Talk:Bacopa monnieri

Untitled
On April 27, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Votes for deletion/Bacopa monnieri. The result was keep. &mdash; Xezbeth 13:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good article. 24.7.87.135 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a great example of an article with interesting information that appears to be based on nothing but the author's personal enthusiasm. The statements made about its efficacy for memory and dream work, tantalizing to be sure, are in no way backed up by the study cited in a later paragraph. Clearly this needs to be at the very least re-written to show the speculative nature of what is being said. It doesn't even appear to be anecdotal. Rosecrans (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Rosecrans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.77.63 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

removed 'figwort' and 'moneywort'
These are two different plants altogether, and neither of these is the here bacopa - as shown on the articles on the respective plants. Can't refer articles with serious information to this one if it's not coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.218.251 (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just bought an aquarium plant called Moneywort Bacopa monnieri so somebody thinks it is the same. 142.163.195.92 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Common names like moneywort must be supported by references to reliable sources. According to the Royal Horticultural Society, moneywort is a common name for Lysimachia nummularia. Declangi (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

updating family
Updating family (TO Plantaginaceae) based on info at http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl?1218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiptdotcom (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

temporary hearing loss when with increased estrogen levels?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/463132-what-is-the-difference-between-brahmi-gotu-kola/

Not a good source, but perhaps one should be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.154.228 (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation of animal to human doses
The article refers to a dose of 250mg/kg in rodents. Although a linear multiplication of this dose for a 76kg human would equal roughly 19g, it would be erroneous to equate these two doses. I have undone the "correction" to my correction made by user Rhode Island Red (although understandably well-intentioned), and added a citation from which the mouse->human formula I used was pulled from (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17942826). The correct translation for 250mg/kg in mice comes out to be 1.54g for a 76kg human. Quikfastgoninja (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative names
Herb-of-grace is mentioned by D. F. Austin 'Florida Ethnobotany' (2004) as an old American name, but no further source is cited. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bacopa monnieri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426195211/http://www.amrutaherbals.com:80/specifications/Bacopa/detail.htm to http://www.amrutaherbals.com/specifications/Bacopa/detail.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Brahmi
Doee brahmi contain nicotine Amitanshu123 (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This website says small amount, not of pharmacologic importance. It cites a 1972 analysis as evidence (ref #16).David notMD (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source on hand, but it is my understanding that nicotine content varies with strain. It is possible that some strains may have significant amounts of nicotine while others do not. Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Over-stating primary research
This edit was trimmed because 1) there is no convincing evidence that bacopa was recognized "as a nootropic" in traditional medicine or that it could become a drug (as a natural substance, it is non-patentable); 2) its supposed "potential efficacy in the treatment of dementia, Parkinson's disease, and epilepsy" is pure conjecture from primary research, with no rigorous review saying so; 3) the sentence beginning "The herb is believed to act via anti-oxidant neuroprotection..." is conjecture from low-quality evidence in lab studies (WP:MEDRS needed); 4) Content from the journal Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine was removed because it is a low-quality publication with suspected predatory policies, and is listed on WP:SOURCEWATCH. --Zefr (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) See source 4 about nootropics. There is no implication that it may become a drug. 2) Am updating to appropriate level of evedence 3) Again, see source 4. 4) You may remove this source if you please. It is not essential to the entry and is used only as corroborating evidence. 5) The mechanism of bacopa is in no way similar to that of modafinil. Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit war. The purpose of a talk page discussion is for you to defend and gain consensus from other editors for your point of view. The nootropic concept is preliminary, based mainly on primary research and speculation, and is not well-supported by WP:MEDRS reviews; see the Nootropic article. Let's not perpetuate conjecture about bacopa in the encyclopedia, WP:NOTOPINION. --Zefr (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The word nootropic is a synonym to cognitive enhancer. Three reviews find evidence that bacopa is a cognitive enhancer--this is not mere speculation. One even refers to the herb explicitly as a nootropic. Please read sources before removing them in the future. I am now satisfied with the current state of the article. Remember that it takes two to edit war. Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon retrospect, a stronger statement is justified from the sources. If you do not agree, I will require you to cite your reasoning. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is illegal in the United States to make medical claims that are not approved by the FDA. The FDA's letters do not indicate that the claims were "scientifically unproven," only that they have not been evaluated in FDA trials. I see that you have added information in the introduction about illegal claims made by supplement companies without referencing the evidence which shows that the herb may be a cognitive enhancer. I hope that this is not an attempt to imply that the drug is not effective as a cognitive enhancer, because such an implication would violate Wikipedia's policys on original research and neutrality. Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The FDA doesn't conduct clinical trials, but its review process underlying a warning letter assesses the entire clinical literature and status of drug approval, neither of which is met for this herb. Whether B. monnieri is a proven cognition stimulant remains undetermined, as the clinical research to date is insufficient and too preliminary to note in the lede. It is more important to state in the lede that FDA has put manufacturers and consumers on notice that the herb remains under preliminary research, is not an approved drug, is not proven to be safe, and consumer marketing is likely to be fraudulent. --Zefr (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the claim that bacopa is not proven to treat any medical condition. However, I see no reference in the FDA's letters to the claim that the herb can improve cognition in healthy people. Additionally, per Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines, claims by professional medical organizations are not to be used to overrule claims found in biomedical literature. Rather, the claims should be contrasted side-by-side. Therefore, even if the FDA had release a statement about bacopa's nootropic potential, it would not diminish the already attained consensus that "Preliminary clinical research finds evidence that Bacopa minnieri may improve cognition." Such a remarkable claim is no doubt worthy of the lede. Additionally, per edit war guidelines, please do not revert edits or alter substantive content until consensus has been reached. Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than responding in the talk page, you simply removed the content of my edit, referring to it as a "misleading guess." This is your opinion. It is not supported by research. Please see NPOV guidelines as well as my previous comment.
 * Please sign and timestamp your entries to the talk page. Concerning your adding back this edit to the lede, what evidence is there that practitioners of Ayurveda know the potential effects of and uses for bacopa as a "cognitive enhancer"? I think it's unlikely that herbalists recognize its unconvincing scientific background, and know only its unscientific subjective effects. Second, I removed that definition from the lede because the FDA review - in its warning letters - states that there is no approval for bacopa as a nootropic, meaning that scientific evidence is too weak for any product manufacturer to claim such an effect. By your adding it back to the lede, a non-science user may believe that bacopa is a proven and "approved" cognition enhancer -- a misleading statement of its science and regulatory status. --Zefr (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For evidence that the herb is used as a cognitive enhancer in aurivedic tradition, see source 7. The entire reason it was ever a subject of scientific study was because of these claims. I also see no reference to the nootropic effects of bacopa monnieri in the FDA's warning letters, despite your claims otherwise. If you want to convince me it's in there, I will require a quote. Additionally, see my earlier comment: per Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines, claims by professional medical organizations are not to be used to overrule claims found in biomedical literature. Rather, the claims should be contrasted side-by-side. Therefore, even if the FDA had release a statement about bacopa's nootropic potential, it would not diminish the already attained consensus that "Preliminary clinical research finds evidence that Bacopa minnieri may improve cognition." Such a remarkable claim is no doubt worthy of the lede. per Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines, claims by professional medical organizations are not to be used to overrule claims found in biomedical literature. Rather, the claims should be contrasted side-by-side. Therefore, even if the FDA had release a statement about bacopa's nootropic potential, it would not diminish the already attained consensus that "Preliminary clinical research finds evidence that Bacopa minnieri may improve cognition." Such a remarkable claim is no doubt worthy of the lede. Furthermore, dispute you claims, I still do not believe that the FDA runs a search of scientific literature before issuing warning letter. I did read that it was possible to petition the FDA to evaluate a claim, but not that the FDA checked the truth of claims before ordering them taken down. Therefor, the FDA letters are only about unapproved, rather than untrue claims. You have repeatedly changed the article to suit your personal beliefs rather than the available evidence. I see from that talk pages of similar articles that you have had disputes several with other wikipedians of a similar sort. I you continue to try to insert you point of view without proper sourcing or consensus, I will move to have this issue taken to dispute resolution. Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ayurvedic sources are from myths and quackery, so are not reliable for medical content in an encyclopedia. The FDA references to B. monnieri as a false nootropic are here and here. A Google search reveals others. The FDA review and approval process for health claims and new drugs is a high standard among government sources in WP:MEDSCI. The "preliminary clinical research" cited in the article is not strong, and other medical editors may remove that sentence and the sources as unencyclopedic. The first step in dispute resolution is to ask other editors to provide their review and comments. You could post a discussion at WT:MED. My position in disputing your edits is not a personal matter, but comes from the poor sources on studies of this herb. --Zefr (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement that bacopa has been used in aruvedic medicine for thousands of years is not a medical statment, and is therefor not subject to medical sourcing requirements. However, as stated in the previous post, this claim is justified by source 7. I read the warning letters. Nowhere in them is it stated that Bacopa is not a nootropic. As requested in the previous comment, please cite a quote to refute me. The clinical research I cited is justified by three reviews, and refuted by none: it is NOT of poor quality. Furthermore, this is the second time you have failed to acknowledge my assertion that statements from professional organizations are not to be used to refute claims in biomedical literature.
 * While I would like to believe that you are acting in good faith, at this point I do accuse you of acting in poor faith and of making personal attacks. I cite the following evidence: 1) You have repeatedly removed well-sourced information, sometimes even after I have stated the source to you multiple times. To give an example, the statement that bacopa has been used as a nootropic cognitive enhancer in ayruvedic medicine is still justified by source 7. This source has been present since almost the beginning, and you still seem not to have looked at it. 2) You have repeatedly refused acknowledge the validity of the established consensus that "Preliminary clinical research finds evidence that Bacopa minnieri may improve cognition." This evidence is supported by THREE REVIEWS. It is not "speculation", it is not a "misleading guess," it is not "verbose," it is not "unencyclipedic," and it is not "primary". I apologize for the caps, but I have said this many times already. I feel at this point that I am being ignored. You may not agree with the reviews, but it is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to challenge research without proper sourcing. Statements which (may or may not) have been made by professional organizations DO NOT constitute a challenge to biomedical literature. 3) You have done these things to others (talk:nootropic) and seem not to have learned anything. 4) You have made insulting comments to me in the edits. You have in the article on nootropics referred to the following edit of mine as "poorly written":


