Jump to content

Talk:Kombucha/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Content deleted

The edit deleted content. The edit claims the text failed verification.

See "For many of these treatments there is little clinical evidence supporting efficacy. Kombucha is an extreme example in several ways: there is no convincingly positive clinical evidence at all; the claims for it are as far reaching as they are implausible; the potential for harm seems considerable. In such extreme cases, healthcare professionals should discourage consumers from using (and paying for) remedies that only seem to benefit those who sell them. In conclusion, none of the numerous health claims for Kombucha is supported by clinical evidence. The consumption of Kombucha tea has been associated with serious adverse events. Its therapeutic use can therefore not be recommended."[1] It appears the content is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing the content you presented in the article you linked to. Instead of adding our own words, why can’t we just stick to the facts presented in the article referenced (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0020339/):

“The author concluded that the claimed benefits of Kombucha were not supported by clinical evidence and, in view of the adverse events profile, its therapeutic use could not be recommended. However, he also noted that the adverse events were described in isolated reports, which cannot allow firm conclusions about causality and allow for generalisation.”

And:

“The author concluded that the therapeutic use of Kombucha could not be recommended owing to the lack of clinical efficacy and associated serious adverse events.”

Or, use actual quotes from the new link you provided? WikiGJay (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding quotes usually does not have an encyclopedic feel. We don't replace sourced content with quotes without an exceptional reason. I quoted the text from the PDF file. You provided a link to the summary rather than the entire review. If you don't have a copy of the PDF file then you can go request to get a copy. The link I provided does link to the DOI. You stated "I am not seeing the content you presented in the article you linked to. Instead of adding our own words, why can’t we just stick to the facts presented in the article referenced (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0020339/). The content I restored is sourced per this and is sticking to the facts presented in the review.
See WP:NOABSTRACT: "However, when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions.[16] To access the full text, the editor may need to visit a medical library or ask someone at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source and summarize what it says; if neither is possible, the editor may need to settle for using a lower-impact source." I have read and cited the full citation. The abstract and summary represent only a small piece of the citation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I did not mean to imply that we should add paragraphs of quotes.

Unfortunately, I do not have a log in for the Karger link you provided - so I will rely on your knowledge about the PDF. The link I used was from the article itself - and from the link you provided.

If the author stated "an extreme example of an unconventional remedy, tell us that this is what the author stated. Otherwise, taking your words:

1) “there is no convincingly positive clinical evidence at all, the claims for it are as far reaching as they are implausible” But, there has been “plausable” evidence since 2001, the cut-off date of the 2003 systematic review. See https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-benefits-of-kombucha-tea#section1 for links to the “Evidence-Based Health Benefits of Kombucha Tea”:

So, to not mislead the readers, perhaps say something like: "The author found no convincingly positive clinical evidence through 2001, the end-point of the research."

2) “the potential for harm seems considerable”. But the “FDA says Kombucha is safe when properly prepared.” See https://www.webmd.com/diet/the-truth-about-kombucha

So, maybe, given the newer evidence, say: "The author identified various adverse events, including x, y, z.

3) "In such extreme cases, healthcare professionals should discourage consumers from using (and paying for) remedies that only seem to benefit those who sell them”. What extreme case? And - can you give a quote where the study analyzes Kombucha sales and who is benefitting from these sales?

So, maybe something like: "Given the lack of research proving Kombucha benefits in pre-2002 research and the risks the author found, the author determined that the therapeutic use of Kombucha could not be recommended" 

4) “none of the numerous health claims for Kombucha is supported by clinical evidence.” - See the studies quoted, above, So, minimally, add "through 2001, the study's cut-off date".

5) “The consumption of Kombucha tea has been associated with serious adverse events.” But yet, even the author of the 2003 study says “the adverse events were described in isolated reports, which cannot allow firm conclusions about causality and allow for generalisation” See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0020339/ . You have the PDF, though, so you have more details.

And - in the case where readers do not have access to the source, I feel that direct quotes to prove your points would really help (even though they are discouraged). Otherwise, how can the common reader of Wikipedia discern what is true and what is editorialized?

Thanks! When I get a chance, I will add the post-2001 studies to the Health Claims section.WikiGJay (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So - to summarize my lengthy explanation, the article's paragraph should be changed to something like:

"A 2003 systematic review characterized Kombucha as an unconventional remedy because Ernst, the author of the study, could not find any pre-2002 clinical evidence to support any of Kombucha’s wide-ranging health claims. So, given the potential for harm that Ernst found Kombucha to have, he concluded that the number of proposed, unsubstantiated, therapeutic benefits did not outweigh the known risks. Therefore, he concluded that Kombucha should not be recommended for therapeutic use.[4]"

Not much different - I basically just added the "pre-2002" emphasis. Thanks!WikiGJay (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not relying on my knowledge about the PDF. I quoted part of the conclusion directly from the PDF file where it verified the claim you disputed. You can easily get a copy. See WP:REREQ. Your objection was the content failed verification. Now that it is sourced there is not a strong reason the content should not be restored. The post-2001 studies do not seem to be compatible with WP:MEDRS. So, to not mislead the readers, we should not use studies or primary sources to argue against reviews. Wording such as "the author of the study, could not find any pre-2002 clinical evidence" and "he" is weakening the claim and is needless words. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the actual quote "'extreme example' of an unconventional remedy" in the PDF? And, does the PDF talk about “profit”?WikiGJay (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please request a copy of the source. See WP:REREQ. That way you can read it yourself. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote the "'extreme example' of an unconventional remedy" and the "profit" statements - I would assume that you can defend the statements with sourced quotes. Otherwise, let's just let the current paragraph stay. After all, I didn't change the paragraph that much...WikiGJay (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See "For many of these treatments there is little clinical evidence supporting efficacy. Kombucha is an extreme example in several ways: there is no convincingly positive clinical evidence at all;..."[2] Verifies "extreme example".
See "Unconventional remedies such as Kombucha are increasingly popular, not least because they are supported by frequent and favourable media coverage[15].[3] Verifies "unconventional remedy".
See "In such extreme cases, healthcare professionals should discourage consumers from using (and paying for) remedies that only seem to benefit those who sell them."[4] Verifies "Kombucha only appears to benefit those who profit from it, according to a 2003 review." For those who "sell" they profit from it. We don't copy sources. It is a similar word per this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow - I am surprised that a researcher would editorilize that way. But, you are pulling direct quotes from the study, so it is what it is. I would highly recommend that you ensure that you attribute the quotes to the author so readers do not think that YOU are editorilizing - especially since 99% of the readers will never see the full text.

That means, though, that another paragraph with newer research is really needed, or else we are mis-leading the readers. For, as I mentioned before, there have been newer studies.

For example, see the article "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review" in the peer-reviewed Journal of Food Science found at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-3841.14068. Under the "Biological Activities" section, this article sites 3 different studies about Kombucha benefits, which contradicts the 'extreme example' and 'profit' statements. WikiGJay (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The content you deleted was not restored. Do you agree it is now sourced and can be restored? After we are done here and will read the PDF file of the source you found. I want to finish up here and then start to add content from the new source you found. QuackGuru (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and restore it - it is what the author said, even though he was editorializing.

