Talk:Elysium Health

Ref

Would need a good ref for this "scientifically-sound natural health products" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello! I work at Elysium Health. I am proposing that the text "; the two ingredients could be purchased separately for a total of $25." be removed.

According to the cited article, the total of the referenced products that can allegedly be used to get the same supplement dosages as Elysium's product, Basis, is $31 ($19 + $12), not $25. The reason the original editor wrote $25 is likely because the price on Amazon for the referenced nicotinamide riboside (NR) supplement went down since the TechCrunch article was published, so the editor is using the Amazon product page as a reference for the price. Even then, the referenced NR supplement provides 100mg of the supplement whereas Basis provides 250mg, which means you would have to buy $45 worth of the NR product to get _at least_ as much NR as Basis, bringing that total to $57 for a comparable supply. Alternatively, an editor could just change the text to read $57 and add the Amazon product pages as references, but I am not sure that Amazon product pages are considered a WP:SOURCE.

Thanks! ~ Rick305 t·c 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

N Deleted I removed all the information on prices, per WP:NOTCATALOG Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks! ~ Rick305 t·c 20:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rick. The source doesn't support the sentence and the sentence is misleading to the reader. The source article currently says that you can get the two ingredients for $31, not $25. However if try to look at the cost, the $19 NR quoted in the article is only for 100mg, where Elysium has 250mg. Looks like you can get two bottles though for $26.25, but as Nick stated, this is really Amazon sourcing. The Pterostilbene for $12 is for 60 pills, instead of Elysium's 30. The only intent of including the price is as a point of comparison, so in such a comparison, you have to compare apples to apples. I have no doubt you can get the ingredients cheaper.. and I would probably be ok with just saying that if we want, but I don't really see the point. It's not something you usually do in company articles. I don't expect we say other companies sell ibuprofen for less on the Motrin article, or similarly Acetaminophen cheaper on the Tylenol article. Morphh ^(talk) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes everybody knows that generic drugs are cheaper than drugs still under patent. And we actually do have content in the Society and culture sections about drugs where we discuss actual prices and how the price compares to other available products for similar use. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Part of the business model here - the key part - is marketing of a slickly re-packaged product, for a higher price than the ingredients separately. I took out the numbers but the notion needs to stay in. There is some validity to not giving the exact numbers, yes. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Different arguments could be made about their business model and what actually constitutes the price, such as funding clinical trials, investigating the efficacy of new health based drugs, etc. That's a different model than repackaging ChromaDex. I don't agree with the inclusion, but I can grudgingly accept the current wording. Morphh ^(talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the "for the less money than the price of Basis" part should not be included for a few reasons: 1) Elysium offers plans that allow customers to purchase Basis's NR/PT supplement at a lower price than the referenced competitors when prepaid, so the sentence is quite arguable. 2) I have reservations about keeping it when the main argument for it is a seemingly personal view that the "business model" is to charge higher for individual orders because of "slickly re-packaged product." I wholeheartedly agree, however, that "the two supplements from which Basis is made are available separately from other companies" is relevant. ~ Rick305 t·c 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits are based on what RS say and this is following the techcrunch source. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's one sentence in the article and likely falls short of WP:WEIGHT when you take the sources as a whole. They spend three paragraphs after that in that article talking about the quality of other products, but we don't mention that. We shouldn't be cherry picking to make points, particularly when the other POV in the article is not even presented. Morphh ^(talk) 03:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost every ref talks about how it is a combination of two known and available supplements and several whistle at the price itself. Again check other articles about health products; it is common that we discuss costs. One sentence is not UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If we want to include points on price, then we should follow up with the rebuttal pov regarding quality. At this point, we only have three people commenting and consensus is not to include. Maybe someone else will join the discussion or maybe we can put something together that is more balanced. Morphh ^(talk) 04:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you undo some of those changes saying "hell no". One was source to the wired article. The other is not an opinion - it's just a statement and that source is fine. Also not sure why you changed the phrasing as all the companies are doing the same thing regarding supplements, not just Elysium. I'd undo your edit, but just seems like you're edit waring over silly stuff. Morphh ^(talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

ChromaDex does sell the supplements separately to consumers.. why are you removing that? Morphh ^(talk) 04:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)