Jump to content

Talk:Ginkgo biloba/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Maybe some evidence to suggest Ginkgo is effective in the treatment of tinnitus

Ginkgo biloba extract in the treatment of tinnitus: a systematic review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157487/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.46.106 (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Native to Southern Japan

The article says Ginkgo Biloba is native to Southern Japan? I thought it was native only to China? Several sources e.g. "Ginkgo, The Tree That Time Forgot" by Peter Crane, Cor Kwant's website say that it is thought that the only wild Ginkgos are located in Sichuan and Zhejiang provinces. Redswordofheroes (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is misleading and does not properly explain its usage as an herbal supplement and risks

From reading this article about Ginkgo Biloba as an herbal supplement you come to a strong conclusion that it's completely inert as a supplement. However, a study does exist that explains its efficacy specifically in regards to dementia. This, at minimum explains some of the "effects" that people have observed with Ginkgo biloba and why it is not a universal experience. Perhaps someone shall make the argument that "this article's current wording is sufficient" because it says there are not any effects in "healthy people". But okay, that almost sounds like FDA-mandated phrasing. This is not the FDA nor should Wikipedia be regulated by the FDA. Wikipedia should give a scientific perspective on matters. Ginkgo Biloba has been shown to improve cognitive impairments in genetically-specific dementia mice. Ginkgo Biloba is an active GABA partial agonist and from this very fact it is known to interact with certain medications to induce seizures! This is far from inert and as I said the current wording implies that it's inert. (Seizure-interaction evidence not included in this post.) "Age-related effects of Ginkgo biloba extract on synaptic plasticity and excitability" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197458003002379 Mbman8 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If, and only if, there are sources that meet the standards of WP:MEDRS that support the points you make, then the information should be added to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Most people don't read Chinese characters

I keep seeing this all over Wikipedia: 

 "The genus name Ginkgo is regarded as a misspelling of the Japanese gin kyo, "silver apricot", which is derived from the Chinese (銀杏) used in..."

Not understanding Chinese characters, like most people in the world, that might as well read "from the Chinese %&*#" or "the Chinese ______" or "####". It means nothing to me. It is certainly good to include the characters, in case someone is interested to see them, but what most people what is the WORD, what it sounds like, so they can compare it with the Japanese (which IS provided phonetically, as it should be). Characters are absolultely meaningless except to people who read Chinese. Sorry to sound snappy, but I keep seeing this done and it drives me nuts. It is especially common with Greek. They give you the English, the German and Latin words, all clearly phonetically related...very interesting...."originally derived from the Greek (meaningless series of characters)". I want to know what the word sounds like, to see what the word looked like written in Greek (include that TOO if you like, but give the actual word). Related is the practice of giving 80% of pronunciations in this new "international" phonetic characters which mean nothing to me or most people that I know. Maybe that's the way of the future, great, but for now perhaps we can continue to provide a simple Latin alphabet pronunciation the way it was always done in every dictionary when I was younger. It doesn't help anyone if they can't read it, and it's not very welcoming to just tell them to "go learn to read international characters then". It would be far easier just to provide them both. But I'm off topic now, sorry.

Idumea47b (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, romanizations would be provided for all terms that are written in non-Latin scripts on Wikipedia. However, this isn't the case for many reasons. For starters, different groups are adding the characters versus the romanization. Someone who can read Chinese sources isn't at a level where they need romanization any more and might be more interested in adding the term so people can know how it is natively written. Romanization is more common for language-learners and enthusiasts of the language rather than those skilled at it, and they are usually the one bridging the gaps. Lastly, some people might just be copying the characters from other sources and might not even have the slightest clue. I think one complicating factor for Chinese might also be that there are many different systems of romanization, while Japanese very consistently sticks to Hepburn romanization on Wikipedia.
As for getting so worked up over it, there's no harm being done if the term is aside in parenthesis and not integral to understanding the article (unlike say, if it was on Chinese grammar). You just need to know there's a relation (and commonly for Sino-Japanese terms, the modern pronunciations have diverged widely from historical, so these kinds of comparisons might not bear fruit). If you have a burning desire to find out how to pronounce the characters, we have Wiktionary and there are other web resources (in fact, there's even a template that links individual hanzi to Wiktionary). I know you say you don't want to run the marathon of learning Chinese, but you could help fight the problem by looking up the pronunciations and copying them in. I'm a novice at Japanese, but I do know how to use dictionaries and read hiragana, so I'm doing a little at least. :) Opencooper (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede versus sidebar

There's conflicting information between the lede and the sidebar about how old ginkgo biloba is as a species. Is the "270 million years" statement intended to refer to the genus?72.68.108.107 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

To-Do List....

