Talk:Resveratrol/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tone and sources

Per WP:MEDMOS:

Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation. Always omit professional titles and academic degrees: use "Smith" or "Jones" rather than "Dr Smith" or "Prof Jones"
— Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_sources

I have therefore removed many of the details about "when, where, and who" performed the studies to focus on "what" the studies say about resveratrol.

Also Wikipedia articles should not read like scientific review article. In fact, per WP:MEDRS, we should not be reviewing the primary literature ourselves, but rather rely on secondary sources. Most of the sources currently in this article are primary. These should be replaced with secondary sources where possible. Boghog (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Links to relevant secondary sources may be found in the "Ideal sources" box at the top of this talk page. Boghog (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions in section about varying quantities in wine

This section:

• Reservatol#Content_in_wines_and_grape_juice

starts with a table showing Pinot noir as having almost no reservatol, and then a paragraph saying that "trans-resveratrol concentration in 40 Tuscan wines ranged from 0.3 to 2.1 mg/l in the 32 red wines".

But then the section ends with a paragraph that says "wines made from grapes of the Pinot Noir and St. Laurent varieties showed the highest level of trans-resveratrol, though no wine or region can yet be said to produce wines with significantly higher concentrations than any other wine or region."

That seems contradictory to me (Pinot noir has none but it has the most, and there's variation from 0.3 to 2.1 but there's no variation). Is one correct and one wrong? Or am I misunderstanding? Maybe I don't understand the difference between reservatol and trans-reservatol.

Which brings me to my last issue: after reading the explanation in Reservatol#Chemical_and_physical_properties, I still don't know if the good stuff is trans-, cis- or if it has to be plain non-prefixed reservatol.

Any improvements to the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also skimmed the mentions of "Pinot Noir" in one of the cited papers [1] and I don't see anything to back up the numbers in the table of [[content levels. Can anyone review that data? Gronky (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

How many studies?

While proofreading, I found a grammar problem called number agreement at Resveratrol#Sirtuin activation: "Some of the benefits demonstrated in previous studies were overstated,[115][116] however, this study was challenged immediately,[117] and a few experiments were suggested to be of inferior quality.[118]" "this study" refers to "previous studies", so are there studies or just one study? Should it be "previous study ... this study", "previous studies ... these studies", or "previous studies ... one of these studies"? 98.247.55.21 (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Massive blanking

Like at stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, seen here and here, "More eyes on the Resveratrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are needed. New editor Local4554 is repeatedly blanking material at the article without justifying his edits, and despite warnings not to do so." Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting without Reading the Article

Before you revert content, it would be wise to read the edits. The material removed was biased and made by 3rd party pharmaceutical companies promoting their own products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local4554 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can see, this is not what you are doing at all. You are removing all reliable sources that have failed to find benefits of resveratrol. I am One of Many (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a quote from one of your "reliable sources": _Abstract

Rapamycin was administered in food to genetically heterogeneous mice from the age of 9 months and produced significant increases in life span, including maximum life span, at each of three test sites. Median survival was extended by an average of 10% in males and 18% in females. Rapamycin attenuated age-associated decline in spontaneous activity in males but not in females. Causes of death were similar in control and rapamycin-treated mice. Resveratrol (at 300 and 1200 ppm food) and simvastatin (12 and 120 ppm) did not have significant effects on survival in male or female mice. Further evaluation of rapamycin's effects on mice is likely to help delineate the role of the mammalian target of rapamycin complexes in the regulation of aging rate and age-dependent diseases and may help to guide a search for drugs that retard some or all of the diseases of aging.

This is clearly promoting the product "Rapamycin"! Local4554 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Not everything that views something positively is promotional. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. And why is this info nowhere to be found in the article anymore? Fascinating, because it is the one study that caused trans-resveratrol to be booming among those who are studying (and aspiring) longevity. Could someone put it back where it belongs? The article doesn't do justice at all to the proven and known positive effects in that field. In fact, it now reads as if this substance is snake-oil, alternative medicine, or all quackery for supplement sales, which is far from the reality. I was linking to this WP article for a med student asking me about it, only to find it totally misrepresents it. I tend to give up on using WP because of such ludicrous mishaps.

References

Concerns

This article is a mess of primary sources in contravention of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically all primary research needs removing. As do popular press and company press releases (wow this article is poorly referenced).

The section in health effects needs to be supported by reviews of human research. The reviews of non human research can go in a research section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the article recently. Popular press and company press releases used to describe facts or analysis of resveratrol, in general, are not the best. Removing all primary sources is not dictated by policy. An article cannot primarily rely on primary sources, but they can certainly be used with care in any article. Guided by scientific reviews, it is very useful and consistent with policy to use primary sources. In this case, peer reviewed scientific studies. When used alone, care must be taken to only state the facts reported with no synthesis or conclusions drawn, such as "Study X reported Y". I am One of Many (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. One does not use primary sources to refute high quality secondary ones per WP:MEDRS which this article did a lot of. Much of it fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on that at all. In fact, we may not disagree at all. I only wanted to point out that one doesn't remove a primary source simply because it is a primary source. If it is not used correctly, then it should be removed. It may be that all of the primary sources in this article should be removed, but not just because they are primary sources. I am One of Many (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

JMH649, you've reverted my edit before I've even finished writing this comment! Other references in the Research section cite the original published papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Do feel free to substitute secondary or tertiary sources if you think best, but surely consistency is preferable? --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

JMH649, which of the secondary sources do you suggest? I'm quite wary about citing them rather than the original journal literature because a lot of the secondary sources seem one-sided - and in some cases, they have links to commercial interests. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources we should leave it out. Just because there are other primary sources does not mean we should add more of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Recent research like this is rarely worth mentioning, and would require for us to do so. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649/DocJames, isn't citing work published in peer-reviewed scientific journals preferable to citing secondary sources - or indeed unpublished original research? Peer review is flawed; but the alternatives seem worse. Ronz, deletion of a section on the grounds the research it cites is dated is defensible; but not deletion on the grounds that the research is recent. For what it's worth, I'd considered citing instead the 2010 Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. study by Xu and his colleagues of trans-resveratrol's dose-dependent inhibition of MAO-A and its effect on serotonin and noradrenaline function. Would you consider the older reference preferable? --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

