Jump to content

Talk:Velvet antler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jazzix (talk | contribs) at 16:54, 26 September 2017 (Explanation of Conjecture quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAlternative medicine Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WP:MEDRS sources?

I found three possibilities rather quickly: --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract from the first source reads: "There were no significant hormone changes from baseline to the end of the study in either group of men. We conclude that in normal males there was no advantage in taking deer velvet to enhance sexual function."

The abstract from the second source concludes: "Overall, elk velvet antler does not effectively manage residual symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis"

I could not find the third source (the link produced a "Page not found" error). Taking a quick look at what is available on Google Scholar, it seems that peer-reviewed, research medicine journals have found no evidence that deer antler velvet has any measurable health benefits in humans. This is not to say that deer antler velvet has not been the subject of scientific study, but so far, those studies are either inconclusive (at best) or else show that deer antler velvet has no measurable health benefits. I recommend rewriting the section of the article that begins with "Modern scientific research..." to bring the claimed health benefits more in line with the research record. Jkdimmel (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step, I removed the claims about "increased joint health" and "increased male sexual function", since those claims have specifically been the subject of peer-reviewed research, and (as cited above) that research shows that deer velvet antler does not produce those claimed benefits. Jkdimmel (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's not been shown to have any effect. The third link is gone, and I can't find what it referred to.
What we need is a reference that summarizes the research so we avoid original research working only from studies. The reviews within each study should give us some guidance, but not enough. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an advertisement with links to a seller. Why has it not been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.95 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not an medrs source in my opinion, being excerpts from Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, this is something usable at least for claims made for it despite the lack of any medical evidence: http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-808-DEER%20VELVET.aspx?activeIngredientId=808&activeIngredientName=DEER%20VELVET --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to determine how to use it, I notice that it doesn't distinguish between actual antler velvet and the pre-calcified antler that's actually used. So much for this source being well-researched. Should we still use it? --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

29 Dec expansion

I reverted to prior to the additions of 68.98.4.64 (talk · contribs), because the main source, antlerfarms.com, is not reliable. The other two might be reliable for some information, but are obviously extremely biased. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed back the material to what might be verifiable, leaving the two books as references despite their obvious bias and questionable reliability. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that http://www.antlerfarms.com/literature.htm is not a reliable source, nor does it actually verify anything of the disputed content [1]. This isn't just edit-warring, but spamming a website under the guise of it being a reference when it is not. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it yet again. --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spray extract

It would probably be due weight to mention the spray extract form, which is mentioned at Ray Lewis (football), but I think it would be undue weight to mention Lewis in this article. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Deer Antler Spray

I've proposed a merge from Deer Antler Spray, and would like some help from another editor if you feel there's anything from there worth putting into this article. If not, I'll just make a redirect to velvet antler. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting and starting over with some sources might be best. That article is nothing but NOT, OR, and MEDRS violations. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assist. I'll redirect now! Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims attributed to velvet antler (products)

Dear All.

