Talk:Propolis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I have smelled the bridges of new violins manufactured in Poland in the early 21st century. They smell like a beehive, and I have no doubt that the wood was sealed with a spirit solution of propolis. Just plain Bill 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit of 22:49, 3 February 2006 by 84.97.222.71, it seems a bit effusive, a bit like a sales pitch. I intend to tone it down a bit in a day or so, if someone else doesn't get there first. Just plain Bill 04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't make sense. In one sentence, it says that the benefits of propolis can't be measured because its composition varies so widely, and in the next it says "Propolis is rich in flavonoids". How can you say that if you can't say that propolis will always be made from the same substance?4.88.42.140 (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it says that. It does say, "Poplar resin is rich in flavanoids." __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocentrism[edit]

In the first place, propolis has uses and health benefits for bees themselves. Humans then steal it for human use. I put "human use" explicitly in the headers, to avoid adopting an overly human POV, but Tktktk took this out again. --RichardVeryard (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RichardVeryard. Sorry, my intention was merely to fix the section headers, as the standard format is to use two = signs for the main headers rather than one. While fixing this, I also removed the overarching "Human uses" section, since its only purpose was to hold the other two sections. Now, your statement on my talk page was that assuming "use" means "human use" is POV, and I can see your point there. However, I think it is safe to assume that "medical/commercial uses" in this context means "human medical/commercial uses" (particularly since there is already a "Purpose" section specifically for the bees' uses), so I think the current POV of the article should be okay. tktktk (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we obviously need to do is recruit some bees to share their views about propolis's medicinal properties. And maybe some pine trees to tell how they feel about bees appropriating their resin. 70.30.88.129 (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More like birch trees and others, but that remark is just silly. The bees have made their views known by using the stuff. Sustainable resin extraction is one thing, and drastic extraction prior to cutting down the tree is another. Humans do both, and the trees have not made their objections known. Your thoughts? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic question[edit]

Under the section labeled "As a dental anti-plaque agent", there is a part which reads "there is some evidence that propolis may actively protect against caries and other forms of oral disease". My question is this: Would English-speakers in Britain, Australia, etc. be just as confused by the word "cavities" as Americans are by "caries"? So far, I have never heard cavities called caries, except on wikipedia. Is it the case then, that they're only called cavities in America? I'm just curious, because if British, Australian, etc. readers would understand the word "cavities" it would be a better choice, as many more readers would understand the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.117.239 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Caries" is a technical dental term for tooth decay. It isn't a plural (like cavities is). That is, you can't have one "cary." Caries is a synonym for decay and you can have caries which does not involve cavities. See Dental caries--Sbreheny (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It should rather say, "Tooth Decay" than Caries. The synonym is not widely known to those outside of the dentistry profession.[reply]

Propolis in Arabic[edit]

Propolis

In fact, I found the information very useful though some add that propolis has medical and healing effects since it is used as a defence by bees. They say it does the same to all viruses and bacteria that may invade humans and cause diseases. I cannot verify these things. But, I would like to add the Arabic word for "popolis". It may be added to the dictionary for future use by learners or researchers. The Arabic for "Propolis" is: (عُكـْبُر), pronounced: approximately /'ukbur/[ the glottal stop or plosive Arabic sound / ع /, followed by the short vowel sound "u" which sounds like the (oo) in "book" + k + a new syllable beginning with a "b" followed by the short vowel sound "u" + trilled "r" or the usual "r" sound found in the Arabic consonant inventory.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.167.222 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

How do bees make this? How do they carry it to the hive? How to they mix it; apply it? --86.16.72.219 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question[edit]

The last sentence in the "As an antioxidant" and in the "In cancer treatment and cancer prevention" sections is somewhat redundant.

Would makes propolis gum? It would be nice if the company name was provided.

