Talk:Garlic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

General Identification

Wouldn't it be useful to tell the most-used proporties of this item in first instance rather that using scientific babble that 99% of the planet don't understand in stating what garlic is?

i.e.: Garlic is a vegetable eatable ingredient used mainly in [...], great etc etc... then writing the deep science stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdesroches (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Garlic Medicine

I was reading through the article's section about the medicinal uses and health benefits of garlic and looked up a few of the sources about the NIH-funded trials dealing with garlic's ability to lower cholesterol. I don't doubt the study has it's benefits and adds to our understanding dealing with garlic and cholesterol, but I noticed a few problems with this part of the article. To start, in the article, the quote is attributed to being found at "heart.org," which will take one to the American Heart Association, however, the article is actually found at "theheart.org," which is part of the Web MD site. Second, the quote in the article is not really needed. After reading the study, it seems to just be one in many with differing results. Even within the study, the researcher (Gardner) mentions that the study was specifically for cholesterol and had nothing to do with other possible cardiovascular benefits of garlic such as lowering blood pressure, improving circulation etc.

It seems that these few paragraphs should be rewritten to reflect other possible benefits of garlic rather than a primary focus on just cholesterol. No other quotes are included for the other studies mentioned reflecting studies that have found garlic to be useful in lowing cholesterol levels, lowing blood pressure, etc. I think that rather than quoting the study, possibly just mentioning the study and findings would fit more in line with the tone of the rest of the section.

I would be more than happy to begin the changes, but it would be nice to get some input first. Redrok84 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see some constructive input here! If you've got the time and inclination, go ahead. I'm sure that there are more than a couple of misrepresented sources here. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Picking up on your good thread here, there has been a flush of new scientific garlic research published in the end of '08, and I would like to help here too. Brooklynyte (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pliny and Horace

There's too much Pliny and Horace in here, and too little information (that Horace disliked garlic isn't terribly important, for example). I suspect some transcription or scanning errors, as well. In particular, what is "Theophrastus, Characters, l~.eunbcuuoviac"?

Theophrastus was a Greek writer... "Characters" seems to be the title of one of his works, in which he describes such use of garlic. "l~.eunbcuuoviac" appears to be a mis-OCR'd Greek word. (Yes, I know, I'm helpful.) A google search for theophrastus and garlic turns up a number of hits mentioning that Theophrastus once mentioned garlic in this context, which have a nasty tendency not to turn up a Greek word that looks enough like the OCR'd garbage for me to feel confident about it (especially since I don't know Greek). Does anyone have a dead-tree 90-year old Britannica lying around to check? Brion VIBBER

I´m Greek. I don´t know what Theofrastus may have written about garlic but my contribution to this page is this: what is mentioned above means nothing in Gree(not even transliterated to latin characters). Garlik in Greek is called skordo (σκόρδο). And it is used quite allot in Greece..IT is delicious although you wouldn^t want to go looking for a date after eating tzatziki. (the world known Greek appetizer consisting of yogurt, cucumber and garlic...)yummie..

Apparently the mis-ocr'd word is Δεισιδαιμονίας or The Superstitious Man, but it really doesn't seem to say what the article says it does. It does mention garlic, Hecate and crossroads. (I hope my cut and paste works in other browsers) -- WormRunner | Talk 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Has lately

The 1911 encyclopedia has exactly the sort of "has lately" problem we're trying to avoid here, made worse by its lately being 90-100 years ago. More rewriting to follow. Vicki Rosenzweig

Safety

I miss information regarding wether garlic is posinous in any form. I was eating food with garlic sqeezed from garlic with little green "shots" on them. I was thinking if those might be dangerous to eat so I thought I would find out on wikipedia, but could not find that info.

The shoots are certainly to eat, and are sometimes used as a vegetable in their own right. More generally, I have several books that confidently claim that no Allium is poisonous in any part. — Pekinensis 02:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Raw garlic if eaten in quantity I hear can be dangerous to eat. andham2000

It can be. When consumed in large amounts, the benefits and risks should be weighed just like any other medications. I have added several common as well as rare (but serious) side effects to the article. They include gastrointestinal upset, sweating, odor, dizziness, bleeding, menstrual irregularities, etc. 18:20, 20 Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.150.255 (talk)

Medicinal effects

Other medicinal effects are being debated but I think that garlic has been shown to reduce arteriosclerosis. See: http://www.kroger.com/hn/Herb/Garlic.htm (numerous references) and "The antiatherosclerotic effect of Allium sativum." Atherosclerosis. 2000 Jun;150(2):437-8. Dwheaton

I'm not sure this article is entirely correct-- the medicinal effects of allicin, garlic's active ingredient, have been proven in a large number of studies.

See this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15910499&query_hl=8 and then do a search for "allicin" and you will find MANY more. I'm too lazy to dig through it all and correct this article, but maybe someone's that bored.

I came to Wiki to look up the nutritional benefits of garlic but could not find what I was looking for. Through what I've heard, garlic is high in vitamn C and is good to take as a means to ward off colds? (I realise the cold bit is likely somewhat of a wives tale) I think that it would be good to have more about the specific benefits and vitamin content of garlic and other foods on Wiki. I notice that there is a "components of garlic" side bar to the article but is this in order of quantity and what are the potency comparisons with other vegetables that contain similar vitamins/nutrients?

Garlic may also lower blood pressure (2-7 percent) and reduce blood clotting. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050701/103.html

I removed the citation regarding the need to "allow crushed or chopped garlic to rest for 15 minutes before use to allow enzyme reactions to occur" as the reference cited was actually a blog; the blog cited no references. 125.60.241.70 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Changing the wording from

Some to Considerable for scientific research indicates,

Surely this is justified, given there are over 205 research papers on the various properties of Garlic, like Allacin or Kyolic. Although, my original wording of Overwhelming evidence was a bit much, I mean Garlic research isn't rocket science is it?

lars 10:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence

I think that anecdotal evidence for it's antibiotic properties should be admissible, as long as it's properly labelled as anecdotal evidence, i.e., there is anecdotal evidence from the medieval age of garlic used as a prophylactic against the plague, after all, that's what it is, an anecdote.

lars 10:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the current toned down wording without the tripod homepage link is much better. Lars, please read up on the NPOV policy. Please do not return the article to your POV. 205 is not all that "considerable" unless you have a highly regarded scientific paper that would give support to that type of language. - Taxman ^Talk 05:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, enthusiasm got the better of me. - lars 02:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Its antibiotic properties are more than anectdotal. Since use of man-made antibiotics in cattle feed has been banned in the EU since January 1999, farmers are now using freeze-dried garlic preparations as a replacement. For starters, see www.mercola.com/2001/mar/17/garlic_infections.htm and [1]. Farming is a for-profit business, and farmers wouldn't waste money on something that doesn't work to keep their livestock alive and healthy. --Quicksilver^{T @} 08:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's still anecdotal. The anecdote is, 'Farmers use it and swear it works.' Without a scientific method everything is a series of anecdotes. Note that this doesn't automatically make such knowledge worthless. Just ... anecdotal.--76.10.146.184 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreower, native phytoncides of darlic use in Russia, Ukraine etc. folkmedicine for treatment of maturate wound and some infectional disease. In little dose it has antibiotic effect and is the middle stimulatory factor, and sometimes use in scientific medicine (phytotherapy) too. Look also material of "Comission E" Alexandrov 12:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of issues in this article as to the effectiveness of garlic. First of all, it is pretty well understood that there are multiple active ingredients, allicin being one of them. Furthermore, much of the clinical studies to prove the medical effects of garlic had critical design flaws or failed to find a significant improvement versus placebo. Also, some of the sources, particularly medical trials, are interpreted incorrectly in the article. Just because a study finds a difference in a given parameter, doesn't mean that difference is significant. These errors should be corrected. 18:25, 20 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.150.255 (talk)

Components

The components list is dreadfully long and adds little detail to the article — should we remove it or replace it with a shorter version? —Hollow Wilerding 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I don't agree AT ALL. If all stated components are truly present, in other words, the list is correct, I find the argument "it is too long" rather insufficient, to say the least. I rather see it expanded in case some substance is not mentioned yet. JohJak2 22:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if we want to nominate this article for featured status, a long list cannot take up the middle of the article. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tabular tratment, floating as a sidebar, as in Saffron would probably do the trick. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Case settled. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of garlic

Does the following sentence qualify as encyclopedic? I mean, I am aware that it is encyclopedic, but without a reference, I don't believe that it should be placed within the article. For the time being, I have moved it here:

The word 'garlic' derives from Old English gārlēac, meaning "spear leek", from its resemblance to the leek.

—Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=garlic confirms the etymolgy, just with a different spelling. McGee p. 311 also basically confirms it: Anglo-Saxon word meaning "spear-leek". The two sources disagree on what the "spear" refers to: McGee says it's the "slim, pointed leaf blade", and etymonline says its the clove. Intuition tells me McGee is closer to the truth (have you ever seen fresh garlic shoots? They look quite spearike, unlike a clove) but I don't have a definitive source to decide between the two. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Risk overstated?

"Garlic must not be stored in oil at room temperature. Because of the low acidity of the garlic and the lack of oxygen in the oil, it is a perfect breeding ground for bacteria and, if eaten, will almost certainly lead to severe food poisoning, botulism, and death if not immediately treated."

I certainly do not want to give incorrect medical information, especially involving possible risk of death from a food easily prepared at home, but I think that this is overstated.

