Talk:Shilajit/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Most of this article sounds like an advertisement trying to sell Shilajit, and seems like it is directly copy-pasted from websites who do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.42.8 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mumiyo deserves a separate article

The preparation "mumiyo" or "mumie" (Russian мумиё, usually spelled simply мумие) is widely known in the Russian-speaking world, not merely among people interested in herbal medicine, but to the general public. See Russian Wikipedia article for more information: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%91 As things stand, the link to "mumiyo" is redirected back to this article. I think that it deserves a separate article. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The question I have is, how exactly is shilajit different from mumiyo or mumie? Are they actually different substances? Because everything i've seen so far seems to suggest that they are the same substance, just with a different name in different parts of the world. Silverseren^C 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(Not that you're likely to respond, since it was two years ago. But take my response as a general discussion for anyone else who wants to discuss this.) Silverseren^C 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion, but I feel I don't have sufficient knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. The fact is, there are plenty of publications indexed on Google Scholar, in English, German, or Russian, that talk both of Mumiyo and Shilajit - separately or together - and somebody with a pharmaceutical / biochemical background and an interest in "traditional medicine" can certainly write a well-sourced wiki article based on them. He'd have to be careful to explain what exactly the two terms apply to: I have not even heard the word "shilajit" until yesterday, and as far as "mumiyo" goes, it seems that the term can be applied by various authors to any form of, excuse my French, "organic shit" (by-products of bees, decomposing dead animal bodies, and, yes, transformed excrements of various animals - as well as, indeed, some mineral tar) found in mountain crevices. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Which all makes it fairly difficult to write an article about, if you're trying to just find the sources that are speaking about one substance, not other things. I agree that an expert is needed here. Silverseren^C 19:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I just removed the deletion template that was pasted up earlier today.

I disagree that with the suggestion that this article has serious enough problems with tone to be deleted, and I believe it is a worthy encyclopedic article - it has similar a similar tone as other, more notable/longer Wiki articles about other adaptogens. It does not seem to have much of an advertising tone at all to me. Maybe the reference to "rasayana material" is inappropriate in this article, however.

This article does have a problem with worthless sources, though. When I have some time I will try to fix it up, but in the meanwhile I think it should not be deleted. Allethrin (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the really awful material was removed, and I suppose, reading it again, it's alright now, so I suppose you're right. It looked a lot more hopeless a couple days ago. I've cut the rasayana sentence, and it should probably be alright now, so long as badly-sourced health claims don't begin popping up everywhere again. 86.176.222.148 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that can be used to expand this article, an example search here and that's only with one of the variants of the name. Silverseren^C 14:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminology and spelling consistency

How the substance is referenced changes throughout the article. Sometimes it's just shilajit, sometimes it's mumio, mumiyo or mumijo, and sometimes it's mumio/shilajit. Shouldn't it just be one term throughout, unless it's part of a quotation or citation? And shouldn't that probably be shilajit, since that's the title of the article (and what there's far more cited research on)? If not, then it should at least be consistent about the spelling of mumio (the most common spelling, according to Google -- I'm not sure what other basis to use, since it's a transliteration of Cyrillic). ScottAllenOnline (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Standards

this article makes claims about medical treatments. The highest standards of sourcing should be required. While this article has a list of sources, it's not clear what assertions they relate to. Further, a large bloc of text was added from what may be dubious websites. I've cut it down to the minimal amount that has footnoted sources. Let's not add anything more that doesn't have high quality sources with clear provenance.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I added a cleanup tag, and removed a lot of unverified original pseudoscientific research. Happy to revert that if proper citations are provided.24.60.203.99 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I just removed the pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead

[ https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/364147 ] says:

"Mean concentration of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, copper and zinc was 73.15, 104.92, 0.496, 3.89, 4.04 and 17.23 ppm, respectively."

First, I would like to request some original research from someone with a chemistry background: are these concentrations large enough to be of a concern?

Second, I would like to request some original research from someone with an Ayurvedic background: Mow many grams of Shilajit are used to make Ayurvedic medicine?

(Obviously if someone eats a kilogram the acceptable arsenic, mercury, and lead concentrations are lower than in the case where someone eats a milligram).

According to [ http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/mercury/ ]:

"The EPA has established a limit of 2 parts per billion (ppb) of allowable mercury of drinking water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm)."

Note: original research is allowed on article talk pages, but if the original research leads me to believe that the levels are a concern, I will still have to find WP:MEDRS-complaint reliable secondary sources for any edits made to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please restore the well cited sections

I don't see a justification for removing well-cited sections. The note about unproven benefits should be kept with the proper citations (unless there are published research studies proving any effectiveness). Malaiya (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for not noticing it earlier. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

One of the sentences does not make sense

"Shilajit and other Ayurvedic drugs can the liver and kidney" - I don't know what this means, there is a word missing between 'can' and 'the'. --DanielMcAdam (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 08:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

uses???

why isnt there any section at all - or even a mention?? of its uses... its compared to a herb - is it used like a herb? on skin? hair? consumed? pros cons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilstr (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Shilajeet

Is Shilajeet containing any minerals like iron, manganese, selenium etc.? 2405:201:2013:1FE6:C4BC:376:3159:EFF5 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Health benefits of Humic and Fulvic acids.

I think this is just a form of the general Humic substances and the health benefits they bring to the diet and soil health for crops. This is just an ancient version. They used it for health and remedies in India going back centuries. 2601:1C0:5480:450:5CEE:A823:AF05:49C1 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

....what is this article?

