Talk:Aloe vera

Question about science project

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

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)

Refs

The section about 'use in food' is mostly unreferenced. If i cannot find refs, I will have to delete it.

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.

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)