If garlic stored in oil is contaminated with botulism, then there is a serious risk of fatal food poisoning, however people eat garlic stored in oil every day with no ill effects. Therefore I think that to say "if eaten, will almost certainly lead to severe food poisoning, botulism, and death" is mis-stating this. -- 200.141.108.170 20:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree and have modified the statement accordingly. -- WormRunner 07:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

99.155.153.29 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) This is just plain awful. Condense this article. Combine comments that are describing the same facet. Garlic in oil not refrigerated bad, etc. Cats & dogs can be poisoned? Read this discussion page for heavens sake & you will notice it is as long as the article. Whole thing needs to be redone.

Harmful for eyesight?

It is common Chinese folk lore that eating too much garlic for a long time is harmful for your eyesight. That is the only drawback of eating garlic? Is it true?

What is a "long" time? Eyesight tends to deteriorate with age, anyway. So, if a person ends up with cataracts at age 85, was that because of the garlic, or simply natural aging processes? --Quicksilver^{T @} 00:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's good thinking. And who in China (or just about anywhere else in the world) doesn't regularly eat garlic? 151.190.254.108 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought but cutting onions and garlic make my eyes burn. Is this really harmful? Over time? For garlic cooks at restaurants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.68.85 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the cutting of the stuff, it's letting it get into your eyes (it's an irritant). While there is some degree of evaporation, the true issue is with microscopic spray and juice carried by hand to the face, such as in swiping sweat, adjusting glasses, etc. Careful dicing of even vast amounts of onions or garlic will cause no irritation whatsoever, even in a poorly ventilated area. Just keep it out of your face! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.237.44 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulb vs clove

I removed a contradictory phrase. The article said These bulbs, called "cloves" by cooks, are the part of the plant most commonly eaten, .... ... A common error of beginning cooks is to misinterpret the word "clove" as meaning the entire garlic head (naturally occurring cluster of cloves, depending on the species) rather than one of its segments... PrometheusX303 15:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Single-bulb garlic

Single-bulb garlic. Why didn't they think of this before now?

I bought some at the supermarket today. I have never seen this before (it came from China) but am far from an expert on the subject of garlic. However, its existence means that some of the phrasing in the article ("A head of garlic is composed of a dozen or more discrete cloves" etc.) might need to be changed. I'm certainly curious.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 16:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Some garlic plants, especially the smaller cloves, will fail to divide and will produce a large, single clove. The following year, they will divide. However, your description leaves open the possibility that this is a different species. What, exactly were they called and where are you? -- WormRunner 18:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Berlin. The label simply said "Single-bulb garlic" in several languages, indicating that it was grown in China. They are a little under half the size of a typical multi-clove garlic, and look much the same, except they are unsegmented. Peel it, and it's a single round clove, which tastes and looks exactly the same as normal garlic. I can take a picture or two if you want.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen heaps of these lately in our supermarket, too. I thought they were bred for convenience, but maybe they're just young, like Wormrunner says. I'll try to find out more about it, if you'd like. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 12:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

More information would be great, pictures also. -- WormRunner 00:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I aim to please. Take a look at the picture. I'm afraid I can't supply any more details other than that it exists, it comes from China (in this case), and that I bought it in a Berlin supermarket. It has one round piece of garlic inside, althou some bulbs have slight ridges on the outside, where the cloves might be on a normal garlic plant.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is nice that the supermarket added the latin name "Allium ampeloprasum". It is elephant garlic, to which I will add your image. Han-Kwang 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So they did, dunno how I missed that! Well, thanks for clearing that up. Different species or not, it tastes exactly the same as "real" garlic.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Elephant garlic forms these single bulbs quite commonly. -- WormRunner 22:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another mystery solved! ;) 129.96.142.18 09:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Garlic and baby aspirin

This was added today about long-term effects of garlic: That said, do not combine daily garlic supplements with the daily use of a baby aspirin as this will increase bleeding risk.

I think this isn't the right tone for an encyclopedia (direct advice to the reader) and a reference should be provided anyway. I'm removing it for now. Han-Kwang 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Culinary Uses

I am little disappointed in the Culinary Uses section. It talks more about digestive processes than about food. I have added a reference to two garlic (and parslsy) related items. Prior to this, the section had no links to any specific dishes and very little about culinary traditions. I would like to contribute in this area. But clearly a lot of work has been done on this page and I don't want to barge in. Obviously just a long list of Garlic dishes would be inappropriate. But I think some more detail would be a good thing. Any thoughts? Jdclevenger 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Blanking of Section

I'd like to suggest that this be discussed, and not be blanked again until we have a consensus on the issue. Pursey 14:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please try discussing why you wish to remove that section on its Talk Page before you remove it. Pursey 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As a person whose ancestors come from southern Europe, I find it offensive to say that certain cultures have more "tolerance" for the smell of garlic and that northern Europeans are the only ones that thoroughly cook garlic before eating it. I don't see why I have to discuss cultural insentivities before deleting them.

Because, you are the only one who has taken offence so far. ie. The only one to bring it up. And yours is not a Neutral Point of View. I have also reverted your edit to Cumin for the same reason; you've blanked a section without discussion. Pursey 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Your continued blanking to sections of Garlic

Please stop. If you continue to blank sections of articles without discussion on the talk page, I will refer the issue to an Administrator. Pursey 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a talk page discussion on your behalf. Please do not blank the section until a consensus is reached. Pursey 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my view is not neutral. If I read an article about fried chicken and it said that it was typically eaten by black people, and I was African American, would it be appropriate for me to find offense?

The original entry was biased to begin with, and if you fail to see that, then you are not approaching it from a culturally sensitive viewpoint. I edited cumin for this reason as well. To say that these have particular smells is borderline racist. People think to themselves, oh, that's why Lebanese smell bad because they eat garlic. Or Indians smell like curry because of cumin.

There are Asian cultures that believe when adults consume dairy products, their bodies emit a particular odor. But you do not find this in the entry for milk or dairy. Although this is written in English, I assume that Wikipedia aims to publish articles from a global viewpoint, rather than a northwestern European one.

I do understand your point of view, but please discuss it on the talk page, and see how it goes :) Your particpation is certainly welcomed, but there is a process for these things. Pursey 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe a discussion is necessary and to fight with me on it is to overly compulsive about folowing the process. Wikipedia also follows the principle of good faith, whereas when someone makes an edit, it is with the idea of improving an article to make it more factual and not opinionated, which happens even when sourced. I assume you are familiar with the policy of good faith, and therefore will allow these deletions.

I have also deleted it for the reason of its geographic bias, an important policy of Wikipedia. I will therefore also delete a sentence about the spice cumin to continue with this policy that prevents discrimination and bias.

---

First of all, to everyone, please sign all your comments with four tildes (~), this will make it easier to follow the conversation. Second, please take note of WP:3RR. As an admin, I can block users that violate the rule. Abossone, in general, it's better to discuss controversial edits rather than repeatedly reverting to different versions and threatening to continue to do so. To address the question at hand, I happen to agree with Abossone (talk · contribs) about the statement in question. It does not appear to serve any encyclopedic purpose, and doesn't have any kind of verification. (I don't think it's racist however.) My preference would be to see it stay removed. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm more than happy for this content to stay removed. My primary concern was with blanking without discussion. Pursey 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Abossone] 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)You are certainly entitled to your opinion on what is racist and what is not, but not only did this edit reflect me being a culturally sensitive person, but it also falls in line with Wikipedia standards that are outlined below, with specific reference to geographic biases. Maybe you are not familiar with the racism that pervades certain countries pertaining to North/South geographic locations, but that is through no myopic fault of your own. However, I do not believe that I should have to take the time to explain all of this or to wait for a discussion thread to resolve it. This is why I deleted it, rather than tried to rewrite the entire section and cause even more concern from compulsive wikipolice. Here are a couple citations below that would serve you well to read and understand the purpose of Wikipedia as a global initiative.

"The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian. Each editor contributes to articles based on his or her interests and knowledge. This is obviously not objectionable but, multiplied across the entire body of editors, results in unbalanced coverage of topics in a global context.

Once identified, the bias is apparent throughout Wikipedia. It may be found in two major forms: lack of articles on a neglected topic and perspective bias (most notably geographic) within articles on universal subjects."

"Be more conscious of your own biases in the course of normal editing. Look at the articles you work on usually and think about whether they are written from an international perspective. If not, you might be able to learn a lot about a subject you thought you knew by adding content with a different perspective."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSB

I'm happy to concede the point and for the content to remain out. Pursey 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Hi; Please review the three-revert rule. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Repeatedly undoing others' work is not useful. Use the talk page to discuss what you want to do, and see if there is a consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 15:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Abossone 17:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)The revert rule should apply to the person who reverted back to the original state after I made a deletion. The appropriate thing for that person to do would have been to start a discussion to revert it back, rather than put the impetus on the person making a deletion. So yes, I agree, undoing others' work is not useful.

Garlic and vegans

There's a debate raging among vegans as to wether garlic may be eaten. It seems it has some kind of sensory systems. Could somebody find some info about this, if only to refute it? David McCabe 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof for this lies with the person that makes the claim, it is not up to others to disprove it. I've never heard this claimed or spoken to any vegans who have mentioned this either. Muleattack (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally was vegan for 7 years, and i've never heard of this. It's a plant, end of story. If you can show a link to this 'debate', I may well read it, but I would still be extremely reluctant to even consider mentioning this concept in the article. 85.189.142.213 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Culinary remarks under different section

It seems incorrect that the description of garlic in the 'Biology' section suddenly refers to pickled garlic in Russia, then to confusion by novice chefs over how much garlic to use. Unless there are objections I will move these comments farther down.--Bridgecross 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wild Garlic?

