Talk:Quercetin

Please do something about the spelling of flavonoid, in the title and first paragraph there are three different renditions of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.4.14 (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is on the list of IARC Carcinogens in Group 3, meaning that its carcinogenicity can't be determined in humans or that insufficient info exists on its carcinogenicity in humans. That always seemed odd to be, given how much its anticancer properties have been discussed. Does evidence exist that it is, in fact, a carcinogen? Such information should be included if it does exist and is reliable.

Quercetin has an LC50 of about 0.0001 Molar meaning to high a concentration kills normal cells. I have heard nothing about it causing cancer. I am not a formal expert in this field.

Topical Absorption using Ultrasound

The british journal said "Quercetin is a small and slightly lipophilic molecule (molecular weight=302 Da, octanol-water partition coefficient, Ko/w~1.2±0.13 (Brown et al, 1998)) and is expected to diffuse across cell membranes at a high rate."

It appears that the ultrasound doesn't increase absorption (in this case) but that something else is involved. The article suggest something about a cellular stress response. We need a source on the statement about ultrasound increasing the absorption. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, in the future I might edit this article.

If you are going to include what quercetin and ultrasound do, it needs to mention what ultrasound does alone (or with other substances)(i.e. the control)...it's analogous to saying that peppermint + cisplatin has a strong effect against certain tumors...anything + cisplatin will have a strong effect on those tumors. That doesn't demonstrate that the "anything" here has had any effect. If ultrasound alone has no effect, it should be mentioned. (Also, the definition is too generic...I don't know anything about quercetin, so I don't know what's special about it, but whatever is, perhaps it should follow "Quercetin is a flavinoid that..." Mauvila (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FRS Healthy Energy

There's a new product - FRS Healthy Energy - where the main ingredient is Quercetin. It is meant to boost energy (naturally). Any opinions? I'm always a bit skeptical about products like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.71.27 (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Skepticism is a good thing. While quercetin (250-325mg) is the main ingredient in FRS, it also contains many other ingredients. So, the effects of the product cannot be entirely attributed to quercetin. However, their claim that the FRS products can act as antidepressants may have some legitimacy, related to the quercetin content. This would be assuming that you're consuming other xenobiotics which have antidepressant properties. (These are metabolized by cytochrome P3A4, which metabolizes many different drugs.) Such xenobiotics may be present in FRS products. As for increased energy and such - FRS products contain caffeine and ginseng extracts (the same two ingredients found in the vast majority of energy drinks). So, overall... I wouldn't waste your money on this product - from what I've seen, it's exorbitantly expensive. You could, however, purchase quercetin itself for a reasonably low price, and see if it has any effect on its own. But as I've said, if you're taking any other drugs, use quercetin with caution or avoid it entirely. Fuzzform (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also skeptical of "dietary supplements," which includes a lot of fraud. However, George Lundberg, the editor of JAMA, said that we must go with the evidence. I'm willing to see their evidence.

The founders of FRS certainly have respectable credentials. According to their web site,

FRS was invented by a team including Dr. Mitsunori Ono, PhD as a fatigue fighting and general health drink. It was then tested and refined by Dr. Lan Bo Chen, PhD and Dr. Mitsunori Ono, PhD, who at the time were both researchers at Harvard University.

Dr. Marcus Elliott, MD - Advisor • Harvard Medical School MD • Professional and Olympic Athlete Trainer Read more about Dr. Marcus Elliot on his website

Dr. Lan Bo Chen, PhD - Advisor • Professor at Harvard Medical School • Formerly worked at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Dr. Mitsunori Ono, PhD - Inventor, Advisor • Author of more than 65 academic publications and over 45 U.S. patents • Formerly a Visiting Professor at Harvard Medical School

I don't care whether quercetin is good or bad. I'll go with the evidence. Nbauman (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the above is evidence. Don't put it beyond a Harvard MD to exaggerate claims when a lot of money is at stake.