ICE77 (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS[edit]

The medical science claims in this article are mostly supported by WP:MEDRS-incompatible sources. Just dumping every study on Pubmed with the word "propolis" in it does not make an encylcopedia article. I would recommend that only secondary sources (reviews & textbooks) are used. If a particular research avenue is not covered in secondary sources it is probably best left out. JFW | T@lk 10:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently started a conversation here [1] for this interested. I'll probably shift more discussion here once actual edit ideas come up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've included some composite review articles and secondary sources aligned with WP:MEDRS Studies on PubMed often include secondary sources as well, it's not all experimental studies. Hopefully that pleases everyone who stops by here every now and then Knightoften (talk) 5:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Your sources were not WP:MEDRS quality - which don't exist for studies on propolis - but rather were MDPI journals blacklisted on WP:CITEWATCH due to predatory publishing practices. The MedlinePlus (US NLM) states "there is no good scientific evidence to support these uses", i.e., any clinical uses. Zefr (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with the removal of journals, didn't see that they were multiple pages on WP:CITEWATCH, which is my mistake. Medline, however, did state "possibly effective" and "insufficient evidence for," which is the language I used. Since "possibly effective" can't be left in, doesn't make sense for "insufficient evidence for" to be left in as well. Since this section is such a source of contention, am removing Medline source; shortening and leaving only the originally cited book used in the rest of the article. Knightoften (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Medical evidence has a higher standard for pronouncing a treatment or drug as 'effective'. That's the point of WP:MEDRS - the quality of evidence has to be a high standard. 'Insufficient evidence' means there isn't high-quality evidence to cite in support of specific content. The statement is fine as it is, and the Medline source - which itself provides references - is adequate to represent our general position that propolis has no substantial research to imply any anti-disease effects or health benefits to humans. Zefr (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand that, just wondering why we couldn't cite Medline for its section on "possible uses." Afterall as a sidenote, this Medline page also cites the same sources blacklisted on WP:CITEWATCH Knightoften (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A statement of 'possible uses' for propolis doesn't meet WP:MEDASSESS. That's why we say 'insufficient evidence'. Zefr (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Search of WP:MEDASSESS shows nothing for guidelines on dealing with possible uses, but does mention that "The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it." And like I stated, Medline cites the same sources you removed which are listed on WP:CITEWATCH. Still, I'll leave this one up to you. Knightoften (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming editing over the next couple months - 2018[edit]

Hey everyone,

My school (RPI) is doing a class project on various applications of biological materials. My group is interested in the potential use of propolis in the biomedical field, specifically it's antimicrobial properties, and will be doing extensive research on the topic through Web of Science research papers. Just wanted to give a heads up that we would like to edit this page on propolis as we continue our research! If anyone has any comments or issues please feel free to reach out,

Andreas Kontopidis Kontoa@rpi.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Kontopidis (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for editing the propolis page[edit]

Hello!

My name is Kathy and I am in the group from RPI with the goal of editing the Propolis page. We are planning to start with some background information, particularly about how propolis is used in the beehive, and how bees make it. Next, we will discuss how propolis has been used by people in the past, particularly focusing on medical uses with its properties like antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti inflammatory, anti-tumor, etc. We will explain why propolis has such broad spectrum properties with a section on composition. The composition section will briefly explain major constituents in propolis and focus on the constituents that give propolis its biological activities. We will bring up that composition depends on the region where the propolis is located. We will discuss safety of propolis, particularly for people with allergies. We will conclude with current applications so far, and introduce new studies and cutting edge research on the potentials and explain the future of propolis. Our project is due on May 4th, so changes are coming soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathy lin (talk • contribs)

@Kathy lin: Since your plan involves changes that involve medical content, I'd like to make you aware of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), if you haven't seen it already, which describes Wikipedia's policy regarding the topic. Please make sure your content and its sources are compliant with this policy or they may end up being removed. Best regards, Deli nk (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deli nk,

Thank you for your input, the group will take your input into consideration and be sure to follow the Wikipedia policy. Our edits will not focus on medical content, but will summarize how people have used propolis in the past, it's composition, and antimicrobial properties. We will be referencing potential uses in the biomedical field, however, mostly provide background insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathy lin (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propolis functions[edit]