The page on Wild Garlic claims that Allium sativum is often termed "Wild Garlic" when it is found growing in a naturalised or feral state. This article about Allium staivum claims that the variety does not grow in the wild, implying that it cannot grow in a nno-cultivated situation. Could someone please correct this contradiction?

I would like to point out that sativum means cultivated. That being said, some old cultivated plants, like garlic, have escaped man's confines and become wild.Phlatulator (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits of "Medicinal Use" Section

We have a slight problem here. My edits are being reverted -- at this point, for no reason whatever, that I can see. I've eliminated the "self-referential" parts (references to wiki editor behavior in the article, that I had originally written, and that were the subject of complaint). I've added citations to high-reliability medical literature, and new facts, that were not in the original. Alan2012 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeking third party mediation on this issue. Hold tight. --Ronz 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why a third party is necessary. Alan2012 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alan left me a message on my talk page indicating that he'd like to have my input on the issue, so I'm replying here. I reverted him once, after no prior involvement with the page, when I came here to look at the article and noticed a passage starting with the phrase "Inexplicably, this trial was referred to by one Wikipedia editor as 'definitive'", something that's obviously not acceptable in the article. I went back and found the change where it had been inserted (here), noted the presence of a fairly high number of weasel words and one large (and probably unsupportable) passage speculating on the motives of TheHeart.org, and reverted it. I also clipped the word "definitive" from an earlier edit, since I thought that Alan had a potentially reasonable objection there, even though it should've been expressed on the talk page and not in the article itself. I then left a message for Alan indicating that I'd reverted him (here) due to unencyclopedic tone and self-references to Wikipedia, but that I was confident that some of the material could be safely re-inserted if worded in more acceptable language. That's about where I am at this point. I'm not an authority on garlic, and from what I can tell, the research into the supposed benefits has been ambiguous, with some studies indicating that it helps and others indicating that it doesn't. I don't see any reason why this can't be worked out, if people are willing to be calm and work through the issues one at a time. Mediation might not be a bad idea. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, HB. Good overall review of what came down. As for the speculation about the motives of TheHeart.Org: that was an attempt to save the reference to TheHeart.Org's clearly biassed editorial comment, which was in the original content. The alternative to removing it was to point up the bias -- the POV problem -- and explain that their remark was not based on a careful (or even any) literature review. For my money, the whole passage ought to be removed. It is merely an editorial comment, anyway, not any source of original data, and it happens to be an ignorant editorial comment (which is easily evident if you will simply glance over the AHRQ report). I think I might just go ahead and axe it, since it is just a bunch of useless baggage at this point. As for the research on garlic being (somewhat) "ambiguous": true enough, like with most medicinal agents. There are a plethora of papers, wide-ranging in quality, and diverse in outcomes (though mostly positive). Much of this is due to the heterogenous and often poor nature of the specific preparations used -- a typical problem with crude botanicals. Please read the AHRQ report, or the executive summary thereof, to get some insight. Just click on the link. Last, I am more than willing to work through the issues one at a time; I am eager to work through the specific issues one at a time. But at this point I don't know what the specific issues are. Alan2012 14:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hit bull, mediation is the next step given the situation. --Ronz 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Is there some reason you cannot say a single, specific word about what your problem is with the section as it stands? "The situation" is not that we need a third party; the situation is that you're not talking. Why not? I will listen. I've already offered to omit the passage that is likely the problematic one (TheHeart.Org). I'm even letting the reference to the AIM study remain first in the section, which is in truth the wrong order. The AHRQ's high-reliability meta-analysis should really come first. It is even debateable whether or not individual studies like the AIM study should even be included, when a good meta-analysis is available. Whatever. I would not object to a brief discussion of a few recent individual trials. Furthermore, I emphasized the fact that garlic supplements tend to work in hyperlipidemias only for 3 months or so before pooping-out. Does any of that sound like I am a frothing pro-garlic propagandist? No, of course not. And I AM not. I'm just smart, and well-informed. In fact I've got a whole bunch more references and details that could be added to this medicinal use section. Alan2012 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alan just my 2c, there are a couple of WP:Weasel statements in the section (I don't know if they are yours or not, and it is largely irrelevant for the purposes of WP) for example "However, dozens of clinical trials on garlic in hyperlipidemias, some of them of comparable quality, have come to the opposite conclusion" (where's the V RS source that states this? So OR) "This suggests that the benefit of garlic may be better obtained with a cycling schedule than with continuous administration" (original research, unless there is a citation) "Here again, as per the AHRQ report, it is not known whether this effect would persist at longer trial lengths, and it seems likely that it would not, if administration were continuous." (OR) "Oddly, TheHeart.Org seems intent on placing garlic in a dim light, since the phrases "absolutely no effects" and simply "no effects" convey the same objective meaning, while the word "absolutely" performs no work except to excite emotions, or to make the trial appear to say more than it actually said." (OR and POV) "Fortunately, both the AHRQ report and the Kojuri study, cited above, are available publicly in full text at the links, whereas the AIM study, the accompanying editorial, and the TheHeart.Org commentary are all restricted to paying subscribers." (OR and POV). What I suggest is that the section is rewritten to a more brief couple of paragraphs detailing the V pro and against literature, without resorting to the various "Weasal words" that are sprinkled throughout the above examples. Again, just my 2c worth. Shot info 06:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shot: thanks for your comments.

Regarding: "However, dozens of clinical trials on garlic in hyperlipidemias, some of them of comparable quality, have come to the opposite conclusion" (where's the V RS source that states this?

The source is the AHRQ report, which was cited and quoted about 30 words later: "thirty-seven randomized trials, ...", etc.

Regarding: "This suggests that the benefit of garlic may be better obtained with a cycling schedule than with continuous administration" (original research, unless there is a citation)

Could be omitted, but this is a page that people are or may be looking to for practical advice. It would be wrong to tell them that garlic is inefficacious, but it would also be wrong to imply that it works indefinitely. That suggestion is the best compromise wording/concept that I could think of. It is also consistent with the findings of the AHRQ. Please suggest an alternative, if you have one.

Regarding: "Here again, as per the AHRQ report, it is not known whether this effect would persist at longer trial lengths, and it seems likely that it would not, if administration were continuous."

Again, trying to be conservative here and say a few words that represent a reasonable interpretation of the data. It could be omitted, but to do so would be to imply that the effect would persist at longer trial lengths, which really is unlikely, if you examine the totality of the evidence (which I urge you to do; see the cited work). If I were a propagandist for garlic producers, I myself would want to remove that sentence; but since I'm not, I don't. I do not want people to think that garlic is the answer to thier lipid problems, forever, because, based on the published evidence, it probably is not. But at the same time it is, clearly, useful for shorter periods. Again: suggest an alternative. Do you really want to leave people with the impression that garlic is the magic answer, forever?

Regarding: "Oddly, TheHeart.Org seems intent on placing garlic in a dim light, since the phrases "absolutely no effects" and simply "no effects" convey the same objective meaning, while the word "absolutely" performs no work except to excite emotions, or to make the trial appear to say more than it actually said." (OR and POV)

See comments immediately above in this Talk section, which explains this whole fiasco. It was an attempt to preserve, without intolerable POV problems, the TheHeart.Org material. I will just go ahead and remove all reference to the POV/biassed TheHeart.Org, completely, and be done with it.

Regarding: "Fortunately, both the AHRQ report and the Kojuri study, cited above, are available publicly in full text at the links, whereas the AIM study, the accompanying editorial, and the TheHeart.Org commentary are all restricted to paying subscribers." (OR and POV).

POV? OR? How? This is a statement of fact which you can verify in 10 seconds of mouse-clicking, and it is relevant fact for the 99.999% of Wiki users who are not paying subscribers to those journals. Access to info, so that the reader can verify for him/herself, is important, too.

Regarding: "What I suggest is that the section is rewritten to a more brief couple of paragraphs detailing the V pro and against literature, without resorting to the various "Weasal words" that are sprinkled throughout the above examples. Again, just my 2c worth."

Also, the removal of the TheHeart.Org baggage will help keep the length down. We might also consider omitting the specific-study references, i.e. the AIM report and the Kojuri study, in order to keep length down. What say you?

Alan2012 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no doubt people are going to use this against me, but really your comments about Ronz above are not really helpful. Ronz (IMO) was being specific and encouraging you to review the pertinent WP policies and guidelines. The problem that I can see is that the entire section needs rewriting in a NPOV manner (so I agree with Ronz on this) and there is little to preserve in it's current arrangment principally as it is full of weasel words and original research. Hence why I just presented a few of the more obvious examples (again in my opinion, others may see others, more or fewer). Rather than discussing them point by point as you would like, the entire section needs starting over again. It reads very poorly and is quite different to how the article "flows" (ie/ it starts nice and encyclopedic then it hits the medical section and bogs down in unnecessary weasel wordy detail). I encourage you to read WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, not to prove a point but such that we can sing from the same song sheet. Shot info 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding: "Um, no doubt people are going to use this against me, but really your comments about Ronz above are not really helpful."

My main comment toward Ronz, about 10 times now, has been: "please, PLEASE be specific about what you object to in the article as it stands". I get no response.

Regarding: "Ronz (IMO) was being specific and encouraging you to review the pertinent WP policies and guidelines."