This is still draft mode, but I am thinking that a paragraph such as the below needs to be added then:

Since 2003, there have been several rat studies that point to potential Kombucha benefits for rats with diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to cholesterol-rich diets. There have also been many “in vitro’ evaluations since 1998 that point to Kombucha benefits. However, more studies and evaluations are needed to confirm the health benefits of Kombucha definitively.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-3841.14068 . WikiGJay (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not add content about rats when there is content about side effects to humans. For medical content, we usually don't add more studies are needed. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is from a peer-reviewed journal - who are we to dispute that? The above paragraph does state that the studies are rat studies. And it is the authors of the article I reference who say that more studies are needed - not me (so, maybe I should attribute the 'more studies' content to the authors).

And, there is a WHOLE section about the adverse effects of Kombucha in the article already, so that has been covered. Plus, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has reported that Kombucha tea is safe for human consumption, so it is not like Kombucha is a poison. WikiGJay (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Citing evidence to a review about rat studies is weaker evidence. Adding 'more studies are needed' does not tell the readers much and for medical articles editors usually avoid adding such content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine - then add the fact that rat studies are weaker evidence (with a source). Plus, change the last sentence:

Since 2003, there have been several rat studies that point to potential Kombucha benefits for rats with diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to cholesterol-rich diets. There have also been many “in vitro’ evaluations since 1998 that point to potential Kombucha benefits. (Add your point about rat stuides and, possibly, "in vitro" here). However, the health benefits of Kombucha cannot be definitively proven until there are human studies.

This provides the reader with what has happened in the last 17 years since the 2003 study (which only studied research through 2001). WikiGJay (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Content about rats does not add much to the article because we have more solid research based on humans in the article. See WP:MEDANIMAL. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No - we do not have 'solid' research since the research in the Wikipedia page is more than a decade old.

And, who are we to censor secondary, peer-reviewed, up-to-date, 2018 content? Certainly, Wikipedia wants readers to know what has happened in the last 17 years.

So - per the medical link you provided, I changed the paragraph to the below.

Since 2003, there have been several rat studies that point to potential Kombucha benefits for rats with diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to cholesterol-rich diets. There have also been many “in vitro’ evaluations since 1998 that point to Kombucha benefits. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings, so human studies are needed to definitively prove Kombucha benefits. WikiGJay (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are bring up rats again per WP:MEDANIMAL. I could not verify "However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate..." QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I already stated why we need to bring the readers up to date with the research in the last 17 years - please read my previous statement.

The medical link you gave states:

"Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader."

I did that. WikiGJay (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I stated above, I could not verify "However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate...". QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings." See WP:MEDANIMAL, under the "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies" section. WikiGJay (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not sourced to the paper. You insisted content from the paper should be included. I added a sentence based on a conclusion of the Biological Activities section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay - from the article:

Since 2003, there have been several rat studies that point to potential Kombucha benefits for rats with diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to cholesterol-rich diets. There have also been many “in vitro’ evaluations since 1998 that point to Kombucha benefits. However, more investigations and evaluations are needed to confirm Kombucha benefits.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-3841.14068 WikiGJay (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Since 2003" is misleading because the research was not from 2013 to 2018. The word point is a weasel word that is not neutral. The word potential is misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content deleted

"Several in vitro studies have been done using Kombucha, but the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147.

Not sure why the content was deleted. It is a conclusion of the Biological Activities section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We did not agree to the content you added. We were at:

Since 2003, there have been several rat studies that point to potential Kombucha benefits for rats with diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to cholesterol-rich diets. There have also been many “in vitro’ evaluations since 1998 that point to Kombucha benefits. However, more investigations and evaluations are needed to confirm Kombucha benefits.

which can be changed to:

Since 2018, there have been several rat studies that point to potential Kombucha benefits for rats with diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to cholesterol-rich diets. There have also been many “in vitro’ evaluations since 1998 that point to Kombucha benefits. However, more investigations and evaluations are needed to confirm Kombucha benefits.WikiGJay (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Since 2018 fails verification. The studies were not done in 2018. The word point is a weasel word that is not neutral. The word potential is misleading. The "...since 1998 that point..." is misleading and unclear. "We did not agree to the content you added." is not a specific objection to the content added. You have not provided a specific objection based on policy for this wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The following text is sourced: "Several in vitro studies have been done for Kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for Kombucha, but the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147.
QuackGuru (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the 2003 research found absolutely no research confirming the benefits, this paragraph needs to be a separate paragraph after the 2003 research so as not to confuse readers:

As documented in 2018, several in vitro studies have been done for Kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for Kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to cholesterol-rich diets, but the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans.WikiGJay (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"A 2018 review stated, several in vitro studies have been done for Kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for Kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol, but the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147.
This single sentence does not need to be into a separate paragraph by itself.
This is similar to your wording. I can't say if another editor would delete it. I have seen editors on other articles delete content mentioning rats. You can try to add it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. I broke the content into 2 sentences and added it as a separate paragraph since it flows better (a paragraph for 2000, a paragraph for 2003, and a paragraph for 2018). I also added the "Journal of Food Science" to help other editors see that the content came from a peer-reviewed journal. WikiGJay (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the name of the journal such as "in the Journal of Food Science" is usually avoided because it clusters the article with needless words. Usually the newer source is placed in front of the older source for medical related content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI - they last update to the "snarky" content by the 2003 study author was NOT made by me (although I obviously do not disagree)...WikiGJay (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It was not a "study". It is a review and the content is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the anon on this one. I do think it is correct; I do think it is snarky, but that doesn't bother me much; however, the language is unencyclopedic, and doesn't add anything to the understanding of the subject. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I added a hidden quote to the article. It can be rewritten or quoted word for word. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Anon that deleted the "snarky" comment here. I think the compromise of including it in quotes will satisfy everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.57.210 (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content deleted again

A 2018 review stated, several in vitro studies have been done for kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol.[1] However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147.

WikiGJay, the content you restored after discussion was deleted. Maybe you could try a RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Great - thanks for the suggestion. I added the section. I am rather new at this, so feel free to edit the section I created if I made any errors in addeding the RfC. WikiGJay (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification content

I removed the content that appears to fail verification. However, the previous wording was restored. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I made a change to address the problematic content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC on adding current research status

The compromise proposals on both issues have been accepted by consensus and edited into the article. (WP:ANRFC) Deryck C. 15:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

The health claim studies overviewed in the Health Claims section are 15+ years old. The below content is from a 2018 peer-reviewed journal and brings the reader up to date with the current status of kombucha health claim studies. Why would we not add something like the below paragraph to the "Health claims" section?

See "Content deleted" and "Sourced content deleted" talk sections for full details.

A 2018 review stated, several in vitro studies have been done for kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol.[1] However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans.[1] WikiGJay (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147. PMID 29508944.

