Talk:FreeLife/Archives/2012

Removed content

The following information was deleted by IP address 58.178.72.118. Facts about whether this investigation took place are open to discussion.

Section: Controversy Freelife's spokesperson, Earl Mindell, has made several claims about the health benefits of wolfberry juice (commercially known as "goji" juice) on behalf of his partner company, FreeLife. Mindell's claims regarding goji juice include supposed benefits for cancer patients.

In a hidden-camera investigation and an interview by Wendy Mesley on the CBC consumer television program Marketplace (aired 24 January, 2007), H. Leon Bradlow, the author of a study that Mindell cites as support for this anti-cancer claim, says that his original research does not, in fact, show that goji juice has any anti-cancer properties, and states "I don't have proof that it would have that effect in a tumor in a mouse, let alone a person."

In addition, Bradlow's study was carried out at Hackensack University Medical Center, not the "prestigious" Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center as Mindell had repeatedly claimed.

Mesley then went on to confront Mindell, whom Freelife refers to as "Dr. Mindell" about the validity of his Ph.D from Pacific Western University and whether or not he is a medical doctor. Mindell asserted that his degree is "accredited in every state in the Union", a claim that is clearly contrary to fact (see above). Shortly after this comment, he ejected Mesley and her crew from his house and threatened to call the police.

Problems with this article

This article seems to have swung back and forth from a highly negative to a highly positive version. Neither is very good. Please let's have a total rewrite with strong attention paid to reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Jimbo, I had done that after OTRS complaints on that article (you know how to find them if you are interested). Cbrown1023 talk 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

added compromise to the two versions of article. I've noticed very little discussion has taken place between previous editors. Let's get together and talk about additional changes moving forward.TX Longhorn 07 20:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I've saud they are a "supplier of health food suppliments" in the lead section, but I'm not really sure if this is the right way of phrasing it. As it is quite important to the article, I'd like to encourage a discussion of this here. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism / Deletion of Content

User:Jsteelefreelife has appears to have repeatedly delete the controversy section. Based on the username there appears to be a Conflict of Interest which is in violation of Wikipedia's policy.

-- Fair and Factual FreeLife Page --

Note: I've placed the emails in a {{hidden}} box because they're quite long. I've also used {{divbox}} to separate the emails for easy reading, and replaced a posting of the page with a link to the version referred to. These changes should make the message easier to read. For the version before my changes, see revision 161193692. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Below is a history of the emails composed and exchanged by a FreeLife Executive Team Member to Jimbo Wales, regarding the problems that exist with the accuracy of the FreeLife Wikipedia page:

Email discussion

Since August 31, FreeLife has made every effort to make the Wikipedia page fair and accurate. However, we continue to see the page change into something that is factually inaccurate and false.

We welcome a larger discussion with all involved editing parties, including Jimbo Wales, to come to a resolution that satisfys everyone.

Thank you Jsteelefreelife 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based upon verifiable, reliable sources. If such sources cannot be provided to support the information in the article, that information may be removed.

Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, "representing fairly and without bias all significant views." --Ronz 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to Jsteelefreelife's talk page, and will post similar here: While I agree that articles about companies should be acurate and NPOV, it is highly inappropriate for personnel from a company participating and writing an article to suit their particular interests. We have COI policies that are every bit as important to honor as NPOV policies. Jsteelefreelife, the most likely reason that you see the page repeated reverted is that most editors around here take great offense at spam and conflict of interest offenses. You need to understand that our policies allow for COI material to be removed. Because of Jimbo's position and authority, he is, of course, free to override the regular editors and admins around here, but unless and until he overtly acts in that direction, I fully intend, as an admin neutral to this article and subject, to enforce our policies. I will do it kindly at first, as long as you respond in kind. However, if you ignore our warnings regarding transgression of policy, and persist in COI edits, I will have no choice but to seek to rectify the situation. Please, let's not take it that far. The talk page is for discussion of issues of disagreement. I've seen it work in other article disputes, and it can work here, as well. Rather than edit in violation, please bring issues that concern you up here, on the talk page. State the problem, cite sources independent of your company's literature and press releases, and the other editors here, who by and large are a fair bunch, will do their best to make sure that legitimate concerns are addressed. But, do not attempt to use this process to turn Wikipedia into a means of promoting your company or products...all that will do will be to turn the otherwise fair-minded editors against you. Now, folks, let's begin anew. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one other note: in the interest of honesty and full disclosure, I would like to know what other user names representatives from FreeLife have edited under. Jsteelefreelife's contributions only go back a few days, and the email pasted in above clearly indicates that one or more representatives from FreeLife "rewrote" the page in July or August. Failure to disclose this information will be taken by this admin as a blatant attempt to spam the encyclopedia covertly. Will the guilty party please step forward? AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FreeLife - Thanks for posting here. Highlighting problems allows us to fix them. However, we ask that you don't edit pages about yourself (this is the COI guideline). This guideline is designed to stop Wikipedia being used as an advertising space. Instead of editing the page, post on this page suggesting changes and telling us what can be improved.

AKRadecki - we should be watchful of this page, but I don't think a witch-hunt will help.

My thoughts on the issues raised in the emails are:

• Earl Mindell under key people. I see no problem with this, Mindell is very much associated with FreeLife, which can be checked by looking through the newspaper reports about FreeLife.
• Direct sales vs multi-level marketing. I don't really know enough about this issue to comment, but the email says "Multi-level Marketing [...] is an accurate statement" - is this a typo? If so, how is MLM inaccurate?
• History section and other information supplied by FreeLife. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original material, even material supplied by FreeLife by email. For inclusion here, FreeLife would need to publish the information (for example, by adding it to their website). Wikipedians frequently remove information not supported by references. When information does not have a reference, there is no way of telling if it is true or not (see verifiability).
• Change vitamins to nutritional supplements. (in Products section). I see no issue with that, so I've changed it (ideally, references should be found for that whole section).
• Health benefits claims. I've edited that bit clarifying who said what, so that should be ok now.
• Controversy section. It's been merged into History and is a lot more neutral now. Is this still an issue?