Via WP:BRD concerning this edit, this FAO source and this BBC ref contain useful information, but the other edits by Andreas Kontopidis are unsourced or derive from primary research/sources that do not meet WP:SCIRS. There are also spelling and formatting errors that require more attention in the sandbox. The edits on chemical constituents by Kathy lin are based entirely on primary research, are speculative, formatted poorly, and unusable. --Zefr (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Hi Zefr, I appreciate your concerns. Many of the sources I used to describe the structure to biological activity were from review articles, which are secondary sources. I formatted that section by the major constituents that give propolis its biological activities. The flavonoids have been well-researched, so I was able to expand specifically for each property. From the link you provided WP:SCIRS, primary research is allowed for wiki pages, and can be valuable in an article. It is important to include some new investigations and current state of art on propolis since it has potentials in future applications. --Kathy lin (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point of what Wikipedia is. It's not an indiscriminate collection of indirect information about any topic; see WP:IINFO and the first of 5 pillars. In the case of propolis and your edits, beginning particularly here, you drew conclusions from preliminary primary research about possible propolis properties which have not been proven; this is the point of WP:PRIMARY and for the numerous implied physiological or anti-disease effects of propolis chemicals, WP:MEDASSESS. Specifically, your interpretations about propolis biological properties are not scientifically tenable and amount to original research, WP:OR, which is discouraged. Further, your use of English grammar needs improvement and better checking in your sandbox, such as "The catechol groups of the flavonoids was found" and "The terpenoids are volatile compounds that is responsible". For biological and anti-disease effects to be discussed in the encyclopedia, high-quality systematic reviews are needed, as discussed in the WP:MEDRS guideline which is summarized in this tutorial. Please share it with your student colleagues. --Zefr (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of the edits made by this user, it appears that an appropriate mix of review articles and journal articles on this topic are referenced. Based on my understanding of the literature, it is a proven fact that propolis contains flavonoids, which have been proven to display antioxidant properties. That is not speculative and it is not original research. Minor spelling and grammar issues can be fixed by any user and are not grounds for removal of an entire article... I am much more concerned, however, about your assertion that the article was plagiarised. Can you provide any details or evidence to back up this claim? I myself could not identify any clear plagiarism here. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An assumption in editing encyclopedia articles is that there is underlying competence of the editor for the subject, described in WP:CIR. The first edit yesterday by Kathy lin here appears to derive mainly from a flavonoid source, and is based on a misunderstanding of science-based information about flavonoids in propolis, and of the principles of writing for the encyclopedia. Propolis may contain flavonoids, but the evidence is only from lab research which is not encyclopedic. Flavonoids display antioxidant properties only in test tubes, whereas there is no WP:MEDRS evidence they have roles in biological functions in vivo, leaving the discussion unencyclopedic and open to original interpretations by the editor - WP:OR - connecting propolis flavonoids to supposed anti-disease effects. Wikipedia is not a site for publishing non-expert term papers from your class, WP:NOTESSAY, and is not a forum for a student's speculations about how something poorly understood, as propolis is, may have biological significance, WP:NOTFORUM. --Zefr (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not addressed the issue of your accusation of plagiarism. What evidence do you have to support this claim??? MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's correct that the activity of natural products derived from propolis has been studied in vitro, and that their efficacy in vivo is not currently known. Still, that does not mean it lacks notability. Chemists and materials scientists are very interested in the structure and properties of propolis quite apart from any medical uses. I do understand and agree that editors need to steer clear of any speculation on medicinal properties of a poorly understood and heterogenous natural product. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OFFTOPIC, adding weakly sourced content that propolis flavonoids or other chemicals have biological significance in vivo - or worse, suggesting actual roles in health or disease physiology - seems a long way from an RPI course on materials science. As for the statement below, I'm challenging the competence of materials science or chemistry students adding content requiring sources under WP:MEDRS. The burden of providing credible content and sources is on the editor(s) adding this information, WP:BURDEN. Lastly, the Talk page exists to improve the article, so please restrict comments per the guide at WP:TALK and WP:TALKNO. From your comments added today, I see your reasoning for adding in vitro results, but this is not encyclopedic writing; it's an attempt to make propolis chemicals more important than good science shows they are; see WP:MEDANIMAL. --Zefr (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the broad statement that students in a classroom are unfit to edit Wikipedia, I think the folks at WikiEd would disagree. MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bee researcher, and I think it is crucially important to acknowledge a fundamental limitation of most of the research into medical properties of propolis, and editors should be appropriately critical in evaluating sources on the topic for inclusion here, specifically regarding the fact that propolis samples obtained from different beehives are never going to be chemically identical. The primary, and glaringly obvious, reason that propolis is so poorly understood is because people treat it as if it is a single, uniform substance, when it is emphatically not uniform. Propolis is less uniform in character than water is, and water is very non-uniform - pond water, ocean water, sewer water, nuclear reactor water, glacial water, rain water - you would not want to drink all of them, because you would not expect them all to have similar effects when consumed. Unless the source one is quoting is explicit regarding the actual physical source of the propolis being tested (i.e., China, Brazil, Canada, Australia, and/or which vegetation the resins came from), such studies have zero replicability, and replication is the cornerstone of the scientific method. If a study cannot be replicated, on what basis can one argue for its inclusion in Wikipedia? The point is, an edit that puts forth a generalized - and therefore false - premise such as "Propolis contains flavonoids" is a problem; on the other hand, an edit that says "Study X reported flavonoids in propolis samples from southern Brazil" is NOT a problem, because it limits the circumscription to only what the evidence supports, without generalization. As for one of User MTLE4470 EFP's comments above, if you read the flavonoid article you will note, as Zefr also mentioned, that research on flavonoids in vitro should NOT be assumed to have any relevance at all to in vivo properties; antioxidant properties in a test tube are ONLY relevant to test tubes, not human consumption. The WP:MEDRS standards should be viewed as a very high bar, and great care should be used by editors who are not in a good position to evaluate source material. It's somewhat ironic that Wikipedia has stricter standards than some journals, but as a community, WP editors have to act responsibly; where human health is concerned, we really DO NOT want to support or promote quackery. Dyanega (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this feedback. You make some great points. The edits should not include any claims about the in vivo efficacy of propolis. There is no evidence or clinical trials to support use in medicine and, yes, there is a great deal of quackery by some folks who want to sell the stuff as a remedy of some kind... However, there is still a lot of basic science that will be of interest to chemists and materials scientists (having nothing to do with the translational medicine aspects). Individual compounds that have been isolated from specific samples (source, species, etc) and their in vitro activity, however, does seem relevant and notable to me from a basic science perspective. There are many authoritative references with enough info to reproduce the experiment, and appear to have been performed in accordance with the scientific method MTLE4470 EFP (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment provided on the Talk page of Andreas Kontopidis for the large proposed edit today which I reverted due to WP:CAUTIOUS and lack of consensus here, WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use in pan flute maintenance[edit]

