→Inaccurate statement: paid editing |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::A quick search on Google would disagree. To include an all inclusive statement as was included is baseless without a significant study to demonstrate it's conclusion which as far as I have been able to identify - does not exist. Additionally, this article should not specifically involve or refer to any specific company - A2-only milk is now produced by other companies, the comment about marketing is therefore both irrelevant and inappropriate. I have hence-force revised the statement. [[User:Aeonx|Aeonx]] ([[User talk:Aeonx|talk]]) 11:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC) |
::A quick search on Google would disagree. To include an all inclusive statement as was included is baseless without a significant study to demonstrate it's conclusion which as far as I have been able to identify - does not exist. Additionally, this article should not specifically involve or refer to any specific company - A2-only milk is now produced by other companies, the comment about marketing is therefore both irrelevant and inappropriate. I have hence-force revised the statement. [[User:Aeonx|Aeonx]] ([[User talk:Aeonx|talk]]) 11:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:What about this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24986816? [[User:CubsThisYear|CubsThisYear]] <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:What about this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24986816? [[User:CubsThisYear|CubsThisYear]] <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:::If the statement by [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]] about paid editing refers to me, he/she should know that I have previously made clear my paid arrangement with A2 Milk Company to expand what was a very poor article ended in September 2014. See [[Talk:A2 milk/Archive 2#COI]]. The article remains on my talk page and I have made a couple of minor edits since then. [[User:BlackCab|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">'''BlackCab'''</span>]] ([[User talk:BlackCab|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 02:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==High quality secondary sources== |
==High quality secondary sources== |
Revision as of 02:02, 21 December 2015
![]() | Food and drink Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Inaccurate statement
After examining the EFSA 2009 review, it is clear, that the current statement "there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk." on the evidence for A2 milk is inaccurate. It clearly lists A1 releases the BCM7 variant and not A2, further it states that this casomorphin can have an effect on digestion.
To summarise:
The report acknowledged that the bioactive peptide BCM7 is derived from cows’ milk:
• “This review recognises that proteins, including those present in the diet, are a potential source of a wide range of biologically active peptides, including some with affinity to opioid receptors. The latter are also known as opioid peptides. Opioid peptide sequences have been characterised in animal and plant proteins. To date much work has focused on characterising opioid peptides derived from milk proteins, in particular the caseins. Beta-casomorphins are a group of opioid peptides which can be released from β-casein. The β-casein derived peptide with the sequence Tyr60-Pro61-Phe62-Pro63-Gly64-Pro65-Ile66 is known as β-casomorphin-7” (P2)
The EFSA report also acknowledged the BCM7 is only released through the digestion of the A1 variant of beta-casein and not A2:
“In β-casein A1 and B variants histidine occurs at position 67 whereas in β-casein A2 proline is present in the same position. This genetic substation of histidine with proline has been reported to prevent the enzymatic hydrolysis of the peptide bond between the residues 66 and 67 in β-casein A2 thereby preventing the release of BCM7”
Amongst the conclusions, the report stated that casomorphins can have an effect on digestion:
“Food-derived peptides, including casomorphins, can have different effects in the intestinal lumen and the intestinal mucosa, such as regulatory effects on gastro-intestinal motility and on gastric and pancreatic secretion. More specifically, BCMs can interact with endogenous opioid systems in the gastrointestinal wall in neonates as well as in adults” (P42).
Therefore, taking the aforementioned into account, the statement should read along the lines of: "In 2009 EFSA acknowledged that there is a difference in digestion between the A1 and A2 protein"
Thoughts? Dreylax01 (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article discusses the EFSA review already. None of the above invalidates the statement in the article, so my answer is no. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Stating: "there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk.", is not factually true - what is true is that there are only a few scientific studies to indicate that A2 milk has advantages over A1+A2 milk. It is not clear whether consense viewpoint on A2 milk states there are benefits or not; however I would suggest the consensus of articles leans towards A2 milk indeed providing benefits over A1+A2 milk for those that do exist. Consideration needs to be given to weighting of statements in this article. What is important to note is, like most new scientific studies and hypothesis, is that the research and scientific studies into this area is light, there are several studies which provide an indication that A2 milk provides benefits (or otherwise that the A1 protein is harmful); or that A2 is more natural for human consumption given that Human breast milk almost only contain the A2 protein. There are also some (even fewer) studies to indicate there is no correlation between A2 milk and certain diseases/conditions. In order to give WP:NPOV balance to the article, the fact SOME scientific evidence exists warrants mention, at the very least it is a minority viewpoint, if not now, the majority scientific viewpoint. Furthermore, the review conducted by EFSA in 2009 simply states that upto 2009, there was insufficient scientific literature to support any arguments for/against A2 milk. Stating that there is 101.167.224.99 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The article today states "Prior to 2009, there was little to no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk" so you're criticizing something that is not in the article. I just looked at the "post-2009 evidence" Some of it is not post-2009, and some of it is difficult to call "evidence" except in the broadest use of the term. I will delete that sentence, since it is misleading.