Comments on RfC on adding current research status

It's unencyclopedic primary research in test tubes or lab animals, of no relevance to possible effects from human consumption, leading to conjecture. Contrary to the J Food Sci report, it has no proven anti-inflammatory or antioxidant effects, nor could it have as a consumed beverage digested in stomach enzymes and acids which destroy native compounds in the tea. Fails WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Not adding current updates, though, leaves people to conjecture that the content presented has a high probability of being inaccurate because new information is not being presented (especially given the editorialized comments by the author of the 2003 study). The 2018 peer-reviewed J Food Sci report basically summarizes where we are now, ie, studies up to 2018 have proven no health benefit for humans.WikiGJay (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a 2018 review commenting on the primary research. The title of the paper confirms it is a review. See "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". A recent review passes WP:MEDASSESS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Better to leave out lab research which is unlikely to be reliably duplicated per WP:MEDANIMAL, and state there is no evidence as of 2018 that kombucha has any health benefits. Leaving it in conveys misinformation in the J Food Sci article to non-science encyclopedia users; WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7. --Zefr (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Since we are citing a review for the lab research it meets WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDANIMAL: Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans." The text is clear what type of studies were conducted and does not imply it holds true for humans. See the wording in the proposal, "However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans." This confirms the lack of any health benefits in humans. Per WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field." The text is well written and clear. Therefore, the readers do not need to be well-versed in the topic to understand the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why we should censor information from an actual, recent, peer-reviewed review of multiple studies. Should we, as editors, be questioning what the experts said? Plus, the line "However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans" was added. WikiGJay (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should question and exclude non-MEDRS authors (chemists, according to their affiliations) for a review of primary research in a weak, low-impact journal (1.8 IF). The full article here is mainly about the chemistry and microbial composition of kombucha, with the authors stepping away from their areas of expertise to comment on supposed biological activities which are clearly weak or absent from the evidence shown in Table 3. To cherry-pick this out and discuss it in the encyclopedia article is misleading to users and violates MEDASSESS (bottom of pyramid for evidence, so earns its exclusion) and MEDANIMAL: "The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader"; it's not. Better to wait for preliminary human research. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
We usually question and usually exclude non-MEDRS sources, but the source is a 2018 review and meets WP:MEDRS.
See WP:MEDANIMAL: "The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader"; it is. See again: However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I concur with QuackGuru: the source and content meets Wikipedia standards so there appears to be no reason why the paragraph should not be published. Plus - it provides an up-to-date status of the current health claim studies, which is sorely needed since the only other content in this section is 15+ years old.WikiGJay (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Otherwise, we are censoring a review in a peer-reviewed journal, which I don't believe should be the purpose of Wikipedia.WikiGJay (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Old proposal: "Its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans for their purported health benefits.[1]"

New proposal: The purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147. PMID 29508944.

This is an alternative proposal to the "RfC on adding current research status". QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments on alternative proposal

I tried a compromise. It is much shorter than the original proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The alternative Proposal: "The purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans." The current wording is shorter. See "the purported health benefits have not been demonstrated in humans". It is missing the part about the biological activities. The current wording in the article is slightly different than the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. The article was updated to invoke consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on its biological properties

"There is a lack of understanding about its biological properties.[1]"

New Proposal: "There is a lack of research regarding its biological properties."

References

  1. ^ Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147. PMID 29508944.

I propose adding the content above to the Kombucha#Biological section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC on its biological properties

The 2018 review says "Even though nowadays Kombucha tea is known all over the world, its biological properties are not well understood."[5]. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is no objection to the content then I can close the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest changing your wording to something like "its effects on human health are not well understood.", but I don't find it objectionable. Here's another source if you want: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/expert-answers/kombucha-tea/faq-20058126 †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 06:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems this information is pretty well covered in the article already, actually. Is there a reason you feel this is a beneficial edit? †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 06:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Biological properties means the functionality of the physical and chemical properties. Biological activity means its beneficial or adverse effects of its properties. Biological properties does not mean its health effects. QuackGuru (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide a quote from the source that supports that the biological properties are not understood? †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The 2018 review says "Even though nowadays Kombucha tea is known all over the world, its biological properties are not well understood.'"[6]. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't see a problem with it then. Make sure to phrase it in a way that is compliant with wiki policies, specifically MOS:RELTIME. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The wording has not changed since I added. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment/Proposal Have only now received an RFC. I agree with the sentiments of QuackGuru et al, and if the proposed wording is preferred, I support it. However, it seems to me that there are two concepts worth mentioning. I propose including both and rewording for clarity and ease of reading:
    "Studies in recent decades have shown neither any health benefits, nor any biological properties of special value."
    Append preferred citations according to taste. We do not really need to speak of the understanding or otherwise of the biological properties, whether beneficial or otherwise, being understood or not. The negative agnostic tone seems to me non-misleading and encyclopaedic. (Feel welcome to replace words like "shown" with "revealed" or "demonstrated", according to the desired tone and register.
    "Studies in recent decades have failed to show either any health benefits, or any biological properties of special value."
    might be slightly less ambiguous, but more cumbersome; again, take your pick.) JonRichfield (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Biological activities and biological properties are different. The researchers are examining its properties as well as examining the biological activities of each of those properties. For the biological activities it has not been shown to be effective for humans. I recently added similar content. I added "Its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans for their purported health benefits."[7]. See Talk:Kombucha#Alternative proposal for the other RfC. As long as the word "activities" remains you or anyone can adjust the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree with initial "there is a lack of understanding" wording. That wording implies that the purported activities exist, but are merely not understood. We need wording that clearly indicates that we have no scientific evidence for the existence of these activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content requires a rewrite

Failed verification content again

The PDF file does not specifically mention "randomized controlled trials".[8]

New wording: "Based on the absence of human randomized controlled trials, there remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health.".[1]

References

  1. ^ Ernst E (2003). "Kombucha: a systematic review of the clinical evidence". Forschende Komplementärmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde. 10 (2): 85–87. doi:10.1159/000071667. PMID 12808367.

