Talk:Apitherapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Removed ads for conference in Toronto - Wikipedia is not a platform for advertizing, no matter how well intentioned.

Merger

Think it should definitely be merged into Apitherapy, when apitherapy is used it is usually focused on bee venom therapy (which is a subset of apitherapy anyway)

Revert that I made

Reverted your changes, you added:

"Four of the nine patients had to drop out of the study because of exacerbations of their disease or because of possible progression of the disease."

This is unimportant. Every study has people drop out. MS gets better and worse, it does not indicate - nor should it be indicative - that the venom treatments had anything to do with this. Given the length of time the study takes place, they always have people opt out. Note also the study wasn't even around the efficiay of treatment, only saftey.

You also removed several links, why? They aren't ad sites, nor are the sites a collection of links, they have further information and are from apitherapy proponents.

Oogles 17:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit

Removed this sentence:

"While many areas of apitherapy is often just consuming bee products, bee venom therapy is the most commonly associated and not nutritional benefits of honey/bee products."

There are at least three grammatical errors in this sentence and its meaning is not clear.

Beeswax is by far the most common non-food bee product, much more common then bee venom therapy.

When "Apitherapy" is used, it commonly refers to bee venom treatments. If you see an "Apitherapy Clinic", you won't go there to eat beeswax and honey - but doing so can technically be 'apitherapy'. The useage of the term usually refers to a very specific subset of Apitherapy - Bee venom treatments. Not usually associated is any kind of nutritional benefits from consuming, say, honey - or nutritional benefits of any of the bee products. Oogles 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a month, you had no further questions about it, I placed it back. Oogles 03:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal I made

I removed this

"MSAA says about bee venom therapy, “Bee venom therapy entails a real risk of dangerous allergic reaction as well as an emotional and monetary cost in chasing false hopes"[1]. "

The actual quote from this page is:

""BVT entails a real risk of dangerous allergic reaction, as well as an emotional and monetary cost in chasing false hopes. The MSAA does not recommend or endorse the use of honeybee venom for the treatment of MS or other disorders. We are funding this study to determine if this approach has any neurological benefit. If the results prove positive, then additional clinical studies and possible treatment practices of MS can begin. If the results prove negative, then the MSAA has helped to eliminate false hope. Anyone interested in BVT should first consult his or her physician."

The first one implies that it's bunk. The second one implies that it's possible either way. They're actually funding studies to see if it has a benefit. Regardless, much of this info is already discussed elsewhere in the article and is redundant.Oogles 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that whole section - it's uninformative and Wikipedia does not give medical advice about seeing a doctor. Anyone seriously considering any medical procedure should not use Wikipedia as their only source of information. Graham87 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. But, think danger of beestings to those with allergies should be included. (and was root reason for doc, I suspect from MSAA, though certainly dosage and personal situation/dosage/effectiveness comes into play, where it becomes more "medical advice") But....certainly, a portion of the population is allergic to beestings. And even more is allergic to many beestings. Is this information, or medical advice? Oogles (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics about allergy to beestings would be appropriate if they can be found in reliable sources. Even a link somewhere will do. Graham87 07:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So you need exact statistics to say that a bee sting can cause anaphylaxis? why is that? Why does number of people come into account? Point of fact is a beesting can triger anaphylaxis. Perhaps you should be editing "Bee Sting" and not here. Oogles (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote my previous comment. I don't know much about this topic ... I just watch the article because I stumbled upon some vandalism to it that stayed for an unacceptable amount of time. Any info referenced to a reliable source is okay, as long as it is presented neutrally and doesn't give specific advice. Graham87 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. I agree with edits to actual article. The bee sting is mentioned elsewhere, but stastics isn't necessary to state a "beesting can trigger anaphylaxis". As then it just becomes a population poll of allergies. The advice portion was about consulting doctor. (unstated:to determine if you have an allergy) Cause if you do, well, getting stung by a bee, or any bee venom injections will trigger anaphylaxis. Possible someone can make it to adulthood without knowing this, depending on the area they live. (ie, no bees / limited) or medical care available (no childhood allergy tests) or a child could be admistered it/stung Oogles (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit, removing cite.

Problem with that cite was it was a different study, and editing a paragraph of one study, suggesting it resulted in the results of a different one.

If person (or someone else) who placed it there, doesn't edit in a paragraph about it, I'll do in a few days prolly, as the referance was fine, but out of context.

Oogles (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

?