OK then, more material to include:

  • Clarify when Linnaeus named it and what reference.
  • Lots of citing of material! *(Flora of China and North America have description and lots of basic facts)
  • Section on culture (Goethe Poem, in Buddhism, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Preventing Stroke Damage

"THURSDAY, Oct. 9 (HealthDay News) -- A study with genetically engineered mice found that an extract from the leaves of the ginkgo tree can prevent or reduce brain damage from a stroke."

<ref>{{cite web | first = Ed | last = Edelson | title = Ginkgo Prevented Stroke Damage in Mice | url = http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/10/09/ginkgo-prevented-stroke-damage-in-mice.html | work = U.S. News & World Report | date = [[2008-10-09]] | accessdate = 2008-10-09 }}</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.107.215 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginkgo biloba does not enhance memory in healthy adults, US study finds - Lancet

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)09821-5/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Long-term use of standardised ginkgo biloba extract for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease (GuidAge): a randomised placebo-controlled trial - Lancet

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(12)70206-5/abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

Nowadays ginkyo is not a popular reading in Japan; ichô or ginnan sounds better. -- Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.227.80.230 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 24 June 2003 (UTC)

Arigato. Added. --Menchi 18:13 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Actually, ichô refers to the tree and ginnan refers only to the seeds. So both terms are used, but with slightly different meanings. However, the same kanji are used for both readings (銀杏). Note also that it is most common to write both ichô (イチョウ) and ginnan (ギンナン) in katakana, instead of using the kanji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.231.10 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I was spelling Ginkgo as Gingko until I did a web search and found out I was the only one misspelling it. I don't think we should offer gingko as an alternative spelling. jaknouse 06:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Agreed! - MPF 12:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Whatever the spelling, it should be the same throughout the article. "Ginkgo" is correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhknight (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
According to Webster, both spellings are correct. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/Gingko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyashita (talk • contribs) 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Should aspirin be removed?

I have never edited medical info on English Wikipedia so am not confident changing this myself.

But the mention of aspirin seems to be contradicted by a randomized controlled trial if I understood right https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966631/ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing information about traditional uses of Ginkgo biloba