It appears the new content mentioning "randomized controlled trials" fails verification.[9] I propose the edit be reverted until the content can be verified or rewritten. QuackGuru (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Absence of human randomized controlled trials" is verifiable from thorough review of the medical literature, which indeed shows there are no such studies. The content could be revised through the usual editing process. --Zefr (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
What review or MEDRS compliant source verifies the "absence of human randomized controlled trials" via review of the medical literature? The content could be deleted through the usual editing process because it fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The sentence in question concerning absence of clinical trials could be abbreviated to: "There remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health," as sourced to Ernst. --Zefr (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
That's duplication of other content. We can summarise the content quoted above. Did you read the PDF file before changing the wording? QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In the Health claims section, I don't see any duplication of content, and the overall coverage of the topic is accurate. The Ernst source says clinical research was reviewed and no evidence of efficacy was found. The Jayabalan source reviewed numerous primary/lab studies, giving further proof that no high-quality clinical research was available for review. Rather than beating around the bush here, make an editorial change or proposal so others can work on it. --Zefr (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
If the content is accurate then where does the Ernst 2003 review mention "randomized controlled trials"? I did make a proposal at the opening of this thread. See "I propose the edit be reverted until the content can be verified or rewritten." Content has not been verified. QuackGuru (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
In Ernst under Study designs of evaluations included in the review, there is: "absence of human randomized controlled trials, there remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health" (from the current article version), an accurate statement, as there are no other sources discussing high-quality clinical evidence for beneficial effects. The Health claims section is accurate as stated. --Zefr (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
In Ernst under the heading Study selection it states Study designs of evaluations included in the review. Under that section it states "Post-marketing surveillance studies, clinical trials, case reports, spontaneous reporting schemes and pre-clinical studies were eligible for inclusion in the review."[10] There is no mention of "absence of human randomized controlled trials". That means the content failed verification. The source must make the claim, not the editor. There remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health, must also be sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content replaced with vague or unclear wording

See "Kombucha tea has been claimed by kombucha drinkers all over the world to have many beneficial effects on human health. However, most of the benefits were studied in experimental models only and there is a lack of scientific evidence based on human models."[1][11] Also see "There is still a dispute over the beneficial effects of kombucha drink. There has been no evidence published to date on the biological activities of kombucha in human trials. All the biological activities have been investigated using animal experimental models."[1][12]

Previous wording: "People drink it for its many putative beneficial effects, but most of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies.[1] There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea."

New wording: "People drink it for its supposed beneficial effects, but most of the benefits are assumed from the results of low-quality preliminary studies".[1][13]QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the sentences that precede and follow this new wording, this sentence is redundant. I say omit it altogether, and if the reference given is valuable, add it to the reference of the sentence that follows. JonRichfield (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Accurate content was replaced with vague and meaningless content. The part "assumed from the results of low-quality preliminary studies" is misleading or inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Jayabalan, Rasu (21 June 2014). "A Review on Kombucha Tea—Microbiology, Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus". Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 13 (4): 538–550. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12073.

The new content is inaccurate and too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I tagged the problematic content. One sentence is too vague and the other fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No further comments were made to address the problems. I edited the article to improve the wording and to clarify the content. QuackGuru (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

New wording was:

"People drink it for its many purported beneficial effects, but the majority of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies.[1] There have not been any human trials conducted regarding its biological activities,[1] and the purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans.[9] So far, there have been animal studies that looked into its biological activities.[1] "

Last year back in December 2017 it stated:

"People drink it for its many putative beneficial effects, but most of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies.[1] There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea.[1] There is no high-quality evidence of beneficial effects from consuming kombucha.[4]"[14]

Too much content is being deleted against consensus. Sourced content was previously replaced with misleading content. "People drink it for its supposed beneficial effects"[15] is misleading. The content "Based on the absence of human randomized controlled trials" failed verification[16] "Although people drink kombucha for such supposed health benefits" is also vague or unclear. The source stated it was "many".[17] The source uses a capital "K". QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Current research

What about adding instead "Research have been conducted using experimental laboratory studies."? QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What is it that you are hoping to convey or add to the article with this line? †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Right now we say "There have not been any human trials conducted to assess its possible biological effects,[1]...".
We currently don't say what type of research has been conducted. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, I understand. I would say that the proposed sentence "Research has been conducted using experimental laboratory studies." is too vague, and doesn't fully convey your message. Maybe something that details the types of laboratory experiments might be more beneficial. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"Research have been conducted using in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies.[1]

[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147.
This conveys the message. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this is much more clear. However, there might be some confusion about the "in vivo" studies. Do you know what model organism they used? For the clearest message, I would suggest something like: "Research has been conducted using in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies, with (mice/drosophila flies/etc) as a model organism." †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 17:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"Research has been conducted using biological assays in vitro and in vivo studies using rates."[1]
"Research has been conducted using biological assays in vitro as well as in vivo studies using rats.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
I added a little more detail. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Which version to do prefer? Simple wording or more detailed? QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, I would suggest:

"Studies to investigate the (effects/properties?) of kombucha have included in vitro biological assays and in vivo studies using rats as model organisms."†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The in vitro biological assays may not of used rats. From reading the source I know the in vivo studies used rats. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the sentence uses the plural "studies" I don't think readers will confuse the in vitro and in vivo studies, however, either of your sentences will work just as well. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I choose "as well as" so that the readers knows there is a difference between the in vitro and in vivo studies. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Several in vitro studies have been done for kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol.[1]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

To be fair I did not propose detailed content such as the text above because I think it might get reverted. I could write detailed text but for certain topics editors don't like it. Too bad. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

pH

The figure of 2.5 seems remarkably low, although it's from a reputable source.

Commercial websites give higher values - are there any independent sources (academic researchers or food analysis organisations) that find the pH to be higher as well?

Best regards Notreallydavid (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Source says "In addition, the high acidity of the drink (pH usually around 2.5) could constitute a risk when large amounts are being consumed [5]."[18] Another source can be added that reached a different conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes to lede

The previous wording was far better. The new wording greatly weakened the undisputed content. There may also be a verification problem. The part "..ranging from promoting gut health through probiotics to curing asthma..."[19] may not be supported by the source presented. The part "isolated adverse events may be attributable to it"[20] is duplication of the serious adverse effects previously mentioned. See category Health drinks for other drinks being promoted beyond belief. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

People that would drink kombucha for health reasons would primarily do it for the probiotics. The fact it was not even mentioned in the lede was really strange and the fact that it is not really delved into shows that no one wanted to do the research. Bod (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"People that would drink kombucha for health reasons would primarily do it for the probiotics," according to who? The only benefit is for those selling it according to the 2003 review.
Even more problems have been introduced in the article. For example, see "Numerous claims have been made regarding the health benefits from the consumption of kombucha, ranging from promoting gut health through probiotics to curing asthma, but there is no scientific evidence to support these views.[7][2]" Sources 7 and 2 were combined to come to a new conclusion. The unsupported weasel word "some" was added. Too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
That's like Kombucha 101, it's supposed to be good for your gut. have you actually ever bought and drank the stuff? Google "health benefits kombucha" and you come up with https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-benefits-of-kombucha-tea#section1 and reason #1... you guessed it... "1. Kombucha Is a Rich Source of Probiotics". Bod (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The source healthline is unreliable. You asked "Have you actually ever bought and drank the stuff?" I prefer to focus on the article than chat on the talk page.
Please addresses the purported policy violations I mentioned above or you can revert your the disputed changes. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to know why people drink kombucha: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-drink-Kombucha. Bod (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's a New York Times article if you are trying to understand kombucha: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/fashion/25Tea.html. Bod (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
You did not address the SYN violation and other issues. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede changes didn't really make sense and took us away from the sources; have attempted to fix. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

