Talk:Berberine

message: Is it okay to modify the sentence with the "citation needed" at the end of the first paragraph (re source of Berberine) that has been there since 2011? The Wikipedia links to the shrubs and plants that produce berberine (mentioned in first paragraph) all contain information about the plant parts that are used in traditional herbal medications. All these plants have parts that have been variously used for this purpose, fruits, seeds, bark, roots/rhizomes. However, the cited literature often doesn't make empirical causal associations between berberine and the observed therapeutic effects, but merely hypothesizes that these effects may be due to berberine. The fact is that there are quite a few other bioactive alkaloids produced by the same plants, which may well contribute to the effects of the herbal preparations. Should this be reflected in the first paragraph? Suirauqa (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: I would like to see information added to this article about effective dosages of berberine. At this moment there there is no info in the article about what dosages are used in research. I would like to relate that information to the berberine content of food supplements containing herbal extracts of goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) and/or Berberis vulgaris. itsme (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the articles cited, and you will find that the effective daily dosage is 1 to 1,5 grams. You are welcome to add this info if you so choose.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.28.94 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: eg. "The therapeutic dosage for most clinical situations is 200 mg orally two to four times daily.[Birdsall TC, Kelly GS. Berberine: Therapeutic potential of an alkaloid found in several medicinal plants. Altern Med Rev 1997;2:94-103.]" Rod57 (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Effective dosages of berberine

message: Clinical use in western medicine only seems to be mentioned in the context of clinical trials for diabetes. Does it have FDA type approvals for any indications ?
It seems to be a component of Armolipid Plus.
There are 2 trials registered for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) . Rod57 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike drugs, dietary supplements do not require FDA approval to be marketed. The restriction, however, is that with rare exceptions, the supplement companies are not allowed to make any claims for prevention or treatment of a disease EVEN IF TRUE. There is a difficult path to FDA-approved health claims. Most supplement companies do not try, and instead live with the restriction. David notMD (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  medical status 

message: I added mention and references to two studies indicating berberine's serious potential to increase the risk of liver cancer, if taken over a lifetime.  Most people assume that if a substance can kill cancer cells, it must lower the risk of cancer if taken every day.  This is absolutely not the case, however.  Many chemo drugs can cause secondary cancers.  In fact, a class of chemo drugs called topoisomerase II inhibitors have also been found to cause leukemia, mainly AML (note berberine is a topoisomerase II inhibitor).  And these studies re berberine and liver cancer are all the more credible as to the mechanism involved considering that coffee has been shown to dose-dependently lower the risk of human liver cancer, and its constituent chlorogenic acid induces the formation of topoisomerase I- and II-DNA complexes in cells (i.e., coffee works the opposite way from berberine in this respect, and coffee decreases liver cancer risk).  In fact, for this same reason, if you consider supplementing with berberine, it would make sense to drink about 6 cups of coffee or decaf coffee a day to try to offset the potential for berberine to promote liver cancer via this mechanism.
I also cited a study showing neurotoxic effects of berberine.  There are a couple of additional studies in support of this finding.  However, I also cited studies showing neuroprotective effects of berberine.  Obviously, the jury is still out on this one.
Lastly, I cited a study showing that berberine can increase the risk of atherosclerosis and foam cell formation, despite its cholesterol lowering effects.  The jury is still out on this one, also, as other studies (I cited these, as well) show that berberine decreases the risk of atherosclerosis by mechanisms other than its cholesterol lowering effects.
I am not on some anti-berberine campaign.  But I felt it worth noting that this chemical appears to have some concerning effects, in addition to its many beneficial ones.  Probably the best way to think of berberine is as a true pharmaceutical drug with powerful beneficial effects on blood sugar and other health measures, but also with some concerning issues in its safety profile that must be taken into consideration and factored into any decision to supplement with it.Bdmwiki (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liver Cancer, Neurotoxicity, and Atherosclerosis risks 

message: This current version has been radically shortened comparing to what it was a year ago, supposedly in the name of reliability. Although SOME claims of the older versions were not solidly doccumented, most of them were. For example, version of October 10, 2015 had 109 references, mostly in reputable journals and books. The present version has only 13 references. Much damage has been done. Just one example, out of tens alike: Reference #18 of the Oct.10, 2015   "The anti-inflammatory potential of berberine in vitro and in vivo. Kuo CL, Chi CW, Liu TY (January 2004) Cancer Lett. 203 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2003.09.002. ." - why did someone remove this reliable and very important information?  And tens of other referenced information? Someone careless has deprived the general population of the right to know those very important medical information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.51.77.190 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WHYMEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is essay, not guideline Cathry (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And what MEDRS means is that Wikipedia has chosen to be a trailing indicator for what is true. New, and sometimes reversed science is in the journals, Wikipedia waits until the science is at or closer to consensus, based on human evidence. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  From WP:MEDRS: "This page in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies." Even if medical consensus isn't established, citing correctly sourced information is the goal (not "what is true"). I agree with the OP, stripping this page of its sourcing was damaging in the long term. The specific example of  was correctly sourced, was it not? MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a primary source, so not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damaging edits of this article