This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mānuka honey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The opening paragraph has a sentence that reads: 'While a component found in mānuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener." Yes, manuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, but it has been shown to have antibacterial properties in vivo. Google Scholar lists a number of studies. And the word "conclusive" is subjective. I am sure many people would state that evolution or general relativity have not been conclusively shown to be true. This sentence is biased and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The sentence ends "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener.". That is excessive, and I suggest that it simply end "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal value. Even with that, the term "conclusive" is being used in a technical manner that most readers will not understand. Consider this study: "Randomized clinical trial of honey-impregnated dressings for venous leg ulcers" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs.6059/full The abstract states "There were no significant differences between the groups for other outcomes." and "Honey-impregnated dressings did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with usual care." Being that the two therapies tested equally, the conclusion could be restated as "usual care did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with honey-impregnated dressings." If we assume that usual care is improving continually over time, then at some point in the past, honey-impregnated dressings were superior to the 'usual care' at that time. Currently, there are groups working to improve the use of honey as therapy, so that this approach will continually improve as well (see "Clinical usage of honey as a wound dressing: an update," http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2044/CLINICAL%20USAGE%20OF%20HONEY.ocr.pdf?sequence=1
To state that medical honey is nothing better than a sweetener is unfounded and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Drfatihustok, the sources that you have used and the content you have added
violate WP:PROMO and WP:MEDRS. Please do not add promotional content to Wikipedia. If you don't understand, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837971/#B34 https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-6-188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7693943/
I'm not an expert but these look like good sources to me. The antibiotic properties of Manuka honey seems to be well established. Can we not say so since Jimmy Wales once said this article made big claims that were poorly sourced? Gripdamage ( talk) 23:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article's Talk page seems like it has too many sections. Is there a consenseus on setting up a archive bot? Or will anyone be willing to do it ( you don't have to, I can)? Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 ( talk) 00:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That second sentence is a weird non-sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.167.255 ( talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
For some reason, the article has this in the lede "There is little clinical evidence for its use as a topical medication." using a BBC article as the source. Yet that BBC article says: "In terms of honey being used as a medicine, 'medical grade honey' is licensed around the world for wound care treatment. There have been many recent research developments stemming from Cardiff University which have shown honeys in general, and particularly manuka honey, as effective with chronic wounds and MRSA (antibiotic-resistant infection)." How do we get "little evidence" from that? KRLA18 ( talk) 06:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
People pay crazy prices for manuka honey for its claimed health properties, but the article currently doesn't even mention them? I know it's a minefield but we can't just ignore this. Jpatokal ( talk) 22:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mānuka honey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The opening paragraph has a sentence that reads: 'While a component found in mānuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener." Yes, manuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, but it has been shown to have antibacterial properties in vivo. Google Scholar lists a number of studies. And the word "conclusive" is subjective. I am sure many people would state that evolution or general relativity have not been conclusively shown to be true. This sentence is biased and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The sentence ends "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener.". That is excessive, and I suggest that it simply end "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal value. Even with that, the term "conclusive" is being used in a technical manner that most readers will not understand. Consider this study: "Randomized clinical trial of honey-impregnated dressings for venous leg ulcers" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs.6059/full The abstract states "There were no significant differences between the groups for other outcomes." and "Honey-impregnated dressings did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with usual care." Being that the two therapies tested equally, the conclusion could be restated as "usual care did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with honey-impregnated dressings." If we assume that usual care is improving continually over time, then at some point in the past, honey-impregnated dressings were superior to the 'usual care' at that time. Currently, there are groups working to improve the use of honey as therapy, so that this approach will continually improve as well (see "Clinical usage of honey as a wound dressing: an update," http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2044/CLINICAL%20USAGE%20OF%20HONEY.ocr.pdf?sequence=1
To state that medical honey is nothing better than a sweetener is unfounded and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Drfatihustok, the sources that you have used and the content you have added
violate WP:PROMO and WP:MEDRS. Please do not add promotional content to Wikipedia. If you don't understand, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837971/#B34 https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-6-188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7693943/
I'm not an expert but these look like good sources to me. The antibiotic properties of Manuka honey seems to be well established. Can we not say so since Jimmy Wales once said this article made big claims that were poorly sourced? Gripdamage ( talk) 23:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This article's Talk page seems like it has too many sections. Is there a consenseus on setting up a archive bot? Or will anyone be willing to do it ( you don't have to, I can)? Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 ( talk) 00:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That second sentence is a weird non-sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.167.255 ( talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
For some reason, the article has this in the lede "There is little clinical evidence for its use as a topical medication." using a BBC article as the source. Yet that BBC article says: "In terms of honey being used as a medicine, 'medical grade honey' is licensed around the world for wound care treatment. There have been many recent research developments stemming from Cardiff University which have shown honeys in general, and particularly manuka honey, as effective with chronic wounds and MRSA (antibiotic-resistant infection)." How do we get "little evidence" from that? KRLA18 ( talk) 06:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
People pay crazy prices for manuka honey for its claimed health properties, but the article currently doesn't even mention them? I know it's a minefield but we can't just ignore this. Jpatokal ( talk) 22:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)