This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Herbalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Herbalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing that the content of Phytomedicine be merged into the article on Herbalism which is the majority definition by searchable references. Although there are two definitions - one as plant-based therapeutic practices ("herbalism") and the other as plant pathology - the terms are not necessarily dissociated. It is reasonable to envision the one heading of "phytomedicine" discussing the most prevalent herbal practices as "herbalism", with a secondary subheading on plant diseases, would provide adequate information to encyclopedia users. This would be a manual merge which I volunteer to initiate upon consensus. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved from the article on Phytomedicine, being merged to Herbalism, for preservation in archives. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The first reference claiming herbalism as a pseudoscience doesn't have an author and is not peer reviewed. Some people may view herbalism as a pseudoscience but there is also sufficient evidence to suggest its effectiveness under various circumstances. The cited article is also about Chinese traditional medicine, not herbalism as a whole. DocTox ( talk) 03:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Also remember what User:DocTox said:
"The first reference claiming herbalism as a pseudoscience doesn't have an author and is not peer reviewed. Some people may view herbalism as a pseudoscience but there is also sufficient evidence to suggest its effectiveness under various circumstances. The cited article is also about Chinese traditional medicine, not herbalism as a whole."
And User:Zefr:
"the Tyler article (from 1989) was an op-ed by this one author and was not peer-reviewed in a quality journal as expected for Wikipedia in WP:MEDASSESS - I acknowledge this source has been in the article for some time, but feel it should not be highlighted in the lede; 3) use of the Tyler article introduces an uncommon term, paraherbalism, which Tyler singularly invented. As there are no useful reviews obtained from a PubMed search for "paraherbalism", this term and topic are WP:UNDUE"
So to sum it up, here are the multiple flaws with the page now:
The lead now highlights what only one citation actually supports, the Tyler article is not peer-reviewed, one of the cited articles is about Chinese herbal medicine, thus completely unrelated to the sentence and does not prove the point the sentence is trying to make & says nothing about paraherbalism, and the equation of phytotherapy as being the same as paraherbalism is not supported by any of the cited articles or anywhere else on the Internet. Even the Tyler article does not mention phytotherapy even once. And there are zero sources that state phytotherapy is pseudoscience. Also, the only source that uses the term "paraherbalism" is the Tyler article.
User:Zefr told me to remove the paraherbalism section and every mention of it in the lead, saying:
"the two lede paragraphs on true herbalism and paraherbalism, and the section on Paraherbalism (only one author's view) should be removed, as they are misleading and undersourced."
And I did, and Zefr thanked me for the edit (before it got put back by CFCF and Jytdog)...
In my opinion, the paraherbalism stuff (from just one author) shouldn't be highlighted in the lead. Sure, we can keep a section on it if that's a good enough compromise. But we should completely separate phytotherapy from paraherbalism, because none of the sources state phytotherapy is the same as paraherbalism or vice versa. None of the sources say phytotherapy is paraherbalism, or interchange the two as synonyms. Also, the article misnames paraherbalism as phytotherapy:
"Phytotherapy differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds. It relies on the false belief that preserving a multitude of substances from a given source, with less processing, is safer or more effective — for which there is no evidence. [11]"
The Tyler article says paraherbalism, not phytotherapy.
The Tyler article doesn't even mention phytotherapy at all. It says that paraherbalism encompasses such beliefs, not phytotherapy. "Phytotherapy" should be replaced with "paraherbalism" because that is the term the Tyler article uses.
(Disclaimer: I am not going to edit the herbalism page, I'm just going to state what should be done to fix it). I'm going to take a Wikibreak once the errors in the article are fixed. -- EzekielT Talk 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
References
tyler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).https://www.google.com/search?ei=Kk5_W-qrN9bm-Aa576iIAw&q=western+herbal+medicine&oq=western+herbal+medicine&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l6j0i22i30k1l3.127595.129771.0.131099.10.10.0.0.0.0.191.1416.0j8.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.8.1416...33i21k1.0.iwQ8eljRJvA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 ( talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: I notice you reverted my edits - could you please elaborate on your "Rvt. damage / unreliable" reasoning? Whole plant extracts are widely studied and used in modern scientifically-validated medicine, particularly in Europe and Asia. The regulatory history in America is complex, but we either need to omit arguments from either side (re: wikipedia's philosophy of "NPOV") or someone needs to take time to convey the complexity of debate in the intro. "Medical Herbalism and Herbal Clinical Research: A Global Perspective" is a thorough primer in the scientific review of herbal medicines for anyone unfamiliar with the field. Kevingweinberg ( talk) 07:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a supplementary medicine journal article is WP:MEDRS to claim that there is some evidence supporting the belief that whole plants are safer or more effective... — Paleo Neonate – 21:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened a discussion about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medical Herbalism - European. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD ( talk) 15:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelnhuang.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
An IP user made this edit which I reverted as being WP:UNDUE for weight. In the section under Traditional systems, we have 5 large-population regions included, whereas Rongoā Māori herbalism might be considered undue as too narrow to include. WP:PROFRINGE also applies. Let's see what others think. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I've made minor edits to this page to be rebuffed despite evidence from NIH and NCBI, how are they inadequate? I'm very new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallardmac ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.
