Talk:Aloe vera/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question about science project

Could we make a purple spray ointment using an aloe vera for our investidatory project in science? --chicka --202.81.175.205 11:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The other story

Yes, it is too often hyped into something aloe isn't. There are companies that make health claims that are both illegal and irresponsible. But aloe vera gel IS an excellent nutritional drink when the outer rind and Aloin (which resides just under the rind) are removed. [Aloe Vera Studies Organization]<-- Link removed. Seriously, the site is a commercial parking lot for product sales. The fact that is a .ORG domain does not validate it as a reliable source - unfortunately. [User: Palmyra]

According to some Aloe is a hyped, marketing tool. It's use to treat the grapes for example is simply because the plant is succulent (like cacti). This means that the plant holds water in a gel-like substance. The grapes that are treated with Aloe are shielded from air and thus better protected. For the same reason a shaving cut treated with the gel heals more rapidly, with it functioning as a natural band-aid.

The Aloin in the gel are proven to have negative(!) effects on the colon, some people develop a black stain on their colon due to irritation. Also, Aloin is a laxative. In other words; shouldn't the negative side of this plant be exposed?--Cruzlee 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Cruzlee , do you (or anyone) have any proof of what you say? because I use it daily as a drink, you scared me! I mean a link to a site about this claim would be not bad. --212.24.224.18 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Negative effects determined in appropriately rigourous studies should be included in the article - but we need to ensure we cite the relevant sources for WP:V. MidgleyDJ 20:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

aloe vera is good for burns i have a small one at my house( blackberry57)

Aloe has many benefits both internally and externally. You can't overdose on the stuff.

The anthraquinones [1] is indeed a laxative, but comes from the extract at the base of the leaf itself. --bburrell

The second use comes from the yellow sap at the base of the leaf. The leaves are cut transversally at their base and the liquid that exudes from this cut is dried[4]. It is called bitter aloes and contains anthraquinones which are a useful digestive stimulant and a strong laxative[254]. When plants are grown in pots the anthraquinone content is greatly reduced[254].

Comment on Jojoba

Jojoba helps on burns also. MeekMark 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Under medicinal uses, it states that experimental results have been contradictory. It states that Aloe vera is reputedly an "anti-inflammatory substance", but that, and the article takes this as a contradiction, in another study it has shown to slow the healing process.

It is not contradictory, but in fact definitive, for a subs tance to be "anti-inflammatory" AND to slow the wound healing process. Anti-inflammatory substances prevent platelet aggregation - hence scabbing, etc.

Am I in Japan

In Japan aloe vera is commonly used as an ingredient in commercially available yoghurt in the same way as for example strawberries are mixed in yoghurt in western countries. from the article. I probably live in japan and I didn't notice it yet, i also buy it here, but I believe I live in Portugal. It is commercialized in pieces with yoghurt, and some times also with Pomegranate.--85.244.34.191 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He's pretty obviously saying that aloe vera yogurt is also consumed in Portugal. Casey J. Morris (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to know where he lives. That's what Aloin does to you, or so I heard.--Cruzlee (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt...

The article states: "Use in foods In Japan aloe vera is commonly used as an ingredient in commercially available yoghurt in the same way as for example strawberries are mixed in yoghurt in western countries. There are also several Korean companies which produce aloe vera beverages." I disagree with the statement 'in the same way as strawberries...' Strawberries are used as a flavoring agent in yogurt (or yoghurt, depending on style of English) whereas, if used, aloe in yogurt in Japan would be used as mainly a preservative or nutrient. As aloe is tasteless, (or slightly unpleasant-tasting before stabilization) I will be wp:bold and remove this. Samir Patel 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that... here in the Netherlands, people drink aloe vera juice for the taste. So I guess it could be added to yoghurt as flavouring as well. Shinobu (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

is it a cactus?

or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.28.103 (talk) 04:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

It is not a cactus, but a member of the lily family (Liliopsida) [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonic (talk • contribs) 19:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

PSHT!

Aloe Vera is fantastic for burns, this entire article is a mess! Aloe Vera soothes burns and especially sun burns. All this "effect unknown" business is highly misleading. I have a bunch of Aloe plants and they work wonders for sunburns.

Aloe is also made into a fantastic sweet drink with floaty aloe bits. I have a bottle on my table right now, from Woolworths (Australia). Apparentyly made by "Yakult Co." and called simply "Aloe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.99.111 (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you any proof that it works better than water? In most cases, applying water to a burn makes the pain go away too, so I wouldn't be surprised if other wet substances helped, but that doesn't support any special medicinal efficacy. Shinobu (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note for clarity: I'm not denying that aloe vera contains various active compounds, I just want to see a double-blind test, that's all. Shinobu (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

June 2008 Major article revamp

I've rewritten and referenced large chunks of the article. I've also removed spurious references and references that were not cited in the text. MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I read it over and, although I didn't compare it with previous versions, it looks pretty good (thanks for all the work). Would be nice to expand a bit on its cultural significance: for example as a crossword puzzle word, houseplant (I know we have some, but I was thinking of things like how common it is and its folk remedy status which is notable quite aside from whether it is scientifically sound or not), perhaps heraldy (although be careful about A. vera versus Aloe rubrolutea and perhaps others which are not identifiable to species - there's a mention at [3]), art ([4], [5], and [6]), and even toilet paper). Obviously, the above is just rough notes and suggestions, and I haven't done the work of figuring out exactly how to work them into the article and source them properly (and what goes here versus at Aloe). Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

OK, This could be a really fantastic article but has a ways to go yet...starting from the top down...

guidelines have it that the lead is a summary of salient points which are covered in greater detail later in the article.

Thus - to satisfy this - the description info needs to be replicated and exapnded upon in a description section. I would also place all the alternate names in the taxonomy section, and maybe mention onyl the most important in the lead. taxo section should have who first described it and where (Linnaeus in the plantae thing i think?), as well as listing subspecies.

Mycorrhiza section soundes interesting. More on ecology, what eats it in the wild? Any organisms? The gallery should be removed to wikipeida commons, and images placed next to relevant text as the article grows. This is just something to start on. The medicine bit will be tricky and I will have to think on it. useing peer reviewed medical journals is a good place to start. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Those one-sentence sections/subsections look dreadful, one reason I decided against reviewing this. jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (well, mainly fixed). MidgleyDJ (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aloe vera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article for GA and will post comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA initial review

I have done some minor copyediting throughout the article, mainly punctuation, the odd typo, MoS violation and some very slight re-phrasings. I have prepared below a list of further points of detail which will require attention. In addition to these, there are three main areas of concern that I have.

