This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quercetin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Quercetin.
|
I just added: A study in 2018 found that administering a combination of quercetin and dasatinib to mice whose fitness had been compromised by injecting them with senescent cells resulted in them recovering most of their physical capabilities. These two drugs were chosen for their ability to selectively cause senescent cells to die. When the drug combination was given to old mice, their speed, endurance, and strength improved by 30 to 100 per cent, and they lived on average 36% longer than controls. [1] [2]
This has now been reverted by Alexbrn, as "unreliable". Why? On what basis does he decide what's reliable and what's not? This is Wikipedia, not a place for private opinions. If there is no good justification then I will restore my edit. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm very aware of what the Wikipedia policy is on reliable references. I think, Zefr, you didn't read the New Scientist article very carefully. They did not feed old mice apple peels! The text I added to the article did not claim anything about benefits to humans, even if it seems quite possible that if senescent cells have a deleterious effect in mice then they probably do in humans as well. But never mind what the possible consequences are for humans -- I didn't say anything about that.
There's a group of you who are constantly on the watch for any edits of articles having to do with nutrition and health, and you constantly revert all the constructive edits that people do if you think the content is not true, citing the Wikipedia policies on "reliable sources". You claim that we can't cite Nature Medicine because it's a primary source, and if I give a secondary source like New Scientist as well, then you claim that it's a poor quality article, or that it's not "reliable", even though it faithfully gives the results that the researchers found. It's like censorship. You're preventing people from reading about the latest research. What you're doing is not good for Wikipedia.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
“ The broad spectrum anti-viral medicine known as quercetin has already proven successful at treating Ebola and Zika viruses, says Dr. Michel Chrétien, a researcher at the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal”
I believe this information should be added under the “ Pharmacology “ section Ethan hines ( talk) 23:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Ethan Hines
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33444408/ Quercetin as a potential treatment for COVID-19-induced acute kidney injury: Based on network pharmacology and molecular docking study Otaku00 ( talk) 16:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No one said the contrary. Primary source, as is the WHO. Unless of course defined otherwise. Otaku00 ( talk) 16:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Alexbrn: you removed my edit stating that the FDA has determined quercetin to be GRAS with the comment "Undue WP:LEDEBOMB". While I am happy to move the edit out of the lede, I have a question. Is the FDA not considered a governmental health authority widely accepted to be an authority on the safety of ingredients in food? MarshallKe ( talk) 17:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
High-purity quercetin (≥99.5% quercetin) has been determined by Quercegen Pharma LLC (hereafter Quercegen) to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), consistent with Section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This determination is based on scientific procedures as described in the following sections, under the conditions of its intended use in food, and on the consensus opinion of an independent panel of experts qualified by scientific training and expertise. Therefore, pursuant to proposed 21 CFR §170.36(~)(1) [62 FR 18938 (U.S. FDA, 1997)], the use of high-purity quercetin in food as described below is exempt from the requirement of premarket approval
Hello, @ Zefr! You did a revert claiming "Not WP:MEDRS sources, but you didn't justify exactly why you think they are not WP:MEDRS. These sources are secondary (reviews) that are fully WP:MEDRS compliant, and the described effects have been in fact. Could you please specify why you think that they are not WP:MEDRS? Also, you mentioned WP:CRYSTAL (speculation). Can you please specify why you think it is a speculation? These claims are present in the article cited. According to WP:MEDRS, articles with sections on research should be sourced to reviews and should describe research directions, readers generally want to understand research directions in any case. There are no primary sources, only secondary reviews that you deleted without explanation. I would appreciate if you explain. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 00:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This page isn't up to date and doesn't include the new studies from high quality sources that would clarify the state of the science currently.
One that clearly adds to this discussion is Health Benefits of Quercetin in Age-Related Diseases
There are plenty more resources available, but this should demonstrate that this reference on this page needs to be changed.