I'm interested in effects on energy and fatigue. There actually does appear to be some evidence, albeit in rats or cancer patients or in athletes for a week, that quercetin has an effect. If I had to bet, I'd say it's snake-oil like 5-hour energy. I'll add references as I find them. Feel free to clean up or reorganize. --128.112.66.17 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

5-hour energy is just caffeine, so yeah it's marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenagadeSci (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Research on alleviating disease

Zefr, I reverted your change because it didn't give a source for its claim that "there is no evidence for such actions from human population studies. There exists no research in humans proving an effect of flavonoids or quercetin for alleviating cancer or any disease." There was evidence in the source I cited (although I messed up the Wiki citation to PubMed so it didn't come out right).

PMID 15572291 Neuhouser at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, said, "There is consistent evidence from these studies that flavonoids, especially quercetin, may reduce the risk of lung cancer. Further research using new dietary databases for food flavonoid content is needed to confirm these findings before specific public health recommendations about flavonoids can be formulated."

That's not "no research." If you do want to say there is "no research," then according to Wikipedia rules you have to find a WP:RS to support it. I don't think you'll find one.

The research doesn't prove anything, at Level 1 standards of evidence, but that's not the point. Most research doesn't meet the Level 1 standard of proof.

There are doctors who recommend it, whether they're right or wrong.

And it is used as a nutritional supplement, whether it does any good or not.

Agree? Disagree?

If you want to rephrase my introduction, that's fine, as long as you can support it with WP:RS.

(BTW, I saw quercetin advertised in the Wall Street Journal, no less. I thought it was bullshit so I checked it out. I was surprised to find out that there was some legitimate research supporting it. I'm generally skeptical of so-called "nutritional supplements" and alternative medicine, but as George Lundberg said, if they have the supporting evidence, we have to give them their due. And quercetin does have supporting evidence. It's not level 1 evidence, but neither is most dietary advice, even in academic medicine. In the post-paternalistic era, most doctors recommend skepticisim, giving the patient the facts, and letting the patient decide.) Nbauman (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the FDA reference providing nutritional claims concerning cancer, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qhc-sum.html where quercetin is not displayed which means it has not yet reached the stage of FDA evaluation for health claims.

The research on quercetin is very preliminary, as it is only in pilot studies of clinical research. The reference you provide by Neuhouser does not imply prevention of cancer or other diseases. It simply says it may reduce the risk -- quite a different message, and one deemed "safe" for suggesting research progress without committing to a conclusion.

The introductory sentence and second paragraph for the article are misleading and scientifically incorrect

• has not been shown to prevent cancer or any disease
• high intake has not been shown to reduce cancer
• scientists have not specified flavenoids (sic --"flavonoids") as responsible for any biological mechanism in vivo
• there is no population study showing any conclusive anti-disease effect
• no respected physicians (MDs, not naturopaths) or expert scientists would claim flavonoids protect against cancer. No such evidence has been provided and no such claim is approved by the FDA. In fact, it is against the law to publicly infer such effects on a product label.

--Zefr (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Zefr, I don't quite understand what your objection is. Do you disagree with this sentence?

Quercetin is a flavonoid, specifically a flavonol, and is used as a nutritional supplement to prevent cancer and other diseases.

Nbauman (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence would lead a lay user of Wikipedia to believe that it is a fact quercetin can prevent cancer and other diseases. There is no scientific evidence that this is true for humans -- maybe in test tube disease models, but not in experimental animals or humans. And certainly not compliant with FDA guidelines.

To avoid confusion and state facts accurately, I revised the opening sentence and 2nd paragraph two days ago -- reverted by you to the inappropriate information presently in the article. --Zefr (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing a peer-reviewed article by an investigator at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which is a WP:RS.

Is that sentence true? Quercetin is a flavinoid, right? And it is used as a nutritional supplement, right? Nbauman (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The paraphrase as a whole is inaccurate. It has three components:

1) quercetin is a flavonol type of flavonoid, so you are correct (the vowels in the word are important to be correct -- there are closely spelled but chemically distinct types of flavonoids; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavonoid#Biosynthesis);

2) quercetin is a dietary supplement (so you are correct) but, like all dietary supplements, is not regulated by the FDA (no petitions have been submitted for health claims because the research has been inadequate);

and 3) quercetin does not prevent cancer or any disease. This statement should be made because the research to prove disease prevention has not been done.

