Talk:Agaricus subrufescens

Nomenclature
This article contains contradictory information, citing on the one hand A. blazei as a synonym then in the body of the article explaining it is not as synonym. It seems like A. blazei needs to be made into a separate entry and the confusion between the species clarified under both of them.Eric Yarnell (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Tone--Copy edit
The tone seems perfectly fine so I am romoving that tag unless someone has a problem with it.

I will also put this up for a final proofread so that we can remove it from the copyedit backlog. Puddytang 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Article grading – I only wish I could rate it lower!
Unfortunately, for article grading, there's no grade lower than "Stub". If I had to assign a letter grade, I'd give the article in its present state a D. It contains practically no descriptive or taxonomic information on the mushroom itself. Its almost entirely focused on the medicinal aspects, which it treats with uncritical praise. The citation style is totally wrong and also inconsistent. Major cleanup and maybe even a total rewrite is called for. Peter G Werner 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference confirmed
I confirmed the Didukh and Wasser reference; the problem was probably that poor formatting in the citation made the names look like a single individual. I don't think the full text is available in most online databases. Here is the link to abstract: http://www.edata-center.com/journals/708ae68d64b17c52,72e968661ff5d957,0d3487e1197d1f4e.html Sci girl 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Best citation method?
I made the citations more consistent; they're now all in the references section. I have to check the format for the actual citations but they are all in the same place instead of 4 different kinds with duplications. Would footnotes be better than Harvard referencing? Sci girl 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref fixes
I think the ref name tags are now sorted out. That was ugly due to errors in closing tag pairs and substituting double quotes with twin single quotes. From the history, it looks like some recent content edits may also have conflicted. Those can be sorted out one at a time.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling - Murrill vice Murill
While the original was after William Alphonso Murrill, the bulk of the references seem to spell it A. blazei Murill. There should be some discussion of the change (where and when did it start) and the article text should be consistent. LeadSongDog come howl  13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too when I did some edits a while ago. The problem is some of the sources just spelled it wrong and the incorrect spelling has been transmitted down and spread in various publications. For the purposes of this article, the references should be cited exactly the way they were published (ie. correctly or incorrectly), but it might be useful to put a note parenthetically in the text somewhere about this. Sasata (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly the cited titles should not be "corrected". In text however the use of [sic] markup is appropriate for direct quotations and other uses should be corrected.LeadSongDog come howl  18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Table Centering
At some point, would someone be so kind as to help me center that Interleukin-12 in vivo data. -Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlas (talk • contribs) 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It took a bit of fiddling, but it's there now. I've also removed a blank column from the end of the table... Shimgray | talk | 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Serious POV problem re cancer
The recent changes to this article have generated serious POV problems. The article now reads like a brochure touting the use of A. subrufescens for preventing or treating cancer, and gives almost no weight to the mainstream view that its benefits against cancer remain to be proven. Let's take, for example, the conclusion of Firenzuoli et al. 2007 :
 * "Careful clinical studies comparing the activity of isolated compounds, whole mushroom extracts and epidemiological data are still necessary to determine whether ABM provide real clinical benefits. Dose-response studies and isolation, as well as chemical identification and quantification of specific compounds responsible for the potential benefit from ABM mushroom ingestion should be fully developed, although there seems to be clear evidence that ABM extracts are rich in ß-glucans that presumably contribute to the observed immunostimulatory activity. ¶ Other substances are probably involved as well, the immunostimulation following ingestion of polysaccharides is possible and probably useful in cancer patients if it does not give rise to pharmacological interferences. A main safety concern is represented by the toxicity and cancerogenicity of agaritine and its derivatives that should be completely evaluated; and probably would be useful for these mushrooms like other herbal remedies, to completely define the problem of heavy metal contents. Due to the large consumption of ABM in popular medicine, probably more data are needed on action mechanisms of its component and safety before counseling the assumption for prevention and treatment of cancer and immunodepressive disorders."

In short, there's no mainstream consensus that there are any real clinical benefits to this mushroom, and there are real safety concerns. None of this stuff is in the article: instead, it touts old primary studies. As per WP:MEDRS the article should be relying on recent reliable reviews, such as the one quoted above, and such as Borchers et al. 2008, and it should cite primary studies sparingly if at all. Eubulides (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it might seem like an advertisement for the mushroom. But its also an advertisement to current main stream research publications. Depends on how you view it.  Let the people decide, join the talk... Jatlas  —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC).


