Talk:Epigallocatechin gallate

Comments

What about including on protein binding? Also talking about EGCG as a tannin? Jasoninkid (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

HIV anti viral? There are only 30 papers on anti viral egcg compared to over 7k on egcg and all are quit theoretical I don't think this has any place on this articlef. Jasoninkid (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the original research tag to most of the last part of the article which is based on primary research and the conclusions made are not generally recognized in the scientific community. Jasoninkid (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If I do not see objections I will be removing the original research soon. Jasoninkid (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC) I have removed the original research. Jasoninkid (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm re removing the content that is not generally excepted by the scientific community. EGCG has been shown to do may things most of which are in dispute do to bio availability or other reasons. To pick an obscure set of papers on one topic gives a distorted view of EGCG. Jasoninkid (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Diseases

Most of the article is set up as blocks of EGCg would help X and then a new block of EGCg could help Y and so on. Since most of the disease blocks a 2-3 lines long is there some why to make one smoother reading block? Jasoninkid (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

5-HTP interaction?

In what other ways does this interact with the metabolism of exogenous chemicals? I read elsewhere that someone suggested EGCG be taken with 5-HTP (as supplements) to prevent the metabolism of 5-HTP into serotonin in the blood stream while allowing it to so metabolize in the brain, can anyone cite such an effect or similar effects? Nagelfar (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

EGCG and HIV paragraph

This sentence is in need of cleanup:

"However, these effects have yet to be confirmed in live human trials, and it does NOT imply that green tea will cure or block HIV infection, but it may help regulate viral load as long as it is not involved no adverse drug reactions."

So what is it saying at this part:

"...as long as it is not involved no adverse drug reactions."

That looks like a bad double-negative inside a possible run-on sentence, so I really am not clear what it is saying.

--74.124.187.76 (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I briefly looked at the study but cannot figure out exactly what the author is trying to say, therefore the author should come back and clean up his/her sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolween (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

EGCG and Aging

Recommend adding cogent details to the following if it's included in the article: "There has been news about the effects of EGCG and green tea on aging, however, it has been shown that these effects are due to EGCG being converted in the liver into theaflavins.Scientific Abstracts: January 2009 Abstracts: Theaflavin - Life Extension"--Xris0 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not researched this point, but I don't believe that EGCG is metabolised. Theaflavins are found in black tea, formed by the oxidation of polyphenolic compounds in the tea leaves when they are being processed (and not found significantly in green tea). However, the bioavailability of EGCG should be explored. Such as it's absorption rate in the intestine and the achievable plasma concentration from drinking green tea. I hope that I haven't missed the point you were trying to make Tim123 321miT (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Epimerization

I made some changes regarding epimerization. The article implied that boiling water ruined green tea, when in fact the change made is minuscule. If you heat green tea to 100 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes straight, it only loses 12.4% of its EGCG content as shown in the link I posted. This means that boiling water does not have a significant effect, especially when you consider that a cup of boiling water falls in temperature in much less than 30 minutes. Feel free to format it properly, but please do not revert it unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary.Fireemblem555 (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HNMR and C13NMR Data

Please can someone incorporate this data into the provided blank table? I have citation to relevant credible source. From Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2011), 59(12), p6526-6533. The article Name is . Lipophilized Epigallocatechin Gallate (EGCG) Derivatives as Novel Antioxidants by Zhong, Ying; Shahidi, Fereidoon. The data in particular is in page 6530 of the article entry. Please and thank you, I just don't know how to format and post, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.152.163 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

ECGC and weight loss

There should be a section about EGCG and weight loss. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17201629:

J Med Food. 2006 Winter;9(4):451-8.

Green tea extract thermogenesis-induced weight loss by epigallocatechin gallate inhibition of catechol-O-methyltransferase. Shixian Q, VanCrey B, Shi J, Kakuda Y, Jiang Y. Source South China Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China. Abstract Epidemiological studies have shown that intake of tea catechins is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. The antioxidative activity of tea-derived catechins has been extensively studied. Reports have shown that green tea extract intake is associated with increased weight loss due to diet-induced thermogenesis, which is generally attributed to the catechin epigallocatechin gallate. That catechin-polyphenols are known to be capable of inhibiting catechol-O-methyltransferase (the enzyme that degrades norepinephrine) is a possible explanation for why the green tea extract is effective in stimulating thermogenesis by epigallocatechin gallate to augment and prolong sympathetic stimulation of thermogenesis. Knowledge about thermogenesis-induced weight loss produced by green tea's epigallocatechin gallate and its ability to inhibit catechol-O-methyltransferase is important for health benefits and for prolonging the action of norepinephrine in the synaptic cleft.

--TDKehoe (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a well known, high-reputation journal. No open access full text link provided. Primary sourced material (see WP:MEDSCI). Quite dated. Overall, the quality of evidence provided by that reference alone looks to be too low for use in Wikipedia for that purpose (going by Wikipedia's usual standards and policy for capturing scientific consensus). The link (and request) are quite old now, so there may be better reviewed secondary sources available (?), if someone still wants to write about that. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why my info about biological properties was removed?

