 2272:Professional qualifications of the authors 1509:Useful perspective published June 29, 2007 3196:If you fit either of these descriptions: 772:The FDA takes this position: such claims 529:removing a carefully composed section. -- 104:-antioxidant publications below (and the 3802:So, as to these links, let's start with 1064:http://www.onlyreviews.com/freelife.html 165:ll stop chewing goji for the time being. 3488:Ontario Family First to Gamble on Gojis 1127:Interesting. I've begun an article at 3953:Note on partially formatted references 3476:A Friendly Skeptic Looks at Goji Juice 2584:we should not publish this information 1294:Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 927:Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 570:Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center 273:Antioxidants: A most fruitful category 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2269:Citations of this work in other works 1325:beyond preliminary laboratory studies 437:conclusions, and no source is cited. 7: 2926:Apparently COIN, but anywhere else? 2261:subject by their peers? I've seen a 1876:, this is not an acceptable source. 1004:conclusions, and no source is cited. 741:acting as an anti-inflammatory agent 3467:(translated by Google from Chinese) 1630:Researched, refuted and discussed, 1275:Natural Health Products Directorate 3490:, Tillsonburg News, August 1, 2008 2988:partial evidence for the author's 1361:as being conducted in 2007 by the 24: 3910:No, it is not original research. 2873:respected mainstream publications 1259:Marketplace (Canadian TV program) 1163:Well, this is what happened with 1244:Working draft of revised section 1054:http://www.freelifegojinews.com/ 1043:Not enough ? Here are some more: 909:From Uninvited's remarks above: 29: 3860:This user has become well known 3701:Responded on your talk page. -- 2852:for fact-checking and accuracy. 2801:is the starting point for most 686:maintains health blood pressure 3374:Wolfberry Information Resource 1862:to get more editors involved) 1848:11:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 1832:03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 1565:15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 3455:Wolfberry Festival in Ningxia 3441:, December 2, 2006 (PDF file) 3406:- ever. So quit plugging it. 3319:22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3132:gladly defer to your opinion. 2758:less' reliable, not more so. 1759:23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 1734:23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 1311:National Institutes of Health 1257:'s consumer advocacy program 1070:Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 1036:(is abc a credible source ?). 553:'s consumer advocacy program 3926:Wolfberry#Tibetan goji berry 3294:04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) 3264:23:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 3169:19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 3151:16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 3127:16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 3087:15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 3054:12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 3038:and Natural Products Insider 2954:07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 2936:05:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 2921:00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 2898:23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 2863:; and mainstream newspapers. 2820:05:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 2794:22:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 2773:08:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 2724:11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 2677:11:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 2634:11:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 2596:11:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 2558:10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 2459:08:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 2436:05:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 2399:02:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 2292:18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 2251:18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 2228:15:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 2202:14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 2089:06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 2062:15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 2031:14:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 1997:14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 1945:13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 1921:13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 1886:13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 