How about we just follow MEDRS? It has guidelines on the use of both recent and old research. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Preferred use of peer-reviewed journals and up-to-date research? If you're sceptical this research will ever turn out to have clinical relevance to humans, I am too; but the section would better be restored and strengthened, not deleted.--Davidcpearce (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrrn, I share your antipathy to unreliable sources. But the original papers have been published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals; and the secondary source cited, namely Victor R. Preedy, is currently Professor in the Department of Dietetics, King's College London and Honorary Professor in Clinical Biochemistry, King's College Hospital and Director of the Genomics Centre, Kings College London. Further, the sub-section in question is placed under the heading "Research"; and the fact that no controlled therapeutic trials have been conducted on humans is explicitly noted. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Which secondary source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not a major medical textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed not. This section isn't about the medical uses of resveratrol in humans, but rather its putative antidepressant action in nonhuman animals. I would prefer to cite only the original published papers, but I was trying to accommodate your request above for a reliable secondary source as well. If you have any reservations about the quality of the journal studies - or indeed Professor Preedy's (IMO excellent) volume - why not add a sentence or two to that effect? --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There are review articles on this topic. We should be using them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the 130 or so references for this entry cite (rightly IMO) the original journal-published articles. IMO Wikipedia should be consistent. However, I added a well-respected secondary source too as requested above. The TRIP database is geared to providing evidence-based medicine for clinicians. It's invaluable for that purpose. But this section is not about the medical use of resveratrol in humans. --Davidcpearce (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Still not convinced this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24717328 is a good source for any content on Wikipedia. First the stuff was injected. Second the "depression" rats have was determined by looking at some brain markers and how long they swam when forced. There are lots of reviews that look at clinical research and summarizes it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just use this secondary source [2]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc James I must say without sarcasm I am impressed how you decided to get rid of the primary sources. I just improved the article on Czech Wikipedia and could not resist but cite some of the primary sources. Cell and J Clin Invest? Who am I to ignore papers in these journals? But yes, the lack of good secondary sources (at least a couple reviews) is bewildering. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes people continue to use primary sources and remove secondary ones. There are secondary sources out there on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Many of the sources are dated. The third sentence of the article is blatantly incorrect and needs to be removed, replaced or include a citation. "As of 2016, there is no evidence to suggest that consuming resveratrol-rich foods or taking resveratrol as a dietary supplement has any health effects in humans" is contradicted by recent research, making the statement "no evidence" invalid. This should be changed to "limited evidence" or the evidence is "inconclusive." The statement certainly conveys an incorrect sentiment to the reader. Urbansiberia (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Sirtuin activation section under Research heading needs to be cleaned up. It's essentially meaningless as written and unclear what message is being conveyed. Urbansiberia (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1216 - this reference seems of interest to me. It is talking about mechanisms, not claiming to be about evidence for effects in animals - or humans for that matter. JohnAugust (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No mention of research on anti-inflammatory effects

Here is an example:

Bereswill, Stefan, et al. "Anti-inflammatory effects of resveratrol, curcumin and simvastatin in acute small intestinal inflammation." PloS one 5.12 (2010): e15099. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.211.65 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fails WP:MEDRS, and PLoS One is a less-than-stellar source too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Effects on health

Beyond the fact that this article is very poor and outdated, a (recent) source is required to support the categorical statement that no research supports that resveratrol has any effect on health. Recent research points to the contrary. Unless a source is provided (from 2015 or after) this categorical statement must be deleted from lead.Llanimami (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This statement in the lede was reverted by User:Llanimami, "Although it is currently being used as a dietary supplement and evaluated in preliminary research for its potential to affect human diseases, there is no clear evidence to date that consuming resveratrol-rich foods or taking resveratrol as a supplement affects human health." Llanimami wishes to say: "It is currently being studied as a dietary supplement and treatment for Alzheimer's among other conditions."

Both statements are true. The contested part of the first sentence, "there is no clear evidence to date that consuming resveratrol-rich foods or taking resveratrol as a supplement affects human health", is a fact based upon standards of sourcing for human health effects per WP:MEDRS. The Turner reference here is a preliminary clinical trial, not yet sufficiently conclusive to state that resveratrol has beneficial effects on Alzheimer's disease. --Zefr (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Llanimami thanks for coming to Talk. Everything in Wikipedia depends on sources, and the kinds of sources you are bringing are not OK. Please do see WP:MEDRS which is the relevant guideline for sourcing content about health. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Check my last edit to the article.Llanimami (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Section 7.6

Could this section be expanded somewhat. There is plenty to say on these studies and fitting them all into one sentence seems rather insufficient to me.Jytdog ?Llanimami2 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes for sure! Please use reliable secondary sources for it... Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Skin protection

Per WP:BRD, I removed this section from the article. "Reviews" of primary research are still primary research. --Zefr (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement removed: The oxidative stress induced by ultraviolet radiation is one of the main causes for premature skin aging (unsourced, not proven). The photoprotective effects of several polyphenols known for their antioxidant properties, including resveratrol, have been investigated in silico and in topical application conditions.[3][4]

Assessment:

• in silico is too premature to mention here
• there is no reliable evidence that topical resveratrol or any polyphenols have a "photoprotective" effect on skin aging
• there is no reliable evidence that resveratrol or any polyphenols are antioxidants in vivo
• at 10 years old, the two references are out of date and appear not to have been reinvestigated by different investigators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefr (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

