Talk:Epigallocatechin gallate

message: What about including on protein binding?  Also talking about EGCG as a tannin? Jasoninkid (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Most of the article is set up as blocks of EGCg would help X and then a new block of EGCg could help Y and so on.  Since most of the disease blocks a 2-3 lines long is there some why to make one smoother reading block? Jasoninkid (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Diseases

message: In what other ways does this interact with the metabolism of exogenous chemicals? I read elsewhere that someone suggested EGCG be taken with 5-HTP (as supplements) to prevent the metabolism of 5-HTP into serotonin in the blood stream while allowing it to so metabolize in the brain, can anyone cite such an effect or similar effects? Nagelfar (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  5-HTP interaction? 

message: This sentence is in need of cleanup:
"However, these effects have yet to be confirmed in live human trials, and it does NOT imply that green tea will cure or block HIV infection, but it may help regulate viral load as long as it is not involved no adverse drug reactions."
So what is it saying at this part:
"...as long as it is not involved no adverse drug reactions."
That looks like a bad double-negative inside a possible run-on sentence, so I really am not clear what it is saying.
--74.124.187.76 (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EGCG and HIV paragraph 

message: Recommend adding cogent details to the following if it's included in the article:
"There has been news about the effects of EGCG and green tea on aging, however, it has been shown that these effects are due to EGCG being converted in the liver into theaflavins.Scientific Abstracts: January 2009 Abstracts: Theaflavin - Life Extension"--Xris0 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not researched this point, but I don't believe that EGCG is metabolised. Theaflavins are found in black tea, formed by the oxidation of polyphenolic compounds in the tea leaves when they are being processed (and not found significantly in green tea). However, the bioavailability of EGCG should be explored. Such as it's absorption rate in the intestine and the achievable plasma concentration from drinking green tea. I hope that I haven't missed the point you were trying to make Tim123 321miT (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: EGCG and Aging

message: I made some changes regarding epimerization.  The article implied that boiling water ruined green tea, when in fact the change made is minuscule.  If you heat green tea to 100 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes straight, it only loses 12.4% of its EGCG content as shown in the link I posted.  This means that boiling water does not have a significant effect, especially when you consider that a cup of boiling water falls in temperature in much less than 30 minutes.  Feel free to format it properly, but please do not revert it unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary.Fireemblem555 (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epimerization 

message: Please can someone incorporate this data into the provided blank table? I have citation to relevant credible source. From Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2011), 59(12), p6526-6533. The article Name is . Lipophilized Epigallocatechin Gallate (EGCG) Derivatives as Novel Antioxidants  by  Zhong, Ying; Shahidi, Fereidoon. The data in particular is in page 6530 of the article entry. Please and thank you, I just don't know how to format and post, that's all.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.152.163 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: HNMR and C13NMR Data

message: There should be a section about EGCG and weight loss. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201629:
 J Med Food. 2006 Winter;9(4):451-8.
Green tea extract thermogenesis-induced weight loss by epigallocatechin gallate inhibition of catechol-O-methyltransferase.
Shixian Q, VanCrey B, Shi J, Kakuda Y, Jiang Y.
Source
South China Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Abstract
Epidemiological studies have shown that intake of tea catechins is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. The antioxidative activity of tea-derived catechins has been extensively studied. Reports have shown that green tea extract intake is associated with increased weight loss due to diet-induced thermogenesis, which is generally attributed to the catechin epigallocatechin gallate. That catechin-polyphenols are known to be capable of inhibiting catechol-O-methyltransferase (the enzyme that degrades norepinephrine) is a possible explanation for why the green tea extract is effective in stimulating thermogenesis by epigallocatechin gallate to augment and prolong sympathetic stimulation of thermogenesis. Knowledge about thermogenesis-induced weight loss produced by green tea's epigallocatechin gallate and its ability to inhibit catechol-O-methyltransferase is important for health benefits and for prolonging the action of norepinephrine in the synaptic cleft.
--TDKehoe (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a well known, high-reputation journal. No open access full text link provided. Primary sourced material (see WP:MEDSCI). Quite dated. Overall, the quality of evidence provided by that reference alone looks to be too low for use in Wikipedia for that purpose (going by Wikipedia's usual standards and policy for capturing scientific consensus). The link (and request) are quite old now, so there may be better reviewed secondary sources available (?), if someone still wants to write about that. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECGC and weight loss 

