Talk:Mānuka honey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Manuka honey)
Jump to: navigation, search

New article: Bioactive Honey[edit]

Honey I have bought in the UK lists 'active 15+' and 'activity rating 10+'. I have found French and Brazillian products, which seem to claim their 'activity' as a percentage value of propolis, the powerful antibacterial product that all bees produce. Is there an agreed term to create an article about, which measures the antibacterial properties of _all_ honeys? It seems that comapring them in an agar assay of the non-hydrogen peroxide antibacterial activity is the done thing. Does MGO rating equate to 'bioactivity', 'activity rating' and 'active' honey values? No essential nature (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)



Manuka HoneyManuka honey — Improper capitalization; a redirect with lower-case 'h' prevents me from moving. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. Non-controversial IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Non-controversial IMO.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest that this discussion could be closed immediately. Non-controversial per WP:RM criteria. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestions For Improvement[edit]

The antibiotic/antiseptic properties of Hydrogen Peroxide are documented elsewhere on WP. Likewise methylglyoxal.

See the main Honey page for links and how this should be done.

Granted, the point of having a separate entry for Manuka honey (which needs to be linked to the main Honey entry)is that it is alleged to have exceptional properties. So I would respectfully suggest removing extensive explanation of well-known aspects common to all honey, and more time (and citations) on documenting specifically the properties of Manuka honeys.

TheOtherJonas (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the mankua-specific claims are from the manufacturers/distributors themselves — e.g., http://manukahoney.com/resources/research/index.html If the page were stripped of manuka-specific marketing material, which certainly does not qualify as encyclopedic, what would be left is more general statements about honey, which do not — as already noted — need to be duplicated. I'm sure the authors mean well and believe their claims, but this is not a fair use of the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.163.198 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The controversy over research contracts in the following news story may be worth covering. --Avenue (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Could we get someone with some scientific background to edit this page. Honey does seem to have some properties which are beyond the ability of most ordinary rational skeptics ordinary rational proponents to debate. For example:

anti-inflammatory properies.

http://www.medicalhoney.com/mode_of_action/anti_inflammatory_properties.php

however, manuka honey is being used in medical applications at respected medical institutions all over the world. Let's not deny it to the world if we can't understand the processes by which it works. Research and §≈ I suggest someone clean up the main page so that it takes into account both the proponent's view and the skeptics view of this substance.

Medical claims need to be backed up by sources meeting WP:MEDRS. Linking to the manufacturer's website falls far short of these standards, as the manufacturer is promoting their product.-gadfium 01:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Many puffed up claims[edit]

I came to this article after hearing a friend mention that her son (a six year old undergoing chemotherapy) is taking this - at great expense to the family - and realized that this article is pretty questionable and highly promotional. My guess, having done only a little bit of research so far, is that this honey is perfectly harmless and that, like many alternative health products, perfectly useless as well. However, I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong.

In any event, we are currently in the article citing an "unpublished survey", make several bold and "citation needed" claims. I will review this later this afternoon, but thought I'd call for help here as well. I mainly want to make sure that we cite only peer-reviewed academic research for bold claims.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you, Jimbo.Cooke (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo, in the first case the honey is reputed (with plenty of backing university research) to be great for anti-microbial activity, because it is both potent, and human-friendly. It is effective on wounds, stomach ulcers, and the like - using it internally for a chemo patient sounds like pure alt.health pseudo-science crap to me. I am gonna use this article to try and get my Mum (who's been vaguely following the developments for years) to get into Wiki contributing. She doesn't want me to write this until she's checked her facts, even here on the talk page, but mentions Waikato university, Sydney university, and Cardiff university as involved in relevant research. 121.74.159.189 (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
From the sources (reviews) I found it appears any antibacterial properties had effects in vitro, but on the case of leg ulcers for example, the honey had no positive effect. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you cite your sources? From the six results at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22manuka%20honey%22%20%22leg%20ulcers%22&itool=QuerySuggestion there seems to be a mix of results. Bear in mind that we're generally talking about pretty small differences, though [1] talks about a 34% vs. 13% reduction in wound size, which appears significant. OTOH [2] said there was only a 5% difference in wound healing rate and it wasn't significant. Of course, many types of honey (all?) have antibacterial properties (though they tend to vary) and the use of honey in general dates back to Dioscorides and no doubt earlier, and these studies don't show that manuka honey is special among honeys for this purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talkcontribs)
I do cite my sources in the article (reviews). The reviews cover the studies that exist. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry - thanks. The way it reads there sounded different to my ears than here, but that's OK. :) Wnt (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Claims[edit]

