Talk:Honey/Archive 4

Creamed, candied and crystallized honey
Currently there is a separate article on "whipped honey" to which "creamed honey" and "candied honey" (among other terms) redirect. I suggest we would be better off replacing it with an article on "crystallized honey", in which whipped/creamed honey could be discussed in a section on "controlled crystallization". The aforementioned articles, as well as the alternative spelling "crystallised honey" should then redirect there.

Arguments in favour:

(1) According to the whipped honey article: "Whipped honey contains a large number of small crystals in the honey. The small crystals prevent the formation of larger crystals that can occur in unprocessed honey." Since whipped/creamed honey and naturally crystallised honey both contain crystals, but differ in the size of those crystals, they have enough in common to justify a combined article.

(2) The "whipped honey" article has been a stub since 2004, and may be too narrow a topic for a reasonable-length encyclopedia article. There is currently no article dedicated to crystallised honey, suggesting that it also is too narrow a topic on its own. But if the two were to be incorporated into a longer article on crystallised honey with sections on both natural and controlled crystallisation, that article might be a more fitting length.

(3) The term "candied honey" appears to mean different things in different places. It is listed as an alternative name for whipped/creamed honey, and currently redirects to that article (I am not sure, but this may be a primarily British sense of the term). However, in Australia (and perhaps elsewhere) the term "candied honey" refers to naturally crystallised honey, and not to whipped/creamed honey (I have added a reference to the whipped honey article verifying this). If all forms of honey that contain crystals were to be covered in a single article, then (a) we could redirect the "candied honey" to it without favouring one meaning or the other, and (b) there would be a natural place to describe the distribution of this and perhaps other similarly ambiguous terms.

202.22.165.5 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can definitely see your point. Personally, I would have no objection to the title change (move), especially if you plan to expand that article, but the proper place to discuss it would be at the whipped honey article. What I would do is copy/paste your message to its talk page and wait a couple weeks to see if anyone responds. If no one does, you can probably make the move yourself, or ask someone like me to do it for you. If someone objects, you may then need to go to Requested moves and ask for more input. Zaereth (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. I figured more people would see it here, whereas there might not be anyone watching the whipped honey article. Anyway, I've repeated my argument on the whipped honey talk page. 202.22.165.5 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request of an edit (Honey no better than antibiotics in patients with kidney failure)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/267288.php

I request to make this edit. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also reported here, http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/42188. The study both articles report on is, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(13)70258-5/fulltext. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Industrial processing of honey
I'm surprised to see no mention of modern industrial processing of honey e.g. pasteurisation, filtering etc. There are opposing schools of thought about the benefits of modern processing versus raw un-processed honey. Some info here http://www.bees-and-beekeeping.com/raw-honey-health-benefits.html Does anyone have any good info on how honey is processed in industry? --Brian Fenton (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Raw honey has never been cooked. In other words, it has not been heated during processing. Honey is heated during processing for three reasons: First, it kills any yeast to prevent fermentation. Raw honey is very susceptible to fermenting --especially after it crystallizes. By heating the honey to over 170 degrees F, any yeast is killed, which means that when the honey crystallizes it will not spoil. This process is called pasteurization. However, heating to such high temperatures breaks down many of the important enzymes and acids, and vastly speeds up the Maillard reaction, slightly altering the flavor and darkening the color. Therefore, pasteurization is typically done in the shortest amount of time possible. Unpasteurized honey differs from raw honey in that it is heated for other processing-purposes, but not heated high enough to pasteurize it.


 * Second, honey is heated to lower its viscosity. In industrial processing, the honey must usually be sent through pumps and pipes, delivering it from vat to bottle. Along the way, it is usually forced through fairly-fine filters, to remove any debris. This requires lowering its viscosity to allow easier flow. Typically, honey is heated to around 140 F for this purpose. This also breaks down enzymes and acids, speeding up the Maillard reaction, but not as quickly as pasteurizing. Therefore, honey can be held at the processing temperature longer than pasteurizing before you get the same effect.


 * Third, honey is heated to melt any microscopic seed crystals. These seed crystals often form in honey during the motion of processing (ie: being forced throught pumps, pipes, filters, nozzels, etc...), so the honey is heated to avoid premature crystallization which the processing can cause. This is usually the final step. The honey will often be quickly cooled after heating because, for some reason, this also helps to prevent crystallization. Temperatures for melting honey crystals are typically around 120 F. (Comb honey tends to keep the longest without crystallizing because it's isolated from vibration and motion in tiny capsules, whereas raw honey is exposed to crystal-forming motion through pumping, stirring, and other processing.) Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I might add that, because the fructose resists crystallizing, processing often involves "adulterating" the honey with some high-fructose corn syrup, preventing crystallization for very long periods of time (if ever). You find this in things like the "honey sauce" from KFC, although sometimes honey on the shelf may not always be pure honey (check the ingredients). Zaereth (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Great info! Thanks for replying. --Brian Fenton (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Heating increases the level of hydroxymethylfurfural?
Increases the level of something not even proven to be there? How about some citation of a scientifically and statistically relevant study proving both the existence of HMF in honey in any significant quantity AND its increase to significant or dangerous levels by heating? I.e. Onus probandi.

I keep hearing about this HMF in honey but when I look up relevant sources all I find is that reported levels are insignificant - i.e. about 15 parts per MILLION.

Which is about two thirds short of safe levels for daily strontium intake. --92.36.204.94 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * HMF is found naturally in nearly all forms of sugar. In raw honey, this level varies, depending upon whether the honey comes from tropical or temperate climates, but it is typically between 3 to 30 milligrams per kilogram of honey.


 * HMF forms as an intermediate compound of the Maillard reaction. In other words, it is merely a stepping-stone on the way to more complex compounds. Because the Maillard reaction increases with increasing temperature, so does the formation of HMF. (Actually, the chemical spikes at rather specific temperatures if left for a certain amount of time, but then drops again if allowed to change into something else.) Most countries set food-safety limits on how much is allowable in foods such as honey. The international Codex Alimentarius Standard (12-1981) recommends a limit of 40 mg/kg for temperate climates and 80 mg/kg for tropical climates. References for these can be found in the book Food Safety Management: A Practical Guide for the Food Industry By Yasmine Motarjemi and Huub Lelieveld (page 287--288), or Food Chemistry By H.-D. Belitz, Werner Grosch and Peter Schieberle (page 889). If you prefer a primary sources, here are a couple of scientific studues: http://www.dionex.com/en-us/webdocs/109807-AN270-IC-HMF-Honey-Biomass-AN70488_E.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814601003259.


 * It might be worth mentioning that other foods which contain higher quantites of amino acids combined with sugars, like milk, are even more prone to forming HMF than honey. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The article keeps using the term "humidity". This term should be applied only to the amount of water vapour in air (or other gases). This term seems to be used mistakenly here, instead of the proper term "water content", i. water in liquid form in this case. Presumably the authors when they state that humidity is 12% in a sample of honey, 12% by weight is water - though this does not seem to be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvhorie (talk • contribs) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"Honey's natural sugars are dehydrated, which prevents fermentation, with added enzymes to modify and transform their chemical composition and pH" This sentence is confused. It is unclear whether the "natural sugars" are those gathered from the plant by the bee, or the sugars are those produced by the bees from these starting materials. Assuming that the initial sugar is largely sucrose, this disaccharide is indeed a dehydrated form. The process of conversion to fructose and glucose is an hydrolysis (the opposite to dehydration), using both biochemical (enzymes) and non-biochemical (by pH control) routes. Both the initial and resultant sugars are in water solution, i.e. not dehydrated. The nectar cCvhorie (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)ould indeed ferment until the water content of the solution is reduced in the hive. Perhaps the authors of this sentence are trying to cram about 4 stages of the process into one sentence. Never a good idea.