Pan flute players routinely swab the tubes with propolis tincture to manage how humidity affects the tube walls and the bore of the instrument. Anecdotally, I know a player who uses propolis in this way, obviously not reliable for WP purposes. The sources I have found for this are commercial sites, mostly specialized vendors such as this one. I will appreciate comments on how appropriate and reliable this source, or others like it, may be considered for use in the context of this article. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it harvested from bee hives[edit]

Article is not clear on : How is it harvested from bee hives ? historically, and for modern commerce ? From what parts of the bee hive ? How is the commercial product processed ? What commercial grades or types ('Brazilian Red' ?) are traded ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism and use of the Medline source[edit]

This edit is a direct plagiarized copy of the MedlinePlus source, WP:PLAG, and is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. I have opposed use of the Medline source because its own sources are primary research - not WP:MEDRS reviews, and there is no convincing literature to substantiate the statements. The IP user also created a formatting error which disrupted the page style, MOS:STYLE, and is edit warring beyond the 3-revert rule, WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:MEDRS-quality source to indicate sufficient clinical evidence for using propolis as a therapy. The article now states it this way. Responsibility for further changes relies on WP:BURDEN for a high-quality source. Reverting the existing version by 87.110.143.41 will be evidence of further edit warring and gaining no consensus for a change by discussion here on the talk page, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic review of propolis and Covid-19[edit]

Potential effects of propolis and honey in COVID-19 prevention and treatment: A systematic review of in silico and clinical studies.

