Talk:AHCC

Article Neutrality
This article feels one-sided; AHCC sounds almost too good to be true. For example, there is sparse listing of the side effects, a section almost always present in articles discussing other therapies, chemicals or supplements. Thoughts? Mystere (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some checking and found a good review article, which I added. There's not enough evidence to demonstrate that it's effective, but not enough evidence to dismiss it completely either. Apparently it's popular in Japan. There are some real doctors with real American M.D.'s who recommend it, although some of them are overpromoting it to the point of quackery. I'd like to find a good WP:RS that would say in the context of AHCC that results in cell culture and rats don't mean that it's going to be useful in humans. --Nbauman (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Two years later, the availability of clearly unbiased, comprehensive sources is still limited. I also see far too many studies promoting the compound as a cure for diverse and largely unrelated illnesses. It's a shame since compounds like this one may have some real promise if their effects could be conclusively examined. For now, the article could just be edited judiciously to avoid overstating AHCC's unproven benefits. JHCaufield - talk - 20:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this read like a real promo piece, stuffed full of poorly-sourced claims from (iffy?) primary sources in violation of WP:MEDRS. Fortunately, we've one really good source (Shah et al.) which gives us the fuller picture. I've cut a large amount of poorly-sourced material and re-based the article on that source. (Add: and I notice a lot of this stuff had come from a user named "AHCCinfo", which is ... telling). Alexbrn talk 07:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Research on AHCC
There is some published research on AHCC. I will start adding it to the article. Some of the research was published in the past year or two.--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)