Talk:Ayahuasca/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Therapeutic use for severe headache disorders

I added a reference to a news article about a patient with SUNCT (an extremely painful headache disorder) who gained relief from using ayahuasca. The edit was reverted for being anecdotal and dangerous. While I agree that the reference is, by definition, anecdotal, it concerns an agonising disease without adequate medical treatments available, that can lead patients to commit suicide to escape the pain, and so the greater danger is arguably that patients are not aware of therapeutic options. The use of chemically related psychedelics to treat other TACs (trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias), especially cluster headaches, is widespread and established within patient communities, and has been documented in the scientific literature. The potential efficacy of ayahuasca for SUNCT is consistent with this accumulated experience. In this case I think it would be advisable to make mention of ayahuasca as a potential therapy for this condition. Jono'pono (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jono'pono, any medical information must comply with the WP:MEDRS guideline. A news article about a single patient does not meet that standard. Schazjmd (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal question

@Zefr:, I noticed you removed some text and a source which I readded for the time being here. You stated it was "lab research in suspicious journal." When I look at the journal I dont see anything wrong with it, but I am not an expert in this. I also see the same research at NIH, but maybe NIH is a mirror of this same other journal? I do see the research has other research that cites this, why would we think this is suspicious? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jtbobwaysf - there are several issues with that section on 'Neurogenesis'. First and foremost, all of the sources are lab studies far too preliminary to be used in an encyclopedia, WP:MEDINVITRO. Second, the author(s) of that section make a leap of interpretation from the test tube to 'neurogenesis' as an effect of using ayahuasca; this is WP:SYNTH at its worst. Third, the original source for the Dakic article here was an unreviewed preprint, as shown clearly in red at the top of the page. The article was subsequently reviewed and published, but this journal is not a WP:MEDRS source, which would review such preliminary literature into an acceptable MEDRS source. The early stage of this lab research, however, indicates it will be a decade plus of further evidence (i.e., clinical trial process) before such a review could be published. No company would finance such an investment for ayahuasca, so it will likely never occur.

The source you refer to as 'NIH' is PubMed, which is a database published by NIH, but all it does is list publications. It is not an endorsement by NIH for publications to be listed by PubMed.

I am reverting that section again for the above reasons and for other edits that need deletion as they are too speculative and not supported by MEDRS reviews. Zefr (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Things do get researched without commercial value, I think this one was done by a Brazilian university. Thank you for clarification. I would think the editor who added the content can re-add some of it in a more neutral way, research in itself is encyclopedic but maybe implying it to be medical (and thus requiring MEDRS) would be a WP:WIKIVOICE issue (stating medical benefits to humans in wikivoice). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)