Talk:Chrysin

message: I tried to add some references and discussion of results that show it's ineffectiveness.  I added references to existing publications already referenced, but wasn't sure how to do this (e.g., now there are multiple Saarinen,2001 references). Revampedcomplexity (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Estrogen article

message: anti-aromatase but it's also phytoestrogenic, giving you estrogen.
==========
In vitro studies did demonstrate chrysin as an aromatase inhibitor.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that chrysin is soluble in Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) and can therein penetrate cell membranes.
==========
If something is phytoestrogenic, it can block estrogen receptors from more powerful estrogenic compounds, thereby being anti-estrogen.  Also, after the sentence
 "Unfortunately, follow-up studies determined that cell membranes effectively block chrysin from entering the cells and having any effect at all on estrogen levels in biological organisms.[8][13][3]"  
-The first study cited actually provides evidence that chrysin works as well as a pharmaceutical drug in blocking estrogen production from testosterone.
-The second study listed has nothing to do with chrysin.  It is a study in which young men were given andro and had their testosterone and estrogen levels measured in the following weeks.
-The third study listed concludes that chrysin is not an effective aromatase inhibitor when taken orally.  This fact is not disputed and, in fact, is why chrysin is often given transdermally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.92.230 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: But...

message: If something is phytoestrogenic, it can block estrogen receptors from more powerful estrogenic compounds, thereby being anti-estrogen.  Also, after the sentence
 "Unfortunately, follow-up studies determined that cell membranes effectively block chrysin from entering the cells and having any effect at all on estrogen levels in biological organisms.[8][13][3]"  
-The first study cited actually provides evidence that chrysin works as well as a pharmaceutical drug in blocking estrogen production from testosterone.
-The second study listed has nothing to do with chrysin.  It is a study in which young men were given andro and had their testosterone and estrogen levels measured in the following weeks.
-The third study listed concludes that chrysin is not an effective aromatase inhibitor when taken orally.  This fact is not disputed and, in fact, is why chrysin is often given transdermally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.92.230 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ==

message: Camomille page claims this is its active compound, but this page does not link back. --Squidonius (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camomille 

message: Why was it reverted? QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because what you wrote didn't make sense (what does the "role" do?), and because the book used merely cites one piece of Chinese primary research without any analytic insight, so is not in any meaningful sense secondary. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is primarily found in honey, propolis, and the passion flowers Passiflora caerulea and Passiflora incarnata, and in Oroxylum indicum.[1]" Why was the citation removed for this claim? QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned with the human health claims; if you want to put reliable stuff in more carefully without these, go ahead. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is okay. There is limited content on health claims] by publisher Elsevier. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source is reliable 

message: It says "It occurs in small quantities[failed verification] in honey, propolis, the passion flowers, Passiflora caerulea and Passiflora incarnata, and in Oroxylum indicum.[1]" I propose we go back to the content in the lead that passed V. See this change. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more likely to find suitable sources if you e.g.  look for literature reviews on PubMed] (examples: pmid:27829351, pmid:28694744, pmid:28435252, pmid:25182716, pmid:25125885). It's much better than cherry picking out of 900 potential sources. Nemo 19:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no evidence that chrysin is a major constituent in any source, particularly since polyphenol groups generally are present in only mg/100 g amounts. In honey, for example, total polyphenol content is low. It appears chrysin is present in << 0.5 mg/100 g amounts. ,  are examples showing "small quantities". --Zefr (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For the lead we can go back to the previously sourced content and start a new section in the body under "Occurrence" for quantities in sources. We can start with honey for the new section. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantities in sources

message: I started Chrysin#Occurrence and other sections. I also replaced failed verification content, with verifiable content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Occurrence

message: Although not the most complete sources, the FDA and WebMD discuss the supplement uses, with appropriate safety concerns and cautions. Should we have this back and sourced in the article? --Zefr (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's on the FDA's radar, that suggests it would be due. Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address supplement use? 

message: ..."indicating its potential in anticancer research.[7][8][improper synthesis?]" Not sure about that. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible SYN violation 

message: "From in vitro studies, it displayed toxic and antiproliferative effects on isolated cancer cells through induction of apoptosis.[14][15]" Do both citations verify all the content? If they don't we may have another SYN violation. The edit summary suggests both citations don't verify the same content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible SYN violation 

message: As the article is currently written, it seems rather odd to simply state that it is shown ineffective as an aromatase inhibitor when given orally. Wouldn't it make sense to explain that such studies are of interest because the IN VITRO studies did show aromatase inhibition? Then it could be added that although those studies showed potential for aromatase inhibition in vitro, the in vivo studies on orally administered Chrysin did not show significant effect. I will gather some of the sources for the in vitro studies. 
BenjaminMan (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Aromatase Inhibitor

message: Although in good faith, this edit was based almost entirely on lab studies and speculation about anticancer, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant effects, which all are far from factual. There is only one good review – the PubChem article – and there are no acceptable clinical studies.  --Zefr (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary research and speculation