Witoo Dilokthornsakul, Ramanya Kosiyaporn, Rattanamanee Wuttipongwaragon, and Piyameth Dilokthornsakul⁎

J Integr Med. 2022 Mar; 20(2): 114–125. Published online 2022 Jan 31. doi: 10.1016/j.joim.2022.01.008 - PMCID: PMC8801981 - PMID: 35144898

Feel free to create the links for the above paragraph. I don't remember how. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read the thread above labeled "Propolis functions". Single studies are generally not compliant with WP:MEDRS guidelines. Be forewarned that you need to be fully familiar with the MEDRS guidelines and related principles and practices before engaging in editing on biomedical topics. Dyanega (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? It is a review. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, I have read it, and I can summarize it: it refers to exactly 7 in silico studies with protocols that appear to be sound, and with known sources of propolis. Those 7 studies are from three countries; Turkey, Egypt, and Indonesia. The chemical profiles for the propolis in these 7 studies reveal that no two of them contain the exact same chemicals, and in fact only two sets of samples (one from Egypt and the one from Turkey, and three of the four Indonesian samples) have three or more compounds shared across samples, and could even potentially be considered semi-replicates. The two in the first set gave the same result, the second set had two with the same result out of the three. About the only statement you could make that would be both accurate and truthful about these 5 studies is this: propolis samples containing Rutin, Glyasperin A, or Sulabiroins A appear to have some potential to interfere with COVID-19 virus infection. As for clinical studies, the only clinical study that had more than one patient and used propolis alone (rather than honey or other additives) was cited by the authors of the review as "having high risk of bias", and documented as being largely uncontrolled. More to the point, only one of the many parameters assessed differed significantly among treatments; patients treated with Brazilian green propolis had a shorter mean time in the hospital, but no measurable difference in oxygen therapy dependency time, the number of acute kidney injuries, the use of renal replacement therapy, invasive ventilation, vasoactive agents, or ICU stay. Everything else is just single data points. That is extremely poor evidence for any claims of beneficial effects of propolis. However, it is very good evidence that propolis contains a semi-randomized set of plant compounds limited to a specific time and geographic area, so no two propolis samples have the same chemical profile, rather than being a single substance with a single set of constituents. It is illogical to expect that the biomedical properties of propolis can ever be assayed and evaluated if it is impossible to provide multiple identical samples that can be tested under controlled conditions. What makes more sense is to isolate and test individual compounds from plant resins, like Rutin or Sulabiroin, rather than to use mixed sources like propolis. Dyanega (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I am remembering correctly there were several results with shorter ICU or hospital stays. Having been in the hospital this year I can tell you it matters being able to cut a few days off of being on those uncomfortable hospital beds. At least in my hospital. And not being stuck in that small space matters.
There needs to be more studies of course. But isolating compounds is not necessary most of the time. Propolis is propolis. This is a perennial argument with natural substances. What is that saying about the perfect getting in the way of the practical?
No way that we are going to get hundreds of millions of dollars for perfect studies. There are better methods. Comparing new treatments or additions to existing treatments. Comparing to the existing treatment. It is not perfect but it is not bad either. And there is the entourage effect too. I have no illusions about changing how Wikipedia handles medical info. Maybe a few years or decades from now Wikipedia will wake up. I don't have time to do the editing anyway. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take it from someone who works with bees: propolis is just a collection of sticky substances gathered from the environment, it is not a single substance. It can include tar, paint, cement, and feces, among other things. No two hives have the same exact composition, even in the same apiary. Your comment is directly analogous to saying "soil is soil", or "pond water is pond water". They are idiosyncratic and complex mixtures, so any such statement is demonstrably false, and claims that propolis is a single thing are likewise demonstrably false, and therefore very misleading. You would very rightly challenge anyone who claimed that "pond water improves recovery from chemotherapy" or "eating soil can reduce infections" for exactly that reason: while a single specific soil sample, or sample of pond water, might contain a substance with therapeutic properties, that anecdotal result does not extend to the conclusion that ALL soil samples, or ALL ponds, contain therapeutic agents. The same applies to propolis. I have no doubt that certain plant resins contain therapeutic agents, and if those plant resins happen to be incorporated into a specific sample of propolis, then that sample of propolis may reflect those properties. That does not mean that those resins or their properties are shared by any other samples. If a study is not replicable, it is not science, and it does not get included in Wikipedia. I honestly cannot conceive of any way to test the properties of propolis EXCEPT by breaking it down into individual constituents, since you can't get large numbers of identical samples for testing. Dyanega (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to get identical samples to get good results. I personally prefer organic propolis. But have gotten good results with non-organic. That is what I mean by "propolis is propolis". More studies need to be done, but they are already getting good results according to the review. It is a natural substance. It is not likely to hurt you. Are you going to turn it down if it would help you deal with Covid in the hospital? Are you seriously going to refuse to take it until massive studies are done breaking down the constituents of propolis from all parts of the world? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional medicine" section[edit]