@Zefr: I reverted your recent edit for two reasons. First, it removed cited information that is pertinent to the article. Ginkgo biloba's use as a traditional medicine has a history spanning 10 centuries. This history is notable and should be discussed in the article (without making any unfounded medical claims, per Wikipedia:MEDRS). Second, the wording you replaced it with is not accurate. "There is no scientific evidence that ginkgo is helpful for treating any disease" isn't true. There is weak or inconclusive evidence that ginkgo is helpful for treating several diseases as discussed in the medical research section. That's why it originally said "There is no conclusive evidence", which is more accurate. If you have concerns with the wording, perhaps it could be adjusted. Let me know if you have some suggestions. Nosferattus (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Use "spanning 10 centuries" is as much a myth as the traditional medicine uses are for treating diseases. No records exist to verify, so this statement is misleading and fails WP:V. "Weak" or "inconclusive" evidence is no evidence at all for an encyclopedia, WP:MEDREV. Please don't edit war, WP:WAR, but gain consensus first here on the talk page, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Zefr: First, I should mention that I do appreciate your work keeping non-scientific medical claims out of Wikipedia articles. For those of us who are interested in the history of traditional medicine and its limited intersection with modern medicine, however, it can be frustrating seeing this sort of information repeatedly removed from Wikipedia even when it is well cited in secondary sources and presented with proper context. Hopefully there can be a middle ground where the information is presented with adequate context to eliminate the possibility of misleading readers while still providing historical information for those who are interested in it. Now on to the matter at hand. Stating that weak or inconclusive evidence is no evidence at all is an obviously false statement. WP:MEDREV does not exclude the use of weak or inconclusive evidence when discussed in secondary sources and given in proper context. And regardless, the section in question is not making any medical claims, only claims about historical use, although I agree it is important to clarify that these uses do not have a sound medical basis. Is there any way that we could achieve that aim without removing all the historical information or making false statements? Nosferattus (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Zefr: Also your statements that "No records exist to verify" the use of ginkgo over the past 10 centuries is false. According to the cited source (published by Yale University Press in 2013), the "first undisputed written records of ginkgo" appear in copies of the Shen Nung pharmacopeia around the eleventh and twelfth centuries. What is your basis for claiming that there are no such records? Nosferattus (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a small difference between documenting a very old use and suggesting continuous use for 10 centuries. Does the source mention "10 centuries" or at least document various usages over that time period. It could have been, for example, an ancient use that was forgotten about then revived. There is a tendency, when some editors see "traditional Chinese medicine", to assume it is all completely made up by a 20th century Chinese government to cover up the lack of effective Western medicine. That should make us sceptical about such claims, but there are surely some herbal treatments that have long been used traditionally in China -- it would be quite bizarre if they had no such history. Let's just make sure our sources are good and appear to have researched this matter thoroughly, rather than parrot some contemporary literature.
I don't agree with the "no need to specify the quackery". We have seen this wrt Covid where editors think that completely hiding something they don't agree with will make Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia. No, it makes us a poorer encyclopaedia that fails to answer readers questions. I don't have the book sources. The NIH source mentions historical uses, recent promotional uses, which conditions have had scientific studies, and what the research tells us. If sources generally do this, then per WP:WEIGHT, so should we.
Wrt the '"Weak" or "inconclusive" evidence is no evidence at all for an encyclopedia', this was discussed recently at WT:MED wrt the Creat herbal remedy. This sort of statement is why we require editors to cite the secondary literature, not to interpret the primary literature for themselves. Doing the latter either leads to some editors promoting something that isn't called for, or other editors deleting something that isn't called for. Neither are abiding by policy. If one had to summarise the evidence in one sentence then indeed the "There’s no conclusive evidence that ginkgo is helpful for any health condition." statement from NIH would do. But if one has a paragraph, like I'm sure we do here, then one could take the same approach as NIH and mention what has weak evidence and what clearly has none. Zefr, there is a reason the NIH do this: it is recognised in public health that it is much better to be open and honest about what little or much we know or don't know and what we've looked at and what we haven't, rather than take the "Doctor knows best" approach and simply suppress mention of anything one doesn't fully endorse. The latter approach would just mean that NIH (and Wikipedia) fail to turn up on a Google search for Ginkgo & bladder disorders, say, or fail to satisfy any reader of the page looking for such. That reader then just clicks on the other links Google returned, that do mention those things. And those links could be the very sort of unreliable website we don't want them reading.
We just need to keep asking ourselves per WP:WEIGHT: how are other reliable secondary sources covering this topic? No original research of primary studies (for inclusion or exclusion purposes). -- Colin°Talk 07:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of medical information

@Cerebral726: You removed the sentence...
Ginkgo biloba has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism.
... with the explanation "cited source is about tinnitus and does not seem to show the stated evidence." Yet the article cited says...
Changes in vascular perfusion and neuronal metabolism are well‐documented effects of Ginkgo biloba in animal and human studies... Ginkgo has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism.
(Tinnitus is directly related to vascular disease.) Can you please explain why you don't believe the cited source reflects the sentence that I added? Or perhaps you just overlooked the relevant material? Nosferattus (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I did overlook that part, a bad mistake to be sure. I have self reverted, thanks for calling me out! --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
And now Zefr has re-removed the sentence despite the consensus here on the talk page. Perhaps they would like to discuss their opinion. Nosferattus (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The statement of gingko affecting "vascular permeability" and "neuronal metabolism" is bizarre. There are no MEDRS sources in the article cited or in the general medical literature to support such concepts, although there are reports of lab research where large experimental doses of gingko extract may produce such effects. This is misleading information for the encyclopedia, as it cannot be proven in vivo or in clinical research. Further, tinnitus is not "directly related to vascular disease" (read the numerous non-vascular causes in the tinnitus article) - again, there are no MEDRS sources supporting such a claim, which has no place in the gingko article anyway. Zefr (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll add I have no strong opinion on the subject and self reverted because the addition seemed in line with the article. However, I could easily be wrong and don't add to any consensus about it's inclusion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Zefr: And how exactly would you demonstrate vascular permeability or neuronal metabolism in vivo? Regardless, there are plenty of MEDRS sources to support the sentence (including the one already cited), which is not about a medical therapy, but a physiological effect that is well-documented and medically significant, especially in the case of Ginkgo's effect on vascular permeability, which has been documented in the medical literature since at least the 1980s. (See Clostre, F (25 September 1986). "From the body to the cell membrane: the different levels of pharmacological action of Ginkgo biloba extract". Presse medicale (Paris, France : 1983). 15 (31): 1529–38. PMID 2947094.) It's funny that you object to this information here, but not in the Adverse reactions section (increased risk of bleeding, effect on drug interactions). Finally, I didn't say that tinnitus is always related to vascular disease. I just said that it is related which is why Ginkgo was being investigated as a treatment for various forms of tinnitus. It's not a relevant point of contention anyway, as I haven't suggested adding any information to the article about tinnitus. I was just explaining to Cerebral726 why the information was appearing in a study about tinnitus. Nosferattus (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
In vivo vascular (capillary) permeability in the brain is measured in lab animals using blood-injected radiotracers and post-mortem autoradiography (example), while in humans, MRI is typically used (example). Neuronal metabolism is measured in vivo using radiolabeled-glucose and imaging both in the lab and in humans (such as by PET, example). None of these methods has been used to study gingko extract. There are no MEDRS sources to support a statement that gingko affects vascular permeability or neuronal metabolism. There are no MEDRS sources to support use of gingko as a therapeutic agent. Zefr (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Zefr: All three of your last sentences are false:
  • "None of these methods has been used to study gingko extract." Here is one example of a study showing Ginkgo's effect on neuronal metabolism in vivo using glucose markers: Loffler T, Lee SK, Noldner M, Chatterjee SS, Hoyer S, Schliebs R. (2001). "Effect of Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb 761) on glucose metabolism-related markers in streptozotocin-damaged rat brain." J Neural Transm 108: 1457–1474.
  • "There are no MEDRS sources to support a statement that gingko affects vascular permeability or neuronal metabolism." The cited source (a Cochrane Review) is a reliable secondary source which meets MEDRS criteria.
  • "There are no MEDRS sources to support use of gingko as a therapeutic agent." Also false. There is weak evidence that gingko can be used as a therapeutic agent for dementia, also according to a medical review article.
Please stop pushing the fringe POV that plants cannot have medical effects or uses. Your editing is disruptive and not based on Wikipedia guidelines. Nosferattus (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