Cough
I did bring discussion to talk but the health effects page was subsequently merged into the honey page. Hence this page is no longer part of the Medicine Portal project. Why do you keep reverting my changes? Dryphi (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Cochrane review on acute cough says: "Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey." If you read a few lines up, it makes it clear that the quality of evidence for the statements in the first sentence is low, which is why it ends with There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.   as per MEDMOS we don't base health-related WP content on low quality evidence and we say things plainly and clearly.  The lozenge article is the same "Clinically, this review was unable to provide any justifiable recommendation for or against honey and/or lozenges due to the lack of evidence. "  Same message.  Please stop trying to blow up weak evidence into something meaningful.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with Jytdog. We don't cherry pick out bits that are identified as supported only by weak evidence in contradiction of the conclusion of the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Other types of honey not discussed here
If a link to these other sorts of honey could be provided that would be useful. It is not clear to me whether, for example, the honey produced by honey wasps or some types of ants is eaten by humans or if not why not.--Jrm2007 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Give me time. I'm very busy this time of year, but I'll see what I can do. I'm not too familiar with those other types. What I do know is that the properties are often very different, more like honeydew. I do know that the American Natives from Arizona eat honey ants as a treat. (You bite off the back end that full of the liquid, or just eat the ant whole.) Those are typically sugars collected from saps rather than nectars. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
Have twice attempted to introduce some material on honey from Australian legislation from some time ago, while also intrducing a 2005 source on honey in wound dressings which contradicts our well-sourced content on this. The problems here are that the legislation is not a "Health effect" (the section title), we shouldn't contradict strong sources with weak ones, and the main source for the legislation is primary. If there are some secondary sources discussing this legislation then it might be worth including (but not as a "health effect"); otherwise, not. Alexbrn talk 23:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Allergies
I just removed a newly added comment about allergies. See this diff. While it is true that honeybees to not actively forage at plants that are wind-pollinated (mostly), they do pick up a quantity of the wind-blown pollen during their travels and that pollen does end up in the honey. Dr Jerry Bromenshenk has described the hairs on a honeybee as one of the most effective particle collection mechanisms in nature and has exploited that capability to use honeybees as living sampling devices for all sort of environmental traces.

It is probably also true that the quantity of wind-borne pollen that ends up in the honey is too low to be medically relevant to the immunotherapy hypothesis (which was the point of the WebMD article) but as written, that statement also incorrectly implied that a person who is allergic to wind-borne pollens would be completely unexposed via the honey. That statement is clearly incorrect.

I will also note that there are some significant exceptions. Corn (maize) is a wind-pollinated plant and bees will avoid it until there is a dearth of other pollen sources. At that point, honeybees will forage among corn even though it is a sub-optimal food source. To paraphrase the old song, even bad protein is better than no protein. So in that scenario, yes a person allergic to maize can be exposed to medically relevant levels of pollen in their honey. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Allergies and sources
Solistide recently brought up a question about a WebMD article [] on my talk page.


 * "In examining that page, it turns out that the article is essentially a summary of an interview with a single, little known allergist in Pittsburgh and what he had to say. It doesn't seem to be presented as actual medical advice by WebMD, only as a recap of an interview. Additionally, the statement on the website: "No. The theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE." was made without being peer-reviewed (no other allergists examined the statements), they are actually contradicted by one known study, and the reasoning contains contradictions and falsehoods in itself, which a well-known expert on pollen and horticulture points out in this article


 * http://www.foodsmatter.com/asthma_respiratory_conditions/hay_fever/articles/local-honey-ogren-11-14.html


 * Is the webmd article valid as a reference simply by virtue of it being hosted on webmd.com? For instance, is a "letter to the editor" on webmd.com also a valid reference?


 * Summary: This doesn't look like a very reliable article from WebMD, and I put in changes with several references pointing this out -- so readers can decide for themselves -- which were reverted by someone because they didn't follow a particular rule. At the same time, when I removed the line above because it didn't follow that same particular rule (the article was not actually peer-reviewed by another allergist, only by a general practitioner, and was written by a freelance journalist after interviewing a single allergist), it was reverted as well. For some reason, the rules aren't being applied consistently." Solistide (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

So, the main question here appears to be if we are dealing with an appropriate WP:MEDRS source for: "Some allergy sufferers wrongly believe that raw, local honey can help build tolerance to the pollen in the air." I'd say we've reached the minimum threshold for a MEDRS source as it's coming from WebMD since the site is pretty reputable for medical content, and the specific article does have editorial oversight. Personally I'd like to see a review article stating the current consensus, but for now are there any issues keeping the content as is? WebMD is a gray zone sometimes, but it would seem like we're dealing with something relatively non-controversial since we don't have any sources that could claim that honey can build up allergy tolerance either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that analysis, WebMD is not the greatest but there doesn't seem to be anything better. I'd also be comfortable if we just didn't mention this topic at all. Alexbrn talk 07:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think in analyzing the statement in Wikipedia more, the biggest problem I see is that the statement doesn't accurately reflect the cited article. I am considering changing the statement to more accurately reflect what is actually mentioned in the article:


 * According to one allergist in Pittsburgh: "the theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE".

If anyone has a problem with this correction, please let me know. Solistide (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible reference?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p023cqgs talks about some honey preventing bacteria from splitting. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Naturally occurring toxins or unacceptable sugars for human or honey bee?
If there were more clearly and comprehensively research naturally occurring toxins or unacceptable sugars for human or honey bee? which may play a role in the CCD especially when the population is too high to the carrying capacities which force the honey bee to collect the substance from the unpleasant plants for honey bee? (If the sugar from plants are not the form which honey could accept, the honey derived from them may contain extra artificially supplied sugar?) - 36.232.62.85


 * Sorry, I mean no offense, but I'm not really understanding what you are asking. Are these questions or statements? Either way, they're incomplete. Can you please clarify what it is that you think should be changed in the article? The reference you give is rather interesting. It does mention something about toxic plants and sugars, but just a little bit. These toxins are well-known to exist, although bee physiology is very different from human physiology (so what is toxic to one may not be to the other). The website talks more about poor nutrition for bees that produce monofloral honeys, and recommends a broader variety in their diets for better nutrition. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sugar in honey
I added, ''The UK National Health Service website warns that honey contains sugar and too much sugar in a diet can be harmful. '' This was taken out. I know Wikipedia shouldn't advocate a particular viewpoint but the effects of sugar in honey are relevant. Without my addition the article says many good things about honey and has little or nothing about drawbacks. Neutrality requires at least a short statement that honey has drawbacks as well as advantages. Proxima Centauri (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is manipulation of information, contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE, to state that consuming honey leads to harm because it contains sugar which, if consumed in excess, may be harmful. That statement is analogous to saying that because a car contains gasoline, the car is harmful if driven. There is no logical WP:NPOV connection between honey and harm or car and harm.


 * For reference, this is a Wikipedia section relating sugar with harm to health.