1695:17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 1679:11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 1659:15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 1641:17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 1583:22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 608:Food and Drug Administration 3465:Ningxia Wolfberry News Site 1904:WP:V#Self-published sources 1874:WP:V#Self-published sources 1714:22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 695:improves disease resistance 4036: 4020:19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 4005:16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 3943:15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3920:01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3894:01:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3875:01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3844:00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3824:00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3790:00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3767:00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3416:19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 3396:20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 2990:fact-checking and accuracy 2868:peer-reviewed publications 2383:Comments on nutrient data. 2132:clause and so requires a 2130:subjective value judgement 1778:WikiProject Food and drink 1767:WikiProject Food and drink 1473:19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1460:03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1442:01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 1403:12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1239:14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1229:22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1218:21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1196:19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1186:19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1172:18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1158:17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1140:23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1122:21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1100:01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1082:20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1025:20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 964:19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 946:05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 894:04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 873:03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 859:03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 843:16:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 749:All of this is fabrication 663:20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 649:21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 534:21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 500:19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 483:19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 462:19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 450:19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 414:19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 405:15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 395:11:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 376:19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 327:16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 257:15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 216:17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 194:00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 3982:20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 3967:05:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3752:23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 3711:15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3697:05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3678:04:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3654:04:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3640:03:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3614:03:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3589:02:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3563:01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3525:10:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 3507:05:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 3363:22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 3343:03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC) 2146:Public Library of Science 1783:banner as it falls under 1543:13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 1498:01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 1487:20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 1431:22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 1418:16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 1307:National Cancer Institute 732:balancing immune function 698:prevents morning sickness 183:23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 108:conclusion they reached). 