More changes have been made. The current lede is far worse than the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the edits being made by Bodhi Peace are WP:PROFRINGE. Is anything particular left of concern? Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to start a draft and fix all the problematic changes. I was surprised no editor reverted. There was no problem with the previous wording. I'm going to also review the changes to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
See "...but there is no evidence to support these claims.[7][3]" Both sources do not verify "these claims". QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Citation 3 was added to support the idea that it had been claimed to "cure asthma", so I moved that citation. Citation 7 is the 2003 study that doesn't recommend therapeutic kombucha imbibing.Bod (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Does the other source verify "...but there is no evidence to support these claims." The part "ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma,[3]" is "these claims". If it does not then add a FV tag and then I will fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
All I did was go to the "health" section and grab an implausible claim from the 2000 study, saying it could cure this or that, like "cure asthma". If you wish to change it to a different "cure", go ahead. Bod (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The 2000 source is not the 2003 source. It does not verify "these claims". Would you like me to fix it? QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit. Bod (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The 2003 source does not verify "these claims". The specific claims are "ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma". The 2003 source does give specific examples of the claims that are not supported by the scientific evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I made changes to fix the SYN violation and other problematic content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued changes

See "Drinking kombucha as a therapeutic food is not recommended because its benefits are unclear and do not outweigh the potential harms."[21]

See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the possible benefits, so its use as a therapeutic food is not recommended."[22]

The previous wording is closer to the source. The part "possible benefits" contradicts the source. QuackGuru (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that "possible benefits" does not capture the sense of the source. But more, the source does not say "Drinking kombucha as a therapeutic food is not recommended" - it says the known harms outweigh the benefits period - not just when considered as a "therapeutic food". Alexbrn (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the unclear benefits, therefore its use as a therapeutic food is not recommended."
What about this wording? The part "unclear benefits" is supported by the source. QuackGuru (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"unclear benefits" is perhaps too-close paraphrasing. I had "vague benefits" but maybe "nebulous benefits" or better still a more thoroughgoing paraphrase ... Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"unclear benefits" is not too-close paraphrasing if the source did not mention the word "unclear". Where does the PDF file mention the word "unclear"? QuackGuru (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The comment below does not address my question. The source does not mention the word "unclear" in relation to its benefits. If it does mention the word "unclear" please point me to the content. How was it too-close paraphrasing? QuackGuru (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you (the "Yes"). Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Very well then. I'm not sure about adding more content to the lede. We could add the part about who benefits from it. Something like "It appears to only benefit the people who sell it.<ref name=Ernst2003/>" QuackGuru (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I wonder if we could do better still. The paper itself concludes thus:

Unconventional remedies such as Kombucha are increasingly popular, not least because they are supported by frequent and favourable media coverage [15]. For many of these treatments there is little clinical evidence supporting efficacy. Kombucha is an extreme example in several ways: there is no convincingly positive clinical evidence at all; the claims for it are as far reaching as they are implausible; the potential for harm seems considerable. In such extreme cases, healthcare professionals should discourage consumers from using (and paying for) remedies that only seem to benefit those who sell them.
In conclusion, none of the numerous health claims for Kombucha is supported by clinical evidence. The consumption of Kombucha tea has been associated with serious adverse events. Its therapeutic use can therefore not be recommended.

We need to be faithfully conveying the sense of this. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we do; and in similarly robust language. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

Numerous "implausible" claims have been made for health benefits from drinking kombucha. The word "implausible" is not encyclopedic and not needed. Another editor stated "Now "implausible" is not encyclopedic, and should be removed, but this didn't seem to be the reason for your tagging." There is not talk page consensus for this. The previous thread did not include this language. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a good word for ... implausible things. Per NPOV we should reflect decent sources and if they say the health claims for kombucha are implausible (that it cures AIDS, FFS!) then we do do. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's an editorial comment, i.e. not in quotes, then it seems to me very clear that "implausible" is not encyclopedic – it's not for Wikipedia to say what is or is not "implausible". The solution is to explicitly quote the source that uses this word; in quotation marks, it's fine. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely for Wikipedia to say what is implausible, if it is according to RS. There is no dispute so it should just be WP:ASSERTed. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer something like 'Claims that ... are described as "implausible"[ref]', which makes the point without implying it's an editorial summary. The core point of WP:EDITORIAL is that we should "maintain an impartial tone"; quoting makes it clear that we are not taking on ourselves to say that something is implausible (however much we all agree that it is), whereas the current words read as an editorial judgement. But it's a fine point, which I why I left it. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I think attributing it like that is unnecessary and may even give the false impression it's in dispute, or is just one source's view. The idea that drinking fermented tea can cure HIV/AIDS fails a prior plausibility assessment - there is no disputing that from any sane quarter, either in RS or in real life. Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The word "implausible" does not maintain a neutral tone. I'd rather remove it all together. QuackGuru (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that "neutral tone" argument we hear about words like "pseudoscientific" all the time. This wording is neutral alright because it is factual and used by RS. The idea that drinking tea can (e.g.) halt/reverse retroviral disease progression is, literally, implausible: there is no plausible reason to suppose such an effect would follow. I'd be happy to replace it with "ridiculous", "far-fetched" or "preposterous" though. If in doubt ping WP:FT/N and ask if we should call implausible things implausible. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Kombucha Day

TheCalculus As noted, facebook.com and kombuchacenter.com are not considered reliable sources. Furthermore, your facebook link didn't even back up your claim. A kombucha seller stating that they've heard that the mayor is going to announce a kombucha day isn't the same thing as the mayor announcing a kombucha day. Please find sources that comply with WP:RS to add. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made the corrections to the citation, as you have noted. Thanks for the feedback. (TheCalculus (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC))

TheCalculus Thank you for listening to feedback and working to improve the content, but there are still issues. I see no evidence from the Portland mayor's office that they are involved in a Kombucha day. I'm not saying it isn't true, but wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so we can wait over the next few to see what shakes outs. Your well+good citation fails WP:MEDRS for the same reasons that kombuchacenter.com did. I have looked, and aside from the kombuchacenter.com link that also links to the well+good article, I cannot find evidence of Square making such claims. Again, not saying I know the information isn't correct, but the current citations don't prove the claims to the standards of wikipedia. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Basilosauridae Thanks again for your feedback. I agree that a citation directly from the mayor's office is the best source. I'm not sure if their site is where this information can be found, but I will keep checking in the meantime. Not that any of the following necessarily constitutes as a proper source, but this event was reported by numerous local news stations, in addition to affirmations from the mayor's social media account of him making such declarations, as can be seen here: https://twitter.com/WesleighOgle/status/1037326310610108416.

Subjective Claims...