These sources are WP:MEDRS compliant and you are deciding on rejecting them on the basis of what they say. WP:MEDASSESS clearly states that we do not do this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

hmmm. Seppi your reverts kind of sucked for lacking edit notes. Zefr while I hear you, that content and sources are OK. They do need updating, for sure. This whole article is mostly a train wreck and something I have been wanting to get to. Resveratrol especially as a potential sirtuin modulator is one of the most overhyped phytochemicals around.

fwiw the section on Sirtuin activation is much more of a disaster. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that I probably should've communicated better earlier on, Zefr already knows that these are medical reviews. I shouldn't have to point out something which is readily apparent to him. He's just removing this because he doesn't like what the sources say. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The article's history will show my involvement in establishing MEDRS-compliant content. The discussions on "skin protection" and sirtuins/longevity are glaring exaggerations under-supported by solid or even borderline MEDRS sources. In the interest of serving the typical encyclopedia user per MEDASSESS: "Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance." Hence, my removal of this section. --Zefr (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A medical review isn't a research article, so why are you quoting that? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason for this edit war; you are both right and wrong. Please stop arguing about the existing content which is meh at best (yet sustainable per policy). The problem can and should be fixed by editing, by simply updating the refs and content based on them; i don't have time right now (I have to give a talk which is exciting!) and if neither of you do, Zefr your concerns can be met right now with an Template:Update tag on the section. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I really don't care much for this article. I'm just here to make sure Zefr doesn't remove medical reviews from articles as he consistently does. I hope your talk goes well Jytdog. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind wishes. turns out the talk is tomorrow, ack.  :) so i can work on this. You both contribute great things to WP. I understand your different approaches and appreciate them (there is a lot of good in both). I know it is hard for each of you to see that in each other. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• it is really hard to edit well about resveratrol as the literature is full of credulous woo like PMID 26864554. argh. am looking for high quality reviews... Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Per the comment by Jytdog that PMID 268554 is "woo", it seems odd why anyone would want this drivel in the article, so it is removed: [Resveratrol] is a polyphenolic phytoalexin stilbenoid derivative of stilbene (Fig. 4A), produced naturally by a wide variety of plants such as grapes, peanuts, mulberries, cranberries, and eucalyptus. Resveratrol is known to possess cardio-protective, antioxidant, neuroprotective, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, metabolism-regulating, and anti-cancer effects [151]. An accumulating body of evidence has shown that resveratrol inhibits cell growth and induces apoptosis in various melanoma cells by S-phase cell cycle arrest and down-regulation of cyclins [152, 153]. ... These data support a potential use of mono or combination resveratrol therapy for the management of melanoma. --Zefr (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of this content. It's a quote from the source which is relevant to the cited article text. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You are infamous at WP for overquoting, and this case is no exception. Every statement from the quote resides elsewhere in the article, or relies on WP:PRIMARY in vitro/animal research unproven to apply to human skin diseases, i.e., pure misleading speculation. Take a rest for awhile. --Zefr (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Infamous" ... lol. I'll admit that I do overquote somtimes, but that's no reason for you to delete the entire quote or revert content that I add when you're well past the 3RR limit. If you actually talked to me on the talk page beforehand, perhaps I'd be more willing to compromise. However, so far your only justification for reverting my edits has basically been WP:JDL - this quote comes from a medical review, so your entire justification about the nature of the research or it somehow being "primary" isn't a valid argument. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• please be patient, you all. the literature on this compound is vast and I spent three hours yesterday reading and looking for good refs. please be patient; each of you please consider unwatching and coming back in a couple of weeks and the article will look pretty different. if you want to stay engaged of course please do but please focus on the content and not on each other. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pleased with Zefr's gross violation of 3RR. Perhaps if he undid his edits, I might be willing to do that; however, at the moment I'm more concerned with his editing behavior than the actual article content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not a great thing to work out on a specific article, especially not in the actual content. Both of you want to improve WP; Zefr is more concerned with keeping content high quality and removing the piles and piles of shit that exist in WP especially when there are actual health claims involved; you are more concerned with adding fine detail especially about pharmacology and mechanisms. Both of you can go a bit too far in pursuing your interests as well. It's a hard conflict as there is a very reasonable, mission-based thrust on both sides and neither of you are vandals - far from it. The right to place to work that out is over a beer but absent that, in a discussion on one of your Talk pages where you try to reach a mutual understanding. The project would be worse off without either of you. I mean that. It is getting way too personalized and what is the word... festery - for both of you and your interpresonal conflict is starting to disrupt the project. Both of you.. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be reconciled on a talk page, especially when Zefr goes out of his way to try to derail a FAC nomination that I opened. While I do have an issue with him as an editor, it doesn't change the fact that his behavior in editing this particular article is in gross violation of 3RR. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sirtuin activation section

Moving this here as it is gobbledegook. Should be there but needs serious copyediting and much better sources...

Sirtuin activation

Some of the benefits demonstrated in previous studies were overstated, however, this study was challenged immediately, and a few experiments were suggested to be of inferior quality.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

How about deleting the Foods section?

OR perhaps radically reducing it to a very short statement? The issue here is that the resveratrol content of a glass of red wine (or any realistic serving of any resveratrol containing food) is so small - on the order of 1-2 mg/serving - as to clearly not be responsible for any of the claimed benefits for red wine. A point here is that red wine contains 250-500 mg polyphenols per five ounces, so resveratrol is less than 1% of the total. The great majority of resveratrol clinical trials are in range of 100 to 1000 mg/day. It is time to untangle resveratrol from the French Paradox and from any other implication that resveratrol containing foods have health benefits because of the resveratrol content. I would appreciate hearing from some of the strongly opinionated Wikipedia editors before attempting such a radical surgery. And perhaps such an action should be accompanied by a clear explanation in TALK as to why it was done. The problem, of course, is finding strong secondary source references rather than resting on original research and opinion. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Much improved. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Hope this did not ruin your weekend. I will try to track down a valid reference for content in supplement ingredients. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been meaning to improve the sourcing on this article for a long time... Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Skin, revisited