• 1. At times, the language is pretty inaccessible to anyone who is not a botanist, or has not received a scientific training. This is not so all the way through, but it occurs in some of the sections. I have indicated some specific examples of this in my list of points. This article has the potential to be of interest to readers outside the natural scientist community, but it needs to be made more comprehensible to them.

• 2. The structure of the article is inappropriate, with far too many very short sections and subsections. These need to combined together in a smaller number of generic sections. Single-sentence paragraphs should also be avoided.

• 3. The references list lacks consistency and clarity. Book sources need to show author, title, publisher, year and place of publication, and ISBN where appropriate. References should be to pages or short page ranges, not to the whole book. Journal sources should give article author, the full name of the journal, date and/or issue number, and pages where the article is found. The formats should be consistent, and easily comprehensible. You don’t have to use cite book or cite journal, but the information must be there. I am also concerned by the tendency in the text to use long reference strings, sometimes 4 or even 5 together. This is unnecessary over-referencing – one or two decent sources should be enough for any referable statement.

• My list of specific points as follows:-
  • Lead
    • Overall, I don’t think that the lead summarises the entire article, which is the purpose of the lead section as defined in WP:Lead

      ✔ Done. Expanded lead. MidgleyDJ (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    • "0 AD" isn’t a real date and should not be represented as such. You could say "the beginning of the first century AD" or something similar, but not 0 AD

      ✔ Done. Date changed and suggestion above used.

    • You should introduce the abbreviation "A. vera" before starting to use it in the text.

      � How should this be done? It's pretty much standard form to reduce the genus name to a single letter in this fashion for any binomial name. Certainly in scientific writing the rule is spell it out the first time, thereafter use the abbreviated genus. MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      I've had a look at Banksia brownii, a featured plant article, and this seems to be the norm there too. Is this ok? MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      • Yes, leave it; it was only a very minor point. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Taxonomy and etymology
    • Not all the synonyms you list are found in [1]

      ✔ Done. Oops. Fixed, added second reference for the remainder. MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Do not use boldface within your text except as section headings. Use italics for emphasis (MoS)

      � I only used boldface for alternative article names. I thought this was normal? Again, I'd welcome a workaround. MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      • Your alternative article name, "Medicinal aloe" is fine in bold. I am referring to the list, beginning with "Chinese aloe", in the taxonomy section. This should not be in bold. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

        ✔ Done. MidgleyDJ (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Avoid single sentence paragraphs

      ✔ Done.

  • Distribution
    • The statement that the plant has been widely cultivated at least since the 15th century seems at odds with the lead, which talks about 0 AD and quotes John’s Gospel
    • The statements in the 2nd sentence don’t seem to be supported by [1], which appears to consist mainly of a bibliography.

      � The annotated map at the African Flowering Plants Database suggests that A. vera is present in the countries listed in the second sentence. MidgleyDJ (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

      • Unfortunately, the map doesn't identify the countries you name, which is a problem for geographical ignoramuses like me. But I suppose I can just about work out that the P symbols are clustered in North Africa and some islands, and relate this to your text Don't worry about it any more. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Cultivation: This section is too short to be subdivided into three. The text needs to be combined under a single heading. Also, note the 15thC reference again.

    ✔ Done. Merged into one section. Removed date. MidgleyDJ (talk)

  • Cropping: This is a single-sentence subsection. Also, why is a string of five references necessary?

    � The five references variously list countries where A. vera is farmed commercially. I'd welcome suggestions on how to change this? MidgleyDJ (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    • • You list 6 countries: Australia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, India, Kenya and South Africa. Ref [31] refers to Cuba; [32] to USA (but appears dead); [33] to Kenya; [34] to India; and [35] to Australia. So the refs don't relate sequentially to your list of countries, and Dominican Republic and South Africa have no references. If you can sort this out, I'd advise that you cite each country individually, e.g Australia[35], Cuba[32], etc - rather than having an elongated string. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

        ✔ Done. MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Mycorrhiza: Another single-sentence section with, for the general reader, an incomprehensible title and equally incomprehensible text.

    ✔ Done. Merged into description, simplified and further explained. MidgleyDJ (talk)

• • Anthropogenic uses
    • Similar difficulties in comprehension.
    • Also, the phrase "A. vera has been variously used for:-" is an untidy way to introduce subsections.

      ✔ Done. Removed introductory sentence. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Only the Medicine subsection is long enough and detailed enough to be a subsection on its own. The others should either be expanded, or collected together as a single entity.

      ✔ Done. Merged. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Medicine: the 6thC reference again conflicts with the lead

    � Need to better explain this. The dating of A. vera use is ambiguous.... eg. aloes is mentioned in the bible and while many cosmetic/new age companies make the link with A. vera it is not clear whether A. vera is the species being discussed. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Antimicrobial properties and Biologically active compounds subsections both use specialist language and will be difficult for the general reader to follow.

    � I've merged the former into medicine. Will simplify when I do a whole article edit for specialist language. Included links to articles eg: antifungal, antibacterial as I don't see a way around this. MidgleyDJ (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am putting the article "on hold" for seven days, to enable these issues to be worked out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know via my talkpage when your edits are complete. Things are looking pretty good, so far. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no editing has taken place for several days, I am assuming that amendments are complete. I will complete the review first thing in the morning (23rd)

I'll try and edit the language tonight to make the article more accessible. I've not had a chance to get to the other revisions. MidgleyDJ (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review, final comments

As more than seven days have now passed since my original review, and as I am going away for a few days, I have to deal with this now. Returning to the three main points which I raised at the start of the main review:-

1. The article is still quite difficult to read in parts, due to the use of unfamiliar language and terms. However, I do understand that an article like this is unlikely to be used for light reading; the reader will much more likely be seeking information, and in this respect it is important that the article is reliable and will stand examination from an expert in the field. I am not that expert, but I am reasonably confident, from the way it has been written and referenced, that the article would pass such an examination. I hope that further steps will be taken by the editors to improve general readability, but the GA promotion should not be held up on that basis.

2. The structure of the article has improved somewhat, with the disappearance of the numerous very short subsections and consequent consolidation of prose. It's a pity that there is still a one-line section at the end of the article, and that this information couldn't have been fitted into one of the other sections.

3. The formatting of references has been greatly improved. As to my comment about reference strings in the text, there are still too many of these, in my opinion. A combination of these, and the difficult text, makes for some really hard going.

All in all, however, I acknowledge the work that has gone into this article and believe that it meets the GA criteria. I will deal with the promotion now. Editors are invited, however, to continue improving it where they can. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead problems: medical section not accurately summd

The current lead is not summarizing the material presented in the section on the medical uses of Aloe v. As such the lead is POV. 124.169.84.247 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on this a bit? MidgleyDJ (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the original poster meant, but the article refers to 'scientific evidence' re the effects of the plant (claiming this evidence is frequently contradictory), but then the references cited are actually in some cases examinations of preparations made using extracts from the plant. In most cases, in my own experience, successful users of the plant will strongly recommend using the raw plant as your source material, and scorn the preparations, which even if using the whole inner gel, add preservative, and cannot guarantee effectively the same substance as in the gel cut freshly from a still-living leaf.

