Jump to content

Talk:Hericium erinaceus

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

Unreliable medical information.... or not ?

[edit]

The medical section cites a journal of "Complementary and Integrative Medicine" which seems to be an elaborate way of saying "not medicine", and also states that pills of this fungi are used in treatment, as if this somehow demonstrates that it is safe and effective to do so. This makes me suspicious of all the citations. What is the real science on this? 24.57.220.238 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above - its lazy. Taking wo minutes to put Hericium erinaceus into google scholar reveales dozens of academic peer reviewed clinical studies on its effects. Here https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Hericium+erinaceus+alzheimers&btnG= Note that "Improving effects of the mushroom Yamabushitake (Hericium erinaceus) on mild cognitive impairment: a double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial" has been cited by 144 authors. It does make one curious why the entry into the medical effects of this mushroom have automatically been dismissed in the article when so many scientific studies show the opposite. If it didnt sound so paranoid I would suggest pharmaceutical companies are editing wikipedia as well as the Russians lol

As described in WP:MEDASSESS when sourcing medical content for an encyclopedia, i.e., not research updates for a book chapter or journal review, we need evidence of treatment efficacy in humans (systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis of multiple high-quality clinical trials) to state whether a food or extract actually has relevance to human health. As revealed in the link for the Google search above, none of those studies retrieved is actually "clinical research", but rather the research on this mushroom is still at the basic research (lab experiments) level, indicating years - likely decades - from completed high-quality clinical trials. In the article, I edited the statement on research to include the two applicable reviews of basic research, but it's clear the research status is a long way from revealing any properties in humans worthy as encyclopedic content and sources. --Zefr (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Improving effects of the mushroom Yamabushitake (Hericium erinaceus) on mild cognitive impairment: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial" not a clinical trial ? Do you have problems with their double blind experimental design ? The sample group is not insignificant. It has incidently been cited 144 times indicating a large body of research around the subject.Claiming "its good for human health" is a totally different matter. The title of the section is "research" not "is it good for human health" and there is a LOT of research been conducted by research organisations and universities into this mushroom . To say there "has been no high quality clinical research to date" is both inaccurate, and misleading as it does not allow the public to look at 6000 studies that have been conducted into it (many of which do involve humans). You could say something like "Although research is in its early stages numerous studies have shown.... etc etc " On a slightly different note, and I am as wary of charaltanry as you are, but drugs like digitalin (most commonly used cardiac drug) would never have been invented if people like you had censoredany information about foxglove until it had gone through 20 years of clinical trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.214.218 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MEDASSESS. We're writing an encyclopedia of best-available facts from totality of evidence, not a review article for a journal on mushrooms. --Zefr (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, and you have not directly responded properly , why do dozens and dozens of peer reviewed studies, many done on humans, many clinical trials and nearly all by academic or other research intitutions not count as research ? Why should a heading "research" not include details of research that has been conducted on this mushroom ? You are behaving deceptively - I wouldnt be suprised if you worked for a large pharmaceutical company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.214.218 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherry-picking one study that is now 9 years old (5 years is the standard) and published in a weak, non-clinical journal. This is where MEDASSESS comes into play and where the encyclopedia seeks to be up to date with high-quality sources - that one fails miserably. You seem motivated to include any information, however weak, to add something to the article. You have also far-passed the WP:3RR rule on reverts. I haven't reported you, but you are subject to blocking now. --Zefr (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't cherry picking I was giving one example – as opposed to you who ignores a large body of research to fit his/her own interests or personal bias. Plenty of research here since 2017 several on humans for you to ignore : https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2017&q=Hericium+erinaceus+clinical+human&btnG=&oq=hericium+erinaceus+ To quote your own link it does not say research should be censored as you are doing – just that it should be placed clearly in context – ie the public should be informed neuroprotective actions in mice does not mean it will be the same in humans. As it says mention of such studies can be included as long as they are put in context. In this case there are dozens of studies - some with large sample sizes, some involving humans - yet you have consistently edited them out. You could at least include them and put them in context " it research on animals is not conclusive on health benefits but shows consistant neuro protective blablabla 18 studies on human subjects have shown postive etc etc but this is not conclusive... instead you completely sensor the majority of research that has been done making out you somehow setting the record straight. Please do not keep reverting the article till you have satisfactirily answered these issues, having a gold star next to your use account does not excuse bias and censoring opposing views - only logic can do that. You may bot report me – but I think I shall report you . No wonder they tell you not to cite wikipedia in academic institutions….. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.253.150 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heres what pubmed has on the mushroom - again to not mention this at all under a heading entitled research , even when put in context is dishonest, and basically censorship - there is no logical explanation for it - this research was done and there is not reason why it shouldnt be included under the heading research. Plenty of it comes from respected peer reviewed journals and universites to :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hericium+erinaceus