The article claimed that Manuka Honey had anti-bacterial properties because of Hydrogen peroxide. This source, Wilgus TA, Bergdall VK, Dipietro LA, Oberyszyn TM (2005). "Hydrogen peroxide disrupts scarless fetal wound repair". Wound Repair Regen 13 (5): 513–9. doi:10.1111/j.1067-1927.2005.00072.x. PMID 1617646, appears to specifically be counter to that. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the material as a temporary measure as it is misleading. I will dig up more studies and see what the current consensus is and then add that. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I have re-written the section, it is essentially the same but it uses more up to date sources, and 2 reviews. I am not sure if mentioning in vitro effects is misleading or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered similar claims being made at Leptospermum scoparium. I have eliminated them, being unnecessary given the existence of this article, but they may come back. Agricolae (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

This edit appears troublesome [3] as it uses unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

ANSWER :

12 sources added, including 10 from scientists / university people + 2 from industry practice for the conversion table and for the mening of UMF15+.

Also note that "To be labelled mānuka honey, honey should have a mānuka pollen count of at least 70%" is nonsense : no honey contains 70% pollen. On that point, one of the added sources, which you removed, only corroborated what this is supposed to mean while the edit was clarifying this nonsensical statement.
Nonsense too are the claims that there is not enough clinical studies about honey (google scholar, "clinical studies manuka honey" : 943 results). It is also biased to not mention that it has been government-approved as medicine by USA and New Wealand - and others but I did not have time to look for which ones precisely, apart from what I deemed unreliable sources, so I did not mention it.

All the added sources, which you rejected in block, are verifiable online. Please precise which sources exactly are "unreliable" according to you, and why you deem them so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.207.202 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are relying on individual studies when we have meta-analysis available. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC) OTHER ANSWER IN USER TALK PAGE : "Break your proposal into pieces and discuss them on the talk page. IRWolfie".

"You are relying on individual studies"[edit]

For info : meta-analysis = contrasting and combining results from different studies (...)

6 of the 10 purely scientific sources I used are reviews, not "individual studies". Your statement here is therefore invalid.

the reviews used in the original article[edit]

"A 2002 review found that..." = ONE review.

"A 2008 Cochrane Review found that..." = ONE review, saying that :

  • "the use of honey for leg ulcers provided no benefit" - a statement that is very clearly in contradiction with many other studies and reviews. If you need a list just say here how many studies & reviews you need to accept otherwise - it won't take long to gather such a list, from reliable & serious references too.
  • Same remark about this statement : "insufficient evidence for any benefit in other types of chronic wounds" from the same "review",
  • and same for this one too : "data from trials of higher quality found honey had no significant effect on healing rates or had significantly slower rates of healing". As for their "all of the data came from a single centre of research", did they actually bother looking elsewhere ? Because if they had they would have found many other sources that show otherwise.

May I point out that Cochrane reviews, along with anything else, are not to be considered as an absolute reference value - especially in the face of so many other reviews that say otherwise. Since you attracted my attention on this point, here are the results of my research on this. There are many critics of their methodology to be found around. As a quick outlook of this, you can check these reviews (and some "individual studies" too, with relevant conclusions) :