95:04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 3630:would also be in order. 3439:South China Morning Post 3208:Generally speaking, the 2840:Articles should rely on 1809:11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1789:one of its subcategories 692:enhances sexual function 340:01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 3063:no conflict of interest 2982:no conflict of interest 2828:Arbitrary Section Break 2663:themselves": I repeat, 2304:comments on objectivity 1602:2,000 more antioxidants 1570:telegraph.co.uk article 1515:Quotes and highlights: 1354:as new products in the 738:normalizing blood sugar 3236: 3213:unwarily become their 2877: 1652:No more links template 1646:No more links template 1129:Victor A. Marcial-Vega 769:stop using the claim. 619: 603: 581: 575: 565: 85:Removal of JAMA source 3548:) 13:46, 6 March 2009 3437:by Simon Parry, from 3227:neutral point of view 3194: 2838: 1478:Opinion, fact and POV 744:and preventing cancer 704:promotes cheerfulness 604: 582: 576: 566: 547: 42:of past discussions. 2807:conflict of interest 1700:The lead paragraph ( 1319:or any other disease 735:lowering cholesterol 268:Fruits of the future 3890:The Red Pen of Doom 3359:The Red Pen of Doom 3329:Cleanup needed per 1902:Also, according to 1854:Self-published book 1719:Wolfberry Economics 1552:Captivating reading 689:reduces cholesterol 3883:is a violation of 3808:www.gojiberry.com/ 3804:www.gojiberries.us 3726:www.gojiberry.com/ 3722:www.gojiberries.us 3280:Mention of Mindell 2848:published sources 2803:Dispute resolution 2754:Ellen Tanner Marsh 701:alleviates anxiety 3988:Massive deletions 3550: 3536:comment added by 3478:by Dr. Ralph Moss 3471:BBC News Coverage 3451:, August 30, 2006 3386:comment added by 3368:potential sources 3348:Potential sources 3309:comment added by 2895: 2850:with a reputation 2620:The criteria for 2190: 2181: 2174: 2155: 2149: 2099:First sentence: “ 2075:I've requested a 1797:project talk page 1761: 1749:comment added by 1305:according to the 622: 545: 510: 362:comment added by 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4027: 3891: 3549: 3538:TheRedPenOfDoom 3530: 3482:Berry Bad Things 3398: 3360: 3321: 2995:(bottom article) 2894: 2665:about themselves 2363:(bottom article) 2184: 2177: 2169: 2152: 2143: 2118:not acceptable. 1814:Reliable source? 1782: 1776: 1744: 1371:At present, the 675:In Chapter 2 of 621: 544: 509: 378: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4035: 4034: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4026: 4025: 4024: 3990: 3955: 3935:Gordonofcartoon 3889: 3879:and even using 3867:Gordonofcartoon 3816:Gordonofcartoon 3759:Gordonofcartoon 3666: 3531: 3517:Gordonofcartoon 3461:, July 19, 2004 3431:, June 29, 2007 3381: 3370: 3358: 3350: 3327: 3304: 3301: 3282: 3161:Gordonofcartoon 3079:Gordonofcartoon 3012:For this book, 2913:Gordonofcartoon 2830: 2179:phytochemicals. 1870:reliable source 1856: 1816: 1780: 1774: 1771: 1721: 1666: 1648: 1572: 1550: 1507: 1480: 1356:functional food 1246: 1110: 673: 595:functional food 579:health claims. 542: 384: 382:Section removal 357: 350: 87: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4033: 4031: 4023: 4022: 3989: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3954: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3862: 3857: 3853: 3826: 3800: 3797: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3665: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3602: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3492: 3491: 3485: 3479: 3473: 3468: 3462: 3452: 3442: 3432: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3377: 3376: 3369: 3366: 3349: 3346: 3326: 3323: 3300: 3297: 3281: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3219: 3218: 3206: 3202: 3201:purposes); or, 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3175: 3154: 3153: 3139: 3133: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3090: 3089: 3067: 3010: 3009: 3005: 2985: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2865: 2864: 2854: 2853: 2829: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2781: 2775: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2421: 2413: 2409: 2402: 2401: 2379: 2378: 2373: 2372: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2333: 2332: 2327: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2308: 2307: 2299: 2298: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2191: 2180: 2111: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1924: 1923: 1908: 1907: 1899: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1860:User talk:Fram 1855: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1815: 1812: 1801:TinucherianBot 1770: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1751:130.126.75.181 1720: 1717: 1698: 1697: 1665: 1662: 1647: 1644: 1571: 1568: 1549: 1546: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1526: 1523: 1520: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1479: 1476: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1445: 1444: 1411: 1410: 1388: 1387: 1382: 1363:European Union 1341: 1340: 1337:phytochemicals 1323: 1303: 1255:CBC Television 1245: 1242: 1232: 1231: 1199: 1198: 1175: 1174: 1143: 1142: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1085: 1084: 1074: 1073: 1066: 1061: 1056: 1051: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 967: 966: 935:health claims. 