So pub med can include refernce to the research but wikipedia cant because you will edit it out immediately and ban anyone who tries to include it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.214.218 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC) PS re - #2recent research" aside from the fact its absurd to ignore the history of research on a particular subject (you could refuse to cite darwin on such based upon such a ridiculous assertion) note a date search indicates dozens of studies on this mushroom since 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.253.150 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed is a listing service, not a quality-hierarchy site, defined here. Further assistance to possibly help you choose high-quality medical sources are here and here. I edited the section and retained your sources. --Zefr (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including a conservative mention of the current research. Like many I came here to see what is actually known about the mushroom. Please don't remove this section due to WP:MEDRS because it clearly is not a medicine section and clearly states the limits and quality of the references. 110.174.14.194 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want unreliable sources. And we certainly don't want links to apparently dodgy copies of PDFs - see WP:COPYLINK. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are all published papers with doi's so I hardly think the pdf's matter. If one or two of the sources are dodgy why don't you point them out or remove them? I see we had research from four different journal of varying quality, one is "Critical Reviews in Biotechnology" another is published by the "American Chemical Society". I don't know much about those journals but it seems a shame to delete someones work with only a quick glance. Which of the four journals is unreliable, and why? Wassname (talk)

Expand Article

[edit]

This article seems to be missing a lot of details. Why not mention that the compound Erinacine A in Lion's Mane has an enhancing effect on nerve growth factor? I'm interested in knowing what "Amycenone" is. I've also heard it claimed that Lion's Mane inhibits 5-alpha reductase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.32.199 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently mentions species in the Eastern US, but it phrases it in a way that makes it unclear that these are present and common in the western US. Needs MAJOR work. A stub might even be better, since the information in misleading and out of date.71.63.160.210 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Health effects

[edit]

There are some scientific clinical trials reported on the peer-reviewed journals. These results are scientific approved. Though, there are still discussion and testing its biological mechanism, these results are experimental facts and nobody cannot deny these facts. If you think they were not reliable, it's nothing but your prejudice. These biased viewpoints must be unreliable. Mushroomhericenone (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MEDRS. We don't cite primary research (such as an early-stage clinical trial or lab research), but rather use an encyclopedic source, such as a systematic review in a high-quality clinical journal. Further, the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms has been suspended from Citation Reports, apparently due to low-quality editorial practices and a high number of self-citations. Zefr (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is broken. I am a professor with more than 50 pubs and 2000 citations. Its broken if it doens't include primary research. I frankly can't use it for anything meaningful... This policy is crazy. I'm not donating anymore because of it, and will be talking crap about wikipedia when I can. 70.229.205.145 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds as though you would like Wikipedia to be a review article for your and similar primary research publications. Do you feel lab studies are the final answer on potential health effects of eating a mushroom or using its extracts as an ingredient or supplement? An encyclopedia states and cites confirmed facts that become accepted knowledge in a health discipline, such as would be provided by a rigorous review of Phase III clinical trials published in a reputable clinical journal or textbook, a government regulatory review as done for drugs by the FDA, or a clinical organization publishing guidelines for use of a food or substance that has proven health effects. Wikipedia is not a journal - WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8 for covering preliminary research. See WP:MEDASSESS for the level of evidence needed, top of pyramids. If you have publications in the category of "secondary filtered information", you should provide them here for editors to discuss for use in the article. Zefr (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "high-quality clinical journal". There are already many reports in peer-reviewed journals. Yo9 view of selecting "high quality journals" itself is prejudice and not scientific. For the future research, current situation must be mentioned in the website. Mushroomhericenone (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you rejected the journal on the chemical components contacting in the mushroom. Why it's unreliable? It's the fact and doesn't have any uncertainty. Your attitude to the matter is quite dishonest and full of prejudice. Mushroomhericenone (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For objectivity, read WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021: This revert was justified because 1) PMID 23735479 is from an alternative medicine journal which is an unreliable medical source in Wikipedia per WP:CITEWATCH; 2) PMID 24266378 is from an unusable predatory journal per CITEWATCH; 3) PMID 32397163 is unusable per CITEWATCH; 4) This is lab research and this is nonsense speculation years from proving any effect in humans, WP:PRIMARY; 5) the other sources from preliminary clinical research on potential cognitive effects are primary research far from proving anything - see WP:MEDREV for the quality of sourcing needed. Zefr (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lede currently has the statement that "There is no high-quality evidence from clinical research to indicate that lion's mane mushroom has medicinal properties." The Drugs.com review states under Clinical overview that "clinical trials are lacking to support use of lion's mane mushroom for any indication." By WP:MEDREV and WP:MEDSCI, the encyclopedia does not treat lab research or preliminary clinical research as conclusive, i.e., there is no high-quality research on this mushroom to indicate its use for any therapeuic or preventive effect. Zefr (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar species