1. This is not an in vivo study of brain glucose metabolism, but rather a study using metabolic markers in brain slices; this is the in vivo method for assessing brain glucose metabolism in vivo; 2) not studied, no reference for the statement, off-topic for the review; suggest Nosferattus observe WP:DEADHORSE; 3) "weak evidence" does not lead to an approved therapy - it is preliminary, unconvincing research not worth mentioning. Nosferattus seems to have difficulty understanding MEDRS: a) there is no WP:WEIGHT in the medical literature for using gingko for any disease, WP:MEDREV; b) there is no scientific consensus, clinical organization, or regulatory agency approving gingko as a prescription drug, WP:MEDSCI; c) there is no high-quality evidence that gingko has any health effect, WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with these guidelines on choosing sources for medical content in Wikipedia. The user challenging the existing content has the burden of providing a reliable source to support a change, WP:BURDEN. Zefr (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Arguing that it isn't worth mentioning is purely your POV. When a medical review article says that there is evidence that a substance may be an effective treatment for dementia, that seems pretty notable. And there are certainly enough medical sources discussing Ginkgo and dementia to pass WP:WEIGHT. Also, your statement that "there is no regulatory agency approving gingko as a prescription drug" isn't accurate. Ginkgo extracts are prescribed in Europe under the regulation of the European Medicines Agency Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products, as discussed in the article. Finally, I never claimed that there was high-quality evidence that gingko has any health effect. That is a straw man. Nosferattus (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the source cited is from Cochrane Library: "Wikipedia and Cochrane collaborate to increase the incorporation of Cochrane research into Wikipedia articles and provide Wikipedia editors with resources for interpreting medical data." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

