Talk:Hericium erinaceus

message: The medical section cites a journal of "Complementary and Integrative Medicine" which seems to be an elaborate way of saying "not medicine", and also states that pills of this fungi are used in treatment, as if this somehow demonstrates that it is safe and effective to do so.  This makes me suspicious of all the citations.  What is the real science on this? 24.57.220.238 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As described in WP:MEDASSESS when sourcing medical content for an encyclopedia, i.e., not research updates for a book chapter or journal review, we need evidence of treatment efficacy in humans (systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis of multiple high-quality clinical trials) to state whether a food or extract actually has relevance to human health. As revealed in the link for the Google search above, none of those studies retrieved is actually "clinical research", but rather the research on this mushroom is still at the basic research (lab experiments) level, indicating years - likely decades - from completed high-quality clinical trials. In the article, I edited the statement on research to include the two applicable reviews of basic research, but it's clear the research status is a long way from revealing any properties in humans worthy as encyclopedic content and sources. --Zefr (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:MEDASSESS. We're writing an encyclopedia of best-available facts from totality of evidence, not a review article for a journal on mushrooms. --Zefr (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated, and you have not directly responded properly , why do dozens and dozens of peer reviewed studies, many done on humans, many clinical trials and nearly all by academic or other research intitutions not count as research ? Why should a heading "research" not include details of research that has been conducted on this mushroom ? You are behaving deceptively - I wouldnt be suprised if you worked for a large pharmaceutical company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.214.218 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're cherry-picking one study that is now 9 years old (5 years is the standard) and published in a weak, non-clinical journal. This is where MEDASSESS comes into play and where the encyclopedia seeks to be up to date with high-quality sources - that one fails miserably. You seem motivated to include any information, however weak, to add something to the article. You have also far-passed the WP:3RR rule on reverts. I haven't reported you, but you are subject to blocking now. --Zefr (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Pubmed is a listing service, not a quality-hierarchy site, defined here. Further assistance to possibly help you choose high-quality medical sources are here and here. I edited the section and retained your sources. --Zefr (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

text: We don't want unreliable sources. And we certainly don't want links to apparently dodgy copies of PDFs - see WP:COPYLINK. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable medical information.... or not ? 

message: This article seems to be missing a lot of details.  Why not mention that the compound Erinacine A in Lion's Mane has an enhancing effect on nerve growth factor?  I'm interested in knowing what "Amycenone" is.  I've also heard it claimed that Lion's Mane inhibits 5-alpha reductase.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.32.199 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Article 

message: There are some scientific clinical trials reported on the peer-reviewed journals. These results are scientific approved. Though, there are still discussion and testing its biological mechanism, these results are experimental facts and nobody cannot deny these facts. If you think they were not reliable, it's nothing but your prejudice. These biased viewpoints must be unreliable. Mushroomhericenone (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:MEDRS. We don't cite primary research (such as an early-stage clinical trial or lab research), but rather use an encyclopedic source, such as a systematic review in a high-quality clinical journal. Further, the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms has been suspended from Citation Reports, apparently due to low-quality editorial practices and a high number of self-citations. Zefr (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is broken. I am a professor with more than 50 pubs and 2000 citations. Its broken if it doens't include primary research. I frankly can't use it for anything meaningful... This policy is crazy. I'm not donating anymore because of it, and will be talking crap about wikipedia when I can. 70.229.205.145 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds as though you would like Wikipedia to be a review article for your and similar primary research publications. Do you feel lab studies are the final answer on potential health effects of eating a mushroom or using its extracts as an ingredient or supplement? An encyclopedia states and cites confirmed facts that become accepted knowledge in a health discipline, such as would be provided by a rigorous review of Phase III clinical trials published in a reputable clinical journal or textbook, a government regulatory review as done for drugs by the FDA, or a clinical organization publishing guidelines for use of a food or substance that has proven health effects. Wikipedia is not a journal - WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8 for covering preliminary research. See WP:MEDASSESS for the level of evidence needed, top of pyramids. If you have publications in the category of "secondary filtered information", you should provide them here for editors to discuss for use in the article. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

text: For objectivity, read WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

text: The lede currently has the statement that "There is no high-quality evidence from clinical research to indicate that lion's mane mushroom has medicinal properties." The Drugs.com review states under Clinical overview that "clinical trials are lacking to support use of lion's mane mushroom for any indication." By WP:MEDREV and WP:MEDSCI, the encyclopedia does not treat lab research or preliminary clinical research as conclusive, i.e., there is no high-quality research on this mushroom to indicate its use for any therapeuic or preventive effect. Zefr (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects 

message: Hydnellum is in no way a similar species. Joncolvin (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar species 

message: Under the major section Uses, the first line claimed "Some guides consider it inedible." with footnote [6] to R. Michael Davis, Robert Sommer, John A. Menge, Field Guide to Mushrooms of Western North America (2012), pp.280-281. That citation rather claims on p.280 that Lion's Mane is edible, and on p.281 that a different mushroom Hydnellum aurantiacum is inedible. This misquote is either intentional or not; its persistence on Wiki demonstrates another case of Wiki being unreliable, possibly biased. 73.190.137.151 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses