Talk:Goldenseal

message: why is its efficacy unknown?  Somebody do a test! - ShadowyCabal 11:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The toxicity information is not accurate and requires reference.  And the idea that it should be taken once a day is silly.  Goldenseal should be used with care- I reserve it for pneumonia and diseases of the mucosa where it has an affinity.  But it can be dosed throughout the day. KSVaughan 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: toxicity

message: This section contains information antithetical to the research cited as far as toxicity.  I find no mention of any Hotaki study in Medline or Medscape, and if in vitro studies did show a reduction in sperm count it would only mean that you shouldn't put sperm in a testtube with goldenseal before implanting them.  I am removing the section.
Karen S Vaughan 01:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings

message: The article has been substantially rewritten. Karen S Vaughan 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Substantially Rewritten

message: Added links and backlinks to Berberine as they are deeply interesting and interelated pharmacological discussions going on here. Cheers,122.148.173.37 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Berberine]]

message: This sentence could have any number of meanings, none of which is clear from its wording:
"According to Herbalist Paul Bergner,AHG, only 10% of goldenseal is used when it is appropriate and there are no better substitutes. [22] "
Perhaps someone knowledgeable in the subject who is also familiar with the fundamentals of clear writing could rephrase it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daqu (talk • contribs) 10:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely unclear sentence

message: Why is there a whole section on how Endangered this plan is when it's listed as 'Apparently Secure' on the Conservation Status? One of these contradictory points should be changed shouldn't it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.81.181 (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endangered but Apparently Secure? 

message: Apart from the intro and 'Endangered' section which discuss the plant, the rest of the article seems to discuss the medicinal extract. Can someone confirm the extract is just from the rhizome, and say how it is processed. Is it just ground and dried, or is it just the extracted alkaloids, extracted with what solvent ? Rod57 (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processing 

message: Using this language ("How goldenseal works") in an encyclopedia gives the audience the impression that the section will discuss the reductionist mechanics of the process, and that goldenseal has been proven to be effective by the given mechanics. What follows however, is a correlation, and one study's guess involving more mucus flow.
Perhaps the modern pharm section should be intigrated with all this into a "Possible Mechanics" section???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.243.128 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you how goldenseal works. It works to line the pockets of people who peddle unproven and likely dangerous "supplements" and "remedies". I can even buy colloidal silver at my grocery store. It's absolutely despicable. But, people like Romney's chief financial advisor made their fortune with "supplements" so there is a lot of money out there in keeping the public stupid and unsafe. What I don't see in this article is adequate evidence of an adequate theraputic index for this product. Period. Drugs aren't about wishful thinking. They are about the therapeutic index and that requires proof to back it up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.165 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How goldenseal works 

message: Goldenseal alkaloids are phototoxic to eye keratinocytes. A study on their effect on human lens and retinal pigment epithelial cells showed that human lens epithelial cells (HLE-B3) were severely damaged when incubated with berberine (25 microM) and exposed to UVA (5 J cm(-2)).  The study concluded that eyewashes and lotions derived from Goldenseal or containing berberine must be used with caution when the eyes are exposed to bright sunlight, however oral preparations are not likely to cause ocular phototoxicity (1).
Botanical supplements containing goldenseal strongly inhibited CYP2D6 and CYP3A4/5 activity in vivo, so serious adverse interactions may result from the concomitant ingestion of goldenseal supplements and drugs that are CYP2D6 and CYP3A4/5 substrates (2).
A 2-year study showed there was clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of goldenseal root powder in male F344/N rats based on the increased incidences of hepatocellular adenoma and hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma (combined). There was also clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of goldenseal root powder in female F344/N rats based on the increased incidence of hepatocellular adenoma. There was some evidence of carcinogenic activity of goldenseal root powder in male B6C3F1 mice based on the increased incidences of hepatoblastoma and multiple hepatocellular adenoma. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of goldenseal root powder in female B6C3F1 mice exposed to 3,000, 9,000, or 25,000 ppm goldenseal root powder in feed for 2 years. The study concluded that administration of goldenseal root powder resulted in increased incidences of non-neoplastic lesions in the liver of male and female rats and male mice (3).
Another 2 years study was conducted on the widely used herbal products, goldenseal and milk thistle, in male and female F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. The study showed that goldenseal root powder increased the risk for liver tumors in rats and mice. The increased tumorigenicity in rodents exposed to goldenseal root powder may be due in part to the topoisomerase inhibition properties of berberine, a major alkaloid constituent in goldenseal, or its metabolite, berberrubine (4).
According to the above, goldenseal, does not seem safe - especially if taken for long term, so its use is still not recommended. 688dim (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldenseal is dangerous!!! 

message: "Interestingly, there is some evidence for other
berberine-containing species synthesizing an efflux pump inhibitor that tends to prevent antibiotic resistance, a case of solid scientific evidence that the herb is superior to the isolated active principle." What is the word "superior" supposed to mean here?--Frglz (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superiority? 