 * The NHS reference you've chosen does not address honey specifically which is only mentioned as one source of sugar. The NHS page is intended to advise about over-consumption of sugar, not honey. The NHS reference also does not meet WP:ANALYSIS (not a good secondary source), as it does not provide evidence in a scholarly assessment of honey specifically. Under WP:BRD, the edit you have provided should be reversed again until consensus is reached on this Talk page, WP:CONSENSUS.


 * As you are have repeatedly reverted edits over 24 h per WP:3RR, I am placing a notice on your Talk page.--Zefr (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My first thought was that this is about health effects not nutrition, so it belongs in its appropriate section. In its current location, it is an issue of weight. Next is that the source is highly inadequate for an article about honey. In fact it is inadequate for the sugar article, as it gives very little in the way of factual information and is written in persuasive style. I am fairly certain better sources can be found. Finally, the addition itself is mostly redundant (no offense intended.) Most of the article describes honey and its sugar content, so it is not big news that the NHS has discovered this. This needs better sources which are neutral, technically informative, and provides the reader with new information. Zaereth (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking over the content, I'm not so sure it's really warranted right now. We don't go placing a "sugar warning" in every article about a food item with high amounts of sugar. The way this topic could be relevant and maybe what the source is alluding to, is that people might have the mistaken belief that because honey is "natural", it's better for you regular sugar if you use it instead. That's a classic natural fallacy which falls into WP:FRINGE territory, so if this content was going to be included, I'd look for a source essentially saying that some people mistakenly think it's worlds better than sugar from a health perspective, but it's really still sugar. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Honey is a sugar substitute?
I'm reposting this comment here, because the actual category talk page is not likely to see many visitors. The category in question caught my attention, so I recently posted this comment there, at Category talk:Sugar substitutes if anyone is interested. :

"I've never seen this category before until it was just added to the honey article. That made me come [to the category's talk page] to find out why, because honey is a sugar, not a substitute. Actually, it's two sugars and some sugar compounds, like dextrin, with some other additives, but I think it's highly disingenuous to list all of these as sugar substitutes. When I hear "substitute" I'm thinking of a low-energy chemical that provides a sweet taste, like saccharin, phenylketoneurics, or aconitum. Corn syrup, agave, and so-on are all various forms of sugar, and thus are not substitutes. Either this category should be divided, or it should be renamed: "Sucrose substitutes." (Wait, that doesn't work either, as some of these are sucrose based.)"

I never mess with categories, but thought this one seemed particularly odd. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Allergies and sources
Solistide recently brought up a question about a WebMD article [] on my talk page.


 * "In examining that page, it turns out that the article is essentially a summary of an interview with a single, little known allergist in Pittsburgh and what he had to say. It doesn't seem to be presented as actual medical advice by WebMD, only as a recap of an interview. Additionally, the statement on the website: "No. The theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE." was made without being peer-reviewed (no other allergists examined the statements), they are actually contradicted by one known study, and the reasoning contains contradictions and falsehoods in itself, which a well-known expert on pollen and horticulture points out in this article
 * http://www.foodsmatter.com/asthma_respiratory_conditions/hay_fever/articles/local-honey-ogren-11-14.html
 * Is the webmd article valid as a reference simply by virtue of it being hosted on webmd.com? For instance, is a "letter to the editor" on webmd.com also a valid reference?


 * Summary: This doesn't look like a very reliable article from WebMD, and I put in changes with several references pointing this out -- so readers can decide for themselves -- which were reverted by someone because they didn't follow a particular rule. At the same time, when I removed the line above because it didn't follow that same particular rule (the article was not actually peer-reviewed by another allergist, only by a general practitioner, and was written by a freelance journalist after interviewing a single allergist), it was reverted as well. For some reason, the rules aren't being applied consistently." Solistide (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

So, the main question here appears to be if we are dealing with an appropriate WP:MEDRS source for: "Some allergy sufferers wrongly believe that raw, local honey can help build tolerance to the pollen in the air." I'd say we've reached the minimum threshold for a MEDRS source as it's coming from WebMD since the site is pretty reputable for medical content, and the specific article does have editorial oversight. Personally I'd like to see a review article stating the current consensus, but for now are there any issues keeping the content as is? WebMD is a gray zone sometimes, but it would seem like we're dealing with something relatively non-controversial since we don't have any sources that could claim that honey can build up allergy tolerance either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with that analysis, WebMD is not the greatest but there doesn't seem to be anything better. I'd also be comfortable if we just didn't mention this topic at all. Alexbrn talk 07:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think in analyzing the statement in Wikipedia more, the biggest problem I see is that the statement doesn't accurately reflect the cited article. I am considering changing the statement to more accurately reflect what is actually mentioned in the article:
 * According to one allergist in Pittsburgh: "the theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE".

If anyone has a problem with this correction, please let me know. Solistide (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do actually have a problem with saying that the claim is explicitly false. I follow this issue through multiple sources and the most that can be said so far is that the hypothesis is unproven.  (Like many "natural" remedies, there is no funding for the kind of extensive double-blind studies needed to conclusively prove the issue one way or the other.)  My concerns are lessened by the the attribution but we should not err with overstrong statements on either side of the argument.  In the meantime, here are a few actual studies that have tried to find hard data on the subject:
 * Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;155:160–166 (DOI:10.1159/000319821)  Birch Pollen Honey for Birch Pollen Allergy – A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study, Saarinen et al
 * did find a 60% reduction in symptoms for this one specific allergy
 * 2002 study at University of Connecticut (sorry, can't find the cite tonight)
 * found no significant differences among sufferers of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (non-specific to allergen source)
 * Incidentally, the Mayo Clinic calls the case for allergen relief "unclear" (a grade of C). They give that same grade for the other medical uses of honey - a fact which may be relevant to the discussion below.  See http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/honey/evidence/HRB-20059618.  Rossami (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of anti-disease effects
An unregistered user wished to add the italicized information below. I reverted the content because it
 * represents only a preliminary evaluation of conditions under research for potential health benefits of honey (per WP:PRIMARY)
 * is not compliant with WP:MEDRS, as required to include in a discussion about anti-disease effects
 * requires a higher standard of vetting and scientific agreement than typical WP:RS references; must be "based on reliable, third-party, published WP:SECONDARY sources and accurately reflect current knowledge." (WP:MEDRS)

This discussion is worthwhile posting here as a review of current and future health claims about honey, and for sourcing requirements to support any claims.

