Talk:Quercetin

Protest reversion

I just added: A study in 2018 found that administering a combination of quercetin and dasatinib to mice whose fitness had been compromised by injecting them with senescent cells resulted in them recovering most of their physical capabilities. These two drugs were chosen for their ability to selectively cause senescent cells to die. When the drug combination was given to old mice, their speed, endurance, and strength improved by 30 to 100 per cent, and they lived on average 36% longer than controls.

This has now been reverted by Alexbrn, as "unreliable". Why? On what basis does he decide what's reliable and what's not? This is Wikipedia, not a place for private opinions. If there is no good justification then I will restore my edit. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on identifying reliable sources for WP:Biomedical information. Primary sources and lay press about mice, are not compliant. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That New Scientist brief article is a particularly poor source, Eric Kvaalen. The study apparently was in old mice and the apple peel apparently contained quercetin. Why mice should be relevant to human aging, and why quercetin should be inferred to have an anti-aging effect are mysteries of confused thinking. Apple peel also contains dietary fiber, anthocyanins, phenolic acids, some nutrients, etc., any of which may be in higher content and more important than quercetin. Dietary factors in animal or human studies are notoriously unreplicable and impossible to prove. WP:MEDREV says: "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field ... is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." --Zefr (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm very aware of what the Wikipedia policy is on reliable references. I think, Zefr, you didn't read the New Scientist article very carefully. They did not feed old mice apple peels! The text I added to the article did not claim anything about benefits to humans, even if it seems quite possible that if senescent cells have a deleterious effect in mice then they probably do in humans as well. But never mind what the possible consequences are for humans -- I didn't say anything about that.

There's a group of you who are constantly on the watch for any edits of articles having to do with nutrition and health, and you constantly revert all the constructive edits that people do if you think the content is not true, citing the Wikipedia policies on "reliable sources". You claim that we can't cite Nature Medicine because it's a primary source, and if I give a secondary source like New Scientist as well, then you claim that it's a poor quality article, or that it's not "reliable", even though it faithfully gives the results that the researchers found. It's like censorship. You're preventing people from reading about the latest research. What you're doing is not good for Wikipedia.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Attacking other editors for correctly following the WP:PAGs is in fact what is "not good for Wikipedia". Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen said: "You're preventing people from reading about the latest research." Kvaalen is missing the point of writing for an encyclopedia: 1) Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, WP:NOTJOURNAL - "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." 2) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS - "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." That is why we rely on MEDRS reviews for encyclopedic content. WP:MEDSCI: "...prevailing medical or scientific consensus... can be found in recent, authoritative review articles." There is no scientific consensus and no such reviews indicating acceptance of quercetin as an anti-aging factor. --Zefr (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Zefr: Wikipedia policies WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:NOTNEWS misses the point. What is relevant is the replication crisis (it is astonishing that most biomedical research simply cannot be repeated) and the poor translation from in vitro to animal models to humans (see for example PMID 24489990). While it is important that primary results are reviewed, it is far more important that the results are reproduced by independent laboratories. This applies equally to in vitro, animal, and humans studies. Boghog (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Boghog: I'd say your interpretation applies to a journal review article or textbook chapter rather than an encyclopedia. We should rely on a systematic review of the physiological effects a dietary factor has. This is the way every vitamin or dietary mineral has been defined as an essential nutrient with recommended intake levels. It seems a fair forecast that quercetin is more than a decade (if ever) from having sufficient evidence of in vivo physiological effect. --Zefr (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Zefr: No, my interpretation applies even more so to an encyclopedia. Presentation of conflicting scientific results is part of the scientific method and eventually gets sorted out through replication and review. In Wikipedia, we normally skip the conflicting results and just state facts (based on scientific consensus) supported by reliable sources. My interpretation explains why there is a high bar to establishing the facts and is the fundamental underlying reason behind MEDRS. Invoking WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:NOTNEWS misses the point. Finally, physiological effects in animals are very real to animals, but may or may not translate into humans. Boghog (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not expert in this field but maybe those among you who are might consider this article published in the Brighter Side (a secondary source if there is one)

https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/fountain-of-youth-drug-could-significantly-extend-human-life-study-finds

Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As coronavirus spread speeds up, Montreal researchers will trial an anti-viral treatment for COVID-19

“ The broad spectrum anti-viral medicine known as quercetin has already proven successful at treating Ebola and Zika viruses, says Dr. Michel Chrétien, a researcher at the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal”

I believe this information should be added under the “ Pharmacology “ section Ethan hines (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Ethan Hines

I think it is too premature to do that. I cannot find even an animal study for quercetin treating coronaviruses (e.g., MERS, SARS etc), it is all Petri dish and test tube type studies and this study states quercetin was only effective at the highest concentration tested. Assuming that in vitro results carry across into human in vivo results then what dose is needed? One tablet? One bottle of tablets? Ten bottles of tablets? Often test tube results do not carry across into live animals and people. If research improves in this area then something could be added but not now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33444408/ Quercetin as a potential treatment for COVID-19-induced acute kidney injury: Based on network pharmacology and molecular docking study Otaku00 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Primary source so not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No one said the contrary. Primary source, as is the WHO. Unless of course defined otherwise. Otaku00 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That's just nonsense, unless you consider major medical bodies the equivalent to a researcher. Please read WP:MEDRS, really. —PaleoNeonate – 05:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