Alexbrn OK, I don't know WHY you keep putting these extremely subjective claims back up on the page. Exactly who says that kombucha is "not recommended for therapeutic use", and why is that OK to put on an objective Wikipedia page? Now, it would be fine to quote somebody saying that, but for you to keep putting these subjective and partially untrue (as a matter of fact, Kombucha DOES have a lot of notable health benefits, which is actually proven here: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-benefits-of-kombucha-tea) claims back on the page (especially without an opinion on a different side of the issue) is simply not acceptable.--Neateditor123 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

In a word, the WP:PAGs. We reflect what reliable sources say. We don't indulge "the different side" when it's silly, because WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn While I do understand your point of view, the thing is, the way the statement was said makes it extremely objective. Again, why would the extremely subjective statement "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use" be on a completely objective Wikipedia page? As I said before, you could just quote somebody making that statement (ex. "According to Dr. Nick, kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use") and that would be OK, but as that statement currently is, it's not OK for Wikipedia to use. Plus, as it currently is, the page has an extremely negative view towards kombucha and the results of consuming it, which isn't even remotely neutral. Hopefully, we can work out a reasonable solution to these issues.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
We reflect RS. And we WP:ASSERT what is not in doubt. Nobody (sensible) is recommending kombucha as a "therapy"; RS is saying it's not recommended. So Wikipedia does too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn Even if those claims are true, they're still way too subjective. Seriously, how is "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use" not a subjective sentence? As I've been saying this entire time, couldn't you at least just quote the person who wrote the sourced article saying that so you know it's just that person's opinion?--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
It's an evidence-based therapeutic assessment. By your reasoning you seem to be saying that every such assessment (the goal of evidence-based medicine) is "subjective" and then somehow (not clear how) problematic on Wikipedia. We should be summarizing, not quoting; we should be asserting what is not in doubt. Your objections seem to inhabit a parallel reality to the WP:PAGs so I'm finding it hard to engage. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn Look, I'm not saying these statements are necessarily wrong or don't belong on a Wikipedia page. It's just that it looks out of place without somebody actually being quoted on that statement. The purpose of this Wikipedia page is to educate viewers about what kombucha is, not to tell them whether it's right or wrong to use.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
"not recommended" is expanded on in the Health claims section. Also, "not recommended" is different from right and wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn, Gråbergs Gråa Sång At the very least, the claim should state who says this (ex. "According to many doctors, kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use"), if not quote that person.Neateditor123 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123
No, because then it gives the misleading impression this is "just" one person's opinion, when this is rather the uncontested state of human knowledge on this topic. See WP:ASSERT. Alexbrn (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn "this is the uncontested state of human knowledge on this topic". Says who? Seriously. That entire sentence is bullshit and you know it.--Neateditor123 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

There seems no point continuing this. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn As a matter of fact, there most definitely is. Again, I don't want to delete these statements. I just want to modify them so its clear who's stating this. There's a big difference between saying "Time Magazine says Paris is the capital of France" and "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use by doctors".--Neateditor123 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Roxy the dog, Alexbrn While I probably shouldn't have kept reverting everyone's changes to my edits, I only did them because Alexbrn said that "there seems [to be] no point [in] continuing this", which lead me to believe that the discussion was over (especially since he didn't revert my edit to the sentence "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use"). Again, as I've been saying the entire time, the page should state that doctors say that kombucha is not recommended for people with poor immune function (to name just one thing), not just state that itself. Also, just because something is sourced perfectly well doesn't mean that Wikipedia's statement about it shouldn't also say who says this.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

That is the purpose of a citation. I agree with alexbrn’s argument against your edit. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Clearly I don't agree. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Purported vs. supposed benefits

@Alexbrn: Not a big issue at all, but doesn't the article say that these claims are not supported by any science (i.e. are false or anecdotal at this point) and that kombucha may even have ill effects? I think "purported" is equally valid to "supposed" and they both have a slight implication that this is a false claim. "Purported" highlights that these claims are being promoted by certain people making "numerous implausible claims" which is also in the lead. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree and think that purported is the best word for the context. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view; "claimed" might work too. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
See WP:CLAIM. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"Claim" would be fine here - since its negative connotation (like that of "purported") is warranted. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


"The living bacteria are said to be probiotic, one of the reasons for the drink's popularity." This seems like an important point, and one of the more plausible benefits. However the point is not further elaborated in the body of the article, and the this is the only mention of the word "probiotic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Current Evidence on Physiological Activity and Expected Health Effects of Kombucha Fermented Beverage

"It has been proven experimentally that KT has the four main potencies necessary for numerous biological activities:a detoxifying property, protection against free radical damage, energizing capabilities, and promotion of immunity. KT health prophylaxis and curative effects on a number of metabolic and infective diseases are confirmed often by proving the particular bioactive compounds, present in KT; and the possible biochemical mechanisms of their actions have also been suggested.(Redacted) (see PMID 24192111) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Previously discussed.[23] We have more recent sources now. Alexbrn (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Will you kindly be more specific, where exactly is it discussed here? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
This exact paper. It's a low-quality source. It used to be in the article. We have better sourcing on Kombucha and health now. Alexbrn (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::Another: Antibacterial Activity of Polyphenolic Fraction of Kombucha Against Enteric Bacterial Pathogens. "The overall study suggests that Kombucha can be used as a potent antibacterial agent against entero-pathogenic bacterial infections, which mainly is attributed to its polyphenolic content."(see PMID 27638313) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I seem to be a little slow, please bear with me, do you mean to say, in context of the diff you've shared above, the said paper is discussed? I am not able to find it. disregard, found, trying to understand. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Rather than reverting my corrections, will somebody please update this article in accordance with the latest scholarly knowledge of the subject? As it stands it is _factually incorrect_ - e.g. in the introduction it is stated "there is no evidence to support any of these claims" (regarding Kombucha's efficacy in the treatment of "AIDS, aging, anorexia, arthritis, atherosclerosis, cancer, constipation, and diabetes"). Yet the most recent systematic review clearly contradicts this assertion:
J. M. Kapp and W. Sumner, 'Kombucha: a systematic review of the empirical evidence of human health benefit', Annals of Epidemiology 30 (2019) 66e70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.11.001
e.g. "Health benefits reported from in vitro and in vivo studies include antimicrobial benefits, liver and gastrointestinal functions, immune stimulation, detoxification, antioxidant, anti-tumor properties, health prophylactic and recovery effects through immune stimulation; inhibiting the development and progression of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases; and normal central nervous system function."
While the authors are citing animal studies here, those studies (and the systematic review itself) do not amount to "no evidence".
See also the following reviews:
Jessica Martínez Leal, Lucía Valenzuela Suárez, Rasu Jayabalan, Joselina Huerta Oros & Anayansi Escalante-Aburto (2018) A review on health benefits of kombucha nutritional compounds and metabolites, CyTA - Journal of Food, 16:1, 390-399, DOI:10.1080/19476337.2017.1410499
"Kombucha beverage is a source of bioactive components, such as polyphenols and glucuronic acid. The beneficial outcomes of kombucha consumption are attributed to the synergistic effect between these components, making it a drink with potential beneficial health properties (when elaborated under adequate sterile conditions). It is apparent that its consumption can protect against the development of CVDs, mainly due to its polyphenol content that inhibits the oxidation of LDL, regulates cholesterol metabolism, and prevents high blood pressure by promoting smooth muscle relaxation. GlcUA, one of its main components, plays a role in xenobiotic liver detoxification and endobiotic elimination, thus potentially enhancing liver functions."
Ilmara Vina, Pavels Semjonovs, Raimonds Linde, and Ilze Deninxa, 'Current Evidence on Physiological Activity and Expected Health Effects of Kombucha Fermented Beverage', JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL FOOD 17 (2) 2014, 179–188
(Refers to a number of animal studies purporting to demonstrate the efficacy of kombucha in the treatment of gastric diseases, obesity, diabetes, cancer, hepatotoxicity, etc.)
Finally, rather than accusing editors acting in good faith of "promoting" kombucha or writing "fluff", would the interested parties here please spend a little more time reading the relevant literature and keeping your comments polite and neutral, as per Wikipedia regulations? I really shouldn't have to ask this people. (Rosenkreutzer (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC))

