Talk:Ophiocordyceps sinensis

message: This page should redirect to a Cordyceps sinensis, not the other way round. Nemetona 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: ǎǍǎÁ----To improve the web site.
I think that you should have a bit more about the enivorment and that have pictures to show what you are talking about a lable them to.This is just a idea from ten year old Reshma Ratti. 
Great Idea Ratti! Daniel Winkler (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture of the fruiting body sprouting out of the ground would be nice. What color is it fresh? Drutt (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: "he fungus is so popular because two female Chinese athletes (Wang Junxia and Qu Yunxia) beat the world records for 1500, 3000 and 10000 meters. Their coach said this fungus -that is already known for 2000 years- helped the athletes."
:Some people are too naive to beleive what the coach (Ma Junren) said. I just could not help laughing when reading this. It was just a smart trick to hide his real systematic, scientific way in training his atheletes.  I would not tell more here in case I may leak some of his training methods. :-) --Leo 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, as it turned out, involved performance enhancing drugs.David notMD (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Used for breaking world record? 

message: I don't think there is any contradiction here in calling it 'vegetable' since the term does not necessarily imply a plant organism and is not strictly a scientific term denoting members of the plant kingdom. Vegetable could refer to fungi as well as plants; after all most people consider edible mushrooms as vegetables.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetable 

message: I propose moving the info from Vegetable caterpillar into this article for seemingly obvious reasons. --ThujaSol∆ 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: I think it would make sense to change the article name to Caterpillar fungus, it is a more logical name.  How do other people feel about it?
*Sounds logical to me! - Vianello (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this page is specifically about Cordyceps sinensis, and the name Caterpillar Fungus is used to refer to most caterpillar-infecting species of Cordyceps, I suggest it should be renamed to its scientific name, Cordyceps sinensis, which has no ambiguity. In Europe and North America, the names Vegetable Caterpillar and Caterpillar Fungus are used to refer principally to Cordyceps militaris, and in Australia to various undescribed species. Thus the name of the article is ambiguous and in certain parts of the world, wrong.  MFdeS (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  article name 

message: Cordyceps sinensis has been transfered to Ophiocordyceps sinensis and is now even in a new family Ophiocordycipitaceae acc. to Sung et al. 2007.
Cordyceps militaris is still in Cordycipitaceae.
This needs to be reflected in the header, but it seems to be locked
here the source: ^ Sung G-H, Hywel-Jones NL, Sung J-M, Luangsa-ard JJ, Shrestha B, Spatafora JW. (2007). "Phylogenetic classification of Cordyceps and the clavicipitaceous fungi". Studies in Mycology 57: 5–59.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Winkler (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: I'm going to try and update this article based on recent changes on taxonomy and classification (per the above messages). Have moved the unsourced trivia section here. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes; removal of trivia section 

message: Seems the alt. med. crazies have been all over this article. Several members of my family went through years of chemo and eventually died of cancer, but apparently this stuff cures it! GASP. Maybe a regular wiki editor could take a look at and rectify this pseudoscientific nonsense and get the POV out? 114.76.167.183 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure there are a few studies but nothing like a clinical trial.  I agree that saying a substance "is used for X" can be misleading; we should always give the scientific state of play no matter what popular usage is. After adding a bit to the lede (three-edit-diff), it now says (additions italicized):  "it is used as an aphrodisiac and treatment for ailments such as fatigue and cancer, although such use is mainly based on traditional Chinese medicine, anecdote, and a limited amount of research. Clinical trials have not established its efficacy."  That may do the trick.  I removed the tag but might have been too hasty.  --Middle 8 (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia standards are that for health/medical topics, secondary sources, i.e., reviews, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, published in peer-reviewed journals, are the accepted references. This means NOT in vitro, NOT animal, and NOT clinical trials. All of that considered primary sources, and NOT valid as refs. For many topics, there are many clinical trials - some with positive results and some not - so the intent of relying on secondary sources is to use the conclusions of experts in the field. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and what is 'evidence' 

message: The article says: "it usually contains high amount of arsenic and other heavy metals." How could it accumulate these elements if it feeds on caterpillars? Are the caterpillars also rich in arsenic and heavy metals? It makes no sense to me. --Polinizador (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenic and heavy metals? 

message: I am not sure when it started to happen but Ophiocordyceps sinensis is in cultivation, while the article says that it is not, based on a 2013 source. I am not sure if my source (https://www.terramatergardens.com/product/cordyceps-ophiocordyceps-sinensis/) is appropriately academic, otherwise I would have changed the article myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.22.81 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am not sure when it started to happen but Ophiocordyceps sinensis has been cultivated, contrary to the article.