Talk:Oil pulling

message: added by maree on Apr-2007
Since there was a lot of discussion on the web related to oil pulling, I have added some basic content on what could be the basis behind oil-pulling. This is only a speculative hypothesis and more references to studies and research in this field are requested.
:Here's a published study from 2015 that seems to verify some benefits: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382606/ and it provides a few possible mechanisms in which oil pulling could function. The discussion in this study also cites other studies that were done which confirm some benefit. I personally do not have enough knowledge or experience to analyze this study, but it appears to be of high quality.  Mtobey, 4:20 20 April 2018 (UTC)
::It's entirely possible that swishing with various liquids could have an effect, but a preliminary report clearly fails WP:MEDRS.--tronvillain (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a serious amount of research on oil pulling, I cannot understand how it can be called pseudoscience. Here is a review : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18408265/--Popok75 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Added content for scientific basis

message: None of the references to this article presented an opposing view and I find that troubling.  Until at least one peer-reviewed journal published a study on oil pulling, a more skeptical review of the practice would be preferable.  ALifeMoreHerbal 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I suggest for starters, expunging unreliable sources such as online forums. Sorry to say, much as I agree with it, as a personal site this one isn't up to Wikipedia reliabiity standards either. Another issue is synthesis: cherry-picking information that agrees, but are not actually about oil pulling (notably the two PubMed refs). Gordonofcartoon 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the "How it works" section be rewritten to clarify that the benefits are unsubstantiated.  The rest of the article generally describes the practice in a neutral tone.  The "How it works" section currently presents the suggested (and unverified) benefits in a factual tone.  It is not clear what "life science" is being referred to in the first sub-section--perhaps link to some "tongue science" article (else, I suggest using a less loaded term than "life science")?  The reference used in the second sub-section (http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james56.htm) does not seem related to oil pulling except in the most vague sense--a credible article about oil pulling and the benefits of sublingual absorption of healthful substances from the oil seems to be necessary (of course, no such article exists).   69.134.79.254 04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I wanted to make essentially the same point. Calling it 'how it works' implies that it does work, and by implication that there is some credibility to the notion that purging toxins from the entire body through the tongue is a plausible concept. 121.45.43.224 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a ref for possible effect against bacteria in the mouth, that inserted. Perhaps intense rinsing with ater would have the same effect. Moved paragraph on studies unrelated to oil pulling to a separate section. --Mokgand (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I Agree

message: Regarding the specific claim "It is also used to reduce enamel wear from stomach acid in hangovers and bulimics", is a highly suspicious claim and unsourced.
FlowRate (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: As ALifeMoreHerbal talked about above, about 2 years ago, this article appears to be a one sided view and no scientific basis for any of the claims. 
FlowRate (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not find and add another point of view on it?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I have updated the introduction to make special note of this topic's pseudoscientific nature and also removed the scientific list (2 items) that were in the first section. This list contained references that referenced the unreliable oilpulling.com and this article. 
FlowRate (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how you think that's an improvement.  You removed the one references to a scientific journal that touches on the topic, and added an unsourced assertion that the topic is "pseudoscientific".  The idea of NPOV is to represent all viewpoints, not just one.  Plus, way too many tags; better to tag a section for sourcing than add many repeated citation needed tags; I added one at article level, but you can move it to specific sections if you think that will be more helpful.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: If you'd like to put the NPOV tag back, be sure to explain here what point of view you believe is over- or under-represented, with sources that support your position. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted Fixing 

message: Anyone know where in Caraka it's mentioned?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyuen (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caraka Samhita source 

message: References need to be up to WP:MED standards. Jmh649 pulled the longest uncited claims, but basically every claim needs support - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical claims -> WP:MED 

message: Yes this is a secondary source from a MEDLINE-listed journal, but when reading the whole paper, it does not present a balanced view of the topic. Here are some quotes: 
* "In ancient India, problems such as deformities of the oral cavity, plaques and infections could be managed and even cured."
* "In Ayurveda, dental health (danta swasthya in Sanskrit) is held to be very individualistic, varying with each person's constitution (prakriti), and climatic changes resulting from solar, lunar and planetary influences (kala-parinama)."
* "Oil pulling is a powerful detoxifying Ayurvedic technique that has recently become very popular as a CAM remedy for many different health ailments. Using this method, surgery or medication could be prevented for a number of chronic illnesses. The oil therapy is preventative as well as curative. The exciting aspect of this healing method is its simplicity. Ayurveda advises oil gargling to purify the entire system; as it holds that each section of the tongue is connected to different organ such as to the kidneys, lungs, liver, heart, small intestines, stomach, colon, and spine, similarly to reflexology and TCM."
* "Countries with a history of traditional medicine should support and integrate traditional medicine into national health systems in combination with national policy."
This is not a reliable source imo. The whole journal is pushing a non-mainstream POV. This source is used to support the statement above that oil pulling reduces dental plaque. This is in fact cited to a 20 person study . There is not enough reliable evidence to say there is plaque-reducing action of this practice. If it was a less-biased review paper, they would have said this.
Potentially more reliable sources (I have no access): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00784-012-0835-9 Lesion (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that single study as "a single study of 20 subjects" - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I've left in that secondary source as an example of the claims concerning oil pulling; I've referenced the original study directly as relevant - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Original study shouldn't be included as it is a primary source. Lesion (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, we should be using secondary sources, not cobbling together primary ones. BTW, it's not MEDLINE indexed; it is PubMed indexed through PubMed Central, but not MEDLINE (another reason it shouldn't be included). Yobol (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies,  yes you are correct, it says not currently MEDLINE indexed . See also . Lesion (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable source for claim about dental plaque

