Talk:Calcium fructoborate

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Calcium fructoborate.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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

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

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sourcing issues

The MEDRS sources about this supplement are by folks from the BioBoron Institute which is trying to commercialize this dietary supplement. see author at list at most recent review PMID 23982445 and see this press releasehere

There is nothing we can say here as we don't have sufficient independent sources, per WP:Golden rule. Am marking this for speedy promo. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources are all dietary supplement marketing. There is really nothing encyclopedic we can say about this chemical, at this time. Eventually, probably. This is too now, for now. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it is describing a compound, and the clinical studies that have been carried out on it. I have no COI - I made this page when I saw this substance promoted and looked for some facts about it. There was more information in the further reading items (some independent) that I added but which someone deleted. (Strange since other articles have scores of primary refs in further reading) -- Rod57 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim you have a COI and fwiw I don't think you do. Please identify here the independent reliable MEDRS sources on the health effects of this substance that we could use to generate content about that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deleted further reading list :

Further reading

The last one describes a clinical study carried out in California by what appears to be an independent team. The introduction includes "Of all the boron and borate supplements available, CFB has shown the most potential to improve several health conditions.^1,3 For example, CFB has been identiﬁed as a potential anti- inﬂammatory agent.^4–6 Also, earlier clinical studies have shown that C-reactive protein (CRP), a blood marker secreted by the liver in response to inﬂammation or infection,⁷ can be reduced with CFB supplementation in subjects with angina pectoris^8,9 and cardiovascular conditions.¹⁰" which could also be mentioned in the article. - Rod57 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of those papers are by the people from the company. They are not independent. You are not answering the question asked by WP:Golden rule and that I am putting to you here. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way when you cite biomedical literature, please provide at least the PMID. There is a straightforward explanation here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the people are connected but that shouldn't matter. (sadly the fact that it has been patented will discourage independent work) The compound exists, and has been used in clinical studies. [hence is notable?] This WP article makes no health claims. I see someone else has studied it in dogs: Effects of dietary calcium fructoborate supplementation on joint comfort and flexibility and serum inflammatory markers in dogs with osteoarthritis in Illinois. - Rod57 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not dealing with what NOTABILITY and The Golden Rule actually say about independent sources. Those - and the requirement for independent sources - are the product of community consensus and they are not a potato you can just throw out the window. And you are now scraping the bottom of the barrel with some thesis - a primary source about animal studies, that we cannot use to make any claims about effects in people per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to understand why you are pushing so hard for this article about a non-Notable topic to exist in Wikipedia. It is a plain fact that there are no independent MEDRS sources about this. What is your hurry? Why not wait until there is a significant literature on this, so we can write a decent, science-driven article? Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make health claims - I'm trying to write something verifiable about something people are likely to search for in google/wikipedia. If you want to add "there is no reliable/independent evidence of health benefits in mammals/humans" I wont argue. - Got to go now - but I hope the speedy delete is recinded ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also presumably MEDRS only applies to health claims. - Rod57 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great so I took out the content about health, in this dif. This is definitely not NOTABLE, still. I cannot write something like "there is no reliable/independent evidence of health benefits in mammals/humans" because there is no reliable source for that. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]