Talk:Breast enlargement supplement

Restart
If this is going to be deleted, restart it from scratch from a different topic/title/stance.

article
"but there are no tests of efficacy or safety." conflicts with the source in the next sentence, that information was based on the testing on mice. Lucy346 (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tests of active ingredients on mice is not the same as a test of a specific product on people. The tests weren't looking at breast enhancement specifically, but at other indicators. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok then. "there are no tests of efficacy." or "there are no tests of efficacy or safety on humans." (even if it sounds redundant it makes it clear) "safety for this purpose."
 * same article from pubmed -> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Asparagus%20racemosus--an%20update =  http://indianjmedsci.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5359;year=2003;volume=57;issue=9;spage=408;epage=14;aulast=Goyal
 * Lucy346 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where does it mention breast enchancement? I don't think the indian journal of medical science is reliable, it looks like a low impact open access publication. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lucy, stop adding your own research into the article. See WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
I have read the article and believe some parts of it do not have a neutral point of view. For example:
 * " It is unlikely that any of the common ingredients would be efficacious."
 * The article states that there has been " inadequate scientific study " and "No randomized, blinded and fully controlled tests has been performed to test any breast enhancement product.".
 * The scientific approach is to state that it's impossible to deduce that efficacy is unlikely, equally impossible to deduce that it is likely.  There is only anecdotal evidence.


 * "The use of bust-enhancing products should be discouraged because of lack of evidence for efficacy and long-term safety concerns.",
 * This entire sentence sounds as if it was written by an apologist for medical/surgical mainstream. From my own research, physicians and surgeons routinely decry the use of "non-mainstream" medical methods to enhance busts as if they had ultimate authority. From this article, it is clear there is no ultimate authority, because there has been no scientific research.
 * "lack of evidence for efficacy" is no reason to to discourage their use. If anecdotal evidence is all there is, and there is no proof that the anecdotal evidence is wholly untrue, then it is reasonable to believe that people will use the products based on nothing else.


 * "long-term safety concerns" are, with neither details nor scientific research, no better than anecdotal evidence. Any mention of them ought to be balanced by other contrary anecdotal evidence.


 * "Dong Quai ... does contain carcinogenic chemicals"
 * Two sources indicate that Dong Quai "... can cause skin to become extra-sensitive to the sun "; one of them suggests it may " cause skin inflammation and rashes", the other claims it leads to " a greater risk for skin cancer." It's the sunlight that causes the cancer; if anything, Dong Quai is one of many co-carcinogens that enables something else to be carcinogenic.
 * The only mention I found about carcinogens is that, when Dong Quai extract is distilled, there are small amounts of carcinogens. That's hardly remarkable for any substance, and is not worthy of identification here.
 * Another source states that the extract is given by injection at hospitals in Japan and China. That lends something to the reputation of Dong Quai.


 * Without investigating further, it's possible that other substances in the list are not accurately represented.

The article needs NPOV via a bold edit. But I don't have time at present. Hazel&#39;s Lumps (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition to those I described above, an important concern is the use of, for example, a journal of Plastic Surgery as a source of information. With the lack of balance from sources that are disinterested, there is an implicit bias against Breast Enhancement Supplements and in favor of breast enlargement by surgery.
 * I am gradually editing the article to address my concerns about NPOV.

Please, let's discuss here before making changes to or reverting my edits. Hazel&#39;s Lumps (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your reasons are all original research and thus irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just returned after a prolonged absence from WP; the passage of time doesn't mean it's inappropriate for me to respond to that.
 * Really? Original research?  Is the passing on of information "original"?   That's amazing.
 * Not only amazing, but you provided accompaniment. A joining of forces which produced an eloquent statement of intent, albeit unconsciously (were it otherwise, you would have provided a different frame for that portrait).  Well done you!
 * Normally, I'd respond at greater length. But, as I mention elsewhere, my spending more time and energy in such a debate is no longer likely to exceed what I just used up.

Hazel&#39;s Lumps (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is a lot better with neutrality now. Lucy346 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerns of why article is not Neutral point of view. WP:POV


 * This wasn't original research: "There is evidence that hops inhibits cancer proliferation. " http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/12/4912.full.pdf+html
 * from article "In addition to the estrogenic activity of 8-prenylnarigenin, a number of other biological activities have been ascribed to individual prenylflavonoids, including antiproliferative effects on breast and colon cancer cell lines, inhibition of...activation of procarinogens."
 * This is also in the same reference "hops contain estrogen-like compounds that interact with estrogen beta receptors" - first page. http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/12/4912.full.pdf+html


 * First sentence is not neutral pov. It is sourcing an opinion in a sarcastic tone. "Breast enlargement supplements are frequently portrayed as being a "natural" means to increase breast size, and with the suggestion that they are free from risk.[1]:1330" I can accept the rest of the first paragraph to the article being biased as they are.
 * "Other risks include toxicity of the ingredients, which may cause liver damage over time. One such potentially toxic ingredient is kava.[2]:1347" - yes kava does cause liver damage, why is it being muddied with other ingredients that do not cause liver damage. NPOV. Lucy346 (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the sources state that a number of ingredients are potentially carcinogenic; not just kava. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * liver damage, not carcinogenic. Kava is the most herbal liver toxin known to cause damage, it is still misleading to associate it like this. And one source said an ingredient had anti cancer properties. Still not neutral pov. Lucy346 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

sourced text
adequate sourcing
 * This wasn't original research: "There is evidence that hops inhibits cancer proliferation. " http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/12/4912.full.pdf+html
 * word for word from article "In addition to the estrogenic activity of 8-prenylnarigenin, a number of other biological activities have been ascribed to individual prenylflavonoids, including antiproliferative effects on breast and colon cancer cell lines, inhibition of...activation of procarinogens." Lucy346 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source. Lucy346 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing there that says it inhibits the spread of cancer. You'll also need a very very good source for that claim, IRWolfie- (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a good source for that claim, it is the same source that is already in the text. If you want to remove this, then remove that too. Anything that is peer reviewed from pubmed has a high degree of reliability.

"biological activities have been ascribed to individual prenylflavonoids, including antiproliferative effects on breast and colon cancer cell lines" translate that. This is not controversial, the biasedness in the article is highly controversial. wp:npov Lucy346 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "have been" ascribed ... by who? when? where? how many times? and later is written: the range of "potential" ... "raises the question of "whether" the exposure has "any" ... influence... I only see hypothesis on this paper. Is 100% research, primary source, and nothing is sure. Doc Elisa ✉  —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going to go that far, then its only fair to do that for every single claim in this paper, and take out the other sentence with the same reference out. Be sure to put by who in each existing claim. There are many papers that state preflavonoids in hops have anticancer properties, only they don't mention this article's topic. Therefore it is not a controversial claim. Lucy346 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On that paper, reference 17. Anything by the authors of that paper on prenylflavonoids, anti-cancer properties, and hops, for instance... http://www.drugs.com/npp/hops.html has a section about that specifically. Better yet here is the exact reference... http://www.unboundmedicine.com/harrietlane/ub/citation/10418944/Antiproliferative_and_cytotoxic_effects_of_prenylated_flavonoids_from_hops__Humulus_lupulus__in_human_cancer_cell_lines_ There are many papers stating this. Lucy346 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "This range of potential" doesn't take away from the sentence before it. Its an excuse. Lucy346 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? A thirteen year old primary source? No, it is not a wp:MEDRS. Not even close. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * its from pubmed, so it is reliable,. it says in the text, and it is also sourced to another article saying it is the case. and there is nothing newer to say that prenylflavonoids are otherwise. The article is a secondary source linked to a primary source. I showed both. Lucy346 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are sources all over the place to support this claim. And this one is adequate to show the others. This source accomplishes both a 1 Secondary and 2 Primary source. Lucy346 (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why is so important to you to have research material in this article. Unless... Are you interested to sell these drugs? Doc Elisa  ✉ 14:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't. Likewise, why is it so important to use a surgery magazine. Exact same issue can be accused to the parties here. I think this paper is important to the subject of this article. and there's no reason it shouldn't go. Because this article is biased and I was settling for 1 article that has its place here. I think its important that there is no bias. Lucy346 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no magazines in use in this article. I had not heard of this topic before editing it, and in editing it I used the sources I could find (as it happens, to save it from deletion). I didn't have an opinion when I encountered this article, so I don't get what you mean by bias. If you think the sources are biased, then you are proposing to counter them with original research. From your wikiversity article, it seems you have very strong opinions about this topic, but I suggest you read WP:MEDRS, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1st reference largely used. Chalfoun, Charbel; McDaniel, Candice; Motarjem, Pejman; Evans, Gregory R. D. (1 October 2004). "Breast-Enhancing Pills: Myth and Reality". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: 1330–1333. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000141495.14284.8B. Abstract unavailable. We need to have a subscription to read the article. Doc Elisa ✉ 20:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine then. I thought the sources had bias, and I now believe I understand the part about original research can't be used to counter it. I read the article on primary and secondary sources, my understanding is that primary research can be used sparingly, and it is strict to no variant interpretations. They get full disclosure, and secondary research gets prominence over it, if it directly conflicts. I thought it being from pubmed meant that it is reliable. I still disagree with removing the text about prenylflavonoids, hops, and anti cancer properties, there are other sources to claim this too (which are original research, unlike the main paper). I think it has its place, and I think it does meet requirements but if can leave the article if that's what everyone thinks. The article from the same source should probably leave too. I hope there is no bias if it shows up in a magazine, and if it meets perfect criteria it won't meet unnecessary resistance. My concern was a point of view that wasn't only a source journal pushing surgery, nothing else. So I am fine with it being removed. Lucy346 (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but everyone has made it clear that they do disagree, and you still re-inserted it. I suggest you revert yourself, and also read WP:BRD before you try edit warring content into articles (especially material so completely contentious as effectively saying something cures cancer), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it cured cancer, I said it had effects against cancer proliferation. The article still has relevance. I still believe it has merit to belong in the article. It reads that primary research is allowed, but it is by strict and limited guidelines, which I previously inserted it by. One person didn't edit war on their own. The points still had to be settled, regardless. The subject shouldn't be readily dismissed if more sources come along.Lucy346 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For medical content a high quality secondary source is needed. What we have here is a primary source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is from WP:MEDRS, and a similar wording is on another "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see: Wikipedia:No original research). When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight." This keeps getting missed.