Where was he being specific? Give me a quote. I read every word he wrote (which was not many), and there was only a blanket assertion of "POV" problems, which (see above) are in the process of being addressed. Your message above, which was specific, was excellent. With that kind of feedback (thank you), we can actually arrive at something and get this thing done.

Regarding: "The problem that I can see is that the entire section needs rewriting in a NPOV manner (so I agree with Ronz on this)"

Sorry, but you'll have to be specific again, just as you were in your initial (excellent) message. I will however eliminate all the TheHeart.Org crap; that should help the length problem. Perhaps I should place the AHRQ meta-analysis first, where it should be (i.e. most important single reference). I can leave in the individual study info (AIM and Kojuri) if everyone thinks that is appropriate. Or, I could omit it. What say you? Anyone?

Regarding: "and there is little to preserve in it's current arrangment principally as it is full of weasel words and original research. Hence why I just presented a few of the more obvious examples (again in my opinion, others may see others, more or fewer). Rather than discussing them point by point as you would like, the entire section needs starting over again. It reads very poorly and is quite different to how the article "flows" (ie/ it starts nice and encyclopedic then it hits the medical section and bogs down in unnecessary weasel wordy detail). I encourage you to read WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, not to prove a point but such that we can sing from the same song sheet."

Well, it is difficult if you will not be specific in response to what I wrote. What do you want? I can re-write the thing to, for example, exclude the thing about cycling schedules, but I think that readers will be poorly served by that, for reasons that I explained above. If you disagree, please say so, and say why. Just saying "rewrite the whole section" is not helpful. One thing I will do, for sure, is omit the TheHeart.Org stuff -- lots of overhead with little value.

Alan2012 01:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ronz has now "left the building" and asked for mediation on the subject. HB (above) seems to agree this is probably the way to go as well. I am personally indifferent, I just don't have time to completely rewrite it at the moment. So probably fresh eyes would help out here. I think it needs to be shorter leading with a "Medical benefits of garlic are inconclusive with <pro> and <con>". Then a paragraph covering each one with no editoralising (ie/ WP:OR). With enough time, I will have a stab and then we can go from there. In the mean time your calls for "specific" are difficult because every paragraph of the section (IMO) fails WP policy in several ways. So to be specific in all regards means I may as well rewrite the section. In order to do that requires time. In the meantime, I can direct you to WP:OR and WP:WEASEL for the necessary background of why several editors (myself, HB, Ronz) feel the article is poor. Shot info 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to criticize in vague, weaselly terms ("every section...fails"), but not do any work, I can't help you. Either be specific, and work it out with me, and I will make the actual changes, or else re-write yourself.

Done, although I fail to see why you think that comment "every section fails..." is vague. Every section had weasel words in it. See my suggested amendments.

Meanwhile, I've just completed a semi-major edit, which divides "medicinal use" into two sections: hypercholesterolemia, and other. The "other" section badly needs work, and I could do it, but I don't have time right now. The hypercholesterolemia section needed to be free standing, in part because that is one of the major applications about which there is more literature (of all kinds) than any other. Actually, the section should be called "Cardiovascular", and include cholesterol, platelets, atherosclerosis, blood pressure, etc. But again, I don't have time to do the job that is needed. What I did do, however, brings the section up several notches. A few highlights:

1. Omitted that crappy TheHeart.Org passage

I fail to see why you don't like this organisation. They seem to have the normal levels of V and RS per WP policies.

2. Placed the AHRQ report first, where it should have been to begin with.

Why, technically the earlier reports should be first.

3. Added reference to another meta-analysis, from the Annals of Internal Medicine. Meta-analyses are generally to be preferred to individual trials, when they are available. Especially ones from non-commercial sources like AHRQ.

Yep.

4. Added a comment to the effect that the AIM report did not present intermediate data -- before the end of the six month trial. (I looked up the full text of the AIM item and read it.) This is significant insofar as this data omission does not allow us to say that the trial showed something other than what we already know: that garlic tends not to work past about 3 months.

Comment = editorialising = WP:OR.

Enjoy! Alan2012 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have a look at my changes and comment. Thanks Shot info 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Shot:

1. "I fail to see why you think that comment "every section fails..." is vague."

Because it is. Specific verbatim phrases or sentences are not vague. Reference to "every section" or "the whole article" or "all of wikipedia" is vague, for obvious reasons.

2. "I fail to see why you don't like this organisation." (TheHeart.Org)

I don't dislike the organization. I don't know anything about it. I dislike the biassed, prejudicial nature of what they said. Prejudice was written all over it. Just read their words.

3. "Why, technically the earlier reports should be first."

Evidentiarily, the best reports (meta-analyses, generally) should be first.

4. "Comment = editorialising = WP:OR." (Regarding omission of pre-six-month data.)

If you'll read the AHRQ and other literature, preferably some of the actual studies in full text form (have you done so? I have), you'll see that this is a significant omission, which limits the value of the study. The AIM study added confirmation that garlic tends not to work at about six months. That's fine, but we knew that (see AHRQ). It would have been great to see 1 and 3 month data -- intermediate points -- for further confirmation (or non-confirmation, if that be) of what we already knew.

I'll read your revision, and make changes if necessary.

10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (Wiki's handle-insertion thingie seems not to be working this morning... --Alan2012)

"have you done so? I have" have you read WP:OR and WP:WEASEL? Because if you had you would see where the other editors and myself are coming from. There is little value to argue with you on the other points. Shot info 10:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that knowledge of the subject, gained by reading the relevant literature, is "original research" (or "weaselly"). Is that actually what you are saying?! Preposterous. I agree that there is little value arguing with my other points. If you have no rational reply to contribute, then there is little value in continuing. Alan2012 11:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO ALL: Discussion of "medicinal" section continues in new section, below. Alan2012 11:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes On (Probable) Veracity and Presence/Absence of POV in Sources

These notes pertain to the Medicinal Use section.

Be advised -- or better yet, go to the library and take a look at an issue for yourself -- that the Archives of Internal Medicine (AIM) is jam-packed, every issue, with pharmaceutical ads, including (of course) ads for the statins and other hypolipidemic drugs. Are we going to assume that the AIM editorial staff is completely insulated from the matter of the content preferences of their advertisers? I suppose we could assume that, but we would be unjustifiably credulous in doing so. For more details, see:

Advertising in Medical Journals: Should Current Practices Change?

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030130 .

Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

Meanwhile, the AHRQ is a government body, with no ties to industry, devoted to dispassionate technology assessment and the advancement of evidence-based medicine. Visit their site and see for yourself:

http://www.ahrq.gov/

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/techix.htm

Now, I do believe that these are pertinent details that ought to be included in the article. Our objective is to maintain NPOV, after all, and if the sources we're citing have or are likely to have serious POV problems themselves, then note should be made of it in the article. It is clear that the AHRQ is more reliably NPOV than the AIM. No contest.

Ronz should appreciate this suggestion, since he/she is very interested in maintaining NPOV status -- as am I.

I'll come up with a compact version of all this to insert into the article.

Alan2012 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: regarding: "Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies", note that the author is one Richard Smith, described as follows: "RS was an editor for the BMJ [British Medical Journal -- the British "JAMA"] for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid."

Could we agree that Richard Smith, and the PLOS journals, are authoritative and reliable sources on this issue? If not, why not?

Alan2012 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alan, this is a tired arguement, often used by the same people who say that government agencies (like the AHRQ) are also "tainted". Science is science and if it is reproducable, it is reproducible. If it isn't then the glee that other journals take their competitors to task like sharks with blood in the water. Poisoning the well isn't a WP policy. Shot info 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for saying that the AHRQ is tainted? Please do not speak in vague weaselly terms; cite your source. Science is science, but that's not what we're talking about here, as you know. There are numerous biases and prejudices that can creep in, at multiple levels. Everyone knows this, especially scientists themselves -- and you would be a piss-poor (and pathetcally ignorant) scientist if you didn't. You may not like the fact that veracity and reliability is such a serious issue, but it is. Last: Since when is pointing out facts relevant to keeping the article NPOV "poisoning the well"? Really, Shot, your other contribution (above) was much better. This one is anemic, toothless. Alan2012 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

69: did you read my post? I am commenting on Alan's arguement RE: "Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies". I didn't say that AHRQ is tainted, but the arguements presented by Alan are often used by Alt-Med advocates (say Tim Bolen) to poison the well against government agencies. Unfortunately they cannot have it all ways. Either you discount everything (included Alt-Med advocate sources that generate revenue no matter how minor) or you use WP's excellent set of policies to judge sources against. Alan's use of "Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies" is an example of poisoning the well. And I think you would find that I am a strong believer in scientific credibility. As for my use of weaselly terms, well, I suggest that you read WP:WEASEL, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and take a chill pill :-). Shot info 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read your post, several times, but it was not entirely coherent. I don't give a rip what Tim Bolen says, or what "alt med advocate sources" (NOS) say. The idea that criticism of commercial medical journals for potential bias is "poisoning the well" is just preposterous. Utterly preposterous. The problems of bias, prejudice, fraud, compromised veracity, and so on, of the biomedical and other technical literature, are well known and documented -- sometimes in the biomedical literature itself! You're ignorant to maintain otherwise, and you are foolish to maintain that "science is science" as though that says anything about the (numerous and significant) problems of maintaining quality of scientific publication. Alan2012 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to range far afield. Simply, it's not appropriate to mention, every time a medical journal is cited, that drug companies advertise in it. Doing so is a transparent attempt to insert POV and suggests an intention to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Wikipedia is a compendium of information attributable to reliable sources. Major mainstream medical journals, such as Annals of Internal Medicine, are considered reliable sources on health topics by Wikipedia's standards - see here. Now, about garlic? MastCell ^Talk 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Every time any medical journal is cited? Where did that idea come from? Do you read journals? Most journals -- the vast majority -- either have no advertising, or minimal advertising (mostly classifieds, employment-related, lab equipment, reagents, etc). There are only a few dozen ad-stuffed ones, and thousands of ad-free or near-ad-free ones. Most journals do not have sales- and profit-oriented advertising pertaining to products that might themselves be discussed or implicated by the content of the journal (i.e. thereby making for conflicts). Surely you know this, if you spend time in medical libraries, as I do. And I'm delighted that it is so. The great bulk of the biomedical literature does not suffer from the taint associated with being utterly dependent on massive advertising dollars, and on keeping the advertisers happy. Only a rather few journals are so tainted.