  • Some problems with Cochrane reviews of diet and chronic disease. (Truswell AS. Human Nutrition Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia) ;
  • Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study. (Schroll et al. BioMedCentral Medical Research Methodology 2011, 11:22). Their conclusion : "One-third of Cochrane reviews with substantial heterogeneity had major problems in relation to their handling of heterogeneity. More attention is needed to this issue, as the problems we identified can be essential for the conclusions of the reviews.".
  • Cochrane Childbirth Reviews riddled with statistical errors. Amy Tuteur (obstetrician gynecologist, graduated from Harvard College & Boston University School of Medicine, former clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School.) : "Lay people love Cochrane (...) reviews. They always include plain language summaries, are systematic reviews or meta-analyses that are easy to understand, and are generally written by volunteers (...). Doctors are not nearly so enamored of Cochrane (...) reviews. Although they agree in principle with the aims of the Cochrane project (synthesizing scientific evidence), the reviews are limited by the fact that papers included in a review are often poorly done, underpowered and differ markedly from each other in what results are measured and how they are measured. Moreover, Cochrane Childbirth reviews are often written by self-selected volunteers with an ax to grind, and therefore appear to start with the conclusion and work back to include only papers that support it."
  • Clinical heterogeneity was a common problem in Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy and occupational therapy. (van den Ende CH, Steultjens EM, Bouter LM, Dekker J. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006.) Again Cochrane methodology is to be questioned, with critics on the transparency and reproducibility of their reviews.
  • Cochrane Review: Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. (Thompson RS, Rivara FP & Thompson DC. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library.) The cochrane review criticised here is about cycle helmets. But the methodology is the cochrane one, and is here too competently criticized; with the following remarks : "submissions were sometimes shortened and summarised in a way that omits key concerns ; authors had a conflict of interest in carrying out the review ; considering the assessment of quality of the same papers used by Towner et al, 2002, Elvik, 2011 finds that it is not at all clear that the omitted studies were of lower quality than the studies included (note the parallel with what the cochrane review on manuka honey says about "data from trials of higher quality found honey had no significant effect on healing rates or had significantly slower rates of healing" - considering that "honey" does not mean "manuka honey".)
  • Accessorily, a rather funny one : Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone beyond science and reason. Karsten J Jørgensen, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson and Peter C Gøtzsche, Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine 2009.

If you want to see many more such critics about cochrane reviews, type "Cochrane Review, critics -site:cochrane.org" . Among the 11 M + results you are bound to find a few more, I should think.

Conclusion : one review, cochrane or otherwise, is not to be used as a guideline for an article. It may be cited, and you'll note that my edit was quite more graceful than yours, in that it did not remove a single word of what was originally reported of that cochrane review. I just added info that is at least as valid as what that criticized reviewing cochrane process says. If one has the pretention of informing, one should at least let both (or more) sides of the argument be expressed, coming from reliable sources. This is not what you did.

Nevertheless I'll do as you say and "Break the proposal into pieces and discuss them here".

classified as a Therapeutic Good in Australia, and approval from the US Federal Drug Administration in 2007[edit]

meta-analysis is not needed here : either it is accepted as official medicine by governments, or it is not - Point. The reference attached to that is : Honey-Based Dressings and Wound Care: An Option for Care in the United States. Pieper, Barbara. Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing: January/February 2009 - Volume 36 - Issue 1 - p 60–66. This is a perfectly valid reference for that statement.

This has been put back, as it is not a matter for debate.--86.196.201.24 (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mānuka honey thixotropic, highest viscosity among a range of studied honeys. This is its main visually defining character[edit]

Reference for this : The factors responsible for the varying levels of UMF® in mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium) honey. Jonathan McD C Stephens. Doctorate thesis. 2006.

Again this is not a point that needs meta-ref in the sense that you demand. Besides, the principle of meta-ref is applied by the author, in that he has studied many different types of honey ; he also has used, compared and extimated many other studies, approx. 312 references if my count is exact and if it is not exact it's at least near that number and above 300, to come up with his conclusions. Among those 300 references there ARE meta-studies. If that is not what you call a meta-reference, what is. This ref is a doctorate thesis in Biological Sciences at the University of Waikato, NZ. It is at least as serious as the Dominion Post, Julie Biuso Publications or Passionate Vegetarian - refs to which you did not see anything wrong. So what's the problem with that ref ?

This has been put back, according to good common sense.--86.196.201.24 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To be labelled mānuka honey, at least 70% of its pollen content should come from Leptospermum scoparium[edit]

Original phrasing of this :

To be labelled mānuka honey, honey should have a mānuka pollen count of at least 70%. (ref : New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, Volume 28, Number 1, 1985.) Plus note of an editor : reason=Can anyone verify the exact wording this uses? I am just curious if this labelling limitation is limited to New Zealand or not.

As said before, the original statement is total nonsense as no honey contains anywhere near 70% pollen (or it would be a goohey paste). If you have access to the ref originally used, you are invited to retranscript here the "exact wording". I don't have access to it. But I found, and provide access to, a ref which is the same as the one immediately above mentioned ; in which that "70% pollen" is clearly explicited and put in the right context, from which it becomes perfectly clear what the original statement actually meant.