There is no new idea being put forward. And no argument being made. But the statement that no evidence exists is flatly wrong. This is also directly evidenced in the fact that the wiki itself uses both of these sources provided. Refer to the article for Artesima Annua. No fringe idea is being presented, no medical advice given. But the simple statement that there is no evidence for the use of the whole plant is incorrect, and refuted in other parts of the wiki. Mallardmac ( talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, this article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_(genus) Mallardmac ( talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
In addition, the provided reference (an opinion piece) predates cited primary sources. Mallardmac ( talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
" A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." From WP:PRIMARY. At least two articles exist confirming that whole leaf Artesimia Annua maybe more effective at combating Malaria in some instances. This is evidence, primary, yes, but still factually and irrefutably shows that the statement "no evidence exists" is false. [1] [2]
Mallardmac ( talk) 01:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
What statement was made for which the sources are not related? Mallardmac ( talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia article says A. Your sources say B. We cannot use this to say C, because that would be WP:SYNTH." The article says that no evidence exists for the use of a whole plant instead of it's isolates. I provide to articles which suggest there may be a use for whole dried leaf Artesimia Annua. Therefore the statement that no evidence exists is wrong. Your inference that by removing that statement I make a new, contradictory, synthesized, statement, is your own, and false. There may not be evidence that in general the use of the whole plant is better. It may also come that there is a better way to treat Malaria drug resistance than whole plant use. However, that face remains, there currently is evidence that whole dried leaf may be more effective than isolate. Directly disproving the statement that "NO" evidence exists. I would be more concerned about restating that "little" evidence exists, as that would leave room for inference and imply that the evidence that been reviewed. Mallardmac ( talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Because there seems to be a side of bias in how you are interpreting this modification I will attempt to break down this sentence.
"Paraherbalism differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds, but rather relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective – for which there is no evidence.[4] "
Let's first remove the informative, but irrelevant, parts: "Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective – for which there is no evidence.[4]"
We can then break this down into to sentences that convey the same information.
"Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."
and
"There is no evidence that less processing is safer or more effective."
Of these two statements, the first is correct. It provides relevant, true, information in regards to Paraherbalism. The second statement is false. There is evidence that using the whole dried leaf Artesima Annua can be more effective in certain situations. So, we must eliminate the false statement. Let's reconstitute the statement.
"Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."
Add in the rest of the statement.
"Paraherbalism differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds, but rather relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."
A now correct statement, that makes no additional claims, but does not mislead the reader. The reader does not know more, or less, from this change than they had before. Moreover, this very change has been mentioned before on this article indicating that it is obviously misleading. There are no conclusions being drawn from the provided articles, other than the conclusion that the articles exist, which any person of sound mind can acknowledge. Mallardmac ( talk) 01:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
...preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective.To be clear, sometimes it may be safer or more effective in some senses, but there is not evidence that this is a product of being less processed. Plants are not inherently safer or more effective. To put it another way, nothing in the sources you have proposed says that these substances are safer or more effective as a direct cause of being in plant form. Paraherbalism is the pseudoscientific claim that plants are inherently better medicine if they are processed less. Claims from pseudoscience aren't always wrong, but if they are correct, they are correct for unscientific reasons.