message: Explanation needed! Dzaocom (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your content is based on lab research; please review WP:PRIMARY for sourcing as a guideline; also the discussion is overly technical. This is a general public encyclopedia, not a scientific forum, WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no firm rule prohibiting use of primary sources. Read it. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Can experimental data in vitro or from lab animals ever really prove an hypothesis when an herbal compound is used in the diet or as a supplement? No. As for any compound proposed as a health agent in humans, the scientific evidence has to come from several randomized clinical trials in human subjects, something that research on EGCG is years/decades from showing. Please review WP:MEDASSESS and the following section, WP:MEDANIMAL. In my opinion, the two PDFs you propose to use do not meet the standard of evidence to justify discussion in the article. Also, review sources in the article section showing that regulatory agencies in Europe and the USA have already established a science-based position on EGCG which seems appropriate to follow for Wikipedia, as stated presently in the article. --Zefr (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Not all Wikipedia articles have been edited thoroughly, so lab research may be discussed in some. It doesn't matter that research is catalogued by Pubmed, as it doesn't qualify for WP:MEDRS unless complying with WP:MEDSCI. I don't feel the information you're proposing is useful for a general encyclopedia, but others may side with you via this discussion. Meanwhile, no changes regarding this topic should occur per WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm siding with the OP. Secondary sources citing pre-clinical and animal studies are completely acceptable, if it is clearly stated that they pre-clinical or animal studies. This is especially the case for substances like EGCG, that will not be eligible for commercial patents and where there is no individual party with the economic incentive and will for vast investment sums required for multiple human DBRCTs and systematic reviews. If we ignored ALL data that doesn't comply with the pre-market evidence expectations used for commercial, marketable pharmacology (as has been going on here), it would vastly misrepresent the enormous body of knowledge regarding the subject. Useful knowledge should still be included, where its evidence standard is also clearly stated and not misrepresented. Again, WP:MEDASSESS states, "Such information "[early-stage research]", particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited". Animal studies are certainly *NOT* prohibited from Wikipedia. They just can't be used to state or directly imply medical statements of fact regarding an effect in humans. Accuracy and clarity regarding the standard of evidence is what is required. Not complete exclusion of all forms of knowledge that haven't been permanently cast in stone. Besides, veterinarians and pet owners read Wikipedia too. You're not the only species on the planet. Animal health is perfectly relevant too. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why my info about biological properties was removed?  

message: User: Panintelize about this edit, we generally don't use primary sources in WP at all, and we do not use them for anything about health.  Please read WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jytdog got it, I'll read the links you provided. btw can you elaborate on "we generally don't use primary sources in WP at all"? It contrasts my observation since I see lots of them being used in various articles about chemical agent. Panintelize (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: there is lots of bad editing in WP.  ~generally~ if it the only content is receptor binding (like what you added) the community finds primary sources OK but if you want to make an actual health claim (like "EGCG can treat cancer") you need a review.   (ECG binds to a lot of things!!  so if you really want to describe its receptor binding profile a review would save a lot of work anyway....)  Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

text: False and misleading. "we do not use them for anything about health" is incorrect. WP:MEDRS and many other WP medical policies (including WP:MEDSCI) explicitly PERMIT primary sources from reputable sources. Please cease the disruptive and destructive edits all over this page. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  receptor binding; primary sources 

message: This article is a joke. If you're not even going to make an effort to make it balanced and reflect the actual research, then delete it.
Apparently putting Green Tea before White Tea (because it has the highest quantity of EGCG), is "promotional", according to editors. 120.17.37.130 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: i added that content to the botanical drug article here. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be linked. EGCG is the primary component and proposed mechanism. The next most similar catechins have related effects too. When EGCG and those make up 95% of the product, it's quite a stretch to consider that irrelevant to this article. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope that is not how it works.  Companies go after botanical drug approvals in order to get complex mixtures approved as drugs.  What CMC controls is the manufacturing -- so that the ingredients are the same batch to batch.   The whole mixture is what is tested for efficiacy and adverse effects. (and indeed lots of people talk about things the importance of mixtures and important contributions by all the components in ways that we don't fully understand).   Nobody gets to go back and pick one component and claim that the activity is due to it.  If somebody wants to show that EGCG alone has these qualities, they need to demonstrate that.  The argument here is also typical of dietary supplement marketing.  Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Catchins are 95% of the product and the entire aim and target of the extraction process, due to all the evidence of their effects. But because it's not an analytic reagent grade process, let's just assume it's something mysterious in the 5% of the product, or perhaps some invisible flying teapot that's causing it instead. #OccamsRazor 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to take the research about X seriously.  The X in Veregen is a complex mixture. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Please also get your figures right: "Catechins constitute 85 to 95% (by weight) of the total drug substance which includes more than 55% of Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCg), other catechin derivatives such as Epicatechin (EC), Epigallocatechin (EGC), Epicatechin gallate (ECg), and some additional minor catechin derivatives i.e. Gallocatechin gallate (GCg), Gallocatechin (GC), Catechin gallate (Cg), and Catechin (C)." (from here)  So EGCG is bit more than half. Biology is complicated and small amounts of things can have big effects which is why the FDA puts so much emphasis on CMC.  That is just how biology works.  Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So there's no reason at all to not say "EGCG is a component of the green tea extracts in Veregen, a formulation approved by FDA for topical wart treatment". Majority (of the drug component), is a notable quantity. But including that would risk being interpreted as a positive statement about EGCG, and would go against the established pattern of bias on this page. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veregen 

message: It was added because the product name was copied directly from FDA's letter. Also as informational to a reader that it is a trademark and not a free to use as a generic name. As a matter of style to remove it, fine. I've found it's specified in a Wikipedia style guide now. But to call it "promotional editing" to have added it, is inappropriate presumption of bad faith (against Wikipedia policy) and poor editorship. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Most times when people use the mark, they are company reps or PR people.  You were copy/pasting.  I can accept that. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "we don't do the R mark. more promotional editing)"

message: Unsourced. Citation needed. The reference (name="efsa"), from 2011, only refers to whether lowering LDL can be used as a health claim. It certainly does not support the statement "As of 2016, there are no approved health claims for EGCG in Europe or the United States". More evidence of the campaign of bias on this page, for editors to exclude any positive references, but continue including unsourced negative ones. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Veregen is green tea extract.  We have discussed this above already.  ECGC =/= green tea extract. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 'No approved health claims'

message: "As of 2016, [... FDA] issued warning letters against marketers of products claiming that EGCG provides anti-disease effects or overall health benefits". It did no such thing. Implies and/or states that FDA letters were sent as blanket warning in 2016 to all marketers about "anti-disease effects or overall health benefits", when in fact, letters were only sent in 2008 and 2010 to TWO specific vendors (as far as is sourced) and said something completely different. The letters, since removed from FDA's site, regarded specific claims made by those individual vendors, including: "protects against digestive and respiratory infections, helps to block the cancer promoting actions of carcinogens, protects against high total and LDL cholesterol levels, and blocks the attachment of the, bacteria associated with dental cavities to the teeth.", "The anticancer activities of green tea or its components, especially the antioxidants, for example, EGCG, are widely ranged, starting at inhibition of the formation of exogenous carcinogens in the stomach to interference with tumor initiation, promotion and progression.", etc. when, in the FDA's words they were: "not generally recognized as safe and effective for those referenced uses", therefore, the products as referenced (the specific uses stated) would be "new drugs" under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C.§ 321(p)] (not legally marketable in the U.S. without prior approval). Notably, systematic review of safety by the US Pharmacopeia concluded "when dietary supplement products containing green tea extracts are used and formulated appropriately the Committee is unaware of significant safety issues that would prohibit monograph development, provided a caution statement is included in the labelling section" (warning regarding consumption on empty stomach). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, this should be corrected in the article. Cathry (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I would have done that myself, but (a) got a ban warning on this page and (b) page was locked to require user login, which I object to on principle as an unreasonable privacy invasion. (Would be associated on metadata and data profiling over time, even without real name and I believe content should be assessed on merit). 120.17.55.136 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have some problems with English grammar as English is not my native language, so my edits are sometimes canceled for "poor English". Can you post here proper statement based on FDA to include in article? Then I can copy it. Cathry (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no real problem unless you are over-reading. There were indeed letters sent; we add the word "two" to deal with the fussiness. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you say "two letters", not "two marketers". To make it two times as misleading? This needs deletion: "As of 2016, there are no approved health claims for EGCG in Europe or the United States,[13]", as it's completely unsourced and uses irrelevant reference. This should be changed to follow what the sources actually say (instead of making up a completely different and original conclusion / creative interpretation, which is, again, against Wikipedia policy): "and the US Food and Drug Administration has issued two warning letters against marketers of products claiming that EGCG provides anti-disease effects or overall health benefits.[14][15]" to : "In 2008 and 2010, US Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to two marketers, for referencing uses (named health effects) that were not generally recognized as safe and effective and alleged to have breached U.S. "new drug" laws." 120.17.195.121 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it. Cathry (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks kindly Cathry.  120.17.195.121 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Zefr's two subsequent edits (added two further examples, updated wording and moved to new section), improved on this section. 120.17.195.121 (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading claims about FDA letters