 * Some nootropic supplements have been called out by the FDA for making illegal marketing claims. In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a letter warning manufacturers and consumers about the potential for advertising fraud and marketing scams.


 * I made this edit to reduce the previous statement's implication that all nootropics are ineffective, which was not substantiated by the source. You changed it back, but I did not challenge you because I did not want to edit war. I will allow a third party to determine if this edit is "poorly written."
 * At this point, I am tired of combing over all your sources while you ignore mine, and refuse to extract quotes from your own: It is a waste of my time. I recognize that the way I have handled this dispute may have been clumsy. I have been a member of Wikipedia for less than a month, and this is my first dispute. However, you have been a member of Wikipedia for over 14 years. You should know better than to act this way. I find that I cannot make even unsubstantial edits without you reverting them. Therefore, I am taking this matter to dispute. Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Saw this mentioned at WikiProject AM. Looking at the recent editing, we certainly do not want to be using amrutaherbals.com as a source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That information is justified by a review. Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * However, the scope of the dispute is much larger than that. Please see the entire conversation in the section "Over-stating primary research." Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

lead
Could use info about claims of lead contamination in supplements.

FDA
Currently the article has information in the leading paragraph regarding FDA warnings to manufacturers to supplement manufacturers in the USA about "illegal" and "unproven" claims. It is said by some that this the FDA's actions represent the "state of the science." This is simply not true. The FDA does not perform a scientific evaluation. The law (known as DSHEA) and related rules simply state that you can't make medical claims about a dietary supplement in the USA without going through a process that these manufacturers have not done.

