I don't have any skin in this game but this is confusing to me because in the article that he put back up it (still) says:
Lumina likely aren’t following the Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your packaging.
But in the new article it says:
Lumina’s manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP protocols, if not the probiotic trade association’s voluntary best practices.
Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong?
I understand that it's weird that it didn't get revealed until he was pressed on it but then so is stating that he likely wasn't following the best practices, right?
Furthermore, the first article doesn't mention that it's voluntary to follow the best practices guidelines but the second one does. To me that sounds kind of like "okay fine you were right, but it's voluntary anyway, so whatever". Why not mention that in the original claim?
In fairness, the original article also has some great points, like the concerns about this particular BCS3L-1 strain that Lumina uses. I wish he had focused more on that.
I feel like both of them could have gone about this in a better way.
Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong?
I don't think so. At least in my reading, it appears both of these things can be true at the same time if you ready carefully:
Lumina likely aren’t following the Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your packaging.
Lumina’s manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP protocols, if not the probiotic trade association’s voluntary best practices.
These are saying the same thing - it looks like the probiotic best practices aren't being followed, but they appear to not be legally mandated.
Comments
I don't have any skin in this game but this is confusing to me because in the article that he put back up it (still) says:
But in the new article it says:
Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong?
I understand that it's weird that it didn't get revealed until he was pressed on it but then so is stating that he likely wasn't following the best practices, right?
Furthermore, the first article doesn't mention that it's voluntary to follow the best practices guidelines but the second one does. To me that sounds kind of like "okay fine you were right, but it's voluntary anyway, so whatever". Why not mention that in the original claim?
In fairness, the original article also has some great points, like the concerns about this particular BCS3L-1 strain that Lumina uses. I wish he had focused more on that.
I feel like both of them could have gone about this in a better way.
I don't think so. At least in my reading, it appears both of these things can be true at the same time if you ready carefully:
These are saying the same thing - it looks like the probiotic best practices aren't being followed, but they appear to not be legally mandated.
Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics != Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)