Jump to content

Talk:Medicinal clay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

de-annotation

[edit]

Greetings,

In regard to this edit by User:Vsmith,

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Medicinal_clay&diff=294488886&oldid=294486426

is there any Wiki policy why it is wrong to annotate links in such circumstances?

I think these annotations were helpful, because most people never even heard about Diatomaceous earth and Zeolites being used as supplements. -- Dyuku (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit unusual (don't know 'bout policy). Why not work it into the article if relevant or perhaps link to a specific section in those articles discussing supplement use. Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sourcing

[edit]

We're still having issues with appropriate, encyclopedic sourcing. For one thing, an editor keeps inserting the claim that "heating clay destroys its medicinal properties". This claim is unsourced, but more concerning is the fact that is directly contradicted by another source added by the same editor. This article specifically describes some of the potentially beneficial elements of clay as "heat-stable". We should probably get our story straight. Finally, I'm a bit concerned about the large amount of weight being given to the journal Applied Clay Science; this appears to be a niche journal and we should probably not overstate its general significance. Overall, this article suffers substantially from a skewed and unbalanced perspective on the topic. MastCell Talk 03:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, an editor keeps inserting the claim that "heating clay destroys its medicinal properties".
No such claim was ever inserted. This is a misunderstanding by MastCell. The simple truth is that some medicinal clays are typically heat-treated or baked before use, while others are not. Dyuku (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Applied Clay Science is a "niche journal", according to MastCell, what would be the leading journal in this area then? In fact, this seems to be the leading journal in the area. Dyuku (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be listed with PubMed, so, even if it's the leading journal, anyone who lends it credence is placing weight on a dubious source. Since this is a medical subject, it needs to use sources that follow our MEDRS guideline, and this article is full of dubious or even false claims sourced to such dubious sources. This is a fringe article and needs to be pared down to the bare minimum. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is curious that Applied Clay Science isn't listed in PubMed, but it is really besides the point. In fact, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on the subject in all sorts of other journals and publications. For a taste of what's out there one can peruse Montmorillonite. Any of the relevant refs listed in Montmorillonite can be moved to Medicinal clay, and perhaps will be eventually. So nothing depends on Applied Clay Science. --Dyuku (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random comments on the article

[edit]

For an article that is only a month old it has an impressive number of references, thanks to User:Dyuku who has been doing a commendable job of pulling all this material together in a short time frame.

Thank you for for your comments, Vaughan. I appreciate your interest in this area.
The issues you raise are very interesting and thought provoking, so I'll be answering them over a period of time. Dyuku (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the article might seem skewed is an almost inevitable result of having a primary contributor who appears to be more of an enthusiastic and well-intentioned amateur than a professional researcher in the field; in that regard I second User:MastCell's concerns.

Well, I don't really agree that the article is skewed. I've made every effort to make the presentation as balanced as possible.
To begin with, who are the professional researchers in this field? There certainly are many such researchers. I've now compiled a bibliography of over 100 relevant publications in scientific journals, and there are hundreds more. But most of these people work in various narrowly specialized areas of medicine and biology, and deal with just one or two types of clay. The fact is that there's a wide fragmentation of studies in this area. Often the same type of clay goes under different names, so it would not surprise me that some individual researchers may not even know about the studies of the same or similar clays under different names. After quite a long time studying this area now, I'm still finding more highly relevant research tucked away under different rubrics.
Only very few scholars in the world are generalists in this area, it seems to me...
We should really ask this question, Why, at this late stage in the history of Wikipedia, no article under this name existed, until yours truly created one? So there's clearly a problem of some considerable fragmentation (not to say disorganisation) in this area of science. There are clearly problems with some basic nomenclature and definitions.
All I'm doing is trying to bring the relevant evidence together. And while I admit to being a relative amateur in the area (at least when I started about a year ago), I'm certainly not an amateur in academic research as such, having done scientific research for a long time previously in various fields.
Yes, I'm enthusiastic about science and scientific progress. I do believe that scientific progress is good, and should be promoted. But, on the other hand, I do see a certain amount of obscurantism among certain Wiki editors that have made themselves busy in this and related areas. These folks seem to think that if they don't know something, then it must be something wacky and 'disreputable'. This is not how an open-minded individual operates.
Witness, for example, the attempt here to condemn and dismiss a very respectable peer-reviewed journal Applied Clay Science. So now even peer-reviewed scientific journals are not good enough for these folks! I detect more than a little arrogance in these tactics... "If I've never heard about it, then it cannot be true! And damn the peer-review process." And, I say, nobody is bigger than science; real science cannot be stopped, and will win in the end.
This whole field of medicinal clay is not some sort of a flash-in-the-pan. This is a very ancient and respectable field. But it so happens in science that some things go out of fashion -- for whatever reason -- and then make a comeback... This is really not so unusual. The progress in science is not always linear, there are also some twists and turns sometimes... So this is what seems to be happening with clay. It's amazing how much new stuff is now being published, including in some cutting-edge fields as nanotechnology and tissue-reconstruction.
And with recent debates about health care reform in the US, this is certainly a subject that can help in controlling costs (seeing how inexpensive some of these therapies seem to be)...
I will continue with my replies later, as this is already growing too long. All the best. Dyuku (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One point that the article could be clearer on is whether clay should be viewed primarily as a prophylaxis to be used routinely to maintain health or as a treatment in the event of abnormal exposure to toxins.