If you were to ask Neuhouser or any bona fide scientist about the status of disease prevention by quercetin, the answer would unequivocally be that

• research is preliminary at best
• there is no evidence for disease prevention or even knowledge of its specific action in the human body and
• it would not be recommended to any patient with cancer or another disease as it misleads that person to think quercetin might be more effective than a prescribed drug. This is where misinformation becomes dangerous and the FDA would step in to stop such claims if made on a product label.

Our standards at Wikipedia should be on the side of safety and should be guided by where a candidate therapeutic stands in the evaluation process of the FDA. That is why I provided the link to the FDA guidance,http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qhc-sum.html and that is why the article should be reinstated to the edits I made. --Zefr (talk)

OK, you agree with

Quercetin is a flavonoid, specifically a flavonol, and is used as a nutritional supplement.

Neuhauser wrote

There is consistent evidence from these studies that flavonoids, especially quercetin, may reduce the risk of lung cancer. Further research using new dietary databases for food flavonoid content is needed to confirm these findings before specific public health recommendations about flavonoids can be formulated.

Do you agree with that? Nbauman (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Neuhouser's conclusion does not say that quercetin prevents cancer and other diseases as stated currently. That is incorrect and misleading.

He does give cautious language that more research is needed before specific public health recommendations about flavonoids can be formulated. This is consistent with FDA regulations and is the appropriate context as a reference -- it would be fine as the WP:RS. Why not use his language in the opening sentence?

The second paragraph needs to be revised to more cautious language. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Neuhouser says there is "consistent evidence" that quercetin "may reduce the risk of lung cancer," and further research is necessary to confirm it. Do you agree with that? Nbauman (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Try re-writing the first two paragraphs and post them here first so anyone can debate them. The more important part of Neuhouser's comment is "Further research ... is needed to confirm these findings". I would not agree there is consistent evidence for quercetin to reduce cancer risk since that applies mostly to in vitro studies. The in vivo animal results are not very convincing and there is no evidence quercetin is important in people. --Zefr (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I already wrote it and I think they're fine, although I'm open to suggestions, criticism and disagreement. I'm debating it here. Go ahead and debate it.

Your changes violated WP rules for reliable sources, neurtral point of view, and no original research, among others.

Marian Neuhouser is a PhD and investigator at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center with 75 publications, many of them in major journals. She's a reliable source. She thinks that there is "consistent evidence" that quercetin "may reduce the risk of lung cancer." You're an anonymous Wikipedia editor. She says there is consistent evidence from human populations. You say there isn't. Why should anyone believe that she's wrong and you're right? What published evidence do you have to support your opinion? That's the way science works. You can't change it without a WP:RS. Nbauman (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Present opening

Quercetin is a flavonoid, specifically a flavonol, and is used as a nutritional supplement to prevent cancer and other diseases.

High dietary intake is associated with reduction in cancer, and scientists suspect flavenoids may be responsible. Research shows that flavanoids influence cellular mechanisms in vitro and in animal studies, and there is limited evidence from human population studies. Some doctors recommend flavenoids for cancer prevention, while others say that the evidence so far is insufficient.

Revised

Quercetin is a flavonoid, specifically a flavonol, used as a nutritional supplement with intent to prevent cancer and other diseases. Although in vitro evidence exists for such possible effects, few studies in animals and none in humans have demonstrated anticancer activity[1].

Further, as quercetin itself may be a carcinogen[2], human safety studies are needed before interventional clinical trials are conducted on patients with cancer. As there exists no research in humans proving an effect of quercetin or any flavonoid for alleviating cancer or any disease, the FDA has not included quercetin among dietary therapeutics approved with qualified health claims[3].

--Zefr (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you. You say, "few studies in animals and none in humans have demonstrated anticancer activity[1]"

But the very citation you give, Murakami, says, "epidemiological studies have indicated that an intake of quercetin may be associated with the prevention of lung cancer."