A search conducted March 2017 yielded two uncontrolled clinical trials on combination products for skin in which resveratrol was one ingredient (Farris 2014, Ferzli 2013). IMO too preliminary to use in the article, even under "Research." One to consider: Fabbrocini G, Staibano S, De Rosa G, Battimiello V, Fardella N, Ilardi G, La Rotonda MI, Longobardi A, Mazzella M, Siano M, Pastore F, De Vita V, Vecchione ML, Ayala F. Resveratrol-containing gel for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a single-blind, vehicle-controlled, pilot study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2011 Apr 1;12(2):133-41. PubMed PMID: 21348544. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lifespan

Replacing "There is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans " with "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice they still have to be confirmed in humans" [5] seems misleading for two reasons. First it introduces the topic of effects on yeast and mice without any related content anywhere in the article. Second, it uses a non-neutral presentation that suggests it will be confirmed in the future. Also note that the second option is a direct quote and should have been presented as such, though it's rather inappropriate to use a quote in this specific context in the article as we're summarizing health effects. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

So change "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice they still have to be confirmed in humans" to "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice and there is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans as of 2011" and there is not really a need to be related to the rest of the rest of that article, it merely shows that it DOES have an effect that increases life but that it's not proven or disproven in humans yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretLars (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please indent and sign your posts. That is as basic here as "please" and "thank you".

Nobody cares about increasing the lifespan of yeast and mice, as you note the whole purpose of writing that is to get to the "yet". We don't do that kind of WP:CRYSTALBALL hyping. There are lots of dietary supplement websites where you can find that kind of hype. We fully understand what you are saying; you are not the first person (by far) who has wanted to hype unproven therapies here in WP. It is not what we do. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

First of if you were a mouse owner then you'd probably want to extend the live of your pet/pets (depending on how many you have), second if you're brewing or fermenting using yeast then a longer living yeast would increase fermentation, thirdly having the information present that experiments on resveratrols lifespan increasing have been done on yeast and mice would also be helpful for researchers as it would tell them that the experiments have been made so they can either test it to replicate it (the source then also leading to the study they can cite themselves) or they can then choose a different living being to see if it would work for that animal; so you can stop with your douchey "nobody cares" attitude!

You apparently don't understand the use of "yet", it refers to in this context that human testing has not YET been made; the operative wording you actually should have looked at is "it's not proven or disproven" so it's not hyping, it's stating that tests on humans have not been made (probably because humans live so long!). Besides I didn't suggest that the word "yet" to be used in the article! "you are not the first person who has wanted to hype unproven therapies here" I'm not wanting to hype, Learn to read! There are a lot of other websites that can teach you, I'd suggest you go there. I'm saying that the sources state that the stilbenoids' "theraputic effects" do work on yeast and mice but that it is unconfirmed in humans, that is not hype; that is stating fact. SecretLars (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing there is helpful. Your actual edit was Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice they still have to be confirmed in humans. "Still", "yet", whatever. That is the resveratrol hype bandwagon. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:Ronz Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the original text was fine. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:Ronz; noting proposals at WTMED (e.g. adding "as of 2011") - not sure that timing is notable but it might help editors who follow to anchor their searches with that context. — soupvector (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you think that "still" and "yet" is hype (which it isn't) then one can change it to "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice it isn't confirmed in humans."SecretLars (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The problems are that it is not being presented in any encyclopedic context, and echos the marketing hype. Those are WP:NOT and WP:POV violations. Find more sources and work from them. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Nonconfirming_Animal_Research_on_Resveratrol. --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The findings from animal research involving pharmacologically-active compounds – be it pharmaceuticals, experimental compounds, or biomolecules (and more specifically, phytochemicals like resveratrol) – very, very often do not translate to humans for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious reason for a failure of translation is that the genomes of non-human animals and humans differ; that's significant because the genes that encode the proteins upon which a compound acts as a ligand/substrate, signals through, or otherwise interacts with in one species can differ significantly from, or even not exist in, another species. Consequently, the findings from research in organisms such as C. elegans, mice, or a particular species of fungus can be used to guide subsequent clinical research in humans; but, due to the aforementioned reason alone (i.e., ignoring all the other potential issues, like the validity of a particular animal model of a disease/condition and the pervasive lack of reproducibility of study results in biology research, among others), the findings from animal research do not indicate or even suggest that those results pertain to humans.

So, if the effects of resveratrol on human lifespan haven't been studied at all, the text should simply state that "there is no evidence of an effect in humans"; note well that this wording does not convey the same meaning as "there is evidence of no effect in humans." Moreover, this wording conveys a similar message as the statement "these findings have not yet been confirmed in humans", but it differs in the sense that it doesn't convey an expectation of an effect in humans. Given the explanation in the preceding paragraph and the WP:MEDANIMAL section of MEDRS, neutral wording like this is exactly how a statement about a lack of clinical evidence should be phrased. As an alternative, it would also be reasonable IMO, but also far more verbose, to say: "Although resveratrol has been shown to affect the lifespan of yeast and mice, as of [MONTH YEAR], clinical studies with resveratrol have not been conducted to determine if it has an effect on the lifespan of humans." Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of animals in which evidence has found no effect on life expectancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Given that the article implies that there's an effect in non-human organisms, those findings of a non-significant (i.e., lack of) effect of resveratrol on the lifespan of the animals you're referring to should (IMO: needs to) be explicitly stated in the article. Edit: nevermind, I thought the article included the phrase "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice ...", but it doesn't. What do you think about the following wording? "Although resveratrol has been shown to affect the lifespan of yeast and mice, studies on [list of species] have found that resveratrol does not affect lifespan. As of [MONTH YEAR], clinical studies with resveratrol have not been conducted to determine if it has an effect on the lifespan of humans." Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think mentioning mice without a shed-load of context about the translatability of animal studies is just too problematic and implication-heavy. All that anybody is interested in is human effect, and we must be aware of that. If we must allude to the mice I think a good way is to say something like "although resveratrol has been investigated in the laboratory for its effect on lifespan there is no evidence of it having any benefit for humans." Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your proposed version seems fine to me. I think the statement in the Resveratrol#Metabolism section – Animal studies indicate that resveratrol induces metabolic adaptations in mice associated with an "exercise-trained" state (i.e., higher physical fitness), but clinical studies have found that these effects do not occur in humans.[15] – makes it clear that findings from animal studies don't necessarily translate to humans though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Every medical claim in this article probably needs to be WP:V-checked given that I just found 4 issues with NPOV in just a handful of sections (2 downplaying the findings from meta analyses, 1 overstating adverse effects from a clinical trial to contradict 2 reviews, and the lead statement about "no health effects" which contradicted the independent findings from two meta analyses regarding an effect on blood pressure. I don't really want to do that since I'd rather move on to other dietary supplement articles and check them for the same issues. I figured I'd just mention this here though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I just reviewed this sweep you made in which you:

• emphasized positive results on blood pressure in a subset of people, omitting the topline results of no effect; and putting that non-neutral, promotional summary both in the body and in the lead
• removed findings of no effect in people in people in CNS but leaving positive results in mice. (yes the sourcing was not good but this is discussed in reviews)
• removed the content about no effects in humans from the supplement section -- which was based on outdated sources and not accurate, but omitted what we do know from human studies so far, which is that there is little effect and only at very high doses.
• removed content about adverse effects (which was sourced to primary sources, but is discussed in reviews)
• tagged the page for NPOV, showing that you are aware of the NPOV policy.

I will fix these violations of the NPOV and PROMO policies in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: As long as you cite a review and not a primary source in the process of fixing it, that’s fine with me. I didn’t read the reviews that you state cover them. I’ll check your edits tonight; FYI, I will remove all of the primary sources that cite a clinical claim. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to ping me; I am watching this page. You won't find any clinical claims sourced to primary sources from me. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked over your edits. They look good overall. The addition to the pharmacodynamics section was helpful, but it'd probably be good to merge the content on PGC-1α and PPARG since they're interacting proteins (this is self-evident from their non-abbreviated names) that lie at the same point in the signal transduction pathway to mitochondria. I.e., they're not unrelated pieces of information. I'm assuming you saw the message I sent you. In any event, I'm removing the POV tag. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Health effects section

The health effects section basically replicates the research section. We should have one or the other, and I think it should be the research section. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Research only. As the content states, there are no health effects. --Zefr (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that the statement "there are no health effects" runs counter to research findings from hundreds of papers spanning decades, right? It's really quite easy to find both primary and secondary sources claiming a variety of health effects. I conclude that, whatever you mean when you say "no health effects", you mean something different from what everyone else says, when they find antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, etc. effects. Perhaps you can clarify this statement? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 - health effects

This edit is unencyclopedic because it does not provide a WP:MEDRS review. The current health effects section here contains for each condition the statement "there is no evidence..." which is the 2019 state of clinical research on resveratrol. A search of the Pubmed review literature provides no usable citations to change the current health effects section in the article. --Zefr (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And then, of course, there's this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6164842/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course! A junk journal! Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. By "junk journal", perhaps you are using these definitions?:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28686237
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31000146
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5383600/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101870/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5493175/

Or perhaps the refined sarcastic humor is just a bit too subtle for the plebian tongue? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

See MDPI. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Ugh. Well, I'm reading through the article itself; it's a review article with lots of refs; it seems plausible. I am not verifying that the cited articles actually say what the review says they say. Yes, from what I can tell, the (vast?) majority of results are either animal studies, or in-vitro, and there's not much in human clinical studies that pop out. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Medicinal origin?

This edit was reverted because a) it implies a medicinal effect without a source stating so, and b) the name origin from resorcinol is guesswork (and not even close), supposedly cited to an inaccessible source. --Zefr (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: As I wrote in my edit comment when I reverted your reversion, the Veratrum album article talks about all the medicinal uses the plant has been put to, with references. Do we really need to give a reference here for just saying that it was used medicinally? If someone wants more information, he can click on the link to Veratrum album. But if you insist, we can pull the references over to this article, just to satisfy all the rules! As for the name, why do you say that what I wrote is "not even close"? How do you know? Do you know what the source of the name is? I put that sentence in back in 2010, and someone recently removed it. Back then the reference worked, and it must have said what I wrote. In fact, I have just looked it up in archive.org: here it is. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

V. album has good evidence of being toxic, but no good evidence of being medicinal, as is the case for resveratrol. Resveratrol is unlikely to become an approved drug in any country, as adequately discussed or inferred from its progress under Health effects and Research. --Zefr (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I see that instead of conceding that the plant has a long history of being used medicinally, you went and took out all kinds of interesting information in the Veratrum album article, including references in good sources. Nevertheless, it was used medicinally. I propose that as a compromise we put "poisonous and medicinally used Veratrum album" (you can't deny that) and that we put back the sentence about the origin of the name, with the archive.org link. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed edit may mislead the non-science user because it relates resveratrol - a V. album extract requiring chemical methods to isolate - as "poisonous" and a traditional medicine (seems unlikely; source?), and that its name derived unofficially in the Schröder blog (implied only; needs verification). Neither point is defined in major chemical reviews here or here. --Zefr (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I give up. Not because I think you're right, but because I can see that you won't give up. I could do a Request for Comment, but it's not worth my time and effort just for adding three words to one sentence and another sentence about where the word "resveratrol" comes from. I put that information in this article years ago because it was interesting. The other day I couldn't remember where the name came from, so I came back to look at this article, and the sentence was gone. Now I'm sorry I tried to edit this article and put it back in, because not only have you blocked me, you also went and made the Veratrum album article worse! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding clinical trials that were removed

All of my additions of clinical trials have been reverted. I believe these reversions were in flagrant violation of the best practices of Wikipedia. It seems abusive to me for these studies to be removed with a false allegation that I am adding "unsourced or poorly sourced content" (as was mentioned on my talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Devingbost#August_2020 ). Here are the sections that I believe need to be added to Resveratrol:

• A 2012 double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial in patients with stable coronary artery disease found "that resveratrol improved left ventricle diastolic function, endothelial function, lowered LDL-cholesterol level and protected against unfavourable hemorheological changes measured in patients with coronary artery disease."
• In 2013, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in smokers found, "Resveratrol significantly reduced C-reactive protein (CRP) and triglyceride concentrations, and increased Total Antioxidant Status (TAS) values."
• In 2015, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of resveratrol for Alzheimer disease found, "CSF Aβ40 and plasma Aβ40 levels declined more in the placebo group than the resveratrol-treated group, resulting in a significant difference at week 52."
• In 2012, a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial showed "that resveratrol improved left ventricle diastolic function, endothelial function, lowered LDL-cholesterol level and protected against unfavourable hemorheological changes measured in patients with coronary artery disease."

How could anyone (such as RexxS) claim that these additions are "unsourced or poorly sourced content"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devingbost (talk • contribs) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

We shoudln't be using primary sources when secondary ones are available. Basic per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devingbost: "I believe these reversions were in flagrant violation of the best practices of Wikipedia. - the hell they were. We don't use primary studies to write biomedical content, period. What makes you think you determine the best practices of Wikipedia are? especially when the removal of your primary studies is precisely following our documented best practices. Those primary sources above cannot be used to support the claims you are making. You need secondary sources. How many times do you need to be told? --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Meta-analyses

How about referencing systematic reviews and meta-analyses?

• A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis reported, "Meta-analysis showed that resveratrol significantly improved the fasting plasma glucose ( −0.29 mmol/l, 95% CI: −0.51, −0.06, p < 0.01) and insulin levels (−0.64 U/mL, 95% CI: −0.95, −0.32, p < 0.0001)."
• A 2018 systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials reported, "the data suggest that resveratrol supplementation has beneficial effects to reduce [body weight] BW, [body mass index] BMI and [waist circumference] WC, but not [fat mass] FM."
• A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis reported "≥ 100 mg/d revealed a significant difference in fasting plasma glucose" and concluded, "This meta-analysis provides evidence that supplementation of resveratrol may benefit management of [type 2 diabetes mellitus] T2DM."
• A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported, "Available evidence from RCTs suggests that resveratrol supplementation significantly reduced TNF-α and hs-CRP levels."
• A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis reported, "The results of subgroup analysis of human studies showed that resveratrol has significant effect on metabolic parameters (glucose level and [waist circumference]) at the dosage of > 500 mg and with long-term interventions ≥ 10 weeks."
• A 2018 systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported, "resveratrol supplementation had a significant effect on delayed recognition (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08–0.70; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01; n = 3 studies; n = 166 participants) and negative mood (SMD, −0.18; 95%CI, −0.31 to −0.05; I2 = 0%; P = 0.006; n = 3 studies; n = 163 participants)."

References

Devingbost (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources and reviews on them

How about using those secondary sources instead of pushing primary sources into our medical articles? What part of WP:MEDRS are you having trouble understanding? --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I misunderstood the meaning of a primary source. So, you're saying that I won't be blocked or banned if I add those systematic reviews? It seemed to me that there was a deliberate effort to block any evidence being reported on Wikipedia that claimed anything contrary to the statement that resveratrol provided no medical benefit, so I apologize for alleging abusive conduct. Devingbost (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devingbost: No, you won't be blocked or banned if you add content based on systematic reviews. I left you a pointer to a PubMed search for lots more of them on your talk page. If you use secondary sources, you be greeted with virtual hugs and celebrations like a prodigal son. You don't have to apologise. I've honestly seen hundreds of editors making the same mistake about what constitutes a primary source. Welcome to Wikipedia! --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Are there ever times when it is appropriate to add primary sources or studies with animal data? Or, will I get reverted, blocked or banned for ever using sources like that? Devingbost (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devingbost: The way to think about it is "what do the best secondary sources say?: I'll summarise that", rather than "I want to write this content: I'll try to find sources to support it". It's fairly unlikely that animal studies (or other primary studies) are going to be of use in writing medical content, unless you're working on a section entitled "Research on animals", or an article about animal diseases.

You're not going to get blocked or banned if you make a mistake. We only find the need to take strong action when persuasion doesn't work, or when an editor wilfully repeats a disruptive edit without engaging with other editors. The only other tip I would offer is to summarise secondary sources in your own words, rather than quoting, and that a general audience won't be interested in statistical significance, just the conclusion. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devingbost: just a minor note, I fixed the "doi" error you were getting here and am about to do it in the article too - the "doi" field should just be 10.xxxx/unique - it doesn't need the doi.org, the http:, the springer link, or anything else. If you're using the "cite" button on the edit window like I do, you can just plug in the 10.XXXX/whatever and it'll pull the information for you most times - but if you're doing it manually just make sure you only include the 10.XXXX/ and the part after it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the DOI errors. Devingbost (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

How about this study below? "Overall, our results indicate that resveratrol acts as a life-extending agent." Devingbost (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

@Devingbost: It appears after looking at their discussion that they qualify that with the following: In summary, we have found resveratrol to have a robust life-extension effect in yeast, nematodes and killifish, but we have no explanation for how and why this effect is not nearly so reliable in flies and mice. and we believe it is inappropriate for resveratrol to be marketed as a life-extending health supplement. If anything, it supports what's already in the article here and cited to newer sources. I notice that @Zefr: did some cleanup on your additions by cleaning up some duplicate references - it doesn't appear to me that any information ended up removed, but I'm pinging both of you so that if Devingbost notices something Zefr removed, you can both discuss it here. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr: Why was my addition of this article removed? (Feng Y, Zhou J, Jiang Y. Resveratrol in lung cancer- a systematic review. J BUON. 2016;21(4):950-953.) You can see the full article here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d3d1/1be8dc650c88a56a9890ee44daa212ddb57b.pdf It was published in an open journal, but you can see all the articles used in their meta-analysis. Looks legitimate to me. Devingbost (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