References

FDA GRAS is undue weight

@Alexbrn: you removed my edit stating that the FDA has determined quercetin to be GRAS with the comment "Undue WP:LEDEBOMB". While I am happy to move the edit out of the lede, I have a question. Is the FDA not considered a governmental health authority widely accepted to be an authority on the safety of ingredients in food? MarshallKe (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not put content just in the lede. It would help if the content was accurate too (it is one quercetin product, not general "high-purity quercetin" which the FDA approved as a food additive). For this, using a secondary source would help, rather than editorializing around a primary. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have found the lede is the most common place to put GRAS information for dietary ingredient articles. Should I, assuming I have an infinite amount of free time, begin moving GRAS claims out of all article ledes, or is there some reason this particular article should be treated differently? As for the accuracy of the claims, I believe you are incorrect. I quote the FDA below (there will likely be PDF OCR errors):

High-purity quercetin (≥99.5% quercetin) has been determined by Quercegen Pharma LLC (hereafter Quercegen) to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), consistent with Section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This determination is based on scientific procedures as described in the following sections, under the conditions of its intended use in food, and on the consensus opinion of an independent panel of experts qualified by scientific training and expertise. Therefore, pursuant to proposed 21 CFR §170.36(~)(1) [62 FR 18938 (U.S. FDA, 1997)], the use of high-purity quercetin in food as described below is exempt from the requirement of premarket approval

MarshallKe (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Improving articles is always good. In general, we should go by sources not what editors "believe", and editors' interpretation of primary sources is particularly prone to blundering, so to be avoided. Such sources as this[1] might help to correct things. Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This editor directly quoted what the FDA said above. If editors think governmental health authorities are primary sources and shouldn't be trusted to support a Wikipedia article, then those editors probably need to get a clue and stop gaming the system. MarshallKe (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Straw man demolished again. For sources, though, selective quotation is risky as it can misrepresent. The FDA notification is for QU 995 (or better); this is a bit more specific than general "high-purity quercetin". Reading sources carefully is a better way to improve Wikipedia articles than thinking everything's a WP:BATTLE. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The act of adding small edits to articles does not make for a battle. The act of reverting every change proposed to a page, as done, for example, by User:Alexbrn recently to this article, is what makes for a WP:BATTLE. Gnuish (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You probably need to read WP:BATTLE to get it, and then take a look in the mirror. Meanwhile, are there actually any constructive comments left for improving the article? Alexbrn (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Research directions

Hello, @Zefr! You did a revert claiming "Not WP:MEDRS sources, but you didn't justify exactly why you think they are not WP:MEDRS. These sources are secondary (reviews) that are fully WP:MEDRS compliant, and the described effects have been in fact. Could you please specify why you think that they are not WP:MEDRS? Also, you mentioned WP:CRYSTAL (speculation). Can you please specify why you think it is a speculation? These claims are present in the article cited. According to WP:MEDRS, articles with sections on research should be sourced to reviews and should describe research directions, readers generally want to understand research directions in any case. There are no primary sources, only secondary reviews that you deleted without explanation. I would appreciate if you explain. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This revert was justified because neither the journal, Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology, or the Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents is Medline-indexed, indicating they are unestablished, unreliable sources and the statements in them are untrustworthy and unusable in the encyclopedia. Both sources make extraordinary claims of effect which are not validated (WP:EXTRAORDINARY) by a WP:MEDRS-quality review (which doesn't exist anyway). Please take more caution in selecting your sources for medical content. Zefr (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

How did you support your claim that they are not medline-indexed? I found these articles via medline. The article from journal Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol had pmid:32467711 pmc:7227109

and the article fro journal J Biol Regul Homeost Agents had pmid:18187018.

Are there any other objections besides the medline indexed? If this was your only objection, please self-revert because I provided you the proof they are indeed indexed.

Please take care before you revert by looking to pmid attributes in the references , as you may violated the 3-revert rule. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I also understood your concerns about extraordinary statements, and to resolve your concerns, I put the information under "Research directions" section, and I tried 2 versions, with softer tone and with more affirmative tone, still, it didn't help. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage - can you please help us? I mentioned a few health claims on Quercetin (last edit reverted is) [2]. I thought that my claims were based on reliable medical sources (reviews indexed in MEDLINE), these journals were not considered predatory. However, the user Zefr disagreed with me and reverted my edits. I tried various style: first a soft style, then affirmative style but in a "research directions" section. I chose such sections to avoid "extraordinarity", although the journals I quoted mention that as a fact, not as an ongoing research. I only used that "research" section for softness. Maybe you can help us get into consensus and we would not be needed to ask for a formal resolution process. Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Neither of the journals are currently MEDLINE-indexed (check the NLM record and N.B. that PUBMED and MEDLINE are different), which some editors regard as a severe demerit. However J Biol Regul Homeost Agents was[3] MEDLINE-index at the time of PMID:18187018's publication, although 17 years ago could be considered too old for a 'research direction'. Given the record of questionable claims made for quercetin I think caution is advisable. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The claims were indeed extraordinary and the reverts turned out to be justified, I was still concerned that the reverts did not have proper explanation, such as an explanation that you did. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Health Claims need update as science has changed

This page isn't up to date and doesn't include the new studies from high quality sources that would clarify the state of the science currently.

One that clearly adds to this discussion is Health Benefits of Quercetin in Age-Related Diseases

• One needs to read only the abstract to see that this report is full of misinformation and exaggeration derived only from lab research. The journal is produced by MDPI and is suspected of predatory publishing, so is untrustworthy and does not meet the standards of WP:MEDRS.

There are plenty more resources available, but this should demonstrate that this reference on this page needs to be changed.

Quercetin and cancer: new insights into its therapeutic effects on ovarian cancer cells

• Based only on preliminary lab research; see WP:MEDINVITRO. Unusable.

Dietary quercetin intake and risk of gastric cancer: results from a population-based study in Sweden

• Primary research. Unusable.

Quercetin and Cancer Chemoprevention

• An outdated unreliable source published in a quackery journal. Unusable.

While caution is always warranted, staying up to date with the science equally warranted. Dr Douglas Rice (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments above show that none of these sources is to be trusted and none satisfies MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)