The significant fact is that we've found 2 researchers, including your own source, who say that epidemiological evidence indicates that quercetin may prevent lung cancer. So we have good WP:RS authority to say that it may prevent cancer. That's the science.

They haven't established certainty, but they don't have to. Epidemiological studies never establish certainty.

Moreover, you should review WP:OR to see what you can and can't say on WP. It's OK for you to cite Verschoyle as saying that quercetin is a suspected carcinogen and shouldn't be used in the healthy population. It's not OK for you to write the article to say that, because WP has to be WP:NPOV. Different doctors disagree, and just because Verschoyle says so, that doesn't mean it's true. Furthermore, WP doesn't give medical advice. A WP article can't recommend or urge people to take or not take quercetin. All we can do is give both sides and let them decide.

We have to give the views of Neuhouser, Murakami, and Verschoyle, and we are not competent to decide who is right. Nbauman (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you familiarized yourself with this[4], particularly the section beginning, For example, cancer is a constellation of more than 100 different diseases and the following section on Intervention Studies.

Then read Part D., Evaluating Human Studies and Part G., Assessing Significant Scientific Agreement (SSA) -- the conclusion that will convince you that quercetin has insufficient evidence to be stated that it prevents cancer.

There is no successful intervention study of quercetin on cancer patients and no confirmation of SSA; therefore, there is no proof that quercetin prevents cancer.

Revised

Quercetin is a flavonoid, specifically a flavonol, used as a nutritional supplement with intent to prevent cancer and other diseases[5]. Although in vitro evidence exists for such possible effects, few studies in animals and none in humans have proved anticancer activity[6]. In preclinical research, quercetin remains among the most intensively studied flavonoids as a potential therapeutic agent.

However, because quercetin itself may be a carcinogen[7][8][9], human safety studies are needed before interventional clinical trials are conducted using quercetin for cancer patients. As no such research in humans has been done to prove safety and efficacy of quercetin or any flavonoid for alleviating cancer, the FDA has not included quercetin among dietary therapeutics approved with qualified health claims[10].

--Zefr (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your cites on carcinogenicity are very interesting and should go into the entry.

The FDA "Qualified Health Claims" document that you cite is also very interesting, and probably should go into a WP entry on dietary supplements if it's not there already.

However, the FDA document says nothing about quercetin. As I understand it, the absence of a product on that list means that the FDA has made no judgment on the product, neither favorable nor unfavorable. It doesn't indicate anything about the product's safety or efficacy. Nbauman (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Zefr, Neuhouser and Murakami (your own source) have published their opinion that quercetin may reduce the risk of lung cancer. You still haven't explained how you can ignore them. That's a reliable statement, according to WP:RS. It belongs in the entry, unless you can come up with a good reason for keeping it out.

For you to say that none of the research has "proved" anticancer activity is WP:OR. Nobody made the claim that it was proved. You can't put that in WP.

Some reliable, published, peer-reviewed sources say it "may" prevent lung cancer. That's pretty strong evidence. Why do you think you're justified in taking that out? Nbauman (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While a study may suggest that flavinoids (like quercetin) may reduce one's risk of getting cancer, it's not a particularly meaningful fact. There are so many factors that influence one's risk of getting cancer (e.g. genetics, radiation exposure, exposure to other carcinogens, intake of anti-cancer substances, etc.), that consuming flavinoids will likely have no meaningful effect on one's risk of getting the disease. Thus, saying that quercetin or a like substance will reduce one's risk of getting cancer is misleading. Everything else being static, yes, querectin may reduce one's risk. But, of course, in the real world, other variables aren't static. Quercetin only reduces one's risk in a meaningful way if other the variables don't exist or don't change. Without the proper caveats, these additions to this article don't give the full picture (at best) or are horribly misleading (at worst). ask123 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Drug Interactions

Does its bind to DNA gyrase occur in blood? That is to say, would it bind when consumed by humans to their DNA, or would the cell's membrane prevent the interaction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C lawnmower (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Increased energy expenditure

Can somebody clarify the second paragraph? That is, does the research only cover eight weeks, or does it show loss of efficacy after eight weeks? Washod (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the latter I believe. And, also, it was only shown in mice. It may not apply to humans. ask123 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fruits & vegetables are associated with "reduction in cancer"?!