  • 1. I stumbled across this article, made a small edit requesting a citation and when I checked my log of recent edits I saw that there had been activity on the article page. Curious, I went to check and saw that user:Ronz had deleted a section, labelling it as “advertising”. I consulted the talk page and saw a lot of stuff on the reliability of sources, most of it by or in reaction to user:Ronz. Happy that I had done my homework, I queried Ronz on the “advertising” label on his usertalk page. At that time, I was not aware that the user had had been engaged in a number of bouts of edit-warring with an IP over the section in question.
  • 2. Said section was added by an IP on January 29 2013. After the first bout of edit-warring, Ronz then tagged it as dubious and questioned the source. He also then added “in traditional Chinese medicine” to the said section, but, without any source for that addition. The next day Ronz removed the whole bit again after there was a new round of edit-warring – and the IP removed the addition about Chinese traditional medicine.
  • 3. A few more rounds of edit-warring followed, after which the article was left alone for almost a month, with said section included.
  • 4. March 16 I tagged a claim, requesting a backing source. Ronz then correctly removed a link to a commercial site, but then – after having left the section in place for almost a month – deleted it again, this time labelling it as “advertising”.
  • 5. It is at this point that I come into the picture, puzzled by the "advertising" label.
  • 6. Ronz was not much help, referring me to the talk page, which as can be seen at no point refers to this section as being advertising.
  • 7. I indicated my displeasure at the wishy-washy response.
  • 8. Ronz again replied about reliablity of sources and pointed to the efforts to find reliable sources.
  • 9 I would like to remind fellow editors that this article falls under the portal "Alternative medicine". Whereas the rules for reliable sources apply to the whole WP, you will agree that a sizeable amount on the information on alternative medicine is going to be seen as "unreliable" - is is simply the nature of the beast.
  • 10. You will find the same level of reliability even on articles on Vit C and similar food supplements, 'generally' accepted my 'most' to have beneficial effects.
  • 11. Having said that, I have done a quick test and in a matter of minutes found university papers on the subject - it is a question of how you look for it.
  • 12. Quick tip: add .PDF to your search and you automatically cut out most of the noise, reducing the results to the more 'serious' works on it. That is NOT to say that you won't find quack .PDF, you will.
  • 13. For the time being, I suggest we settle for (not sure if you cqn back-date tags) or .
  • 14. But you can't call it advertising.

Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we WP:FOC.
I removed the material once again. The relevant policies guidelines are NPOV, SOAP, V, RS, REFSPAM, WEASEL, FRINGE, MEDRS. As a start:
The source is not reliable.
The source does not verify any of the material.
Can we at least agree the source isn't one and doesn't belong? --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source, what source?

Let's be clear about something -

  • the contentious section on this article contains one reference that points to a site that produces the product.
  • the section (paragraph) is made up of five [5] sentences, each making some or other claim or statement.
  • the reference is not supporting the claims, it is an index of sources on velvet antler.
  • the text in question is not taken from the site that the reference points to
  • therefore, we cannot delete the text on the strength of the reliability of the site
  • therefore, "fails verification, not a reliable source, refspam" is simply wrong!
  • penalising the article because of that reference is like penalising a section on an article about the moon because someone adds a link to a commercial site about moon voyages. We need to be able to see the forest despite the trees.
  • I am leaving it as is, as edit-warring is not among my list of occupations - I presented thoroughly founded argument, it has been reverted, well, so be it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the source. We agree that it's inappropriate then? Great!
Then "fails verification, not a reliable source, refspam" is absolutely accurate, correct?
As for the rest, let's start with WP:V and note there's still an outdated notice on the article that says, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". I'll go ahead and replace it with a more appropriate notice.
As for the POV notice, it should have a better discussion here on the talk page justifying it. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

antlerfarms.com to be automatically removed

I'm going ahead and requesting it be automatically removed whenever it's added again. Blocking ip's doesn't look like it would be appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic removal has not been applied yet. I'll check the status when I have more time.
The latest ip to edit-war over this is blocked. I'll continue to request blocks of any editors or ip's behaving in a similar manner.
I've requested this article be protected from editing by ip's and new editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in peer-reviewed science journals

For any write-up of the clinical trial science pertaining to athletic performance, I recommend the references listed below. Gilbey 2012 reviews the published work (including both sports performance and other applications). I consider it an unbiased review. Suttie 2004 includes the unpublished studies on sports performance. I consider it biased in favor of concluding there are benefits.

A point that needs to be made is the fallacy of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) being the active ingredient in deer antler velvet dietary supplements (powder, drops, spray). First, DAV is pasteurized, which would inactivate this protein hormone. Second, oral consumption of IGF-1 is nonsensical, as the protein cannot be absorbed intact. There is a FDA-approved indication for IGF-1 as an injected drug. Not oral. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


1. Gilbey A, Perezgonzalez JD. Health benefits of deer and elk velvet antler supplements: a systematic review of randomised controlled studies. N Z Med J 2012;125(1367):80-86.