Well, this is Wikipedia, so it's not really appropriate for me to say how clay should be used (otherwise, the usual suspects will delete what they call "promotion"). What we should be saying here is how the clay is (or was) used, with reliable sources.
To begin with, external use is extremely widespread, and I've never seen any counter-indications. So, IMHO go ahead and use it any way you wish externally.
As to internal use, here one needs to be more careful, as overuse can potentially cause some harm. Of course, I'm not a doctor, and cannot dispense any medical advice. It's best to consult some experienced practitioner in your area (health-food stores can be a good source of info). Also, there are all sorts of types of clay, so I don't know about them all.
In general, it is my impression that most specialists don't really know exactly how it works (they may do a lot of guessing), but it works. There are all sorts of potential factors to consider.
It is my belief that most of us are exposed to toxins, in any case, to greater or lesser extent; our modern civilisation is rather toxic... IMHO small quantities of clay can be taken as prophylaxis, but most people have tried clay because they had a specific medical condition, and needed relief. Dyuku (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more technical references in the article suggest the latter, assessing the efficacy of clay in preventing toxins like ammonia, aflatoxin, and chemicals found in seeds and wild potatoes from getting to the liver.

I don't think that this is really too relevant to us in the modern world (very few of us consume wild potatoes, for instance). OTOH we do consume a lot of toxins _unknowingly_, hence the need for chelation. Of course there are a great many natural chelators, for example dietary fiber (oatmeal!).
But a big benefit of clay IMHO is the huge amount of trace minerals that it contains. Who knows which ones of them (or which combination of them) play the biggest role in health maintenance for any specific individual, so this is where the big element of the unknown comes in. Dyuku (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such prevention is beneficial when the liver is being overwhelmed by toxins, but in normal operation the liver's job is to clean out the ordinary level of toxins encountered in the body, for example converting ammonia to urea (two ammonia molecules bonded with CO) which is then excreted in the urine. The role of clay there could (emphasis on "could") be considered some sort of "second liver" to be brought in for those situations where the body's natural liver has more than it can handle.

Well, in the main article it says that "the toxins are then eliminated … out of the body through the kidneys or bowel." Who knows, the liver may also play a role... Dyuku (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would then want to know what the clay did with these excess toxins, which the article does not address. Do the toxins merely accumulate in the clay until it is saturated, or is the clay excreted, and if the latter then at what rate?

The first question in this area we should ask is, How much of the clay actually penetrates the intestinal walls? Probably very little, if any...
The next question is, How much of the trace minerals in the clay are absorbed by the body? Clearly, some are absorbed, after being dissolved by the stomach acid -- but probably only a tiny portion of what the clay contains, and it contains massive amounts of them. My guess is that the body absorbs as much as it needs, and leaves the rest.
The last part of the reply later... Dyuku (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing excretion would presumably call for some sort of clay regimen with a daily dosage aimed at handling the excess on an ongoing basis. For example alcoholics at risk of fatal cirrhosis of the liver might mix clay in with their drinks (ugh!) to extend their life a little as a poor-man's alternative to proper treatment (rehab). If an alcoholic drinks x ounces of ethanol per day (2x ounces of 100-proof alcohol) and wishes to extend his or her unrehabilitated life by y years, what function f(x,y) gives the appropriate amount of clay to add to each ounce of ethanol?