Explanation needed! Dzaocom (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your content is based on lab research; please review WP:PRIMARY for sourcing as a guideline; also the discussion is overly technical. This is a general public encyclopedia, not a scientific forum, WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no firm rule prohibiting use of primary sources. Read it. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay I understood. So the article should have some experimental data that proves the hypothesis right? So can I use these two sources? http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/pharmacology/adrien-albert/images/pdfs/RefsPDFs/390.pdf http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/pharmacology/adrien-albert/images/pdfs/RefsPDFs/367.pdf --Dzaocom (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Can experimental data in vitro or from lab animals ever really prove an hypothesis when an herbal compound is used in the diet or as a supplement? No. As for any compound proposed as a health agent in humans, the scientific evidence has to come from several randomized clinical trials in human subjects, something that research on EGCG is years/decades from showing. Please review WP:MEDASSESS and the following section, WP:MEDANIMAL. In my opinion, the two PDFs you propose to use do not meet the standard of evidence to justify discussion in the article. Also, review sources in the article section showing that regulatory agencies in Europe and the USA have already established a science-based position on EGCG which seems appropriate to follow for Wikipedia, as stated presently in the article. --Zefr (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You say that the only source of effects of chemical in human is an experiment done on human. Didn't my paragraph had a right to be stayed where it was? I would change write that egcg may or possible act on these and these receptors, since studies are not done on humans. I see lots of articles of chemicals written in that way. They contain some studies done on separate organs or animals, but not directly on humans. The sources are mainly from PubMed. For example, case of pharmacological effects of THC on CB2 receptor. On wikipedia article, there're few sources defending "hypothesis" that THC definitely acts on CB1 receptor in some definite nM. But all these "sources" finally cite one source, which experiment rat brain for results of cannabinoids effects on brain. The subject of experiment is rat, not human. Then should be removed too? Sorry, but I don't understand your point of view in this subject. Most studies done in medicine are on separated organs or animals. Humans are less involved, especially in pharmacological researches. So, at least, give me right to re-add my paragraph and change it so that it doesn't prove anything, but says possible, more realistic hypothesis. Thanks. Dzaocom (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedia articles have been edited thoroughly, so lab research may be discussed in some. It doesn't matter that research is catalogued by Pubmed, as it doesn't qualify for WP:MEDRS unless complying with WP:MEDSCI. I don't feel the information you're proposing is useful for a general encyclopedia, but others may side with you via this discussion. Meanwhile, no changes regarding this topic should occur per WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm siding with the OP. Secondary sources citing pre-clinical and animal studies are completely acceptable, if it is clearly stated that they pre-clinical or animal studies. This is especially the case for substances like EGCG, that will not be eligible for commercial patents and where there is no individual party with the economic incentive and will for vast investment sums required for multiple human DBRCTs and systematic reviews. If we ignored ALL data that doesn't comply with the pre-market evidence expectations used for commercial, marketable pharmacology (as has been going on here), it would vastly misrepresent the enormous body of knowledge regarding the subject. Useful knowledge should still be included, where its evidence standard is also clearly stated and not misrepresented. Again, WP:MEDASSESS states, "Such information "[early-stage research]", 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". Animal studies are certainly *NOT* prohibited from Wikipedia. They just can't be used to state or directly imply medical statements of fact regarding an effect in humans. Accuracy and clarity regarding the standard of evidence is what is required. Not complete exclusion of all forms of knowledge that haven't been permanently cast in stone. Besides, veterinarians and pet owners read Wikipedia too. You're not the only species on the planet. Animal health is perfectly relevant too. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

receptor binding; primary sources

User: Panintelize about this edit, we generally don't use primary sources in WP at all, and we do not use them for anything about health. Please read WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog got it, I'll read the links you provided. btw can you elaborate on "we generally don't use primary sources in WP at all"? It contrasts my observation since I see lots of them being used in various articles about chemical agent. Panintelize (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

there is lots of bad editing in WP. ~generally~ if it the only content is receptor binding (like what you added) the community finds primary sources OK but if you want to make an actual health claim (like "EGCG can treat cancer") you need a review. (ECG binds to a lot of things!! so if you really want to describe its receptor binding profile a review would save a lot of work anyway....) Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

False and misleading. "we do not use them for anything about health" is incorrect. WP:MEDRS and many other WP medical policies (including WP:MEDSCI) explicitly PERMIT primary sources from reputable sources. Please cease the disruptive and destructive edits all over this page. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Rheumatoid Arthritis

I'm contesting removal ([[1]]) of the paragraph about Rheumatoid Arthritis by User:Zefr, who commented "rv primary nonsense". The information and source cited made the cover of the American College of Rheumatology's peer reviewed journal, "Arthritis and Rheumatology", so I think the standard of evidence is sufficient for Wikipedia. Added query on his talk page: User_talk:Zefr 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is primary research inadequate to support an anti-disease statement per WP:MEDRS. It is nonsense to suggest from in vitro work that EGCG "may be highly beneficial in rheumatoid arthritis", here. --Zefr (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

