Talk:Mānuka honey

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mānuka honey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

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 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Advertsing[edit]

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

here
here, and
here

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)[reply]

History with Jim Wales leading to bias?[edit]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837971/#B34 https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-6-188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7693943/

I'm not an expert but these look like good sources to me. The antibiotic properties of Manuka honey seems to be well established. Can we not say so since Jimmy Wales once said this article made big claims that were poorly sourced? Gripdamage (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no bias. Two of the sources are in vitro studies having no relevance at this stage to therapeutic uses. See the quality of evidence for the encyclopedia at WP:MEDASSESS. We don't cite in vitro sources because they are far too preliminary to describe anything with certainty. The Research section already states that Manuka honey is under research for its possible antimicrobial effects. This is a review of in vitro studies which can be stated as a "review of preliminary research" which remains too early for conclusions. The authors state: "there is a shortage of clinical data to support the topical use of honey. Guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on chronic wounds, which has been heavily influenced by a Cochrane review by Jull et al. (2015), have concluded that there is little good-quality clinical evidence to support the use of honey dressings for chronic wounds." Another concern is that this article was published in a predatory journal listed as questionable on WP:CITEWATCH, possibly indicating that the authors paid a fee for publication and/or the article did not receive rigorous editorial review. Zefr (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive?[edit]

This article's Talk page seems like it has too many sections. Is there a consenseus on setting up a archive bot? Or will anyone be willing to do it ( you don't have to, I can)? Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few threads archived. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. | Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence[edit]

That second sentence is a weird non-sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.167.255 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a topical medication[edit]

For some reason, the article has this in the lede "There is little clinical evidence for its use as a topical medication." using a BBC article as the source. Yet that BBC article says: "In terms of honey being used as a medicine, 'medical grade honey' is licensed around the world for wound care treatment. There have been many recent research developments stemming from Cardiff University which have shown honeys in general, and particularly manuka honey, as effective with chronic wounds and MRSA (antibiotic-resistant infection)." How do we get "little evidence" from that? KRLA18 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Who Wrote That? tool (used on several older versions of the article) shows several interesting morphs of the text in that area of the article. Grorp (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Health claims?[edit]

People pay crazy prices for manuka honey for its claimed health properties, but the article currently doesn't even mention them? I know it's a minefield but we can't just ignore this. Jpatokal (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some crazy people think the Earth is flat, but we do not give them a platform on the encyclopedia. There are no WP:MEDRS sources to support any health claims for consuming manuka honey - it is just a sugary food composed of carbohydrates and water, with little nutritional value. Zefr (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many Australian mainstream doctors and nurses swear by the benefits of this product, as do many hospitals. I present that merely as a statement of fact. Not trying to prove anything about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 Can you provide a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for that claim please? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Surely that's obvious. I'm simply making the point that a lot of non-crazy people think it's good stuff. Your implication that one has to be crazy to believe in it is both insulting and wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]