 * This response does not address the concerns expressed above. Just as it is easy to write the article as a paean to mushrooms' cancer-fighting abilities, it would also be easy to write an article that focuses only on their darker, cancer-causing side; in both cases one could cite peer-reviewed sources and say "Let the people decide", but neither approach is right. It's not Wikipedia's job to take sides in disputes like this. Wikipedia is supposed to report what reliable sources say, in fair proportion to what they say. The way to do that, in a well-researched area such as this, is to rely on the secondary literature (i.e., reviews), not on primary sources; and to use reliable reviews. The current article does not do that at all: it cherry-picks positive results out of primary sources, in direct contradiction to WP:MEDRS, and it ignores what reliable reviews are saying. This is why it has a serious WP:POV problem, a problem that needs to get fixed. Eubulides (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sort of... how about you write kind of a disclaimer section. Saying not to confuse this in any way, shape, form, a drug to prevent or cure any disease. I think the page needs that. I don't think the rest of the page needs to get attacked though. Would that resolve this dispute? Jatlas —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid that it's not sufficient to have a small section saying that it's not a drug, followed by a long list of study after study indicating that it may be effective to prevent or treat cancer. The entire article has to follow WP:WEIGHT. And in an area where there are reliable reviews, there shouldn't be a need to cite any primary study directly. That's what reviews are for: to establish context and provide weight for interpreting the primary studies. Eubulides (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising this, I somehow completely missed that there was a POV issue here. We'll need to markup citations to distinguish primary from review sources. I seem to recall a tag for the purpose. LeadSongDog come howl  13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing primary from review sources would be a good step I agree. Let me know how I can do this, and also other ways to balance the article more. I understand a small section saying this mushroom is not a drug, followed with that long list of studies is not the best way to present the data. But how do we fix that, I don't want to get rid of all that work... Could it be condensed more? Help me out guys and I will fix up the article, its a work in progress. Jatlas —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

O yeah Eubulides you are more than welcome to write about the "darker cancer causing side" of this mushroom as you put it. Just provide proof. Jatlas (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not how it should be done. This article is not supposed to be a debate ground between editors, where one side writes it up their way in one paragraph, and another side gets "equal time" to write it up their way in another paragraph. Instead, the article should be following the lead of mainstream review articles on the subject, giving weight to various views roughly in the same proportion that reliable sources do. This may indeed result in most or all of the current citations being removed, and in some of Jatlas's work being lost; but if we have reliable reviews by published experts in the field, we should be using their work, and not reinventing the results ourselves. Again, please see and read WP:MEDRS and what it says about reviews versus primary sources. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, we try to minimize the workload on reviewers such as Eubulides, in order that that they can get on with the backlog of articles needing reviews. Let's just take the good advice given and see where the secondary sources lead us. I've raised the markup question here. There is a rather confusing array of different markup templates for citation improvement.LeadSongDog come howl  16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another review article, that we've missed until now, is
 * Please have a look and see if it's useful. Wang, Wei, Chou 2008 (already cited) is a review as well. LeadSongDog come howl  17:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)s