See threads below, but see also #Primary sources and WP:MEDRES. Text used, also massively understated provided and available evidence and entirely complied with WP:WEIGHT. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, ref fails MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, help me out here Zefr and Jytdog. It wasn't just in vitro, that was the study conducted ten years earlier (doi:10.1002/art.22023), which attracted 94 citations overwhelmingly support its evidence. This more recent study was in vivo assessment in an animal model, along with a solid in-silico model by computational analysis of human protein binding sites in relevant pathways. The study provides further rationale and validation of the mechanism of action to back in vivo results of the original study (and other such studies). The statement "may be highly beneficial" would seem to me very well substantiated by the referenced sources. The new evidence suggests it's highly likely to be completely halt arthritic damage, so the statement "may be highly beneficial" (the already established position), is substantially weaker than new evidence provides. Apart from the American College of Rheumatology's journal review board and the University of Washington, the study was reviewed prior to submission by University of Michigan Medical School. It's pretty rare for research without solid basis to make the cover a journal as prestigious as that. May I ask whether you are familiar with that field of research and body of work? Maybe you're able to assist me by proposing a particular rewording you'd be comfortable with? 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's WP:PRIMARY sourcing no matter how you cut it. It wouldn't be notable for the research section until a randomized controlled trial is conducted, then referenced or expanded by other research groups. See WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Interesting. I would consider "green tea cures arthritis" to certainly require DBRCT level of evidence, but "Research on potential therapeutic uses" and "may" to need a lower standard. The unfortunate situation is that unless someone would be able to patent the findings, such treatments are *extremely* unlikely to be funded for such trials. A situation that puts patients and the entire medical community at great disadvantage. This particular study's project has continued to get ongoing NIH funding renewals ([2]), but likely only so it can help someone else find a different synthetic drug for patenting. Other reviews have been calling for human DBRCT trials on EGCG and RA for a long time. There's mountains of evidence to justify why that should happen. [3], [4], [5]. Unfortunately there's no lobbyists donating to election campaigns unlike the other currently used and high side effect treatments. I'm a huge fan of scientific advance and academic rigour, but also a realist in acknowledging broken 'markets', enormous barriers to entry and commercial conflicts biasing programs (particularly when competing commercial interests are also major donors to institutions). What wording would you suggest that still adequately captures "Research on *potential* therapeutic uses"? Do please note the title it was put under. There's no claims being made that it is already clinically accepted common practice. Considering green tea is widely regarded as extremely safe and well tolerated (plus widely consumed in great volumes by societies with the longest life expectancies), it's unfortunate that something with such enormous potential to alleviate human suffering is swept under the rug. Incidentally and anecdotally, drinking matcha daily worked for me. RA symptoms (and RhF biomarker) completely disappeared, while other family members taking prescription drugs were crippled by the disease instead. I have no conflicts of interest in this at all (apart from potential genetic susceptibility to RA). I just wish human trials were funded. Even being able to purchase EGCG from a properly regulated, safety inspected and quality controlled supplement market would be a great start (but governments won't even regulate those). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

p.s. Regarding "It wouldn't be notable for the research section until a randomized controlled trial is conducted, then referenced or expanded by other research groups" < At that point it's not "potential therapeutic use", or "basic research" as the sections opening paragraph introduces. It becomes standard practice and clinical guidelines. As a consumer, I also consider use of the term "nonsense" in regards to exceptional research published in the most reputable journal in its field, to be rather objectionable (and somewhat against the spirit of Wikipedia). I do appreciate your responses though and thank you for the subsequent explanation your line of thinking. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, if making the cover of the American College of Rheumatology's journal for longstanding NIH funded body of research is not considered to be "notable" research into rheumatology and a "potential" therapeutic application of EGCG, then I'm really not sure what is! For Wikipedia to exclude it from "research on potential therapeutic uses", seems to be a totally unreasonable position to me. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Also just wish to add, that until the other quotation I supplied was removed, it was abundantly clear that it was pre-clinical (pre human trial) research. Maybe I'll come back when I've got time to perform another unpaid literature review, but for now I have different papers due. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Some great reading for you Zefr on why people don't bother trying to contribute in medicine (and why we're all worse off): http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have access (e.g. university library subscription), I highly recommend reading this review of the TAK1 field too Zefr: https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-abstract/56/7/1060/2631580/Transforming-growth-factor-activated-kinase-1-a?redirectedFrom=fulltext, Zefr. If you want to take a couple of months doing nothing but reading latest rheumatology reviews, current research paths and emerging directions (as I did after a being handed a hydroxychloroquine prescription), you'll realise the originally cited work is about as far from nonsense as you'll find. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RA and other diseases under preliminary research seem adequately represented by the first sentence and sources under "Research on potential therapeutic uses". Fyi, a search of clinical trials registered with the US NIH, shown here, retrieves only 4, none of which is specific to EGCG and RA. Dietary factors (especially polyphenols) as possible anti-disease factors are notably difficult, if not impractical or impossible, to design, manage, and prove in clinical research. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So your assertion is, that if it's not in a clinical trial, then it's not research. That doesn't comply with any definition of research that I've seen. In fact, that would exclude the overwhelming majority of medical research conducted. I would think it self-evident that research does not begin and end at the clinical trial phase alone. Many, many years and millions of dollars of prior investment by NIH into this program alone, is testament to that. I propose the deletion be undone, subject to readdition (in abbreviated form) of the prior removed clarification, that it is preclinical research. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Might as well just open the article with "EGCG is a chemical." or "EGCG is a thing.", then delete the rest and call the entire subject "adequately represented". Maybe change Wikipedia's homepage to just say "Stuff.", then get rid of the entire now adequately represented body of human knowledge? 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP is not a journal for discussing research activity in a field, WP:NOTJOURNAL. Please read WP:MEDRS: we focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials because those are the sources for writing encyclopedic content, WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTJOURNAL, is about material not being excessively technical and to provide links to introductory material. WP:MEDASSESS states, "Such information "[early-stage research]", 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". It is in a research section and the level of research cited was clearly identified before removed as "excessive quotation" (instead of being paraphrased). You're trying to apply policies that refer to the standards of evidence required for medical statements of fact, where as the context is "research into potential treatments", i.e. the research that is seeking to establish facts, not in a section stating them. Per WP:MEDRS, the source is reliable and in fact made the cover of a journal in WP:MEDRS's cited Abridged Index Medicus list of 117 "Core clinical journals". It is a plain fact that research is being conducted in that field. It is notable research, as evidenced by making the cover of a WP:MEDRS's exampled "Core clinical journal". 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe you are still promoting use of this, a preliminary in vitro study. One other experienced editor above has agreed it is too primary and fails the MEDRS source standard. You'll need other editors to obtain WP:CON to use the edit and source. --Zefr (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That standard ('too primary') applies to statements of medical facts, not to statements about whether or not research is being conducted. The secondary sources that evidence such research is occurring, and is investigating potential treatment; includes the NIH funding approvals and the publication of research, on the cover of MEDRS "core clinical journal". That's all that needs to be said. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me add though, had it been an even stronger claim (as it should have been given the quality of study and review), the study (a) wasn't just in vitro (that was already covered in discussion up thread, including that referred to in vivo animal studies, in silico analysis, plus referenced numerous other reviews on the subject and itself included elements of review); and (b) it's also *not* just about a single study, but an entire multi-year program of research, repeatedly NIH funded. There are a large number of preclinical studies and reviews on RA and EGCG. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Zefr, I should further note, your view that "Dietary factors (especially polyphenols) as possible anti-disease factors are notably difficult, if not impractical or impossible, to design, manage, and prove in clinical research", implies that the role of anything food-related, must be excluded from any disease treatment discussions, even *research into potential treatments*. That would seem an odd position for an encyclopedia to take. It would excessively and detrimentally bias towards artificial drugs only. Exclusion of non-patentable treatments, similar to orphaned drugs, it is already a huge problem in treatment discovery. As someone highly active in advocating in support of vaccination (for example), I see plenty of false claims about treatments and potential treatments from non-medical sources, particularly from the 'food cures all' movement. I appreciate the edit is intended in good faith (and guessing you're well conditioned to seeing poorly evidenced claims for many natural products too). This isn't one of those. The research exists, is quality and professional research, and is notable. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples of more studies [6] [7] [8], from other research groups. Results showing beneficial effect in animal models, per the original source, are independently discovered/confirmed, plus the source is referenced and expanded. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

