Talk:Velvet antler

WP:MEDRS sources?

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

• Helen M. Conaglen, James M. Suttie and John V. Conaglen. Effect of Deer Velvet on Sexual Function in Men and Their Partners: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Archives of Sexual Behavior Volume 32, Number 3, 271-278, DOI: 10.1023/A:1023469702627. June 2003. pp271-278.
• Allen M, Oberle K, Grace M, et al. A randomized clinical trial of elk velvet antler in rheumatoid arthritis. Biol Res Nurs. 2008;9:254-261.
• http://www.mbmc.org/healthgate/GetHGContent.aspx?token=9c315661-83b7-472d-a7ab-bc8582171f86&chunkiid=104669#ref13

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• http://examine.com/supplements/Velvet+Antler/ Might be better. It's not used much in Wikipedia though. Maybe check at RSN or FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/specialstock/antlers/antlerlit.html This is outdated, but might be worth looking into. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/01/130130-deer-velvet-antler-spray-science-health-football-sports/ While I wouldn't claim it a MEDRS source, it's much better than what we have so far. --Ronz (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the assist. I'll redirect now! Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)