I don't think it's possible to quantify such things so easily; there are too many factors at play. Every body is different, and has different requirements. But, speaking about alcoholics... here's an interesting website,

http://whitedirt.samsbiz.com/

"Down Home Georgia White Dirt"

The owner of this company, Charles N. Maddox, is cited in the following article that's quite interesting,

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/health&id=3497523

"Experts claim habit of eating dirt may be beneficial for some."

October 04, 2005

This is what he said: "The old drunks, they used to get drunk and put it [clay] in water and drink it, then go to work."
So the idea has been tried before! :) Dyuku (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little taste has been exercised in selecting the references. For example the claim that "The same type of clay use has been reported among the indigenous peoples in the Andes Mountains of South America. A type of a local wild potato contains bitter alkaloids, so the native peoples learned to cook these bitter potatoes with clay, which made them edible" is supported by a reference to an article in the "Highlights for Children" magazine (target audience 5 to 12 years old) which deals primarily with clay consumption by parrots but which includes a sidebar with a paragraph reading "High up in the Andes Mountains of South America, one of the few sources of food is a wild potato that also has bitter alkaloids. People who live there have learned to eat bitter potatoes by cooking them with clay."

Well, Vaughan, let me explain what was happening here. (By the way, the 'radical' info about the indigenous peoples in the Andes Mountains has already been deleted from the main article by the usual suspects.) This is actually a relatively minor matter. The reason I gave the citation to the educational website for kids is because it's an educational website. (What's wrong with science education, in any case?) You see, as soon as I'd give a citation to a mainstream clay info website, such as http://www.aboutclay.com/ , it would be immediately deleted. So I tried an educational website, but I guess it was still deleted...
The info itself (about the indigenous peoples in the Andes Mountains) is quite solid. But if you exclude the mainstream clay info websites as references, then it's becoming harder to find backing for something that is entirely uncontroversial -- it just takes more work, that's all... These are just the games we have to play here. Dyuku (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded interesting, so I repeated it to my wife in the expectation that she'd find it interesting too. Instead she said "Oh, we were taught that they washed the potatoes for a long time to get the bitterness out." Moral: whatever you do, don't marry a biologist with a graduate degree.  :)

I don't see why one thing should exclude the other. Washing the potatoes for a long time might also work! But, as I say, the info about the Indians in the Andes using clay is completely uncontroversial. I've already found solid academic refs for it, in any case. Dyuku (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh cat litter

None of the five images in the article seemed to bear out the medicinal qualities of clay. The first image on "clay being processed by manufacturer" exhibited clay of a quality obviously inferior to the cat litter pictured on the right:

Images 2, 3, and 5 would be more appropriate for a geological article like Bentonite. The medicinal content of the fourth image, "Playing with the clay is a lot of fun," is anyone's guess.

The images? I wonder, What sorts of images can "bear out the medicinal qualities of clay"? Why is a scanning electron microscope image of clay not relevant to its medicinal qualities? If someone has better images, all they have to do is put them in! Are no images better than some images?
As to cat litter, sure, it's a nice image. Keeping a pet clean and healthy is clearly a worthy goal, as I'm sure many people will agree...

The stomach-churning three-paragraph section on Buruli ulcer makes no mention of medicinal clay. Has clay been used to treat it? Which clays? How applied (externally or internally)? How effectively? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here, again, our friends like Vsmith have been deleting stuff, and "improving" article according to their own perception of things... If you go to my earlier version of the article, before the "improvers" moved in, all that stuff was explained, and a proper ref was given with more details.
It is my hope that more users will get involved in editing this article, because I don't relish the idea of trying to prove things to people who obviously have no knowledge or even interest in the subject, other than finding creative excuses for why useful stuff and refs should be deleted from it. It is quite obvious that some people here just don't like natural medicinals; anything that is not a patented pharma concoction costing $500 per pill must be automatically suspect... As to safety, quite obviously, thousands of years of use is not nearly as good as a couple of months' trial that is done and 100% controlled by the patent-holder itself. In the magical world of 'evidence-based medicine', conflict of interest just doesn't exist! "We're all squeaky clean here, and candidates for sainthood."
But, on the second thought, I'm really setting up a false paradigm here. The fact of the matter is that medicinal clay does have hundreds of peer-reviewed studies done on it already, and the results are good and strong. This particular medicinal is already fully in the arsenal of modern medicine. The problem is that, unaccountably, having already entered the hallowed halls of modern medicine, it is apparently still having some difficulties entering Wikipedia! :) What sorts of conclusions should we draw from this, I wonder? Dyuku (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscientific claims in this article

