The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This articles primary purpose appears to be to promote the selling of the SOD/CAT dietary supplement. The science behind this article appears to be extremely dubious. Quoting from the article "SOD/CAT ... includes naturally occurring prebiotic oligosaccharides, as well as probiotic bifidobacteria and lactic acid bacteria, and organically bound selenium" that "induces a signaling cascade, ultimately activating the genes for a family of protective antioxidant enzymes". The way that [[phytoestrogen]]s work is to activate the [[estrogen receptor]]. There is no evidence that "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" or "organically bound selenium" can activate the estrogen receptor. The article includes many citations to support the link between phytoestrogens and increasing the expression of antioxidant enzymes. However the article contains no reliable source which would support the link between "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" or "organically bound selenium" and increasing the amount or effectiveness either of phytoestrogens or antioxidant enzymes. Boghog2 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements Before Recommending Deletions:Its just like Assuming Good Faith
Well, you're right . . . There is no evidence that "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" or "organically bound selenium" can activate the estrogen receptor The article discusses and supports the mechanisms of action as proposed by the manufacturer, and cites a wealth of research which performed independently within third-party institutions, which document the likely pathway between "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" "phytoestrogens" and SOD1, SOD2, SOD3 and catalase. The manufacturer also provides research which was published by independent third-parties (LEF.ORG)<reg> Unlike most drugs, and unlike LifeVantage, the makers of Protandim, Joe McCord doesn't work here, so the Journal of Free Radical and Biology might not simply publish an article about this novel methodology. Well, Dr. McCord's $12 million common shares in LifeVantage didn't even warrant a COI disclosure from there article. (That's another issue.) .</ref>. The scientific support you demand is contained within the article and the supporting research without question. Novel mechanisms of manufacture, probiotics, prebiotics, and all the other documented methodologies support the claims asserted. The product contains key phytoSERMs and the pathway to cell signalling cascades generating the antioxidant enzymes are clearly documented in the supporting research: The conversion of weaker phytoestrogens (e.g. diadzein) to S-Equol which, inter alia, unregulates SOD2 and catalase activityAs the article attempts to explain, the organically bound selenium is an additive which proposes to support glutathione peroxidase activity, not upregulation of gene response, and the same can be said about the support for its cyanocobalamins, and methacobalamins (forms of vitamin b-12) are there to support methionine reductase activity. If I weren't so new to Wikipedia, I would have had better syntax on the references and I would be have become accustomed to the balace between less is more in my encyclopedia entry without requiring the reader to pore through the referenced work for the ah ha moment. A great deal more needs to be done here to complete this article. At this time, I find the support afforded me by editors like DGG and (whoever that other person was after him) to be the principal reason to participate in this Wikipedia project. )
This technology is widely available under (mostly other third-party tradenames other than SOD/CAT.) The product has, does, and will continue to make money, but no one is getting much of it here, so please assume good-faith and don't accuse the value of the work with simple fact that something one knows this well is likely part of one's means of earning a living, at least to some degree.