Thus it has been put back, as there really is no point keeping a nonsensical & non-understandable statement.

Honey has long been used as a healing agent[edit]

This uses 2 refs:

The first one is there because it's, precisely, the first one I found. The second one is there because I deemed the first one somewhat not serious enough. For info, "J R Soc Med." means "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine". If you care to read it, you will see that it IS a meta-study.

Please explain why you removed this, and what it is that you find wrong with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.201.24 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

more than 70 microbial species having shown susceptibility to it[edit]

ref : A review of the evidence for the use of topical antimicrobial agents in wound care. Rose Cooper. 2004. (BSc, PhD, PGCE, C Biol, MI Biol, Principal Lecturer in Microbiology Centre for Biomedical Sciences, School of Applied Sciences, University of Wales Institute Cardiff)

"A review of the evidence" : the title itself says that it is a meta-study, as you can see for yourself if you care to read it. It looks at several such medicines. Honey is duly included, with 11 refs - all of good standing of course.

The ref that that study uses for the discussed statement here, is The antibacterial activity of honey 1. The nature of the antibacterial activity, Peter C. Molan. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, NZ. Cited 390 times by other researchers. It shows an extract of the coran that mentions the healing properties of honey - ok, the coran may not be taken as a healing book (although quite a lot of people would differ on that, I suppose) ; samely for the fact that honey is mentionned 500 times in 900 ancient Egyptian remedies, and that Hippocrates and the bible (the latter, same as the coran, being somewhat of a dubious ref concerning healing or at least so it is seen by some) also mention it as healing agent, as says the Zumla & Lulat ref in J R Soc Med. mentionned in "Honey has long been used as a healing agent" section above. At least surely you can't deny that honey has been recognized for a long time as medicine. So on what basis do you remove this statement, please explain.

That same Molan study says in its introduction : "A large amount of research work has been done on the antibacterial activity of honey, but the results of this remain unknown to most users of honey because the work is so widely spread over time, and is published in different journals and in different languages. Because it is important to be aware of the research findings to realize the full potential of honey as a therapeutic substance, this review has been prepared to bring together what is known about the antibacterial activity of honey." If that is not a meta-study, what is.

use for burns[edit]

The other part of that Molan study is The antibacterial activity of honey 2. Variation in the potency of the antibacterial activity, Peter C. Molan. Note that this Molan study also mentions the use of honey as healing agent for burns, which I had not had time to add to the article before you indiscriminately removed the lot with what I find is a dubious claim ; and that that use on burns should also be mentioned in the article. There are lots of studies that mention burns treated with honey. If government approval is not enough for you (and I would quite approve you for this, in sight of the many products that had to be removed from government-approved lists after they killed x amounts of people) and you need further serious refs before you accept it, please state so.

discerning choices[edit]

Another noteworthy point : that study says that post-harvesting treatment conditions are part of the conditions that make honey more or less potent as a medicine. This corroborates what the very thorough Stephens study says. Heating destroys the hydrogene peroxyde effect common to all honeys including the manuka honey. From what I have seen while researching for this article, is that :

  • not all honeys called manuka honey are worth something as a medicine ;
  • and not all honeys are honestly worthy of the name - there is a lot of trafficking in that industry.

It seems therefore important to not reject the lot in a block, as you have done, but to educate oneself so as to be able to make discerning choices. For example I have seen quite a lot of brands sold as manuka honey, which clearly is NOT proper healing manuka honey simply because the colour is not right: too light. Of course the trafficking can be more subtile and not visible to te naked eye, but at least this is one guideline that should not be ignored. There is also the matter of region of origin, which is just as important because of the varieties of tea tree growing in such or such area. Rejecting everything in block will definitely not contribute to a better knowledge of the matter.

Its efficiency is due to hydrogen peroxide antibacterial components (considerably affected by heating) and to two antibacterial agents called inhibidines (not affected by heating)[edit]

ref : Antibacterial substances in honey. Stephan Bogdanoff. 1997. Swiss Bee Research Centre. 13 refs are used by Bogdanoff to support this statement, all refs of good standing. That is NOT the result of an individual study; it's what you call a meta-analysis, in that it is based on a review of studies. It may not be complete, but nor is the one you support; and it's there nevertheless so it would to not acknowledge it. Besides, there are, here again, many other studies and reviews that confirm it.