907: 906: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 878: 877: 876: 875: 862: 861: 820: 819: 810: 809: 786:or pomegranate 746: 745: 742: 739: 736: 733: 721:and Quackwatch 706: 705: 702: 699: 696: 693: 690: 687: 684: 672: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 652: 651: 640: 639: 635: 634: 629: 628: 599:European Union 551:CBC Television 541: 538: 537: 536: 525: 524: 519: 518: 513: 512: 505: 504: 503: 502: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 467: 466: 465: 464: 419: 418: 417: 416: 383: 380: 349: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 320: 319: 318: 317: 311: 310: 309: 308: 293: 292: 291: 290: 285: 280: 275: 270: 262: 261: 260: 259: 246: 245: 244: 243: 236: 235: 231: 230: 225: 224: 219: 218: 209: 204: 203: 202: 186: 185: 175: 174: 168: 167: 160: 159: 152: 151: 145: 144: 138: 137: 131: 130: 124: 123: 117: 116: 110: 109: 100:FYI some more 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4032: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3952: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3895: 3892: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3863: 3861: 3858: 3854: 3852: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3832: 3827: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3798: 3796: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3774: 3773: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3736: 3735: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3663: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3486: 3483: 3480: 3477: 3474: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3436: 3433: 3430: 3426: 3423: 3422: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3400: 3399: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3379: 3378: 3375: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3355: 3347: 3345: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3335:86.140.182.71 3332: 3324: 3322: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3311:84.228.231.82 3308: 3298: 3296: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3279: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3252: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3235: 3233: 3228: 3224: 3223:very strongly 3216: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3137: 3136: 3134: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3075:wolfberry.org 3072: 3068: 3066: 3064: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3042: 3040: 3037: 3032: 3031: 3026: 3024: 3020: 3015: 3006: 3003: 3001: 2999: 2997: 2994: 2991: 2986: 2983: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2970: 2966: 2965: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2896: 2892: 2891: 2886: 2882: 2879:This is from 2876: 2874: 2869: 2866:Academic and 2862: 2858: 2857:peer-reviewed 2851: 2847: 2843: 2837: 2834: 2827: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2782: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2747: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422: 2419: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2380: 2375: 2374: 2371: 2369: 2367: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2358: 2351: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2338: 2337: 2335: 2334: 2329: 2328: 2323: 2322: 2317: 2314: 2310: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2264: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2189: 2187: 2182: 2175: 2173: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2156: 2150: 2147: 2141: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2117: 2116: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2103: 2097: 2095: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077:third opinion 2063: 2059: 2055: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1861: 1858:(copied from 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1813: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1785:Category:Food 1779: 1768: 1765: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1718: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1663: 1661: 1660: 1657: 1653: 1645: 1643: 1642: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1621: 1618: 