Topics

--Zefr (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Cancer. Several reviews have concluded honey has activity against many human cancer cell lines (far exceeding the activity against normal cells), breast cancer in the rat and mouse, and human bladder carcinoma implanted in mice,  noting that many of the studies are very recent and that honey is "a potential and promising anticancer agent which warrants further experimental and clinical studies." Assessment: these are WP:PRIMARY sources unsuitable to discuss in the context of cancer.
 * 2) Coughs. However the review does state that in children honey is more effective than nothing, placebo and diphenhydramine. Assessment: the section currently uses two Cochrane reviews which concluded it was "unable to provide any justifiable recommendation for or against honey" and otherwise presented low-to-moderate quality evidence of no or little effect of honey on cough. This is sufficient as stated in the original version.
 * 3) Immune system. Although the American Cancer Society doesn't recommend honey to the immuno-impaired because of some risk of bacterial or fungal infection., honey was shown to promote immune function, by stimulating antibodies, and B and T cells (and other cells of the immune system). Assessment: no high-quality research exists to support a discussion on immune health and honey. The one reference provided is from a weak complementary medicine journal article presenting WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR opinions.
 * So just looking at it appears that you didn't actually look at the sources as that isn't WP:PRIMARY; Please re-review all the sources and revise your assessment of which are or are not primary.Falconjh (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact none of the cancer ones are Primary sources; they are all review articles, I haven't checked whether the journals themselves are reliable per WP:MEDRS, I wouldn't be surprised if they are not; but at the very least your assessment needs updating. Falconjh (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even on this front you appear to be wrong as they are in pubmed and marked as review articles, all of them meaning they appear to match completely everything that I am seeing for MEDRS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24566317 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19636435 Falconjh (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Falconjh: Before so quickly pulling the trigger of criticism, you would benefit from actually reading the full-length articles where available, such as this for the 2014 source in Molecules. All the studies reviewed are from in vitro, WP:PRIMARY work. Please also review the pyramid diagram in WP:MEDASSESS where animal or in vitro work (WP:MEDANIMAL) is the lowest quality evidence for a health claim and is by far insufficient to summon a scientific consensus on a proposed health effect.
 * Similarly for health claim approval by the FDA, WP:MEDRS requires the same rigor from well-designed human clinical trials and/or meta-analyses. As FDA summarizes in section II:


 * In evaluating a petition for an authorized health claim, FDA considers whether the evidence supporting the relationship that is the subject of the claim meets the SSA standard. This standard derives from 21 U.S.C. 343 (r)(3)(B)(i), which provides that FDA shall authorize a health claim to be used on conventional foods if the agency "determines based on the totality of the publicly available evidence (including evidence from well-designed studies conducted in a manner which is consistent with generally recognized scientific procedures and principles), that there is significant scientific agreement among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate such claims, that the claim is supported by such evidence." This scientific standard was prescribed by statute for conventional food health claims; by regulation, FDA adopted the same standard for dietary supplement health claims. See 21 CFR 101.14(c).
 * This needs to be the standard for anti-disease claims for honey or any food or supplement, as described in WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a medical source expert or medical expert, I asked on Medicine, so Ozzie10aaaa from there is looking at it; but there is a big difference between saying 'no effect' to noting that studies involving animals and in vitro cells show an effect while further research is needed; which is again what I am reading WP:MEDRS as saying should be said in this case. Falconjh (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Limited for time right now, but reviews are expected to cover primary sources for us like this. The issue for in vitro, etc. is that we need to qualify that specifically per WP:MEDRS (rather than honey cures cancer statements) or consider whether those findings really meet WP:WEIGHT according to the other sources out there. I'm a little concerned the added content might have been overstating potential benefits to a degree, which is something we've had to watch for in the past here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * not only are the above reviews consistent with Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) but they also fall within the 5 years or so parameter (I will look at all medical references as well)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * as Kingofaces43 indicated Neutral_point_of_view should be viewed by all, also reference #77 should be a position statement from 1)FDA, NICE, NIH, NHS,WHO, and so on ,or 2)a journal review/meta analysis or 3) textbook (this reference might be of interest )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm not too up on the med stuff, so I'm not going to comment on sources. From a strictly written standpoint, I see many problems. First and foremost is the presentation of conclusions without attributing them to someone, nor providing any of the factual information that led to the conclusions. The part on cancer has so many references in a single sentence that it appears like synthesis. (I'm not saying that it is, but at first glance it has the appearance of a bunch of statements taken out of context and stitched together to form a novel conclusion.) When I see an implication that "honey can cure cancer" then I am really looking for more information, including who said that and how they came up with this hypothesis. Simply attributing it to "several reviews" begins to sound like weasel wording.