I fixed a spelling error in this sentence but as it stands it doesn't make any sense. "Likely a combination of acupuncture" and what else? Or maybe "combination" isn't the right word? Not sure just what the intended meaning is.

There is no standardized practice as some purport the location of the sting is important and is likely a combination of acupuncture. Gr8white (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apitheraphy" or (Bee Venom Treatment) or injections. This is administered to the body, or the site where there is a problem. However. There is no "standard place", and some use it akin to administering beestings in acupuncture points, but didn't want to say it "was" (despite many various uncredible sources saying it was) instead chose the word "likely". (Look to accupuncture article, this means, admistering bee venom to a different site than the problem, or multiple different specific sites with accupuncture in mind) Oogles (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing English isn't your native language. As written, the sentence says that some purport the location of the sting is important and the location of the sting is likely a combination of acupuncture. But for one, nothing can be a combination of just one thing, it has to be a combination of two or more things. For another, judging from your statement above it isn't the location that is a combination but the purported effect of the therapy (correct?).

What I think you intended to say was something like: There is no standardized practice as some purport the location of the sting is important, with the sting acting as a sort of acupuncture in addition to the effects of the venom, while others regard the location as unimportant.

Yes? Gr8white (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. English is certainly my native language. /Boggle. The "Combination" is of Bee Venom Treatments and Accupuncture. Instead of using a needle, it's a bee sting. That could be changed to "There is no standardized practice as some purport the location of the sting is important and in some cases is likely a combination of bee venom treatments and acupuncture." Though, the combination thing, I thought it was kind of assumed as it's also assumed "there no standardized practice" (for bee venom treatments, also not stated) But ALSO, some say the location is important, and nothing to do with accupuncture. (Such as near / at the site that is experiencing the problem) Oogles (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can rewrite it, it's fine, while certainly the only language I know is English, I'm certainly not an english major :P But your description of what it currently says is really spot on. So maybe no change necessary ;) BTW, I appreciate your time here, about wording. Oogles (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you say my description accurately reflects what you wanted to say I made the change. Sometimes when you know what you mean it may not be obvious that it isn't clear to someone else (it wasn't to me until you explained it above). I also reworded the next two sentences to (IMO) make them somewhat clearer. Hope you weren't offended that I thought maybe you weren't a native English speaker, I guess I'm more of a stickler for clear usage than some. (I still think the last sentence in that section should be reworded or something, as it says what you "should" do, I think the same thing could possibly be stated differently but I'll leave as is for now.) Gr8white (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, just surprised :P Btw, pain was removed in edit. Pain is subjective, so some people aren't bothered by it, some very much so. "Extreme caution should be used before considering this, as there is a possibility of potentially fatal anaphylactic shock."

It's hard to avoid the 'should', since (according to Bee sting) article 2% humans are allergic to beestings, which can cause death without immediate intervention/care. Perhaps "This treatment can cause pain, and even result in death if subject has an allergy to bee venom, which results in anaphylactic shock" Oogles (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about pain being removed, there was nothing in there about pain before I edited it. But I replaced the last sentence per your suggestion, just reworded slightly to avoid using "result in" twice in the same sentence. Gr8white (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was. Look at history of article if you forgot about it. (It was under saftey and risks, an agreed upon removal of the section, but pain was there, but not in the other mention in article, though death was  ;) Oogles (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was another case of my misunderstanding exactly what you meant. I thought you were saying I had edited it out, which is why I said it wasn't there "before I edited it". I'll take your word that it was there at some previous time. Gr8white (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just edit myself, but since it's become an issue, going here first. If you have an allergy, anaphylactic shock is a certainty. Not a 'maybe'. Ie: not "can" produce, but WILL produce. Of course, the effects of that depends on medical care, area, etc, but... as stated it sounds like "if allergic" then it "might" cause anaphylaxis... it "would" cause. An additional example, if you are allegic to peanuts, then eating one "will cause" anaphyhalaxisOogles (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (based on reading the anaphylaxis article was that while anaphylaxis may be an inevitable result, anaphylactic shock isn't necessarily. The article distinguishes between the two terms which you seem to be using synonymously - it says the latter is "the severest form" of the former. But I don't pretend to be an expert.