2. Allen M, Oberle K, et al. A randomized clinical trial of elk velvet antler in rheumatoid arthritis. Biol Res Nurs 2008;9(3):254-261.

3. Syrotuik DG, MacFadyen KL, et al. Effect of elk velvet antler supplementation on the hormonal response to acute and chronic exercise in male and female rowers. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2005g;15(4):366-385.

4. Sleivert G, Burke V, et al. The effects of deer antler velvet extract or powder supplementation on aerobic power, erythropoiesis, and muscular strength and endurance characteristics. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2003;13(3):251-265.

5. Allen M, Oberle K, Grace M, Russell A. Elk velvet antler in rheumatoid arthritis: phase II trial. Biol Res Nurs 2002;3(3):111-118.

6. Broeder CE, et al. New Zealand deer antler velvet and resistance training impact on body composition, aerobic capacity and strength. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2004;36:284–284.

7. Suttie JM, Haines SR. A review of dose levels of deer velvet products in relation to efficacy. AgResearch New Zealand 2004:167-175.

Great job tracking those down! --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Consensus

I ask other people who know about this information to correct and share what they know as appropriate. I have begun the process by adding several topics of interest, my own personal interest in making soups with slices. I tried to do this and was continually edit-warred by user ronz.

I came across this page on 9-15-2015 and began adding credible and reliable sources, as well as pictures to assist conveyance of ideas concerning velvet antler and other topics that redirect to this page such as deer antler velvet and deer antler spray. This project became tedious when user ronz began deleting information and sources based upon non-eligible reasons of removal such as self-published works that are highly referenced. Or the FDA website does not meet MEDRS. Or whatever he feels fit to do.

The attention of an responsible administrator is most likely required to ensure that this page is managed correctly as user ronz will most likely delete any relevant and eligible information he see fit. How do we proceed to add information from folks who know about the information and have read the sources and understand the information. Jazzix (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Corrections in line with Wikipedia Guidelines: 2015-9-15 1. Update source as reliable: Kamen, Paul and Betty, The Remarkable Healing Power of Velvet Antler, Nutrition Encounter, Novato, California, 2003, p. 12 should be changed to Kamen, Betty Phd and Paul, The Remarkable Healing Power of Velvet Antler, Nutrition Encounter, Novato, California, 2003, p. 12-34 - Betty Kamen is listed on the title as a Phd and her work is a secondary source compiling over 100 references. A Phd publishing a secondary souce is reliable. ronz suggestion that a self-published work by a Phd is not acceptable in invalid according to wiki guidelines found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