JBUON is a dubious, low-quality journal with a 2019 impact factor less than 1. We should be using high-quality WP:MEDREV reviews. Zefr (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Just noting I replied on Devingbost's talkpage with more information, and a note about JBUON itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, about this edit here, is there any specific precedent for Nutrients being considered an improper source for MEDRS? Per WT:CITEWATCH FAQ8, I see no bad signs, and for good note the following: NSD has it as "Level 1" signifying academic, the other indexes I spotchecked seem legitimate and none show any reservation/issue that I saw, and it has an impact factor of 4-5. I definitely am not advocating for all MDPI journals to just be taken - quite the contrary - but even given the 2018 controversy (which is still not damning in any way), I think it could be considered to be valid. I'll also ping User:RexxS and User:SandyGeorgia (with apologies in advance for the ping to her) for their opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

First, the review in Nutrients, stated under Type of studies, was about lab animal research, so disqualifies itself for the section on human research of resveratrol based on WP:MEDANIMAL. Second, MDPI journals, including Nutrients, are predatory (#1 entry on CITEWATCH). Third, in the Disclaimer for CITEWATCH, are several precautions that apply to Nutrients articles when WP:MEDRS reviews are preferred - simply stated, the journal, Nutrients, is not a destination clinical scientists would use for publishing high-quality reviews of clinical trial results. The choice of a journal named Nutrients, combined with the predatory nature of MDPI journals generally, signals to editors that the clinical research quality is low, where - in this case - clinical research was in fact entirely absent. Zefr (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, MDPI journals are explicitly NOT all predatory, per the exact page you link which says: MDPI is very much hit-and-miss. MDPI on Beall's original list in 2014, but was removed in 2015. The updated list says "Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine and specifically says to review each case - not just remove all. Furthermore, WP:MEDANIMAL says that this sort of review is acceptable, so long as it is presented as preclinical and/or animal data to the reader. Now looking at your analysis of the journal... the name itself isn't at all useful. The fact you say "the choice of a journal named Nutrients" just shows me you're not actually taking the time it requires to determine if it's a good source or not here. You also are engaging in WP:POV by saying that it's "not a destination clinical scientists would use for publishing high-quality reviews" - need I remind you that in fact because of COVID there has been a massive push in the academic community towards open access itself, but that was already occurring before anyway. Long story short, you could've fixed this edit by simply adding the words "in animals", or if you wanted to write more, could've added something such as "While not tested in humans, animal models have shown..." - and per WP:PRESERVE, you should do just that. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot - instead of biting the newbie by continually reverting their edits before even trying to talk to them. We have someone here doing their darndest to try and follow the rules, and your at best narrow-sighted interpretation of guidelines, and at worst blatant misrepresentation of them is not doing anything to help this user. Per WP:CITEWATCH that is an acceptable article to use based on my analysis above, which you've done nothing to counteract, and I will be readding it shortly (with the qualifier per WP:MEDANIMAL as required). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

All that explanation interpreting WP:CITEWATCH limitations on non-clinical sources lowers a threshold that Wikipedia holds for articles on phytochemicals - which are neither nutrients nor drugs - but are two categories of diet or health intervention requiring a higher standard of evidence for the encyclopedia. It opens the door to cherry-picking, which is the case here in your new revision. Further explanation is here in this WP:WHYMEDRS essay. The Resveratrol article history shows years of exaggeration of assumed health benefits and overinterpretation of lab studies on fruit flies, nematodes, mice, etc. that have been reverted until actual well-constructed human research can be reported for the article. Now, with your explanation and revision, WP:NOTEVERYTHING is ignored and other weak science is made eligible. There should be more consensus before such changes remain. Zefr (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You're free to have that opinion. There is absolutely nothing in WP:MEDRS to support that opinion. In fact, you linked the exact part of WP:MEDRS I used to re-insert the material. It seems clear to me now that you have some sort of ulterior motive in this article. There is absolutely no exaggeration or "overinterpretation" in the research section at this time - sure, you may not like the fact we report on all research, but per WP:NPOV we report on research even if it doesn't fit your world view that it's "exaggerated health benefits". You may note that the revision I made explicitly states there is no evidence that the data can be extrapolated to humans yet. I find it interesting that you keep grasping at straws here to try and remove this information - first it's WP:MEDRS, then it's WP:CITEWATCH, now it's an essay about primary sources which obviously doesn't apply here as this is a review article. There is absolutely no requirement in WP:MEDRS that we report only human benefits - in fact, it'd be unencyclopedic and a biased point of view if we only looked at things from a human perspective.

I worry that you may think I'm some "quack" who supports pseudoscience - absolutely not. That doesn't mean, however, that we don't report on actual science just because we disagree with it. And it certainly doesn't mean we "cherry-pick" (as you call it) policies/guidelines that don't apply to try and remove encyclopedic content. User:Zefr - I'm going to be quite blunt here - if you don't stop biting the new editor on this article and actually discussing before just reverting things citing policies that half the time don't apply, I will have to ask an administrator to take further action. Your behavior here is not only disrupting the article and editors to make the "point" that you wish to make, but may cause a potentially good new medical editor to leave the project because of your lack of assistance and misinterpretation of guidelines. I'm happy to discuss with you more - but I will only do so if you actually discuss. If you continue reverting valid changes to this article without even attempting discussion first, I will continue to attempt to maintain potentially encyclopedic content in line with policies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor Zefr, you wrote "[...]weak science is made eligible". Weak science is not implicitly or explicitly bad science. "Weak" results are routinely and appropriately covered in Wikipedia, and doing so is legitimate - as long as it is properly characterized as such. Anastrophe (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

