Talk:Kombucha: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 229:

::A supposition that benefits may exist based on promising laboratory studies from several sources certainly warrants inclusion under phrasing such as "preliminary studies suggest ... though these benefits have not been conclusively demonstrated in human trials" or similar. Human trials are always valuable, but the laboratory indications are also important, suitably caveated. This has been repeatedly pointed out above. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.115.171.174|87.115.171.174]] ([[User talk:87.115.171.174|talk]]) 18:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::{{replyto|87.115.171.174}} Yes, and we already say this: "Although laboratory experiments are suggestive of possible health effects, there is no evidence that kombucha consumption benefits human health." [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 05:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

::::Not the same thing. Laboratory studies constitute _preliminary_ evidence, not a lack of evidence. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.115.171.174|87.115.171.174]] ([[User talk:87.115.171.174|talk]]) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::The second study doesn't seem to meet [[WP:MEDRS]] standards. [[Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie|LWT]] may be reputable, but the study is a primary source. Wikipedia articles generally do not include [[WP:PRIMARY]] studies, especially not for medical content, and should never use such material to make generalized health claims, even obliquely. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 20:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

::::Greyfell, please explain why you think the second study "doesn't seem to meet" MEDRS standards, and then explain why you think the "death" claims do. Are you saying what was stated in a book written by a chemist at a Texas university is more reliable than a report by 4 MDs, a PharmaD plus a Journal Review which cites that same report? Perhaps I've overlooked something. --<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font>^{[[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]} 20:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)