It would be useful for someone who has access to the cited texts to clarify please whether the evidence is contradictory wrt the fresh gell, or merely between different preparations.

It would also be useful to have a guide on how to obtain the gel from the plant, including photographs, as the outside of the leaf when cut exhudes an irritating yellow-green sap. That sap would confound any naive effort to use or prepare extracts of aloe vera. Rather it is the inner, transparent gel which is beneficial for skin complaints. -- Bunglewaterstovepipe (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that wikipedia is not a how to guide and so the photos and an explanation of how to prepare it might not be suitable. Wikibooks would be a more suitable place if you want to write about it and we can then but an interwiki link on this page. I've added a tag as it seems as though the information you added about the distinguishment between the different exudates may be original research which is also not suitable on wikipedia. Do you have a reliable source for the content you added? Smartse (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

parasites

how do aloe vera cleanse parasite please give websites for research material for the topic 69.119.253.197 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Science on hair regrowing effects of aloe vera

This website has books proving aloe vera works. Can they be cited? Or should this article look more into these articles. Tnx. Kleinbell (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.specialtyansweringservice.net/articles/hair-loss/Alopecia-Areata-and-Hair-loss-What-Does-Aloe-Vera-Have-to-Do-with-It_15897/

http://my-hair-loss-solutions.com/hairlossaloevera.html

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/aloe-vera-the-homicide-of-hair-loss.html

http://www.solveyourproblem.com/stop-hair-loss/natural_hair_loss_remedy_aloe_vera_henna.shtml

http://www.specialtyansweringservice.net/articles/hair-loss/Alopecia-Areata-and-Hair-loss-What-Does-Aloe-Vera-Have-to-Do-with-It_15897/ This article is poorly worded english filled with vague sources and a very long list of ads.

http://my-hair-loss-solutions.com/hairlossaloevera.html This is IS nothing but an ad, plain and simple.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/aloe-vera-the-homicide-of-hair-loss.html This is pretty much just BS. I quote "Aloe contains anti-inflammatory which help stop hair loss" By this logic, so does IBprofuen, but I dont see doctors prescribing that to balding people.

http://www.solveyourproblem.com/stop-hair-loss/natural_hair_loss_remedy_aloe_vera_henna.shtml This article is also written as an advertisement, has no sources quoted, and also recommends colon cleansing to help prevent hair loss, when educated people are aware that colon cleansing is all total bull as well. To be short, no, none of those sites are reputable in any way, sorry.--Ryudo (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)(umfc)

Fact....

"Preliminary studies of cell cultures (grown in laboratory dishes) and laboratory animals suggest that some of the chemicals found in aloe may have helpful effects on the immune system. However, the safety and effectiveness of most of these chemicals have not been tested in humans. The aloe products being promoted for internal use contain a wide variety of chemicals, some of which can cause very serious side effects."

"Available scientific evidence does not support the claim that aloe is effective in treating people with cancer. Several people with cancer have died as a direct result of receiving aloe injections. Animal and laboratory studies have found mixed results. One study reported that aloe reduced the growth of liver cancer cells in rats but another found that it promoted the growth of human liver cancer cells in tissue culture. Another rat study reported aloe reduced pre-cancerous liver changes in rats treated with cancer-causing chemicals. Another recent laboratory study reported that aloe promotes the growth of endothelial (blood vessel) cells, raising the concern that it might promote angiogenesis (growth of blood vessels that help "feed" a cancer)."

"Although aloe has been used since the 1930s in the treatment of skin reactions resulting from radiation therapy, recent clinical trials found that an aloe vera gel did not protect against dermatitis (a skin reaction) caused by radiation therapy. Some studies suggest that aloe gel may be effective for minor cuts and burns, but other studies report that aloe can delay healing of infected surgical wounds. People with severe skin trauma or deep injuries may need other treatments."

"Aloe gel and juice contain chemicals with laxative properties. These substances are classified as stimulant laxatives and can be irritating to the intestines. There are a number of dietary and medical approaches to treating constipation that are safer and more effective than aloe products."

"The use of aloe on the skin for the relief of minor cuts and burns appears to be safe. There are mixed reports about the safety of taking aloe internally. One report suggested that aloe taken by mouth might increase cancer risk to humans. Side effects of the internal use of aloe may include abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and electrolyte (chemical) imbalance in the blood, especially at high doses. It should not be used as a laxative for more than two weeks. Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should not use aloe internally.

Taking aloe internally may cause dangerous interactions with prescription drugs and with other herbal supplements. Aloe injections are dangerous, illegal in the United States, and have caused the deaths of several people.

Some people who have used aloe gel for long periods of time have had allergic reactions such as hives and rashes. Those who are allergic to garlic, onions, tulips, and similar plants may be more likely to have an allergic reaction to aloe. Relying on this type of treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences"

[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.80.89 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/side-effects-of-using-aloe-vera.html 95.180.79.187 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

....Side Effects and Warnings

The use of aloe on surgical wounds has been reported to slow healing; redness and burning has been reported after aloe juice was applied to the face after a skin-peeling procedure (dermabrasion). Application of aloe prior to sun exposure may lead to rash in sun-exposed areas.

The use of aloe or aloe latex by mouth for laxative effects can cause cramping or diarrhea. Use for over seven days may cause dependency or worsening of constipation after the aloe is stopped. Ingestion of aloe for over one year has been reported to increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Individuals with severe abdominal pain, appendicitis, ileus (temporary paralysis of the bowel), or a prolonged period without bowel movements should not take aloe. There is a report of hepatitis (liver inflammation) with the use of oral aloe.

Electrolyte imbalances in the blood, including low potassium levels, may be caused by the laxative effect of aloe. This effect may be greater in people with diabetes or kidney disease. Low potassium levels can lead to abnormal heart rhythms or muscle weakness. People with heart disease, kidney disease, or electrolyte abnormalities should not take aloe by mouth. Healthcare professionals should watch for changes in potassium and other electrolytes in individuals who take aloe by mouth for more than a few days.

Aloe taken by mouth may lower blood sugar levels. Caution is advised in patients with diabetes or hypoglycemia, and in those taking drugs, herbs, or supplements that affect blood sugar. Serum glucose levels may need to be monitored by a healthcare professional, and medication adjustments may be necessary. People with thyroid disorders, kidney disease, heart disease, or electrolyte abnormalities should also use oral aloe only under medical supervision.