More studies [9],[10] and reviews [11], [12], [13], [14]. How many would you like to assess, before acknowledging that there is strong research interest, successful animal studies and preclinical indications that EGCG is a strong candidate for RA human treatment trials? I'd be happy with: "EGCG is being investigated as a potential RA treatment. Pre-clinical indications are encouraging, but there is no human trial study data. Successful results in animal model may not translate to human treatment", or similar. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

p.s. Whether effects are caused by EGCG or other polyphenols has been looking at too. (Including, e.g., by [15]). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly a new line of research either: [16]. Just another example where drug companies won't pay for clinical trials (because they don't have a patent on green tea, so there's nothing to gain) and governments won't fund it, because the companies that are paying for their election campaigns would have their drug sales devalued. Likewise universities generally don't have the funding to jump through hoops to conduct human trials. If they do, it's often from corporate donors anyway, so administrators won't risk rocking the boat with the hand that feeds. Or the university researchers who might conduct it, are too busy looking for something to patent and commercialise, where they can make more money than basic, public-interest research. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:MEDRS on sourcing. Please do not clutter article talk pages with your opinions about Life, The Universe, and Everything (see WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM) Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk is exactly where issues like Criticism_of_Wikipedia#American_and_corporate_bias, Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage, Wikipedia:Deletionism and Wikipedia's rapid decline in growth, new contributors and editor base due its flawed policies should be discussed. Encyclopedia Britannica here we come! Please explain why this (below) was removed, by more disruptive editing:

Preclinical research is exploring whether EGCG may be a potential treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Several preliminary studies in animal models have encouraged further investigation. As with many animal studies however, results may not translate to humans. As of 2017, there have been no FDA-approved human clinical trials in the U.S., and NIH research funding is ongoing.

References

14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the ref for the last sentence? Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That was added to help satisfy Zefr, based on his search . Additional qualifier added specifically to ensure the status (or lack) of clinical trial testing in humans (for RA) wasn't misunderstood (and ensuring compliance with WP:WEIGHT).

Bias

This article is a joke. If you're not even going to make an effort to make it balanced and reflect the actual research, then delete it.

Apparently putting Green Tea before White Tea (because it has the highest quantity of EGCG), is "promotional", according to editors. 120.17.37.130 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Claim of "medical marketing"

Existing RA drugs have serious adverse effects and a major reason why EGCG is being researched. It's amazing how every animal trial of EGCG has shown dramatic and remarkable positive results for RA treatment. Well known for ~15 years, yet there's been no human trials funded. The only "medical marketing" edits going on here, are to cover up how seriously harmful the existing drugs are, including being teratogenic. COI anyone? 14.200.91.233 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That is how you do medical marketing; you point out the weakness of other approaches. common as dirt. i didn't dispute that RA drugs have adverse effects. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Teratogenicity is a rather large 'weakness', among an enormous number of severe and dangerous side effects. You didn't have to dispute it, you just covered it up. While continuing to hide the benefits of alternatives like EGCG (along with another persistently disruptive editor). THAT is how medical marketing is done. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles on those drugs discuss their side effects. Nothing is being "covered up". Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The alternatives are proven to be highly dangerous toxins and frequently cause direct patient harm. EGCG is shown to be remarkably safe. That is highly relevant to EGCG's potential as a therapeutic treatment and to this article. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't hype "potential" anything. This may shock you but we get representatives from pharma companies doing that with drugs in development. There is no difference between what you are doing for this phytochemical and what they do - it is all hype and marketing. The dietary supplement industry tends to be sleazier since it is less regulated.