1617: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1603: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1588: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1577: 1569: 1567: 1566: 1563: 1558: 1556: 1554: 1547: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1511: 1504: 1499: 1496: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1485: 1477: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1453:The Uninvited 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1424:The Uninvited 1420: 1419: 1416: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1374: 1369: 1367: 1364: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1351: 1349: 1347: 1345: 1338: 1334: 1331: 1329: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1295: 1290: 1286: 1284: 1280: 1279:Health Canada 1276: 1272: 1268: 1266: 1262: 1260: 1256: 1251: 1250: 1243: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1230: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1216: 1211: 1207: 1205: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1151: 1147: 1141: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1120: 1115: 1107: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1093:The Uninvited 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1065: 1062: 1060: 1057: 1055: 1052: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1017: 1016: 1010: 1006: 1005: 999: 996: 995: 989: 985: 984: 978: 975: 971: 965: 962: 958: 957:The Uninvited 953: 950: 949: 948: 947: 944: 938: 937: 932: 931: 928: 922: 919: 915: 914: 903: 902: 895: 892: 888: 887:The Uninvited 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 874: 871: 866: 865: 864: 863: 860: 857: 853: 852:The Uninvited 847: 846: 845: 844: 841: 835: 833: 828: 824: 818: 815: 814: 813: 808: 805: 804: 803: 802: 800: 796: 792: 791: 788: 785: 780: 777: 775: 770: 766: 764: 759: 757: 752: 750: 743: 740: 737: 734: 731: 730: 729: 725: 723: 720: 717: 713: 711: 703: 700: 697: 694: 691: 688: 685: 682: 681: 680: 678: 664: 661: 656: 655: 654: 653: 650: 647: 642: 641: 637: 636: 631: 630: 625: 624: 623: 618: 616: 613: 609: 602: 600: 596: 592: 590: 588: 586: 580: 574: 571: 564: 562: 558: 556: 552: 546: 539: 535: 532: 527: 526: 521: 520: 515: 514: 507: 506: 501: 498: 494: 493: 492: 491: 484: 481: 477: 476:The Uninvited 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 463: 460: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 448: 444: 443:The Uninvited 438: 434: 430: 426: 424: 415: 412: 408: 407: 406: 403: 399: 398: 397: 396: 393: 389: 388:The Uninvited 381: 379: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 354: 347: 341: 338: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 325: 315: 314: 313: 312: 306: 303: 300: 298: 297: 295: 294: 289: 286: 284: 281: 279: 276: 274: 271: 269: 266: 265: 264: 263: 258: 255: 250: 249: 248: 247: 240: 239: 238: 237: 233: 232: 227: 226: 221: 220: 217: 214: 210: 208: 205: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 192: 184: 181: 177: 176: 172: 170: 169: 166: 162: 161: 157: 154: 153: 149: 147: 146: 142: 140: 139: 135: 133: 132: 128: 126: 125: 121: 119: 118: 114: 112: 111: 107: 103: 99: 98: 97: 96: 93: 84: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3991: 3956: 3880: 3859: 3850: 3794: 3667: 3458: 3448: 3438: 3429:TibetInfoNet 3428: 3408:86.161.33.22 3351: 3328: 3302: 3283: 3231: 3222: 3220: 3210:Reward Board 3195: 3096: 3062: 3059: 3043: 3033: 3027: 3013: 3011: 2989: 2981: 2967: 2963: 2962: 2889: 2878: 2872: 2867: 2860: 2856: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2761: 2757: 2751: 2745: 2742: 2664: 2583: 2423: 2382: 2312: 2303: 2281: 2262: 2259: 2185: 2183: 2176: 2170: 2167: 2159: 2157: 2151: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2129: 2128:. This is a 2125: 2121: 2120: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2101: 2100: 2098: 2093: 2092: 2074: 2014: 1864: 1857: 1817: 1772: 1722: 1699: 1667: 1664:Sales pitch? 1649: 1635: 1629: 1624: 1622: 1619: 1615: 1613: 1610: 1605: 1601: 1599: 1596: 1591: 1589: 1586: 1573: 1559: 1551: 1537: 1514: 1508: 1484:Adam Cuerden 1481: 1466: 1421: 1412: 1389: 1370: 1342: 1291: 1287: 1269: 1265:Earl Mindell 1252: 1248: 1247: 1233: 1212: 1208: 1203: 1200: 1176: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1111: 1018: 1013: 1011: 1007: 1002: 1000: 997: 992: 990: 986: 981: 979: 976: 972: 968: 939: 936: 933: 924: 923: 920: 916: 910: 908: 836: 829: 825: 821: 811: 801: 798: 797: 793: 781: 778: 773: 771: 767: 760: 753: 748: 747: 726: 714: 707: 683:extends life 677:Earl Mindell 674: 620: 605: 583: 577: 567: 561:Earl Mindell 548: 543: 439: 435: 431: 427: 420: 385: 355: 351: 321: 223:flourishing. 187: 164: 105: 101: 88: 70: 43: 37: 3928:section is 3778:WP:STALKing 3664:Photo links 3532:—Preceding 3459:China Daily 3449:China Daily 3388:67.52.4.154 3382:—Preceding 3305:—Preceding 3014:peer-review 2846:third-party 2408:verifiable. 2302:First, two 1745:—Preceding 555:Marketplace 358:—Preceding 242:discussion. 