Talk:Iberogast

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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) 11:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article

I'm sorry there's no one here to thank. Anyone connected to Wikipedia already knows, intellectually, that it touches millions of lives. Let me make this a little more concrete. I was really laid low by dyspepsia last year: hurting, scared, debilitated. My GI specialist told me science didn't understand dyspepsia and he had no remedies to offer. I found this article while looking for my own answers, and I've just written the manufacturer to thank them for all the comfort it's given me over the past year. Note that this didn't even turn up on MEDLINE, as far as I know. So, all I am trying to say is that if you contribute knowledge to Wikipedia, you never know who it may help, or how much. Thank you. Chairease (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading reference use

The reference used in this article refers to a study into its (Iberogasts) ability to reduce the severity of induced mucositis in rat intestine. The study clearly states at the end of the abstract that "it conferred no significant protection". This product is often refered to as "clinically proven" in its own advertising. Does this study represent the evidence for such assertions? The reference is used here to support the statement that this product has been part of clinical studies. However, as the following statement in the article indicates that this product is effective, the use of this specific reference is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NBrereton (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing notable about this article

As a professional herbalist, I see nothing notable about this. Whereas it may well be a useful combination of remedies for a large number of sufferers (and I have had IBS myself), most herbalists could come up with a prescription which was more effective for a specific individual after a consultation with them. This is just a combination with intellectual property rights imposed on it for some reason. Nineteenthly (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Counts Disagree

The article opens saying nine herbs but there are only eight in the list. FWIW. ;Bear (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

About this article

I removed the link to a website that sold it. They didn't invent it. They just decided to register a domain name which was the name of a popular drug, to get some sales that way. This medication has been out for decades, and is thus out of patent. There are ample news stories about it. Google news archive search [1] has 110 results to sort through, many of them in German. A government website list various test done on it. [2] This isn't a "fringe theory" in any possible way. Why is it tagged for that and why are people from that Wikiproject coming over here removing much of the content? I think an ingredient's list would be useful to understanding what it is. Dream Focus 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)