Ok, I am learning... I will read all the links you have provided and do my best to conform the article. I am getting worried about losing my work on this page, is that what you guys are suggesting? Throwing away all this data seems like a terrible way to go about improving the page. I have no real resistance to presenting the data in a different manner (or completely different). Please let me preserve what I have done here, and I will do my best to present the data in accordance to wikipedia's guidelines. In the meanwhile it would be nice to offer suggestions instead of threatening to remove all the data from the page, as suggested by Eubulides. And how did the page get a "B" rating for quality by the Fungi, Medicine, and Pharmacology Wiki Projects? It's also worth noting that Eubulides attempted to take down any medical research related to Agaricus bisporus and replace it with data about how it might be harmful for your health. Jatlas (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)No need to worry. Each version of the article will continue to exist in the article history. The article as a whole isn't up for deletion, but if you need to reassure yourself, just make a handy copy, either on your own machine or in a userspace article. Normally if an article rating is B for one project, it's B for all. For reasons that should be obvious, WP:MEDRS is rather more stringent than WP:RS, but as far as I see, the B criteria don't specify neutral POV. I'm sure Eubulides had good reasons that were explained. I'll have a look.LeadSongDog come howl  18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I see that you were aware of his reasons. Please remember to assume good faith. It is key to working constructively here.LeadSongDog come howl  18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok... I appreciate everyone's help and patience very much. I will keep attempting to fix the POV of this article in my free time, because I do agree with all the points you all have made. Thanks again. Jatlas (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if the page's POV has been improved. And what further steps I can take so everyone can be happy with the page. Jatlas (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the POV is still there, in spades. Much of the article still reads like a brochure promoting the mushroom's purported anticancer properties. The caveats and warnings of our reliable sources are by and large missing or played down. And citing all those primary studies results in what appears to be original research, which Wikipedia is not supposed to do. Again, please read WP:MEDRS (I don't sense that this has been done), and please base the article squarely on what reliable reviews say. As a first cut, it would be better to remove all primary sources, cite only the secondary reviews, and summarize what these sources say, in proportion to what they say. Sorry, this will probably remove some of the text and tables, but something like this will be necessary eventually, so why not do it now? Eubulides (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok question... My tables for cancer protective properties and effect on immune cells (not the cellular health table) come directly from a tertiary source (check link below for PDF paper), so can't those tables remain??? Thank you for your patience. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121398729/PDFSTART Jatlas (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd cite Hetland et al. for the table and its entries. I don't see much value in "drilling down" to the primary papers that it cites. Mining that article for references from Review journals turns up its refs 1, 3, 4, 55 as promising:


 * Have a boo and see what they cover off.LeadSongDog come howl  15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a boo and see what they cover off.LeadSongDog come howl  15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a boo and see what they cover off.LeadSongDog come howl  15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a boo and see what they cover off.LeadSongDog come howl  15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a boo and see what they cover off.LeadSongDog come howl  15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding in all these primary references, it's just generating more work for later when they have to be taken out. Stick to the review articles, particularly where any medical claims are made.LeadSongDog come howl  22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've requested independent eyes from WT:MEDRS.LeadSongDog come howl  20:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LeadSongDog that is probably best. I look forward to their opinions. Jatlas (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory information in Taxonomy section
In Taxonomy section it is mentioned "Agaricus subrufescens was first described by the American botanist Charles Horton Peck in 1893" Below the Binomial name (right side), it is stated "Agaricus subrufescens Peck (1894)" Please solve this, I don't have access to the original article to do it myself. Thanks, Cristian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.40.173 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the note. Sasata (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Is Agaricus blazei Murrill a completely different mushroom than Agaricus subrufescens?"
"Note that Agaricus blazei Murrill is a perfectly valid name, but for a completely different mushroom. Agaricus silvaticus Schaeff. is also a perfectly valid name for a common, north temperate, woodland mushroom. Neither is a synonym of Agaricus subrufescens."

If this is true, then there are two mushrooms(Agaricus blazei Murrill and Agaricus subrufescens.) There should be two Wikipedia articles or at least the whole page should reflect the black and white comparison of the two different mushrooms. If it is not true and there is only one mushroom,then the above quote should be removed. I know the marketing of the mushrooms is important to everyone, but if there are two mushrooms could not each mushroom be marketed for different positive attributes? How is research going to get anywhere with conflicting taxonomies?

scientist 1: "Mushroom A found to cure cancer, mushroom B found to taste really good." scientist 2: "Scientist 1 is a lair. I tested mushroom A and I found it to taste really good but not to cure cancer, mushroom b did not taste good and cured cancer." scientist 3: "Both scientist,1 and 2 are lairs. In the first experiment, I tested mushroom A to see if it cured cancer, it did not. In the second experiment, I reordered mushroom A to see if tasted good, it did not.In the 3rd experiment, I ordered mushroom B. I tested to see if it cured cancer, it did not. In the 4th experiment,I ordered mushroom B to see if it tasted good, it did not." The supply house sends out either mushroom a or b as mushroom a or b, all scientists results could be telling the truth. The reality in this explanation, two mushrooms - one cures cancer, one taste really good and caused cancer 100% of the time 10 years later. See how important clear research can be to defend against a shaky unfounded negative rumor? Marketing is not lying, but it can be used to spread a lie.

