Talk:Sophora flavescens

Sophora flavescens is not a medicine or a root; it is a plant from which these are derived. Non-English names are italicised. --Wetman (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In vitro studies are not proof of a clinical effect

This article goes into great detail about in vitro studies and making putative connections to human health and medicinal uses. This is very poor logic. In vitro studies rarely have this type of real connection. As it currently stands, this article is just plain deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.89.95 (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a non-primary source needed]? why is it here?

Medical information on Wikipedia needs be comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). One of the requirements is that the sourcing uses secondary sources rather than primary sources. Claims that this plant may be useful for some medicinal effect are marked with that note when the sourcing is only primary sources. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All pharmacy starts with in vitro testing. The page just lists modern research, not all in vitro, some on animals some on people. If there is enough interesting 'stuff' found, eventually we may see a double blind clinical trail or two being done to validate its medicinal uses in human health. There are over 700 scientific papers in English on this plant, more on its compounds/constituents, so it is attracting a lot of interest and this wiki page is only a small sample of those modern research papers. It is not poor logic, it is how pharmacy works.

Michael Bailes (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]