Talk:Galactagogue

second sited source
The source for "2" is no longer working, not only that, but it didn't actually say that the evidence is lacking when i looked at it cached. If nobody objects, in one week, i will delete the sentence. Stregamama (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Done Stregamama (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

bias
This page has a pretty strong establishment bias, scientific understanding has caught up on herbals. That said, I don't have time right now to dig up proper references, so am only adding to Talk. Hopefully someone else will have time, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.139.173 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with opinion that the article has an anti-herbal bias. The reviews on purported herbal galactagogues, including those cited as references, are consistent in reaching the conclusion that there has not been adequate clinical trial testing to support claims for any of the ingredients. Looking beyond the reviews to the individual clinical trials confirms weakness: trials often without placebo controls, or too small. More research needed. David notMD (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)