Next, there needs to be both sides of the story, rather than simply deleting sourced info that disagrees. (ie: So-and-so says it's beneficial while these other people can find no correlation, or something to that effect.) I'm also very concerned about the use of present perspective rather than perfect ("recent studies," "promising") which makes the information quickly out-datable. The word "noting" does not specify who, thus it reads like it was the mice who made this notation, so it is very important to attribute the quotation as well as the conclusions. Zaereth (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, presenting "both sides of the story" where medical claims are being made is inappropriate in general, and the exceptions are for popular or well-documented historical claims which don't appear to apply with the sources offered. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was speaking solely from the standpoint of a writer, so I claim no understanding of how this applies to medical claims. However, it does seem appropriate when we get into the grey area of current research. I haven't read the sources, so I only have the general assessment that the phrasing in question makes me very suspicious. (Gives me the heebie-jeebies.) Zaereth (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In general the health content appears strongly-sourced. If something is a fact (like, honey doesn't cure cancer) then it should be simply WP:ASSERTed as is done here. Are there any specific concerns? Bearing in in mind honey is subject to some WP:FRINGE health claims, WP needs to be sure it is presenting the mainstream view clearly. Alexbrn (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits from are being discussed, as far as I understand--Ronz (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The concern isn't against the current statement of cancer and honey but reverted and sourced edits and the wording of those edits regarding the effect of honey on cancer, which appears fringe but as determined the sources are not fringe but in conformity with MEDRS; so the question is really how to accurately capture what is in the sources while also not promoting fringe and correctly wording it. As in, the current ASSERT may be incorrect given the research.Falconjh (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's lab work isn't it, so nothing that should ever be included in our "Health applications" section? Since the proposed edit (from IP editor 85.211.101.34) cites EBCAM, the quintessential junk journal, we shouldn't be doing this anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of that, it isn't delisted, it is a review article and it is on PubMed; if you want to pull in additional editors from Medicine who are knowledgeable on the subject that would be fine, but to me a blog post that isn't peer reviewed or Wikipedia policy caries less weight than a secondary source review article that appears on the face of it to be in compliance with MEDRS; Per MEDRS review articles of lab studies should be included but need to be clear that they are of lab studies, so yes we should be doing this unless you have something more than a blog post. Falconjh (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Edzard Ernst is of course something of an authority in this area. But even if (oddly) you don't want to take his work for it, you might note that the journal is not MEDLINE indexed - a WP:REDFLAG - and that it comes from the Hindawi Publishing Corporation. About as iffy a source as you could wish to find for making health claims, in other words. Alexbrn (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexbrn at this point. Just a note that we currently have three WP:MED regulars here including Alexbrn, Ozzie, and myself. I originally was thinking at first glance we might be able to craft something since it is a review, but the more we dig (with this being a fringe topic), the more the reliability of this source goes down. Tangential, but adding on to issues are edits being proposed by an IP who seems to have familiarity with some guidelines yet some other odd behavior raises additional red flags for me. Overall, I'm thinking it's better to look for a better source at this point rather than include the content since we don't appear to have a very reliable journal making claims that somewhat upend other well sourced content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When I say I know nothing of that, I really know nothing of it; he could be the worlds greatest authority or a random doctor and I really wouldn't know, as I have been saying from the start: all I have to go on is the policies in place. Though multiple MED editors saying the same thing makes me feel better. I realize that there is a fringe topic here, so saying what is minimally accurate is certainly best. Falconjh (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Falconjh: a natural remedy is being discussed, doesn't make it 'fringe'. It's a bad urge among some MED editors to put down any 'natural and 'alternative' remedies, to stamp misleading statements over grey areas. Like Alexbrn debunking a 'cure for cancer'. The toxic loaded phrase 'cure cancer' has no place in this discussion (least of all to imply I claimed a 'cure for cancer'). 'Insufficient' or 'insufficient quality' evidence (to any given standard) does NOT mean 'omg NO EVIDENCE useless fake somebody fetch tar and feathers'; that is antiscientiic.
 * I quoted 'promising' from one of the reviews to say honey can also turn out to be helpful. Reliability is just why I quoted THREE secondary sources (I put all three after the lead phase, because each one supports everything in it). I can find different sources if you're unhappy with one of those I cited (although it says nothing about the other two!).
 * Kingofaces' presence is in itsef 'undue weight'. He turned up on Zefr's side 20 min after I undid one of his reverts; the same thing happened in this article in April.
 * Kingofaces certainly WP:GANGed before, and his actions were even described as 'bullying' on ANI.
 * 'Odd behaviours' raising 'red flags', indeed!
 * Zefr already was willing to bend honesty, calling my revews primary while telling me to 'read WPMEDRS'. So circumstantial evidence says he canvassed Kingofaces.
 * If people want the wording changed or different refs, I can do that, but that WP:GANG is too much. 85.211.102.121 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Tag_team and WP:FOC. WP:ASPERSIONS are not ok, especially only an article talk page. This article has been on my watchlist since 2014, and I reverted your edit after seeing you were trying to edit war it in. Focusing on actual content, if you read my prior comments here, you will see that I initially thought we might be able to craft some content from the sources, but more discussion lead to the journals looking pretty unreliable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Only one of sources appears to have been deemed unreliable as far as I have been able to determine, the other two are Medline indexed on PubMed. Falconjh (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I forgot we had other sources (mainly going off of the edit I reverted that didn't have clearly labeled references). If we change the content, we'd want to still state there is no evidence that honey itself is a treatment for cancer (i.e., eat honey and you'll cure your cancer), but instead that some component of honey has shown anti-cancer properties in lab studies specifically on cell lines. Some people who follow WP:MEDRS prefer not to mention such lab studies at all until they've reached something more prominent, while others prefer to describe the research as is. Taking the latter approach, we would need to be very clear about the distinction between using honey as a treatment for cancer and what preliminary lab studies show. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I created Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as this appears to be a long standing dispute that has previously involved administrators so I am not at all in a position to be able to resolve it. From my point of view there are fringe or potentially fringe claims tied up with this; so everything should be as conservatively worded as possible and as well sourced as possible. There appears to possibly be questions about one of the sources, again I know nothing of that as the attack is on a journal that is listed on PubMed and not on the review article itself so replacing it with another one from PubMed would seem like a good idea to hopefully reduce controversy. I agree that it appears that the situation is very different from what is stated currently on the page of no evidence and that it appears that there is sufficient evidence to mention current research, though making sure that an implication that honey does cure cancer is not made is important and should have a place in this discussion in so far as being otherwise accurate is not sacrificed; at least in my opinion. Falconjh (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking over the presented sources from the OP, the molecules source is a MEDLINE-indexed secondary source reviewing primary sources and is a valid addition as correctly stated by Falconjh. It certainly matters what statements this source was being used for, but the fact that it is a secondary source reviewing primary studies (many of which are in-vitro studies) does not make it an inappropriate addition. Many reviews are like this and all this tells us is that the investigation of honey for this purpose in the medical literature is still fairly new, but this source absolutely meets WP:MEDRS and it simply needs to be put into context that this review is stating that based on these in-vitro studies that honey looks like it may hold some promise for cancer (it certainly doesn't say honey consumption is a proven cancer treatment). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The journal "Molecules" is published by MDPI, which is on Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". I would avoid it. Yobol (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As regards the first item, on cancer, I'll just say that the journals are not significant ones, and the most recent article is in one commited to complementary medicine. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Researching the claims of complementary medicine does not a priori invalidate the research, or journal; in this case I believe we have already determined that journal to not be the best source for other reasons. Falconjh (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to say that all these attacks are on the publishers of the journals themselves; journals which are Medline indexed and therefore according to the standards listed in MEDRS certainly appear to meet those standards; it is not fair to arbitrarily change what is acceptable so as to keep out what is otherwise valid research from Wikipedia because one doesn't like it. As MEDRS states: Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions. which appears to be happening here. Let Medline and PubMed deal with the issues of the Journals and Publishers and for your own papers don't submit to them if you find them questionable, however as of right now they are on Medline and PubMed; so that they may require the author of the paper to pay for the peer review and publishing process is rather irrelevant to the quality of the research done or whether or not it should be included on Wikipedia. I think the IP editor is highly justified in this case in feeling GANGED here as sources, even discounting one that may be questionable, that match MEDRS were provided and the wording of the edit (for the cancer section, not for cough in my opinion at least) appears to also match MEDRS, if not what may be the best wording. Start arguing over the wording and stop arguing over the other stuff.Falconjh (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If this was in response to my comment about the MDPI publisher, WP:MEDRS specifically cautions against the use of predatory publishers. Discussing the publisher is a core discussion about any reliable sourcing, per WP:V, and is not an "arbitrary" discussion. Yobol (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, based on the Wiki page of the publisher MDPI still meets the criteria of OASPA who opened an investigation and determined that Beall was incorrect; also that the article regarding the Noble laureate and editorial board was also incorrect and revised; the criticism of his of the usage of 'one word titles' could just as well be applied to top level journals as well and has been panned by others as irresponsible and demonstrating bias; as well as the well known western bias of Beall's list. Peter Murray-Rust defended the journal in question in particular as well as the publisher: https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/02/18/bealls-criticism-of-mdpi-lacks-evidence-and-is-irresponsible/ Falconjh (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an iffy source (to some degree) as one can tell just by reading it. For statements about health and particularly cancer we should be using sources which are super solid, not this kind of low-impact dross. That said some wording such as "Honey is under investigation to determine if it has any role in developing drugs for cancer treatment" would not be problematic I'd have thought. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's the lack of better journals coming in that worries me - the first review was 2009. I looked at the Cancer Research UK Science blog, which doesn't miss much, & about the only mention of honey was in relation to a barbeque fund-raising campaign . It's not being picked up, and tumours in dishes or stuck on to mice do all sorts of things. The sources can't seem to decide if it is for prevention or cure, or how to apply it to real live people. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at some of the articles that are being cited in the reviews; some are in unquestionably legitimate journals; the review articles aren't saying that honey is curing cancer but that pre-clinical and clinical trials are needed and further research. Not used to searching PubMed, but I found another article below that based on the criticism of the current articles here would appear to be a better one, possibly. Falconjh (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How about this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25052987 Bentham Science, not Bentham Open, is the publisher; double the impact factor of the other journals; indexed for Medline on PubMed, journal is "Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry", published this year.Falconjh (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Honey, one of the victuals rich in antioxidants, has a long-standing exposure to humans and its role in cancer prevention and treatment is a topic of current interest." That smacks of bias, ignorance, and pandering, but it might be usable.
 * The article has free access. I'm looking it over. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From MEDRS: "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." Falconjh (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give it a rest? I said it might be usable. Still, it's rather embarrassing that we'd consider it. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source may not match "it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used" as the phrase "Recent research from our lab showed honey" is used. Falconjh (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz, let's not forget WP:5P. That was an inappropriate response and I would hardly call that civil. Falcon is citing Wikipedia policy and raises a valid point. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck out the first part. Absolutely nothing wrong with the second, other than having to point it out in the first place. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The first part is what I meant. Thanks for striking that out. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25596314 Elsevier publisher, Toxicology Letters journal, 3.262 impact factor, January of this year. Focus is on an active agent found within honey. Falconjh (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22707327 Springer publisher, Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology journal, 5.463 impact factor, 2013 publication date, focus is on propolis rather than honey itself.Falconjh (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By writing - studies are recent, it's potential, 'promising' and 'warrants further studies', I meant honey's only now being developed as a treatment, without implying a cure. I didn't think it a problem
 * Ronz: 'Embarassing' because it's not utterly dry? And what's 'ignorant'? Antioxidants in honey? Interest in honey?
 * Falconjh: Do 25052987 draw most conclusions from others' research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.102.121 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See Antioxidant and Cancer. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It mentions their own research but is not primarily about their research; but as they are involved (for 25052987) in the very subject that they are reviewing, doesn't that make the review to not be independent? Not an expert on medical sources, but that is how I would understand the situation in what I am familiar with.Falconjh (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * having read the full Cochrane reviews on honey, I note that authors in those reviews are involved in the research that they are reviewing themselves see for instance: "Andrew Jull, Natalie Walker and Anthony Rodgers were investigators in the Honey as Adjuvant Leg ulcer Treatment (HALT) trial (ISRCTN 06161544), one of the trials included in this review. The Clinical Trials Research Unit, which employed Andrew Jull, Natalie Walker and Antony Rodgers received a small, unconditional cash contribution from a manufacturer of honey dressings for the conduct of the HALT trial." from the review; meaning that this study mentioning its own research apparently isn't a problem here, so keeping all mention of honey and cancer research out of the article is really unjustified; this being the strongest article but there are multiple other ones in this comment section that are not problematic either, and if I wasn't aware of the standards used here, as I admit you should have been. I am really quite disappointed that some sort of consensus can't be reached on putting in this research as it reeks of bias on your part. Falconjh (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Falconjh: the chrysin review looks well detailed to me, especially due to the detail on anticancer mechanisms and signalling pathways. The propolis one is also interesting, with the effect on cancer stem cells and the tumor microenvironment. It'll go well with the description of honey as promising on further study.
 * don't just point your chin at article links, leaving people to figure out why you're right and they're wrong. Terrible wikimanners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.100.102 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in learning the subject matter well enough to take part in discussions about the quality of articles, ask questions and show an interest in learning. The first link shows that antioxidants aren't a cure-all (despite what some would like us to believe), and in a fact antioxidants can actually increase some cancers. The second link shows that cancer isn't one dis£ease or condition (again, despite what some would like us to believe), and assumptions to the contrary are misguided at best. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your spiel about antioxidants being occasionally counterproductive is offtopic. It implies the review's authors said something they didn't. And I (or anybody else) never said cancer is one disease. You're starting to fight strawmen, and with nasty language like 'bias', 'ignorance', 'pandering', embarrassing'. Saying if I want to rise to the learned level of discussing with you, I better learn from the links of wisdom you're bestowing... is just arrogant talk. 85.211.100.102 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems you're not interested in learning, but would rather attack editors from that perspective. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think you both are getting off topic here; it isn't our point to critique the research in the articles. With the additional articles there is certainly enough to be able to say something, and it doesn't matter if someone has disagreements with the conclusions, the research is there, therefore it should be in the article and I don't know what the issue is.Falconjh (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we cannot assess the quality of potential sources, we cannot follow our policies nor create a quality article. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So we have moved from actually critiquing the quality of the journals to now critiquing the nature of the research itself; which is very far outside of MEDRS; if you object to the research, guess what, write your own research article and get it published, that isn't the place of Wikipedia; I found multiple articles from journals that can't be questioned any more so now you change your critique, I expected better from admin. This isn't Fringe as it is a legitimate research topic that is has multiple review articles published in established journals that are on PubMed; answering every objection that has been brought up. Give something that is actually consistent with MEDRS for why a mention of the research shouldn't be in the article, or I will have to try to figure out who this get appealed to because this is getting insane. Falconjh (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything here that seems suitable: is there actually a proposed edit on the table? Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, they're still arguing sources and the meaning of "fringe." I'm still not going to comment on sources, but I might say that fringe topics are not necessarily a load of bunk (albeit they often are). "Fringe" means "on the outer boundaries of," and I would say this includes both current and not widely accepted or definitive research. In medical research, particularly, people seem to jump for the latest craze the second it's reported, so I think it wise to be extra cautious toward the side that we err. Since I'm the one who (in hindsight mistakenly) tossed the word "cure" into this discussion, I was referring to the need to carefully watch what people can infer, due to what the writing may imply, even if it was an unintentional implication. From what I can see, both of these factors need to be resolved among the sources, as well as the editors, before we can attempt to propose an addition. Zaereth (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no purposed edit at all on the table; I don't know enough to say what should or should not be in such an edit; I have pulled up more sources above, which if you don't find suitable please state why you don't find them suitable. Falconjh (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see unsuitable sources about honey (as discussed); I see better sources about chrysin and propolis which don't belong here (and especially not in a "health applications" section). If nobody is proposing an edit, can we close this discussion please? It doesn't seem to be productive. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the chrysin source specifically mentions honey, so not mentioning it in this article appears to be your own bias. Also, not all the sources have been deemed 'unsuitable' in the first place, nor do I think that an unbiased assessment would deem them to be, I would in fact be highly surprised if there were not articles using articles from similar or the same journals on Wikipedia in a medical setting but because of the topic there wasn't the problem with the journals that there appears to be here.Falconjh (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please WP:FOC?--Ronz (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the real question here is can you and Alexbrn; there is sufficient research from sufficiently reputable journals on the subject of honey and products of honey and cancer to mention it in this article, if not in health applications then creating something for biomedical research, where and how it gets put in I really don't care, no do I care what gets said about it or what tone is used; follow the policies in place regarding WP:MEDRS and WP:FOC. Falconjh (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite. It merely "mentions" honey; twice in fact, by way of introduction to what chrysin is – I take it you've read the whole paper? But to go from what chrysin isolate may do to cells in a laboratory to a "health effect" of honey would be as daft as inserting something on oxygen therapy into our article on water. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Free O2 and the O in H2O are completely different things. Chrysin is chrysin, with the properties of chrysin - whether it's in honey or not.