By all means feel free to edit the article - I never intended to take it over, was just trying to be helpful in clarifying the wording. I'll just continue to watch and if it looks like it could use some help I'll let you know here, fair enough? Gr8white (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your understanding is correct (The "effects" depends on medical care available) Of course, I used a food allergy as an example to a venom alergy. But, like, I still thank you for all your edits to article. As they're fine, and recently, great :) I don't want to come off as "pouncing on you" just explaining the current wording. To give some info, Anaphalaxis can very minor, like getting hives, from eating a certain food, etc. Usually Nuts, as a food, is more popular for shock (or huge ingestion of lesser).... However. 1 BEE STING, venom induced into a human with an allergy, will much more likely (if not certainly) trigger anaphalactic shock. This may or may not result in death. If medical care available (like a needle nearby you keep incase you are stung cause you know you have an allergy) or medical care in area you are in. Or medical care (in sense you medically as a child, were determined allergies), or medical care in sense of means to be moved to a location in an amount of time..... I mean, the "medical care" thing, goes all over board. Anyway, it's cool, I again thank you for all your edits (to actual article), as I think they're right on. So you understand "can" here takes a very narrow approach, like you got a needle in your back pocket to inject. Or "can" in the sense that, if you're stung alot, you need to get a place quickly that can give you a shot. But, if none of that is there... well.. they're dead. Yep, stone dead. 2% of humans. From airway being gone, and no medical care to stop that, or open it. (note even primitive methods to open airway is still medical care)(talk) 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man, can you lend your editing skills on another article I started? Only if you have time and want to, I really like how you keep watch over it. The Devil's Advocate (film). Would be awesome of you :) Oogles (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is extremely one sided and lacks references

I think the article is far from encyclopedic, it's one sided and cites only two sources that can also be seen as one sided. So would any of the authors bother to add references to their claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.82.106 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's "one sided" because there is virtually zero credible information backing up apitherapy as anything other than modern quackery. Any proponent of the therapy is more than welcome to edit the article themselves if they can find an academic source that supports their claims. -- Alyas Grey : talk 06:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not two sides to truth. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 03:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not one-sided when people actually did studies. MSAA funded ones included. To see if there was any efficacy. Turns out - there hasn't been. If you have a link to a successful study, you should certainly include it. A study, however, doesn't mean an anecdote, like "I got stung with bees and then my MS got better for a few days". Oogles (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Honey bee venom has been proven not to work on cancer, sure, but what about LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE? There have been claims of honey bee venom being an effective anti-biotic. That gets mentioned once in the article as a positive, but there's no citation there. Also, there's nothing refuting that. So, can anybody find a source saying that honey bee venom is or isn't a functional antibiotic? Why yes, we can. And it kinda-sorta confirms that honey bee venom is an antibiotic. So it's not necessarily an ineffectual medicine, it just doesn't work for MS. You know what else is ineffectual against MS? PENICILLIN, which I wouldn't call an ineffectual medicine. So how about we move on and talk about what it MIGHT do, rather than what it doesn't do?

Citations:

www.esciencecentral.org/journals/2327-5162/2327-5162-S1.003-071.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15222055.2013.802264#.Ve9cCRFViko

http://www.fayoum.edu.eg/Agriculture/PlantProtection/pdf/DrAyman15.pdf

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270903956_Evaluation_of_the_Antibacterial_Activity_of_Bee_Venom_from_Different_Sources

Seriously, ALL of these came from the first page of Google search results and is more evidence than all presented to the contrary thusfar. The sad thing is, one page of Google search results is really poor evidence and the only thing less than that is bold, uncited proclimations like yours. I don't want this taken as proof that honey bee venom can be used as medicine, I'm just saying that there is SOME evidence that it can. Somebody do some ACTUAL research, please, before we confirm or deny this. 50.34.130.122 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't make the claims. I did create the article though, which has changed a lot over the 7 years. I also don't have a dog in the fight. The cancer thing seems odd to me, but fine. And I didn't put in that paragraph, someone else did. I'll remove it. If you wish to edit the article, I mean, damn, feel free too! Source stuff :) I can search "bees + sex" on google and get people cosplaying bee sex. I mean, google searches in and of themselves don't matter much, it's the source..... Oogles (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dunno why studies were removed. Oogles (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS. We generally mustn't use primary sources for biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, but why not talk first before edit? That's what the revert was. So talk :) So previous studies (funded by MSAA) and etc are invalid - note they said no efficacy, but, on one they were just testing *safety in humans. Awful if someone comes to wiki for medical advice, certainly. Surely there is a way to mention it HAS been studied and found to have no positive effects, in these studies. (If there are studies that show it has positive effects, but there's a small number of them)Oogles (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Common Sense, and you did not discuss it on the talk page first, you reverted, after I posted talk. Oogles (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reverting again, until you talk about it. It's been up for 6 years or whatever, so plenty of time to do it without talking. Oogles (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Biomedical information needs to be sources to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. It is as simple as following our WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn, those studies do not meet the WP:MEDRS criteria and shouldn't be included in the article.--McSly (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, so how to fix it? Not just remove it. Can we state past research generally, only include as a source. The fix is to delete? Honestly, my main problem is just stalking in, no talk. Rude. Can I do it to all other pages that fit this? Oogles (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And "Safety and Risks" (years ago) was removed. But you're removing information, not advice. Oogles (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.