[edit]

Though I understand that much research indicates there is medicinal value in some clays, some passages of this article should be flagged as pseudoscientific. For example, under "Internal Uses," a claim on the ionizing effects of clay preventing toxins from being absorbed by the intestines is followed by a statement saying that toxins are then filtered out by the kidneys--even though, as another editor points out, the toxins supposedly were not absorbed into the bloodstream. I've never seen something so brazenly self-contradictory on Wikipedia, and don't know how to go about editing it. Any advice? J1.grammar natz (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bentonite as compared to Kaolinite in the treatment of Acne prone polluted oily skin is a dangerous concoction. Oily skin needs to be cleaned and acne blood clotted rather than blocked, to minimize infection as also Kaolinite responds better on oily skin, even if unpolluted, when mixed with Ayurveda treatment herbs which need to be absorbed, thus cleaning, clotting and treating. Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided

[edit]

The article is one-sided, reporting only the benefits and none of the potential hazards. Geophagia has been associated with iron deficiency, zinc deficiency, and lead exposure. I'll make revisions when I can but will list a few sources here for my (and your) reference. MartinezMD (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Settlement Gets Lead Out of Kaopectate
  2. Roselle H. Association of laundry starch and clay ingestion with anemia in New York City. Archives of Internal Medicine 1970. 125: 57
  3. Say B, Ozsoylu S, Berkel. Geophagia associated with iron-deficiency anemia, hepatosplenomegaly, hypogonadism and dwarfism. A syndrome probably associated with zinc deficiency. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1969. 8: 661-668
  4. Arcasoy A, Cavdar A O, Babacan E. Decreased iron and zinc absorption in Turkish children with iron deficiency and geophagia. Acta Haematol 1978. 6076–84.84.
  5. Adam I, Khamis A H, Elbashir M I. Prevalence and risk factors for anemia in pregnant women of eastern Sudan. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2005. 99739–743.743.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Medicinal clay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Medicinal clay. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References, notes etc. reworked. Suggestions

[edit]

I have separated the notes from the references. I have also formatted the references uniformly and provided links and details where available. There was a section "References" that were not referenced in any way inline. I moved those articles to "Further reading". Most of the external links were dead, the one that was an article I repaired the link and moved to "Further reading". This article needs some improvement in terms of medical references. I don't know if the content of "Further reading" is entirely appropriate. There is also a good deal of unreferenced content. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geophagia

[edit]

The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagia seems to have a more WP:MEDRS viewpoint of the subject at hand. It even mentions the eating disorder "pica" from the DSM. Perhaps that page should be kept and this page removed as a duplicate? 4Cancer (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there's certainly overlap of some of the material, I don't see that the majority is duplicated. It could be combined in some manner if you want to take more of a look. MartinezMD (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To ´See also´ this both: Silica. Schüßler Salz (salt).

[edit]

A suggestion: In (at least) health relation to ´See also´, I think.

(Sorry: The german ´Kieselerde´ translation is Silica. ´Silica´ at wikipedia redirects to ´Silicon dioxide´. Diatom alternativly german ´Kieselalge´ does also not lead to an english article, because of not existing, silicic (silicieous) alga (earth) as the article in german ´https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kieselerde´. Here therefor the english translation, please: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKieselerde)
This english article of ´Diatomaceous earth´ does not treat the micronutrients to use for body health.

The german article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schüßler-Salze, translation to english : http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSch%25C3%25BC%25C3%259Fler-Salze
--Visionhelp (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medicinal_clay&oldid=1195528482"