Quercetin and cancer: new insights into its therapeutic effects on ovarian cancer cells
Dietary quercetin intake and risk of gastric cancer: results from a population-based study in Sweden
Quercetin and Cancer Chemoprevention
While caution is always warranted, staying up to date with the science equally warranted. Dr Douglas Rice ( talk) 00:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quercetin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Quercetin.
|
I just added: A study in 2018 found that administering a combination of quercetin and dasatinib to mice whose fitness had been compromised by injecting them with senescent cells resulted in them recovering most of their physical capabilities. These two drugs were chosen for their ability to selectively cause senescent cells to die. When the drug combination was given to old mice, their speed, endurance, and strength improved by 30 to 100 per cent, and they lived on average 36% longer than controls. [1] [2]
This has now been reverted by Alexbrn, as "unreliable". Why? On what basis does he decide what's reliable and what's not? This is Wikipedia, not a place for private opinions. If there is no good justification then I will restore my edit. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm very aware of what the Wikipedia policy is on reliable references. I think, Zefr, you didn't read the New Scientist article very carefully. They did not feed old mice apple peels! The text I added to the article did not claim anything about benefits to humans, even if it seems quite possible that if senescent cells have a deleterious effect in mice then they probably do in humans as well. But never mind what the possible consequences are for humans -- I didn't say anything about that.
There's a group of you who are constantly on the watch for any edits of articles having to do with nutrition and health, and you constantly revert all the constructive edits that people do if you think the content is not true, citing the Wikipedia policies on "reliable sources". You claim that we can't cite Nature Medicine because it's a primary source, and if I give a secondary source like New Scientist as well, then you claim that it's a poor quality article, or that it's not "reliable", even though it faithfully gives the results that the researchers found. It's like censorship. You're preventing people from reading about the latest research. What you're doing is not good for Wikipedia.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
“ The broad spectrum anti-viral medicine known as quercetin has already proven successful at treating Ebola and Zika viruses, says Dr. Michel Chrétien, a researcher at the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal”
I believe this information should be added under the “ Pharmacology “ section Ethan hines ( talk) 23:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Ethan Hines
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33444408/ Quercetin as a potential treatment for COVID-19-induced acute kidney injury: Based on network pharmacology and molecular docking study Otaku00 ( talk) 16:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No one said the contrary. Primary source, as is the WHO. Unless of course defined otherwise. Otaku00 ( talk) 16:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
@ Alexbrn: you removed my edit stating that the FDA has determined quercetin to be GRAS with the comment "Undue WP:LEDEBOMB". While I am happy to move the edit out of the lede, I have a question. Is the FDA not considered a governmental health authority widely accepted to be an authority on the safety of ingredients in food? MarshallKe ( talk) 17:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
High-purity quercetin (≥99.5% quercetin) has been determined by Quercegen Pharma LLC (hereafter Quercegen) to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), consistent with Section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This determination is based on scientific procedures as described in the following sections, under the conditions of its intended use in food, and on the consensus opinion of an independent panel of experts qualified by scientific training and expertise. Therefore, pursuant to proposed 21 CFR §170.36(~)(1) [62 FR 18938 (U.S. FDA, 1997)], the use of high-purity quercetin in food as described below is exempt from the requirement of premarket approval
Hello, @ Zefr! You did a revert claiming "Not WP:MEDRS sources, but you didn't justify exactly why you think they are not WP:MEDRS. These sources are secondary (reviews) that are fully WP:MEDRS compliant, and the described effects have been in fact. Could you please specify why you think that they are not WP:MEDRS? Also, you mentioned WP:CRYSTAL (speculation). Can you please specify why you think it is a speculation? These claims are present in the article cited. According to WP:MEDRS, articles with sections on research should be sourced to reviews and should describe research directions, readers generally want to understand research directions in any case. There are no primary sources, only secondary reviews that you deleted without explanation. I would appreciate if you explain. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 00:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This page isn't up to date and doesn't include the new studies from high quality sources that would clarify the state of the science currently.
One that clearly adds to this discussion is Health Benefits of Quercetin in Age-Related Diseases
There are plenty more resources available, but this should demonstrate that this reference on this page needs to be changed.
Quercetin and cancer: new insights into its therapeutic effects on ovarian cancer cells
Dietary quercetin intake and risk of gastric cancer: results from a population-based study in Sweden
Quercetin and Cancer Chemoprevention
While caution is always warranted, staying up to date with the science equally warranted. Dr Douglas Rice ( talk) 00:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)