Talk:Withania somnifera

message: I'm not expert enough to edit the article directly, but would like to point out that Cureus (which seems to have an impact factor of 1.9) published a study reporting a decrease in reported levels of stress and in serum cortisol levels when subjects took 250mg or 600mg of ashwagandha daily vs. placebo: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6979308/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas42 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cureus 

message: I would like to know exactly which sources are considered to be "quackery" associated with "Ayurvedic journals". This herb has been extensively researched, and it is a disservice to the community not to publish some of this research. While it is appropriate to include the limitations of this research, it is not appropriate to refuse to allow legitimate secondary sources and the conclusions of their authors. 
It has been previously agreed on this thread that MSK is a reliable source, and yet there appears to be a continued issue with publishing the content of their analysis.
What evidence is there that the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine is not a reliable source? Wikipedia should be strictly about evidence, not who has the most degrees. Digeridoodle (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The IJPM - as with all Ayruveda journals - does not publish the quality of research, especially high-quality reviews of completed clinical trials to meet the standard of WP:MEDRS. We are writing for an encyclopedia, not for an herbalism research article or folk medicine publication. The impact factor for IJPM falls far below the minimum standard typically accepted for medical content on Wikipedia (2.0 or higher). Accordingly, none of these sources is reliable or acceptable. --Zefr (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

text: JACM is not a reliable source for encyclopedic medical content; it publishes quackery and low-quality herbalism research. When you take some time to read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW, it will be clearer for you. Another explanation about source quality is here. --Zefr (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

text: The only sources used to support content in the traditional medicine section are Drugs.com and MedlinePlus, both of which are acceptable as reliable medical references. The problem with expanding medical content is that reviews on high-quality clinical research have not been published, so there is nothing to add. --Zefr (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Not sure what more could be said from the MSK source because it is already used to refer to the potential for drug interactions and absence of high-quality clinical trials; nothing more meets the MEDRS standard. As for the 2016 review, it could be used - but adds little - for history, methods of extraction, and phytochemicals. Nothing can be said about in vivo or clinical effects because the research reviewed was all primary, and mostly of low quality. --Zefr (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Me! Me!! ME!!! I am the one with the most degrees!!!! (PhD Nutritional Biochemistry from MIT, post-doctoral fellowship at - MSK!!!!!) But that is beside the point. The proper approach is to look through MSK to its references, and none of those stand up to Wikipedia criteria. Likewise, here, your Talk and Teahouse, the 2016 review is not sufficient for summarizing human trials. Not even close to MEDRS. Says itself - no human evidence. David notMD (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ayurvedic Journals" 

message: This study seems to support the efficacy of ashwagandha for anxiety, though sample size is a tiny N=61 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/ Can someone knowledgeable on the subject review and add if relevant? Tgalos90 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Preliminary research (not new, 2012) in an obscure journal with a low impact factor. Not usable. --Zefr (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New clinical research 

message: Effect of Withania somnifera on DMBA induced carcinogenesis
LeemolDavisGirijaKuttan
Amalanagar Cancer Research Centre, Amalanagar, Thrissur, 680 553 Kerala, India
Received 5 September 2000, Revised 4 December 2000, Accepted 12 December 2000, Available online 4 April 2001.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7ED1:2E00:2C47:8658:AC3:E300 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A primary report about a small scale animal study published in a lower tier journal falls well short of the type of sourcing needed to make claims regarding cancer treatment.  Please see WP:MEDRS for details.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer Treatment? 

message: This edit states the general conclusion both of Drugs.com and MedlinePlus that there is no high-quality clinical evidence that using ashwagandha provides any benefit. There's no need to massage the language that it "possibly may affect" or there is "limited" possible evidence for benefit. The bottom line for an encyclopedia is to clearly state the fact: there is no approved use of it as a drug, and there is no clinical proof it has value as a supplement. Zefr (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No high-quality evidence for efficacy as a drug or dietary supplement 

message: Toxicity is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Toxic effects of the herb Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity  

message: I actually wanted to add that Ashwagandha is also Grown and Supplied in the USA by submitting a link as a piece of evidence which you reverted, https://the-unwinder.com/news/best-source-of-ashwagandha/. Ricalston (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt it's grown in a bunch of places (which raises questions about notability), but surely there's a better source for that info than a promo text written by a personal trainer on a website focusing on selling supplements. Robincantin (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashwagandha is Grown and Supplied in USA also 

message: Is it correct to describe a plant as evergreen shrub and also an annual? 92.40.172.239 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evergreen annual? 

message: For men, this is most definitely a benefit, and an indication that it could be used to treat low testosterone levels. It's interesting how when an effect is named as a side effect, it gets into Wikipedia very easily these days, as long as it's for an article on alternative medicine. MarshallKe (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is possible to squeeze it into the text as a biological effect, not stating whether it is good or bad (as it would be with original definition of side effect, but the term got to be commonly used to refer to adverse effects only nowadays). Whether the effect is adverse or not would obviously depend on the context and size of the effect, both for man and woman. TK synantropijny (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  side effect: "increased testosterone levels" 

message: There is a lengthy history of this plant used therapeutically and even as food. The use is widespread such that the whole fresh root is sold in the markets where the plant locally occurs. Drsruli (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History" section? 

message: The plant is universally considered an adaptogen in the disciplines that recognize this term. It seems to me that this designation should occur somewhere on the page. Drsruli (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be giving credibility to such "disciplines", which are outside of mainstream science. The adaptogen concept is quackery nonsense, with no notability in science, WP:FRINGE. It has no place being discussed in this article as part of an encyclopedia presenting facts. Zefr (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

text: WP:UNDUE also applies to this topic to rule out discussing adaptogen. And there are people - over history and currently - who believe the Earth is flat, WP:FLAT. We don't give mainspace attention to lunatic ideas: "Simply stick to the principles: if mainstream science holds that the Earth is round, and there are reliable sources establishing this as a fact, that is sufficient." See Jimmy Wales' statement: "What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t." Zefr (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

text: There are no WP:MEDRS sources supporting the concept or clinical use of ashwagandha or any herbal product supposed to have adaptogen properties. You are in error to state that ashwagandha products have approved label claims for reducing cortisol levels and stress, and you are in error to state that the above study  would be sufficient for any regulatory authority to assess a clinical effect - that is a primary research project published in a weak journal not even having a Medline index. Further, the FDA has issued numerous warning letters in recent years to US supplement companies illegally marketing ashwagandha products, such as this one in 2022. Attempting to market such unapproved products is "in violation of sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." As you seem to have no MEDRS sources, regulatory evidence or editor consensus here to support your views, I will have no further comments. Zefr (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, this is the claim and the reference that it is based on, that is on the Nature Made national brand that is on the shelves at this time. It appears to have met the legal requirements. I was unaware of the more recent warning (although this does not address the Sensoril and Nature Made claims). Nevertheless, the term "adaptogen" has entered common vocabulary, and my initial (and primary) points regarding documenting the use of the term remain. "In the scientifically discredited discipline of Western Herbalism, Ashwagandha root is classified as an adaptogen." There is precedent for weaker things. Drsruli (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptogen 

message: — Assignment last updated by Polar Bear Enthusiast (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition and Culture