 * From WP:PSTS, " Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." Lucy346 (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me highlight something there; "Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lucy, we sometimes mention primary sources, but usually only when a secondary source has already evaluated it and put it into context. Wikipedia health-related content is basically a summary of what secondary sources have to say about a topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * there is due weight about the other ingredients. Hops or prenylflavonoids don't have due weight in any direction from the secondary sources about the topic of cancer. The specific point wasn't opposed by the secondary sources. Lucy346 (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to use secondary sources. This does not appear to be one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That completely ignores the wikipedia passages that state that primary sources are allowed under rigid guidelines. Lucy346 (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The endocrine activities of
Here's all it states, after mentioning estrogenic activity: "If this were the case the potential for adverse effects (eg in relation to fertility and hormone related cancer) must be considered." This same article along with countless other articles state that hops shows anti cancer properties. I was changing the line to reflect this quotation about fertility. Lucy346 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mention anti-cancer properties at all. In fact it says: "The biological effects of preynlated flavonoids within the body are poorly understood and scientific evaluation of the safety of high exposure levels is essential", which contradicts what you said. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * again, the same exact article says. "In addition to the estrogenic activity of 8-prenylnarigenin, a number of other biological activities have been ascribed to individual prenylflavonoids, including antiproliferative effects on breast and colon cancer cell lines, inhibition of...activation of procarinogens." plus the citation in that article and many other sources confirm this. I was reflecting both of these statements. This is why I was mentioning it lacks research. If the article doesn't accept the text suggesting 8-prenylnarigenin's effects against cancer, that entry should be neutral in regards to cancer, and say it lacks research or documentation. Lucy346 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We've already had this discussion, and the consensus disagreed with your interpretation which extended it beyond what it says. What it actually says is the research is lacking. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going to edit the article, go by what the source says. Your last edit in no way reflected the source. In fact it had original synthesis. Your "consensus" is heavily biased, and wrong, your so called consensus conflicts with "Wikipedia's" policy that allows primary sources. Which I would compromise only as far as to make the claim neutral. No where in that article does it say, it is a risk for cancer, in fact it claims the opposite. You continually ignore wikipedia's policies. Lucy346 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"the potential for adverse effects (e.g in relation to fertility and hormone related cancer) must also be considered". It's right there in the source. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It nowhere says, "it presents a possible risk", that's taken out of context. Reflect the source properly. Lucy346 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Go attract a third opinion from wikiproject medicine if you want to discuss the issue further. There's no point us just arguing with each other. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion name change
Suggesting "breast supplement" (or plural form), if the need arises. It is not necessary to do now. Lucy346 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)