These were Primary sources, or at best, secondary, that was removed. Which ones were secondary, which ones primary? It's goofy. Oogles (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS (and WP:WHYMEDRS for background). If research hasn't been covered by good secondary sources, it's not for us to try and function as a secondary publication ourselves. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia needs to be a tertiary publication. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So you checked all those sources you deleted? Oogles (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Alexbrn (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

k - I'll look for primary sources, assuming using "Way Back Machine" is acceptable. for places that have since removed the article. Oogles (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There's also a problem as a lot of scientific journal sites require a subscription, not sure how that's handled. Oogles (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And really, it's come to that, using archive to find old copies of webpages that used to exist? Sad, really. And immediate removal, from some guy (you) who likely saw my deletion of something that was unsourced. Is that it, the company or host goes down, it no longer exists as has happened?Oogles (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not looking for primary sources, we're looking for reliable secondary sources, preferably medical reviews. For better or worse, most of the best sources are only behind a paywall (for anything beyond the abstract); WikiProject Resource Exchange can help with that. Graham87 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem, a lot of them are subscription only, I can view several of them, but can't link. How about we just delete the whole article, and pretend that all the studies - or alternative (bad) treatment, never happened -- and never existed, simply because you can't find it now. Oogles (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The {{cite journal}} template allows you to link to articles via several identifiers; an article worth its salt should have at least one of them: Either a PMID, a PubMed Central ID, or a DOI. Graham87 14:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just sad, Graham. I like you much for watching the article. But, I really don't care enough about the topic to put stuff back at this point. Maybe I will another day, it's important for someone informed to watch articles, and vandalism (of course) -- (and the stuff you reverted, well.... lol those are GOOD SOURCES? I laugh). So guess no research was done, maybe we should look into this and try to contact Charles Mraz? lolz. Sad. Very. Oogles (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AND HE DIDN't talk about it. Look at this on my profile:

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McSly (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So who was the one reverting? Without him talking, and every revert in comments told him to TALK. Silly.

Oogles (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Research never happened. Studies were never done. Investigating safety trials (in humans) never happened. No universities did this. No mice were harmed. MSAA didn't contribute money into potential efficacy. And -- you leave charles marz? God. I'm laughing so hard it's funny. Oogles (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Along with Charles Marz being left around, why's it now about cancer? Something recent happen? Oogles (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And why is it not supported by evidence based medicine? Was anything tried? Guess we'll never know. Oogles (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No preliminary (Phase 1 or up to 2 and 3) were never done. Never happened (in the past) Notice it took a turn when cancer was mentioned, which none of the studies (that never happened) were not directed at. Oogles (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Phillip Terc : spelling ?

Shouldn't the name of this man be written as follows Dr. Filip Terč (formerly Philipp Tertsch )???Trente7cinq (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not in this article, as it is not Wikipedia's style to mention a person's titles every time they are mentioned. Such details should be mentioned in an article about him, if one is created. Graham87 14:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

new stuff for later: arthritis

best candidate for non-bullshit application of bvt is arthritis. there's shitty but real positive evidence that it either improves arthritis or makes arthritis drugs work better:

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/11/e006140.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18807725

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079284 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingsuntil (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

But not to the extent that anything conclusive can be said. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Dingsuntil (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian apitherapists

Alexbrn, welcome. So what exactly are you dissatisfied with? --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content. Alexbrn (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So now everything is ok? --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be WP:UNDUE. Let's see what others say. Alexbrn (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what others say. Yes, please. Preferably, speaking Russian. --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, welcome. http://pravo.gov.ru - This is the "Official Internet Portal of Legal Information". http://base.garant.ru - See Garant. http://medread.ru/troshin/70/ - Book by Prof. Troshin V. D. That's better? --Мит Сколов (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You can bring those to RSN if you like. They do not appear at all reliable to me. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm relatively sure that Wikipedia doesn't usually just list doctors and researchers - they have to actually be notable for something more than simply working in a given field or heading a society (unless the article is about that society). --tronvillain (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Tronvillain, Russia has some priority. Professor Nikolay Artemov wrote the book "Bee venom, its physiological properties and therapeutic use" (1941), the book was published by the USSR Academy of Sciences. In Russia, apitherapy is legal and has state support. Russia and China, outstanding countries for this. --Мит Сколов (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) magnificent(?) // Alexbrn, " bee venom is used for medicinal purposes, is available worldwide, but is primarily utilized in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America" [2] --Мит Сколов (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