--h2g2bob (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, I added a mention of the unpublished studies discussing a cancer link. I'm wondering if I should have done so, as unpublished studies aren't worth the paper they're written on. However, 1/3rd of the ABC article discussed it, and a quick google suggests quite a few people discuss some kind of link, so I think it probably should be discussed here too. Perhaps I should try and work in some kind of explanation of the peer-review system, but that seems a little too off-topic. Any other ideas? --h2g2bob (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pruning

No one has responded to the above, so I'm pruning out some of the unencyclopedic, unsourced material, especially the sap story about the creator's inspiration. Also removed the ref to Inc. having ranked this company, as it's blown out of proportion. Inc. listed the company as one of the 5,000 fastest growing companies in the year 2000 alone. The company has not made that list before nor after, so the significance of the statement is significantly less than how the FreeLife rep presented it in the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's looking in fairly good shape now, so good work on that :) --h2g2bob (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MLM vs. Direct sales

We are a Direct Sales company. This can be verified as we are a member in good standing of the Direct Selling Association(www.DSA.org). Multi-level Marketing has negative connotations, and although it is an accurate statement about our selling method, we'd prefer that we also reference Direct Selling as a method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.173.140 (talk • contribs)

No one is arguing that you are not a Direct Sales company. Per the link you provided, "Direct Selling is the sale of a consumer product or service, person-to-person, away from a fixed retail location." I have no problem with that. However, you are using that statement somewhat deceptively. "Direct sales", as defined by the organization, is a general statement, a general description of a type of sales. But, your sales reps don't work directly for you...they have uplines and downlines, and that makes the "multi-level marketing", which is a subset of direct sales. Yes, as you say, MLM has a bad connotation, and there's a reason for it. But, that's the marketing method your company has choosen, so you'll just have to live with the bad connotations. We're not here to use weasel words to make your company look good. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess the best way to sort this dispute is by looking at what sources there are that FreeLife is DS and MLM, so I tagged the bit with {{fact}}. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.mlmwatch.org/08Research/mlmsites.html Good enough? --Ronz 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see this as a dispute, to begin with. The FL rep clearly admitted that they were MLM, they just don't like the negative connotations. I don't see as how we should be using weasel words to polish their image...that's just not our job. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• One example FreeLife reseller: PowerToEarn Team System —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Add

Can we add the below article reference to the page?

The article states, "This fruit, which is about 2cm (1in) in diameter with a mild, sweet liquorice flavour, has recently been rated No 1 on the ORAC scale (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) by the US Department of Agriculture."

I did a search to try and find the USDA rating and could not find it. Perhaps someone else can do a more extensive search to track it down? Thanks!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/main.jhtml?xml=/gardening/2007/10/12/garden-superfruit-superfood-goji112.xmlJsteelefreelife 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention FreeLife at all, so I don't think it belongs here. I've recommended it as a possible reference in Wolfberry, which is linked in this article already. --Ronz 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Earl Mindell photo

Can we remove the photo from the history section of Earl Mindell and Wendy Mesley? Surely there must be another still screen shot and/or photo that we can insert that is not quite so negative. The photo gives you the impression that the interview was all negative - which was not the case.

In the name of fairness, it would be even better to remove the photo altogether. Thoughts?

Thanks!Jsteelefreelife 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. As we've told you before, we're not here to make you look good, and your attempt to influence Wikipedia to give your company a better image is rather insulting to our independence. It seems to me that you're doing everything you can to try to present an image, including trying to coopt Wikipedia to do that. I'm sorry the expose' uncovered uncomfortable truths, but maybe you'd be better off fixing the real problems, and comeing clean in the mainstream media. Then we'd be able to use those media referneces in the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, Jsteelefreelife, you never did come clean about your association with the company, as you were asked to do above. How about it? AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's very obvious that Jsteelfreelife is associated with the firm and is making a good-faith effort to engage on the Talk page, which is precisely what we advise in WP:COI and what the OTRS team recommended him to do. Please do make the effort to treat Jsteel as you would if you met him in real life - I am sure you would not be as rude as you have been here. We can disagree pretty fundamentally with people and still be polite to them. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe my request was insulting - that is your opinion. Would anyone else care to comment on the above? Thanks!

Also - there has only ever been one user from FreeLife. However, two different user names were created, only because I could not locate my user name and password from the first entry I made back in July, so I had to create a new user name and password. And, for the record, I believe that we have been nothing but open and honest throughout this whole process. Have a great day!Jsteelefreelife 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That image is ridiculously biased, and I have removed it from the article. I do not expect it to be readded without a consensus to do so (as it is a biographies of living persons issue, the following arbitration rulings apply: a consensus is required to readd, and the biographies of living persons policy (and interpretation by the Arbitration Committee) applies to all living people mentioned or portrayed in an article, not just the subject). Put frankly, I will be astounded if a consensus exists for such an image beyond yourself and a handful of others, and in the meantime please do not readd the image or any other material removed per the BLP policy.

The notion that editors involved in the article should be treated with a mentality that consists of some form of retaliatory action for them expressing their concerns, and that is the vibe that I get from this. However, in the meantime, please do not readd material removed by myself per my intepretation of BLP until a clear consensus exists to do so, and please also take care with IP editors removing contentious information from the article. Daniel 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We really don't need that. WP:UNDUE, people, and it's not a very compelling fair use case, either. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The text

I also made this edit under similar conditions to above.

Firstly, the way this is worded is inheriently negative and looks as if we are pushing an opinion and against the company (which I'll assume the contributors aren't). Additionally, a three paragraph blurb on this incident made up around 40% of the article - a textbook case of WP:UNDUE, given the nature of the incident. This only adds to the general perception.

I appreciate we aren't here to promote the company and that some people question its' credibility (which is fine), but we also can't document the incident as we were doing so in the old revisions. The text documented the assertions made by the investigation as fact whilst the rebuttals were coupled with words such as "as Mindell had repeatedly claimed", "asserted" (implying that his assertion was wrong), and the worst, "a claim that is clearly contrary to fact" (highly non-neutral language). We cannot say this, as it's original research - unless you have an independant reliable source documenting this fact, we are basically saying that we discount Mesley's statement and accept the investigators'. This is a judgement, and it's not something we can make without a number of independant reliable third party sources asserting the fact that Mesley lied about that claim (I have no idea if he did or not, and at this point it's irrelevant.