Avoid Aloe vera injections, which have been associated with cases of death under unclear circumstances.

mayo clinic 95.180.92.190 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing apparently plagiarized section

I'm removing the section titled: "Distinction between aloin and gel of the plant" It was labeled as potentially original research, a little google searching found what is apparently the original article, from Ms. Suntan on suntan.com If someone wants to rephrase(so as not to copy word for word) and source(or if they consider Ms. Suntan a reliable source) or if they think I've erred(ie suntan.com plagarized WP), I've posted the text of the removed section below:

Aloe vera leaves when cut exude two fluids, with differing effects and properties. The yellow/green sap predominantly exuded wherever the green surface of the leaf is cut is an irritant. This contains the latex-like compound, aloin. On the other hand, the transparent fluid exuded by the inner leaf wherever it is cut or crushed, is soothing and said to promote healing.

For successful use of the plant, it is important to ensure that any use employs the appropriate part or parts to suit the purpose.

It is also important to understand and look for this distinction in evaluating any attempt at scientific study of the plant's medical properties. Any study which does not specify which parts of the plant were used, is likely to confuse the issue, rather than to clarify. Any product which does not distinguish these may contain a mixture of both, and therefore would be likely to have compromised usefulness for most purposes where Aloe vera is commonly used.

From: http://www.suntan.com/?aloes

75.84.184.44 (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of touch

"Theory is deeper than reality" read the sign over one of my professor's desks in college. The first paragraph of this "Aloe vera" article seems to invoke a similar detachment from reality. Aloe vera's popularity as a medicinal plant is not the result of widespread public ignorance. It is experience-based, and for those of us who grew up in rural areas where doctors were not readily accessible, the relief of pain and prevention of scabbing and excessive scaring from cuts, burns and scrapes that was available from use of Aloe vera gel was a normal, but much appreciated, aspect of day-to-day life. Who cares if scientific studies are "contradictory" or if "despite (their) limitations" only give a "preliminary indication" that Aloe might give some relief. We already know it works--in an unequivocal, not "preliminary"--way. Aloe is not a cure-all and is sometimes misused, but it has its place whether the medical profession's "not invented here" mentality leads them to ignore it or not. For those who cannot separate fact from fiction, that is their limitation, not a limitation on everyone else's ability to appreciate the therapeutic value of Aloe vera, whatever it may be. So,let's not dwell on the nay sayers so much as on just identifying the useful facts. I find it peculiar that the Aloe article contains no reference to the presence of hydrogen peroxide in Aloe vera gel, given that many of A. vera's useful properties are probably a direct result of the presence of the peroxide. My own experience with hydrogen peroxide is with its use as rocket propellant and as a source of singlet delta oxygen used to generate the gain medium for oxygen-iodine lasers, but the same spectral analysis that identifies the presence of singlet delta oxygen in the lasers shows that peroxide is present in Aloe gel as well. If research on peroxide in Aloe gel has been published I would certainly like to locate it. Any information with regard to same would be appreciated. The excellent Wiki article on hydrogen peroxide clearly illuminates useful medicinal properties of peroxide (e.g. disinfectant, capillary constrictor, oxygen source) that can explain the related effects from the Aloe. The transient nature of the peroxide may shed some light on why Aloe preparations do not in general work as well as fresh Aloe. The hydrogen peroxide article also goes into some detail regarding commercial anthraquinone-related peroxide production techniques which may shed some light on how Aloe, which contains significant amounts of anthraquinones, is able to produce large amounts of peroxide. Additional useful information about Aloe can still be located and added to the article. Let's take another shot at replacing some of the "maybe it does and maybe it doesn't" speculation with a few more facts. Magneticlifeform (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Chemical content

Aloe vera, as well as many other plants such as ice plants and wandering jew, contains the chemical, salicylic acid (aka 2-hydroxybenzoic acid). Salicylic acid catalytically digests keratin, a protein found in the skin. Keratin is very often involved in skin malformations. When salicylic acid dissolves the keratin in a skin malformation, the malformation is destroyed. I have known salicylic acid to be effective against psoriasis, moles, skin ulcers, pustular burns, and at least one form of basal-cell carcinoma. Repeated application is required depending on the thickness of the malformation. For many decades doctors prescribed an ointment called Whitfield’s Ointment, containing salicylic acid, for skin maladies. My Flatley (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Reform of Uses section

The proposition is to completely reform the "Uses" section to remove the bias in verbage against the cooperative health effects between aloe vera and human biology. The article is currently too subjective and riddled with needless bias. Notable are the conclusions ending several paragraphs which needlessly suggest uncertainty and doubt and do not contribute any constructive intelligence to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.248.103 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The section doesn't seem particularly problematic to me: it seems very much in accord with Wikipedia policies, which are to report, as neutrally as possible, what reliable sources say. It is rather 'bitty', and could perhaps benefit from some copy-editing to make it more connected. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio removed

Hi all - I've removed a subsection that was a straight cut and paste from http://nccam.nih.gov/health/aloevera/#cautions. The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is without doubt a reliable source. I could have summarised it and added the ref back in, but I think this would much better be done by an editor with expertise in the area. - --Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio, because works created by the U.S. federal government are in the public domain. Perhaps you could re-add that, citing the source to avoid plagiarism? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding this website

I am adding this website (a specific link to a specific monograph) containinig useful info. http://aidwort.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:aloe-aloe-vera&catid=34:herbology&Itemid=55 If You think this is an inappropriate link first READ it, then browse through references and only then assume something please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvijusAidwort (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 October 2011(UTC)

No. This is a promotional link and not acceptable. You exist here as an editor to promote this site.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

aloe vera juice should be it's own aricle.

Needs more info, but could have enough for a stub. I think aloe vera juice has enough info and relevance with laxative properties and anatacid properties to be it's own article, starting as a stub.

Inconsistency

"Terracotta pots are preferable as they are porous.don't use![31] "

This makes no sense. The cited website says that terracotta is the best to use - someone seems to think this is not the case though. The last comment needs to be removed and the facts checked. Mourningstars (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did it, but you can do this yourself! Follow WP:BOLD. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Family of aloe vera

This article says that the family of aloe vera is Xanthorrhoeaceae . However, in January 2012, some one told me that is in the same family as the onions - which would mean that it is in the family Amaryllidaceae. Which is correct, please? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The family given here is correct according to the latest authoritative system of botanical classification, i.e. APG III system. Many succulent plants have been moved around families in the past, so older books and sources of information should not be relied on. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tag

This article has been tagged with a {{dispute}} tag. It was tagged with this edit along with this explanation on the talk page. I am not exactly sure what is being disputed here. Since this is a good article and the tag is stale, unless there are any outstanding issues I will remove it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this article (like others on plants which can be used in "popular medicine") is that it constantly gets "information" added which is not linked to a reliable source, largely in the "Medicine" section. Right now it's not too bad, so I agree the tag could be removed.