message: *Propose. Oil Pulling comes under lifestyle/cultural trends/fads unlike Mouth wash - which is a pure Oral hygiene activity - I suggest, that if at all it is decided to delete this topic, then it should be merged under Detoxification (Alternative Medicine) 
J mareeswaran (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Detoxification would be a valid merge, but disagree that mouthwash is a pure oral hygiene activity. Any liquid held or washed around the mouth can be called mouthwash. It does not have to be for oral hygiene. Some mouthwashes are painkilling, others anti-inflammatory, etc etc. There are also many studies which suggest that essential oil mouthwashes have an antibacterial, and therefore anti-plaque effect . Although oil pulling is described in terms of "toxins", the only real scientific evidence so far is that essential oils might have some antibacterial activity and therefore the only reason to use them would be for oral hygiene, although it seems that manufactured mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine are more effective. Support some content about oil pulling on detoxification (alternative medicine), but essential oil mouthwashes should also be discussed on mouthwash imo. Lesion 12:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lesion, I now see that, the point you have raised on essential oil mouthwash having anti-bacterial properties is a valid one which supports oil pulling to be included under mouthwash. However, I still think there needs to be an entry under Detoxification, because Oil pulling as understood in modern practice is a daily preventive activity, whereas an anti-bacterial mouthwash is a seasonal/topical curative activity and not daily preventive activity.J mareeswaran (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed_merge_with_DeToxification 

message: The claim that the oil goes white is a proof that "toxins" are being pulled out of the body is bullshit. The oil emulsifies in the saliva, which is almost totally composed of water, and appears white. The same can be seen in a glass if u shake oil and water together, no "toxins" involved. 92.41.90.87 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is fair in dealing with scientific issues regarding Oil Pulling. Nowhere, in the article, is it claimed that toxins are pulled out. Ama refers to indigested (and potentially toxic) food still present in mouth/saliva. It is not removed from the blood/body/cells etc, but only via the saliva which is generated due to gargling with oil.J mareeswaran (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, this is called oil pulling because of a claim that toxins are pulled out of the body. 92.40.90.216 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right in that Technically it should be known as Oil Swishing. But practically everybody googles only for "Oil Pulling". If you want, you can rename this article as "Oil Swishing" and redirect "Oil Pulling" to this article. Personally I would keep things the same way.J mareeswaran (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative and complimentary medicine lies 

message: I would like to add a link to  http://www.checkdentdotcom/dental-blog/profiteering-from-alternative-dentistry.html?lang=en. But I am not allowed, as it seems the site is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Can somebody explain why this site is not allowed to be referenced by Wikipedia? J mareeswaran (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether it's blacklisted, but it certainly doesn't look like a reliable secondary source. It's just a blog, with no indication of credentials, authorship, etc. See WP:MEDRS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My ISP would not let me visit the page. 188.29.93.72 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond the address above not being a valid URL? It's "checkdent.com", not "checkdentdotcom". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I deliberately changed the website name, so that Wikipedia would allow me to post that link. It seems the site as a whole is a marketing site for dental professionals and service which is why it seems to have been blocked. But this particular FAQ page seems to be reasonable and devoid of marketing page. is there a way to provide exception to this url alone and remove it from blacklist? J mareeswaran (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted link 

message: Regarding the concerns raised on WTMED about this article (), suggest only those parts of the article which discuss the health impact and science of oil pulling need to comply MEDRS, I would think that the rest of the article, describing the historical/religious/cultural aspects of the topic merely need to comply with RS. 188.29.93.72 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, certainly. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: MEDRS

message: Lots of refs out there seems to suggest this remedy is Ayurvedic, but here it says folk. Not sure they are the same thing - Ayurvedic has it's own page too!
:We prominently mention Ayurvedic medicine in the lead section, and link to it. There's no contradiction. Ayurvedic medicine is a form of folk medicine. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oil Pulling is FOLK but marketed as Ayurvedic. The difference between Folk & Ayurvedic (Complementary medicine) is that Folk is oral tradition & pop culture but Ayurvedic is about written scriptures and there are educational courses (mainly in India) where you can get a degree in Ayurvedic medicine. Oil Pulling, in its current marketed form - is not mentioned as a remedy in referenced Ayurvedic documents. that is because Ayurvedic treatment is symptomatic and has to prescribed by a practitioner. That is "the patient" has to be examined by expert who will determine which are the major/root symptoms and based on the diagnosis only then specify the treatment which will be tailored to the particular individual and only for the duration as recommended by Expert or till symptoms persist.J mareeswaran (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayurvedic not folk?