I believe this content should be permanently removed for the following reasons: it only applies in the USA (but English Wikipedia is used worldwide), the information does not in fact reflect the "state of the science" but is instead related to narrow political and legal issues in the USA only, that this information is really about issues with the dietary supplement industry in the USA and has nothing to do with the plant itself, that this information is transient and not important (the FDA sends out a lot of warning letters, and if this information stands then a LOT of edits are going to have to made to add this to every single herb about which any warning letter is issued, which is ridiculous).Eric Yarnell (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First,, new talk page discussions go to the bottom of the page, WP:TALK. It is complete nonsense to infer the FDA does not have every relevant piece of scientific evidence at hand when judging and warning about misleading advertising and health claims made on supplements. It is further nonsense to infer that the FDA is shaded by "narrow political and legal issues" or that FDA rulings do not have international significance or influence on regulations in other countries. An FDA warning letter about false health claims and absence of drug approval is the state of the science on a given herb, in this case, Bacopa monnieri extract. For readers of an encyclopedia, it is better to have science (and warnings about false promotion) represented in the lede, rather than enabling visibility about the quackery of Ayurveda or other naturopathic practices. --Zefr (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed out to Zerf how FDA's statements work. He is stonewalling. A meta-analysis and three reviews find evidence that bacopa monnieri is an effective cognitive enhancer, and yet he will not acknowledge this position. It may be time for formal dispute if he continues edit warring. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of quality and confirmation of evidence. References 7-9 - all from 2013-4 (therefore outdated, and not advanced since by better studies and reviews) - are inconclusive, as stated by the respective authors themselves. The Dec 2018 FDA advisory, and the two (among other) 2019 FDA warning letters (refs 3-4) reflect the available weak or no evidence of effect and safety, and appropriately warn consumers of the scams about bacopa products. Alzforum, a consortium for Alzheimer's R&D, reinforced the FDA warnings. If or  have better reviews to add to the article, then do it, or stop wasting our time debating about an herb with no convincing science behind its use for cognition or any disorder. --Zefr (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The references are not outdated: they reflect the most recent evidence available. 2) The references support the use of bacopa moniieri as a cognitive enhancer: nowhere do they say that the evidence is inconclusive. 3) The FDA warning letters do not comment on the claim that bacopa monnieri is a cognitive enhancer. 4) Alzform talks about bacopa as a treatment for alzheimers. It does not discuss the herb as a cognitive enhancer in healthy people. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The FDA warning letters only describe the supplements as "unapproved new drugs and/or misbranded drugs that claim to prevent, treat or cure Alzheimer’s disease and a number of other serious diseases and health conditions" because they make health claims. The FDA did not do a review of the scientific literature to determine this. They looked only at their own records, found bacopa is not approved for any of these indications, so by their rules it is a "misbranded drug." This has nothing to do with whether bacopa works or not. If they didn't make any claims it could be legally sold as a dietary supplement, which is done by many companies (full disclosure: mine included, I am president of Heron Botanicals, though bacopa sales make up <0.5% of total sales). Have you dealt with the FDA or have any experience with the FDA when it comes to dietary supplements? I certainly do and have. FDA warning letters make no sense to use as evidence for or against evidence that an herb is effective.Eric Yarnell (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The FDA view is relevant and due. It obviously belongs in the article. Any biomedical claims about this supplement would need WP:MEDRS sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The FDA sources are about certain illegal marketing claims that have been made by some American companies. They do not reference the claim that the herb is a nootropic, which is what Zefr is trying to use them to refute. The FDA statements regarding unapproved marketing claims may (or may not) belong in the article, but they certainly do not belong in the lede. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ledes summarize bodies. This content is apt to be summarized in the lede also. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede summarizes the most important parts of the body. Per 's first comment, the FDA's statements may not belong in the body at all, much less the lede. They refer only to certain illegal marketing claims made by some American companies selling supplements containing the herb. At least one of these warning letters was about a supplement which contained a large number of psychoactive compounds alongside bacopa, not even the herb itself. has repeatedly used these statements in place of and to refute the well-sourced claim that bacopa is a cognitive enhancer in healthy people. The FDA's statements do not reference or refute this claim, which is currently omitted from the lede in favor the FDA warning letters per Zefr's edit warring . --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bacopa products are sold as supplements or used misleadingly in naturopathy/Ayurveda as medicines, but fails to understand that the FDA holds false efficacy claims about such products to the highest standard as if they were prescription drugs. Drugs have to be proven as effective at a range of doses for a specific disease and safe over those doses, conditions not met for any bacopa product or even having sound preliminary evidence in the bacopa clinical literature cited. It is appropriate lede information to have this context of absence of efficacy and safety for bacopa extracts. There are no supplements or approved drugs for enhancing cognition in people without a neurological disorder. The FDA warning letters place a spotlight on this state of science for the lede. --Zefr (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesnt' matter that bacopa is an Ayurvedic medicine. This does not make is ineffective. It is common for Wikipedia to make health claims not approved by the FDA, but supported by literature (e.g. off label uses of medicine). As Eric Yarnell pointed out, the warning letters do not in anyway reflect the state of science. They only indicate that specific American companies made specific claims that were not approved by the country's medical authorities. Similar warning letters can be found for almost any herb or supplement, but we do not see them referenced in other articles because they are irrelevant. Their inclusion is unencyclopedic. It is incorrect and blatant POV pushing to use these warning letters to overrule a claim that they do not even address. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we have consensus yet? We shouldn’t let this article remain NPOV. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is WP:NPOV now, and no talk page consensus has been reached to change it. "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." --Zefr (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how multiple meta-analyses carry less weight than an FDA letter that isn't making any attempt at summarizing data or being "up-to-date" or even citing evidence whatsoever. On Wikipedia:MEDRS is explicitly says that a meta-analysis is one of the highest level, best types of secondary evidence supporting medical information. I have cited those. An FDA letter citing no evidence should not overrule this type of information (I guess such a letter would be considered "expert opinion" which is a far lower level of evidence in Wikipedia:MEDRS), for all the reasons Wikiman2718 has pointed out. The FDA is enforcing a USA-only law, it is not trying to comment on the state of science on this plant. And again, if FDA letters on making medical claims disallowed by the DSHEA law are going to be the standard for Wikipedia, then a HUGE edit of almost every medicinal plant in the system is going to have to be made as FDA has issued letters like this about practically every one that exists. This is absurd.Eric Yarnell (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The FDA as a national expert body is a strong WP:MEDRS, maybe one of the strongest. Its views are due. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute that FDA is a strong source. The problem is, the way you are citing FDA does not support what you say it supports. FDA is only saying these companies are marketing the herb incorrectly in the USA, they are not saying "Bacopa is not a nootropic." The source of the evidence is only part of the issue here, and you don't seem to want to address the actual scientific evidence about the issue at hand. Multiple secondary sources (meta-analyses, also extremely strong evidence per WP:MEDRS) confirm that Bacopa is a nootropic. I propose you start a separate subsection about improper marketing of the herb if you feel this really is such an enormous issue, and then you better add such sections to practically every herb in Wikipedia as FDA has issued a lot of warning letters like this one about many other dietary supplements. I think this is not important and not helpful for Wikipedia readers, but at least it might be a way out of this constant back-and-forth. It is hard not to see your stubborn insistence on this non-scientific approach in general as anything other than a political smear on Bacopa, and by inference other elements of natural medicine.Eric Yarnell (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the most recent version of the article again and it is much improved. I still don't think the information about marketing of Bacopa in the USA and the FDA is important enough to be in the main body of the article but it is much better than it was. Thank you.Eric Yarnell (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

FT/N
FYI, I have opened a discussion about this article at WP:FT/N. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why ? seems unecessaryWalidou47 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)