One could also point out that the statement from the Cochrane source, "Ginkgo has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism", has no context in the article, no reference, and is off-topic for the purpose of the review. Although a high standard, a Cochrane review does not necessarily answer the main question intended: use of Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus. Its purpose was to review the tinnitus literature for possible gingko effects, whether the research quality was acceptable or poor (the case across the board). The authors stated in several parts of the review that 1) "there was no evidence that Gingko biloba was effective in patients with a primary complaint of tinnitus", 2) "the methodology of most trials was questionable. The trials of cerebral insufficiency excluded from the review were generally of inadequate methodological quality." 3) "The quality of trials reported was generally poor", and 4) "the evidence that Ginkgo biloba has a predictable and clinically significant benefit for people with dementia or cognitive impairment is inconsistent and unreliable." Zefr (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Zefr: Nothing in WP:MEDRS says that the review article has to be focused specifically or exclusively on the claim that it is cited for. It simply needs to be an up-to-date, independent, reliable secondary source. Nosferattus (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If the sentence is included, it should not be the first in the section, which gives it undue importance and creates a false impression of the medical value of gingko. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this is at most an incidental detail. Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Full disclosure - Zefr left a message on my talk page asking that I take a look at this dispute. I'll start by observing that Nosferattus is unnecessarily personalising this content dispute, and ask that they stop doing that. I don't know if there's a background here I'm unaware of, but accusing Zefr of editing disruptively seems extraordinary and unsupportable from the discussion above. I also think it's a bit rich accusing Zefr of setting up a straw man, have previously accused them of pushing the fringe POV that plants cannot have medical effects or uses, which they have not one anywhere in the above discussion. Please rein that stuff in, and keep this discussion focussed on content.
On the question of the sourcing, I tend to agree that this Cochrane review is not MEDRS-compliant for the assertion that Ginkgo has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism. The whole point of the MEDRS guidelines is that they are there to help us to identify the best possible sources to support biomedical assertions in our articles. If we follow those guidelines, we can safely conclude that this review would be an excellent source to use to support assertions that fall within the remit of the review - ie, "the effect of Ginkgo biloba in patients who are troubled by tinnitus". The assertion about vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism, however, doesn't fall within the remit of the review - it's not something they were investigating. They presumably feel that the assertion is true, or they wouldn't have written it, but since they themselves provide no evidence to support or, or cite any references about it, we can't really go through any of the steps at WP:MEDASSESS because we simply don't know where it is coming from. It's therefore not a good source to support that assertion - a good source would be actual research into this particular question, which we would be able to assess as described in the guidance, and which would also tell us a lot more about what the effects actually are (as a statement, it is very vague. Does it increase permeability, or decrease it? In what context?).
I would advise against including this statement in our article based on this source. Girth Summit (blether) 12:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe Zefr has got this right in regard to what we know now about this subject right now. When you look at the high-quality reviews there doesn't appear to be any reliable evidence that it can used to treat disease successfully but this might change in the future when new research results come in. One thing missing from the article is that Ginkgo may improve HDL levels [1] that's actually a significant effect that has been found in a good review of clinical trials so I would support mentioning that but there is no reliable clinical evidence that it can treat disease currently so the article is accurate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added the information you mentioned. Please feel free to review and edit if you wish. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should the following sentence be included somewhere in the article:
Ginkgo biloba has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism.
cited to Hilton, MP; Zimmermann, EF; Hunt, WT (28 March 2013). "Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Systematic review). 3 (3): CD003852. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003852.pub3. PMID 23543524., which states:

"Changes in vascular perfusion and neuronal metabolism are well‐documented effects of Ginkgo biloba in animal and human studies... Ginkgo has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism."