What is needed is for this section to be rewritten in a careful, more precise and less accusatory tone, representing both sides concisely and accurately and without drawing any conclusions ourselves from the primary data (the interview). For the record, I have no affiliation with the company and no 'agenda' or 'opinion' to push - I agree that this event should be covered in the article, but in a totally different manner. I hope everyone involved will work towards rewriting the information removed with good faith, because that way it will be a less painful experience. I am sure everyone involved is trying to imrpove the encyclopedia just like I am, so we share common goals. Daniel 10:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's probably enough to say it was the subject of a confrontational documentary. Let people make up their own minds. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the removal. A little more could probably be said; but not the way it was before. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't envisage that the mention will stay as it is currently now (a very short single sentence with no specifics). However, until a 'good' replacement is established, it's better to have nothing (or near-enough nothing) because it is a biographies of living persons issue. Daniel 04:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

History section

I would also like to raise an issue with one of the statements in the History section. It states that “Several unpublished studies have been made linking the juice with benefits for cancer patients, a claim which as caused controversy because the Goji Juice is an antioxidant, which can interfere with existing cancer treatments.” The statement “Goji Juice is an antioxidant, which can interfere with existing cancer treatment” is the only information quoted from the report. Such a statement is not verified. The ABC report itself refers to a human goji study that showed some benefits from combining the LBP’s from goji with immunotherapy agents. See the "published" report at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7720497?ordinalpos=86&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum I am not suggesting that we add the information about the cancer study just that the statement about goji juice interfering with existing cancer treatments be removed since it is not supported by reliable, third-party published source such as a peer-reviewed journal. I suggest any reference to its use related to cancer or any disease be removed unless is it properly verified.Freelifelegal (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that there has been no response to any of my discussion. If we take out the reference to cancer studies, as I have suggested, this leaves us with next to nothing in the History section. Consequently, I would like to propose that we add the following. I have tried to keep it as factual as possible. If anyone has a problem with this, I recommend that they take a look at the entry for Melaleuca (company), which is nothing more than a sales pitch. I have tried to avoid this type of biased information. Let me know what you think of the following:

"In 1995, Co-Founders Ray Faltinsky and Kevin Fournier, along with a group of investors including Anson Beard of Morgan Stanley/Dean Witter, launched FreeLife International®. In October, 2003 FreeLife launched its top-selling product, Himalayan Goji® Juice – a proprietary functional beverage that is derived from the goji berry, which is native to Asia. Used for thousands of years in Traditional Chinese Medicine, FreeLife was the first company to introduce the goji berry to North America. In January 2008, FreeLife introduced GoChi, which is the next generation of Himalayan Goji Juice. GoChi contains 30% more of the goji berry’s active ingredient, is preservative free, and Halal and Kosher certified. In addition, FreeLife announced that GoChi is backed by a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study which demonstrates that daily intake of GoChi can dramatically improve up to 13 key health aspects. This study has been accepted for publication in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. In addition to the United States and Puerto Rico, FreeLife is currently open for business in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Brunei, Canada, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Hong Kong, Macau, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, St. Kitts/Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Martin/St. Maarten, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Thailand, and Trinidad & Tobago."Freelifelegal (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a FreeLife employee and new to Wikipedia, so I will need help, especially if I inadvertently violate a Wikipedia rule, especially the Conflict of Interest rule. I suggest that we change the first reference to something more helpful to the reader. The link is supposed to provide information about MLM contracts but it is a website that merely lists various MLM companies. I suggest we get another reference such as the Direct Selling Assocation. At least it attempts to define direct selling. The reference would be http://www.dsa.org/aboutselling/what/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.186.146 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 February 2008

Sorry, I forgot to put those four tildes at the end of this entry. The entry above regarding the reference is mine.Freelifelegal (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Earl Mindell is no longer associated with FreeLife. Consequently, I recommend that reference to Mindell be deleted from this entry.Freelifelegal (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One last comment about the History section. It includes a reference to an FDA warning letter that was received by one of FreeLife's distributors. First, this person is no longer a FreeLife distributor. Second, this was an overzealous distributor who did not know any better and they were sanctioned because of these claims. Third, if you check the FDA website, you find numerous warning letters sent to distributors of other direct sale companies and some cases the company itself. However, if you look at the Wikipedia entries for all of FreeLife competitors, you will not find one of these letters referred to in the entry. Why is that? Why is no FDA warning letter of August 2006 to an individual distributor important to the FreeLife entry? I suggest this comes right out.Freelifelegal (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a new ABC report on goji. See http://www.abcactionnews.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=6834@wfts.dayport.com This should be added to the ABC footnote that is currently in the History section.Freelifelegal (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Products