106:frightening 36:This is an 3831:WP:STALKed 3599:WP:NOTLINK 3325:Formatting 3256:arimareiji 3234:post them. 3215:meatpuppet 3143:arimareiji 2969:WP:SOURCES 2928:arimareiji 2881:WP:SOURCES 2786:arimareiji 2780:authority. 2622:WP:SELFPUB 2428:arimareiji 2284:arimareiji 2243:arimareiji 2158:Fram say: 1626:to induce. 1309:of the US 1165:Velikovsky 1015:addressed. 994:claims..." 612:mangosteen 3997:Badagnani 3974:Badagnani 3912:Badagnani 3836:Badagnani 3782:Badagnani 3744:Badagnani 3689:Badagnani 3632:Badagnani 3581:Badagnani 3499:Badagnani 3286:Badagnani 3019:WP:SOURCE 2134:judgement 2079:on this. 2019:WP:FRINGE 1824:Badagnani 1742:cecikierk 1226:Badagnani 1204:in dreamo 1193:Badagnani 1169:Badagnani 1137:Badagnani 870:Badagnani 783:cranberry 601:(above). 497:Badagnani 459:Badagnani 411:Badagnani 191:Badagnani 92:Badagnani 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 18:Talk:Goji 3930:WP:SYNTH 3740:WP:STALK 3685:WP:STALK 3628:WP:STALK 3546:contribs 3534:unsigned 3513:WP:LINKS 3384:unsigned 3307:unsigned 3251:go here. 3221:then we 3205:writing; 2890:Arakunem 2842:reliable 2494:chapter. 2015:American 1747:unsigned 372:contribs 364:Wstefano 360:unsigned 3812:WP:ELNO 3119:Paul144 3046:Paul144 3023:WP:NPOV 2905:WP:NPOV 2716:Paul144 2626:Paul144 2550:Paul144 2548:them.-- 2424:Support 2391:Paul144 2386:article 2126:largely 2115:largely 2094:Comment 2054:Paul144 1989:Paul144 1913:Paul144 1840:Paul144 1769:Tagging 1726:Karuna8 1706:Paul144 1702:WP:LEAD 1687:Paul144 1671:Remmelt 1638:Paul144 1562:Paul144 1540:Paul144 1493:such. 1470:Stefano 1439:Paul144 1415:Paul144 1400:Paul144 1281:or the 1236:Stefano 1215:Stefano 1183:Paul144 1155:Paul144 1119:Stefano 1079:Stefano 1022:Paul144 943:Paul144 840:Paul144 827:takes. 762:website 660:Stefano 646:Paul144 531:Paul144 523:months. 423:WP:OTRS 402:Paul144 337:docboat 324:Stefano 254:Paul144 213:Paul144 180:Stefano 39:archive 3718:WP:MOS 3597:, and 3402:up to 3331:WP:MOS 3299:Edible 3179:WP:COI 3115:WP:COI 3101:WP:AGF 3035:Center 2909:WP:COI 2418:WP:IAR 2353:staff. 2122:Wholly 2102:Anyone 1133:quinoa 3887:. -- 3885:WP:OR 3595:WP:EL 3457:from 3447:from 3427:from 3404:WP:RS 3354:WP:EL 2885:WP:RS 2799:WP:3O 2712:WP:RS 2476:work. 2216:WP:RS 2194:Aspro 2154:work. 1897:book. 1656:Aspro 1500:Cayte 1495:Cayte 1455:Co., 1426:Co., 1393:XanGo 1095:Co., 959:Co., 889:Co., 854:Co., 593:as a 478:Co., 445:Co., 390:Co., 16:< 4016:talk 4012:Ronz 4001:talk 3992:See 3978:talk 3963:talk 3959:Ronz 3939:talk 3916:talk 3871:talk 3840:talk 3820:talk 3806:and 3786:talk 3763:talk 3748:talk 3724:and 3707:talk 3703:Ronz 3693:talk 3674:talk 3670:Ronz 3650:talk 3646:Ronz 3636:talk 3610:talk 3606:Ronz 3585:talk 3559:talk 3555:Ronz 3542:talk 3521:talk 3503:talk 3412:talk 3392:talk 3339:talk 3315:talk 3290:talk 3260:talk 3165:talk 3147:talk 3123:talk 3083:talk 3071:here 3050:talk 3021:and 2950:talk 2946:Fram 2932:talk 2917:talk 2816:talk 2812:Fram 2790:talk 2769:talk 2765:Fram 2720:talk 2714:. -- 2673:talk 2669:Fram 2630:talk 2592:talk 2588:Fram 2580:WP:V 2554:talk 2455:talk 2451:Fram 2432:talk 2395:talk 2288:talk 2247:talk 2224:talk 2220:Fram 2214:and 2212:WP:V 2198:talk 2085:talk 2081:Fram 2058:talk 2027:talk 2023:Fram 1993:talk 1941:talk 1937:Fram 1917:talk 1882:talk 1878:Fram 1844:talk 1828:talk 1820:this 1805:talk 1793:here 1755:talk 1730:talk 1710:talk 1691:talk 1675:talk 1604:and 1580:Ronz 1457:Inc. 1428:Inc. 1398:. -- 1114:clip 1097:Inc. 961:Inc. 952:OTRS 891:Inc. 856:Inc. 812:and 480:Inc. 447:Inc. 392:Inc. 368:talk 102:anti 3856:it? 3232:not 3117:.-- 2746:not 2313:not 2263:lot 1818:Is 1799:-- 1787:or 1623:3. 1614:2. 1590:1. 1373:FDA 1322:and 1285:. 1283:FDA 1277:of 1012:4. 1001:3. 991:2. 980:1. 912:--> 712:. 710:FDA 4018:) 4003:) 3995:. 3980:) 3965:) 3941:) 3918:) 3873:) 3842:) 3822:) 3788:) 3765:) 3750:) 3742:. 3709:) 3695:) 3676:) 3652:) 3638:) 3612:) 3587:) 3561:) 3544:• 3523:) 3505:) 3414:) 3394:) 3341:) 3317:) 3292:) 3262:) 3167:) 3149:) 3125:) 3085:) 3052:) 2952:) 2934:) 2919:) 2875:. 2844:, 2818:) 2792:) 2771:) 2722:) 2675:) 2632:) 2594:) 2586:. 2556:) 2457:) 2434:) 2397:) 2290:) 2249:) 2226:) 2218:? 2200:) 2087:) 2060:) 2029:) 1995:) 1943:) 1919:) 1884:) 1846:) 1838:-- 1830:) 1807:) 1781:}} 1775:{{ 1757:) 1740:-- 1732:) 1724:-- 1712:) 1693:) 1677:) 1636:-- 1578:-- 1538:-- 1512:. 1468:-- 1437:-- 1413:-- 1077:-- 1020:-- 941:-- 834:. 758:. 724:. 658:-- 374:) 370:• 304:, 301:, 211:-- 4014:( 3999:( 3976:( 3961:( 3937:( 3914:( 3869:( 3838:( 3818:( 3784:( 3761:( 3746:( 3705:( 3691:( 3672:( 3648:( 3634:( 3608:( 3583:( 3557:( 3540:( 3519:( 3501:( 3410:( 3390:( 3337:( 3313:( 3288:( 3258:( 3217:. 3181:: 3163:( 3145:( 3121:( 3103:? 3095:" 3081:( 3048:( 3004:. 2984:. 2948:( 2930:( 2915:( 2814:( 2788:( 2767:( 2718:( 2671:( 2628:( 2590:( 2552:( 2453:( 2430:( 2420:. 2393:( 2306:. 2286:( 2245:( 2222:( 2196:( 2083:( 2056:( 2025:( 1991:( 1939:( 1915:( 1880:( 1842:( 1826:( 1803:( 1753:( 1728:( 1708:( 1689:( 1673:( 1202:" 366:( 173:] 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index