Many of the References,at least References: 3,4,11,12,14,19,20,22,23,24,27,28,29,31,32,34,36,38,40,41,42,43,44, and 46; have Agaricus Blazei Murill in the name of the reference. where reference 2 and 6 have Agaricus subrufescens in the name of the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderSloka (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Research
"Agaricus blazei may up-regulate the immune system" does this mean it causes inflammatory bowel disease, dermatitis, and multiple sclerosis? Should it not be consumed by people with organ transplants for fear of increased rates of rejection? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Other mushrooms may also up-regulate the immune system according to published research. Shiitake is one mushroom that comes to mind. Since Shiitake does not cause inflammatory bowel disease, dermatitis, or multiple sclerosis, it is unlikely that ABM does so. However, this has not been proven. Jatlas (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) As far as organ transplants go, I have no clue. I would guess ABM consumption (as well as mushrooms in general) should be avoided in this situation. Jatlas (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth I was being sarcastic. What I see here is the conclusion draw ( that these mushrooms are great for year health ) and then evidence collected and interpreted to support this conclusion.  For example if up regulating the immune system is good the mushroom does it.  If down regulating the immune system is good than the mushroom does that too.  A lot of the Alternative medications now use the term immunomodulated ( up when up is good down when down is good ) to get around this bind.
 * One need to look at real life end points in large number of people to draw real conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree Doc James. For me, the large number of people are the 500,000 people reportedly taking this product in Japan. Also the fact that mushroom isolates have been approved for medicine in countries like Japan since the 1980s (Polysaccharide-K) is further evidence of large numbers of people consuming this product for a reason. Getting back to your point, there should be much more "large number of people to draw real conclusions" however I believe there is enough evidence and support to list these research results. If you have strong opinions against, please feel free to edit the page. I will try not to get in your way. Jatlas (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Millions of parents feed cough medicine to there children this does not mean it actually suppresses cough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the point you are trying to make... Anyways it is clear we are both coming from opposite sides of the POV spectrum. Lets please focus the attention on the actual page. Jatlas (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another POV word
"beneficial effect" on blood sugar. This means if it is to low it raises it and if to high it lower it? And how about cellular health does that mean it causes cancer? If the cellular health is high cancer results. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC) You are correct Doc James. I will try to improve wording.Jatlas (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another one is "inhibiting angiogenesis" does this mean that it delays would healing? Sometimes we wish to inhibit angiogenesis sometimes we wish to increase it.  Depends on the situation. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to improve blood glucose info. Please check and comment. Also your commment "If the cellular health is high cancer results" is POV. Jatlas (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No improved cellular health ( ie cells that do not die = cancer ). Cellular health is one of a loaded word.  It is sufficiently vague that the FDA will not say you are making health claims yet implies that something real is taking place. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your comments below about blood glucose are laughable! However, you do have a very good point about cellular health. I will delete this portion of the page it really does not mean much. Jatlas (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Blood glucose
Okay so now it causes hypoglycemia as it "lower blood glucose levels" which then may result in coma and death. I know there are other mushrooms that do this via their action on the liver. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your POV! Would you like all research to be deleted? Jatlas (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Other edible mushrooms have been noted for this small, but significant effect. Linking them to coma and death? Come on doc... Jatlas (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am once again being sarcastic and yes this is POV that is my point. :-) I am just bringing this pages claims to there natural conclusion if these mushrooms have the effect mentioned than the result in people with normal blood sugar would be hypoglycemia. Since 1/2 million normal people take them it is very likely that they have no effect at all.  "you claim a small but significant effect"  I have not seen any evidence of this.  Beyond of course eating a diet high in vegetables and low in simple sugars makes a huge difference.
 * To summarize the research: there is no evidence that these mushrooms improve human health and there safety well not rigorously studied is supported by the lack of observed effects in the many people who take them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So do you think all this research is completely meaningless and should be deleted? Or do you think it needs an overhaul? Jatlas (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"I have not seen ANY evidence of this." If this is really the case you did not even look at this page. (ok I am being sarcastic now :) Well anyways we have opposite opinions. I'm done discussing this matter with you. Please edit the page as you see fit. Best of luck doc. Jatlas (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is clinical evidence of this "small but significant effect" on blood sugar. "Immunological, hematological, and glycemia effects of dietary supplementation with Agaricus on patients' colorectal cancer." Jatlas (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)