Talk:Emu oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I added the POV tag because the article appears to equate emu oil with "snake oil". The American Emu Association [1] has reliable information on the anti-inflamatory and moisturizing properties of emu oil as a TOPICAL treatment that are not mentioned in the article. Meditateforreal (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I would imaging the American Emu Association would not have reliable information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Despite the lengthy and numerous citations given, this really reads as a promotional exercise and needs some radical attention. Where to begin? --cjllw | TALK 07:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is overtly promotional. At least here what is being said is backed up by the research that has so far been carried out. My gripe is that this document was obviously written by an American and is relevant to American Emu Oil & American consumers. Could somebody add a guide to buying the original Australian Emu Oil?

Among other things, the article claims that lidocaine was not available as a spray, when in fact it has been for some years. It also states, possibly due to a typo, that emu oil is a food group. I'm no doctor, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2 April 2006

Indeed. It seems to be more "snake oil" than "emu oil", if you take my meaning...--cjllw | TALK 14:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems all very similar to the Crocodile Oil entry which has just as much cut-and-paste science - and which claims that Crocodile Oil is vastly superior to Emu Oil... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

According to, there are questions that need to be answered about the oil prior to purchase. One is "Has the oil been refined by use of degummers (to remove stickiness from the oil) or a corrosive base material such as sodium hydroxide used to remove phospholipids and other protein like substances which can cloud the oil? These steps are not desirable because the degummers also remove calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, chlorophyll, lecithin and other phospholipids which enable the oil to penetrate the skin." Why would anyone who receives radiation want to put something on their skin that contains metal?

second type?[edit]

Article says, "There are two different types of emu oil, with different origins. The first type is made by rendering down the fat of the emu."

What's the second type?

I can't figure it out:
Corn oil is made from from corn.
Motor oil is made from motors.
Body oil is made from bodies.
Baby oil is made babies.

How's the second type of emu oil made? DyslexicEditor 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh! Who knows, the entire article is dubious, plethora of supposed supporting research cited notwithstanding. It's as if someone in the marketing department of Emu oils-R-Us thought that it would be a good wheeze to treat wikipedia as free advertising space. The more egrarious promotional passages need deleting, if not the entire present content.--cjllw | TALK 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


The long text being added to the article by anons is a copyvio from several web sources. Feel free to revert it if it pops up again.--Peta 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

FDA Source Validity[edit]

Reference 4 from the FDA website has absolutely no sources for it's information. The FDA article is not in and of itself self-validating within an academic context. There are no mentions of studies proving or disproving anything mentioned within the article, no hard factual data, no professional analysis, and hence absolutely no validity to the FDA article as a reference and it definitely should not be an influence on the overall tone of the article.

An organization like the FDA is not actually an authority without proper source citations and hard scientific evidence to back it's claims. Please keep in mind that this organization routinely approves drugs that have harmful long term effects on humans such as Fen-phen, Vioxx, Bextra, and Cylert. If anything, given this organization's history it needs to be held to a MUCH HIGHER ACADEMIC STANDARD.

The short version: No proof, no validity. Especially not for an organization that has done so much to discredit itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is misleading entirely, at least in respect to emu oil. It's essentially a 3-point straw man logical fallacy. Nobody is saying that emu oil cured Alzheimer's disease, or that it "... eliminates skin cancer in days! ...". These are generalizations the FDA uses as examples of what fraudsters might say to lure desperate victims. Do a Google search for any of these terms and you will see what I mean. For instance the testimonial about Alzheimer's Disease is all over the place, verbatim, with only the treatment changed to whatever they are making an example of.

They quote these claims, but they are fictional. Nobody actually making these claims about emu oil. They are essentially making up a fraudulent claim someone *could* make about it, then refuting that claim. This doesn't discredit emu oil so much as it discredits the FDA and Paula Kurtzweil. I, for one, think this reference should be removed. Gnathon (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Here's a comment which was previously on the public description, although it should have been here in Discussion instead. I chose to move it here rather than delete it outright.

"Reference 4 in this article states the information was "retrieved" from the FDA site in 2009, however, the article itself was written many, many years ago. If you search the FDA archives you can determine the date of origin. Placing the year of 2009 in this article leads consumers to believe the FDA has written the article recently (2009), when in fact the article written in 2009 is referencing the original comments by the FDA."

It should be noted that article was not written at a known fixed time. It is a constantly evolving web document. The latest update was 2/25/2010. We're not likely to know the original date it was written by the FDA, but we do know the document continues referencing Emu oil throughout the continuing revisions (to date). Ergo, it's fresh/refreshed info and current.

In any event, this type of discussion does not belong in the article. It does belong on the Discussion page. -Anon 3/21/2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Reference 4 in this article states the information was "retrieved" from the FDA site in 2009, however, the article itself was written many, many years ago. If you search the FDA archives you can determine the date of origin. Placing the year of 2009 in this article leads consumers to believe the FDA has written the article recently (2009), when in fact the article written in 2009 is referencing the original comments by the FDA."
This comment was incorrectly restored to the article page and has been moved here - again. Please don't restore it to the article page, and read the information given above. Thanks. (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Authentic Sources[edit]

I just bought what I thought was "100% pure Emu Oil" and turns out it's cheap vitamin e oil. I just spent the day trying to find authentic sources of information about Emu Oil. Based on what I can find, the only authentic sources seem to be the American Emu Association, the FDA, and National Institute of Health. Outside those sources I found plenty of official-looking commercial websites with blatantly deceptive information on emu oil. Corwin8 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chapped lips + citation[edit]

Just wanted to make a note that I restored the sentence about chapped lips and dry skin, along with the source, as I feel that it is a pretty important use that is not covered in the article. I re-evaluated the source and cannot find it selling products anywhere, and it seems pretty authoritative. -download ׀ talk 22:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of the site as "pretty authoritative." It is promoting a product, even if it does not directly take money and send you the product. It is an ungrammatical, unprofessional blog filled with unsubstantiated voodoo claims about emu oil, including that it will "grow hair, heal arthritic joints, and replenish skin." If this is all that's needed to support a claim on Wikipedia, then anyone can support anything. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I invite others to view the site and weigh in: (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)