On the other hand, the "Medicine" section is very bitty, often seeming like an unconnected series of sentences, so I find it hard to see that it really is a good article now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a go at changing the structure of the medicine section and trimmed it slightly. I think it might be a good idea to trim it back a little bit more and work on the flow. This is close to being at Good article standard and I would like to save it if possible. AIRcorn (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks better to me. Carry on the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I hacked on the medicine section, trying to organize into subsections, although there is still an uncomfortable amount of overlap. I found an exciting article in Medscape News Dermatology that cites research on anti-nonmelanoma protective properties, so wrote a section about that from the article and used their references. Hope this fits in with where you all were going! Jim Tonti (User talk:jtonti|talk]]) 10:25PM, 21 July 2012 (EDT) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few copy-edits to other sections. One issue I'm not sure about is "Aloe vera" vs. "aloe vera". In the 'medical'/cosmetic literature, "aloe vera" seems to be used as a common name, rather than as a scientific name. The "Uses" section is currently inconsistent. One possibility might be to explain the two uses and then stick to "aloe vera" in this section. But I'm not sure about this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess - there is plenty of experiential evidence that aloe vera gel works. The fallacy of many people who say "there is no scientific evidence" is that we do things all the time that we BELIEVE works without fully KNOWING how it works. Many people don't know how their computer works, but indeed they know how to plug it in and use it. Same is true of the aloe vera - we may not know exact mechanisms, but can taste the difference. I would just call for more balance - the sun can burn you but it can also stimulate vitamin D and endorphin release. Maybe we'll find something toxic about aloe vera in the future, and may have have to get more specific, but for now the kind of skepticism in the article is tyrannically unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.166.75 (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles are based on reliable sources, not personal opinion or anecdote which constitutes original research. Hyperbole like "tyranny" doesn't really help your case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that some varieties of a.v. are extremely toxic, which confuses things a bit. Like most plants, it has antifungal and antibiotic properties merely for survival. Obviously, infections would wipe out the nonresistant plants but this is original research. If we had an expert who was a plant toxicologist or something and linked to their findings on what's actually IN the different parts of the plant, then that would be a lot more tolerable than "Hey, my uncle says..." or "It works/doesn't work for me" or "Derpy, derp, no evidence I like equals total lack of evidence" or the like.71.196.246.113 (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

comment

This article is really very very bad in language and needs to be redone by someone who actually knows something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.227.159 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out specific issues?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dietary Supplement - Additional Info

Adding floating bits of aloe vera to juice drinks has become quite popular in Asia these days. Minute Maid has a whole series of these drinks for peach, grape, etc. I think it might be worth adding here, but the only links and pictures I can find so far are either in Malay, Japanese or Chinese. MarcoPolo419 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin B12

Am I right in thinking that aloe vera is one of the few plant sources of Vitamin B12? If so, this information should be added to the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, it's the ONLY natural source of B12 in any appreciably quantity or at least from a plant. Others require conversion of one chemical into another in a lab setting. I'm not sure what sources of B-vitamins come from seaweed/algae, as well. I'll try to find some references. Also, the laxative properties of the juice are for the yellowish juice between the inner gel and the skin, but most people use the gel in the center. An analysis of the plant's fluids in various portions of the fronds would be very interesting for this article. 71.196.246.113 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS violations

There are many primary sources used here in violation of WP:MEDRS. They should be removed. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? Seems like references concerning WP:MEDRS are provided, and mostly are in balance. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll point out one section that is filled with references to primary research:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloe_vera#Research_for_possible_medical_uses

MEDRS strongly discourages use of such sources. We prefer literature reviews. Until research has been replicated, it is not considered useable here for biomedical or scientific claims. Literature reviews collect all the relevant research of high quality and THAT is the type of references we use. We avoid using primary sources to ensure that articles and content are not created by the original research of our editors. Any editor can pick and choose from the literature and create an article filled with references to primary research, all published in reputable journals, and all randomized controlled trials that are properly double blinded. That is not at all acceptable here. That's classic OR and totally forbidden. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

All well known. The solution is to check references and edit.--Zefr (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, and well-done. I'd usually do it myself but have very limited time at present. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - the section on research does not make claims that Aloe Vera is useful for treating any disease. It describes research, and description of research is not subject to WP:MEDRS. The dietary supplement section, which does make some health claims, complies with WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that interpretation of MEDRS can get a bit tricky at times, so I'll ask those who know more. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Any description of research into medical conditions in humans of the health of humans does fall under MEDRS imo... See WT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Primary and Secondary sources for a current debate about what falls under MEDRS. Lesion (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion! I joined it. I still say, if content makes an actual health, claim, MEDRS is absolutely required. This is clear. But research is not medicine - it makes no explicit health claims. The article very clearly splits the research section from the "use" section. If there are actual, definitive health claims (aloe vera is useful for treating X") in the research section, they should be deleted.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Medical research is subject to MEDRS. The oldest trick in the book is to cite "interesting" research in cells, rats or a few subjects but make no explicit health claim. Sorry. Colin°^Talk 19:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand me. It is important to be super clear about health - definitive statements about human health demand the high standard of MEDRS. No one should make statements about human health based on work in cells or model animals, with the exception of tox studies, and those statements need MEDRS. If someone tries to sneak a health claim based on in vitro or animal research that is not a tox claim with MEDRS sourcing, they should be shot down. Absolutely. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If we substitute "statements of fact" for "claims," does it become clearer for you? That's what we mean. The principles encompassed in the MEDRS guideline are widely used here for ANY biomedical or scientific claims, whether for humans or other types of data that are falsifiable (i.e. "scientific"). Of course the guideline was created to address biomedical claims, and we are therefore most concerned about health claims (just as we are more concerned with BLP issues than facts about deceased individuals), but other claims also need to meet the same high standard to prevent OR. The difference being that OR in our medical articles can have fatal consequences, while OR in other articles are more of an irritation. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am using the word "claim" like the FDA uses it. My read is that MEDRS covers health, not science in general. About health, your clarification about "statements of fact" is somewhat useful. Scientific knowledge in the health arena is rarely comprised statements of unambiguous fact in the way that knowledge is, say, in the physical sciences. Even when a drug is approved, it is approved because, based on the clinical studies, it has been judged safe and effective enough to treat whatever/whoever it is indicated for, and even then with plenty of caveats. The "facts" in the health arena are statements of ambiguity ("safe and effective enough"). Our tools to obtain knowledge in the health arena are just too feeble to reach to statements of "fact" very often. It's why we have iphones but not tricorders. And that is why we need MEDRS in the health arena and we do not so much need it in others. The scientific consensus is way more important here - the collective judgement is what we rely on. But I do agree that it is always best to use reviews where they are available, including for discussing biomedical research, where the problems are even worse than in the health arena -- more scattered, the science is more basic (as opposed to clinical studies), and quite often just plain wrong (even in the best journals). But I really struggle with applying MEDRS to biomedical research - especially when the content very very clearly describes it as research. The issue addressed in the preamble of MEDRS - that people turn to wikipedia for health information (even though they should rely on their doctors) and so need to have very high standards for medical information. I agree with this! I have had extended talk-sections on both sides of this issue - people who were resisting application of MEDRS, and people who were overzealous in applying it. I think if the policy were more clear about where it applies and where it doesn't, it would be helpful to the community. Maybe it would be useful to either 1) have a separate policy on sourcing non-health related science or 2) just broaden out MEDRS in content and call it SRS - scientific reliable sourcing (which seems to be what you would want!) Either way, clarity in the policy would be helpful. btw, you talk as though you helped write the original MEDRS - did you? I see you have been around a while!Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we largely agree. The main thing to keep in mind is to prevent OR, a major reason for the existence of the MEDRS guideline. Since primary research is essentially "original" research, it is far less trustworthy than literature reviews and is easy to (mis)use for promotion of ideas which often end up not panning out. Whatever survives through the process of replication and ends up being included in reviews is much better for sourcing.

