Talk:Ayahuasca

Removal question
, I noticed you removed some text and a source which I readded for the time being here. You stated it was "lab research in suspicious journal." When I look at the journal I dont see anything wrong with it, but I am not an expert in this. I also see the same research at NIH, but maybe NIH is a mirror of this same other journal? I do see the research has other research that cites this, why would we think this is suspicious? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello - there are several issues with that section on 'Neurogenesis'. First and foremost, all of the sources are lab studies far too preliminary to be used in an encyclopedia, WP:MEDINVITRO. Second, the author(s) of that section make a leap of interpretation from the test tube to 'neurogenesis' as an effect of using ayahuasca; this is WP:SYNTH at its worst. Third, the original source for the Dakic article here was an unreviewed preprint, as shown clearly in red at the top of the page. The article was subsequently reviewed and published, but this journal is not a WP:MEDRS source, which would review such preliminary literature into an acceptable MEDRS source. The early stage of this lab research, however, indicates it will be a decade plus of further evidence (i.e., clinical trial process) before such a review could be published. No company would finance such an investment for ayahuasca, so it will likely never occur.
 * The source you refer to as 'NIH' is PubMed, which is a database published by NIH, but all it does is list publications. It is not an endorsement by NIH for publications to be listed by PubMed.
 * I am reverting that section again for the above reasons and for other edits that need deletion as they are too speculative and not supported by MEDRS reviews. Zefr (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Things do get researched without commercial value, I think this one was done by a Brazilian university. Thank you for clarification. I would think the editor who added the content can re-add some of it in a more neutral way, research in itself is encyclopedic but maybe implying it to be medical (and thus requiring MEDRS) would be a WP:WIKIVOICE issue (stating medical benefits to humans in wikivoice). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing and term issues
The end of the "Traditional Use" section includes three lists of "admixtures". In the third list, about half are referenced (to one source), the other half are not. Is this original research?

In addition, the description of the very last one, "bobinsana", has a few apparent issues, most notably the reference to "chakra opening". This cannot possibly be related to traditional use, since chakras are an East Asian concept, not a South American one. --Cromwellt&#124;talk&#124;contribs 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)