Talk:Amygdalin

2019 study of Amygdalin and IAP proteins
Earlier, I added this study to the page published in Molecular Biology Reports.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11033-019-04656-3

The edit was just: "More recently, research has been done on IAPs, proteins that inhibit programmed cell death and are linked to cancer. A 2019 in-vitro study found that amygdalin inhibited the expression of genes which produced the IAPs Survivin and XIAP."

Within 3 minutes it was reverted by @Bon Courage with the message "Not WP:MEDRS". To which I replied that Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Perhaps he hasn't heard of it, but he could have at least taken a few minutes to look it up. 3 minutes is barely enough time to read the change. So I reverted that revert.

Within 5 minutes it was reverted by @Zefr with the message "Lab research, WP:MEDINVITRO, far too preliminary to be mentioned". I've added the change to the section mentioning three historical hypothesized mechanisms of action. This study is relevant because it is recent research introducing a new one. I made clear that this was an in-vitro study. And I consider myself a pretty fast reader, but even still it took me a good hour to read this study and relevant background information on relevant IAPs like Survivin. 5 minutes sounds too fast to even get through the abstract. I reverted that revert too.

Within 9 minutes, there was another revert from @Bon Courage saying "Unreliable source, edit warring". Again, Molecular Biology Reports is a reliable source. Its a peer-reviewed journal and part of the Springer network. It would be very helpful if you explained why you think its an unreliable source.

It is very frustrating to spend over an hour genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia's body of scientific knowledge, only to be immediately shot down by what seems like drive-by Wikilawyering.

-Databased (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You will have a different perspective after reading WP:MEDRS, with attention especially to the bottom of the left pyramid at WP:MEDASSESS, which identifies the content and source you wish to add as preliminary lab research - the lowest quality of evidence for medical content in the encyclopedia. We are not writing a journal discussion about hypothetical mechanisms, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7. Zefr (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Databased, WP:MEDRS says: " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later clinical trials." The source you cited is a primary source. JimRenge (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)