I may have had some input in MEDRS, but not as much as one would think, since I'm in the medical field. I usually stay away from policy articles, but have been known to dabble occasionally. A few major policies have wording from me. We all can make our input, and that's the whole idea here: "No one knows everything, but everyone knows something." One of the more interesting things I've done is to teach a college class on how to edit Wikipedia. Now that was fun! How do you get college students interested in such a boring subject? Mention sex....oldest trick in the book. I showed them how a search (not mine) that started with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) led to suspension bridge, and ended up with lesbianism in erotica and the article on wet T-shirt contests. When I let them loose in the computer lab, the girls in the class were suddenly examining the articles on the human penis and ejaculation with great interest, and then the article on brassiere design. They all learned that editing and using Wikipedia can be very fun! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I entirely agree with the conclusions here about MEDRS; this page is constantly under "attack" from people wanting to add medical claims. I don't agree that an "SRS" should be the same. I would happily use as a source a recent article in a botanical journal describing a new subspecies of Aloe vera which is not yet in the secondary literature. The principle has to remain that the strength of the evidence is matched to the importance of the claim. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

Removed from Article as neither especially substantive nor of sufficiently novel general interest. --Zefr (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bozzi, A; Perrin, C; Austin, S; Arce, Vera F (23 May 2006), "Quality and authenticity of commercial aloe vera gel powders" (PDF), Food Chemistry, 103 (1): 22–30, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.05.061, retrieved 5 March 2013
• Maenthaisong, Ratree; Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn; Niruntraporn, Surachet (September 2007), "The efficacy of aloe vera used for burn wound healing: A systematic review" (PDF), Burns, 33 (6): 713–718, doi:10.1016/j.burns.2006.10.384, retrieved 5 March 2013
• Reynolds, T; Dweck, A.C (1999), "Aloe vera leaf gel: a review update" (PDF), Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 68: 3–37, PMID 10624859, retrieved 2 February 2013

This is a CRAP(!) article written by a medical shill. It's dishonest, deceitful and deliberately misleading. This article is just one of many examples of what is wrong with Wikipedia. "CRAP" was *not* an exaggeration. This article is GARBAGE.76.6.93.255 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Content added "overturning" NTP study based on 2013 study

In this series of edits, User:Researchtruthfact edited the article to introduce content based on a 2013 primary source, here. The changed material was based on a top-shelf secondary source on toxicology -- a review by the National Toxicology Program, here.

I reverted the changes in this dif because, under the WP:MEDRS guideline, and under the policy about sourcing, WP:PSTS, this is out of bounds -- content based on 2ndary sources, especially one as authoritative as an NTP review, cannot be overturned by a single set of experiments published - a primary source.

Additionally, the content that was added based on the 2013 was WP:OR. Happy to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctor's advice vs Aloe Vera

I suffered for some weeks with a skin disorder causing unusual lesions, and then my hands were splashed with a particularly corrosive chemical. A friend, a surgeon current in the field, immediately brought me the latest ointment for treatment. It did very little for either condition. Having an aloe vera plant at home, and having used it for sunburns, and to increasing the healing and lack of scaring in wounds, I at switched to what I knew a few hours later. Within a few minutes the symptoms from both problems started to go away. After applying daily for three weeks, it's almost as if neither condition was ever there.

I realize that one person's experience is not a clinical trial, but I am not one of those people who follows fads and tries out alternative medicine. It's peculiar that studies can't find a medical use for aloe vera, when I can see with my own eyes that it works in minutes, when the medicine prescribed by the surgeon did not.

There's absolutely something missing, here. Could it be that aloe vera is cheap, legal, readily available, easy-to-apply and non-toxic? And that's not what vested interests want to hear about? 76.102.1.193 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the article topic. They are a place to discuss improvements to the article. --Srleffler (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You're as perceptive as a rock. Perhaps the person doesn't know how to edit the page, feels he isn't qualified or just feels he can't or doesn't want to take the time to correct the gross misrepresentation only to come back and find that some self-serving medical shill has reverted the page. He was trying to communicate that the article SUCKS (it most certainly DOES) and needs to be scrapped and all you can say is this isn't the place? Let me suggest that you ask someone to help you understand when someone communicates that a Wikipedia page is misleading and misrepresentative of the facts as this page so clearly is. 76.6.93.255 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the basis of repeating what reliable sources say. If there is good evidence in reliable sources that aloe vera has medical benefits, then of course it should be explained here. It's not a question of anyone being "self-serving", simply a matter of following Wikipedia's policies, e.g. as explained at WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that my own experience with Aloe vera shows powerful healing results. I also agree that my experience should be verified by science. Is it that none of the writers here has taken time to look at research findings? One thing I see (having scanned the given references) is that there is a big difference between the gel of Aloe vera and the protective rind. Studies that fail to differentiate would surely have skewed results. It would be like saying oranges aren't good for you because they are tainted with pesticides and are difficult to digest. How to improve this article? Find studies that focus on the raw gel only, not the entire plant. Don (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Don.. thanks for commenting. On the one hand, your post is very reasonable. On the other hand, what you seem to be saying is "based on my experience, there must be scientific evidence showing that it is effective." I hope you can see that this is faulty reasoning is not reasonable. The reason that scientists do experiments is to learn - they don't know the outcome ahead of time - and clinical trials are truly experiments; we do not know how they are going to turn out. Generally in order for a clinical trial to happen at all, there must be some scraps of data that say that treatment X might truly be useful to treat condition Y (it takes a lot of work and a lot of money to do a clinical trial, and no one would invest either, if there were not promising preliminary data). But as I said, clinical trials are actual experiments - no one knows how they will turn out. And many, many clinical trials show that X doesn't work to treat Y, and many show that X actually does more harm than good. And this is what has happened with clinical trials of aloe vera - it doesn't seem to have much effect. So how do you interpret it, when we have reports that sometimes when X is used, condition Y goes away, but that when X is tested on lots of people with condition Y, we don't see any significant effect? The options are: a) there is some subset of people with condition Y, that respond to X, but most people do not respond; b) in the cases where X seemed to treat Y, there was really something else going on (e.g. placebo (which is a powerful thing and not to be dismissed!), or maybe in those instances, Y actually ran its natural course and X did nothing).