I added the tags to the sentence that claims that intake of fruits and vegetables is associated with a reduction in cancer. (I wasn't signed in at the time.) First of all, what does "reduction in cancer" mean? An individual either has it or doesn't. Is the editor speaking of cancer in a population? Second, regardless of this ambiguity, the claim is dubious. There are no reliable studies that show that eating fruits or vegetables will cause a person to avoid cancer. It just ain't true. Eating fruits and vegetables can help -- along with a host of other positive habits. But there is no pure, causal relationship here. There are too many variables here for the consumption of flavonoids to stand out meaningfully. ask123 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this true?! Eating fruits and veggies doesn't reduce your cancer risk? Can any experts chime in? Hanxu9 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The key words are "may reduce the risk", as used by the FDA for health claim statements on food labels.[11] See 21 CFR 101.76 and 21 CFR 101.78. I have revised the article to include this reference.--Zefr (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CYP3A4 inhibitor or inducer?

The Drug Interaction section says:

Quercetin is also a potent inhibitor of CYP3A4Su-Lan Hsiu; Yu-Chi Hou; Yao-Horng Wang; Chih-Wan Tsao; Sheng-Fang Sue; and Pei-Dawn L. Chao (6 December 2002). "Quercetin significantly decreased cyclosporin oral bioavailability in pigs and rats". Life Sciences 72 (3): 227–235. doi:10.1016/S0024-3205(02)02235-X. 

Further research suggests that the cited paper incorrectly refers to Quercetin as a CYP3A4 inhibitor. Refer to Drug interactions due to cytochrome P450 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312247/), which states "Coadministration of cyclosporine with a CYP3A4 inhibitor decreases an individual's CYA dosage requirement.". Compare this to the quote from the cited text, above, "Quercetin significantly decreased cyclosporin oral bioavailability". If Quercetin was a CYP3A4 inhibitor, then cyclosporin oral bioavailability would have been increased, not decreased.

--JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

However:

• Different references (see http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/31/5/533.full and http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/31/5/533/F4.expansion.html, for example) discuss quercetin as one of several CYP3A4 inducers.

• The difference between a CYP3A4 inducer and inhibitor is significant. Inducers increase clearance and reduce bioavailability of certain drugs, such as Tarceva; inhibitors decrease clearance and increase toxicity of those same drugs.

• There are other references that list quercetin as one of the CYP3A4 inducers, e.g.,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16442130 "...long-term exposure of herbal agents (hyperforin, kaempferol and quercetin) showed enhanced expression of CYP3A4..."

• However, in addition to the original reference, there are others that list quercetin as a CYP3A4 inhbitor:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~csps/JPPS4(3)/S.Wanwimolruk/grapefruit.htm Inhibition of human CYP3A4 activity by grapefruit flavonoids, furanocoumarins and related compounds. "The results showed that the inhibition of quinine 3-hydroxylation (CYP3A4 activity) by bergapten (67%), and quercetin (55%) was greater than naringenin (39%) and naringin (6%), at the same inhibitor concentration of 100 M."

http://www.psa.org.au/site.php?id=745 The role of CYP3A4 and p-glycoprotein in food-drug and herb-drug interactions. "in vitro experiment, acute exposure of hyperforin is a potent competitive inhibitor of CYP3A4, and quercetin a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4"

I suggest that the article should be updated to note that sources offer conflicting information regarding quercetin and CYP3A4 inhibition and inducement.

--JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is reading these comments, but, for the record, I recommend changing the paragraph in question to this:

Quercetin is described as an inhibitor of CYP2C9. Sources are inconsistent as to whether Quercetin is an inhibitor or inducer of CYP3A4. CYP2C9 and CPY3A4 are members of the cytochrome P₄₅₀ mixed-function oxidase system, and as such are enzymes involved in the metabolism of xenobiotics in the body. In either case, quercetin would be expected to alter serum levels, and therefore effects, of drugs metabolized by these enzymes.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between sources. CYP enzymes generally exist to break stuff down, but it's a messy process involving oxygen, one of the worst behaved players in the biochemical game. If you try to use a CYP enzyme, two things are likely to happen: a) you will inhibit it, as the miscellaneous compound and oxygen mix end up doing bad things to the enzyme; and b) you will likely induce it, if the liver has a working feedback mechanism in place to sense the use/abuse of that particular CYP. Note that an inducer is not an agonist. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Paclitaxel and quercetin

AHFS Drug Information (2010) identifies quercetin as an inhibitor of CYP2C8, and specifically names it as a drug with potential to have harmful interactions with paclitaxel. Since paclitaxel is metabolized primarily by CYP2C8, it seems reasonable to expect that taking quercetin with paclitaxel would lead to increased bioavailability of paclitaxel (and several studies have shown this in animal models and human hepatocyte models). Depending on the amount of quercetin ingested and the degree to which CYP2C8 is inhibited, this could substantially decrease the dose of paclitaxel at which toxic side-effects begin to occur. There haven't been any human clinical trials to investigate the question as far as I can tell, but it's not exactly the sort of thing that could be done ethically, given that the expected outcome is increased toxicity.

Anyway, I think this information is particularly relevant to the paragraph about the purported anti-cancer effects of quercetin and should be added as a warning note near that paragraph, as paclitaxel is a fairly common component of antineoplastic therapy. Anyone looking for information on Wikipedia about alternative/natural remedies for cancer ought to know that if they're already taking paclitaxel, adding quercetin to their diet probably isn't a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.172.128 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the references, since apparently I'm a Wikinewb:

1. Drug interactions of paclitaxel metabolism in human liver microsomes. Bun SS, Ciccolini J, Bun H, Aubert C, Catalin J. J Chemother. 2003 Jun;15(3):266-74.PMID: 12868554