But even they are not completely tainted, i.e. the whole of their content is not to be disregarded or dismissed on that account -- only taken with necessary advisory and caution. And that caution should be selective, depending on the particulars. For example, the few psychiatry journals that are jam-packed with ads for SSRIs are, all things considered, not the best place to seek information about the risks of SSRIs, or the benefits of St John's Wort. Note that I did not just say that those journals are all full of lies and nothing but lies. I only said what I said: That they are not, all things considered, the best place to seek information about certain things that run diametrically counter to the interests of the advertisers from whose tits they suck. They may be great sources of information on many subjects, even if not all subjects. One must simply be smart, and appropriately skeptical. Copische?

Likewise, the Archives of Internal Medicine, laden with ads for statins and various other cardiovascular drugs, is not the best place to seek information about cheap, low-profit, harmless, over-the-counter botanical extracts that lower cholesterol, reduce platelet aggregation, lower homocysteine, ameliorate atherosclerosis (measurably), reduce the formation of glycation end products, reduce LDL oxidation, and on and on, as does garlic. (Yes, all the foregoing can be documented. One thing at a time!)

Note that I did NOT just say that the AIM can do nothing but lie about garlic, which would be a wild and ungrounded accusation. I only said what I said, which is the truth, combined with common sense. The AIM's editors know where their bread is buttered, and can be expected, to some goodly extent, to behave in accord with that. This is just human nature in the context of the market system, and to ignore it is to be a fool. In contrast, the AHRQ participants have no such interests. And that was my point in the original post, above: The AHRQ, obviously, is a more reliable source of info on this particular issue. On other issues, it might not be so. Every situation has to be judged on its own merits.

Exercising this sort of selective caution is just common sense, apart from the now numerous and well-documented incidents of abuse, prejudice, bias, fraud, etc. One does not seek information about the hazards of cosmetics, or the human rights problems associated with the fashion and clothing industries, in Vogue or Cosmopolitan. One would have to be an idiot -- blind to the realities of how the market-system-dominated world works -- to do so. Not that information about those things will never appear in those venues; only that they are not one's first choices, and that when/if such information does appear, it should be taken with more than ordinary caution, for obvious reasons. To do otherwise is to be an idiot.

You say that "mainstream medical journals...are considered reliable sources". Notice that the WP section that you link to is titled "What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable". Now, notice that word generally, because it is significant; it is the opposite of "invariably". It means: mostly, typically, but not always. To simply label all articles in all mainstream medical journals as "reliable" is as idiotic as rejecting all articles in all mainstream medical journals, and that is not what the wiki guideline is suggesting, thank heaven! If it were, then I would just be out of here, since the authors of the wiki guidelines would therefore be idiots, themselves.

I agree that most mainstream medical journals are for the most part fairly reliable. But one must be careful, as per what I just wrote. Heck, the journals themselves (some of them, anyway) have acknowledged this, in asking for authors to disclose their own conflicts of interest, and in sometimes featuring articles about problems with conflict of interest, problems with the peer review system, etc. (which is greatly to their credit, when it happens). That said, it is nevertheless true that there are serious problems with the commercial journal system, and indeed with the entire biomedical (and general scientific) research enterprise, with respect to veracity and reliability, for a variety of reasons.

Mast, does it not strike you as odd that several long-time editors-in-chief of the biggest medical journals in the world (NEJM, Lancet, etc.) have walked away, throwing up their hands and exclaiming wild things like "the medical journals are now marketing arms of the drug industry" or "academic medicine is now for sale to the highest bidder"? That's going farther than anything I would say, and I am damn skeptical, myself. What's your explanation for this? Do you think that those former editors are deluded, or psychotic, or demented?

Alan2012 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I certainly don't deny that "bias, prejudice, fraud, compromised veracity, and so on" exists, but curiously it gets found out and corrected. It is ignorant to have the viewpoint that because of the above, all information in these professional journals is to be disregarded, which is the impression you are giving me (hence my comments about poisoning the well). If I am incorrect with this impression, then please accept my apology. Shot info

I trust that you do not actually believe that all incidents of that nature "get found out and corrected". If you did believe that, then you would be farther out in fantasy-land than I would have imagined possible. And, of course, one would have to be a complete idiot to think that ALL information in these journals is to be disregarded. That's the impression I gave you? God only knows how! I spend a very substantial portion of my life reading journals, and writing about their content. I most certainly do not "disregard it all". But I don't accept it all, either. Which is another way of saying that I am smart, skeptical, and aware of the numerous problems of scientific publication -- which have in no way been completely resolved. If you think they have, (and I earnestly hope that you do NOT think they have), then you are as deluded as the worst of the altie cranks.

Further, the "prejudice, fraud, compromised veracity, and so on" exists on multiple levels. It is a very complex situation, not as simple as implied in my long reply to MastCell, above. There is much more to it than just medical journals addicted to advertising dollars. For one small example: A JAMA study (Feb 2006) challenged the assumption that hormonal changes during pregnancy protected women from depression. As a result of that, physicians might be more inclined to prescribe antidepressants during pregnancy. "But the study, and resulting television and newspaper reports of the research, failed to note that most of the 13 authors are paid as consultants or lecturers by makers of the antidepressants" (David Armstrong, Financial ties to industry cloud major depression study; Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2006). And that kind of stuff happens all the time. The community is slowly moving toward getting its act together, but at the current rate it will take decades.

Below is a short passage from a book, illustrating one of those levels. You should really read the whole book, and other literature on this subject, and then tell me, with a straight face, that "science is science" in the way that you meant that.

Alan2012 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

SNIPPET from The Truth About the Drug Companies, by Marcia Angell (former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine), page 100-101:

As they became richer, more powerful, and more profit-driven, drug companies became less willing to sit back and wait for academic researchers to produce their results. For one thing, the trials ate into the patent life of drugs, and for another, just waiting was too uncertain. The research findings could go against them. So instead of relying on academic centers to test their drugs, drug companies turned to the new for-profit research industry that grew up to serve them -- the contract research organizations I described in Chapter 2. As you will remember, these companies contract with private doctors to collect data on patients in their offices according to company instructions. The doctors are not themselves trained researchers, so they simply do what they are told -- or risk losing their lucrative deals with the contractors. The contract research organizations, in turn, answer only to big pharma. That means the drug companies have nearly total control over these trials.

The academic medical centers were unhappy to lose company contracts -- even though they were a small fraction of their research income. Whereas in 1990, about 80% of industry-sponsored trials were done at academic institutions, within a decade that share had dropped to less than 40 percent. The loss came at a time when many medical schools and teaching hospitals were in financial trouble because of shrinking reimbursements from patient care and reduced support for medical education. So they began to compete with contract research organizations the only way they could -- by becoming more accomodating to pharmaceutical sponsors. When companies insisted on controlling the way clinical trials were done, they met remarkably little resistance.

Furthermore, the whole context of academic-industry relations had changed. With the 1980 Bayh-Dole legislation, the traditional boundaries between academia and industry were blurred. Academic medical centers now saw themselves as "partners" of the pharmaceutical industry in common endeavors -- and junior partners, at that...

[D]rug companies now design clinical trials to be carried out by researchers who are little more than hired hands -- whether the trials are in academic centers or in physician's offices. Sponsoring companies keep the data, and in multicenter trials, they may not even let the researchers themselves see all of it. They also analyze and interpret the results, and decide what, if anything, should be published... All of this makes a mockery of the traditional role of researchers as independent and impartial scientists.

This talk page is not meant as a platform for personal views or debate on wide-ranging topics - let's stick to discussing concrete issues related to the garlic article. I read journals (include Archives and Annals), and I have plenty of firsthand experience with the good, bad, and ugly of the pharmaceutical industry. It's neither here nor there. Peer-reveiwed, MEDLINE-indexed medical journals are "generally" considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards - "generally" meaning you would need to clearly show it's an extraordinary circumstance to prove otherwise. It would be helpful to have a concrete content issue for this article to discuss, so we can avoid wide-ranging philosophical discussions which are inappropriate for this forum. Are you saying we should mention the quantity and content of advertising in medical journals when citing them on Wikipedia? MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In some instances it would not be a bad idea. The point, Mast, is to achieve NPOV, and to ignore significant or even extreme POV of sources is simply a cop-out.

"It's neither here nor there"? Are you serious?

This is not a "wide ranging philosophical discussion". Are you serious about that?! This has directly to do with writing good, high-reliability encyclopedia entries with minimal POV. Are you seriously saying that quality of sources is irrelevant philosophical blather?