Then again, if you demand more scientific studies or reviews or meta-analysis to let the other side express its results, just say here how many of them you want. There are a lot more of them than that cochrane review says there are.

New ressources[edit]

Methylglyoxal is the main active component of manuka honey and accounts for the majority of this honey's antimicrobial activity.

Honey and cancer: sustainable inverse relationship particularly for developing nations-a review. antiviral and activities. Conclusion: There is now a sizeable evidence that honey is a natural immune booster, natural anti-inflammatory agent, natural antimicrobial agent, natural cancer “vaccine,” and natural promoter for healing chronic ulcers and wounds; some of the risk factors for cancer development. Bee farming is a lucrative business. Honey and cancer have sustainable inverse relationship in the setting of developing nations where resources for cancer prevention and treatment are limited. 109.217.197.113 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Which are you quoting? I'm not sure of the MEDRS status of Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. That a journal article concludes meaningless stuff like "natural immune booster", I am very skeptical. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Even a journal with a good track record can publish a bad article, so we can't entirely rely on the reputation of the publisher, editors, etc. The Evidence Based ... journal is indexed in the appropriate places, and is peer-reviewed, and the publisher has a fairly good reputation.
In this case, I think the article is okay if it is kept firmly in mind that the honey effects to reduce inflammation and kill microbes are with topical application. Swallowing honey is another story entirely. The article, in my opinion, draws on some very real studies, but then makes some general statements that could be misread because they blur that distinction. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/8259984.stm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Article incorrectly states that there are no proven medical uses[edit]

In fact "Medical honey" is now used in American hospitals as a part of certain wound dressings and special bandages. People should avoid making assumptions about these things, and then putting such assumptions in Wikipedia, without carefully researching first. 208.57.34.8 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging similar honey articles[edit]

Support: merging Leptospermum_honey into this article; there are only a couple sentences in the L. article. What about Medihoney? Alrich44 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Medihoney[edit]

Hello =108.179.36.130, I undid your deletion of the Medihoney section even though you justified the deletion as being written like an advertisement. The Medihoney section was relocated into Manuka honey as a merger, thus justifying the deletion of the Medihoney article. I suggest that you rewrite information instead of deleting. Alrich44 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Uses in Cancer treatment[edit]

I have created a section Possible uses in cancer treatment. As not to aggravate some working here, I have left it as Possible Perhaps that section should go in Medicinal uses as a sub-section. But I'll leave it standing as it's own section for now. What do you think? Anyway here is the info I have provided and the references. I hope they will be sufficient. If not then let's discuss.

Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is all worthless. As has been explained to you elsewhere, medical content should generally have WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
NOT worthless at all Alexbrn! If "medical content should generally have WP:MEDRS-compliant sources" as you say, then how come you Alexbrn and AndyTheGrump and certain others are selective in what content you you decide to delete? It seems those that who hover around the Natural Treatment / Natural foods pages select certain edits to destroy but leave others. Now Dr. Glenys Round and Dr Basel Al Ramadi are highly respected in their fields. They are respected researchers and know a whole lot more about Cancer than you do and yet you appear to selectively get rid of the content that you don't want here. Am I wrong ? So tell me, is their work nothing / worthless? Are their findings something that you should have the right and the power to say shouldn't be made available to others ? Are you more qualified than Dr Basel Al Ramadi who is professor and chairman of the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology? How about Dr. Glenys Round who is a medical researcher and a radiation oncologist at the Regional Cancer Centre in Waikato Hospital, New Zealand What are your qualifications in comparison ? Mr Bill Truth (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The point is Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. Extraordinary claims need extraordinarily-good sources, especially in the field of health. If you want to relay stuff about honey treating cancer, Wikipedia aint the place unless you have MEDRS sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to relay as you put it "stuff about honey treating cancer". I'm sourcing information that is based on findings by actual doctors. Doctors who are intimately and physically connected to the addition I make to the subject. I've had a look at the guidelines and I seem to have operated well enough within. I'm here to contribute to the articles, improve and expand them with credible info. I guess Dr Basel Al Ramadi, Dr. Glenys Round who are top liners in their field just don't have the credibility to be mentioned on Wikipedia when it comes under the alternative to the BIG$$ PHARMA$$ treatment heading. IT seems like we have arrived at the stage where certain things, no matter how credible or reliable are not going to allowed or included. If this is indeed the case then maybe "Wikipedia aint the place". Oh well. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane review's "many" studies[edit]