message: U.S. National Library of Medicine classifies EGCG under the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Pharmacological Classifications: "antioxidants", "antimutagenic agents", "anticarcinogenic agents", "neuroprotective agents". Its description of EGCG is "antimutagen in green tea (Camellia sinensis); a steroid 5alpha-reductase inhibitor" (MeSH Unique ID: C045651). NIH's NCI Thesaurus ("provides reference terminology for many systems. It covers vocabulary for clinical care, translational and basic research, and public informatioin and administrative activities") introduces EGCG as "a phenolic antioxidant found in a number of plants such as green and black tea. It inhibits cellular oxidation and prevents free radical damage to cells. It is under study as a potential cancer chemopreventive agent.". ToxPlanet and NIH's ToxNet uses classifications: "Anticarcinogenic Agents","Antimutagenic Agents","Antineoplastic Agents","Antioxidants","Central Nervous System Agents","Drug / Therapeutic Agent","Natural Product","Neuroprotective Agents","Protective Agents".  NIH "Drug Information Portal" describes it as "antimutagen in green tea", classified under "anticarcinogenic agents".  Yet in this Wikipedia article, none of the words "antioxidant", "antimutagenic", "anticarcinogenic", "potential cancer chemopreventive", "neuroprotective" etc are used anywhere (apart from one of them hiding in a footer macro). Reasonable conclusion: Wikipedia thinks it's far better at describing EGCG than the National Institute of Health, National Library of Medicine and most other sources. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the MESH entry you mention.  That is just an indexing thing.  Please provide links for the others. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It must really take genuine effort to use that level of selective bias to look past all those more official descriptions than Wikipedia's. Don't strain yourself. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: NCI Drug Dictionary's entry. p.s. There's a good reason they add description to subject headings (and index terms). It was previously my job to specify semantic integration requirements and standards, metadata ontologies, cross-walking methods, etc. (including for the second largest library digitisation project in my country, >20 million items, ~$1.5B USD insurance appraised collection value). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: NIH Drug Information Portal's entry. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: NIH National Cancer Institute Metathesaurus, EGCG Definition (Physician Data Query): "A phenolic antioxidant found in a number of plants such as green and black tea. It inhibits cellular oxidation and prevents free radical damage to cells. It is under study as a potential cancer chemopreventive agent." 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1st and 3rd entries are basically the same.  I went through all the links in the 2nd one; nothing specific to EGCG there, which is not surprising. I've added further content about research so now the things mentioned in both the MESH entry and dictionary are mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jytdog. I think that represents well that EGCG has received research-level interest. Appreciate the effort and your referencing. Insightful phrase in one of those reviews: "Surprisingly, however, despite the promising preclinical findings and the thorough mechanistic insights, clinical studies in the context of inflammation are largely lacking". When so much is already known about its inhibition of NFκB, MAPK, COX-2, TNFα, etc. in pre-clinical research, it's unfortunate that a great deal more hasn't been done. Particularly when the evidence to justify large high quality trials, is really so thoroughly compelling for some conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis. I agree Wikipedia's shouldn't promote any particular viewpoint. I do find that aspect very interesting though. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: LOL. I just saw you actually managed remove rheumatoid arthritis during your edit, despite it even being the title of one of the references. It's not because that's the first change I'd made to this article perhaps (and had added further evidence after you rejected it)? I assume you wouldn't do something as deliberately impartial and unprofessional for an Administrator as that, right? 14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction (should follow U.S. NIH classifications)