Lab work on animals doesn't translate to health benefits, so "no evidence" is correct. We don't use weak sources like articles in the journal CyTA - Journal of Food. We don't say "further research is needed" per MOS:MED because it's clichéd (yes) fluff. Alexbrn (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

See my reply to Johnuniq below - the "clichéd fluff" came more or less verbatim from the latest systematic review in the Annals of Epidemiology. Is that a weak source? Obviously not. And note the authors are not saying "further research is needed" - they are saying further evidence is _warranted_ by the results of animal studies. Note too that animal studies are the lowest level of evidence listed at WP:MEDASSESS - i.e. they do constitute evidence, hence my re-wording of 'no evidence' to 'little evidence'.(Rosenkreutzer (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC))
It's not a weak source, but the article is written a bit rhetorically. It says nothing we aren't already covering in the article. There is no need to splat this stuff into the lede using promotional/fluffy language. Generally, article ledes summarize material in the body in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding "promotion", this edit changed "no evidence" to "little evidence" (from human studies) and introduced "Nevertheless, a number of animal studies and literature reviews describe potential health benefits that warrant further testing in human subjects." The good intentions and good faith of the editor are asssumed—that is not the issue. What matters is that the wording is promotional—it suggests "kombucha is great as will soon be shown". Articles, particularly on health topics, do not use that kind of wording. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Your assertion is demonstrably false. My edit concerning "potential health benefits that warrant further testing in human subjects" was taken more or less verbatim from the latest systematic review in the Annals of Epidemiology. Their conclusions were "the nonhuman subjects literature claims numerous health benefits of kombucha; it is critical that these assertions are tested in human clinical trials" and "several reviews describe potential health benefits of kombucha that warrant testing". Neither their wording nor my own suggests that "kombucha is great as will soon be shown".(Rosenkreutzer (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC))

Production

From the article:

"Standard Kombucha production procedures include starts with boiling 1L non-chlorinated water and dissolving 50g sugar in the boiling water. Next, 5g of tea leaves are steeped in the hot sugar water for 5 minutes and then tea leaves are discarded. Sweetened tea is cooled to around 20°C and 24g of SCOBY culture is added. This is poured into a sterilized beaker or other glass container along with 0.2L of previously fermented kombucha tea. This will lower the pH. The container is covered with a paper towel or breathable fabric that will not allow insects such as Drosophila fruit flies to contaminate the kombucha. The tea is left to ferment for a period of up to 10 to 14 days at room temperature (18°C to 26°C). A new "daughter" SCOBY will form on the surface of the tea to the diameter of the container. After fermentation is completed, the SCOBY is removed and stored along with a small amount of the newly fermented tea. The remaining kombucha is strained and bottled for a secondary ferment for a few days or stored at a temperature of 4℃.[36]"

Any reason not to remove this per WP:NOTHOWTO? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Saccharomyces Boulardii probiotic yeast organism

Many sources say that S. Boulardii is the organism used in fermenting kombucha, so shouldn't the article mention this?

Here is a paper that reviews research literature on the benefits of S. Boulardii for human health. Efficacy and safety of the probiotic Saccharomyces boulardii for the prevention and therapy of gastrointestinal disorders

Encyclopedant (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent release: Kombucha Brewers International

The following source might turn out helpful to editors of this article.
https://kombuchabrewers.org/kombucha-code-of-practice/
23.30.146.165 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Is a non-notable trade organization really a reliable source? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems notable according to the membership: https://kombuchabrewers.org/about-us/membership/
23.30.146.165 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Japanese

I noticed this edit [24] which changed the Japanese spelling, but I'm not sure which is correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the edit was made because the article kombu is spelled as such. However, per WP:ROMAJI, we should use modified Hepburn romanization, which never changes the n to m. --Yel D'ohan (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Current origin

Lead:Kombucha is thought to have first originated in Manchuria where the drink is traditional.[3][4]

Body:The exact origins of kombucha are not known, although the most likely place of origin is the Bohai Sea district in China.[4]

Which do we want? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight on adverse health effects

I think some of the claims at the adverse effects are exaggerated and "cherry picked" from certains papers, almost suggesting that the kombucha is a lethal beverage. The "At least one person is known to have died after consuming kombucha, though the drink itself has never been conclusively proven as the cause of death." is outright sensationalist and no research have found direct evidence between kombucha and the cause of death (if I also have numerous underlying health conditions and pass away anytime after drinking Coca-Cola, can we assume that I died because of coke?), therefore I do not think that is fair to put this much emphasis on contamination or possible health hazards. Susceptible, allergic or immunocompromised people may experience adverse effects (just like from any other drink or food if one happens to be allergic), but this entire section implies that the alleged health benefits are close to some kind of hoax, whereas people can die just by consuming kombucha. Adlersson (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adlersson: All claims appear to be reliably sourced, although from ancient sources, with the 2019 review concluding that 4oz daily is not dangerous and also describing the circumstances under which it can be dangerous. It seems to me that if the 2019 systematic review is the most complete review on the risks of kombucha, it should at the very least be at the top of the section rather than the bottom as almost an afterthought. I agree that the inclusion of single dubious cases is probably POV and unscientific, but I am unsure where Wikipedia consensus stands on this issue. I believe the least controversial change will be to move the most recent, most complete findings to the top of the section. MarshallKe (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I added Kombucha is not considered harmful if about 4 oz (120 mL) per day is consumed by healthy individuals. However, it has been implicated, but not necessarily confirmed, in a number of case reports of severe adverse effects., and @Roxy the dog: reverted it with the comment "not in source". I will directly quote the source below. Also, this statement is still in the article, so if you want to remove it, you'll have to remove it from the other place.

Kombucha has been implicated (but not necessarily confirmed) in a number of case reports

Despite these implications, kombucha is not considered harmfulif about 4 oz per day is consumed by healthy individuals

MarshallKe (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Roxy the dog: has reverted my edit with the comment "Already in the section. Editor obviously hasn't read it." I have revised my edit to remove the content from the bottom of the section and move it to the top. Now is the time to have discussion. MarshallKe (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Returned to good. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 22:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
What is your reasoning? The source is as far as I can tell, the most recent and complete systematic review on the topic, and my edit is an accurate summary of its findings on side effects. I believe the most recent, complete information belongs at the top of the section. I will quote the relevant section of the paper.

