Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The rationales given by the deletion supporters here seem pretty strong. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propaganda for pseudoscience. Even the article admits there is no evidence for the theory. It is beyond my ability to rewrite, there is possibly enough notability for a short article, but it would be necessary to start over, presenting it properly in terms of our pseudoscience policies., and in any case the unacceptable speculation should be removed from the history. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hypothesis of the link between XO and atheroschlerosis is notable - see Xanthine oxidase in homogenized cow's milk and Oster's hypothesis: a review. The theory doesn't seem to have panned out but this is the normal scientific method, not pseudoscience. If the article needs work then this is a matter of normal editing. Deletion would be disruptive to this, removing the edit history and contents in an indiscriminate way. If the nominator feels himself unable to write upon the topic, he should please not presume to dismiss it. Note that homogenized milk doesn't even exist as a proper page and just redirects to a poor general article about homogenization. But there's a little bit about the topic at milk#Creaming_and_homogenization and so an obvious alternative to deletion is a redirect to that section. How hard is that? Warden (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is a mess, and it's hard to see how to rescue it. The references are of generally low-quality or are used in a manner that represents synthesis; the reference formatting is wrong as well. A huge effort would be needed to extract the small amount of encyclopedic content from the rest, and refactor to represent scientific consensus. -- Scray (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note overlapping content in United States raw milk debate#Homogenization. -- Scray (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the long list of references, this article does not appear to pass our requirement for a medical article. It appears to be a mass of speculation, synthesis, and references to non-reliable sources. Key observation: the section "Diseases linked to XO" is completely unsourced. Also: the source cited above by Colonel Warden concludes "Compared with present knowledge, this theory gives little evidence only." (translated from German) This is not something we should have an article on. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Division of Nutrition, Bureau of Foods, US Food and Drug Administration commissioned the Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology to review the XO theory based on available evidence, in the year 1975. The comprehensive report, number 223-75-2090, views the XO theory as a significant topic worthy of further investigation considering the possible, broad significance of biologically available XO in homogenized, cow’s milk on the health of the US population.

Since then, despite spurious, internet claims, the theory has never been disproven. In fact, quite to the contrary, diverse evidence in support of it has coalesced even without the participation of the pioneers who introduced it. A list of desired research directions is included in the Federation report. From among the suggested, 19 directions a good number have been pursued and they largely support the XO theory. The report states:

“Further research should include: “Investigation of the possible absorption of large molecular weight proteins such as xanthine oxidase from the gastrointestinal tract during the life of the animal (confirmed - Zikakis, 1990) and whether or not this process resembles that of the neonate;

“In human subjects, confirmation of the existence of immune-specific circulating antibodies to ingested bovine milk xanthine oxidase. (IgM antibodies to bovine XO have been confirmed by no less than three independent research groups - see references 72-77 in the article). If confirmation proves successful, investigation should be extended to find possible epidemiologic correlates for atherosclerosis (extensive epidemiological evidence linking bovine XO to atherosclerosis exists in the literature).

“Measurement of xanthine oxidase in normal and atherosclerotic human arterial intimal and subintimal layers and in normal and ischemic myocardium (determined, Atherosclerosis, 2003), with differentiation between exogenous and endogenous XO (not determined).

“Using a source-specific method of identification, establishment of or ruling out the presence of ectopically deposited bovine milk xanthine oxidase in arterial and myocardial tissues of human milk consumers (done, Oster, et al, 1973).

“Confirmation of reports of changes in plasmalogen (phosphatidylethanolamine) content of atherosclerotic arteries and ischemic myocardium (such changes have been demonstrated not only in arteries and heart muscle but also in human erythrocytes, the myelin sheathes of nerves and in brain - MS and Alzheimer’s).

“Establishment of the occurrence and biologic significance of phospholipase A and vinyl etherase in normal and diseased human cardiovascular tissues. (high lipoprotein PLA2 activity has been shown to imply a worse CV prognosis, Rossi, et al, 2012).

“Confirmation that plasmals are found in vivo in normal human cardiovascular tissues, using a reliable method of detection. (today, the presence of plasmals, phosphotidylethanolamine, in cardiovascular tissues is a textbook understanding with numerous detection methods in existence).

“Better understandings of the biosynthesis and degradation of plasmalogens (phosphatidylethanolamine, PE) and proof of xanthine oxidase interaction with plasmalogens, particularly, a demonstration that xanthine oxidase catalyzes the oxidation of plasmals in vivo. (XO oxidation of plasma substrate is now a well understood reaction. Of late, even a correlation between a PE decrease and a XO increase in autism has been noted, Chauhan 2006).

Detractors in the present talk page do not base criticism on research that might disprove the XO theory. They seem to be in a rush to do away with it based on stylistic, formatting and editing considerations, raising questions over their objectivity and/or their lack of awareness of the topic’s significance. XO is an established generator of ROS and at the center of inflammation pathology, the prime link between most chronic and life-threatening diseases as well as the key to their remedy.

As the article creator, I believe time should be granted to edit the article to everyone’s satisfaction, consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.Ambassador III (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Ambassador III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

About your comment that "despite spurious, internet claims, the theory has never been disproven": In the first place, the reports which have failed to find evidence for this supposed link are not "internet claims"; they are peer-reviewed published articles.[1] More importantly, it is not Wikipedia's policy to publish an article about every medical theory that "has not been disproven"; given the difficulty of proving a negative, that would leave the door open to almost anything. Rather, Wikipedia's medical articles have to meet the standard that "the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." This article fails that standard. Editing or rewriting will not change that. About your request for "time", it appears that you have been working on this article, at AfC and in articlespace, since January 2012 - almost two years. That's quite a bit of time already. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay going through the lead.

Ref 1 [2] is a primary source and does not support the text in question

Ref 2 [3] does not mention the ingestion of homogenized milk. It thus does not appear to address the subject of the article.

Red 3 [4] is primary research and the full paper does not mention homogenized milk or atherosclerosis

Red 4 is a popular press book [5] which appears to be pushing a fringe position
Ref 5 [6] is a letter from 1977. No a reliable source. And there are reliable sources that find the folic acid does not affect CVD risk (may decrease stock) [7]

Delete per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews from 1983 does not an article make [8]. What we have is more or less WP:OR / Fringe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.