2. Update source as reliable: (2015-9-15) Batchelder, Helen J., Velvet Antler: A Literature Review, p.1 fda.gov - this document admits from a secondary source the recognition of velvet antler as a dietary supplement. It is easy to see the supplement company's name and the word supplement is used several times through the docket. As the FDA only accepts heavily filtered peer reviewed scientific clinical studies as results for acceptance this is a given with this resource to the reliability of the information. Once again, a government organization has published a secondary filtered information on the website for recognition of the velvet antler as a dietary supplement. ronz suggestion that the FDA as a source concerning the status of dietary supplement is invalid concerning the source and ronz's suggestion that the FDA is not a reliable source is invalid according to wiki guidelines for acceptance. In fact, it would be very hard to find a better source if one existed. Jazzix (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen is a self-published source. The PhD alone is makes no difference as to the reliability, nor the number of references. If Kamen were a noted expert, there'd be no need to self-publish. It should be removed. I don't see any immediate need to remove the associated content.
The literature review looks to be a filing with the FDA. I've no idea for what. It absolutely is not a reliable source, let alone a medical one, let alone something that the FDA agrees with in any manner. It is simply a self-published article (looks like something copied from a website), that was filed with the FDA for some (unknown) reason. The paragraph should be removed per MEDRS. The medical claims require a MEDRS source. Anything attributed to the FDA must be sourced by the FDA or a source reliable for such information. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ronz does not follow wiki guidelines of acceptance and ignores what is considered reliable sources, it is hard to imagine that this user has been on wiki for ten years. ronz has not read the Kamen book nor does he understand the what the FDA is 67.204.178.51 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jazzix. You forgot to log in. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the failure to login, to confirm it was me. anything published on the FDA website is managed and run by the FDA - your argument against the FDA is not cogent. In fact you attempted to use the FDA source on this talk page below to disprove my FDA source - ?. The same for Kamen, your argument is not cogent, because the information cited on the wiki page is not about herself so your above link is incorrect. Kamen is a PhD she is a noted expert in her field and has achieved peer recognition. Her PhD is in Nutrition. Not only does she claim to be an expert, her peers do also make such a claim. We are not using her doctorate, but a compiled secondary source that is published, which in itself is required for verifiability. Her data is compiled from over 100 references to come to the expert conclusions in her book and cited upon this page. ronz please apply the correct criteria is determining the reliability of a source. For example: nothing in her book is original research conducted by her. Everything in her book is verifiable by referencing the sources she used in the compiling of her work. Her work also hold a neutral point of view as her book is education material about velvet antler. As your argument against reliability fails I will go ahead and update the wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzix (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Adding to verifiability of Kamen source, the foreword of her book is written by a peer Michael E. Rosenbaum, MD. In addition she has written over 500 health reports and appear in news media as a verifiable source, including the New York Times and Time Magazine. Jazzix (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ronz continues to ignore relevant verifiable information and continues to question and edit-war with jazzix over the reliability of sources within wiki guidelines. In the past couple days ronz has deleted jazzix's edits disregarding verifiability of information and relevance to subject. ronz appears to have personal dispute with information supplied by jazzix. jazzix will discontinue all editing until consensus is reached with wiki community Jazzix (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:
This one is a close call, but I think I have to agree with Jazzix on this one. Although WP:PRIMARY says to use care with primary sources, it doesn't outright prohibit them. At the same time, though, both of you appear to be edit-warring, so I would be careful with that; also, Jazzix, you were instructed to focus on content instead of denouncing Ronz, but then you just did it again anyway, so that isn't a good idea either. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the next step is to take the information that fails verification to WP:ORN. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate the third opinion. It is nice to be working with ronz now. I apologize for the confusion about original research and that their may appear to be confusion about what a dietary supplement is. I added a source for assistance. That original research is actually about the source FDA source in question. What we need to do is determine if the docket published on the FDA.gov website is a legitimate source for quoting the FDA. That source is selected because it is published on the FDA website. As I am still a newbie around here, please add the appropriate tags ronz to the source concerning its validity. Thank you. Jazzix (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source in question - US FDA(2015-9-15) Batchelder, Helen J., Velvet Antler: A Literature Review, p.1 fda.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzix (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to think of this concerning this source - http://www.natraflex.com/VA2.htmlJazzix (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC) No need this is a blatant COI as the author has published her work on a supplement company website. Content removed. Jazzix (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that settles the worst of it. Looking over the article, I think we're on the right track. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FDA velvet antler documents

While researching the above, I found: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../CyberLetters/ucm056971.pdf

So the product can only be sold as a supplement, with no medical claims whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ronz is quite confused. no medical claim has been made, do your research, it is amazing a ten year veteran to Wikipedia does not know how to use it or understand and read sources. For example: the document above cites the supplement company saying that velvet antler may be used for arthritis, this is a medical claim. 67.204.178.51 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jazzix. You forgot to log in. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that, this section will be a good place to add further information, well done on finding more information ronz Jazzix (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC) we should be able to find many more sources and may want to move this citing to a section about deer antler spray and igf-1 in the future Jazzix (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the FDA CyberLetter above is relevant to the page, the above is not necessary as no sources substantiate and structure/function claims for antler velvet, previous FDA Batchelder source is a COI being published on a supplement company website shown above in third party. I do suggest that FDA CyberLetter be incorporated into entry concerning controversies and supplement companies making false claims. I found this source to add concerning fda warnings and velvet antler http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2001/velvet_antler.pdf.Jazzix (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sources added with wiki links and fda citations and legals Jazzix (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The FDA situation: The passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994 allows the sale of substances (if safe and manufactured in a facility that abides by Good Manufacturing Practices) as dietary supplements as long as no disease treatment or prevention claims are made and the label includes the disclaimer statement. IF a company makes disease claims, the FDA may get around to sending a Warning Letter. The gist of these letters: You are making disease claims; if you are making disease claims the FDA will consider your product a drug; it is an unapproved drug; cease the claims. This path is taken whether the claims are supported by science or not. Let's read this again: This path is taken whether the claims are supported by science or not. Having received such a letter, the company may either stop selling the product or continue selling the product, but without the health claims. As of 2017, many U.S. companies sell velvet antler products. Some make no label claims or only vague claims, and are legal. Some make disease claims, and thus might get a FDA Warning Letter in the future. The FDA considers website and social media content an extension of the label, especially if the label contains the website address. If there is a modicum of evidence, a company is allowed to make claims in "Structure:Function" vocabulary. For example, "Helps maintain joint health" if there is some human trial evidence that people with arthritis got better.David notMD (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of Antler Velvet and Harvesting Timing

I have read many new sources today and cited the New Zealand and Australian deer industry. It appears the largest size is 12kg. Even the wiki page for Red Deer makes this claim. I am removing the following information from this entry - "Exceptionally large elk and red deer antler pairs can weigh up to 50 lb (22.6 kg)"

If anyone finds a legitimate source making this claim please replace.Jazzix (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This statement appears incorrect with new research added to page - "Velvet antler grows rapidly during the spring season up until summer when they have reached maximum growth and calcified." As does the following information - "This timeframe is about March or April until July in the Northern Hemisphere.[1][not in citation given] These correlates to about September or October until January in the Southern Hemisphere." It is imprecise.

http://www.deerfarming.com.au/DFH/DFH18-Velvet_Antler.pdf http://www.deernz.org/deerhub/deer-information/antlers/velvet/removal-0#.VfrVJcKh2M9

This section should probably be expanded, but from what I read these statements were incorrect to be on the page, I am not the expert to apply them though, so I removed them. Jazzix (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and SWATS

It appear this source is much better concerning the news articles that are referenced concerning SWATS - http://www.usada.org/supplement-shutdown-sos-winter-2013-2014/

Thanks. So the fats in the velvet antler are used as a carrier of other substances. I don't recall any of the other articles on the topic making the connection. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really good as it seems to expose the controversy down to their methods, they are talking about a liposome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liposome - this is apparently why certain professional sports players were having issues with drug tests. Check this out - http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201106/thepostgame-exclusive-nfl-fullback-heath-evans-says-he-uses-controversial-swats-spra Jazzix (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

very good source - http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/11/10/how-to-get-snake-oil-from-deer-antlers-and-make-millions/ Jazzix (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC) thinking of using above source instead of - http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-deer-antler-spray-2013-5 - as it is better and without direct reference to articles about a supplement company. forbes source has less bias Jazzix (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC) actually this yahoo article is best for replacing biased source - http://sports.yahoo.com/news/golf--deer-antler-spray-gets-a-pass--so-now-what--004821402.html Jazzix (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The business insider release reads like a press release for a supplement company. Removing. Jazzix (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uses