I am still uncomfortable about the discussion of cancer related to FreeLife and Himalayan Goji Juice. This is not a drug and it does not and FreeLife does not claim that it is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. I recommend that we take the reference to cancer out. There have been studies on goji berry related to cancer but there have been no human clinical studies on the berry and certainly not on FreeLife's products.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The description of the multilevel plan is misleading. It seems to imply that people make money by recruiting other people. It is true that they do recruit people but they earn nothing by mere fact of recruiting. No commissions are paid unless a product is sold. Furthermore, the entry erroneously states that there is an initial "investment" plus they must sign up for a monthly shipments of Himalayan Goji juice. There is absolutely no requirement that a distributor join the monthly recurring order program. They do not have to buy anything. I will make a change to this unless someone has a vigorous objection.Freelifelegal (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new section that would include information about FreeLife's sales history. I am modelling this entry on the Melaleuca (company) section. It will not be a blantant sales pitch with sales growth charts, just basic sales information, which is important for the reader to understand the nature of the company. Let me know if you have any suggested changes to the following proposed entry. "Sales History FreeLife was recognized by Inc. Magazine as one of the fastest growing companies in the United States in 2000. Since the introduction of Himalayan Goji Juice in late 2003, FreeLife has had record sales in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. FreeLife has had 15 consecutive quarters of record growth, and continues to be a profitable and financially solid company."Freelifelegal (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose adding a section entitle "Science" wherein I recommend listing FreeLife's Scientific Advisory Board. This is relevant since much of the news about goji and FreeLife's goji is the alleged lack of evidence that the product has health benefits. It is also relevant because a few direct sales companies have "come under fire" for touting scientists on their Advisory Board as independent scientist when, in fact, they are being compensated based upon sales of a particular product they helped developed or as distributors. FreeLife's advisory board have no financial interest in FreeLife and do not endorse our products. FreeLife has asked its advisory board to assist it in providing good science to support health claims and to review it's science to ensure it meets generally accepted scientific testing methods and analysis. This involves human clinical studies on the FreeLife product. These will not be cited until they are acccepted for publication in peer reviewed Journals.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the Melaleuca (company) entry as a model, I recommend that we include the following section in the FreeLife entry. I am concerned about this since there was an objection raised in the past about out of date awards; however, such awards from the past are commonly referred to by other companies. Let me know what you think.

“Awards and Public Recognition

FreeLife International and Co-Founders Ray Faltinsky and Kevin Fournier have been the recipients of numerous distinguished honors and awards:

• Inc. 500 List of Fastest Growing Businesses – FreeLife was ranked by “Inc.” magazine as one of the fastest-growing, privately held companies in America in 2000.1 • Success Magazine – Youngest Company on Cover • House of Business – “Hottest Ever Nutrition Company” • 2003 – Ray Faltinsky was invited to serve on the Board of the Direct Selling Association • The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation named FreeLife as their 2005 Corporate Honoree for their support of this organization through FreeLife’s GojiKids charitable giving program • Letter of commendation from Senator Joseph Lieberman for charitable efforts.2

1. http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2007/company-profile.html?id=2000296

2. http://www.freelife.com/info/freelifetimes/04142005/lieberman_letter.htm “Freelifelegal (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely amazed that the entry has now reverted back to the entry before I started the various discussion items with any response to my comments whatsoever and without any rationalization for such conduct. Is there anything that I have suggested in my discussion above that is a violation of Wikipedia rules? If there is, then have the courtesy of informing me. I have been very careful to only include those items that can be verified. So much for rules. It appears that the only rules that Wikipedians live by is that there are no rules.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I intend on making the changes back to what I had before this recent anonymous vandalism. If you have any comments, about them make them fast.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again the entry has reverted back and rather than respond to my comments on an open discussion page, I am sent a message that merely quotes the conflict of interest and other rules. Just because an editor is somehow connected to the subject of a Wikipedia entry does not automatically mean that there is a conflict of interest or a bias. When we were having problems in the past with this entry we contacted Jimbo Wales. The following is his response to one of our Vice Presidents,

"In terms of a recommendation for you, what I think is best is to post openly (name and title) on the *discussion* page of the article. Be unfailingly sweet and loving and kind, even if there are other people being rude. We call this "leaving a clean paper trail"... in case we need to discipline or block some people from editing the page, it is normally much better if one side has followed the highest standards of behavior. Refrain from threats that sound like legal threats, and just portray an attitude of acceptance that some criticism will be mentioned, while also being clear that a balanced picture must be presented. If you can do that, then this will all go very smoothly indeed. :) --Jimbo"

That is exactly what we have done here but once again, the individual editor or administrator makes his or her own interpretation of the rules and, in my opinion, vandalizes the entry without concern for presenting a balanced picture. I will continue to change this entry until we get a dialogue going on the discussion page.Freelifelegal (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can make this change back to a balanced entry all day.Freelifelegal (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've temporarilly reverted much of the content back again. This has more to do with verifiability more than content. While neither version are fully sourced, I am forced to question the pointy changes that were done in violation of site policies (WP:COI and WP:3RR) - resulting in the prior version gaining temporary favor until reliable sources can be verified to justify the attempted revisions. I'm willing to discuss changes; but some information is needed. First and foremost, please provide reference sources to justify the changes. Among other items, you mention published studies; can you provide links to those studies? Also, can you provide links clarifying who/when the company was founded? The two versions appear to diverge on those points. Please note also that the awards and science sections were purged as they were clearly more to do with marketing value than encyclopedic value - although personally I have no objection to working the Inc 500 mention into the history section, as it was sourced. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding. Now that someone has finally taken an interest in discussing this entry, I think we can create a balanced article. Links related to the company will have to wait until Monday. The company is doing a major software upgrade so company info will not be available until after the weekend. What type of verification do you need regarding who and when the company was founded? I can provide a link to the Connecticut Secretary of State page for the incorporation. For the founders, will the company website be adequate? I can provide the links to the studies on the cancer issue, although I am still a bit uncomfortable even suggesting a connection between our products and cancer. FreeLife does not make disease claims for its products. I will create suggested entries with references included by section for your review. Thanks again for your help.Freelifelegal (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just another quick note. Please do me a favor and look at the Melaleuca (company) entry. You will see why our customers and distributors question our entry when they look at the entry of one of our competitors.Freelifelegal (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see some issues over there as well, and will look closer at the start of the week (I really need to start on dinner here now).

