Talk:Aloe vera

Doctor's advice vs Aloe Vera

I suffered for some weeks with a skin disorder causing unusual lesions, and then my hands were splashed with a particularly corrosive chemical. A friend, a surgeon current in the field, immediately brought me the latest ointment for treatment. It did very little for either condition. Having an aloe vera plant at home, and having used it for sunburns, and to increasing the healing and lack of scaring in wounds, I at switched to what I knew a few hours later. Within a few minutes the symptoms from both problems started to go away. After applying daily for three weeks, it's almost as if neither condition was ever there.

I realize that one person's experience is not a clinical trial, but I am not one of those people who follows fads and tries out alternative medicine. It's peculiar that studies can't find a medical use for aloe vera, when I can see with my own eyes that it works in minutes, when the medicine prescribed by the surgeon did not.

There's absolutely something missing, here. Could it be that aloe vera is cheap, legal, readily available, easy-to-apply and non-toxic? And that's not what vested interests want to hear about? 76.102.1.193 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the article topic. They are a place to discuss improvements to the article. --Srleffler (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You're as perceptive as a rock. Perhaps the person doesn't know how to edit the page, feels he isn't qualified or just feels he can't or doesn't want to take the time to correct the gross misrepresentation only to come back and find that some self-serving medical shill has reverted the page. He was trying to communicate that the article SUCKS (it most certainly DOES) and needs to be scrapped and all you can say is this isn't the place? Let me suggest that you ask someone to help you understand when someone communicates that a Wikipedia page is misleading and misrepresentative of the facts as this page so clearly is. 76.6.93.255 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the basis of repeating what reliable sources say. If there is good evidence in reliable sources that aloe vera has medical benefits, then of course it should be explained here. It's not a question of anyone being "self-serving", simply a matter of following Wikipedia's policies, e.g. as explained at WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that my own experience with Aloe vera shows powerful healing results. I also agree that my experience should be verified by science. Is it that none of the writers here has taken time to look at research findings? One thing I see (having scanned the given references) is that there is a big difference between the gel of Aloe vera and the protective rind. Studies that fail to differentiate would surely have skewed results. It would be like saying oranges aren't good for you because they are tainted with pesticides and are difficult to digest. How to improve this article? Find studies that focus on the raw gel only, not the entire plant. Don (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Don.. thanks for commenting. On the one hand, your post is very reasonable. On the other hand, what you seem to be saying is "based on my experience, there must be scientific evidence showing that it is effective." I hope you can see that this is faulty reasoning is not reasonable. The reason that scientists do experiments is to learn - they don't know the outcome ahead of time - and clinical trials are truly experiments; we do not know how they are going to turn out. Generally in order for a clinical trial to happen at all, there must be some scraps of data that say that treatment X might truly be useful to treat condition Y (it takes a lot of work and a lot of money to do a clinical trial, and no one would invest either, if there were not promising preliminary data). But as I said, clinical trials are actual experiments - no one knows how they will turn out. And many, many clinical trials show that X doesn't work to treat Y, and many show that X actually does more harm than good. And this is what has happened with clinical trials of aloe vera - it doesn't seem to have much effect. So how do you interpret it, when we have reports that sometimes when X is used, condition Y goes away, but that when X is tested on lots of people with condition Y, we don't see any significant effect? The options are: a) there is some subset of people with condition Y, that respond to X, but most people do not respond; b) in the cases where X seemed to treat Y, there was really something else going on (e.g. placebo (which is a powerful thing and not to be dismissed!), or maybe in those instances, Y actually ran its natural course and X did nothing).

Thank you, Jytdog. As you rightly point out, I am not a scientist. In my own reasoning, I try to maintain the attitude of a philosopher -- one seeking truth for the love of the pursuit. If I put my hand in a fire and receive a burn, I can understandably propose the hypothesis that fire burns. Perhaps a scientist experiments, but by applying a flame to a rock, and discovers fire does not burn. My experience remains valid. The scientist should have used her hand, not a rock. If I apply Aloe vera gel to the burn (and this happened to me) and discover the wound heals rapidly and the skin is restored to health, I theorize the Aloe was a healing agent. If my experience is repeated with other wounds, and I find many others who have discovered the same phenomenon, I might rightly expect science would back what is obviously (in my experience and in hearsay evidence) true. When I read, in this article, that Aloe is a sham ... I don't wonder how I could have been so wrong. My son applied Aloe to a burn last week and received rapid healing. Rather, I wonder why the discrepancy exists. I don't believe science is all that open-minded. After all, in order to establish a hypothesis, one must think something about what has been observed. Science is not mindless. I will carve out some time to look at the research. To hear that Aloe is of no value (and can even be dangerous) is a great surprise to me. Don (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

