| Revision as of 21:11, 12 March 2007 editJu66l3r (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,250 edits archiving page← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:57, 13 March 2007 edit undoAntelan (talk | contribs)4,688 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ==Archival of old discussion & Newest revisions== | ==Archival of old discussion & Newest revisions== | ||
| I have substantially changed the content of this article to better fit demonstrable scientific fact surrounding the topic. I have further removed non-relevant sections tangential to the term (such as all of the "probiotic" ] that was in the first subsection). I have added references to the American Cancer Society and UC Berkeley Public School of Health that describe the true biology rather than the inferences that were previously the mainstay of the scientific portion of the article. I have made it more clear that the term is the origination of Mannatech and that modern science and medicine only adopt the term when dealing with these sugars in reference to Mannatech's products. The term ''glyconutrient'' is not a mainstream scientific term and a search of the relevant literature proves that. Furthermore, there was no discussion of the fact that the outlandish claims of alternative therapy/nutritional supplement made by sales websites were not supported by any fact and had even gotten Mannatech sued. That is now added as well. ] 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | I have substantially changed the content of this article to better fit demonstrable scientific fact surrounding the topic. I have further removed non-relevant sections tangential to the term (such as all of the "probiotic" ] that was in the first subsection). I have added references to the American Cancer Society and UC Berkeley Public School of Health that describe the true biology rather than the inferences that were previously the mainstay of the scientific portion of the article. I have made it more clear that the term is the origination of Mannatech and that modern science and medicine only adopt the term when dealing with these sugars in reference to Mannatech's products. The term ''glyconutrient'' is not a mainstream scientific term and a search of the relevant literature proves that. Furthermore, there was no discussion of the fact that the outlandish claims of alternative therapy/nutritional supplement made by sales websites were not supported by any fact and had even gotten Mannatech sued. That is now added as well. ] 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for cleaning up and adding references. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:57, 13 March 2007
 Archives |
Archival of old discussion & Newest revisions
I have substantially changed the content of this article to better fit demonstrable scientific fact surrounding the topic. I have further removed non-relevant sections tangential to the term (such as all of the "probiotic" original research that was in the first subsection). I have added references to the American Cancer Society and UC Berkeley Public School of Health that describe the true biology rather than the inferences that were previously the mainstay of the scientific portion of the article. I have made it more clear that the term is the origination of Mannatech and that modern science and medicine only adopt the term when dealing with these sugars in reference to Mannatech's products. The term glyconutrient is not a mainstream scientific term and a search of the relevant literature proves that. Furthermore, there was no discussion of the fact that the outlandish claims of alternative therapy/nutritional supplement made by sales websites were not supported by any fact and had even gotten Mannatech sued. That is now added as well. ju66l3r 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for cleaning up and adding references. --Antelan 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)