I am requesting that all editors canvassed here by Zefr recuse themselves so as not to violate WP:VOTESTACKING. If you have an opinion about where in the article the sentence should appear, please include that in your response. Nosferattus (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAVOTE. Also drive-by editors don’t get to ask long-term editors of this article (7 years in my case) to shut up. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not a drive-by editor. According to [2], you wrote 1.7% of this article and I wrote 2.9%. None of the other canvassed editors have contributed a single character to the article. They were just canvassed because Zefr exceeded WP:3RR and could no longer revert everyone else. Nosferattus (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, based on the discussion above. As for canvassing/votestacking, a Request for Comment could be posted, to get as many independent opinions as possible. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
No. The source is not reliable for the assertion it's being used to support - it is not a study into those kind of effects. A better source would be needed to support suchan assertion. Furthermore, I don't accept that approaching a neutral administrator to comment on a content dispute which has deteriorated into an edit war amounts to canvassing or vote stacking. I'd suggest everyone that take a step back from the accusations of bad faith, and focus on the discussion of content and sourcing. Best Girth Summit (blether) 17:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: You're not a "neutral administrator". You have supported Zefr in discussions on similar topics in the past,[3] and even helped him edit war,[4] thus why he canvassed you specifically instead of posting a notice to WP:MED or WP:PLANT. Please recuse yourself. Nosferattus (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I have requested on my talk page that Nosferattus either retract these claims, or raise a report about me at WP:AN. I have acted here in good faith, and am not prepared to allow smears like this to go unchallenged. Girth Summit (blether) 22:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
May I refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Conspicuously no. The purported effects of gingko on vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism are two distinct events unrelated in normal physiology or pharmacology. There are no MEDRS sources supporting an effect of gingko on vascular permeability. There are no MEDRS sources supporting an effect of gingko on neuronal metabolism. The disputed claim is subject to WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". Clearly, these conditions are not met by the source offered for the proposed statement. Zefr (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No The Zimmerman study did not examine those properties, and is merely reporting them secondhand. If it is to be included, the original source (ideally a meta-review that meets MEDRS) is needed. Also, the sentence as put is pretty technical and could easily be misinterpreted by a reader. Plant articles are especially bad about presenting medical info. Wikipedia does not exist to further disseminate plant based medical disinfo. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, based on the discussion above.Medhekp (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No, at least as worded. What the source actually supports could be included if carefully worded to be accurate, but is then hardly notable. This case must be considered against the long history of editors attempting to add unsupported medical claims to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No, for the same reasons as CaptainEek. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No. I would prefer this to be cited to a detailed review of studies into the effect of Ginkgo biloba on vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism - this has been 'well-documented' apparently. But the proposed sentence is so woolly, I would oppose including it anyway. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, Malcolmxl5, no - there is no 'well-documented' evidence or MEDRS review to support that gingko affects vascular permeability or neuronal metabolism. It is the obligation of the proposer of this poll (and those voting yes) to show the evidence with multiple, high-quality, mainstream sources for such an exceptional, illogical claim, WP:BURDEN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which have not been met. Zefr (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I agree evidence has not been forthcoming. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
No, as is noted above this was a passing comment in a study focused on the efficacy of gingko in treating tinnitus, and therefore is not reliable on the assertion it is used to support. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this source is by no means exceptional. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
No in the proposed form - there seems to be no direct statement to this effect based on demonstrated results reported in a reliable source. We can get 2 out of 3 in all three combinations, but that's MEDRS for you - it requires the trifecta. As Peter coxhead notes above, if it was worded with all the necessary qualifiers, it becomes so woolly as not to be worth including. Leave it out then; readers are neither served by overstating something like this, or by including fuzzy non-info. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Urease inhibitor

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4518124/ The Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research published experimental results. Ginko Biloba was shown to be the most effective of the 15 herbs in the experiment to inhibit urease enzyme activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.168.174.205 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AzureaJT.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Adverse Effects

The statement that ginkgo extracts may have "adverse effects...on the dosing of anticoagulants" is confusing and redundant. The previous sentence already says "adversely affecting". What are the affects? Synergistic, antagonistic, or other? And presumably it affects dosage not (or in addition to) "dosing"; the latter implies that the timing or route of administration is changed. I will put this on my to do list. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The NIH source states clearly "If you have a known bleeding risk, you should be cautious about ginkgo possibly increasing your risk of bleeding", which is a common occurrence among herbal supplements affecting - possibly potentiating - anticoagulant drugs like warfarin. The first paragraph under Adverse effects seems clear to me. Do you have a revision to propose? Zefr (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Zefr. That was the interaction I remembered, but I didn't want to edit the sentence just based on my own (often faulty) memory. I will reread the article section on my desktop before I make a revision, as sometimes bits of WP that strike me as all wrong on my 'phone read perfectly OK on my desktop!. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

EGb-761

This is such a distinct product that it merits its own page. This is mostly a modern invention, with its own history. Drsruli (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You'd need some good reliable sources that shows it's distinctiveness from all the other standardised Ginko extracts. - Roxy the dog 00:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This would not be difficult; it is THE standardized Ginkgo extract. (There is one other somewhat stronger one that is rarely encountered.) This is the extract of the studies. Drsruli (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Good. Bring your sources then. Roxy the dog 05:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

positioning of the Etymology section

Shouldn't the Etymology section appear after the main Description section. Appearing first as it does seems to give it undue prominence? Cicero UK (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"1000-year-old ginkgo at Tsurugaoka Hachimangū"

This section is self-contradictory. If no one objects, I will update it to reflect the true age of the tree (~500yrs), but also reference the legend that the tree has stood there for a thousand years. Riposte97 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Reference required

A reference would be nice to some of these 300 surveys; also: is ginkgo supposed to be a vasodilator? That's what the description sounds like. If so, the list of claimed benefits could perhaps be listed as claimed benefits of taking vasodilators every day. Also, have the effects of long-term use been studied? I know long term us of vasoconstrictors and coagulants such as nicotine can be very harmful. --Andrew 17:42, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

vasodialator?

if it "increases blood flow" but may cause headaches, is this simply a way of saying that it is a vasodialator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Starling (talk • contribs) 29 July 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ginkgo_biloba/Archive_2&oldid=1218747429"