From WP:MEDREV, a quote: "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content." A review of primary sources, such as the one in Nutrients, PMID 31035477, is still a review of mostly non-replicable and still-unconfirmed lab research, and is unconstructive for the article. One could readily find other reviews of non-replicable research for each of the topics under Research, but it would make for tedious reading to have each disease qualified this way. We take care of this concern using the general statement in the lede, "there is no high-quality evidence that resveratrol improves lifespan or has a substantial effect on any human disease," which is enough qualifier for primary research mentioned in the article, remaining a fact for the general status of resveratrol research. Regarding the CITEWATCH screen on Nutrients and other MDPI journals, it serves the purpose of applying skepticism about source quality, inviting the question: could this review be published in a rigorously reviewed, non-predatory journal, like The Lancet or NEJM? The answer is clearly "no". Zefr (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed something else you wrote earlier, Zefr:"[...]lowers a threshold that Wikipedia holds for articles on phytochemicals[...]". Can you please direct me to Wikipedia's specific policy regarding articles on phytochemicals? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless a phytochemical is used or extracted purposely as a nutrient or for manufacturing as an approved prescription drug, then it is - as for resveratrol - a primary research compound at the lowest level of medical evidence quality shown as pink in the left pyramid of WP:MEDASSESS. Also falls under WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTSPECULATION, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". That statement raises the bar for better antidisease evidence in discussing and sourcing resveratrol research in the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, where is that inscribed in Wikipedia policy? Nowhere in any policy does it say something needs to be "approved" for research on it to be included in Wikipedia - in fact, you'll find many "unapproved" and even some wholly illegal compounds which have large sections on the research of them. Furthermore, there is no WP:FRINGE application as there is no fringe view here being discussed. You seem to not have read WP:MEDASSESS which specifically permits early-stage research as long as it is not written to imply usefulness/acceptance: Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. That page also says: Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., "first-in-human safety testing"). - which I did with my simple edit clarifying that they were animal models. The page goes on: Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. - which again, was clearly done here. Nowhere does it say as you claim that we can't cite animal studies at all.

I noticed that you seem to be very quick to remove information, I'll refer you again to this page, which states Instead of removing content from an article, consider: Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources [and] Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact - which you are not doing. Many of your reversions are due to you not liking the way things are worded, so fix it, don't just remove it. A systematic review of preclinical studies is still a systematic review - and still is a MEDRS for the preclinical information - which did need clarification, but you instead have chosen to just revert it. Let me ask you this - is there some large scale human study/review of this compound's effects on bone density? If not, then reporting on the preclinical studies is certainly encyclopedic - research does not occur in a vacuum and preclinical studies are important for the understanding of the topic. If so, why are you not editing the article with that source? There is a secondary source (a systematic review) being used here - you're doing everything possible to fight it. Why? I can count many arguments you've made here that are either grasping at straws or completely invalid invocations of policies:

• You claim WP:MEDANIMAL prevents animal research from being presented (it doesn't, it just says it must be qualified as animal research and should not be used if better [i.e. human] research is available).
• You claim that the name itself of a journal is relevant to its use as a source (I'm not sure where in heck you got that idea, because there's many reputable journals with one word names, and many non-reputable journals with more than one word in their name).
• You invoke WP:CITEWATCH which explicitly states that many (not all) MDPI journals are actually reputable and each one must be evaluated independently - you did not provide any evaluation of it, and in fact had you looked at FAQ8 of CITEWATCH you would've found that Nutrients meets the criteria for a reputable MDPI journal.
• You claim "the journal, Nutrients, is not a destination clinical scientists would use for publishing high-quality reviews of clinical trial results" - it's not being used for clinical trial results in the first place, and even so, this is your own opinion which is borderline WP:OR as you're using your opinion of the journal to argue for its reputability.
• You cite WP:MEDREV, a quote about primary sources - the source in question is by definition not a primary source, it is a review article, which is by definition a secondary source.
• You claim that there are special requirements for articles on compounds... such as they must be "extracted purposely" (see Medical cannabis), they must be "approved prescription drug"s (see quite literally any over the counter supplement which does not have approval yet has a research/treatment section), and you then try to invoke WP:MEDASSESS which is a duplicate invocation of WP:MEDANIMAL which you invoked above.
• You have also engaged in policy shopping and "policy spam" - throwing everything but the kitchen sink at it trying to find some argument that sticks - I'm doing my best to AGF here... but it's getting harder and harder.

All in all, you've been questioned by multiple editors here and have shown you haven't even read the policies you're citing - either that or you're deliberately ignoring the parts of them that apply to this source - so I'll ask you again to please drop the stick and move on, and to stop biting newbies by reverting their edits which could be made acceptable with minor changes such as qualifying them as "preclinical" or "animal models" or whatever you deem appropriate for that article. If you ask me there's no reasons for sections with only one sentence in that part of this article, but the solution to that is to re-organize it, not prevent its improvement by including preclinical trials as applicable.

I'll end by saying nothing prevents you or anyone else from replacing this preclinical information with actual clinical trial results - whatever those may show - if some can be found - or adding that in. In fact, in the time it took me to write this response to you (and all of these), someone could've done a cursory search

on pubmed and found that there actually have been RCTs confirming this result in humans - which I've added to the article now. Please take a look at it now and see if this is now acceptable to you - it lists the preclinical trials and qualifies them as such, followed by the early stages of human research on the subject. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I stand behind all that I've said above, which is consistent with messages by RexxS in this thread and other editors who have followed this article for years. Berchanhimez has spent considerable effort ranting about one editor, when the history adhering to MEDRS is consistent across numerous editors, including me. Notice about WP:NPA. The edit to the article made today says the same as this one, minus the neutral statement that the review also found no evidence for change in several bone biomarkers, indicating a need for WP:BALANCE. If Berchanhimez, Devingbost (source list above) or other editors wish to add further antidisease discussion to the article, then follow WP:BURDEN and use MEDRS-quality reviews, or such edits will be challenged and/or removed. Zefr (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)