It currently says:

Propolis has been used in traditional medicine, with insufficient evidence to rate its effectiveness in the treatment of any illnesses.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Propolis". MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine. 11 May 2020. Retrieved 5 December 2020.

That's not what the reference says. This is what the reference actually says below (additional emphasis added). It says it is possibly effective for several things.

How effective is it?

Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database rates effectiveness based on scientific evidence according to the following scale: Effective, Likely Effective, Possibly Effective, Possibly Ineffective, Likely Ineffective, Ineffective, and Insufficient Evidence to Rate.

The effectiveness ratings for PROPOLIS are as follows:

Possibly effective for...

  • Diabetes. Taking propolis by mouth seems to improve blood sugar control by a small amount in people with diabetes. But it doesn't seem to affect insulin levels or improve insulin resistance.
  • Cold sores (herpes labialis). Applying an ointment or cream containing 0.5% to 3% propolis five times daily might help cold sores to heal faster and reduce pain.
  • Swelling (inflammation) and sores inside the mouth (oral mucositis). Taking propolis by mouth or rinsing the mouth with a propolis mouth rinse helps heal sores caused by cancer drugs.

Anecdotally, I and many others have used propolis to speed up recovery from sore throats. In my case since the late 1970s, if I am remembering correctly. It is common knowledge to people into natural foods, medicines, etc.. I would like to see the "scientific evidence" mentioned in the above excerpt. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another reason to delete the Medline reference entirely; as noted above in the thread titled "Plagiarism and use of the Medline source", Medline is a poor source, as it cites primary sources that lack corroboration from subsequent research. Quackery is easy to get published, but hard to get anyone to corroborate. Dyanega (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Medline is quoting Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. I don't see a Wikipedia page on it. Here is a search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Natural+Medicines+Comprehensive+Database
How does it compile its database, where are its sources? Is it continually updating info on propolis? I have no idea as to the quality of its info. I don't think you do either. I don't have the time. You seem to be one of those med editors that use the word "quackery" at the drop of a hat.
Someone with time should find the propolis page on Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MedlinePlus is a trusted medical source of the US National Library of Medicine, meeting WP:MEDSCI. A compound with evidence rated as "possibly effective" is not strong enough for the encyclopedia. A sufficiently strong source would be a medical systematic review showing efficacy, something that does not exist for propolis. Zefr (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my latest reply in the section higher up: #Systematic review of propolis and Covid-19. Someday Wikipedia will join the modern era. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A systematic review of weak lab or primary human research - as you cited above - is still just a review of inadequate preliminary evidence - so not useful as a source for the encyclopedia. See WP:MEDASSESS where the studies included in that review would fall within "unfiltered information" and "primary research" (pyramids).
According to this 2022 review and numerous others like it, Wikipedia's medical content "is potentially the most used source for medical information in the world with billions of visits each year." Informed people would likely say that Wikipedia is very much modern, up to date, and valued for its major medical articles. Zefr (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is OK, but there are often much better sources of medical info elsewhere, even for the standard medical stuff. As I said someone with time should find the propolis page on Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. And find out how they make their determinations. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database sources on propolis[edit]

Well, I finally found some time, and found their propolis info sourcing:

Unfortunately it is buried behind a $182 minimum subscription paywall:

They claim they are scientific evidence based in their rating system:

The first step in this process was an in-depth, systematic appraisal and evaluation of all of the scientific evidence on over 1,250 natural medicine ingredients. A large team of experts, researchers, and health professionals has reviewed over 90,000 clinical trials and other studies. Each study is critically evaluated to determine the reliability and validity of the research based on rigorous evidence-based principles. This process continues on a daily basis to identify and evaluate the newly developing evidence.