Where is your definition of "generally" mentioned in the wiki policies pages? I cannot find it. What I did find is that the wiki attribution page reflects pretty closely what I am saying. Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

... "generally regarded as trustworthy." Right. Typically, usually, by most people, but not always, by all people.

... "How reliable a source is depends on context". Spot on! Just what I am saying.

... "Books and journals published by universities." Right. That would be as opposed to publication by commercial organizations such as the AMA, etc. Of course, as Angell and others have described and documented, academia is increasingly bought-off, itself. But still, as a generality, non-profit sources are better than commercial ones.

... "known publishing houses". Beep! Weasel-word. Known by who? Known in what way?

... "Reliable sources are credible published materials...". Beep! Tautological. Assumes the conclusion that is sought.

... "as a rule of thumb...". Right. AS A RULE OF THUMB, not as an iron-clad law.

Generally, the wording and spirit of the section is the same as what I was saying, which was: Judge things on their merits. Do not fall back to lazy bromides and simple-minded "rules", or blanket generalities about what is reliable. Things vary. The real world is complex. You must use your head.

Alan2012 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this discussion to improving the article on garlic? Can you please bring it back to a concrete content issue you'd like to address, rather than calling my thinking "lazy" and suggesting that I'm not using my head? MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not call your thinking lazy or say that you were not using your head. It was not directed at you personally. I was characterizing (as you can see) the spirit of the wikipedia "reliable sources" section. Please read the whole paragraph, which began with "Generally, the wording and spirit...". Can you do that for me, please? It will only take about 10 seconds. You will note that I was speaking of the Wiki policy text, not you.

Would you please also explain how the reliability of specific sources is not relevant to this, or any, Wiki article?

Alan2012 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know:

1. "It's neither here nor there" (referring to the drug industry's influence on journals and research). Were you serious about that?

2. "wide ranging philosophical discussion". Are you serious about that, too? Are you seriously saying that discussion of quality of sources is irrelevant philosophical blather?

3. Where is your peculiar definition of "generally" mentioned in the wiki policies pages? I cannot find it.

Alan2012 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain in clear and concrete terms what, if anything, you are proposing for this article. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Mastcell, it's looking pretty shmik (good) now! Shot info 02:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits of "Medicinal Use: Hypercholesterolemia" section

OK! Interesting edits. Some of them good, some not. Thanks for the effort! And Mast, thanks for the education on Wiki ref-link creation; nice!

Specifics:

I said: "Dozens of trials", you said "several trials". There have been dozens. That's lots more than "several".

I kept in the "mixed results", but added "with a clear pattern", which is the point that needs to be emphasized (see below).

I said: "Reflecting the findings of the AHRQ, a report in the Archives of Internal Medicine..."; you omitted the "reflecting". "Reflecting", or if you prefer "consistent with", is good, in order to convey the consistency of the published information. Taking the literature in totality, there really is no argument: garlic works for about 3 months, then starts pooping out (at least in some trials, but let's be conservative and go with the idea that that's always what happens). That is the bottom line that should be emphasized; that's what we really know at this point. And that is what my passage about "cycling" was about (more on that below).

Description of the Kojuri study: I said "highly-significant", you said "significant". Look at the p values. Highly significant. I said "a surprisingly robust increase of HDL", which you omitted. It was surprisingly robust. It had not been noted in earlier trials. My intent was to communicate that; i.e. that it was surprising because it had not been noted before -- and, frankly, it is not likely to be replicated, since it has not been seen before, across dozens of trials. Best to qualify as I did (or in some other way that you might suggest), in order to not leave people with the impression that this stuff will raise their HDL, since it probably will not. I left out the "'good' cholesterol" remark.

More about Kojuri descrip: you omitted the passage about "longer trial lengths". This is an important idea, extending the theme of continuity of the published findings, and emphasizing that garlic is likely not a long-term, continuous solution to cholesterol problems. That's what the literature tells us, and that is what we have an obligation to communicate. The average reader needs a little help, folks. I put the passage back, though re-wording it to be shorter.

I re-worded the "cycling" passage and placed it at the end. Better placement, better expression of the idea. Remember that average people are going to be reading this article and using the information for their own practice. They deserve a practical tip that reflects what the literature has told us, and that they may not be able to figure out for themselves. They deserve something that represents knowledge gained from all these studies, in addition to the naked information. Many (most?) average people tend to think of these things in binary terms: either a) it works! or b) it doesn't work! But in this case, the truth is in between, and we are obligated to convey that, somehow. If you have a better suggestion, please make it.

You had placed the quotation from the Annals of Internal Medicine meta-analysis in a quote box. I removed this. It was not necessary to emphasize that (older) meta-analysis; the AHRQ thing ranks higher. Setting it off like that implies that the reader should pay special attention to that isolated passage, when they shouldn't. Setting it off like that conveys the wrong (incomplete) message, i.e. an exuberant "garlic WORKS! Oh boy!". That's bad. It must be taken in context with the rest of the section.

To make everyone happy (?), I kept out the part about full text access.

Alan2012 12:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points: you may find this tool useful; you just paste in a PubMed citation number (PMID or PubMed ID), and it returns a citation template ready to be cut-and-pasted into a ref. Saves a lot of time and standardizes medical references.

As to the quote box, I agree that the AHRQ is more important and more recent; maybe that should be in the quote box? I usually just put lengthy quotes in the box to make the paragraph more eye-catching.

I do think we have a philosophical difference about interpreting the data. I appreciate what you're trying to do, which is to synthesize a number of studies into a coherent message. The problem is that Wikipedia generally frowns on us putting our own gloss on primary source data - see WP:ATTRIBUTION and WP:ATT#No original research. So as far as cycling, it would be best to provide a source claiming that cycling might work (maybe this is in the discussion section of one of the cited articles?); it would violate the "no original synthesis" policy, however, for us to editorialize that "this is what the studies likely mean". Again, I see what you're trying to accomplish and in general it's a worthy goal, but it runs up against a core Wikipedia policy. The solution is to find a source which makes the claim in question (that cycling might be effective) and cite it. Again, I haven't gone through the full text of all the cited articles - is it in one of them? MastCell ^Talk 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an extrapolation, admittedly, but it is such a minor one that I am surprised it is such a point of contention. It is like saying that it has been proven that 2 + 2 = 4, but that we cannot say, therefore, that 2.2 + 2.2 = 4.4, because that's "original research". I appreciate the "no OR" rule, but like any rule, it can be taken to absurd extremes. The way I worded it was very conservative: "The totality of the published literature, indicating benefit at three months or less, but no benefit after six months, suggests that garlic may be efficacious if used on a cycling schedule, rather than continuous use." How much more conservative can you get? Yes, it could be eliminated, but that would be a disservice to readers, and it would be taking a Wiki policy (OR) to the point of an absurd idolatry. Alan2012 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the quote box: I would rather not have any. Featuring one sound-bite in that way would be misleading. The whole section is coherent and focussed. Anyone who wants to know something about this subject must be troubled to read the whole, terribly long and incredibly tedious four paragraphs. Alan2012 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't really feel strongly about the quotebox. On the other hand, your summary is an original synthesis, and in a far different league from "2+2=4". You see the difference between simple arithmetic (which, incidentally, is excluded from the WP:ATT original synthesis policy) and your edit, which posits an untested and unsourced hypothesis as being "suggested" by the evidence? The latter violates the letter and, more importantly, the spirit of WP:ATT#No original research. Again, the solution is simple - provide a source putting forward the hypothesis in question, and attribute it in the text. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Different league, but not all that much. The hypothesis suggests itself to any intelligent, careful reader. In fact the only real alternative to said hypothesis is the more-doubtful hypothesis that garlic works for 3 months, then poops out, and then never works again, ever. Now that is a stretch! You take this stuff for three months, and wind up with some sort of fixed change in your metabolism and biochemistry, such that the original effect never happens again? Implausible. Highly unlikely. Again, the idea that such slight and obvious extrapolations (obvious to experienced readers of such material, though not necessarily to the average person) must be omitted as "OR" is over the top, IMO. It is taking OR to absurdity, and is a clear disservice to readers. Alan2012 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is your opinion. It's an original synthesis and inappropriate for Wikipedia unless you provide a source. Regarding what is obvious to any "intelligent, careful reader", I can name any number of drugs which are initially effective and then lose their effectiveness in response to homeostatic changes (receptor upregulation or downregulation, tachyphylaxis, etc). Such a phenomenon is not "highly unlikely" or "implausible", it's a clear property of complex biological systems. Whether it applies to garlic and cholesterol is unknown and, apparently, thus far untested. The biological or clinical effects of cycling garlic tablets, and whether this might overcome such an effect, and if so whether it would have any long-term impact on lipids are apparently untested (unless you've got a source you're holding back). Your extrapolation is not 2+2=4; it's an untested, unsourced assumption about a complex biological system. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I did not deny that medications can lose their effectiveness over time; indeed that is the flipping (garlic) phenomenon that we are discussing, and that I originally emphasized, for God's sake. If I had not brought it up, it would not even be on the table. What is highly unlikely is not (obviously!) that effectiveness can be lost, but that it might remain lost for all time thereafter. I cannot think of an example of that, offhand. Perhaps some virulent toxin that targets and completely destroys certain tissues or cell types, such that recovery is impossible. A little birdie (I think his name is Common Sense) tells me that that is unlikely to be what is happening with garlic.