I've read the Cochrane review. As far as I can tell, there were 19 studies evaluated. Of those 19 only 2, (Gethin 2007 and Jull 2008) used manuka honey. That is not "many" as is being claimed in the article. It is less than 10% relatively and just a couple absolutely. That is, in fact, very few in normal English usage. I have changed the wording of the article to reflect this.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews claim concerning osmolarity and pH[edit]

I would also like someone to quote where the review says that "Other smaller antibacterial effects are expected to arise from the osmolarity and pH of the mānuka honey". I can't find that claim in the article. The only reference to osmolarity that I can find says that "it has antibacterial activity independent of the effect of honey’s peroxide activity and osmolarity". That's very different from the claim made in the Wikipedia article. It never says that the effects of osmolarity are smaller than those from other sources, just that they are additional. The osmolarity effects may be orders of magnitude larger for all we can imply form this single sentence. It also never says that this is specific to manukah honey, in fact quite the opposite: all honey has an effect due peroxide activity and osmolarity and nothing indicates that manuka honey is any better or worse than any other honey. I can't find any references at all to the effect of pH in the Cochrane review.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Heather[edit]

We have am OR problem,synthesis with this section. We have a one reference claiming that heather has a "late summer flowering period' and another reference has been added that that supposedly says that heather flowers in "autumn through spring" Obviously both can't be correct, ad the second reference never mentions manuka, so is clearly synthesis. This issue of where exactly heather flowers at these times is yet to be addressed. SO until this can be cleared up I'm reinstating the tags. Mark Marathon (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. We now have a statement that heather flowers in late summer and has a montane distribution in north temperate Europe and central Asia which means that it can;t be confused with Manuka. Is Manuka widely cultivated in north temperate Europe and central Asia? Are north temperate Europe and central Asia a major source of Manuka honey? If not then how does the flowering period and distribution of heather in those regions make it less likely to be confused with Manuka?Mark Marathon (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Misleading statement[edit]

The opening paragraph has a sentence that reads: 'While a component found in mānuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener." Yes, manuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, but it has been shown to have antibacterial properties in vivo. Google Scholar lists a number of studies. And the word "conclusive" is subjective. I am sure many people would state that evolution or general relativity have not been conclusively shown to be true. This sentence is biased and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum (talkcontribs) 00:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

An antibacterial claim is a conclusive anti-disease statement that would hold manuka honey science to the standards required of an approved drug; it obligates WP:MEDRS sourcing. There appear to be no such sources in the drug or food regulations of any government, internationally recognized health research institutions or the world's randomized clinical trial literature. --Zefr (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence ends "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener.". That is excessive, and I suggest that it simply end "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal value. Even with that, the term "conclusive" is being used in a technical manner that most readers will not understand. Consider this study: "Randomized clinical trial of honey-impregnated dressings for venous leg ulcers" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs.6059/full The abstract states "There were no significant differences between the groups for other outcomes." and "Honey-impregnated dressings did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with usual care." Being that the two therapies tested equally, the conclusion could be restated as "usual care did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with honey-impregnated dressings." If we assume that usual care is improving continually over time, then at some point in the past, honey-impregnated dressings were superior to the 'usual care' at that time. Currently, there are groups working to improve the use of honey as therapy, so that this approach will continually improve as well (see "Clinical usage of honey as a wound dressing: an update," http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2044/CLINICAL%20USAGE%20OF%20HONEY.ocr.pdf?sequence=1

To state that medical honey is nothing better than a sweetener is unfounded and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum (talkcontribs) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The RCT you refer to is not a reliable source (see WP:MEDRS). We need to mirror what the secondary sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Advertsing[edit]

User:Drfatihustok, the sources that you have used and the content you have added

violate WP:PROMO and WP:MEDRS. Please do not add promotional content to Wikipedia. If you don't understand, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)