Delete - DGG already decline speedy deletion. It still reads like shameless promotional language to me, with obvious spammy intentions. I will defer to DGG, however, who seems to see some merit in it invisible to me, and revert my speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PubMed contains PMID17506982 about "SOD/CAT", but this refers to an entirely different substance with the same name. Similarly, some of the papers cited in this article as if they refer to this supplement in fact do not talk about it at all but discuss the enzyme of the same name (PMID17122956 for example). No reliable sources about a topic = no article in Wikipedia. Tim Vickers (talk)
Response to TimVickers No SOD/CAT the abrev. wasn't intended to be SOD/CAT the product. More importantly, at least read about the Life Extension Foundation research here: [2] It's a very strong, independent confirmation of the technology. What about the Belorussian Study? It's a peer reviewed journal. Also, read about the trials and tribulations of the startup biotech (recently added.) I'm sure they would have preferred to publish their findings in The Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine too but what they have published is offered as verifiable support for the claims, and accomplish the goal of providing a reliable source. Could someone please show me where it says all reliable sources within this context must be from peer reviewed journal approved by XXXXXXX body of science. My guess is that it doesn't exist. Judge the statements on the merits. Judge the source on the merits. The concept of peer reviewed journals only hurts my head because it excuses everyone here from reliance upon their own intellectual curiosity by instead inserting legalistic 'a rule,' which renders the Wikipedia experiment as nothing more than another elitist's tool to be captured and manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry. RGK (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MEDRS for a detailed discussion of our policies in this area. I am very unimpressed by the addition of multiple references that do not mention this supplement, in what appears to me to be a transparent attempt to confuse the reader about the lack of any research basis of this product. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dr. Vickers, how would you suggest that one document the mechanisms underlying twenty-one years of anecdotal observation? (Not just mine, but those of hundreds of clinicians like Martin Goldstein, D.V.M.) You can see for yourself that work on ER-beta agonists supports Mn Sod induction [1] and also acts as a strong anti-inflammatory. [2] Of course, I've known this facts for years, but I had no idea that ER-beta sites even existed. However, thanks in large measure to articles published here on Wikipedia, I now have a very clear understanding of the mechanisms which translate simple phytoestrogens into erythrocyte SOD2. I suppose I could keep all this information to myself, but that would let self-important elitists censor Wikipedia to the point that it becomes just another tool in the drug-company-paraphernalia-toolkit. Perhaps I'm just too Irish to let that happen without a fight. Thanks to the SOD/CAT article, were your 'Mr. Loki' to experience the devastation of feline leukemia, rather than simply killing him with corticosteroids, you might consider using the information you've read to reduce his inflammation using a safer, albeit unproven alternative approach. That's the glory of having the information. You get to decide if its relevant or just a bunch of hooey. (To paraphrase Charles Darwin, There is no inherent danger in bad information, but there is danger in bad data." Neither of us can prove that the sun will in fact rise again tomorrow, but we both know that the truth is the truth whether its in two-hundred peer reviewed journals or simply printed out and stapled to one's forehead. I am always unimpressed by patronizing 'authorities' who ignore the truth of a matter in the name of protecting the unwashed masses from themselves: It presumes that the unwashed masses wanted a gatekeeper to protect them from information in the first place, and that we, in the aggregate, cannot discern between apples and a__holes. We, the unwashed, can take care of ourselves Dr. Vickers, we don't need an interpretor to anoint what constitutes sound science and what's just quackery. Thus, the WP:MEDRS policy discussion appears to be helpful and relevant to discussions approved drugs, it has clearly--given the examples I've offered in support of my competing-technology-precedent discussion--fails to provide a consistent policy standard for publishing information about dietary supplement. Thus, it may be the entire, extraordinarily expensive and rigoreous drug approval process that results in a consistent standard for discussions related to approved drug mechanisms, not this same WP:MEDRS policy. Neither example I've cited in my competing-technology-precedent discussion resulted in any measure of a greater truth being ferreted out between the competing antioxidant enzyme induction theories discussed here on Wikipedia. Perhaps that's why DSHEA of 1994 became law. Open your mind to the possibility that yours is not the only path to the truth. It may help you to develop a better WP:MEDRS policy. RGK (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, phytoestrogen is only one aspect of this important technology. The assertion that SOD/CAT and trademarked SOD/CAT are trying to be passed off as the same thing is untrue. Some citations address the technology (for instance selenium as it relates to glutathione peroxidase) It is not intended to as a direct citation to studies on SOD/CAT and it cannot be helped. The research conducted by Life Extension Foundation was independent, peer reviewed and is reliable, at least more reliable than competing technologies "peer reviewed journals:" See Protandim comments at talk page. Read the about the pathway leading to the peer review process. It's expensive, requires extensive venture capital, etc. If Wikipedians intend to declare everything outside of the Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine do not merit consideration as a reliable source, than why not just cut to the chase and declare that all branded dietary supplements are not welcome to publish an article about their products here. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE CLOSELY. Read the NYTIMES article, read about Protandim, a competing technology promoted by guys with unmitigated access to the Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine. Note that by 2005, they had spent nearly twelve million dollars of someone else's money and had not developed at single thing. I suppose it makes it easier to set aside one's high moral standards and simply publish the garbage they published, and without even disclosing their COI. What is wrong with the people here? Can't anyone comment on the uneven application of standards inherent in this comparative analysis? RGK (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep On 14 Aug, 2009 the article was substantially broadened to include its value as a sort of cautionary tale regarding what can happen with promising starts in the biotech industry. See notes on intellectual property litigation. Meodipt might find the addition of that information especially useful as a citation for his clients who are perhaps unconvinced about the merits of upfront investment in intellectual property. For, example, compare SOD/CAT technology with Bionovo Inc. (I.C., M.T.), Emeryville, California 94608, now in phase II and III drug trials for substantially similar technologies. Intellectual property may not seem important, but try spending all one's resources in Federal Court for twelve-years, and watch the others pass you by. RGK (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the "Search inside this book" feature that is enabled for Rector-Page and Goldstein, no pages discussing "SOD/CAT" are returned in searches of either reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Tim, the one SOD/CAT article is meant to refer to Biotec Foods, Biovet, Biomed Foods, IsoSproutPlex, Cell Guard, Ageless Beauty, Anti-Stress Enzymes, SODZyme, AOX/PLX, GP/CAT, MET/CAT, Biovet Dismutase, Canine Support, Feline Support, Antioxidant Petwafer. These are all the same thing, but if you think it is difficult to support one article, try 15. Now, that would be spam! This information is disclosed in the article under 'Other tradenames.' Dr. Page appears to use the tradename 'Biotec Cell Guard' the most. Dr. Goldstein appears to use AOX/PLX the most. RGK The cites in "Prescriptions for Nutritional Healing are here (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a reliable source stating that this concoction is sold under all these names, you can't use a reference to one product to support the notability of another. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few references that might be of interest (e.g. for the article on phytoestrogens), but it would be better to read the references and incorporate them into the article than to carry over commercially-biased spam. Speculations using phrases such as "likely converted to" don't need to be preserved. Without the sales blurbs, the current text becomes original research. Novangelis (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia original research policy supports keeping this information in a separate article rather than merging it into phytoestrogen. Ignoring the reality that Protandim and Glisodin exist here and that SOD/CAT would not, creates an abridged record of superoxide dismutase induction technologies. That is a key point in this discussion. So, the real issue here seems to be boiling down to merits of what constitutes a reliable source for citations within the context of dietary supplements. If this were an issue about an approved drug, the extraordinarily expensive drug approval process have assured a level playing field. Dr. Vickers is an expert on WP:MEDRS policy, and this is an excellent opportunity to discuss and debate that policy in the context of dietary supplements. In previous discussions I've discussed two similar articles and cited the trouble with their cited sources in comparison to the cites used in this article. Using a hard-and-fast-rule that "peer-reviewed journals" always equate to a "reliable source" is disingenious and contrary to the facts as I've previously documented. Declaring other, quasi-peer reviewed articles as automatically "unreliable sources" is equally falacious and facile. There should be a middle ground. I have no trouble with theWP:MEDRS policy when discussing approved drugs, but dietary supplements are not medicine by legal definition. Therefore, I would propose that dietary supplement articles should use disclaimers, just as DSHEA of 1994 has required in the US. This should be incorporated into the WP:MEDRS policy. Otherwise, what we have here is an uneven application of policy based upon an arbitrary application of power. RGK (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
encyclopedic
Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic
Pronunciation: \-ˈpē-dik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1824
of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : comprehensive <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor> — en·cy·clo·pe·di·cal·ly \-di-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^Aleksandra Cvoro, Sreenivasan Paruthiyil; Leitman, Dale C. (Feb 2007), "Transcriptional Pathways by an Herbal Extract", - 547, 148 (538): 547
^Cvoro, Aleksandra; Leitman, Dale C., "Selective Estrogen Receptor- Agonists Repress Transcription of Pro inflammatory Genes", J Immunol, 2008 (180): 630–636