Jump to content

Talk:Phytolacca americana: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 60: Line 60:
:Out of 9 references, one appears unreliable and two are primary sources. This seems quite easy to fix. [[User:Nadiatalent|Nadiatalent]] ([[User talk:Nadiatalent|talk]]) 17:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
:Out of 9 references, one appears unreliable and two are primary sources. This seems quite easy to fix. [[User:Nadiatalent|Nadiatalent]] ([[User talk:Nadiatalent|talk]]) 17:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
::Which do you find unreliable? Here are a few of my concerns to start with: 1) Most of the "Anti-cancer" section is speculative at best - and the only reference is a primary source that describes ''in vitro'' effects, and not any kind of medicinal use. 2) The anti-AIDS section cites a primary source relating to isolated proteins, which appears not to mention anti-AIDS effects at all. 3) Reference 8 is a dead link. 4) The ars-grin.gov reference is used five times, and I don't see how it can be used to support article content because the link goes to a page with no information. 5) cancersalves.com, a "Sacred Medicine Sanctuary" selling "Herbal Cancer Treatments", is not appropriate for Wikipedia. 6) Much of the content is misleading in the sense that it suggests that the herb is currently used in medicine (for example, the phrase "is often used in cancer protocols"). [[User:Deli nk|Deli nk]] ([[User talk:Deli nk|talk]]) 16:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
::Which do you find unreliable? Here are a few of my concerns to start with: 1) Most of the "Anti-cancer" section is speculative at best - and the only reference is a primary source that describes ''in vitro'' effects, and not any kind of medicinal use. 2) The anti-AIDS section cites a primary source relating to isolated proteins, which appears not to mention anti-AIDS effects at all. 3) Reference 8 is a dead link. 4) The ars-grin.gov reference is used five times, and I don't see how it can be used to support article content because the link goes to a page with no information. 5) cancersalves.com, a "Sacred Medicine Sanctuary" selling "Herbal Cancer Treatments", is not appropriate for Wikipedia. 6) Much of the content is misleading in the sense that it suggests that the herb is currently used in medicine (for example, the phrase "is often used in cancer protocols"). [[User:Deli nk|Deli nk]] ([[User talk:Deli nk|talk]]) 16:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:The cancersalves.com web site I haven't been able to access, but the name suggests that it is for-profit and perhaps therefore dubious, so I entirely agree with you there. Dr Duke's web site probably is good, though I'm having trouble accessing it. I've seen the printed book from which his database derives and it is a very serious documenting of ethnobotanical data. Also, the USDA ARS GRIN web site endorses it, and they take a responsible attitude.
PFAF.org is a good web site, but they keep frustratingly moving it around. The new web address is [http://www.pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Phytolacca+americana here]. The dead links problem is particularly bad on this page. I agree that the text needs changing to removed the fanciful parts, but perhaps not total removal if those or other papers contain something relevant. The 1979 article cited for AIDS which was discovered in 1981 is bizarre, but perhaps there is a missing article that cites it. If you search for the phrase "Pokeweed antiviral protein (a Single Chain Ribosome Inactivating Protein or SCRIP) is being considered as a potent inhibitor of human immunodeficiency for AIDS" in google, a whole bunch of pages turn up. Perhaps there is a copyright issue here as well. Trying the same search in scholar.google.com produces just one paper [http://www.ijrpbsonline.com/files/RW11.pdf pdf here]. So what I'm saying is that this is certainly icky, but perhaps not in the "using herbs to treat illness is all in your imagination" way. [[User:Nadiatalent|Nadiatalent]] ([[User talk:Nadiatalent|talk]]) 12:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:47, 13 October 2011

WikiProject iconFood and drink Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconPlants Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Substantial rewrite of the stub. More to come. Karen S Vaughan 05:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed for discussion

I have removed the content below from the article because I think it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. It relies heavily on primary sources and/or unreliable sources. Medical claims should use peer-reviewed secondary sources. See WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Phytolacca_americana. Deli nk (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historically used for syphilis, diphtheria, conjunctivitis, cancer, adenitis and emesis or as a purgative.[1] Used topically for scabies. Heroic and toxic class herb which requires professional training.[2]

Physiologically, phytolacca acts upon the skin, the glandular structures, especially those of the buccal cavity, throat, sexual system, and very markedly upon the mammary glands. It further acts upon the fibrous and serous tissues, and mucous membranes of the digestive and urinary tracts. Phytolacca is alterative, anodyne, anti-inflammatory,antiviral, anti-cancer, expectorant, emetic, cathartic, narcotic, hypnotic,insecticide and purgative.[1][2]

Tincture of the Root: Alterative, for lymphatic disorders including breast lumps and skin conditions (especially when accompanied by a poultice on the lesions.) Also for arthritis, rheumatism, conjunctivitis, tonsillitis, infectious disease, edema, and cancer.[1][2][3]

Root poultice: the root roasted in ashes and mashed is used as a poultice for breast abscesses. Also used for rheumatic pains, and swellings.[3]

Root wash: used for sprains or swellings.

Root infused oil: The freshly dried root can be steeped in oil for breast abscesses and is often used in cancer protocols.[1][3]

Berries: eaten without biting into the toxic seeds for arthritis. One is taken the first day, two the second, up to 7 and back down to one.[4] The berries can also be soaked in water and the water drunk for rheumatism and arthritis. Juice has been topically applied for cancer, hemorrhoids and tremors.[1]

Leaves: Cathartic and purgative.