Once somebody does the work of showing the safety and efficacy of EGCG for RA or any other use, and that gets written up in MEDRS sources, of course we will include content about that.--Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This may shock you, but pharma company drug representatives intentionally undermine safe alternatives on Wikipedia too. The major difference, is the nobody is trying to protect a patent in EGCG for RA, nor stands to profit with the same high stakes and scale that drug companies have. Likewise, funding available for research and extremely expensive human clinical trials between a dangerous but profitable patent-eligible drug and a completely safe non-patentable alternative, are COMPLETELY disproportionate. Wikipedia has a responsibility to take that extreme bias into account. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See last reply. When you have MEDRS sources discussing the safety and efficacy of EGCG in adequately powered RCTs in some indication please come back. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See #Safety. "Of course" you'll be including all those human RCTs and reviews showing good tolerance and safety. I'll hold my breath. Not. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, enjoy protecting sales of teratogen-based treatments and their consequences. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not what i wrote. we need MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Veregen

i added that content to the botanical drug article here. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be linked. EGCG is the primary component and proposed mechanism. The next most similar catechins have related effects too. When EGCG and those make up 95% of the product, it's quite a stretch to consider that irrelevant to this article. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope that is not how it works. Companies go after botanical drug approvals in order to get complex mixtures approved as drugs. What CMC controls is the manufacturing -- so that the ingredients are the same batch to batch. The whole mixture is what is tested for efficiacy and adverse effects. (and indeed lots of people talk about things the importance of mixtures and important contributions by all the components in ways that we don't fully understand). Nobody gets to go back and pick one component and claim that the activity is due to it. If somebody wants to show that EGCG alone has these qualities, they need to demonstrate that. The argument here is also typical of dietary supplement marketing. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Catchins are 95% of the product and the entire aim and target of the extraction process, due to all the evidence of their effects. But because it's not an analytic reagent grade process, let's just assume it's something mysterious in the 5% of the product, or perhaps some invisible flying teapot that's causing it instead. #OccamsRazor 14.200.91.233 (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We need to take the research about X seriously. The X in Veregen is a complex mixture. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please also get your figures right: "Catechins constitute 85 to 95% (by weight) of the total drug substance which includes more than 55% of Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCg), other catechin derivatives such as Epicatechin (EC), Epigallocatechin (EGC), Epicatechin gallate (ECg), and some additional minor catechin derivatives i.e. Gallocatechin gallate (GCg), Gallocatechin (GC), Catechin gallate (Cg), and Catechin (C)." (from here) So EGCG is bit more than half. Biology is complicated and small amounts of things can have big effects which is why the FDA puts so much emphasis on CMC. That is just how biology works. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So there's no reason at all to not say "EGCG is a component of the green tea extracts in Veregen, a formulation approved by FDA for topical wart treatment". Majority (of the drug component), is a notable quantity. But including that would risk being interpreted as a positive statement about EGCG, and would go against the established pattern of bias on this page. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Safety

Green tea, drunk several times every day, for thousands of years, by the majority of people in the oldest living cultures on earth. So shockingly unsafe and deadly, NOT. . But they're obviously doing everything wrong, because they're not Americans for a start and all these human clinical trials (that obviously concluded EGCG's safety) weren't even funded by drug companies! If only they would just buy more teratogen-based 'treatment' drugs instead.

References

14.200.91.233 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Green tea =/= EGCG. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Try reading the actual RCT studies. They're on EGCG, not tea. Meanwhile, the alternatives to EGCG, known to be teratogens, get prescribed for decades, yet with no long-term follow-up safety studiesPMID 11409152. Better not talk about those though, right? Let's panic instead about the dangers of tea extracts consistently proven to be safe. God forbid people with RA might hear about it, start following the Japanese and drink some green tea, or worse, fund human trials for RA treatment (as countless studies have recommended should happen)! 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources in Wikipedia. Please do read and follow WP:MEDRS. And Wikipedia is not here to promote anything - please do read WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's completely false Jytdog. See #Primary sources and please cease 'editorship' until you've actually read the Wikipedia policies you continually quote. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not promotion. It's reflecting established knowledge and the research. The only adverse affect that's ever raised a serious question, has been rare reports of hepotoxicity, addressed in this systematic review of its RCTs , concluding:

"The few events reported in both groups were elevations of liver enzymes. Most were mild, and no serious liver-related adverse events were reported. Results of this review, although not conclusive, suggest that liver-related adverse events after intake of green tea extracts are expected to be rare."

. Systematic review of safety by the US Pharmacopeia concluded:

"Clinical pharmacokinetic and animal toxicological information indicated that consumption of green tea concentrated extracts on an empty stomach is more likely to lead to adverse effects than consumption in the fed state. Based on this safety review, the DSI EC determined that when dietary supplement products containing green tea extracts are used and formulated appropriately the Committee is unaware of significant safety issues that would prohibit monograph development, provided a caution statement is included in the labelling section. Following this decision, USP's DSI ECs may develop monographs for green tea extracts, and USP may offer its verification programmes related to that dietary ingredient."

.

References

--14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was reacting to what you wrote about God forbid people with RA might hear about it, start following the Japanese and drink some green tea, or worse, fund human trials for RA treatment. That is not what we do here.