In general, if a "treatment" is region-specific, it is an indication it is bogus. We don't use Chinese research for Chinese medicine partly for this reason. If a therapy actually works, the whole world embraces it ... Alexbrn (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought so too. Bee venom therapy is effective for Lyme disease. You will not read about this in PubMed. What?.. --Мит Сколов (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your responses suggest that you really don't have much (i) appreciation or (ii) respect for our policies regarding reliable sources for medical claims. I agree with the concerns raised here about sourcing. This is not the place to debate our rules for sourcing - that would begin at RSN as already linked above. — soupvector (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

soupvector, Alexbrn, what's wrong [3], I do not understand? It's nature.com. Be kind to explain. --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It's actually Scientific Reports a low-prestige offshoot from Nature - and more to the point it's a primary source so fails WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That publication is not a reliable source for medical claims in the English Wikipedia. — soupvector (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

soupvector, Alexbrn, its really "Low-quality source", [4] Pharmacognosy Research? Zefr, WP:MEDRS is "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles published in reputable medical journals". Graham87, Tronvillain, please help, I have some doubts about what's happening! --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This PMID 25742878 is a high-quality source and, among others, is cited here. When high-quality systematic reviews are available, their findings are more likely to represent scientific consensus than review articles in low-impact journals. — soupvector (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Мит Сколов: yes PMID 28539734 is a low-quality source. The journal is not indexed by MEDLINE e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Zefr, see: Apitherapy in Russia has a legal status now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Мит Сколов (talk • contribs) 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, inclusion in an atlas does not constitute an endorsement (if that's what you mean by "legal status"). — soupvector (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

@Soupvector:, if you are interested. In Russia, in Dagestan, apitherapy has state support. http://pravo.gov.ru - This is the "Official Internet Portal of Legal Information". See Article of the law 3.14, 4.5. --Мит Сколов (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Soupvector:, if you are interested. Vasily Krylov is the chief apitherapist of Russia. Anyone who knows Russian will be able to confirm all this. --Мит Сколов (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Soupvector:. See Apitherapy (in Russian) in Great Russian Encyclopedia. See Bee Venom (in Russian) in Soviet Big Medical Encyclopedia. See Nikolay Artemov. See p. 64. Russia has a priority. --Мит Сколов (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, Alexbrn, what's wrong it is review & medline. WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: _review_ articles published in _reputable medical journals_. --Мит Сколов (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edit-series is here. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Zefr, please comment on this: "Apitox® (Apimeds, Inc., Seongnam-si, Korea), purified bee venom from Apis mellifera, is an FDA-approved subcutaneous injectable product for relieving pain and swelling associated with rheumatoid arthritis, tendinitis, bursitis and multiple sclerosis" [5] --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tronvillain, what's wrong [6]? It is review & medline all. --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, "The Protective Effect of Bee Venom on Fibrosis Causing Inflammatory Diseases" is all in vitro research, and thus irrelevant to health claims. The first two don't establish any benefit, but are overly specific for the sentence they're being used for. I was going to move them into the health claims section. --tronvillain (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tronvillain, what's wrong [7]? It is review & medline all. --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just being a medline review doesn't establish something as relevant. Those are all reviewing prelimary research, not establishing bee venom or other products as an effective treatment. --tronvillain (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