This statement is a MEDRS conflict - "the blood piece is used to treat arthritis and related disorders". These sources do note that arthritis is a structure/function benefit known as "bone and joint health". This wording from these sources will satisfy any MEDRS conflict with fda regulations. Making changes. Jazzix (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Gilbey 2012 review to article. David notMD (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems MEDRS compliant. I'll restore it if no other comments are forthcoming. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restored per NPOV, FRINGE, and MEDRS. While this short review of only seven studies isn't much, it's the best we have. The overall conclusions should probably should be given more weight in the article, and the introduction section should be used to verify introduction and background information in this article. --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an RfC or a noticeboard discussion to settle this?
I'm having a difficult time even making sense of the comments that started this discussion.
Looking at recent edits:
David notMD added the Gilbey review 9 July 2017
Jazzix added, although for osteoarthritis the findings may have some promise. 28 August 2017
Ronz reverted Jazzix' addition the same day.
Jazzix responded by removing the source completely, and continues to remove it without further comment here. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz continues to misquote source. Conclusion of source is conjecture and MEDRS conflict as there is no proof that Velvet Antler is good for Osteoarthritis, yet Ronz continues to put quote on page. Although its the best we may have, it is poor biased source with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzix (talk • contribs) 00:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is found nowhere on the cited page - "Claims that velvet antler supplements have beneficial effects for any human condition are not currently supported by sound clinical data from human trials." Perhaps Ronz and Jytdog are referring to the correct quotation "Claims made for velvet antler supplements do not appear to be based upon rigorous research from human trials, although for osteoarthritis the findings may have some promise." Proper quote and source is MEDRS and continues to be added per Ronz and Jytdog

  • Ronz and Jytdog continue to misquote the source and add conjucture to what may be an attempt to paraphrase article. !e cannot know any information out side of these trials or about what conditions it may treat. Study is MEDRS conflict as it says that velvet antler may treat osteoarthritis.
Your claims here are ridiculous and incompetent - you appear to be reading only the pubmed abstract and not the actual source. The source is here, and the quote is at the very end. You will soon be blocked for edit warring and if you continue abusing your editing privileges you will be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation of the authors opinion is incorrect. It is conjecture. How can we know "any" condition and "all" clinical trials from this review? We can't. Poor source. Poor citation.
You seem to think this is some kind of game where you can just make things up. The edit warring board is backed up but you will be blocked soon. No big deal, there is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not edit warring as you have not supplied a sufficient quotation/parapharse. Quoting a cherry-picked opinion and conjecture from a loosely worded comment from the discussion section of a review is not enough proof for a conclusion. I have attempted to satisfy you guys with other stronger quotation and paraphrasing of the review but you continue to abuse of proper citation rules and guidelines. I have repeated myself quite a few times about his issue on this page.
  • Okay Admin and editors - just to finish up the conjecture quotation and logic fallacy. It is quite interesting that Admin and other Editors cannot identify a logic fallacy that makes this page look really stupid. Any retarded moron can tell that statement is illogical and false, except, of course, wiki Admin and Users. When people come and read this page they will continue to think Wiki is a complete joke.

"Claims that velvet antler supplements have beneficial effects for any human condition are not currently supported by sound clinical data from human trials." 1st - Above the author claims that "any" human condition from a seven trials that did not study every human condition. Conjecture as the review did not cover every human condition and indeed really stupid looking since it says seven clinical trials prior to statement. Duh! 2nd - The rest of the phrase is a broad generalization of all clinical data, when the review only covered data from seven clinical trail "are not currently supported by sound clinical data from human trials." Any retard knows that seven clinical trials cannot supply such a statement. 3rd - This is one of the statements that actually says nothing. For example: "we proved nothing". How can one prove nothing? Only the dumb and ignorant can't see this, yet it finds its way upon a supposed educational page. Since July I have offered logical and coherent statements that have been ignored or designated COI as if I have some other agenda than garbage of stupid stuff on wiki pages. One is the abstract from the conclusion the other is a paraphrase that better quotes the authors intentions and conclusions. So what is? Are Admin and Editors of Wiki brain-damaged individuals or are they capable of intelligent though? We all know Ronz, Jytdog, Roxy the dog, do not understand logical statements by their failure to recognize improper statements made by others. If you get me banned you guys know you are brain damaged. If I am not you know the state of affairs is much worse.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Velvet_antler&oldid=802513151"