Of course this does little good for Wikipedia without seeing the specific evidence sourcing for propolis.

The simple search result is not consistent. This search URL seems to be better sometimes (sometimes not):

There is one main page on propolis:

All the subsections of the main page are listed in the advanced search result. See list below. All have the same URL listed above. Along with section access via its table of contents. But they are not accessible without a subscription.

Propolis: 
Scientific Name
Background
Safety
Effectiveness
Dosing & Administration
Adverse Effects
Toxicology
Interactions with Drugs
Interactions with Herbs & Supplements
Interactions with Foods
Interactions with Lab Tests
Interactions with Diseases
Mechanism of Action
Pharmacokinetics
Classifications

The above searches also pull up individual products. I also just found an index of all the main pages. Here is the "P" page where propolis is listed:

Maybe somebody working for the philanthropic efforts of some millionaire or billionaire will read this and convince their boss to fund this site and convince them to make everything public and free. No paywall or subscriptions. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propolis info with better quality references[edit]

Editors with more time than me can decide whether to use any of the following info and references. Some of the references in these articles are of higher quality. I found the info, writing, and references in these articles of higher quality than the current Wikipedia article at the time of this writing. And their reviewers are in medical fields. That helps the articles to not make wild claims from the references they use.

"The Benefits and Uses of Propolis":

"Medically reviewed by Debra Rose Wilson, Ph.D., MSN, R.N., IBCLC, AHN-BC, CHT — By Rena Goldman — Updated on September 28, 2018."

"What are the benefits of propolis?"

"Medically reviewed by Alexandra Perez, PharmD, MBA, BCGP — By Jon Johnson on March 10, 2021."

"Oral candidiasis treatment with Brazilian ethanol propolis extract."

Phytother Res. 2005 Jul;19(7):652-4. PMID: 16161031 DOI: 10.1002/ptr.1715. V R Santos 1 , F J G S Pimenta, M C F Aguiar, M A V do Carmo, M D Naves, R A Mesquita. Article is buried behind a Wiley paywall. Article summarized here:

Maureen Williams, ND, received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and her Doctorate of Naturopathic Medicine from Bastyr University in Seattle, WA.

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are WP:MEDRS. KoA (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the sources in the compilation articles? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of them WP:MEDRS sources within? Unless I missed one, they all appear to be primary journal articles that are being referenced rather than secondary sources like reviews, meta-analyses, etc. KoA (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some massive reviews listed. But it seems that most stuff is in vitro, and if in vivo it is in animals not humans. There is the oral candidiasis human trial listed above. It is hard to tell from my cursory skim of the massive reviews and their references if there are some more human trials scattered therein. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that Timeshifter has listed here is a useable source. For medical content in the encyclopedia, we rely on WP:MEDRS reviews - read that guideline. This is a similar discussion as occurred in early October. It seems you are not adhering to the quality of sources needed to support medical content, as presented in MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As I said I disagree with WP:MEDRS. I think preliminary human studies should be reported. And I haven't looked at all the many references in the massive reviews thoroughly enough to find all the human studies. And WP:MEDRS does not have a blanket prohibition against such primary human studies.
But the current reference used for this statement in the article needs to be removed: "Propolis has been used in traditional medicine, with insufficient evidence to rate its effectiveness in the treatment of any illnesses."
Find a better reference because using the current reference to back up that statement is a lie, as I previously explained.
And a better, more accurate WP:NPOV statement would be:
"Propolis has been used in traditional medicine, with insufficient evidence beyond a few small primary human studies to rate its effectiveness in the treatment of any illnesses."
As I said articles outside Wikipedia do a much better job in many cases. One of the compilation articles manages to provide the current evidence (unlike Wikipedia), and then concludes in a completely logical way:
Research suggests that propolis has a number of properties that could benefit human health. People can use it on the skin, as a mouthwash, and as a supplement for a variety of minor health concerns.

