Talk:Viscum album

message: it says "the fruit is a white or yellow berry containing several seeds...".
All the viscum album berries ive squished have only ever had a single seed in them. Is the seed number variable? Cheers.
:: The "normal" number of seeds in Viscum album is usually 1, but the flower has several carpels and thus more seeds can be produced. However, the mistletoes usually only let one carpel mature and abort the development of the others resulting in the "normal" single seed.
87.194.223.183 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of seeds? 

message: The page currently says: "The toxic lectin Viscumin has been isolated from Viscum album.[7]" 
The link leads to a PDF "Isolation and characterization of viscumin, a toxic lectin from Viscum album L. (mistletoe)".
:"Viscum Album L." ((Loranthaceae) however is not listed on this page. Actually, I see it in reference # 6 "Notes on the Cretan mistletoe, Viscum album subsp. creticum subsp. nova (Loranthaceae/Viscaceae)". Is it a Cretan sub-species ? 
:Here's a list of queries:-
:1. why is it not listed in the page ?
:2. why did the editor not indicate which sub-species when talking about toxicity?
:3. why is the herb freely available for purchase in chemists in Germany ?
Does finding it in one sub-species indicate it is in all - presumably there's a good possibility (if the others havent been researched).
Thanks for any help, Tom Tomosullivan (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you refer to as 7, now listed as 8, specifies its source in the title as Viscum album L. The Materials and methods section simply states mistletoe grown on maple.  There is no mention of the Cretan subspecies. The author did not mention a subspecies because he was dealing with the main European species.  Mistletoe is freely available in orchards, parks and gardens in the area of Europe where it occurs, and is sold to the public to use as Christmas decorations for their homes.  It is not so toxic that it poses much risk unless a large quantity of the berries are eaten. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ricin's sulfide bridges break at temps above 80C. When the bridges break the active site of the enzyme is ruined. Unlike other proteins the sulfide bridge is needed to regenerate the active site of the enzyme and when it breaks the protein is readily denatures and misfolds into a non-active form. Boling ricin will destroy it. 24.186.0.101 (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a source for that, perhaps it should be added to the Ricin article, but how is it relevant here? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: The following sentences were taken from the Mistletoe article.  They were unreferenced there; if they are confirmed, they may be added to the article. 
:Frigg was heartbroken. She decreed that that mistletoe would never be used again as a weapon and that she would place a kiss on anyone who passed under it. So now we hang mistletoe underneath our doors during the holidays, so that we will never overlook it again.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced claims about Scandinavian legend 

message: (This section was moved here from the Talk:Mistletoe page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  But not all Mistletoe has berries. Honda Enoch (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we kiss under the mistletoe? 

message: (This section was moved here from the Talk:Mistletoe page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This link http://werewolves.monstrous.com/werewolves_powers.htm gives a little detail, but not very much - MPF 23:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Werewolves

message: (This section was moved here from the Talk:Mistletoe page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - it is under Mistletoe#In culture and mythology. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You're absolutely right... I have no idea where the author got this, but in the extant norse mythology Baldr is not a god of vegitation and he isn't revived until Ragnarok...  The author may be confusing some contemporary work with the mythology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.184.191 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless some citation appears for this "Baldr ressurection" story, it should be removed. -- 189.10.150.150 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baldr story 

message: (This section was moved here from the Talk:Mistletoe page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berries are not red 

message: (This section was moved here from the Talk:Mistletoe page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semen equates to paganism? 

message: (This section was moved here from the Talk:Mistletoe page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS, WP:SOFIXIT. --Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has now been rewritten to meet with 21st century PC standards, and in doing so has introduced error.  It was not custom for 'any two people' to kiss under the mistletoe; it was tradition for a man and a woman to kiss.  Do not forget that, rightly or wrongly, homosexuality was regarded with horror for centuries  - it was a sin, and I cannot stress how importnat the idea of sin was in the past - and we are only recently overcoming this predjudice. You cannot impose modern standards on what went on in the past: revisionism, now matter how well meant, is not historical truth.  The idea of women kissing women or men kissing men being acceptable in the past is a nonsense.  Sorry, but that's just the way it was. I shall alter the article to reflect the historical truth. 86.133.211.60 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely Homophobic Article! 

message: (This section was moved here from the Talk:Mistletoe page. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvesting techniques and cultivation 

message: I am parking this text here from a recent revision. It looks more NPOV than what is left behind if one examines the sources.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpecking (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. This is anyway an article about mistletoe and not anthroposophic medicine, so having a large section here is WP:UNDUE. What we do have should at least be in WP:SYNC with our main content on anthroposophic medicine. Finally, as an editor with a potential COI you should be treading carefully. Alexbrn (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no COI- I am not paid by or in any financial relationship with mistletoe, iscador, or AM, but thank you for the welcome wagon. For disclosure I am interested in mistletoe's anticancer properties. I am a physician and graduate of public health. I am working towards certification in Anthroposophical medicine. Currently wikipedia views alternative med practitioners as not in COI if posting about alternative med-Alexbrn I believe you would know that as you were involved in the discussions about this yourself. Friend, I am seeing a lot of attack the source, instead of the argument here. I will continue to be bold, per wikipedia's suggestions. I will also continue to use rational argument and good citation of text. Perhaps you are correct about the mistletoe as medicine needing its own page. I do believe the edits you have left veer from NPOV.Chickpecking (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: COIs are not just FCOIs (financial ones), and to be accurate the community is undecided on whether altmed practitioners have a COI for their products, which is why I referred to a "potential" COI. In any case, the point is that this is a mistletoe article - it should be focused on the plant, not details of anthroposophic medicine treatment efficacy. That would be a WP:COATRACK. Also your edit in which you claimed that a Cochrane review found "moderate evidence that mistletoe therapy improved quality of life in breast cancer" is a cherry-picked skew of the source's conclusion (which is actually that this research "needs replication"); and your omission of more recent quality sourcing on this matter - which you know exists, and which you know is very negative ... and which in fact you removed - adds up to your edit not faithfully representing current medical knowledge, but unduly boosting your own field. Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we see if you have a COI too? You seem to have quite a slant against alternative therapies and focus quite a bit of effort on negative spinning those articles. I will not speculate, just an observation. The only negative meta-analysis I know of is dated by the Cochrane review (I am assuming you mean Ernst's 2006 review, which I did mention, and as it comes from a known to be biased source, I commented on the source appropriately), and I am familiar with many other positive reviews. Indeed, I am working on a summary of all the meta analysis and reviews- and a NPOV discussion thereof. I would highly value your contributions. If you know of another negative meta-analysis, please let me know, it would be important to my work. But you may do so on my talk page. If you would prefer to make the quotations from the cochrane less cherry picked, you are also free to edit wikipedia. I am game to add "but these results need replication" to the cochrane quote.Chickpecking (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no COI: medicine is not my field. I am interested in writing good articles by including & faithfully representing appropriate sources. The evidence here is that you misrepresented one source and deleted a very strong MEDRS source from the American Cancer Society. Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear. I think that in cochrane and other meta analysis vs ACS, cochrane would trump, as that should be where the ACS gets their opinion, and ACS seems to have over-summarized and ended up inaccurate, but we can discuss elsewhere.Chickpecking (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a misrepresented version of Cochrane does not "trump" anything, except accurate information. But as you well know we also have the NIH, a 2015 MEDRS source that dismisees this therapy. This all smells very fishy. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree about misrepresented vs better represented. NIH says something more complicated (and disputable by other MEDRS) than what you are relaying. Let's continue discussing in more appropriate forum, though I think the medicine part can be more accurately summarized. Cheers Chickpecking (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicine