Talk:Inonotus obliquus

Image?
I went through birch image on Commons. I found one that might be a Chaga mushroom. -- Petri Krohn 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's a burl, not chaga. --Albval (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Resupination
I have created an article on resupination and linked to it from the word "resupinate" in this article. My familiarity with resupination comes from the Orchidaceae. Please replace my clunky treatment of fungal resupination with a good one. Jay L09 (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Common vs. scientific name
Any special reason why this page is listed under the species' common name, rather than the scientific one, (the normal Wikipedia protocol)? Sasata (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sasata - the mushroom's proper (scientific) name is Inonotus obliquus, and "Chaga" is it's common name (at least in various parts of the world), so the page should be moved to Inonotus obliquus, with a mention to the fact that the mushroom's common name is Chaga, which is a latinisation of yada yada yada. ¬ jujimufu (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laonikoss (talk • contribs)

"epochal effect" ?
I have no idea what the author means by "epochal effect". Please be more specific. Bhami (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly if you google "epochal effect" (in quotes) the top hit is this wikipedia page, which indicates that it's not really a widely used term... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.52.250 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

hot water extraction and water solubility
Couldn't hot water extraction also include water-insoluble components just by floating on the surface of water just like in cold water extractions? Seems hard to image that those water-insoluble components wouldn't come off of the plant material while boiling just because they wouldn't solve in the water. Make a cup of tea or coffee and you might see oily layer on the top. Isn't that oily layer all water-insoluble components that came off of the coffee beans or tea leafs? Are there any analysis studies of the contents of hot water extractions to back up that water-insoluble components are absent in hot water extractions?--Custoo (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

About this "no studies" thing...
There are hundreds of studies into Chaga in peer reviewed journals as a quick google scholar search reveals (including animal and human studies) https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=inonotus+obliquus&btnG= I believe the lack of mention of this is due to bias in the editor as it certainly isnt based on scientific evidence.

There have apparently been numerous studies on the subject of the medicinal qualities of the Chaga. I'm not sure what constitutes a clinical study, but I found some articles that reference studies. Do these not count? 95.195.201.26 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I thought that was a harsh statement. The evidence base for Chaga is pre-clinical, but it certainly exists. PubMed has 148 citations (animal and in vitro), so that counts for something. I edited that sentence to say that the "evidence base is emerging" as it's a more accurant account of the state of the research around chaga. ReneeADavis (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The current version of the article lacks almost any information on medical uses, except a sentence that includes "It is notable in traditional folklore medicine as a cancer therapy." Based on the history of the article, information citing scientific studies periodically comes and goes. To understand why there isn't more, an editor should read at least the top part of Wikipedia's guidance on reliable medical sources at WP:MEDRS. As ReneeADavis mentions above, there are many research articles on the use of inonotus obliquus in treating cancer and other diseases, but these are primary sources which WIKI:MEDRS specifically says should generally be avoided. They are not the type of studies on human subjects required of medical information on Wikipedia, and there are no systematic reviews of such studies, or even the pre-clinical (e.g. petri dish or animal) studies. The closest might be something like Progress of research on Inonotus obliquus in the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, though that specific journal may not be considered a reliable source of medical information. I'm not an expert on medical articles on Wikipedia, I just wanted to shed some light for other editors who might be wondering why so little info is currently present, and why it generally disappears after it's added. I know it's frustrating to craft an informative, factually accurate sentence or two, with good scientific sourcing, only to see it removed, but Wikipedia's guidelines are quite strict regarding medical topics. 173.239.240.133 (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I'd rather imagine that someone employed by large pharmaceutical companies is removing any reference to claims of medical benefits. Fortunately you can find them by googling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.29.111.29 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Oxalate toxicity
Chaga, ground and water extract, contains high level of oxalates: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25576897 These crystalize in kidney and may lead to kidney stones or failure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23149251 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6033:15:5C3A:EDBA:5DC0:12EB (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian study
Moved this one ref to here for archiving. Not cited in article, WP:ELNO. --Zefr (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Usages
Why have a section on preparation without description of usages? It has been believed to alleviate cancer symptoms. Russian articles say it was used for washing by Siberians. It was used for gastritis and for herbal teas. GregZak (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Such a source and claims of anti-disease activity are unreliable and nonsense. For editing medical content in the encyclopedia, please read WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be on wikipedia that you can't say 'it does this' which is fair enough but you can't even say 'it is widely claimed' to do this which is absurd. No point trying to change it, just educate others in the shortcomings of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.29.111.29 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)