Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 17 June 2006

Juice Plus is the best way to revolutionize your health! It changed my life and cured me of multiple diseases. To order Juice Plus+® capsules or any other Juice Plus+® product, click http://www.juiceplus.com/nsa/pages/Home.soa. It's a small amount to pay for this revolutionary product!

I don't think "What health professionals say" is NPOV in the sense that it does not add to the discussion of what JP is. The link is currently one of several which directly point to marketing language on the corporate distributors website. Misplaced Pages is not to be a marketing conduit and I think it should be removed. --24.33.149.248 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I found a way to combine all the marketing links down to one link to the juice plus homepage. If marketing language establishes an important part of the discussion, then it should be written into the article. --Tbbooher 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased Opinions

It is clear that this is a very biased article and even just the section titled "Research" displays this. Read it carefully and note how even a simple section as this goes on the attack immediately. Why not simply add this paragraph titled "Research" to the section titled "Criticisms." Then you have to ask yourself why there is even a paragraph titled "Criticisms" and why this article does not simply state the facts on all sides. This article does not belong here and has limited to no credibility.

"Eight studies on Juice Plus have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the studies were funded and co-written by the manufacturer. Only 3 were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Several of the studies showed poor results with regard to (a) the content and absorption of several key nutrients and antioxidants, (b) antioxidant effects, and (c) effects on homocysteine, LDL, and cholesterol levels. Other studies are in progress but have not been published. To date, the products that have been studied are Garden Blend and Orchard Blend (2 capsules of each taken daily in most of the studies), and Vineyard Blend (taken in combination with Garden and Orchard Blend in one study)."

It is truly sad that someone would use this tool to state their own biased opinion and not use it for factual evidence to help others seeking the truth and facts regarding a particular subject.

While I can see that the article does not discuss JP+ in a flattering light, I do not agree that the article is an attack. I started this article as a research product into Juice Plus+, a subject of interest without any previous POV and it was interesting to see how a community developed (see the history) which established a compromise which, in my opinion, more accurately reflected the truth. I did not add the information, but it is important that only three studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. This is fact, not attack or judgement from which one may draw their own conclusions. I have found this article very informative and consider the subject matter noteworthy. --Tbbooher 13:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of defining what a product is and what it is supposed to be used for, like you might see in an encylopedia, it has become a very opinionated and controversial document.

I don't see anything controversial about it. Please clarify what you see as controversial. (unsigned comment from tbbooher)

The bulk of the "biased opinions" comments have been addressed in the edited version, although I don't agree that it lacked credibility in the first place. If reputable medical, health, and consumer advocacy groups are critical of the product, then including this information does not undermine credibility. --Rhode Island Red 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Above

Please do not remove content from Misplaced Pages; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Perhaps we should protect the article since whoever is at is intent on vandalism. Feel free to quote more research and published infrmation that you feel should be in the article, but please stop undoing the serious research of others. Misplaced Pages requires "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." the current article meets these criteria. --Tbbooher 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The user at IP has repeatedly vandalized the page and ignored warnings. Their changes have not been constructive but rather involved the insertion of unsupported and non-factual promotional messages and removal of whole sections of information that were unflattering but factually accurate and essential for providing a complete background on the subject. Given this user’s unwillingness to follow protocol and etiquette, and their lack of constructive contribution, they should be blocked from making further Misplaced Pages edits. Rhode Island Red 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is only vandalism when the negativity and criticism are taken out? It is not vandalism when the positive comments about the product are taken out? Please, be a little more realistic and balanced here. How about a clean article that simply defines what the product is for people and stop all the criticism and attacks? What a new concept that must be to the people attacking me here.

Wikify

What needs to be done in order to wikify? I am familiar with the term and meaning. This article seems to meet requirements already. Can anyone please comment. I will remove the notice in a week if no comments follow. Tbbooher 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikify means adding ] these around a word so that it links deeper into another article. Yanksox 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The article did link already, especially to external links, but scrubbing the article for more links can't hurt. I can prob do it this weekend. Tbbooher 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The links I showed you, are links that link within Misplaced Pages. Yanksox 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Got ya, thanks Yanksox the article should now be wikified. Tbbooher 21:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Expert

I am reapplying the expert tag to get at least one expert opinion and evaluation since there was been content dispute.Yanksox 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am a board-certified doctor who has practiced pediatric medicine for more than 30 years and written over 30 children's books. Most would consider me an expert as I've appeared on more than 100 television programs such as 20/20, Donahue, Good Morning America, Oprah, CBS This Morning, CNN, NBC's Today Show and Dateline. I am very familiar with Juice Plus+, in fact I conducted an extremely exhaustive and scientific study resulting in over 500 file folders on the subject. My research proves that the phytonutrients in Juice Plus directly bolster one's immune system causing a definitive improvement in health. Personally, I feel that Juice Plus+ has cured me from colon cancer and even obviated my need for glasses; after taking Juice Plus, I haven't even had a common cold. I am willing to lend my expertise to cleaning up this site, along with its flawed reasoning. I need assurances that my professional opinions will not be changed and that the article will be locked to prevent vandalism. Dr sears 01:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the attack?