Whereas, the principle of cycling, or going off something in order to restore sensitivity to it, is a commonplace. Keep pounding cells with more and more insulin, and you develop insulin resistance, the "cure" for which is to cut back on the insulin. After the rest, you will respond to insulin normally once again. Keep pounding cells with more and more catecholamines, and the beta-receptors downregulate, the "cure" for which is to cut back the catecholamines. After the rest, you will respond to catecholamines normally once again. And on and on. It is universal. In the substance abuse field, it is called "tolerance", a well-documented phenomenon. (It goes both ways: you can become more tolerant, or less, by adjusting dose or by discontinuing entirely.) Also a phenomenon that is just common-sensical, and surely one that you have experienced yourself, many times.

Whatever. Your criticisms on this front are niggling and relentless, and foolish, and ignorant. I am now exhausted. Time to move on.A

PS: is it true that you are a doctor?

PSS: Before you take umbrage: I did not say that you were foolish, ignorant, etc. I said your criticisms on this front were. I honestly do not understand why you are battling this, so. It is unbecoming for the intelligent person that I assume you to be.

Alan2012 18:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether I'm a doctor, a garlic supplement salesman, or a tenured professor of theology from a private university in the northeastern United States, things on Wikipedia get done by consensus. Your tone and approach are not the most conducive to building consensus. If you believe I'm simply being obstinate here, then the best approach is to follow some of the steps in dispute resolution - e.g. request outside opinions or a request for comment. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording in 'Cautions'

"Garlic should not be taken with warfarin, antiplatelets, saquinavir, antihypertensives, or hypoglycemic drugs." Would it not be more appropriate to word that as "drugs to treat hypoglycemia"? "hypoglycemic drug" sounds like a drug which has the side effect of being hypoglycemic, rather than treating hypoglycemia. Marty.hyland 11:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

- I think this is wrong. I think hypoglycemic drugs implies treats hypoglycemia, as in asthma drugs treat asthma

Tom Longfield...

Here's the exact text from the cited reference: Garlic may lower blood glucose levels; therefore a theoretical interaction exists with hypoglycaemic agents.G716 03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

-I am a pharmacist, and let me tell you that guessing at the actions of drugs without being sure is a treacherous path. Hypoglycemic drugs are drugs that are designed to cause (relative) hypoglycemia. (Yes, this is opposite to the term "asthma drugs") In other words, hypoglycemic drugs treat hyperglycemia. They're also referred to as antidiabetic agents, along with a myriad of other terms. These drugs include insulin, sulfonylureas, amylin analogs, incretin mimetics, biguanides, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 Inhibitors. The issue with garlic is that it may increase insulin release or enhance the physiologic response to insulin. When taken with hypoglycemic medications, this can have an additive effect causing an excessive drop in blood glucose, which can lead to an acute hypoglycemic episode. 18:30, 20 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.150.255 (talk)

Odourless Garlid "showing no beneficial effect" <-- source needed

"Dietary supplements in an "odourless" pill form, as are commonly available, claim to possess the medicinal benefits of garlic, without (in the words of one manufacturer) "the unsocial qualities associated with fresh garlic cloves".[citation needed] However independent validation (e.g. not sponsored by the pill manufacturers) through rigorously conducted clinical trials of the benefits, if any, of these pills is lacking or has been found to be negative, e.g. showing no beneficial effects."

"Independent validation" ???

Phlatulator (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)== Garlic is a bulb ==

[[Category:]]Classification

Head should not be used anywhere to describe garlic bulbs. Broccoli has a head, cabbage has a head, lettuce has a head, ..., but garlic is a *bulb* plant. It is a root vegetable. The most sought after edible portion of the plant is a bulb.

The only possible "head" on a garlic plant are the cultivars that produce a spathe at the top of the scape. The spathe opens into what is called a flower"head" of bulbils(garlic flowers) but it is not what people generally consider when referencing garlic. Experts that speak of garlic heads are actually talking about the garlic head = the top portion of the plant, the spathe, if it exists.

It is botanically and linguistically incorrect to call a bulb a head. This is an encyclopedia and should at least be accurate. Rather than promoting wrong usage|information, the encyclopedia should point out that it is wrong to reference bulbs as heads. Calling the bulb a head and the spathe a head makes my head spin.

BTW, a "garlic head" is (old) slang that generally references people who are happy and care little for the opinion(s) of others (perhaps one begets the other ...).

69.155.127.15 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard a cluster of garlic cloves refered to as a "hand of garlic". The indivisual cloves are bulbs, but when harvested they are clustered into a hand.

Garlic diet?

Is it true Garlic makes you fast? I had a small garlic pizza and couldnt eat for a day. Then I thought Garlic bread is always served at dinner time for some reason. Maybe this will help over-eating too. Maybe add a section for dieting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.218.197 (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's written

From the earliest times garlic has been used as a food. It formed part of the diet of the Israelites in Egypt (Numbers 11:5)

Am I the only person who sees a problem using the Pentateuch as a historical reference? For example, what it says doesn't match reality, and it was written over a thousand years after the events allegedly occurred? So how does this reference actually date the usage of garlic as a food? A source is not credible simply by virtue of being old and ubiquitous. Not to mention the anachronistic problem with the phrase "Israelites in Egypt". Much less the fact that they were never there at all. --76.249.135.25 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprise - surprise

"Allium sativum grows in the wild in areas where it has become naturalised;"

External Links

I don't think my external link should be dismissed as spam. I linked to a not-for-profit, non-commercial site that provides impartial scientific information on Garlic as a supplement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennnh (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I can't confirm details about whether this site [[2]] is a not-for-profit one, there certainly are commercial interests being represented. That being said, I don't see an external link to the site as being inappropriate, as it appears to put info first and rates it on the basis of scientific investigation. Halogenated (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Garlic as a preservative?

I am not exactly sure but I've heard of claims that garlic can prevent meat from spoiling. If it's a valid claim it should say it somewhere in the article.--Pkenans (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a last resort there might be some value, but given the very short-lived nature of antimicrobial properties of Allicin it is as likely to spoil as the meat itself. Halogenated (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect article

Seeing as how this article seems to be a frequent (daily) target of vandalism by non-registered users, perhaps a semi-protected lock would be in order.Halogenated (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine

Too many people are adding specific dishes and nationalities to this section, and it is getting cluttered. I've reduced the detail somewhat, trying to generalise it. I added a list of geographical regions where garlic is extensively used, but this might also yet be too detailed. Looking for other suggestions here. Halogenated (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The storage section is giving advice

The storage section is giving advice on how to store garlic. Wiki discourages such advice, as wiki doesn't want to get sued. That info should either be removed, or written in an encyclopedic style.72.78.8.81 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I've made some edits, please feel free to improve them if anyone sees fit. Halogenated (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Trans Hon Soc Loud?

I've changed

The percentage composition of the bulbs is given by E. Solly (Trans. Hon. Soc. Loud., new ser., iii. p. 60) as water 84.09%, organic matter 13.38%, and inorganic matter 1.53% - that of the leaves being water 87.14%, organic matter 11.27% and inorganic matter 1.59%.

to

The composition of the bulbs is approximately 84.09% water, 13.38% organic matter, and 1.53% inorganic matter; while the leaves are 87.14% water, 11.27% organic matter, and 1.59% inorganic matter.

I can't find anything on "Trans. Hon. Soc. Loud." which aren't copies of this article (including some GFDL violations, lolplagiarism). "Trans. Hort. Soc." seems more likely, but I still can't find anything written by a "solly". Additionally, I don't think giving the composition to 0.01% (100 ppm) is a sensible thing to do, especially when water is concerned, but I've left it in anyway. ⇌Elektron 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Side Effects

Is it just me, or does this smack of bad titling, or is this section better placed further down the article? I mean, don't people already know that garlic makes bodily fluids smell bad, and if they don't, should they be introduced to the concept in such a manner as 'side effect'? If there are no objections, I feel the section should be re-titled and sent further down the article. Apothecia (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

bad source?

http://www.petsbynature.com/Garlic.htm

It claims a few things that I find suspicious

1. That topical applications of garlic can result in 3rd degree burns. A 3rd degree burn consists of charred skin, and as far as I know, can only be caused by high levels of heat sufficient to cause the skin to partially deflagrate. A serious injury from exposure to garlic would have to be IMHO a bad allergy at best.

2. It makes a possible fallacy by comparing garlic to arsenic. Arsenic is well known as a poison, however, garlic is not, and without establishing any relevance, it makes a fallacious argument.

Given this, I have put a dispute tag on this reference.

71.92.122.78 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! I found an reference from American Veterinary Medical Association and edited the content accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Older Text

A report published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (AIM) on 26 February 2007 found that consumption of garlic, in any form, did not reduce cholesterol levels in patients with moderately high levels . However, dozens of clinical trials on garlic in hyperlipidemias, some of them of comparable quality, have come to the opposite conclusion. These trials, up to the year 2000, were carefully reviewed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), which noted that "thirty-seven randomized trials, all but one in adults, consistently showed that compared with placebo, various garlic preparations led to small, statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol at 1 month" The AHRQ report went on to state that the clearly beneficial effect of garlic is typically not sustained beyond 3 months, with most trials indicating no effect at 6 months. This suggests that the benefit of garlic may be better obtained with a cycling schedule than with continuous administration.

Other trials have been published since the AHRQ report, and indeed since the AIM article cited above. Notably, a single-blind, placebo-controlled study of garlic supplements in 150 hyperlipidemic subjects was published just days after the AIM publication. This trial (Kojuri et al) found highly-significant reductions of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, along with a surprisingly robust increase of HDL cholesterol ("good" cholesterol), after 6 weeks of treatment. Here again, as per the AHRQ report, it is not known whether this effect would persist at longer trial lengths, and it seems likely that it would not, if administration were continuous.

