Talk:Hinokitiol

MEDRS
I've just spent some time cleaning up this article. Our sourcing standards outlined at WP:MEDRS require that all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.

That means that primary sources such as studies are not suitable, nor are animal studies, nor in vitro studies, nor popsci editorials. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing standard in WP:MEDRS also mentions that If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study:

This is a European Union Standard test, not study, that shows outright the disinfectant quality of said Dr ZinX product. It is also significant given the current pandemic and deserves to be mentioned given the results were impressive. This is also not the first claim of Hinokitiol being effective against a coronavirus claim. This patent also claims hinokitiol to be effective against SARS-COV https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2005145864A/en

In line with wikipedia source standards I believe someone should present the test results as being conducted to standard BS EN 14476,and being funded by Astivita Limited and Advance Nanotek who own the patent it is based on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65506MD (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS states:
 * "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."
 * "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials."
 * There is nothing that makes Hinokitiol an exception from those rules.
 * A test is a study, not a secondary source, no matter who makes it.
 * Zinc is already understood to have disinfectant properties but there are no secondary sources showing the same efficacy for Hinokitiol.
 * Patent claims are worthless in trying to establish the biomedical effectiveness of a product.
 * It's obvious that those companies are hyping their product and trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. That isn't going to happen, and I hope that message gets back to whoever is paying for the promotional material to be inserted into our article. --RexxS (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that those companies are hyping their product and trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. That isn't going to happen, and I hope that message gets back to whoever is paying for the promotional material to be inserted into our article. --RexxS (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed
Citation needed for "Beginning in the 2000s, researchers recognised that hinokitiol could be of value as a pharmaceutical.[citation needed]" ~ https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/molecule-of-the-week/archive/h/hinokitiol.html American Chemical Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.35.143 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And copyvio, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinokitiol&diff=prev&oldid=957755138#A_Promising_Future Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)