Kombucha has been implicated (but not necessarily confirmed) in a number of case reports, including hyponatremia [57]; lactic acidosis [58]; toxic hepatitis after consuming kombucha tea daily for two years [59]; a patient newly diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus who presented with a case of hyperthermia, lactic acidosis, and acute renal failure within 15 hours of ingesting kombucha [60]; anti-Jo1 antibody-positive myositis [61]; symptomatic lead poisoning from brewing kombucha in a ceramic pot [62]; an outbreak of cutaneous anthrax reportedly from applying the kombucha mushroom to the skin as a painkiller [31]; pellagra [63]; an allergic reaction, jaundice, and nausea, vomiting, head and neck pain [64]; metabolic acidosis [26]; hepatotoxicity [32]; and cholestatic hepatitis [65].

Kombucha contains small amounts of alcohol. In a Food and Drug Administration investigation, the alcohol content of samples ranged from 0.7% to 1.3%; no methanol was detected [26]. Kombucha is contraindicated in pregnant women [7] and likely people with significant renal, pulmonary, or liver disease.

Despite these implications, kombucha is not considered harmful if about 4 oz per day is consumed by healthy individuals; potential risks are associated with a low pH brew leaching heavy metals from containers, excessive consumption of highly acidic kombucha, or consumption by individuals with pre-existing health conditions [26], [66]. Proper brewing methods are described in detail [66].

MarshallKe (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word "kombucha" in English

The earliest date of 1944 can probably be pushed back several years by someone with the patience to search carefully. For example, a 1932 USDA paper describes kombucha under that name, albeit capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indanthrene (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Pop-cult

Hi @QuickPhyxa, and welcome to Wikipedia! You linked a cite with the lyrics of the song [25] (also a bunch of reader-comments, but they don't count), which is what we call a "primary source" around here (not good enough for this purpose), also against one of our many many many (many) rules, WP:COPYLINK: "external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright." WP is really strict about copyright.

Anyway, what can work here is something like this [26], which is used in the pop-cult section at Tardigrade. It is WP:RS, independant of the musician, and it mentions that he put tardigrades in his song. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elanef, Daniel.rdzbosque, Nicolehsw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Srmcgraw1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 21 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Julinaornelas. Peer reviewers: Tythomas13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Bio 401 Cell Biology with lab F2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AMMOORE2000 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AMMOORE2000 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Biological and Chemical edits

More types of bacteria found in Kombucha were added to the biological section as well as Acetobacteracea being 88% of the bacterial community of the SCOBY. Under the chemical section the function of acetic acid bacteria was added to create a better understanding of the increase and decrease of the alcohol concentration of the Kombucha. Reference 29 was added and used to help support these additions. AMMOORE2000 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent article-wide edit

@Ayush3090, hi. I just reverted this edit of yours: Included another brand among others that were added earlier

This edit does a lot things throughout the article. Some looks reasonable, some does not like the the removal of |work=The New York Times |date=24 March 2010 and a couple of cn/what tags. But the WP:ES doesn't fit very well.

Please don't make edits like these, it's very hard for other editors to see what is going on when you do. Stick to one section at a time, and use better WP:ES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

@Bon courage: At no point in the mayo citation does it say kombucha is commonly drunk for its health benefits. It says "there isn't enough proof that kombucha tea has the health benefits that some claim." You can't extrapolate like that. It's borderline original research. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

At no point in the mayo citation does it say kombucha is commonly drunk for it's [sic] health benefits ← Wikipedia never said that, but that it is commonly drunk for its purported health benefits. The source also says "Supporters claim that kombucha tea helps prevent and treat health conditions". Also note there are several sources in the body, which the lede is meant to summarize, discussing the touted 'health benefits' of kombucha. Are you saying that Kombucha supporters might not drink the stuff? If so, that seems like a slight point to start edit-warring over. Bon courage (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
You're extrapolating to "commonly" "commonly consumed for its purported health benefits." The first sentence should deal with the definition of kombucha. It's "purported health benefits" by "some" (whom?) have no place in a definition of a drink. It's fermented tea, sold in grocery stores and farmers markets around the world, not a medicine, nor a potion or quack cure. TlonicChronic (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
We have ample sourcing, including peer-reviewed WP:scholarship, covering the health claims made for kombucha. And per WP:PSCI Wikipedia is required to point out the falsity of the claims made, prominently. Your own views about what kombucha is (or is not) are immaterial. In the real world, just plugging kombucha into a search engine pretty quickly shows that the scholarship is correct: kombucha is heavily promoted for its supposed health effects. See for example:[27] Bon courage (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Dude... come on... it's fermented tea. People say all kinds of stuff about all kinds of food. People make weird claims about fermented food. People make weird claims about tea. People make weird claims about fermented tea. The point still stands. If you want to say kombucha is "commonly consumed for its purported health benefits" you need a link that says... you know... kombucha is commonly consumed for its purported health benefits. Kale is commonly eaten for it's purpoted health benefits. Blueberries too (remember the antioxidant craze where people literally thought blueberries would prevent cancer?) That doesn't mean blueberries are anti-science. Kombucha is fermented tea. Nothing more, nothing less. TlonicChronic (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Follow the reliable sourcing, such as PMID:12808367 which describes Komucha as a "popular complementary remedy". The view that komucha is "Nothing more, nothing less" than fermented tea appears to be your personal opinion, with no supporting sources. Bon courage (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
You literally just told someone not to use pubmed as a source TlonicChronic (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
PUBMED is a search engine not a source, and the linked source is solid. I note a recent review in a high-quality journal gives us further information on the touted health benefits of kombucha driving adoption now its becoming a thing in the USA. See PMID:30527803. Bon courage (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
You'll notice none of these sources will boldly state something like "commonly consumed for its purported health benefits"? It's speculative. At best it says "This popularity is likely driven by its touted health benefits." Which isn't the same thing. I'm all for fighting pseudo-science. Let's combat the dumb crap said about kombucha. But you're propping up straw men here. Kombucha food, not medicine. I'm not trying to remove the health section. I'm removing the completely load POV that you're pushing in the first sentence. We want people to stop believing in pseudoscience. We aren't trying to stop kombucha sales. There's a difference. TlonicChronic (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Although it's only recently a big thing in the USA, Kombucha has been used in Asia for centuries as a supposed remedy. The systematic review I just linked found over 300 medical sources on Kombucha. Wikipedia follows sources, not the opinions of editors. As PMID:30527803 asserts: "Kombucha's popularity as a functional food is driven by its purported health benefits". Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not an opinion that kombucha is fermented tea. I don't know why you're hung up on this. You can't define tea as pseudo-scientific. You can point out pseudo-scientific uses of tea. TlonicChronic (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kombucha/Archive_4&oldid=1214684269"