Thank you, Jytdog. As you rightly point out, I am not a scientist. In my own reasoning, I try to maintain the attitude of a philosopher -- one seeking truth for the love of the pursuit. If I put my hand in a fire and receive a burn, I can understandably propose the hypothesis that fire burns. Perhaps a scientist experiments, but by applying a flame to a rock, and discovers fire does not burn. My experience remains valid. The scientist should have used her hand, not a rock. If I apply Aloe vera gel to the burn (and this happened to me) and discover the wound heals rapidly and the skin is restored to health, I theorize the Aloe was a healing agent. If my experience is repeated with other wounds, and I find many others who have discovered the same phenomenon, I might rightly expect science would back what is obviously (in my experience and in hearsay evidence) true. When I read, in this article, that Aloe is a sham ... I don't wonder how I could have been so wrong. My son applied Aloe to a burn last week and received rapid healing. Rather, I wonder why the discrepancy exists. I don't believe science is all that open-minded. After all, in order to establish a hypothesis, one must think something about what has been observed. Science is not mindless. I will carve out some time to look at the research. To hear that Aloe is of no value (and can even be dangerous) is a great surprise to me. Don (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

With something like burning a piece of paper in a fire, the evidence is very very clear. However human biology is super complex; we don't understand it very well and most importantly, the tools we have to understand it are still pretty crude (we have nothing like the Star Trek tricorder - literally nothing). It is really hard to draw cause and effect conclusions from one or two observations; the uncertainty and variability means you need a lot of individual subjects to draw any conclusions. Same wisdom behind "you can't read a book by its cover", with regard to meeting people the first time. The studies that have been done of aloe vera, as well as reviews of those studies, have shown it has no real effect. Please do read the studies yourself! A lot of folk medicine turns out to be nothing. With the advent of modern, science based medicine, traditional home remedies have for the most part fallen by the wayside, because we have stuff that works. Not for everything, and little that works perfectly and perfectly safely, but we are a heck of a lot better off today.Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. Philosophers are just as concerned about reality as are scientists. You help me realize it is entirely possible that my experience with Aloe vera says more about me and my expectations than it does about the efficacy of Aloe gel. Moreover, I'm a writer and I've written a bunch of stuff in favor of alternative medicine and natural foods. If you're right, and "traditional home remedies have for the most part fallen by the wayside" (ostensibly because modern methods are vastly superior), then I've not only been an idiot -- I've promoted idiocy ... something that would bring any self-respecting philosopher (lover of wisdom) to tears and repentance. And I'm willing to do that, my new-found friend, if my search of legitimate research results fails to show any scientific support for the medicinal use of Aloe vera. What I really want to know, though, is this: IF I find valid research that would move the tone of this article from "Aloe is a sham" to "There is evidence on both sides," are you going to quash it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssetd (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I appreciate it. However, please do read WP:MEDRS, which sets the bar for what counts as evidence (in Wikipedia-speak, a reliable source) for health-related information and for the way that evidence may be deployed - our epistemological method. Not just any article may be used, not even single clinical study, and indeed not even any old review of clinical studies, but rather critical reviews of clinical studies are the gold standard. If those exist, those are the gold standard, and we base content on them; no other source can be used to introduce contradictory content. That is how we roll here. We try to express the scientific consensus, as well as we can. If you can bring that kind of source and it says "aloe vera works" I will of course welcome it. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ssetd: an advocacy article, which you say you have written, is importantly different from a Wikipedia article. Readers don't expect advocacy here; they expect neutral expositions based on high quality sources. (As a side-issue: have you promoted idiocy? Not necessarily. Provided that aloe vera does no harm, and given that most minor conditions are self-limiting, the placebo effect of your persuasive advocacy may well have led to some benefit.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange POV in Uses

The Uses section seems be saying that Aloe vera isn't proven to have an effect, while brushing what it says about it currently being a component in a lot by major brands for sunscreen and soap. Maybe have something that says why the they continue to use it in products? Maybe I'm biased since I've used it a few times for sunburns before and it really seemed to work (Which I know doesn't count) but the article seems to be trying to Prove the case for something rather than Explain it. Aloe vera is used in main brands, but the article is ignoring that and building up an argument that it is alternative medicine. Ikmxx (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very clear and very firm policies about adding any statements which make any kind of medical claim. They have to satisfy WP:MEDRS. If you know of sources which meet these requirements and which say that aloe vera extracts work for sunburn, then by all means add them. But just because it's used in many major brands doesn't mean that there is evidence that it actually works to the satisfaction of WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider is a POV violation, but I noticed the Uses section notes its use in tissues/soaps/etc. for its soothing/moisturizing effect, but the article does not discuss whether medical research has found it to have any such effects. I added a bit, but this use should be expanded. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's ok to describe its use in such products, but the article shouldn't claim effectiveness in this regard unless there is evidence which meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS, which include not using single primary studies to support medical claims. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The addition I made to the article was removed by a user; however, I feel it falls within the MEDRS guideline as described in the Respect secondary sources section where the guideline describes citing primary sources. Additionally, the definitions section states, "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." I believe my addition was in line with this recommendation as well. By respecting the guideline, the addition was not used to support a medical claim but only to support to the conclusions of the one study using quotes from that study. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The following claim is sourced only to a blanket cite to an "Aloe" article at WebMD.com: "Nonetheless, its power in aiding with the regulation of bowels, epilepsy, depression, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and a host of other ailments remains beneficial to humans." I think this needs a more reliable source! Tbanderson (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"The cosmetic and medicinal value of the plant is debated. It is found in many consumer products." Weaselwords. Anything can be and is 'debated'. It sounds like someone is pushing the chemical industry's point of view. MrSativa (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite right - I questioned the use of 'debated' and was immediately reverted by Jytdog who seems to have ownership issues in connection with this article. Paul venter (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Salicylic acid

How much Salicylic acid? How much of many other constituents? Please improve article! -71.174.188.43 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it a type of cactus?

