Talk:Femarelle

Not enough information in this article

Hello, This article has almost no information what so ever. Wikipedia is a tool used to help people get an idea about things they don't know about, a tool to get information. You deleted almost every reference i added before, Why did you? In addition to all, you gave no information of the "mode of action" of the supplement, no information of the positive effects of use, not enough information what so ever, good or bad. I believe it is important to inform the articles writer that:

1. The legal regulations for marketing/presenting of such supplements are different i US, EU and in other parts of the world. the writer's EU-POV in this article is geocentrical and therefore not in line with W-policies.

2. As W prefers review articles as a source for medical and health information, it is important to draw the writer's attention to such an article with specific references to Femarelle: S. Bedell. et al., The pros and cons of plant estrogen for menopause, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.12.004

3. the writer has removed so called «inappropriate categories» from the article, while another article on a SERM the writer has edited (Menerba) still are categorized in Menopause, SERMs, Herbalism and Botanial drugs. Why are these products treated differently?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by קוריןבןקים (talk • contribs) 06:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that reference. I'll have a look at it later today. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Femarelle (DT56A) clarifications

Thank you for your information (Jytdog), I have read the COI link that you sent me, i support it, although i didn't try to sell or promote the product through Wikipedia. The information and references that you shared in the article on Femarelle were incorrect,you may check it again. now, the Femarelle article is very narrow and does not contain very much information, positive,negative or informative. It might as well be deleted from Wikipedia. All i am trying to write here is that the article should be adjusted with the correct information and refernces, it should be edited once again and with accurate in-depth and informative, Every time i edited this article with published scientific work you for some reason deleted my work. I am about to upload all the scientific data known to date, if for any reason something might seem incorrect, you are invited to edit it based on published scientific data. Therefore, i am asking you, or any other medical editors with no COI to re-edit Femarelle article, with the correct information and references.

Thank you.

Corin at Secure (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)corin at secure

Please don't add in-depth information. This is an encycloedia and so we should instead be summarizing accepted knowledge. If readers want "in depth" then can simply consult the excellent reliable sources that we (should) cite. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I added content based on the reference you provided above. That was a recent review, which is the kind of source we use for health content. Please do read WP:MEDRS - that is our guideline for sourcing health content. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, What about this reference? Was published at Journal of Clinical & Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, Therefore, this reference is strong enough to point out without a doubt that Femarelle contributes to bone health , Femarelle IS a SERM and does not appear to change the hormonal blood profile. could you please update this information?

References

--Corin at Secure (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)corin at secure

 Not done Have you read WP:MEDRS? This is a primary source - we almost never use those for statements concerning human health. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Corin, even the review article you provided above, says that Femarelle "may be a SERM". Not, "is a SERM". And likewise, the paragraph on the clinical testing that I added based on the review, is all directly supported by the review. This is why we rely on independent review articles (per MEDRS) - they evaluate the evidence in ways that we can not, as WP editors. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)