2. Effect of several compounds on biliary excretion of paclitaxel and its metabolites in guinea-pigs. Bun SS, Giacometti S, Fanciullino R, Ciccolini J, Bun H, Aubert C. Anticancer Drugs. 2005 Jul;16(6):675-82.PMID: 15930897 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.172.128 (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Wnt (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've done some extensive reorganization to the article. I think it's crucial when dealing with tentative research findings to do as good a job of organizing the article as we can, so that the loose bits of data have a better chance to congeal and provide context for each other. Please let me know if anything seems out of place. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Someone deleted my reference to an Alternative Medicine Review article, and text stating that it had been described as comparable to cromolyn sodium. [12] I think it is important not to exclude alternative medicine; the article should cover all aspects of the compound. Actually, the alternative medicine article, with a modest number of references, was making the very plausible argument that it has the same effect as another plant chemical, cromolyn, with a rather similar structure (but missing a ring, and dimerized). It is actually a much more scientific argument than the typical "antioxidants are good, they must scrounge up oxygen radicals and stop aging, cancer and the heat death of the universe" sort of argument we see stated or implied in an appalling number of mainstream science publications. Wnt (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this particular journal meets requirements for WP:MEDRS. Previous reviews I have seen published there have been clearly pushed fringe/quack remedies (i.e. using chelation to treat autism), and this probably falls under the description in WP:PARITY about nominal peer review, but only by true believers in alt med. This article clearly needs more work - probably by the removal of content sourced only to primary studies and replacing what we can with secondary reviews (as per MEDRS); we do not make the situation better by adding poor sources like the one you are suggesting. Yobol (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I loathe that obstructionist guideline with a passion, but secondary articles in journals are one of the few things it doesn't ban. It comes up in a search at NCBI, which must mean something. I should point out that the legendary "patterned water" study was published in Nature, so you can't knock a whole journal just because of a single slip-up. And if you are truly convinced that "alternative medicine" is not medicine, then WP:MEDRS does not apply! (and there was much rejoicing) But seriously - your health insurance probably pays for alternative medicine, your hospital probably offers it - don't you think we ought to be allowed to talk about it? Especially when the argument that they make is so straightforward and sensible. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a single slip up, multiple reviews I've seen have dubious information in them, or cherry pick data to support the use of CAM interventions; discussions of medical problems will overwhelmingly discuss positive findings of CAM interventions while noting any and every drawback of conventional medical treatments for the same medical problems. This shows a distinct bias towards promoting CAM ideas and interventions, and therefore is not the type of independent source we should be using here on Wikipedia. Their editorial board has more naturopaths than medical doctors (or DOs) on it - remarkable for a standard medical journal, not so much for a one that consistently promotes CAM. As far as I'm concerned, it falls under the WP:PARITY guideline of being not being generally reliable, based on my experience looking at their work and at their review process. What insurance companies do or do not pay for has no bearing on what is reliable on Wikipedia. That a journal is MEDLINE indexed is also not a guarantee that it is reliable - the journal Homeopathy is likewise indexed in MEDLINE but is not considered reliable, either. I don't have a problem talking about alternative medicine, I just want to use reliable sources to do so. Yobol (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you deny that it has editorial control? Do you deny that it expresses what the naturopaths think? I tried to word it to make it clear I was describing an alternative medicine viewpoint. Wnt (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the review would only be reliable for what the authors of the review think; the other question is how much WP:WEIGHT we should give it, as it is to me a WP:FRINGE general alt med view at best and fringe view of the authors at worst. I don't think speculation in an alt med advocacy journal should be given any weight; and if it is more than just idle speculation, it would be published in a more reliable source, in which case we wouldn't need to use this source anyways. That is why it is important to use good sources; presentation in a high quality secondary source denotes that particular piece of information deserves weight. Yobol (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there still a link to the journal article? I'd be interested to see what it says. Also, comparing quercetin and cromolyn's structure and saying that they have a 'similar structure (but missing a ring, and dimerized)', is rather wild. Those two chemical modifications can have massive outcomes on a compound's bioactivity.Markwdck (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary research

Rather than populating the Article with preliminary research, conjecture and speculation, let's vet it here first, as in this draft entered yesterday by Duche831 -- --Zefr (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In other laboratory studies Quercetin has been proven to mirror the effect of estradiol in the estrogen receptor beta (ERβ) which induces apoptosis in both normal and cancer cells along with reducing the speed of cell cycle and increasing apoptosis in a numerous different kind of cells including prostate, lungs, and breasts as well as the colon.

It mimics the cell cycle distribution of estradiol It works by inhibiting both enzymes and kinases along with breakage of DNA strands. In nutritionally relevant concentrations quercetin was proven to reduce cell populations by 25% in cancer infected HeLa cells. This was completed with the use of p38 Kinase of which Quercetin has the ability to directly activate along with caspase-3 activation, this has been tested by the use of HeLa cells that have been pre-treated with p38 Kinase and or caspase-3 inhibitors. Quercetin was able to induce p38 phosphorylation in the same amount of time as the estradiol. Even at very low levels quercetin was proven to activate pro-apoptosic cascade, which resulted in smaller cell numbers. This could be used to treat colon cancer in males, which it is more prevalent then in women due to it being mostly prevented from a female steroid hormone signaling. Along with all of the cancer inhibiting properties it is also been proven to be a form of anti-oxidant and can be found in several vegetables and fruits.

Excuse me Zefr but this article has been sited by two other sources at the time i read it which means it is no longer primary but secondary and has been used as a reference for following research. Shouldn't that mean it can be posted on the actual site instead of the talk site?? Duche831 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In the field of science, a secondary source is a review of primary sources. If a primary source is cited by another source, the first source is still a primary source. I think in this context of these citations, WP:MEDRS is too restrictive and WP:SCIRS should apply. One thing for sure however is that speculations as to the relevance in humans should be removed. Boghog (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)