And no, the discussion did not conclude sources were unsuitable. Nobody found a valid objection to the sources used (except perhaps to one of them). As for a proposed edit, it's the original one I made. It does use the word 'promising', but it's next to 'potential', so that is not the same as 'promising a cure'. There are also changes to the Cough section, but as they're a quote from its source, I don't see how that is controversial.85.211.100.102 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC) The text to add to the cancer section is: “Several reviews have concluded honey has activity against many human cancer cell lines (far exceeding the activity against normal cells ), breast cancer in the rat and mouse, and human bladder carcinoma implanted in mice, noting that many of the studies are very recent and that honey is "a potential and promising anticancer agent which warrants further experimental and clinical studies." ” Now we should also add: “Chrysin, a flavone found in honey, has been reviewed as a potential anticancer agent due to its effect on cell signaling pathways which are linked to inflammation, survival, growth, angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis.” To the cough section: “However the review does state that in children honey is more effective than nothing, placebo and diphenhydramine. as a more representative quote from the review.” - To the Immune section, this: “honey was shown to promote immune function, by stimulating antibodies, and B and T cells (and other cells of the immune system). ” again to better represent immune effects of honey.

85.211.108.104 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. These suggestions do not improve the article and give undue weight to preliminary lab research; they masquerade as WP:SECONDARY, but are really WP:OR. If they were actual human studies, they would merit being added; WP:MEDSCI. Cancer: the reviews offered summarize WP:PRIMARY, mainly in vitro, sources. See WP:MEDREV, WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:UNDUE. The suggestion about chrysin is early-stage work providing only weak speculation about a vague role in cancer. Cough: the current section represents the sources well. Immune: WP:PRIMARY only; no human studies. From the above discussion, it is clear that WP:CONSENSUS does not exist and further discussion is futile. --Zefr (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Zefr, again you are misrepresenting what is Primary, please stop doing that as that is dishonest. Reviews are supposed to summarize Primary, that is what they do and why they are Secondary; So your "objection" is precisely why it should be included and not why it shouldn't be, if fact everything you say except for you objections to conclusions is exactly why it needs to be discussed and included. Falconjh (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the IP editor wants the original edit and no one else is really suggesting anything then my suggestion for an edit would be something along the lines of: "Promising in vitro and animal research into cancer cell lines and honey and honey by products suggest that further experimental and clinical studies are needed." with the references. If wanted to be even more conservative in what is being said, mentioning that prior promising research into chrysin didn't translate into in vivo effects regarding estrogen might be worth mentioning. Not at all tied to the edit, so please critique and improve it.Falconjh (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * From WP:MEDRS as applies to in vitro work individually or summarized in reviews as offered by you and 85.211.108.104 in this discussion: "Primary sources should generally not be used for biomedical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials." None of the cancer or immune system sources offered by 85.211.108.104 pertain to evaluation of human subjects. From WP:NOCON: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." As we have reached this no-consensus point in the proposed revision, this discussion should be dropped. --Zefr (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They aren't PRIMARY as I and multiple other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you Zefr and asserting them as such won't make them so. Per MEDRS, studies that aren't human still deserve mention even if there aren't human trials yet, so I still don't get what you are trying to say other than that you object for the sake of objecting, which I think your objection has been noted by all, nor do you get to determine what consensus is or isn't as you are one of the ones that started this.Falconjh (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also disagree with proposed changes. Studies that mention on chemical constituents of honey belong on the page of the chemical, not here. The proposed additions places much too much weight to preliminary in vitro studies. Yobol (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How is mentioning that there is research happening putting too much weight on preliminary in vitro studies? Falconjh (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the IPs' recommended changes. I would not mind a separate "Research" section that briefly describes research directions without the unsupported promotional tone being suggested above. Yobol (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources for this so far as I can see, and we don't say useless things like 'more research is needed' per MOS:MED. I'm not seeing any basis for any edit except perhaps the one I proposed above (saying it's being investigated) which is suitably non-committal. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Continuing to assert that doesn't make it so; you have shown that one is unreliable, one may be questionable, and nothing on the other sources which appear to be reliable. The conclusion of the review articles was that in vivo studies are needed, which is why I put what I did; being investigated is fine. Falconjh (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The more it's asserted that those reviews are primary!primary I say!, and the more words like 'embarrasing' and 'useless' are thrown about, the more it carries a distinct WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT about it; and to conflate WP:JDLI with WP:NOCON is disingenious (especially by the dontliker themselves)
 * To say that 'honey is being investigated etc etc' is fine, but there should also be mention of some detail from the sources; they have good mechanistic reasoning in them and are worth mentioning in the text.
 * There is nothing 'vague' or 'weak' about the chrysin connection: “In vitro and in vivo models have shown that chrysin inhibits cancer growth through induction of apoptosis, alteration of cell cycle and inhibition of angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis without causing any toxicity and undesirable side effects to normal cells. Chrysin displays these effects through selective modulation of multiple cell signaling pathways which are linked to inflammation, survival, growth, angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis of cancer cells.”
 * Even if that's a preliminary result, to say that it's 'vague' or weak' is again WP:JDLI. 85.211.99.131 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The language could be made noncommittal (if anyone thinks it wasn't noncommittal before), but there should also be some short inline mention of chrysin. 85.211.99.131 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused by what you mean by "the one [edit] I proposed above (saying it's being investigated) which is suitably non-committal." Could you explain? thanks
 * Right now I am thinking of Falconjh's proposed wording, and adding mention of chrysin, thus: "Promising in vitro and animal research into cancer cell lines and honey and honey by products (including chrysin) suggest that further experimental and clinical studies are needed." 85.211.99.131 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Burns
As I put in my edit summery; one of the sources is a mash up mess, it is the pmid of a different one and the title of the other; The remaining sources being the actual ones talk exclusively about how effective honey is as I accurately summarize. I suggest actually reading the sources and looking at the "third" source. Falconjh (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're mis-summarizing the Cochrane review (which is very skeptical of the evidence quality) and leaning on an older (2009) review to question it further - it's outside WP:MEDRS preferred 5-year window and the Cochrane review is recent. Also not sure why you're edit warring - WP:BRD might be a way to go. I have raised a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have mis-summarized the Cochrane review. I don't know how you are claiming I am edit warring here, I had clear edit summary and started the talk page, while you just reverted with no real explanation, and while you don't admit it, you don't disagree that the "third" source isn't a source; clearly if anyone is edit warring, it is you. Falconjh (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You reverted a revert, which is edit-warring. You then falsely said I was beyond 3RR, which is odd. I don't know what the "third source" is. I do know we should be using the Cochrane review and ditching outdated stuff, and we should be summarizing the recent review findings faithfully. As you've left it, the article is not accurately relaying up-to-date reliable information as found in the best sources. This is bad for our readers. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, the review does talk about the problems with most sources but talks about the high quality evidence regarding partial thickness burns, moderate quality evidence on wound treatment, and then lists a long list of things which the evidence isn't of high enough quality to say much of anything at all. The Cochrane review is what I am leaning on primarily in the edit with the other one, which was already in the article to back it up. I am interested in seeing what other editors have to say; My wording most likely isn't the best; but what was there was actually contrary to the sources that were being used with a phantom source used added to say something that neither of the two sources were actually saying. Your edit warring earlier made me look at those sources, as while not of high enough quality perhaps to say something definitive, that vets are in practice using honey runs counter to what was being suggested. Falconjh (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is plain language summarized as: "There is high quality evidence that honey heals partial thickness burns around 4 to 5 days more quickly than conventional dressings. There is moderate quality evidence that honey is more effective than antiseptic followed by gauze for healing wounds infected after surgical operations."
 * This source name=Cochrane2013>{{cite journal| title=Honey as a topical treatment for wounds| journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev.| date= Feb 2013| pmid = 19648986 is using the title of this source "). "Honey as a topical treatment for wounds". Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3 (CD005083). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4. {{PMID|25742878}}" and the pmid of this source "Wijesinghe M, Weatherall M, Perrin K, Beasley R (May 2009). "Honey in the treatment of burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis of its efficacy". N. Z. Med. J. (Systematic review) 122 (1295): 47–60. {{PMID|19648986}}" and is the one that is used to conclude that "Using honey with burn dressings is not recommended.[74]" Which I would like a justification of where that is coming from in either of the two other sources.
 * Also how one gets from "There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38). "

To: "There is some weak evidence that honey may help treat skin wounds or mild burns if used in a dressing" needs to be explained to me. Falconjh (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that Doc updated, to now use that review, which is now just funny because even the author conclusion is "Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze" and we are getting from that review that "Using honey with burn dressings is not recommended"; Where that comes into the review needs to be explained to me. Falconjh (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict
 * The 2015 Cochrane review states "Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze."
 * I think this can be fairly summarized as "There is some evidence that honey may help treat skin wounds or mild burns when used in a dressing" and we should not mention it as being high or low quality as it appears to be a bit of both.
 * I have removed the 2009 review as it is old.
 * I have fixed the PMID of the 2013 Cochrane review which raises concerns of slower healing "Honey may delay healing in partial- and full-thickness burns in comparison to early excision and grafting". It does say "purchasers should refrain from providing honey dressings for routine use until sufficient evidence of effect is available." which is not the same as "not recommended". Thus removed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I added content based on (Conchraine 2013) "Honey appears to heal partial...infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze" in this edit to the "Wounds" section. It was removed by Yobol in what looks like non-neutral series of edits. I would like to add this back to the article, and remove the cherry-picked list of things honey doesn't heal. Perhaps if we are summarizing one review, as it appears we are doing, we should tell the readers the source of the information in the text, otherwise it appears we have summarized all the available science - which is highly misleading.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume that there are no objections to my suggestions, and will be re-adding this information as well as removing the OR paragraph with random list of what "Honey doesn't treat" as OR, UNDUE and POV.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The burns content is fine as is, and I'm not seeing OR. Alexbrn (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right, I haven't looked at the burn section.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, what is there now is OR as the review doesn't say at all "does not support" but rather "The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence)." And in fact if you were familiar with the nature of these things, that can easily mean that there is actually a strong effectiveness of honey at treating potentially all of these conditions but that the trial size and procedures used made it so that this particular review article was not able to determine that based on the available evidence. For example, from the review: "More people treated with honey were healed at 10 days (100%) than those treated with saline soaks (70%);" but that is very low quality evidence so currently we are saying that "does not support", clearly inaccurate even from the review article. For food ulcers the treatments are equivalent based on available evidence, but there isn't much per the review, for leg ulcers they may be close but honey may have more adverse effects, Gangrene honey did slightly better but the study was of 30 people and surgery and death rates for both groups was high. So based on the Primary sources we would be saying that Honey might be effective in treating all of those conditions; it is only by looking at the review article that we are able to step back and say, actually the effectiveness of honey is still unclear, which is utterly different from saying "does not support", which is OR. Falconjh (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. In a "Health application" section the "does not support" wording is more apt & a clearer fair summary. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how that is not OR; that is not at all supported by the conclusions as I have shown of the review article; I refer you to MEDRS to review on the subject. Falconjh (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just did; given the section title it's good wording for a lay audience (which we're meant to be writing for). Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are writing for a lay audience and there is insufficient evidence to make an actual conclusion of using honey over current treatment methods (which is rather different from honey vs. nothing (in case you missed that part of it)) then why is anything being said at all on the subject? I suppose if we were talking about survival medicine in a wilderness or disaster setting and someone has honey then knowing that honey is a better treatment than nothing for gangrene or even things that are shown to probably not have a beneficial effect over current treatment like leg ulcers that could be useful to know, but that isn't really what the article is covering in either case either, and would be worded quite differently if it were. So in that case, please explain why this information should be included and why wording it imprecisely and contrary to what the review article is actually saying should be the case? Falconjh (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We summarize the best sources for our article, and the wording is not "contrary" so your demand for explantion makes no sense. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Assertion is not proof or explanation; Why should the information be included given that most of it is neither shown to be more harmful nor especially more helpful than current medical treatments used in the treatment of the conditions in question and we are writing for a lay audience? Falconjh (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are a few excerpts from the discussions of the cited 2014 and 2015 Cochrane reviews:
 * "that current evidence does not show a beneficial effect of honey-based products for venous leg ulcers".
 * "The effect of honey on pressure ulcers cannot be determined from the single trial. "
 * "The effect of honey on Fournier’s gangrene cannot be determinedfrom this single trial."
 * "The evidence currently does not support the use of honey in acutewounds such as abrasions and lacerations, or on minor uncomplicated wounds left to heal by secondary intention following surgery"
 * "The effect of honey in the treatment of chronic wounds, with the exception of venous leg ulcers, cannot be established based on current evidence."
 * In science-speak, this language is equivalent to what's currently in the this article saying "evidence does not support". Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already have shown from the same review, there is a big difference from 'cannot be established' or 'cannot be determined', either wording I would be fine with, and 'does not support' which suggest something completely different from what the review is saying and is in fact OR. In fact, for most of those the research DOES support, but not to a degree that can actually be determined or established in a definitive and certain sense (to the point that it can be recommended as treatment). Your parsing of the science speak is not actually what they are saying. Falconjh (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The reviews are exactly saying the current evidence doesn't support the use. That may change in the future if enough evidence is shown, but for now that is the assessment of the literature to date according to the sources. There's a lot of nuance behind statements saying there isn't evidence for an idea in science that we don't need to get into the weeds here, so we are currently at the most accurate and concise reflection of the sources for this piece of content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

List of "wounds honey does not treat"
The two mentions of wounds that honey does not affect came about in this messy edit series by. The mentions (that were removed, until reverted) are arbitrary and came about only as a rebuttal for previous content. has now expanded that list even more with his OR by deciding what we should mention, and how. The Cochraine review is much more positive about Honey's use on wounds than this article, leading me to believe this article is non-neutral.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the OR. A list of things honey has been said to treat, with rebuttals from studies showing otherwise, makes sense to include if this list is coming from a secondary source.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except you put "A 2013 Cochraine [sic] review showed that infected post-operative wounds healed more quickly with the use of honey as opposed to antiseptics and gauze", which is not a neutral/accurate (or even properly spelled) summary of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a partial summary of the source. There is no reason WP articles must stick to tiny sections offering no elucidation of the science, unless it's to mention randomly chosen negatives. But I have no intention of doing this again with you, Alex. The Pedia is yours. Enjoy.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's best we don't have misrepresentations (or distortingly "partial" reflections) of sources here, or for any topic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think this is the best option; Given that honey has been and remains for many parts of the world a primary source of medical treatment it is irresponsible to state that it doesn't treat conditions when what the review is saying is that it is unclear if honey or standard accepted practice western medicine is actually a better treatment. If someone lives in a place where accepted western medicine is readily available then switching to honey makes no sense, that is correct; but it is essentially as equally valid to read those same reviews as saying that if honey is currently the standard of care because it is the only thing available to you that it is unclear if accepted western medical practice is actually better than honey at treating those specific conditions. When the effect is unclear, it isn't honey versus nothing, it is honey vs. the best of modern medicine; so if ones options happens to be honey or nothing as they were for thousands of years in the past and still are in some areas of the globe, the review article clearly supports the usage of honey rather than does not support; it only does not support in terms of being able to say for sure whether or not honey is better or worse than other modern medical treatment options. Falconjh (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What tosh. The same argument could be advanced for bigging up homeopathy or other magicks. Fortunately our WP:PAGs direct us to act more sensibly. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can find PubMed articles says exactly this in their introduction, with sources and in reputable journals, not that even if they were review articles would it matter to you as demonstrated above, you and others have proven that MEDRS means less than toilet paper. Falconjh (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)