Ash from plant: Potassium rich, used in cancer salves.[5]

Anti-cancer: The anticancer effects appear to work primarily based upon anti-tumor and anti-inflammatory properties, along with immune stimulant functions. Additional support for fighting cancer may come from antiplasmodial or cytotoxic fractions of the phytolacca toxin. And, although it has not been confirmed as a cause or factor of cancers, the antimicrobial, antiviral and antithelmetic properties of certain constituents might also play a part in anticancer activity. Further there are aromatase inhibitors and antioxidant properties that may affect cancer. Anti-cancer, antileukemic or anti-tumor constituents include: ascorbic acid, astragalin, beta carotene, caryophylline, isoquercitin, oleanolic acid, riboflavin, tannin and thiamine. Of the constituents known to fight cancer, oleanolic acid appears to be the most significant with its anticarcinomic; anticomplement, antihepatotoxic; antiinflammatory, antileukemic; antileukotriene, antinephritic, antioxidant, antiperoxidant, antiPGE2, antiplasmodial, antisarcomic; antiseptic, antiTGFbeta, antitumor (Breast, Colon, Kidney, Lung, Pancreas); antiviral, aromataseinhibitor; cancer-preventive; hepatoprotective; immunomodulator;leucocytogenic; NF-κB-Inhibitor; phagocytotic; and prostaglandin-synthesisinhibitor properties.[6][7]

Anti-inflammatory constituents include saponins in poke root and triterpenes in the berries: alpha spinasterol, ascorbic acid, calcium oxalate, caryophylline, isoquercitin, jialigonic acid, and oleanolic acid.[6]

Immune stimulant constituents include astragalin, ascorbic acid, beta carotene, phosphorus and oleanolic acid.[6]

Antiviral: PAP, oleanolic acid, ascorbic acid, tannin, mitogen.[6]

In addition: Betanin and oleanolic acid are antiperoxidative and the vitamins plus caryophylline and oleanolic acid are antioxidant. Astragalin, isoquercitin and caryophylline are aldose-reductase-inhibitors.[6]

Anti-AIDS: Pokeweed antiviral protein (a Single Chain Ribosome Inactivating Protein or SCRIP) is being considered as a potent inhibitor of human immunodeficiency for AIDS. There are also three different well-known pokeweed antiviral protein (PAP)isoforms from leaves of Phytolacca americana (PAP-I from spring leaves, PAPII from early summer leaves, and PAP-III from late summer leaves) that cause concentration-dependent depurination of genomic HIV-1 RNA.[8][9]

  1. ^ a b c d e [1] Harvey Wickes Felter and John Uri Lloyd 1898. King's American Dispensatory.
  2. ^ a b c [2] Felter's Materia Medica.
  3. ^ a b c [3] Finley Ellingwood 1919. The American Materia Medica, Therapeutics and Pharmacognosy.
  4. ^ David Winston/ Cherokee Herbal MedicineMedicines from the Earth 2001
  5. ^ www.cancersalves.com
  6. ^ a b c d e [http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/duke/ethnobot.pl Dr. Duke's Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases, Ethnobotany query]
  7. ^ Jeong SI, Kim KJ, Choo YK, Keum KS, Choi BK, Jung KY (2004). "Phytolacca americana inhibits the high glucose-induced mesangial proliferation via suppressing extracellular matrix accumulation and TGF-beta production". Phytomedicine. 11 (2–3): 175–81. doi:10.1078/0944-7113-00291. PMID 15070169. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Phytolacca americana - Plants For A Future database report
  9. ^ Bodger MP, McGiven AR, Fitzgerald PH (1979). "Mitogenic proteins of pokeweed. I. Purification, characterization and mitogenic activity of two proteins from pokeweed (Phytolacca octandra)". Immunology. 37 (4): 785–92. PMC 1457132. PMID 315368. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Out of 9 references, one appears unreliable and two are primary sources. This seems quite easy to fix. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you find unreliable? Here are a few of my concerns to start with: 1) Most of the "Anti-cancer" section is speculative at best - and the only reference is a primary source that describes in vitro effects, and not any kind of medicinal use. 2) The anti-AIDS section cites a primary source relating to isolated proteins, which appears not to mention anti-AIDS effects at all. 3) Reference 8 is a dead link. 4) The ars-grin.gov reference is used five times, and I don't see how it can be used to support article content because the link goes to a page with no information. 5) cancersalves.com, a "Sacred Medicine Sanctuary" selling "Herbal Cancer Treatments", is not appropriate for Wikipedia. 6) Much of the content is misleading in the sense that it suggests that the herb is currently used in medicine (for example, the phrase "is often used in cancer protocols"). Deli nk (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cancersalves.com web site I haven't been able to access, but the name suggests that it is for-profit and perhaps therefore dubious, so I entirely agree with you there. Dr Duke's web site probably is good, though I'm having trouble accessing it. I've seen the printed book from which his database derives and it is a very serious documenting of ethnobotanical data. Also, the USDA ARS GRIN web site endorses it, and they take a responsible attitude.

PFAF.org is a good web site, but they keep frustratingly moving it around. The new web address is here. The dead links problem is particularly bad on this page. I agree that the text needs changing to removed the fanciful parts, but perhaps not total removal if those or other papers contain something relevant. The 1979 article cited for AIDS which was discovered in 1981 is bizarre, but perhaps there is a missing article that cites it. If you search for the phrase "Pokeweed antiviral protein (a Single Chain Ribosome Inactivating Protein or SCRIP) is being considered as a potent inhibitor of human immunodeficiency for AIDS" in google, a whole bunch of pages turn up. Perhaps there is a copyright issue here as well. Trying the same search in scholar.google.com produces just one paper pdf here. So what I'm saying is that this is certainly icky, but perhaps not in the "using herbs to treat illness is all in your imagination" way. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]