After the AIM publication, TheHeart.Org anounced that "Despite decades of research suggesting that garlic can improve cholesterol profiles, a new NIH-funded trial found absolutely no effects of raw garlic or garlic supplements on LDL, HDL, or triglycerides. The findings underscore the hazards of meta-analyses made up of small, flawed studies and the value of rigorously studying popular herbal remedies" . Oddly, TheHeart.Org seems intent on placing garlic in a dim light, since the phrases "absolutely no effects" and simply "no effects" convey the same objective meaning, while the word "absolutely" performs no work except to excite emotions, or to make the trial appear to say more than it actually said. More important, TheHeart.Org seems not to have paid much direct attention to the literature on the subject, which includes its share of well-designed, blinded and controlled trials (see, e.g., the Kojuri study cited above) in addition to small, flawed studies. The AHRQ report, mentioned above, is a good portal to the literature.

Fortunately, both the AHRQ report and the Kojuri study, cited above, are available publicly in full text at the links, whereas the AIM study, the accompanying editorial, and the TheHeart.Org commentary are all restricted to paying subscribers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan2012 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All this assumes that cholesterol level is a meaningful indicator of general health. But this isn't necessarily so. See "The Great Cholesterol Con", by Malcom Kendrick M.D. Dyuku (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of Garlic's History

We have a claim in the History section that the Isrealites consumed Garlic in Egypt during the Captivity. I refer all interested persons to Wikipedia's sections on the Exodus, where the historicity of this entire Biblical period is repeatedly called into question. The claim is non-encyclopedic at best.

I recommend an edit, "The Bible claims that during the period of the Isrealite presence in Egypt, that the Isrealites consumed garlic." The wording "The Bible claims" should sufficiently address the question of the historicity of the statement, while allowing an important cultural reference to remain intact.

The Egoist

Vefification of the classification....

Whoever can access to the following articles, please add the relevant infos to this article

http://www.fao.org/agris/search/display.do?f=./1994/v2009/CU9300332.xml;CU9300332 --222.64.30.94 (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.fao.org/agris/search/display.do?f=./1996/v2219/XF9654835.xml;XF9654835 --222.64.30.94 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2075291 --222.64.30.94 (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ALSA2 --222.64.30.94 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

More cultivar info...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Allium+sativum+cultivars&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.219.42 (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Biology

Could an expert add a short section on the biology of garlic? For example, is a head of cloves a single fruit or a compound fruit? Is a clove of garlic a placenta? What is the nature of the flowers? What are the evolutionary reasons for the taste of garlic? Et cetera . . . -68.14.73.83 (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I second this. I came to the article looking for information about how garlic grows and reproduces (e.g. the role of the cloves as compared to the seeds), and the description is spotty and scattered through the article. In general, the article seems to focus on the dried garlic head, with comparatively little information about the growing plant. Understandable, given how garlic is typically used, but it would be nice to have both! Clukyanenko (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the answer to these questions, but to add them to the article I need to find a source which supports them; the basics often seem to be assumed in the books I've looked at.

• A 'head' of garlic is usually a cluster of tightly connected bulbs. It's not a fruit at all.
• Each clove is a separate bulb. If you plant a single clove (of most varieties of garlic) it gets bigger and then starts to split into separate bulbs, i.e. separate cloves. When mature, these are quite obviously separate bulbs, but in the intermediate stages it's not obvious what is happening.
• The flowers of garlic are in 'umbels', that is all the flowers have stalks which radiate from a single point at the top of a stem. (Botanists use fancier words for 'stalk' and 'stem' here.) They are an off-white colour in my experience. You could let them go to seed and grow garlic from seed, but seeds would be slower to form large 'heads' than cloves and also could be more variable, since they might have crossed with different varieties.
• All evolutionary 'whys' are a nice subject for speculation, but difficult to prove one way or the other. The reason for the presence of the compounds which give garlic its smell (and hence taste) is usually given as defence against insects which would eat it. (The same is true for members of the cabbage family.) But there are specialist insects which are attracted by the smell, so it's perhaps an evolutionary arms race.

I'll see if I can source this stuff, if it would be useful to add it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Toxic to Brainwaves?

I was reading about Garlic and found a site which claims Garlic is toxic to humans and desynchronizes the brainwaves. Is there any way to know if this is true or not? it claims "...The reason garlic is so toxic, the sulphone hydroxyl ion penetrates the blood-brain barrier, just like DMSO, and is a specific poison for higher-life forms and brain cells. We discovered this, much to our horror, when I (Bob Beck, DSc) was the world's largest manufacturer of ethical EEG feedback equipment" thanks71.112.206.41 (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC) 99.155.153.29 (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Another section based on from my own research --one (1) article repeated endlessly on the net. Whole article needs redoing.

I checked the info, and only mentioned toxic properties of garlic is in an article by someone calling himself "Dr. Robert C Beck, DSc". It mentions "sulphone hydroxyl ion" as a toxic element, but I can't find not only references to this element with connection to garlic, but actually no references at all, which makes me believe that no such thing even exists. Also searched for the autor name, and it came out he is frequent guest in conspiracy theories and ufology communities. Also he is an author of number of pseudoscientific devices and medical treatment methods, like curing AIDS with electrical current. In other words, I wouldn't count this author as a reliable source of information of any kind. Zigmar (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Garlic

I'm pretty sure the Elephant Garlic is the most used garlic in the world. Being native to Indian and culitivated and exported around the world I would think India's production of garlic would be much higher than Chinas'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.15.143 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

phrase improvement

In test tube studies garlic has been found to have antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal activity. However, these actions are less clear in humans and [those studies] do not suggest that garlic is a substitute for antibiotics or antifungal medications.

WOULD IT BE WISE TO ADD "THOSE STUDIES" TO THE TEXT ARTICLE? Twipley (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

List of the cultivars

• Opioscorodon
• Sativum
• W-011
• W-014
• G-457
• G-571

I have moved this to the talk page because I think it is imprudent to list all of the commercial varieties. There are 400 to 600, and I think this section would be impossibly large and cumbersome if it were comprehensive. If I am wrong in doing this, feel free to restore it, but I think this is the best thing to do. A solid external link to a comprehensive list seems to me like it would be a better idea. Efcmagnew (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps even better, a "list of garlic varieties" is in order. Efcmagnew (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

language reference

It is called Sudu Lunu in Sinhalese, Lehsun in Urdu and Hindi, Velli ullipaaya in Telugu, Vellai poondu in Tamil, Velutthulli in Malayalam, and Bellulli in Kannada.

I am moving this here for two reasons:

1. It is uncited,

2. It is a contraction. I was originally placed in the "origin and distribution" section, in the following context:

The ancestry of cultivated garlic, according to Zohary and Hopf, is not definitely established: "A difficulty in the identification of its wild progenitor is the sterility of the cultivars."[3] Allium sativum grows in the wild in areas where it has become naturalised; it probably descended from the species Allium longicuspis, which grows wild in southwestern Asia.[4] The "wild garlic", "crow garlic", and "field garlic" of Britain are the species Allium ursinum, Allium vineale, and Allium oleraceum, respectively. In North America, Allium vineale (known as "wild garlic" or "crow garlic") and Allium canadense, known as "meadow garlic" or "wild garlic" and "wild onion", are common weeds in fields.[5] One of the best-known "garlics", the so-called elephant garlic, is actually a wild leek (Allium ampeloprasum).It is called Sudu Lunu in Sinhalese, Lehsun in Urdu and Hindi, Velli ullipaaya in Telugu, Vellai poondu in Tamil, Velutthulli in Malayalam, and Bellulli in Kannada.

It does not note what form of garlic is known by those names. If it refers to Elephant garlic, it should be noted on that page. Efcmagnew (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See also section

I've removed "Field Garlic" from the "See Also" section because it is already referred to in the body of the article. Efcmagnew (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilroy Not On Map Image

Gilroy is reported to be the garlic capital of the US, but Gilroy is not noted on the map image in the article. I am sorry that I can only point out the discrepancy and do not have more information to correct it. Seahappy (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cloning?

"The cloves are used for cloning, consumption (raw or cooked), or for medicinal purposes, and have a characteristic pungent, spicy flavor that mellows and sweetens considerably with cooking.["

Er, cloning? Apparently the original sentence was "as seed", which makes a bit more sense. I get that they are often asexually reproduced for cultivation, but surely there is a more straightforward way to indicate this in the introduction? As it is, it is extremely ambiguous as to what it means. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Garlic and diabetes

The two sources used in that section are dubious; one never mentions diabetes/blood sugar, and the other one cites no scientific research. The best source that I can find on the subject is from the National Institutes of Health which claims that studies have been inconclusive. Unless someone objects, I'm going to change the wording. --Cakesmack (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

There's no Etymology, if it's hidden somewhere it sould be made more prominent.

Aphrodisiac

Isn't it supposed to be an aphrodisiac? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Nestea Zen (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Got a source? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the thing and that's why I asked. It is mentioned in this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-About-Food-Jill-Fullerton-Smith/dp/0747586853 Take a look in the review section. Nestea Zen (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We worked with more than 50 nutritionists, doctors and other experts from more than 20 different universities, research centres and hospitals in the UK, the USA and Denmark. We used a total of more than 500 volunteers in our experiments.....'

Anyone? Nestea Zen (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)