PMID 27188915 is a review of green tea extracts, not EGCG. Likewise the other. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So add a qualifier. Anyway, this page is clearly a waste of time. Another win for hiding established knowledge and research, giving undue weight to imagined fears and keeping teratogen sales in business. Enjoy Jytdog. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You get a birth defect, and you get a birth defect and you get a birth defect. Teratogenics and more autoimmune diseases for all! Who cares that clinical trial research processes and funding bias is rotten to the core with conflicts and corruption. Echoing that accurately is what a 'community' based knowledge resource is all about. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What is EGCG? A green tea extract. Yep, but pedantry is far more important than the people who are being crippled daily by rheumatoid arthritis, unable to use their hands, being sent for life-endangering hip and knee replacements, dosed up on endocrine disrupting steroids etc, living lives in constant unending agony, experiencing life-threatening depression and other systemic effects. But I'm glad you 'won' this page to yourself. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope one day you'll gain the human experience to understand how scientific process actually interacts with and works in the real world. Not just some fantasy, idealised, abstract model that we may wish it were, in innocent naivety of the facts staring us in the face. The overriding legal obligation and only real priority of those in governance of modern medicine, is shareholder profit maximisation. It's commercialised and corporatised beyond all recognition and the market (investment fund managers, private equity pools and algorithmic rules) replace those who don't comply. Likewise the bureaucracies and politicians whom lobbyist funding installs into government power. While you might think that blindly following the same rote process of 'evidence' for all sources and subjects equally, makes for good editorship; you do in fact simply reinforce existing data discrimination and corruption. Bringing harm to Wikipedia's readership with it. Consideration for what drives the weight of evidence in publishing, counts. Maybe once you've seen someone you love crippled by diseases that were preventable by orphaned drugs, blocked from the market by greed alone (to protect private commercial interest, over patients and greater good of society at large), then you'll start to open your eyes. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just remember, while to you this may be just another Wikipedia page, to others, access to knowledge is genuinely the difference between life and death outcomes. From halting disease progression, or not. Keep that in mind and then go read the mountain of papers showing how amazingly it has worked in every animal study, completely halting arthritic damage, is safe in humans, and "incredibly promising"; but then stating the next step is only to use that to hunt in hope for some other (maybe similar) synthetic alternative, that might remotely as work well and as safely. Why? Because patents, not patients, are the only objective and the people paying their bills. So you block all of that, waiting on some series of systematic reviews of large cohort human DBRCT trials, that you know for a fact can and never will be funded, because there won't be a financial beneficiary to make huge near guaranteed returns. There will be no one willing to pay the many tens of millions of dollars that requires and it has nothing but downside risk for investors and bureaucrats who can't directly profit from it (or use it to otherwise satisfy their economic power base). But congratulations on getting to exercise editorial power. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"we don't do the R mark. more promotional editing)"

It was added because the product name was copied directly from FDA's letter. Also as informational to a reader that it is a trademark and not a free to use as a generic name. As a matter of style to remove it, fine. I've found it's specified in a Wikipedia style guide now. But to call it "promotional editing" to have added it, is inappropriate presumption of bad faith (against Wikipedia policy) and poor editorship. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Most times when people use the mark, they are company reps or PR people. You were copy/pasting. I can accept that. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary Sources

There is no firm rule prohibiting use of primary sources. WP:Primary states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". Even WP:MEDRES does *NOT* say primary sources can never be used, it makes recommendation that they "should not generally" and then goes on to give guidelines on HOW they should be used when they are, including considering WP:WEIGHT. Further, WP:MEDSCI states (on how to "Summarize scientific consensus"): "Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies, and secondary sources. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed". The continual disruptive editing to conduct a campaign of deleting any and every use of primary sourced text, is destructive, vandalism and against Wikipedia policy. The continual deceptive misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy by editors on this page is in extremely poor form, if as stated, made by "experienced editors". Almost every major deletion here (in a pattern that even in the greatest generosity can only been read as bias), is being made with excuse "PRIMARY". The *EXPLICIT* Wikipedia policy directly reads: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". If anyone wished to continue quoting policy that they have either not read, don't understand, or are intentionally and fraudulently misusing, then please cease editorship. p.s. When articles on the cover of American College of Rheumatology's own journal aren't regarded as a "reputable source" about rheumatology by the editing cabal on page, while explicitly cited (by name) as an example of a high quality source in Wikipedia's own policy, then please do all of Wikipedia a favor and either leave or just shut it down. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is no reveletion. Wikipedia is what it is, because people do what they generally should do.

MEDRS does say that primary sources can sometimes be used but it makes it clear that this is when there is some very important study done that is obviously going to change medicine or that otherwise rocks peoples works - something like the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (which is also somewhat relevant to the conversation here, since it was about whether dietary supplements are safe and effective.

About the use of primary sources in Wikipedia generally. please see User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Something obviously going to change medicine", like the type of material that gets published on the cover of the most reputable medical journal in rheumatology, and entirely relevant to this page's subject. 120.17.71.68 (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh you changed your IP address. Nope, not like that. There is an article on the cover of every journal, every month. Things like the SELECT trial are rare.

When you replied above, in this diff, you edited my comment. Don't do that. If you are unaware of why, please see WP:TPG and specifically WP:TPO. I removed your edit to my comment. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your essay is a nice original work and personal opinion, but certainly NOT accepted Wikipedia policy consensus. The policy that is consensus, is directly quoted above. 120.17.71.68 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Note the actual policy quoted (and in strong disagreement with your personal opinion and what you think Wikipedia is), has bright red bolded italicised formatting. I didn't copy the formatting with the quote. 120.17.71.68 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, you've objected, and I'm fine that you remove the annotation. I wouldn't consider that type of annotation an edit of your comment text, or its meaning, but fine for you to object and follow your call. 120.17.71.68 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What I was seeking (obviously) is citation of where you think the policy says anything even resembling that. Please identify. (Because it doesn't). 120.17.71.68 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

About the primary-sources-for-health-content thing, see WP:MEDREV. MEDRS has broad and deep consensus and this has been tested more than once at ANI; there does need to be some extraordinary reason to build content about health using primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please show where anything hasn't followed WP:MEDREV, e.g. Primary sources "cited with intent of debunking, contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. "