For this article, I understand your concerns on mentioning studies to support the cancer issues. I mentioned needing references because the initial wording you had inserted to the article stated "Several published studies have been made linking the juice with benefits for cancer patients, a claim which has caused controversy because the Goji Juice is an antioxidant, which can interfere with existing cancer treatments." - where the original wording stated they were unpublished. If its mentioned, then links to the studies need to be inserted - but the wording could be looked at because I agree that claims of that type should not be prominent within the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Working towards a revised version

Sorry for the delay in getting back on this. I had to wait for the sytems be back up after the weekend software upgrade. As mentioned, it would be easier (at least for me) to take this section by section and get a consensus on the edit. The following is a proposed History section. We received negative comments from one editor that they did not like the "sappy" contents of this section; however, the founders motivation for starting the company is relevant particularly since it led him to do his thesis on direct sales while at Yale. Here we go: "In 1995, Co-Founders Ray Faltinsky and Kevin Fournier, along with a group of investors including Anson Beard of Morgan Stanley/Dean Witter, launched FreeLife International®, a direct sales company. The idea for the company was based on Faltinsky’s passion for nutrition. When he was 15 years old, Faltinsky witnessed his Mother’s cure of a crippling case of osteoporosis through the use of nutritional supplements. As a result, he wanted to share the good news of nutrition with as many people as he possibly could. Years later, Faltinsky wrote his graduate thesis 1 on direct selling while attending Yale Law School, where the idea for FreeLife was born. International Operations In addition to the United States and Puerto Rico, FreeLife is currently open for business in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Brunei, Canada, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Hong Kong, Macau, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, St. Kitts/Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Martin/St. Maarten, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Thailand, and Trinidad & Tobago. 1. http://corporate.freelife.com/PDF/ray_thesis.pdf "Freelifelegal (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My primary concern would be with the two sentenses "When he was 15 years old, Faltinsky witnessed his Mother’s cure of a crippling case of osteoporosis through the use of nutritional supplements. As a result, he wanted to share the good news of nutrition with as many people as he possibly could." - the only source we would have for that is Faltinsky himself. As a result, those lines would quickly be removed by others if inserted here as they are not verifiable. Ideally, I would also love to see a link to a reliable source that supports the mention of those involved with founding the company (actually, I would love to see RS citations for all of the article); but I recognise that as it's a private company, it could be difficult or impossible to find independant sources documenting the origins of the company.

I've taken what you proposed and merged it with the existing content of the article plus a little from prior revisions to come up with the following draft for the two existing sections. I realize that you have voiced concerns with some parts of the existing article that I've used here, but it gives us a starting point to reach consensus on a revised content. I've left out mention of the Yale paper for now, as it appears more of a biography piece on one of the founders rather than on the company itself, please clarify if I'm missing how it applies to FreeLife or its business model.

Products: FreeLife’s product line initially consisted of nutritional supplements, weight loss products, shampoo and personal care products. FreeLife has since changed its product lines and now focuses on a juice made from wolfberry and sold under the name of Himalayan Goji Juice.

FreeLife operates as an international multi-level marketing company where sale of a consumer products take place person-to-person, away from a fixed retail location. These products are marketed to customers by independent salespeople who are paid commissions on their sales and the sales of their downline. Getting started includes an initial membership fee of $39.95

History: In 1995, Co-Founders Ray Faltinsky and Kevin Fournier, along with a group of investors including Anson Beard of Morgan Stanley/Dean Witter, launched FreeLife International® as a direct sales company. As FreeLife grew, it was listed in 2000 in Inc. 500's List of Fastest Growing Businesses.[1]FreeLife has sinse grown to include operations in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Brunei, Canada, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Hong Kong, Macau, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Singapore, St. Kitts/Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Martin/St. Maarten, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, and the United States.

FreeLife's former spokesperson, Earl Mindell, has made several claims about the health benefits of the goji brand of wolfberry juice, including that it has anti-aging properties.. Several unpublished studies have been made linking the juice with benefits for cancer patients, a claim which has caused controversy because the Goji Juice is an antioxidant, which can interfere with existing cancer treatments. A seller of Goji Juice, was warned about making unsubstantiated claims about the juice's health benefits by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Former spokesperson, Mindell's involvement with FreeLife was subject of a confrontational CBC documentary in January 2007.

See also: Herbal supplements

I also believe that a reference to FreeLife's public statement on Goji juice (whether they state health benefits or not) would be appropriate, if you can provide such a statement and a link to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia WikiProject Companies/Guidelines indicates in general terms the aim of the project as, “to enhance the depth of company descriptions, including the placement of their activities and product developments in context, thereby providing connections between things and their origins that we often forget or overlook.” Furthermore, although we are not dealing with a merger or acquisition here, the guidelines provide in that section that “Management philosophy, vision, and values are also a major element of corporations and their behavior…” I propose that these guidelines suggest that the historical information about the origin of Ray Faltinsky’s interest in nutrition and his Yale thesis are the context in which the management philosophy, vision and values of FreeLife were created.

We should include the newest FreeLife goji juice product, GoChi. This was launched on January 8, 2008. It is important to include this product since it is the subject of numerous human clinical studies. The first of these studies has been accepted for publication by The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=26 The other studies are also being prepared for submission to medical journals. This is important since one of the negatives that have been raised about goji juice and other exotic juices is that there is no scientific proof of their efficacy. This is not the case now for FreeLife's goji juice.

As mentioned previously, I would eliminate any reference to the goji berry or goji juice and their relationship to cancer treatment. FreeLife does not make any disease claims nor does it allow its distributors to makes such claims. As requested, we can link to our website where it is clearly stated that distributors are not allowed to make medical claims. The following link is to something called “ The FreeLife Way” wherein at paragraph seven we state that they cannot make such claims http://www.freelife.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=usa.CID_02_007 It would be better to link to the policies but it would be too difficult for someone to find the relevant section.

Just for your information, there are published studies regarding goji (lycium barbarum) just so that you know that the “unpublished” statement is wrong. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7720497?ordinalpos=88&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum This does not relate to FreeLife's goji juice product, although it was conducted using lycium barbarum. This is not a suggestion that we use this material.

The reference to FDA warnings should be deleted in its entirety. First, this was not an FDA warning letter to FreeLife but to one of its independent distributors, who is no longer a distributor. Second, every single direct sales company that sells any kind of nutritional product has received an FDA warning letter at one time or another. Most of them are just distributors who did not know any better. But in some cases, it was actually a warning to the particular direct sales company. No other direct sales company has any reference to such FDA warning letters in its Wikipedia entry, even though some of them were to the company rather than their distributor.

This is enough for now. If we get into too many issues all at once, things may be overlooked in the discussion.Freelifelegal (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to your points one-by-one below (hopefully I didn't miss any) ...