With something like burning a piece of paper in a fire, the evidence is very very clear. However human biology is super complex; we don't understand it very well and most importantly, the tools we have to understand it are still pretty crude (we have nothing like the Star Trek tricorder - literally nothing). It is really hard to draw cause and effect conclusions from one or two observations; the uncertainty and variability means you need a lot of individual subjects to draw any conclusions. Same wisdom behind "you can't read a book by its cover", with regard to meeting people the first time. The studies that have been done of aloe vera, as well as reviews of those studies, have shown it has no real effect. Please do read the studies yourself! A lot of folk medicine turns out to be nothing. With the advent of modern, science based medicine, traditional home remedies have for the most part fallen by the wayside, because we have stuff that works. Not for everything, and little that works perfectly and perfectly safely, but we are a heck of a lot better off today.Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. Philosophers are just as concerned about reality as are scientists. You help me realize it is entirely possible that my experience with Aloe vera says more about me and my expectations than it does about the efficacy of Aloe gel. Moreover, I'm a writer and I've written a bunch of stuff in favor of alternative medicine and natural foods. If you're right, and "traditional home remedies have for the most part fallen by the wayside" (ostensibly because modern methods are vastly superior), then I've not only been an idiot -- I've promoted idiocy ... something that would bring any self-respecting philosopher (lover of wisdom) to tears and repentance. And I'm willing to do that, my new-found friend, if my search of legitimate research results fails to show any scientific support for the medicinal use of Aloe vera. What I really want to know, though, is this: IF I find valid research that would move the tone of this article from "Aloe is a sham" to "There is evidence on both sides," are you going to quash it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssetd (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I appreciate it. However, please do read WP:MEDRS, which sets the bar for what counts as evidence (in Wikipedia-speak, a reliable source) for health-related information and for the way that evidence may be deployed - our epistemological method. Not just any article may be used, not even single clinical study, and indeed not even any old review of clinical studies, but rather critical reviews of clinical studies are the gold standard. If those exist, those are the gold standard, and we base content on them; no other source can be used to introduce contradictory content. That is how we roll here. We try to express the scientific consensus, as well as we can. If you can bring that kind of source and it says "aloe vera works" I will of course welcome it. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ssetd: an advocacy article, which you say you have written, is importantly different from a Wikipedia article. Readers don't expect advocacy here; they expect neutral expositions based on high quality sources. (As a side-issue: have you promoted idiocy? Not necessarily. Provided that aloe vera does no harm, and given that most minor conditions are self-limiting, the placebo effect of your persuasive advocacy may well have led to some benefit.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

Removed from Article as neither especially substantive nor of sufficiently novel general interest. --Zefr (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bozzi, A; Perrin, C; Austin, S; Arce, Vera F (23 May 2006), "Quality and authenticity of commercial aloe vera gel powders" (PDF), Food Chemistry, 103 (1): 22–30, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.05.061, retrieved 5 March 2013
• Maenthaisong, Ratree; Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn; Niruntraporn, Surachet (September 2007), "The efficacy of aloe vera used for burn wound healing: A systematic review" (PDF), Burns, 33 (6): 713–718, doi:10.1016/j.burns.2006.10.384, retrieved 5 March 2013
• Reynolds, T; Dweck, A.C (1999), "Aloe vera leaf gel: a review update" (PDF), Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 68: 3–37, PMID 10624859, retrieved 2 February 2013

This is a CRAP(!) article written by a medical shill. It's dishonest, deceitful and deliberately misleading. This article is just one of many examples of what is wrong with Wikipedia. "CRAP" was *not* an exaggeration. This article is GARBAGE.76.6.93.255 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange POV in Uses

The Uses section seems be saying that Aloe vera isn't proven to have an effect, while brushing what it says about it currently being a component in a lot by major brands for sunscreen and soap. Maybe have something that says why the they continue to use it in products? Maybe I'm biased since I've used it a few times for sunburns before and it really seemed to work (Which I know doesn't count) but the article seems to be trying to Prove the case for something rather than Explain it. Aloe vera is used in main brands, but the article is ignoring that and building up an argument that it is alternative medicine. Ikmxx (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very clear and very firm policies about adding any statements which make any kind of medical claim. They have to satisfy WP:MEDRS. If you know of sources which meet these requirements and which say that aloe vera extracts work for sunburn, then by all means add them. But just because it's used in many major brands doesn't mean that there is evidence that it actually works to the satisfaction of WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider is a POV violation, but I noticed the Uses section notes its use in tissues/soaps/etc. for its soothing/moisturizing effect, but the article does not discuss whether medical research has found it to have any such effects. I added a bit, but this use should be expanded. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's ok to describe its use in such products, but the article shouldn't claim effectiveness in this regard unless there is evidence which meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS, which include not using single primary studies to support medical claims. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The addition I made to the article was removed by a user; however, I feel it falls within the MEDRS guideline as described in the Respect secondary sources section where the guideline describes citing primary sources. Additionally, the definitions section states, "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." I believe my addition was in line with this recommendation as well. By respecting the guideline, the addition was not used to support a medical claim but only to support to the conclusions of the one study using quotes from that study. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The following claim is sourced only to a blanket cite to an "Aloe" article at WebMD.com: "Nonetheless, its power in aiding with the regulation of bowels, epilepsy, depression, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and a host of other ailments remains beneficial to humans." I think this needs a more reliable source! Tbanderson (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Content added "overturning" NTP study based on 2013 study

In this series of edits, User:Researchtruthfact edited the article to introduce content based on a 2013 primary source, here. The changed material was based on a top-shelf secondary source on toxicology -- a review by the National Toxicology Program, here.

I reverted the changes in this dif because, under the WP:MEDRS guideline, and under the policy about sourcing, WP:PSTS, this is out of bounds -- content based on 2ndary sources, especially one as authoritative as an NTP review, cannot be overturned by a single set of experiments published - a primary source.

Additionally, the content that was added based on the 2013 was WP:OR. Happy to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Salicylic acid

How much Salicylic acid? How much of many other constituents? Please improve article! -71.174.188.43 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it a type of cactus?

I don't have a doctorate in botany, I'm just an average person looking at what purports to be an encyclopedia article, and I can't tell from reading this whether aloe is a type of cactus or not. It's not a proper encyclopedia article.