These are good sources and we would like to see them in the article. Maybe we need a new section: Researches? --Мит Сколов (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you would. Perhaps write something to which they would apply and we'll see what the consensus is?--tronvillain (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My English is not good. I hope I did not offend you. In Russia, apitherapy has state support. BECAUSE - Hi people! - health benefits from bee products is SELF-EVIDENT! See also Apitherapy (in Russian) in Great Russian Encyclopedia, and Bee Venom (in Russian) in Soviet Big Medical Encyclopedia. In 1957, the USSR Ministry of Health sanctioned use of bee venom to treat certain ailments. It was the Instruction for Bee Sting Venom Apitherapy. N. M. Artemov (with Prof. G. P. Zaytsev from 2nd MSMI) is the author of The Instruction. --Мит Сколов (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"State support" establishes nothing - there was homeopathy on the NHS, though they're managing to stamp that out. But no, health benefits from bee products are not "SELF-EVIDENT" or none of this would be necessary. --tronvillain (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, this isn't a general discussion forum, it's for making actual improvements to the article.--tronvillain (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Tronvillain, please comment on this: "Apitox® (Apimeds, Inc., Seongnam-si, Korea), purified bee venom from Apis mellifera, is an FDA-approved subcutaneous injectable product for relieving pain and swelling associated with rheumatoid arthritis, tendinitis, bursitis and multiple sclerosis" [8] --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What about it? The reference for that statement is a patent. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of FDA approval anywhere I can find. --tronvillain (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Korean FDA. --Мит Сколов (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait, Toxins is an open access journal of toxinology published monthly online by MDPI"? Toxinology? And "FDA" means Korea's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety? Wow. --tronvillain (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just one word was lost! --Мит Сколов (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Huh, toxinology is apparently an actual field. Multiple spellchecks don't like it though. Neat. --tronvillain (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tronvillain, if you are interested, see book (in Russian) by Prof. Vasily Krylov "Zootoxinology: bioecological and biomedical aspects. Manual. Recommended by the Academic Council of the UNN Institute of Biology and Biomedicine" (2015). See also new good article Insects: an underrepresented resource for the discovery of biologically active natural products in Acta Pharm Sin B. 2017. --Мит Сколов (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, perhaps you want to suggest your wording? Remember that these sources are good. --Мит Сколов (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"There is no good evidence that apitherapy is an effective treatment for any condition". We already say this (with good sources). Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an attack on public health. --Мит Сколов (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is however good evidence that apitherapy can be harmful. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Any treatment conducted without a specialist can be harmful. At us in Russia nobody needs to prove, that honey is useful to health. BECAUSE health benefits from bee products is SELF-EVIDENT. This is understandable for every sane person. However, in the West it is necessary to prove what is obvious, but no one will do it, because it will not bring profit. The same one who proves this, probably, will receive the Nobel Prize. "For proved the self-evident health benefits of bee products." --Мит Сколов (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be Gwyneth?[9] But seriously, this is just one of the many forms of altmed being pushed for which there is no decent evidence. Quackery in other words. The fact that it's only endorsed in countries like Russia just confirms it is suspect; as I said above, region-specific treatments are a hallmark of quackery, for obvious reasons. You are POV-pushing and if you keep it up you risk being blocked from this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, WP:MEDRS: "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers". Have you read this? Please, return or explain. --Мит Сколов (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you've already had MEDRS explained to you, so it should come as no surprise that lower quality sources, such as many books, are generally not considered reliable for medical content. That's especially when the book isn't even focused on the subject of health. We're generally looking for peer-reviewed publications that are review articles or publications from reputable organizations such as the WHO, FDA, etc. as described in MEDRS. Plus, the content was nonsensical and continuing further violations of WP:NPOV and WP:PSCI. Please refrain from adding such content in the future. There's already been ample explanation above for why your edits have been problematic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Will you check all my contributions [10]? --Мит Сколов (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

We all get it that you want to add content about how great "apitherapy" is. The MEDRS sources do not support what you want to do. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a MEDRS sources. See: "Despite the absente of full support from the clinical group, apitherapy is widely used today and has found a place in modern medicine" p. 16. Is there any objection to this? "We all get it that you all" attack on public health & POV-pushing FRINGE idea about "apitherapy is charlatanry". But open the eyes, MEDRS not says it, conversely MEDRS says: more research is needed. PMID 25742878, [11], [12]. But there are none, because no one will spend money to prove that honey helps to health (At first, it is SELF-EVIDENT). --Мит Сколов (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC) And besides, you keep silent about the contribution of Russian apitherapists. You yourself do not seem strange, about "References to medical properties of bee products can be found in Chinese, Korean, Russian, Egyptian and Greek traditional medicine practices" (and not a word about today!), and in the Article we have only the West three apitherapist (of which two are the USA!)!.. --Мит Сколов (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't edit by cherry picking. Apitherapy is alt med and very far from mainstream. Sure it was part of traditional medicines. Different thing. Please see WP:Lunatic charlatans. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Apitherapy is not "Lunatic", and is not "charlatans". But I read it. Please see WP:Lunatic charlatans: "come up with robust, replicable scientific evidence, published in reputable journals, and then we will tell the world all about it." Please, do not hinder me, but help me. I want to add Nikolay Artemov to the article. See: "In 1957, the USSR Ministry of Health sanctioned use of bee venom to treat certain ailments." I want to add: "It was the Instruction for Bee Sting Venom Apitherapy. N. M. Artemov is the author of The Instruction". And I want to add N. M. Artemov on a proponents. What do you say about this? @Jytdog @Tronvillain --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As always, the evidence does not appear to support the benefits of apitherapy, but I could see adding Artemov in the history section. --tronvillain (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About apitherapy in the new book of Russian scientist Professor Sergey Govorushko (in 2016 he is a candidate on corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences) - pp. 93-94 (In English) (CRC Press). And other good news: Apitherapist Degree Programs for Physicians started in N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod Institute of Biology and Biomedicine - see (all in Russian) University official site and in Russian newspaper Moskovskij Komsomolets. AlexbrnKingofaces43JzG --Мит Сколов (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop

WPA poster, 1936–38

Gwyneth Paltrow

Nice post that discusses Paltrow's advocacy for apitherapy via Goop. Pseudoscience through and through. The piece is here - also a nice description of Goop's Psychic Vampire Repellant product. Gunter writes: "Gwyneth couldn’t torture leeches because they are “live creatures” (awe), but she can torture a honey bee if it can teach her c-section scar who is boss and sell copy. I mean, why tell people about the complications of live bee acupuncture, like thrombocytopenia, Guillain-Barré, dermatitis, or fatal allergic reactions? " with links to PMID 27015661, PMID 25876584, PMID 25876584, and PMID 25876584. (all primary sources/case studies so we can't cite them, but we can cite Gunter per WP:PARITY) Jytdog (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, bee venom use Kate Middleton, Kylie Minogue, Michelle Pfeiffer, Victoria Beckham et al. Did you know about this? Enjoy!
Alexbrn, what would you say about that: to add in the article: In laboratory studies: honey and bee venom and propolis has anticancer properties.

References

It's all good WP:MEDRS. --Мит Сколов (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems you don't understand WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles published in reputable medical journals". What's wrong? Together with tronvillain (on this page, 20:19, 14 September 2017), we believe that the new section Researches is needed. --Мит Сколов (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I said it was needed. In any case, none of that research appears applicable to the use of bee products as therapy, which is what apitherapy presumably is. Putting reviews of primary research into an article on a medical treatment seems a lot like an attempt to lend false legitimacy to the medical treatment. --tronvillain (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And attempts to show what is formally not proven because it is not paid for proved, like quackery, look like an attack on public health. --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, and do you understand WP:MEDRS? Do you remember WP:MEDRS "all biomedical information must... must accurately reflect current knowledge"? Bees are useful and affordable than many drugs. Did you think about that? And they really work. This is what Hippocrates said. And this is so in fact. Good new articles for you Insects: an underrepresented resource for the discovery of biologically active natural products. and Honey, Propolis, and Royal Jelly: A Comprehensive Review of Their Biological Actions and Health Benefits. The latter, by the way, is a good source, which you, again, deleted from the article. Why do you do this? Apitherapy does not work - it's a lie, you know. Why distort the Truth? @Alexbrn? --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:The Truth. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In Russia, Truth is never a humorous category. We must work together on the article for on "Great apitherapy", as you said. This is important for public health, remember. --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What is important for public health is that quackery is not described as medicine and that research is not confused with treatment. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Apitherapy is not quackery (or do you have MEDRS for this?), and we want to create a new section about documented properties (and we have good MEDRS for this). --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It is quackery by definition. Treating people without evidence of efficacy is quackery. --tronvillain (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And who is this "we"? Are multiple people using this account?--tronvillain (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna treated long before the advent of Evidence-based medicine. ...Really 0_о? "We" are all who work on the article. --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you afraid to help me? This article should be better than it is now. We have many good sources. @Alexbrn @Jytdog @Tronvillain --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to know if I'm talking to one person or a group with the account Мит Сколов. --tronvillain (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

My English is bad, I communicate through Google translator. Naturally, i'm not a "multi-user account", do not worry. I suffered Lyme disease and apitherapy helped me. I found that this is important not only for this. I'm sorry that you do not want to open your eyes and admit the facts that this is promising. And have many good sources. --Мит Сколов (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that something bee related might yield some kind of useful treatment, though that wouldn't necessarily say anything about the use of bee products as currently practiced. As it stands, there does not appear to be significant evidence that treatment with bee products is effective. When there is some, we'll add it. --tronvillain (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