• On the biography data; regardless of the goals of a particular wikiproject, they still must abide by the site policies, and one of the core policies is the concept of verifiability. Even if I were to agree with you on adding those lines about Faltinsky at 15 and how that influenced him, they would be removed by others as they do not provide a reliable source and are not verifiable. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (many find this statement somewhat surprising, but there are reasons for it). In this case, the problem is that we only have his word on it. While I'm not saying it's the case here, please understand that we frequently see biographies of people being added to Wikipedia where the person is characterized as something of a cross between Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, and Nostradamus. By requiring verifiability, that can be contained to documentable claims about the person. It does result in some factual content being omitted; but the community long ago determined that the benefit of this stance far outweigh the limitations.
• On the Yale paper, I have no objection to including it as a reference if it somehow related to FreeLife as a company today; but you would need to help provide explainations of that.
• I agree with mentioning the newer product that was introduced; it's a relevant product of the company. I would also attach the referenced study to a one sentence comment about it (although we will need to know/document which issue, page, and publication date as I'm guessing we can't link to the document itself in this case). The current link only appears to describe the journal, not display the study. If not available or time is needed to locate those details, the product could still just be mentioned without a reference to the study for now - adding it when citation information is available later.
• After looking closer at the linked article on the cancer claims, it states that studies are ongoing, and are related to the berry, not FreeLife's product - so more relevant to the wolfberry article rather than here. If we drop that mention, the whole published v. unpublished issue also vanishes. The statements and actions by Mindell would still be relevant, but that's about all that would remain from that paragraph.
• As you've now provided a link to FreeLife's official guidelines to distributors, I believe we can remove the reference to the FDA letter which was directed to "Healthsuperstore.com", not FreeLife. Without that link, there was no documented reason to show that the distributor was acting outside of FreeLife's guidelines. With that link, it can be explained as being a rogue distributor, and not specific to FreeLife. Again, WP:RS and WP:V are involved here, helping to clarify what is relevant.

You mentioned some additional items to discuss after these, so I'll hold off on drafting another update for now and wait for your reply. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the clinical study, when as study is accepted for publication, the journal requires you to sign over the copyright, which means the authors cannot publish the study in any way. We can use the abstract for the study, similar to what you see on PubMed. I will suggest that we do that; however, I cannot provide a link to the abstract until it is added to our website. I suspect it will be Monday until this is accomplished.

I certainly understand the verifiability rules of Wikipedia, but I am struggling with how to verify anything about a private company. It is not like we can rely on 10K's or 8K's like a public company. Will links to our website suffice? For example, I would like to provide information about FreeLife's charitable giving program; however, the only verification I will be able to provide is the information from our website, as well as a letter from Senator Leiberman.

I would also like to list our Scientific Advisory Board members. This is extremely important to our efforts to create or support clinical human studies on the efficacy of the products that are verified by independent scientists. It is also important for us to show that our Scientific Advisory Board is completely independent. There have been some recent scandals regarding direct sales companies whose science advisors were receiving compensation based upon the sale of a product they helped create or were distributors. How can I verify this other than quote our statement from our website?Freelifelegal (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the copyright issues; but if we can get the issue number of the journal, page, and publication date (or even better, the code identifier for libraries - I think that's an ISSN number, but it has been decades sinse I've needed to look one up, so I could be wrong on the codes name), that should be adequate.

Ideally, we should minimize links to the corporate website - independant reliable sources are considered superior; but there are some cases where it's unavoidable. But, we also need to keep any appearance of advertising/marketing type content to a minimum. For example, it may be reasonable to include a mention that FreeLife has a charitable giving program, but no need for details. The same issue begins to come into play with an advisory board. Mentioning one exists and that they are independent, then using a reference to a list and/or policy on FreeLife's site would be appropriate, but listing out the details here could be viewed as marketing/advertising. But, ideally, news coverage from a reliable source mentioning that it's an independent board would be better. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I am waiting for then entry on our site regarding the acceptance of the clinical study by the Journal. I cannot give you the ISSN since it has not been published yet, it has been accepted for publication, which means the JACM independent scientists have reviewed the testing protocol, data, and findings and found it worthy to be published. As a result the journal has agreed to publish the article. It probably will not be until June or July before it actually appears in the hard copy Journal. There are also two more human clinical studies that have been completed on the new product. They are being submitted for publication. I will see if we can get links from these medical organizations to see the abstracts of the studies.

With respect to the Scientific Advisory Board, it is fine with me that we link to a list of the advisors. The mere fact that FreeLife has created an Scientific Advisory Board is probably not something that will get much coverage in the media but I will look to see if there is a link somewhere.

You also asked about the Yale dissertation. The relevance of this is related to the very reason the company was created and the business model chosen. It is particularly relevant to a direct sales company because of the negative PR that the industry has suffered in the past. Ray used this dissertation as the starting point for creating the company and its sales structure so that it would capture the advantages of direct sales and at the same time ensure compliance with the relevant laws and regulations throught the various states.Freelifelegal (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and work the changes we've discussed into the article later this week. No point holding it in a state that is agreed by all to be incorrect. We can discuss and add additional references as they become available. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Updated article

Based on the above discussions, I've made multiple modifications to the article - plus some cleanup of the references used. I've also worked in the Yale paper; I'm not 100% comfortable with it, but in the current form of the ref, it's not a major concern for me. I've also added a mention of the GoChi product. However, I do not, as yet, have a reference to the advisory board; I think that should go into the history section, but I hadn't seen a link or ref provided for it as yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a page regarding our Scientific Advisory Board. http://www.freelife.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=usa.CID_01_002 Let me know if you think this is appropriate. I am hoping to have the link re the clinical study tomorrow.Freelifelegal (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the acceptance e-mail from The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Will this suffice until it is posted on the JACM website. I will include an abstract of the study once the link is up.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement, "They have been criticised for making misleading claims about their products and for their sales tactics" needs to be removed. To have this as the first substantive piece of information that a ready sees about the company is not in keeping with Wikipedia's goal of a neutral point of view. If one reviews the CBC Marketplace show, you will see that the thrust of the show was about Earl Mindell. Second, FreeLife itself was not criticized for their sales tactics. The CBC never spoke to FreeLife itself before airing this program even though they were offered an opportunity to come to our head office. Moreover, since the program was broadcasted, there have been a number of developments that render a significant portion of the program's information to be completely inaccurate, defamatory and misleading.