There are soo many keywords that make zero sense and is gobidy-goop when trying to decipher what exactly this article is about. 4.1.69.74 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Mineral or not?

I am soo tired of those myths about where it comes. It is NOT mineral at all, it is extract of humus formed out of bats deposits (actually "poop", hence even here mentioned "coprolitic"). Those bat colonies live in high mountains, eat insects, that feed on mountain flora, thus enriching all the good stuff in it. In the caves where bat colonies sleep, deposits form. These deposits are collected, softened in water for several days, fine filtered, then filtered liquid is dehydrated to desired thickness. That's how my dad did it before my very eyes and with my help. 69.181.205.120 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any photo evidence to back this up? 23.245.74.145 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Any proof of it being bat-poop? Your father just processed the material, he did not see bats pooping or transformation of poop. Present the lab analysis, scientific research, or some expert opinion to back your theory up. 2001:14BB:673:5F97:EC4D:FE4B:12BC:5CBC (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

totally unclear what this is about.

Conqueror of the Rocks?? do i have to throw this against the rocks? is this a medicine maybe? Do you take it anally? or orally? in a pil? a solution in water? what kind of medicine? for what disease? is it no medicine but a ritual religious used compound? a lubricant? for the skin?

WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT USED FOR Sanderbelou (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Research

Hi @Bon courage why have you trimmed medical research about mumio asil which was started last century in Soviet time with notion that cited research "unreliable/unsourced" even though it has reference to the library with records about dissertation of doctor Shakirov who was highly respectful professional in former USSR as well as Ministry of Health of the Uzbek SSR back then was official medical institution moreover organizer of 3rd Symposium of USSR about current research at that time, with following whole nowadays field of follow-up biomedical research, even though it was not publicized in English. It would be more wise at least to move it then to history chapter, but not delete. EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Would need WP:MEDRS, if it's true this has been followed-up widely in biomedicine it should be simple for you to provide such a source. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Last century publications were referring to research timeline as follows in Russian publications at that time and you would not find it in Engligh:

In 1955, Dr. Shakirov Adil Sharipovich, based on ethnographic research and old medical manuscripts, began a systematic pharmacological study of mumijo-asil.

In 1965 in Dushanbe, on the initiative of Ministry of Health of the Tajik SSR and the academic council of the Tajik State Medical Institute named after Abuali Ibn Sina (Avicenna) held the first Inter-Republican Symposium on the experimental study of mumijo.

In 1972 the second symposium on mumijo research was held in Pyatigorsk on the initiative of the Institute of Balneology and Physiotherapy.

In 1976 mumijo was found useful in the complex treatment of bone fractures .

In 1978 on the initiative of the Ministry of Health of the Uzbek SSR, the III All-Union Symposium on experimental and morphological studies of the effect of mumijo on the regeneration of nerves, heart muscle and bones was held in Tashkent .

In 1995 the results of the study on the identification of mumiyo were developed by T. Kiseleva and co-authors and protected by the RF patent “Method for identifying mumiyo-like substances” No. 2042948

In PubMed most current research on shilajit mumijo EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

But no WP:MEDRS. All looks like dodgy supplement claims (quackery). The more recent review we cite, PMID:21530631 says it does nothing useful as medicine. Bon courage (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

in recent 2020 clinical trials co-author Thomas Rampp of Eugene Wilson from review you have referring report on reducing the healing time of Tibia Fracture Repair in Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled study

in recent 2022 study 2023 study neuroprotective role mumijo of has been described already EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Primary research in poor journals rather reinforces the likelihood this is all supplement rubbish. Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage another publication with positive results showing reduction oxidative stress, inflammation, and bone loss to dose-dependently preserve bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteopenia: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in top-tier journal with impact factor of 7.9 EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but it's primary research so useful for WP:BMI on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

currently 26 trials listed in cochrane with shilajit

will wait then for more data

anyway thank you for discussion EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

History Ouseley William report

@ Bon courage now what is wrong with Ouseley William historical report , why did you delete it? he did provided original sources with translation into English with clear explanations for that time available EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an entire section build on a primary source, so not WP:DUE. Bon courage (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage his published his trevel report in 1821 so sure it is rare because primary sources were not in English, though up to now Darabgerd "city of Darius" even wiki says it is famous for mumiya, a mineral exudate with reference to Huff, Dietrich "DĀRĀB (2)". Encyclopaedia Iranica, which in turn listed Ouseley William report and another one i did not found Schwarz, Iran

So can we agree on that at that place and that time people were harvesting it and used it ?

and why would it be WP:DUE if people are still researching it by the way Ouseley William book also stored at wikimedia with original citations for earlier sources EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What? We need good sources to build an article. Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage why for History Chapter referring to previous encounter at that time not good enough to be referenced, it does not support or arguing against, just presenting eastern knowledge about it at that time for Westerners translating from original sources and citing earlier sources, for example XVII century Father Angelo’s Pharmacopoeia Persica> many times mentioned in history research papers EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And if this is significant it will be covered in secondary sources. Is it? Bon courage (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage

"the Persian scholar Sir William Ouseley(1767‒1842) his brother Sir Gore Ouseley (1770‒1844), who amassed a magnificent library of manuscripts during his mission toTehranin1810‒14 " from Hodgson JR. “Spoils of Many a Distant Land”: The Earls of Crawford and the Collecting of Oriental Manuscripts in the Nineteenth Century. Journal of Imperial & Commonwealth History. 2020;48(6):1011-1047. doi:10.1080/03086534.2020.1765532 EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that's potentially a source for saying the Ouseleys built a library ... 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)