Published works can even contain both reviews components, plus add original material. High quality review components are still valid secondary sources also. 120.17.71.68 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been arguing here to add content about the safety of EGCG based on a) primary sources that b) are about green tea extract. That is not OK on two levels, as we have discussed already. I will not be replying further to this thread. Please use secondary sources for content about health, per MEDRS. They are not lacking for this topic.--Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Initially all I sought was a note that EGCG was in fact being investigated as a potential treatment for RA (widely accepted knowledge). What a hell of a fight that was. Wikipedia thinks its random editors knows more about rheumatology than American College of Rheumatology expert peer-review panels and calls the existence of NIH-funded research programs "non-sense". How quickly Wikipedia has turned into another dated, useless and ossified Encyclopaedia Britannica, 120.17.71.68 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's amazing how quickly WP deteriorated from an exciting project to capture all of human knowledge, into a tedious bureaucratic quagmire, that almost nobody ever participates in (save for egotripping power hungry cabal circle-jerkers). I'm so glad I stopped donating long ago. 120.17.71.68 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is interesting it is not bureaucratic at all, when it is necessary to add something good about something like synthetic pesticides etc Cathry (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

True that! 120.17.55.136 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

'No approved health claims'

Unsourced. Citation needed. The reference (name="efsa"), from 2011, only refers to whether lowering LDL can be used as a health claim. It certainly does not support the statement "As of 2016, there are no approved health claims for EGCG in Europe or the United States". More evidence of the campaign of bias on this page, for editors to exclude any positive references, but continue including unsourced negative ones. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Also whether technically accurate or not, is still misleading, since EGCG is the major component (55% of the "drug component", in FDA's terminology) of Veregen, an FDA approved treatment. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Veregen is green tea extract. We have discussed this above already. ECGC =/= green tea extract. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading claims about FDA letters

"As of 2016, [... FDA] issued warning letters against marketers of products claiming that EGCG provides anti-disease effects or overall health benefits". It did no such thing. Implies and/or states that FDA letters were sent as blanket warning in 2016 to all marketers about "anti-disease effects or overall health benefits", when in fact, letters were only sent in 2008 and 2010 to TWO specific vendors (as far as is sourced) and said something completely different. The letters, since removed from FDA's site, regarded specific claims made by those individual vendors, including: "protects against digestive and respiratory infections, helps to block the cancer promoting actions of carcinogens, protects against high total and LDL cholesterol levels, and blocks the attachment of the, bacteria associated with dental cavities to the teeth.", "The anticancer activities of green tea or its components, especially the antioxidants, for example, EGCG, are widely ranged, starting at inhibition of the formation of exogenous carcinogens in the stomach to interference with tumor initiation, promotion and progression.", etc. when, in the FDA's words they were: "not generally recognized as safe and effective for those referenced uses", therefore, the products as referenced (the specific uses stated) would be "new drugs" under section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C.§ 321(p)] (not legally marketable in the U.S. without prior approval). Notably, systematic review of safety by the US Pharmacopeia concluded "when dietary supplement products containing green tea extracts are used and formulated appropriately the Committee is unaware of significant safety issues that would prohibit monograph development, provided a caution statement is included in the labelling section" (warning regarding consumption on empty stomach). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So, this should be corrected in the article. Cathry (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I would have done that myself, but (a) got a ban warning on this page and (b) page was locked to require user login, which I object to on principle as an unreasonable privacy invasion. (Would be associated on metadata and data profiling over time, even without real name and I believe content should be assessed on merit). 120.17.55.136 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have some problems with English grammar as English is not my native language, so my edits are sometimes canceled for "poor English". Can you post here proper statement based on FDA to include in article? Then I can copy it. Cathry (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no real problem unless you are over-reading. There were indeed letters sent; we add the word "two" to deal with the fussiness. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you say "two letters", not "two marketers". To make it two times as misleading? This needs deletion: "As of 2016, there are no approved health claims for EGCG in Europe or the United States,[13]", as it's completely unsourced and uses irrelevant reference. This should be changed to follow what the sources actually say (instead of making up a completely different and original conclusion / creative interpretation, which is, again, against Wikipedia policy): "and the US Food and Drug Administration has issued two warning letters against marketers of products claiming that EGCG provides anti-disease effects or overall health benefits.[14][15]" to : "In 2008 and 2010, US Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to two marketers, for referencing uses (named health effects) that were not generally recognized as safe and effective and alleged to have breached U.S. "new drug" laws." 120.17.195.121 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed it. Cathry (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks kindly Cathry. 120.17.195.121 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Zefr's two subsequent edits (added two further examples, updated wording and moved to new section), improved on this section. 120.17.195.121 (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Introduction (should follow U.S. NIH classifications)

U.S. National Library of Medicine classifies EGCG under the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Pharmacological Classifications: "antioxidants", "antimutagenic agents", "anticarcinogenic agents", "neuroprotective agents". Its description of EGCG is "antimutagen in green tea (Camellia sinensis); a steroid 5alpha-reductase inhibitor" (MeSH Unique ID: C045651). NIH's NCI Thesaurus ("provides reference terminology for many systems. It covers vocabulary for clinical care, translational and basic research, and public informatioin and administrative activities") introduces EGCG as "a phenolic antioxidant found in a number of plants such as green and black tea. It inhibits cellular oxidation and prevents free radical damage to cells. It is under study as a potential cancer chemopreventive agent.". ToxPlanet and NIH's ToxNet uses classifications: "Anticarcinogenic Agents","Antimutagenic Agents","Antineoplastic Agents","Antioxidants","Central Nervous System Agents","Drug / Therapeutic Agent","Natural Product","Neuroprotective Agents","Protective Agents". NIH "Drug Information Portal" describes it as "antimutagen in green tea", classified under "anticarcinogenic agents". Yet in this Wikipedia article, none of the words "antioxidant", "antimutagenic", "anticarcinogenic", "potential cancer chemopreventive", "neuroprotective" etc are used anywhere (apart from one of them hiding in a footer macro). Reasonable conclusion: Wikipedia thinks it's far better at describing EGCG than the National Institute of Health, National Library of Medicine and most other sources. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I found the MESH entry you mention. That is just an indexing thing. Please provide links for the others. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It must really take genuine effort to use that level of selective bias to look past all those more official descriptions than Wikipedia's. Don't strain yourself. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