As of January 1, 2008, Earl Mindell is no longer affiliated with FreeLife in anyway. In his place is the Scientific Advisory Board that is already mentioned.

CBC implied that there are no proper studies to support any health benefits for Himalayan Goji Juice. This is false. As mentioned previously, FreeLife has conducted three randomized, double blind, placebo controlled human clinical studies on its product that demonstrate significant health benefits, the first of which has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. (see link above)

A copy of “The FreeLife Way,” which is included as reference in this entry, is provided to every distributor in their initial business kit and is on FreeLife’s website. Amongst other items, The FreeLife Way provides that distributors agree as follows: “I will not make any therapeutic or medical claims in connection with the marketing or sale of any FreeLife International product. Not only do such claims violate FreeLife's polices, but they also violate federal laws and regulations, including those administered by the food and drug regulatory agencies in your country.”Freelifelegal (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I have not received a response and the statement,"They have been criticised for making misleading claims about their products and for their sales tactics" violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view and verifiabilty rules. I will be taking this off. Whoever put this up there is coming to their own conclusions and stating them as fact.Freelifelegal (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, changes that I make based upon reasoned argument above, are changed without any discussion whatsoever. I thought we were make good progress on moving to a fair entry. I sure wish the person reverting my changes would be courteous and post on the discussion page so we can work through this rather just acting arbitrarily and unilaterally.Freelifelegal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One further comment, to add the reference pyramid selling is outrageous. Once again a violation of neutral point of view and verifiability. That is coming off immediately. Editors just adding their own personal opinions without a bit of justification.Freelifelegal (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to company website

An anon changed the external link to the "official website" to be www.doiron.freelife.com. As no reason for this change was given, and the original link still works, I suspected vandalism and reverted it back to the original link. If the change was appropriate, then at the very least an edit summary explaining the change should be provided, so that there's no misunderstanding. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Is there anyway that we can find out who this anonymous person is? Wasn't there a program that someone created that allows us to find out this information?Freelifelegal (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We discovered the identity of the anonymous editor and have sent him an e-mail demanding that he cease all changes to Wikipedia entries in anyway related to FreeLife.Freelifelegal (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a who-is lookup on the IP, but it only told me it was a user connecting via Bell Canada. I'll leave it to your company to address the IP address, as you believe you've identified the party involved. As long as they don't continue to vandalise articles or spam links, then I have no further issues with them myself now that their change has been reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm concerned when a clear COI account removes crticism from an article. Please explain the removal here on the talk page. Cheers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I see you adressed the issue above, and I failed to spot it. I will revert myself. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we are trying to be "up front" and play by the rules. It can be difficult at times. Working with Barek is very productive.Freelifelegal (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Human Pilot Study Update

I would like to update this section to include two additional human clinical studies. One of which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and one that has been accepted for publication and is in press. Including these studies also requires that the title of this section be changed. I would suggest that it be changed to "Human Clinical Studies." The following are the summaries I would like to include. These will include links to Pub Med where the study has already been published and to an abstract in the case of the study that is still in press.

"Antioxidant study: In January 2009, the journal Nutrition Research published a study of the effects of FreeLife's GoChi juice on the antioxidant status of healthy adults. The authors concluded that daily consumption of GoChi for 30 days significantly increased levels of endogenous blood antioxidants and significantly reduced markers of free-radical mediated lipid peroxidation.

Immune study: In December 2008, the Journal of Medicinal Food accepted a study (in press) of the immunomodulatory effects of FreeLife's GoChi juice on healthy adults. The authors concluded that daily consumption of GoChi for 30 days significantly increased significantly increased several measures of immunological function. The study also found significant improvement in subjective feelings of general well-being as had been demonstrated in previous GoChi clinical research."

The reference for the Antioxidant study would be as follows:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19185773?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The reference for the Immune Study would be as follows:

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/22/2_MeetingAbstracts/776?maxtoshow=&HITS=20&hits=20&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Amagase+H&title=Lycium+barbarum&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

I would also like to include links to the following summaries of each study:

Antioxidant Study Summary

Amagase H, Sun B, Borek C.

Lycium barbarum (goji) juice shows significant in vivo antioxidant effects in human serum in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study