I don't have a doctorate in botany, I'm just an average person looking at what purports to be an encyclopedia article, and I can't tell from reading this whether aloe is a type of cactus or not. It's not a proper encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.158 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Aloe plants are succulents, not cacti. Only plants in the family Cactaceae are cacti. On the right hand side of this page, under the picture, the family name of Aloe is listed as Xanthorrhoeaceae.

Thenarganaut (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC) thenarganaut

Missing important use in radiation therapy?

The use of aloe vera gel to reduce dermatitis caused by radiation therapy is well documented and backed by scientific research. The entire "uses" section seems to be strangely biased against evidence that has shown the effectiveness of aloe vera for topical treatments of various skin conditions. Can someone please edit this in? For research showing effectiveness - see doi: 10.3747/co.20.1356 "Aloe vera for prevention of radiation-induced dermatitis" as well as many other studies that can by easily found by Googling "aloe vera radiation therapy." It is officially recommended at the radiation oncology center that I work at, which is part of the Kaiser Permanente group. I find it hard to believe that this important use didn't merit a mention on this page that is rated to be a well written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.170.227 (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your note. interesting. the guideline for sourcing health content is WP:MEDRS which says we use reviews in the biomedical literature (not primary sources like the one you cite PMID 23904773) or guidelines by major health authorities. I don't believe there are any reviews discussing this use; are you are aware of any treatment guidelines that do? thx Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't access it, but this review published last year cites the primary source. SmartSE (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

PMID 26412275. Nice. It goes over the evidence for treating acute radiodermatitis from randomised controlled trials and finds no effectiveness with one trial showing worse outcomes compared to aqueous creams and another showing it to be worse than anionic polar phospholipid-based cream, and yet another showing it worse than either powder or placebo. it does cite the trial mentioned in the OP, which used self-as-control with nothing on the control side (a region was defined on each one of 60 people and half the region was treated with aloe) which found the aloe side was much better. it said that might be due to a study artifact. it also noted a study that found a protective effect when the cumulative radiation dose was greater than 27 Gy. It ends up saying "Nevertheless, in light of the number of studies demonstrating inferiority, aloe vera is not recommended for use in practice." Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"moot"

User:Paul venter. It is debated whether aloe vera is good for anything, and the reason is that there is poor evidence. The matter is not "moot". Please actually read the body of the article and the sources there and if you still disagree, please respond here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See "Weasel words" above Paul venter (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you prefer that means "we don't know"? "moot" is not the right answer - it completely wrong. The matter is neither settled nor irrelevant. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you perhaps from the UK? I just ran into this issue the other day where somebody from the UK was writing something incomprehensible to me. I see that that in the UK "moot" actually means uncertain/debated and in the US we don't use it that way at all, but rather to mean irrelevant, settled, done, etc. Very different. Jytdog (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Being from the UK, I read the original as meaning "debatable" – to me a "moot point" is one that is open to debate. So clearly it's not a good word to use in an international English encyclopedia.

I think that either "moot" or "debated/debatable" are, in this context, weasel; it would be better to attempt to summarize the discussion in the text of the article. A variant of the opening of the Research section could be used: "There is little scientific evidence of the effectiveness or safety of Aloe vera extracts for either cosmetic or medicinal purposes. Studies finding positive evidence are frequently contradicted by other studies."

There's also a conflict in the article re the possible toxicity of topical applications of Aloe vera extracts (see the Dietary supplement and Toxicity sections) which could usefully be clarified. The material on uses is split up between different sections and not well-integrated. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I like that proposed wording. I think "debatable" possibly even overstates the case. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. Totally fine with the proposed wording. Implementing. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Opened aloe plant inside

I wish I could put in an image of an aloe plant flesh. I have got some aloe vera at home and I often rub the inside of some aloe vera on my skin. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aloe vera. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ville-ge.ch/cjb/bd/africa/details.php?langue=an&id=155971
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206062244/http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/economy/2006/7/7/15337/Korea-interested-in-Dominican-aloe-vera to http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/economy/2006/7/7/15337/Korea-interested-in-Dominican-aloe-vera
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324210301/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080117/eyes/eyes1.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080117/eyes/eyes1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917125506/http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=38588 to http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=38588
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114034759/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Aloe-Vera-has-biodiesel-potential-reveals-MSU-study/324861/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Aloe-Vera-has-biodiesel-potential-reveals-MSU-study/324861/

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aloe vera. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115829/http://faculty.ucc.edu/biology-ombrello/POW/Aloe_vera.htm to http://faculty.ucc.edu/biology-ombrello/POW/Aloe_vera.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612155315/http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/a-myersi.html to http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/ento/a-myersi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718000125/http://www.pha.nu.ac.th/Nathorn/articles_PDF/13%20%20Aloe.pdf to http://www.pha.nu.ac.th/nathorn/articles_PDF/13%20%20Aloe.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

{{edit semi-protected}}

Gopisahane (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Template nullified, no edit requested. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

suggested edit: change negative scientific tone of summary

Hi all not a normal wiki contributor but a science minded person, please mind non-formatting. I just came from the page on Mucilage which is the bulk of the extracellular matrix for plants and many other lifeforms, quoting briefly from there: "Mucilage is edible. It is used in medicine as it relieves irritation of mucous membranes by forming a protective film. " I then clicked here because it's the first link on the section there about plants high in mucilage concentration, so the negative tone here on backing surprised me. The current summary seems to indicate there is absolutely no rational reason people should use these aloe derivatives, which is simply not true. There's also a reason it's traditionally used as a _skin_ salve, it's good at putting a barrier between your vulnerable non-skin cells and the infectious world -- this extends beyond preventing infections to providing environmental cues for your body to scab/scar or not. I don't know how to write this concisely and cited for an actual edit, but I implore someone to write an edit that's more neutral or acknowledging. I am inclined to think that the cited contrary evidence is making a comparison between aloe and a competitive compound, not nothing. 04:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:7FB7:B05E:8853:F769:FEAF (talk)

Aloe vera

How much oxygen is released by aloe vera Furqaan ul huqe mughal (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it obviously depends on the size of the plant. There's no reason to suppose an Aloe vera plant would differ from other succulents of the same mass. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Pollinators?

They have such interesting flowers. What animals pollinate Aloe Vera?

2603:8001:3846:2D00:742B:A62:D252:185 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 March 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vramirez38.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 April 2020 and 8 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lasap777777, AshleyMonteiro. Peer reviewers: Jessicanastasia, Marie emmanuellee, Venito camela bb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)