We have many good sources now about this promising and the article ignored this. It is not right. Let's add: Important religious texts (the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran) write the use of bee products to treat diseases. --Мит Сколов (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

that is a good question. who is "we' in "we want"? Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"We" are you, I, he. Wikipedians, who work on the article and want it to become better with WP:MEDRS "must accurately reflect current knowledge". --Мит Сколов (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"we" - as in the en-Wikipedia community - reject WP:Lunatic charlatans and do not hype quackery based on religious texts. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect deception. I see other articles (Ayurveda, Acupuncture, etc.) are bigs, and Apitherapy is very small. So why? --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that one of the people commenting here is guilty of deception? If you wish to expand Apitherapy, it must be done according to applicable policy and standards. The clear consensus from this discussion is that the content you've suggested is not sufficiently well referenced. — soupvector (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

They say that apitherapy is a quackery. Apitherapy is not quackery. We have good MEDRS for "apitherapy is a quackery"? NO. MEDRS says: "further studies are needed" and "it is are promising" Apitherapy by definition is not a quackery, because bee products have proven antibacterial properties. --Мит Сколов (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

References

"Apitherapy by definition is not a quackery, because bee products have proven antibacterial properties." That argument does not follow - bleach has "proven antibacterial properties", but that doesn't mean it can be used as a therapy. Primary research on the properties of bee product components has no connection to the use of bee products as a therapy. I understand, you are a proponent of apitherapy, but until there's actually reliable evidence of efficacy, you're not going to have much luck with this article. If there is --tronvillain (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that I began to understand. You're right, I do not doubt the usefulness of this (I'm sure it will be proved). All OK. Thank you and others for yours clarifying me! --Мит Сколов (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop Attack on Public Health

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alexbrn, do you remember, "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view"? The article is not neutral. We have many good sources, a great topic and a small article. Why? --Мит Сколов (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit[13] was trying to imply that if only more research were done, we'd know The Truth. Not really what the sources were saying, and is POV-pushing. You are fast approaching the point where the community will need to topic ban you from bee-related articles, because you are doing nothing but wasting editors' time. 07:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, please comment you [14]: "Insect products of great therapeutic value, are, of course, also honey and bee’s wax..." --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

See my edsum. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not speak English and I use google translator. I repeat the question: you have read and understood about "bee products have great therapeutic value"? --Мит Сколов (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest that if you do not speak or understand English, you stop editing the English language wikipedia. Perhaps you should edit the Russian language wikipedia instead. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Могу ли я предложить, чтобы, если вы не говорите или не понимаете английский, вы перестаете редактировать википедию на английском языке. Возможно, вы должны отредактировать википедию на русском языке. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 09:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, Kingofaces43, Recently I read the book of an important scientist and remembered you. "Walter Alvarez also takes the opportunity to highlight the groundbreaking work of Italian geologists, often neglected in America in favor of English-speaking geologists. During his early career, Alvarez was one of the few Italian-speaking Americans working on the geology of Italy. "I hope this book will serve geologists as an antidote to an Anglophone viewpoint that ignores many of our worthy scientific forebears from other countries," he wrote."

Why do you prevent me from writing the truth about apitherapy in Russia? I suspect that you want to hide from the world the truth about the scientific priority of the USSR and Russia. Because Russia has a scientific priority. Apitherapy in Russia is supported by the state, society and scientists. Russia has many excellent scientists in this field: Nikolay Artemov, Shamil Omarov, Boris Orlov, Vasily Krylov, Alexander Ivanovich Tikhonov et al. You must not interfere with me, but help, promoting the dissemination of free knowledge for the whole world, with the benefit for public health! Thank you! P. S. And I also want to remind you of the glorious names of Russian medicine - Nikolay Pirogov, Ivan Sechenov, Sergey Botkin, Élie Metchnikoff, Ivan Pavlov... --Мит Сколов (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Прекратите тратить наше время -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, see, supported (review & comparison reference): But bee products have potential therapeutic value.

Please read and understand >>>>>>>WP:MEDRS and WP:RS and WP:CIR <<<<<< Thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I too can advise you something for expand your horizons, see, EurekAlert! about Russian apitherapy scientists [15]. --Мит Сколов (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Прекратите тратить наше время. Прощай. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive efforts and goodwill, Мит Сколов. It looks like their decision to remain ignorant. Wakari07 (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The mentioned death case could not be in March 2018 since the manuscript received April 25, 2017; probably March 2017 (?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.42.129.103 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)