This article needs to link to herb in the first sentence. The article never links to herb as is. Wikipedia is a vernacular encyclopedia and if you must link to "pharmacognosy" over "herb" you've already lost the reader. Don't lede with five syllable workds. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 08:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Herbalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Herbalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing that the content of Phytomedicine be merged into the article on Herbalism which is the majority definition by searchable references. Although there are two definitions - one as plant-based therapeutic practices ("herbalism") and the other as plant pathology - the terms are not necessarily dissociated. It is reasonable to envision the one heading of "phytomedicine" discussing the most prevalent herbal practices as "herbalism", with a secondary subheading on plant diseases, would provide adequate information to encyclopedia users. This would be a manual merge which I volunteer to initiate upon consensus. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved from the article on Phytomedicine, being merged to Herbalism, for preservation in archives. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The first reference claiming herbalism as a pseudoscience doesn't have an author and is not peer reviewed. Some people may view herbalism as a pseudoscience but there is also sufficient evidence to suggest its effectiveness under various circumstances. The cited article is also about Chinese traditional medicine, not herbalism as a whole. DocTox ( talk) 03:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Also remember what User:DocTox said:
"The first reference claiming herbalism as a pseudoscience doesn't have an author and is not peer reviewed. Some people may view herbalism as a pseudoscience but there is also sufficient evidence to suggest its effectiveness under various circumstances. The cited article is also about Chinese traditional medicine, not herbalism as a whole."
And User:Zefr:
"the Tyler article (from 1989) was an op-ed by this one author and was not peer-reviewed in a quality journal as expected for Wikipedia in WP:MEDASSESS - I acknowledge this source has been in the article for some time, but feel it should not be highlighted in the lede; 3) use of the Tyler article introduces an uncommon term, paraherbalism, which Tyler singularly invented. As there are no useful reviews obtained from a PubMed search for "paraherbalism", this term and topic are WP:UNDUE"
So to sum it up, here are the multiple flaws with the page now:
The lead now highlights what only one citation actually supports, the Tyler article is not peer-reviewed, one of the cited articles is about Chinese herbal medicine, thus completely unrelated to the sentence and does not prove the point the sentence is trying to make & says nothing about paraherbalism, and the equation of phytotherapy as being the same as paraherbalism is not supported by any of the cited articles or anywhere else on the Internet. Even the Tyler article does not mention phytotherapy even once. And there are zero sources that state phytotherapy is pseudoscience. Also, the only source that uses the term "paraherbalism" is the Tyler article.
User:Zefr told me to remove the paraherbalism section and every mention of it in the lead, saying:
"the two lede paragraphs on true herbalism and paraherbalism, and the section on Paraherbalism (only one author's view) should be removed, as they are misleading and undersourced."
And I did, and Zefr thanked me for the edit (before it got put back by CFCF and Jytdog)...
In my opinion, the paraherbalism stuff (from just one author) shouldn't be highlighted in the lead. Sure, we can keep a section on it if that's a good enough compromise. But we should completely separate phytotherapy from paraherbalism, because none of the sources state phytotherapy is the same as paraherbalism or vice versa. None of the sources say phytotherapy is paraherbalism, or interchange the two as synonyms. Also, the article misnames paraherbalism as phytotherapy:
"Phytotherapy differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds. It relies on the false belief that preserving a multitude of substances from a given source, with less processing, is safer or more effective — for which there is no evidence. [11]"
The Tyler article says paraherbalism, not phytotherapy.
The Tyler article doesn't even mention phytotherapy at all. It says that paraherbalism encompasses such beliefs, not phytotherapy. "Phytotherapy" should be replaced with "paraherbalism" because that is the term the Tyler article uses.
(Disclaimer: I am not going to edit the herbalism page, I'm just going to state what should be done to fix it). I'm going to take a Wikibreak once the errors in the article are fixed. -- EzekielT Talk 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
References
tyler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).https://www.google.com/search?ei=Kk5_W-qrN9bm-Aa576iIAw&q=western+herbal+medicine&oq=western+herbal+medicine&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l6j0i22i30k1l3.127595.129771.0.131099.10.10.0.0.0.0.191.1416.0j8.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.8.1416...33i21k1.0.iwQ8eljRJvA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 ( talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: I notice you reverted my edits - could you please elaborate on your "Rvt. damage / unreliable" reasoning? Whole plant extracts are widely studied and used in modern scientifically-validated medicine, particularly in Europe and Asia. The regulatory history in America is complex, but we either need to omit arguments from either side (re: wikipedia's philosophy of "NPOV") or someone needs to take time to convey the complexity of debate in the intro. "Medical Herbalism and Herbal Clinical Research: A Global Perspective" is a thorough primer in the scientific review of herbal medicines for anyone unfamiliar with the field. Kevingweinberg ( talk) 07:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a supplementary medicine journal article is WP:MEDRS to claim that there is some evidence supporting the belief that whole plants are safer or more effective... — Paleo Neonate – 21:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened a discussion about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medical Herbalism - European. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD ( talk) 15:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelnhuang.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
An IP user made this edit which I reverted as being WP:UNDUE for weight. In the section under Traditional systems, we have 5 large-population regions included, whereas Rongoā Māori herbalism might be considered undue as too narrow to include. WP:PROFRINGE also applies. Let's see what others think. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I've made minor edits to this page to be rebuffed despite evidence from NIH and NCBI, how are they inadequate? I'm very new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallardmac ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.