message: Specifically, which toxins and what types of inflammation are treated by this technique.  Please be *specific*.  Thank you.  24.51.217.118 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: None are actually treated. Oil pulling is pseudoscience. Note that article talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article itself, not a general discussion forum. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxins and inflammation 

message: (Summary: Jump to the last two lines for the minor change I'm making.)
The "Purported mechanism of action" section begins with this sentence:
:The purported mechanism of action of oil pulling therapy is not clear
This wording doesn't really make sense.  This wording seems to have been created by taking a part of a sentence from the referenced study and adding "purported".
First, if one believes that word-for-word copying from the study is a bulletproof idea, then just look at the gibberish in the second half of that same sentence in the study:
:...further research studies with sesame oil will lead to wonderful approach in the field of dentistry
Indeed.
Then, the problem with the sentence is that it says that those claiming it has benefits are unclear about why.  The actual situation is that various people are very clear about where the purported benefits come from, but different people have different explanations which diverge.  So I'm correcting this to:
:The mechanism of action for the purported benefits of oil pulling therapy is not clear
Yes, that's it.  Great floors (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Purported mechanism of action" 

message: (Update: I just noticed that the "meta analysis" that article is currently based on is a 2014 *blog post*.  So I think the 2016 journal-published meta analysis is ok to add, and I'll do that soon.)
I found this 2016 meta study which includes five randomly controlled trials:
* Effect of oil pulling in promoting oro dental hygiene: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials, Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 
* Conclusion: The limited evidence to date from clinical trials suggests that oil pulling may have beneficial effects on oro dental hygiene...
I won't bother adding this right now because I'd probably get reverted.
If anyone wants to be ready to revert this addition, one line of attack would be to say the publishing journal isn't prestigious enough.  I don't know how WP guidelines judge this criteria.  I stuck "journal ranking" into a search engine and this is the first site I found:
* http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3501&order=h&ord=desc
The journal of the above study has a "H" rating of 29, whatever that means, and it's ranked 45th out of 120 journals in the "Dentistry (general)" category.  And ResearchGate gives it a 0.43.
The relevant criteria I found in WP:MEDRS say that good journals are in indexed in MEDLINE (and this one is indexed), and WP doesn't like journals in the predatory journals list, and this journal isn't there, and that meta research based on randomly controlled trials (like this one) are close to the ideal type of source.  So maybe this is ok.
Enjoy. Great floors (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We avoid saying useless things like that something "may" (or may not) work. However the source makes substantive comments on the poor quality of research in this area. I have incorporated it and pulled a huge amount of crap out of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a meta study saying it might work - ok to add? 

message: I have not visited this article since I made an extensive update last year to inject some sanity into it. Much of what I added - especially in the Critical analysis section - is gone. Also, there is now way too much pseudoscience material claiming positive health results in the Effectiveness section. Please explain.  
RobP (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: LoteyZao made a bunch of strange edits no one contested back in November, and some of it is still left.--tronvillain (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of this article has been drastically changed. Why?? 

message: The description is incorrect . Swishing is not the way it is done . The correct method is to keep you lips together and alternately suck and release . Five minutes is lots . Turkeytrotlogan (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Question. What does "swished" around mean? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil pulling 

message: The article claims that there is no "high quality research" on this subject but also dismisses it as disproven by science. These two ideas are contradictory.
Personally I don't have a dog in this fight, but I felt I should highlight this issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.70 (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, neither is there high quality research on the claim that clapping your hands five times while running at exactly 18kph results in the spontaneous birth of an albino chicken, yet it is dismissed by science. Maybe the wording could be a bit better. --Kraligor (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Pretty much per Kraligor. Feel free to suggest tightened wording though. Guy (help!) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I also noticed that, and that a number of the comments did not reflect the citations given for them. In particular, "no understanding of a possible mechanism explaining how it would work" is false given a couple of the citations which give scientific hypotheses for why it might work, as opposed to the least credible possible proposed mechanism of removing "toxins". I made a conservative edit, changing it to sat that there are proposed mechanisms of action, though perhaps I should qualify it with "scientific" or "scientists propose". --192.252.228.7 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the other comments in this thread, and the wording of the citation you used, I have reverted your edit. Thanks though. -Roxy  the dog. wooF 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: — Assignment last updated by Senakim (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENGL A120 Critical Thinking