message: Removed external link to United Plant Savers. Link was to an advertisement for Herb Pharm brand Goldenseal ($15/oz). "Organization" also claims that this plant is "at-risk" contray to NatureServe status and general consensus. The section of the article regarding status currently misrepresent the facts of the matter and is generally misleading. This plant is not endangered (Appendix I), although the living plant is partially regulated under Appendix II of CITES, which means it may be monitored (i.e. harvest from public land is prohibited) but it's trade is still deemed undetrimental to survival of wildlife populations. Since first being listed under schedule II in 1997 there have been several petitions from official orginizations appealing to have the plant droped from CITES schedule all together. Unlike the living plant, products containing goldenseal powder are currently unregulated for trade.  Claims of overharvesting and extinction scare tactics are debatable at best, and in most cases verifiably false. The United Plant Saver organization seems to be at the center of an on-going advertisment (and possible misinformation) campaign that focuses on herbs that are currently being popularized in televised media (i.e. History Channel's Appalachian Outlaws) to boost site traffic via bulk external links and pagerank garnered from wikipedia during this period of increased public interest. 67.230.141.161 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UpS Advertising Spam, Original Research and Endangered Status 

message: Added image of Goldenseal in fruit, it is a personal image, unsure if it needs a citation. Mustangracer05 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Goldenseal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821030654/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?19478 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?19478
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309154541/http://www.med.unc.edu/phyrehab/ncmedicinalherbs/goldenseal/Goldenseal-hp.pdf to http://www.med.unc.edu/phyrehab/ncmedicinalherbs/goldenseal/Goldenseal-hp.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309154541/http://www.med.unc.edu/phyrehab/ncmedicinalherbs/goldenseal/Goldenseal-hp.pdf to http://www.med.unc.edu/phyrehab/ncmedicinalherbs/goldenseal/Goldenseal-hp.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The material in the goldenseal article is well organized and focused on the important points of the plant, its use, and its regulation. The article is easily understandable for the general public, but there is one part that is unclear. Under the conservation status of goldenseal, it states that it is apparently secure, despite its listing on Appendix II of CITES (which is mentioned later in the article), and there is an entire section on the endangered status of goldenseal. It seems that the "apparently secure" comes from an unreliable source because the information comes from natureserve.org. This can therefore be removed if research is done to determine the actual conservation status form a more reliable source. The topics covered are an overview of goldenseal, and each section could go into more detail about the material covered and current research on the topic. There is definitely some information missing from the article, including the parts used of the plant and its population recovery. Most of the evidence is of high quality, but some material that is sourced from websites could be sourced from journal articles. No assumptions were made, and references were used in all sections of the article. The content can be improved by adding more current information on research that is being done to determine harvest implications on goldenseal, its rarity, and conservation. Additionally, it would be beneficial to add current research on the medicinal benefits of goldenseal. The article mainly covers the possible dangers of goldenseal use.
The lead section is a good overview of goldenseal, but I think it should mention the rarity of the species and its chemical constituents. The structure of the content is clear and organized with good section headings. The toxicity and cautions sections could be combined because there is some redundancy about the issues of taking goldenseal when pregnant. There are no subheadings throughout the article, but this combined section would be a good spot to add some. The article does not discuss what parts of the plant are used or harvested for medicinal use. The article also does not discuss the population recovery of goldenseal, or research on how harvests affect the plant's population. The article has a few images of goldenseal, but the only image with all the plant parts has a figure legend that is not in English. It would be really helpful for the parts of the plant to be labelled in English on a figure. There are not any diagrams in the article. There are additional links and resources with an appendix at the bottom of the article. There are no footnotes at the bottom of the article. The coverage of goldenseal is neutral, emphasizing facts and research. Most of the sources are reliable, coming from journal articles, books, and reliable websites such as .gov and .edu. However, there are some sources coming from .com, .org, or society websites, which are not reliable sources.
Slovene13 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: "It is believed". "Herbalists today consider". How about witch doctors? Shamanism was supposed to have gone out with the scientific method. What are the qualifications for these "herbalists"? Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a portal for dangerous and unsustainably-harvested quack products. Until there is solid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that this, or any other supplement works — with a therapeutic index that makes it worthwhile, it should be presented from the highly skeptical side. That is the balanced position, since "It's true because I believe it's true" is religion, not rationality. This article needs to be revised, along with any other article that promotes unproven "remedies" and "supplements". Humans are destroying species for their erections, species that have no effect on them. This kind of thing should not be promoted by anyone who has any interest in the betterment of humanity, the fundamental goal behind this site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.165 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Birthwort was believed to be beneficial for childbirth. This was due to the Doctrine of Signatures — the idiotic idea that if a plant looks vaguely like a human body part then it should be blithely consumed to benefit that part. Guess what? It destroys one's liver. But, the vaunted herbalists sold it and some are still peddling this stuff today. Enough is enough. It's reckless to give any veneer of credibility to unproven unsafe witch doctor concoctions. It's also bad for the environment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.165 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous quackery should not be promoted via Wikipedia — non-neutral POV problem (promotional pseudo-neutrality) 

message: The “Efficacy” section quoted the American Cancer Society as saying that if you had a few drops of goldenseal, you might die 40 years later. That was a ridiculous claim; a huge number of people die 40 years after doing anything you can name. The ACS page that was cited no longer exists, but I dug it up in the Wayback Machine, and of course it said nothing about dying 40 years after taking goldenseal. So I updated the quote and the citation for accuracy, and I added a new quote and citation from a different source. --Elysdir (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Efficacy section