However, there is not much high quality evidence to suggest that propolis is an effective treatment for specific conditions in humans. As a result, anyone with persistent symptoms should speak with a doctor about the best treatment options.

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ignoring MEDRS isn't going to fly here. It's extremely clear we don't use primary sources for biomedical content. Stick to what the secondary sources say. KoA (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should reread WP:MEDRS yourself. There is no blanket ban on primary studies. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest actually reading MEDRS, especially WP:MEDPRI that I pretty much quoted from above and the section below on secondary sources on trying to "debunk" them with primary sources. If someone tries to claim that primary sources are ok per MEDRS in that fashion being suggested here, that's just WP:IDHT and ignoring the spirit of the guideline. Regardless of if you do not like sourcing norms for medical content that you've been made well aware of already, this is not the place to bring low quality sourcing like this. MEDRS already directs to what you should be looking for. KoA (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you are saying is ridiculous. I am not trying to debunk secondary sources with primary sources. We both agree in that there are no quality secondary sources yet. We disagree on whether WP:MEDRS allows some primary sourcing. I never intended to edit the article. I don't have the time. I am just bringing up what sourcing there is. So feel free to ignore it. Other editors down the line, maybe years from now may stop ignoring it. I did bring up a systematic review higher up, but we agree in that it is early going and tentative. See: #Systematic review of propolis and Covid-19. There are reviews in the compilation articles too. But they don't seem to be about human studies at first glance. They have great info on the composition of propolis though. That is useful for the article here. Please stop your attacking mode, and assume good faith. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FOC instead of lashing out. This is not the place to rail about medical sourcing standards, that propolis will somehow help with COVID, etc. in your personal beliefs you've espoused in above sections where you've gotten good results. WP:FRINGE stuff to that degree doesn't belong here. KoA (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my previous replies. I see you are still in attack mode and claiming things about my beliefs that I don't have. Especially about Covid. Please apologize about that. See WP:NPA. I am not some nutcase Covid anti-vaxxer promoting unproven remedies. I posted a review article as requested. In my very last message I said I agree with the consensus that it is an early review with tentative results in need of further study. Please put down the stick. See: WP:DROPTHESTICK. Other editors can go here to see what I am talking about: #Systematic review of propolis and Covid-19. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilution?[edit]

This revert was justified because the content has vague significance to propolis and the sources are inadequate, appearing to be only a comment from a meeting abstract, an outdated interpretation, and conjecture from an obscure nanotechnology publication. There is no WP:SCIRS review and no talk page consensus to support using this disputed information in the encyclopedia. WP:CON. Yarik222 is edit-warring to retain the edit, and has been warned on the user's talk page for WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I saw it yesterday too but didn't have a change to really look through it all. It wasn't really clear what dilution was about or why it was really relevant here. It seemed like a lot of words to describe that bees harvest resin. KoA (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is important because it is a new discovery in the behavior of bees. Until now, it was believed that bees manipulate pieces of sticky resin in order to use it. The works that are cited as proof that in fact the pieces of propolis are not sticky, but like a liquid. It follows that the study of propolis as a product with its physical properties does not correspond because it actually exists. Yarik222 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since honey bees dilute propolis to a liquid state, the interaction of this fraction of propolis with artificial materials is a new factor that should be considered. Surface wettability is of great importance in many fields of science and technology - from the mining industry to creation of modern functional materials and biomedical products Yarik222 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, to understand the importance of wetting, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting Yarik222 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although it may be an interesting factor with application in nanotechnology or materials research, this topic is not confirmed in the review literature about propolis. It is WP:PRIMARY research and WP:CRYSTAL conjecture, with sources that are too preliminary and weakly documented to be included in the encyclopedia article. Zefr (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can an editor's article be considered a secondary source to the referenced publication?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0005772X.2022.2133800 Yarik222 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply a commentary on the forum of primary research papers in the journal issue. It does not meet WP:SECONDARY and is not a review article ("an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic within a certain discipline") that would justify use of the original sources. It seems Yarik222 is promoting a basic research paper for acknowledgment in Wikipedia, which is discouraged as WP:COI. Zefr (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Propolis&oldid=1195396731"