message: Article should include: "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Division of Drug Oncology Products gave a precaution that a green tea extract (containing approximately 50% EGCG), was to be taken with food only (not without food), by subjects participating in a green tea extract clinical study." . Rationale: A previous systematic review found that hepatotoxicity from green tea extracts (GTEs) (i.e. containing EGCG) is unlikely, but inconclusive and called for more data (as cases could not be isolated, as all were taking other supplements). When dogs were given high doses of GTEs however, they performed better on liver function tests if they weren't fasting when GTE was consumed. The studies relate to green tea extracts, not just to EGCG in isolation. Based on precautionary principle however, given that many people who take green tea extracts are taking for its EGCG content, they should be made aware of the 'take after food only' safety recommendation/precaution. 
14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is about green tea extract, and not about EGCG.  Perhaps we should just merge this article into the Green tea article, since that is what you keep bringing references for? I would be fine with that. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, EGCG deserves its own article. It still has a number of distinctly different properties to other catechins and has been studied separately. The particular reference above is about GTE, as I deliberately noted. It should still be included however for the common sense reason, that people seeking to take EGCG, will often reach for green tea extracts. Could just include that safety note in the GTE article, but safety information (for common sense reasons) is better included in more places rather than fewer. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if we are going to keep this separate, please stop  bringing references about green tea extract. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there's some need to pretend it doesn't come from green tea? I'm finally starting to understand some Americans' pathological hatred of green tea products. Seems it's a deep rooted thing all the way back to the Revolution and dumping of green tea in Boston harbor, US Congress's own Tea Act a century later and Board of Tea Experts regulator funded by America's tea industry, Buttfield v. Stranahan (U.S. Supreme Court), cultural differences (Japanese appreciation for fragrance and aroma), anti-Asian sentiment, etc. The seemingly irrational campaign again EGCG, a green tea extract, is *finally* starting to make sense in the context of Criticism_of_Wikipedia#American_and_corporate_bias! 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop abusing this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. I will not ask again. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not intending to upset you. Merely identifying, hopefully to benefit editorial awareness, that the subject carries risks of subconscious cultural and historic framing influences on accuracy decisions. Most people wouldn't even know there was a history that's put blinkers on the topic. While Chinese writing from 8th century talks about Emperor Shennong discovering green tea's health effects in 2737 BC, we're only just beginning to look at tea's bioactive effects (apart from anxiolytic/stimulant), and of those many roles seem attributed to EGCG. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

text: e.g. The first very rapid (seemingly reflexive) editorial response to mentioning a potential benefit under investigation, was to call a conclusion shared by multiple highly respected independent research teams, "non-sense". Editors are unlikely to avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias, unless they're aware of both context of the subject matter and their own. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Last warning.  Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, no soap boxes. Per WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAPBOX's "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view". So WP:NPOVFAQ, "Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them.". Given how terribly geopolitically contentioushttps://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/teapot/index.html green tea related products are, and even perspectives on Eastern medicine, just making sure that editors keep thishttp://www.markgraham.space/blog/mapping-the-geographies-of-wikipedia-content in mind. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoughts about nationalist movements based on fermented tea vs green tea, America's very founding independence and sense of identity being tied up in all that, modern pro/anti "Tea Party" politics over rejecting green tea, etc. Just seems so completely far from mind for the rest of us only looking for the next cure to cancer or arthritis. Wasn't looking to touch on a raw nerve. Just trying to get something looking like basic NPOV balance (for a neutral country). 
14.200.91.233 (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety (second attempt)

message: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45971416
69.181.23.220 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The food supplement that ruined my liver' - BBC News