NCI Drug Dictionary's entry[17]. p.s. There's a good reason they add description to subject headings (and index terms). It was previously my job to specify semantic integration requirements and standards, metadata ontologies, cross-walking methods, etc. (including for the second largest library digitisation project in my country, >20 million items, ~$1.5B USD insurance appraised collection value). 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

NIH Drug Information Portal's entry[18]. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

NIH National Cancer Institute Metathesaurus, EGCG Definition (Physician Data Query): "A phenolic antioxidant found in a number of plants such as green and black tea. It inhibits cellular oxidation and prevents free radical damage to cells. It is under study as a potential cancer chemopreventive agent."[19] 14.200.91.233 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The 1st and 3rd entries are basically the same. I went through all the links in the 2nd one; nothing specific to EGCG there, which is not surprising. I've added further content about research so now the things mentioned in both the MESH entry and dictionary are mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog. I think that represents well that EGCG has received research-level interest. Appreciate the effort and your referencing. Insightful phrase in one of those reviews: "Surprisingly, however, despite the promising preclinical findings and the thorough mechanistic insights, clinical studies in the context of inflammation are largely lacking". When so much is already known about its inhibition of NFκB, MAPK, COX-2, TNFα, etc. in pre-clinical research, it's unfortunate that a great deal more hasn't been done. Particularly when the evidence to justify large high quality trials, is really so thoroughly compelling for some conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis. I agree Wikipedia's shouldn't promote any particular viewpoint. I do find that aspect very interesting though. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

LOL. I just saw you actually managed remove rheumatoid arthritis during your edit, despite it even being the title of one of the references. It's not because that's the first change I'd made to this article perhaps (and had added further evidence after you rejected it)? I assume you wouldn't do something as deliberately impartial and unprofessional for an Administrator as that, right? 14.200.91.233 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Safety (second attempt)

Article should include: "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Division of Drug Oncology Products gave a precaution that a green tea extract (containing approximately 50% EGCG), was to be taken with food only (not without food), by subjects participating in a green tea extract clinical study." [20]. Rationale: A previous systematic review found that hepatotoxicity from green tea extracts (GTEs) (i.e. containing EGCG) is unlikely, but inconclusive and called for more data (as cases could not be isolated, as all were taking other supplements). When dogs were given high doses of GTEs however, they performed better on liver function tests if they weren't fasting when GTE was consumed. The studies relate to green tea extracts, not just to EGCG in isolation. Based on precautionary principle however, given that many people who take green tea extracts are taking for its EGCG content, they should be made aware of the 'take after food only' safety recommendation/precaution.

References

14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That is about green tea extract, and not about EGCG. Perhaps we should just merge this article into the Green tea article, since that is what you keep bringing references for? I would be fine with that. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No, EGCG deserves its own article. It still has a number of distinctly different properties to other catechins and has been studied separately. The particular reference above is about GTE, as I deliberately noted. It should still be included however for the common sense reason, that people seeking to take EGCG, will often reach for green tea extracts. Could just include that safety note in the GTE article, but safety information (for common sense reasons) is better included in more places rather than fewer. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, if we are going to keep this separate, please stop bringing references about green tea extract. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Because there's some need to pretend it doesn't come from green tea? I'm finally starting to understand some Americans' pathological hatred of green tea products. Seems it's a deep rooted thing all the way back to the Revolution and dumping of green tea in Boston harbor, US Congress's own Tea Act a century later and Board of Tea Experts regulator funded by America's tea industry, Buttfield v. Stranahan (U.S. Supreme Court), cultural differences (Japanese appreciation for fragrance and aroma), anti-Asian sentiment, etc. The seemingly irrational campaign again EGCG, a green tea extract, is *finally* starting to make sense in the context of Criticism_of_Wikipedia#American_and_corporate_bias! 14.200.91.233 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop abusing this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. I will not ask again. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not intending to upset you. Merely identifying, hopefully to benefit editorial awareness, that the subject carries risks of subconscious cultural and historic framing influences on accuracy decisions. Most people wouldn't even know there was a history that's put blinkers on the topic. While Chinese writing from 8th century talks about Emperor Shennong discovering green tea's health effects in 2737 BC, we're only just beginning to look at tea's bioactive effects (apart from anxiolytic/stimulant), and of those many roles seem attributed to EGCG. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

e.g. The first very rapid (seemingly reflexive) editorial response to mentioning a potential benefit under investigation, was to call a conclusion shared by multiple highly respected independent research teams, "non-sense". Editors are unlikely to avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias, unless they're aware of both context of the subject matter and their own. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Last warning. Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, no soap boxes. Per WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAPBOX's "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view". So WP:NPOVFAQ, "Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them.". Given how terribly geopolitically contentious green tea related products are, and even perspectives on Eastern medicine, just making sure that editors keep this in mind. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts about nationalist movements based on fermented tea vs green tea, America's very founding independence and sense of identity being tied up in all that, modern pro/anti "Tea Party" politics over rejecting green tea, etc. Just seems so completely far from mind for the rest of us only looking for the next cure to cancer or arthritis. Wasn't looking to touch on a raw nerve. Just trying to get something looking like basic NPOV balance (for a neutral country).

References

14.200.91.233 (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

'The food supplement that ruined my liver' - BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45971416

69.181.23.220 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)