[edit]

Hydnellum is in no way a similar species. Joncolvin (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uses

[edit]

Under the major section Uses, the first line claimed "Some guides consider it inedible." with footnote [6] to R. Michael Davis, Robert Sommer, John A. Menge, Field Guide to Mushrooms of Western North America (2012), pp.280-281. That citation rather claims on p.280 that Lion's Mane is edible, and on p.281 that a different mushroom Hydnellum aurantiacum is inedible. This misquote is either intentional or not; its persistence on Wiki demonstrates another case of Wiki being unreliable, possibly biased. 73.190.137.151 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pages and pages of BS about etymology and cultivation details, and no explanation of why anybody cares. The taste is nothing special, that's for sure. The bias is suffocating. 135.180.103.131 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Research

[edit]

since supposedly we are not allowed to cite actual research, we are forced to use second rate information, and then track down the sources cited by the second rate information to verify that it actually says what they claimed it said. this is not a sane or efficient policy. anyway.

here are some review articles about research being done on Hericium erinaceus. now, "wikiguardians", do your thing. explain why these are all terrible and must be censored:

please mark up this list and explain line by line what's wrong with including the particular article.

these review studies may not be specifically about Hericium erinaceus or its constituent chemicals, since reviews are necessarily broad ranging. we can consider the papers they cite as "reviewed" for the purpose of deciding what information is included by reference in the review article. for example, if a review article says "mushrooms r safe ok" and cites a paper, we have to look at the original paper to see the context in which the mushrooms were determined to be safe, because reviewers are lazy and pressed for space and don't include important details even though it's 2023 and we're all writing digitally.

i was told that there are "no good clinical reviews" which might be an excuse to delete contributions if this were exclusively about medical recommendations, but since this is an article about a mushroom and not about treating a disease, the extra strict requirement for reliable medical sources should not be applicable here.

does one good clinical review somehow unlock our access to citing mechanistic interpretations? what's the policy? there are plenty of mechanistic explanations on existing drug articles. why do you get to decide when we can see mechanistic explanations or research done with model systems?

135.180.103.131 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

from the first paper:

clinical studies are not required for [dietary supplements] to enter the market, and the consumer can take DSs without any medical prescription. ... Paradoxically, this unregulated and large use of [mushrooms] as DSs has held back and delayed the development of proper clinical trials. Otherwise, in China and other Asian countries, ... mycotherapy, has traditional and deep-seated heritages, and MM extracts are considered drugs.

how will it ever end? a policy of "wait and see" does not work in this situation.
135.180.103.131 (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the above sources proposes medicinal or bioactive properties, but not one presents a review of late-stage clinical trial evidence that would indicate medicinal or bioactive effects in humans. The publications a) review primary laboratory research too preliminary to include, b) make outlandish conjectures about mechanisms of various anti-disease effects without adequate clinical evidence, and c) are not published in reputable clinical journals. The quality of the above publications is too low to infer high-quality research or support medical content in the encyclopedia.
As the publications listed review only primary research and make misleading speculations about affecting various diseases, they are low-weight sources, WP:UNDUE, far outside prevailing mainstream science and do not satisfy WP:MEDSCI. The IP editor says "since this is an article about a mushroom and not about treating a disease, the extra strict requirement for reliable medical sources should not be applicable here." Wikipedia has the policy WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8 - the encyclopedia presents mainstream, accepted scientific facts, not preliminary research years away from being validated.
WP:MEDASSESS - review the hierachy of evidence in the pyramids. The publications cited above are at the lowest level of evidence in the left pyramid. They are unusable to support content implying any medicinal effect of H. erinaceus. There are no systematic reviews, no national clinical guidelines, and no national regulatory agencies stating that this mushroom has medicinal properties or affects any disease.
Visit WT:MED to post the above sources for comment by medical editors or WP:RSN for more general review by editors to assess source value apart from my comments. Zefr (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hericium_erinaceus&oldid=1207097160"