There is no new idea being put forward. And no argument being made. But the statement that no evidence exists is flatly wrong. This is also directly evidenced in the fact that the wiki itself uses both of these sources provided. Refer to the article for Artesima Annua. No fringe idea is being presented, no medical advice given. But the simple statement that there is no evidence for the use of the whole plant is incorrect, and refuted in other parts of the wiki. Mallardmac ( talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, this article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_(genus) Mallardmac ( talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
In addition, the provided reference (an opinion piece) predates cited primary sources. Mallardmac ( talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
" A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." From WP:PRIMARY. At least two articles exist confirming that whole leaf Artesimia Annua maybe more effective at combating Malaria in some instances. This is evidence, primary, yes, but still factually and irrefutably shows that the statement "no evidence exists" is false. [1] [2]
Mallardmac ( talk) 01:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
What statement was made for which the sources are not related? Mallardmac ( talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia article says A. Your sources say B. We cannot use this to say C, because that would be WP:SYNTH." The article says that no evidence exists for the use of a whole plant instead of it's isolates. I provide to articles which suggest there may be a use for whole dried leaf Artesimia Annua. Therefore the statement that no evidence exists is wrong. Your inference that by removing that statement I make a new, contradictory, synthesized, statement, is your own, and false. There may not be evidence that in general the use of the whole plant is better. It may also come that there is a better way to treat Malaria drug resistance than whole plant use. However, that face remains, there currently is evidence that whole dried leaf may be more effective than isolate. Directly disproving the statement that "NO" evidence exists. I would be more concerned about restating that "little" evidence exists, as that would leave room for inference and imply that the evidence that been reviewed. Mallardmac ( talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Because there seems to be a side of bias in how you are interpreting this modification I will attempt to break down this sentence.
"Paraherbalism differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds, but rather relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective – for which there is no evidence.[4] "
Let's first remove the informative, but irrelevant, parts: "Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective – for which there is no evidence.[4]"
We can then break this down into to sentences that convey the same information.
"Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."
and
"There is no evidence that less processing is safer or more effective."
Of these two statements, the first is correct. It provides relevant, true, information in regards to Paraherbalism. The second statement is false. There is evidence that using the whole dried leaf Artesima Annua can be more effective in certain situations. So, we must eliminate the false statement. Let's reconstitute the statement.
"Paraherbalism relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."
Add in the rest of the statement.
"Paraherbalism differs from plant-derived medicines in standard pharmacology because it does not isolate or standardize biologically active compounds, but rather relies on the belief that preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective."
A now correct statement, that makes no additional claims, but does not mislead the reader. The reader does not know more, or less, from this change than they had before. Moreover, this very change has been mentioned before on this article indicating that it is obviously misleading. There are no conclusions being drawn from the provided articles, other than the conclusion that the articles exist, which any person of sound mind can acknowledge. Mallardmac ( talk) 01:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
...preserving various substances from a given source with less processing is safer or more effective.To be clear, sometimes it may be safer or more effective in some senses, but there is not evidence that this is a product of being less processed. Plants are not inherently safer or more effective. To put it another way, nothing in the sources you have proposed says that these substances are safer or more effective as a direct cause of being in plant form. Paraherbalism is the pseudoscientific claim that plants are inherently better medicine if they are processed less. Claims from pseudoscience aren't always wrong, but if they are correct, they are correct for unscientific reasons.
This article needs to link to herb in the first sentence. The article never links to herb as is. Wikipedia is a vernacular encyclopedia and if you must link to "pharmacognosy" over "herb" you've already lost the reader. Don't lede with five syllable workds. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 08:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)