- Also, if I remember correctly, this article had a paid editor working here. I'll just remind everybody that if you are being paid to edit here, you must read WP:Paid and report your employer, client, and other affiliations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Stating: "there is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk.", is not factually true - what is true is that there are only a few scientific studies to indicate that A2 milk has advantages over A1+A2 milk. It is not clear whether consense viewpoint on A2 milk states there are benefits or not; however I would suggest the consensus of articles leans towards A2 milk indeed providing benefits over A1+A2 milk for those that do exist. Consideration needs to be given to weighting of statements in this article. What is important to note is, like most new scientific studies and hypothesis, is that the research and scientific studies into this area is light, there are several studies which provide an indication that A2 milk provides benefits (or otherwise that the A1 protein is harmful); or that A2 is more natural for human consumption given that Human breast milk almost only contain the A2 protein. There are also some (even fewer) studies to indicate there is no correlation between A2 milk and certain diseases/conditions. In order to give WP:NPOV balance to the article, the fact SOME scientific evidence exists warrants mention, at the very least it is a minority viewpoint, if not now, the majority scientific viewpoint. Furthermore, the review conducted by EFSA in 2009 simply states that upto 2009, there was insufficient scientific literature to support any arguments for/against A2 milk. Stating that there is 101.167.224.99 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- the statement in the article is accurate. "can have" is very different than "does have" - the hype around A2 would have you believe that there are actual, known benefits. This is not true, per the most recent sources we have. Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- A quick search on Google would disagree. To include an all inclusive statement as was included is baseless without a significant study to demonstrate it's conclusion which as far as I have been able to identify - does not exist. Additionally, this article should not specifically involve or refer to any specific company - A2-only milk is now produced by other companies, the comment about marketing is therefore both irrelevant and inappropriate. I have hence-force revised the statement. Aeonx (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- What about this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24986816? CubsThisYear —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- If the statement by Smallbones about paid editing refers to me, he/she should know that I have previously made clear my paid arrangement with A2 Milk Company to expand what was a very poor article ended in September 2014. See Talk:A2 milk/Archive 2#COI. The article remains on my talk page and I have made a couple of minor edits since then. BlackCab (TALK) 02:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
High quality secondary sources
Thank you to those who have removed the primary sources and journal articles from journals with no impact factor [1]. User:Aeonx needs to follow WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- What a load of baloney! Choose one article to point out and completely remove the rest. The only reason I linked references not directly to journals is because scientific sources are not always openly available to public so public freely available summary in easy to understand language forms a better reference for people. There are 'High Quality' Secondary Sources that support the viewpoint AND the non-journal references (which instead referenced them internally) that there is a scientific hypothesis that A2 milk is beneficial when compared to A1+A2 milk. [1] [2] Aeonx (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- High quality indepedent sources? What you have provided is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- When dealing with recent Medical hypothesis there (usually) is simply not enough research and review to provide what you are looking for, and in fact this was the conclusion by EFSA which you hold so dearly! WP:MEDRS does not prohibit the use of Primary sources, there is justification for them to be used to validate that a viewpoint exist and there has been scientific investigation into it even if it is not thre recommended practice. Your point is void. Aeonx (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- High quality indepedent sources? What you have provided is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- ^ S Ho, K Woodford, S Kukuljan and S Pal (September 2014). "Comparative effects of A1 versus A2 beta-casein on gastrointestinal measures: a blinded randomised cross-over pilot study". European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 68: 991–1000. doi:10.1038/ejcn.2014.127. Retrieved 21 December 2015.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)