![]() | 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 Resveratrol.
|
![]() | Resveratrol was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 1000 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I am hugely concerned with the lack of neutrality in this article. It consistently purports that there is no evidence for any positive health effects which just isn't the view reflected in current literature. This page needs updating to include a more neutral comparison of studies, rather than to push a single perspective.
One of many such examples is Petrovski et al, who states: "Resveratrol, initially used for cancer therapy, has shown beneficial effects against most degenerative and cardiovascular diseases from atherosclerosis, hypertension, ischemia/reperfusion, and heart failure to diabetes, obesity, and aging."
This includes specific biological mechanisms which can't just be ignored in an page supposedly representing an unbiased, informative summary.
I see there has been heavy redaction of edits which again is concerning. I won't waste my time with edits that will be immediately deleted but I whoever is responsible needs to drop their agenda and allow the page to correctly reflect that there is widely conflicting evidence regarding human health implications. 2A00:23C8:2D8D:B01:A981:EF85:580E:8F8D ( talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I recently read a book, written by Åhlberg, M., which states multiple scientific sources for resveratrol health effects, including preventing cancer. Here's one source it mentions: Md Alauddin, A. Sultana, Y. Kabir (2021). "Potential of Nutraceutical in Preventing the Risk of Cancer and Metabolic Syndrome: From the Perspective of Nutritional Genomic". It may be worth revisiting this topic, but since there's already discussion on which sources are considered reliable, I'll refrain from changing. Unelsson ( talk) 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
How about the statement "As of 2020, there is no evidence of an effect of resveratrol on cancer in humans"? I understand the research so that there is evidence of an effect, even if no high-quality clinical trials. It seems a bit strong wording, should it also say "no high-quality evidence"? Unelsson ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
1) You may want to keep an eye on research done at Tufts University to gage the effect of chemical compounds on Herpes Simplex Virus-caused Alzheimer's. Resveratrol had a positive effect. I understand that this is a primary research, but it may appear in reviews if it holds up. Keep a weather eye.
'Screening neuroprotective compounds in herpes-induced Alzheimer's disease cell and 3D tissue models',
Free Radical Biology and Medicine,
Volume 186, June 2022, Pages 76-92,
Isabella A. Silveira, et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584922001770
From the conclusion: "We describe the application of a rapid and robust herpesvirus-induced AD model to screen a panel of medications, supplements, and nutraceuticals for their neuroprotective properties. Our screen identified two promising candidates, green tea catechins and resveratrol, with strong anti-plaque and functional neuroprotective benefits, coupled with minimal neurotoxicity."
2) I know that predatory journals have become a huge problem. (I think that ScienceDirect / Elseveir are supposedly reliable.) Where can I find information of journals considered to be predatory - under the Reliable Sources discussions on Wikipedia?
Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 23:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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 Resveratrol.
|
![]() | Resveratrol was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 1000 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I am hugely concerned with the lack of neutrality in this article. It consistently purports that there is no evidence for any positive health effects which just isn't the view reflected in current literature. This page needs updating to include a more neutral comparison of studies, rather than to push a single perspective.
One of many such examples is Petrovski et al, who states: "Resveratrol, initially used for cancer therapy, has shown beneficial effects against most degenerative and cardiovascular diseases from atherosclerosis, hypertension, ischemia/reperfusion, and heart failure to diabetes, obesity, and aging."
This includes specific biological mechanisms which can't just be ignored in an page supposedly representing an unbiased, informative summary.
I see there has been heavy redaction of edits which again is concerning. I won't waste my time with edits that will be immediately deleted but I whoever is responsible needs to drop their agenda and allow the page to correctly reflect that there is widely conflicting evidence regarding human health implications. 2A00:23C8:2D8D:B01:A981:EF85:580E:8F8D ( talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I recently read a book, written by Åhlberg, M., which states multiple scientific sources for resveratrol health effects, including preventing cancer. Here's one source it mentions: Md Alauddin, A. Sultana, Y. Kabir (2021). "Potential of Nutraceutical in Preventing the Risk of Cancer and Metabolic Syndrome: From the Perspective of Nutritional Genomic". It may be worth revisiting this topic, but since there's already discussion on which sources are considered reliable, I'll refrain from changing. Unelsson ( talk) 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
How about the statement "As of 2020, there is no evidence of an effect of resveratrol on cancer in humans"? I understand the research so that there is evidence of an effect, even if no high-quality clinical trials. It seems a bit strong wording, should it also say "no high-quality evidence"? Unelsson ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
1) You may want to keep an eye on research done at Tufts University to gage the effect of chemical compounds on Herpes Simplex Virus-caused Alzheimer's. Resveratrol had a positive effect. I understand that this is a primary research, but it may appear in reviews if it holds up. Keep a weather eye.
'Screening neuroprotective compounds in herpes-induced Alzheimer's disease cell and 3D tissue models',
Free Radical Biology and Medicine,
Volume 186, June 2022, Pages 76-92,
Isabella A. Silveira, et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584922001770
From the conclusion: "We describe the application of a rapid and robust herpesvirus-induced AD model to screen a panel of medications, supplements, and nutraceuticals for their neuroprotective properties. Our screen identified two promising candidates, green tea catechins and resveratrol, with strong anti-plaque and functional neuroprotective benefits, coupled with minimal neurotoxicity."
2) I know that predatory journals have become a huge problem. (I think that ScienceDirect / Elseveir are supposedly reliable.) Where can I find information of journals considered to be predatory - under the Reliable Sources discussions on Wikipedia?
Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 23:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)