Nutrition Research 29: 19-25, 2009. BACKGROUND For thousands of years, the goji berry (Lycium barbarum) has been a mainstay of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Reputed to be a premier supertonic, goji is an important component of a wide array of classic TCM formulations. Goji’s ancient tradition is now being validated by modern science, with a growing number of published research papers. The majority of current research attributes much of the goji berry’s broad-based health benefits to the presence of unique glycoproteins – not found in any other species – called Lycium barbarum polysaccharides (LBP). GoChi brand goji juice is standardized to a high level of LBP. REASONS FOR THE STUDY Antioxidants play an important role in preventing damage to the body caused by harmful environmental oxygen free radicals. Although ordinary oxygen (O2) is necessary for life, its free radical forms are unstable and can attack healthy cells, causing premature aging and contributing to disease. For this reason, many people seek to increase their intake of dietary antioxidants, especially foods and beverages with high scores on a laboratory test called ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity). But ORAC only measures antioxidant potential in a test tube, and does not take into account the complexities of the human body. Many high-ORAC antioxidants, particularly those found in many fruits and fruit juices, are poorly absorbed or are metabolized to yield chemical entities whose antioxidant activity is unstudied. The poor bioavailability of fruit antioxidants has been well-documented in the literature.( , ) We believe that it is far more meaningful to human health to maintain high serum levels of the body’s endogenous antioxidants, namely superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px). In addition to their free-radical scavenging roles, these antioxidant enzymes perform other important functions as well: SOD plays a key role in the body’s inflammation responses, and glutathione enzymes are necessary for many detoxification processes. Both enzymes are especially effective at reducing lipid peroxidation, a particularly dangerous form of free radical damage that is associated with increased health risk. In blood tests, lipid peroxidation is indicated by the presence of the toxic body chemical malondialdehyde (MDA). Prior third-party research studies in cell culture and in animals have suggested that goji’s bioactive LBP might improve antioxidant protection by reducing MDA and increasing SOD and GSH-Px. This study is the first controlled human clinical trial to attempt to demonstrate an actual in vivo increase in blood antioxidant status and a corresponding decrease in free-radical activity. STUDY DESIGN This randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled 30-day clinical trial was conducted at an independent research facility in conformance with FDA Good Clinical Practice. Fifty healthy adult subjects were divided into two groups selected at random, with adequate screening to ensure fair and even intragroup and intergroup distribution. The GoChi group was administered 120 ml (4 fl. oz.) daily of GoChi™. The placebo group received an inactive control solution Before beginning the study, all participants were tested for serum levels of SOD, GSH-Px and MDA. There were no significant differences in starting point levels between the two groups, thus confirming suitability and compatibility. After the 30 day duration of the trial, serum analysis was performed once again in each group to determine statistically if there were any significant changes in serum SOD, GSH-Px and MDA between the start of the study and its completion. RESULTS The GoChi group showed highly significant (p<0.01) improvements in serum levels of both endogenous antioxidant enzymes. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) was increased by 8.39% over starting point, and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) was increased by 9.87%. Along with the increased antioxidant activity observed in this study, there was a corresponding reduction in malondialdehyde (MDA), a prime indicator of free radical damage and a known health risk factor. MDA levels were improved significantly (p<0.05) in the GoChi group, decreasing 8.66% during the course of the study. No statistically significant changes were found in the placebo group for any of the three serum markers tested. There were no adverse events reported by any subjects in either the GoChi or the placebo group during the study period. CONCLUSION The results shown in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical study indicate that daily consumption of GoChi may help to improve health and reduce oxidative stress by increasing endogenous antioxidant enzymes and by reducing a key marker of lipid peroxidation.

Immune Study Summary

Amagase H, Sun B, Nance, D.

Immunomodulatory effects of a standardized Lycium barbarum fruit juice in Chinese older healthy human subjects Journal of Medicinal Food (manuscript ID JMF-2008-0300, in press) 2009 BACKGROUND For thousands of years, the goji berry (Lycium barbarum) has been a mainstay of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Reputed to be a premier supertonic, goji is an important component of a wide array of classic TCM formulations. Goji’s ancient tradition is now being validated by modern science, with a growing number of published research papers. The majority of current research attributes much of the goji berry’s broad-based health benefits to the presence of unique glycoproteins – not found in any other species – called Lycium barbarum polysaccharides (LBP). GoChi brand goji juice is standardized to a high level of LBP. REASONS FOR THE STUDY From the earliest writings, the medical texts of Asia have declared the goji berry to be highly superior for maintaining the health and well-being of the entire body. Modern research has suggested that these far-ranging traditionally observed benefits may be largely due to the presence of unique glycoproteins – not found in any other species – called Lycium barbarum polysaccharides (LBP). Immune effects of LBP have been demonstrated in studies by numerous researchers. These investigations, however, have been performed primarily in cell culture and in animals. This controlled human clinical trial was undertaken to validate 4,000 years of traditional goji use by examining the effect of GoChi – a goji juice standardized to a high potency of LBP – on key serum markers of immunity. The present study also sought to confirm improvements on neurological and psychological assessments of general well-being that were observed in our previous controlled studies. STUDY DESIGN This randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled 30-day clinical trial was conducted at an independent research facility in conformance with FDA Good Clinical Practice. Sixty healthy adult subjects were divided into two groups selected at random, with adequate screening to ensure fair and even intragroup and intergroup distribution. The GoChi group was administered 120 ml (4 fl. oz.) daily of GoChi™. The placebo group received an inactive control solution Before beginning the study, all participants were given questionnaires to assess their starting point values for general well-being, neurological and psychological performance. To determine starting point immune status, extensive physical exams were given, including blood chemistry, urine and stool analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups at starting point, thus confirming suitability and compatibility. RESULTS The GoChi group showed a significant increase in subjective assessments of general feelings of well-being, such as fatigue and sleep, and total efficacy of these primary assessments was significantly improved by 63%. GoChi also improved immune markers, increasing the number of lymphocytes by 27%, interleukin-2 (IL-2) by 58%, and immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels by 19% compared to baseline, whereas the number of CD4, CD8, or NK cells, or IL-4, and IgA levels were not significantly changed. There was a tendency for increased short-term memory and focus for the GoChi group. No adverse reactions or abnormal symptoms were reported during the trial and there were no changes in body weight, blood pressure, pulse rate, visual acuity, urine, stool, or blood biochemistry. No significant improvements were found in any of the indications in the placebo group. Thus, daily consumption of GoChi for 30 days significantly increased subjective feelings of general well-being and increased several measures of immunological function without any adverse reactions. CONCLUSION The results shown in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical study conclude that daily consumption of GoChi for 30 days significantly improved three key aspects of healthy immune function, and the study re-confirmed previous findings that GoChi can improve assessments of general health and well-being with no observed toxicity or side effects.

Please let me know if there is a problem with posting these clinical studies or my references.Freelifelegal (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the conflict of interest here, I'm against any mention of it without an independent, reliable source for us to determine a properly neutral presentation, if any is warranted at all. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't spit on the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine if it was on fire and I've never heard of the FASEB journal, Nutrition Research is peer-reviewed and should be considered reliable, the authors have acknowledged their COI clearly in the papers, so I would allow it to stand minus the obvious company spin and alongside alternative potential explanations for the effects, such as experimenter bias. Famousdog (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Banner

This article is currently headed by a banner saying it has multiple issues. The "multiple issues" are basically that it is a near-orphan linked to by few pages (it isn't, IMO) and that it needs additional sources (the sources are quite comprehensive, IMO). I am going to be bold and remove the banner and see who objects! Famousdog (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)