Why must you keep using this forum to attack a product instead of simply defining it? Why is there so much one-sided bias opinion in this? Why all the use of buzz words, like "only through direct or multi-level marketing". Why put a negative slant on the company and the product? Why in every section is a negative comment or slant thrown in, no matter what the title is? Why is all the criticism left in, the adverse effects, the point by point attacks about product claims, but when something positive about the product and why people should try it is put in it's deleted? This is nothing but an opportuity to attack a product and is not a fair, non-bias article. It would serve the public better if it was a simple definition of the product. Now that might be useful to people. Is Misplaced Pages a place to attack people, products, idea, etc?

Delete Article

If you would like me to I could add all sorts of text taken directly from the studies done on Juice Plus+ and we can go back and forth debating this on line and in this forum. I can cut and paste with the best of them, and I know how and where to find all the research too. But, does that really make sense and who would that serve? Wouldn't this article serve the public better if it was a simple, clean and non-bias definition of the product?

Please sign your articles and do not delete content. If you can add NPOV content to the article, please do so. If you have research to reference that provides independent insight, please do so. Testimonials are marketing language are not, by definition, NPOV. The point of the article is to present the truth in an unbiased manner. That might mean that the article does not positively promote a product. Statements like "direct and multi-level marketing" are true, that is the distribution medium. A statement like "independent marketing" is vague and left open to interpretation. As a research scientist my only interest is to understand the truth and preserve the truth in the article and prevent vandalism and the infusion of marketing language. The public is served by a complete description that references the scientifc community. So the Misplaced Pages community welcomes summaries of positive research which would add to the article. It would be wrong for someone to defame the product without reference. In any case, it is wrong to delete accurate and referenced content of others. Tbbooher 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could benefit from more summaries of the scientific research with positive findings (if they are out there). Looking at the article history is interesting, it is a good thing there are many more positive people trying to represent reality and inform people than the vandal that seems intent on marketing the product described on this page. It is a good thing the cigaratte industry doesn't have someone to continually vandalize the section on Tobacco smoking and insist the article is short and only says positive things about smoking, ignoring any critical work in the scientific community. 134.205.133.251 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is, that Juice Plus+ is proven to work. It's a whole food based supplement -- there are no articifical ingredients. Try it, you won't be able to miss the difference. More information is available on my web-site: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/t040500.asp. Dr sears 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the many bias, attacking, slanting and manipulative examples throughout the Juice Plus+ article (You refers to the author):

I don't know this product or company (Juice Plus, NSA, etc) but from looking at the history, there seem to be at least 6 authors adding building this article and a someone trying to delete their work. I have looked at the "contributions" and they consist of deleteing information and inserting marketing language. Please don't attribute the consensus of the community to one person and please stop trying to destroy other's work. 69.143.38.167 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In the initial paragraph: "only through direct or multi-level marketing" Instead of saying it's sold through independent distributors (which was a simple edit and was deleted), which is a lot less negative today than mentioning multi-level marketing, which we all know carries a bad stigma today. You chose to use multi-level marketing to get your first dig in there.

In the Product Labeling: "Juice Plus products do not contain certified organic ingredients." What exactly does this mean? When I go to the grocery store and buy an apple, it's not certified either. This is thrown in even into the section that should be a simple ingredients/product labeling section to attack and/or slant against Juice Plus+ again. The product labeling does not make this statement. Again, an attack.

In the entire Adverse Events Profile: This is an extremely bias, one-sided reporting of a few people (which I don't even know to be true) compared with 10's of thousands (if not more) taking the product and seeing incredible results. Why are you not allowing both sides of this to be heard? Why are you attempting to deprive other people of the possibility of some help with their health?

In the Research section: You had to add in "Most of the studies were funded and co-written by the manufacturer" because you feel this sheds some bad light on the product or the research. Who else would be willing to fund all this research? And, if a company didn't fund the research on their own product they or their product would be much better off, why?

Criticisms, Product Claims and Counterclaims is entirely negative and an outright attack, but you think it's not?

The links contain not only "Critical Commentary" but other "Critical Commentary."

Could this article be anymore of an obvious and bias attack on a product?

Please stop posting my I.P. Address

If you would like to assign a name to my comments, you can use "Nick" but putting I.P addresses out there like that simply open things up to malicious type actions over the Internet. I would think you would not want to be responsible for causing problems like that. If you want to block my I.P. address go ahead and do that as I have nothing further to say about this article or anything on Misplaced Pages anymore anyway. I did my best to provide some additional information and some edits, they were promptly deleted and nobody said a word about any of that. Every attempt I made to add something of value was deleted and that was fine.

Nick