Talk:Kambo (drug)

Some medical sources that may be useful
It would be good to support some of the medical claims here with WP:MEDRS sources. Here are a few I found doing a quick search.

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12024-019-00192-5 Is voluntary envenomation from the kambô ritual therapeutic or toxic? Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology (2019)]

[http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822019000100903&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en “Kambô” frog (Phyllomedusa bicolor): use in folk medicine and potential health risks. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (2019)]

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4582952/ Phyllomedusa bicolor skin secretion and the Kambô ritual. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases (2014)]

There are a few case reports on Pubmed as well, which I haven't looked at yet, but they may contain useful content in the introductory sections. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! These look interesting, I'm going to get to reading. OneUpOnUs (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have fun :) I might do some more work on the article too. The latter two articles are under a free license - I've added an image from one of them to the article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * These are medical sources, but MEDRS usually involves medical reviews, which these are not. Have found one and added it, and templated the stuff that needs a MEDRS source. HLHJ (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * From Phyllomedusa bicolor, which also needs an edit for MEDRS, two more medical reviews, but they are OLD; I don't see problems for using them for basic chemistry, but obviously we can't use them for anything time-sensitive:

. I wasn't aware of that one, thanks. So we have a complete death of really good medical sources... Case reports' reviews are better than news media, I guess. Maybe we can use Frontiers for the lack of phase-1 trials... I'd definitely want to look into that particular paper's COIs, though... HLHJ (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this, have just been busy with other things. I've removed the medical content sourced to those editorials and replaced them with a pharmacology text (from 2003... but it's the best source I've found so far) and the Frontiers paper which, while not great, is probably the best source we have for this stuff. I also removed the standalone "Deaths" section and added the content to the end of the "Claims" section. Let me know if this addresses your concerns. Re. the criticism section, I have no objections if you want to get rid of that and integrate it into other sections of the article. When I moved the content there I was just trying to follow the original format of the article, but that doesn't mean I think it's the best format. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy. I've been meaning to come back to this too... thank you, the sourcing is much improved, and the pharmacology content too. I'm wondering if we can source anything on the duration of the blood pressure drop, as it seems relevant to claims relating to hypertension. The usual relationship between vasodilation, hypotension, and tachycardia might not be familiar to all readers; do you think we can/should discuss it?. I've restructured the criticism section; not sure if the Montreal Gazette comment belongs in the article, per Quotations. HLHJ (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * For interest, a 2017 mass-spec-based peptide list: . HLHJ (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The usual relationship between vasodilation, hypotension, and tachycardia might not be familiar to all readers; do you think we can/should discuss it Since the sources we're using don't explicitly mention it, I'm not sure there's a way to do that without getting into WP:SYNTH territory, sadly. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, if we can't we can't, we can't. I was hoping you'd seen something I'd missed... I wish some public health authority would put out a statement; it seems likely that the Brazilian one did, but I haven't found it. HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The Valparaiso Health Authority warned that kambo causes toxic effects ranging "from nausea and vomiting to respiratory obstruction, which can cause death."
 * Source:


 * Not sure if this counts, it is reported in a news story as having been stated by a spokesperson in a radio interview. HLHJ (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese sources
I don't want to put Template:Expand language on the article, because it is ugly, but if anyone speaks Spanish or Portuguese, the articles in those languages (Kambó, Vacina do sapo) seem to have some good sources, especially regarding traditional use of the procedure. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
I'm posting here instead of at DYK because the DYK page is long enough already :p Courtesy ping for. I've seen the recent comments on the DYK nom and I've been thinking about how to respond for a few days. The gist of my thoughts is that I'm not sure the article is ready for the main page at this point in time. I know this is strange for me to say since I'm the one who suggested the creator nominate it for DYK in the first place, but I think I got ahead of myself in wanting to encourage a promising new editor and didn't give proper consideration to MEDRS, NPOV, etc. The article is certainly much improved from its original state - mostly thanks to you! - but I still have some concerns, mainly over the reliance on the Frontiers source, which I think is okay to use in the absence of better sources, but which I'm not entirely comfortable showcasing on the Main Page. I want to reiterate again that I'm very thankful for your assistance with this article and especially your diplomatic comments on the talk page, which I found admirable, and instructive as someone who generally tries to avoid conflict on here... And apologies to OneUpOnUs for the mess this has turned into, which is mostly my fault :) But I thought I would raise this issue here before commenting further so we can develop a consensus. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is rather long; we should probably copy this to Talk:Kambo cleanse for the record. I can see your point on the nom. The state of human knowledge on this topic is unsatisfactory . It should improve, though, and the article we have is a substantial improvement over nothing; it's averaging a couple hundred daily pageviews, so it's obviously being used. I value DYK more for the experience than the actual front-page display, and have no objections to the nomination being withdrawn if others agree (suspending DYK nominations seems to have some time limits; I haven't seen suspensions of over a year)., I'd assumed you were an experienced editor; one up on me. You have rather landed in the deep end, but it seems you can swim. SpicyMilkBoy, you did all the difficult trawling through unsatisfactory MEDRS; thank you for that, and for your kind words. HLHJ (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't have called OneUpOnUs a new editor - their account is older than mine! But I noticed that they had written some impressive articles and hadn't gotten much recognition for it. I hope they keep up the good work. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I edited here on and off for (attempts to check record)... at least a year (maybe several) after I created an account before I got a message on my talk page (a welcome). Three years later, I got another post to my talk page; a notification that an article I'd written was to be deleted (quite rightly; non-notable software). It was over a decade before someone gave me a barnstar (indirectly triggered by a recommendation that I take an article to DYK). It didn't then occur to me to mind this ; honestly, I still don't. Recognition is nice, but tends to be caused by both doing good work and interacting with other editors. OneUpOnUs, I hope you will also find that your excellent editing is its own reward, and will not take a lack of recognition as implying a lack of merit. HLHJ (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks SpicyMilkBoy and HLHJ for the kind words, I do really appreciate them as well as the work you've both done to improve the article immensely over it's original form. I'm in the deep end but that's where I like to be. I think the area of pseudoscience is important enough to warrant the late nights and stress but perhaps I'll stay away from MEDRS until I do more research on it. I personally hold no stakes for the DYK nom but it would have been nice to see it happen, I guess we'll see if anyone else has some input. I look forward to working with you both in the future. OneUpOnUs (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a very worthwhile task. I didn't meant to be discouraging or cause stress, OneUpOnUs; I think you're doing valuable (and difficult) work. On MEDRS, Wikipedia Talk:MED is a good place to go for examples, help and collaborators. I don't think anyone else is likely to see this discussion on my talk page: we'd have to link to it from the DYK discussion. I'll do that. HLHJ (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that if there are concerns about MEDRS or other issues with regard to this nomination, it should probably be withdrawn. Reliable sourcing is important, and if the article is relying on one or more questionable sources, that's a problem. It seems like more participation from DYK editors in general is unlikely—it's taken nearly two weeks for anyone to comment here—so we should probably wrap up the nomination one way or the other, given that it's over three months old already, and the oldest extant nomination. Pinging HLHJ, OneUpOnUs, and SpicyMilkBoy, with thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is technically a new MEDRS out, but the COI is not optimal:


 * Thank you for commenting, BlueMoonset; I'd agree that it seems unlikely we'll get other responses. HLHJ (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am okay with withdrawal per my concerns above. may also want to comment as I discussed this with her him briefly on Discord. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be okay to withdraw if there's really nothing else that can be done at this point. Also, I'm a guy ;) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry - your Discord avatar misled me. :p SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved, as nomination was withdrawn. Apologies to OneUpOnUs, and thank you for your hard work. HLHJ (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BenignoN.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about lede - source re "liver damage"
The opening paragraph says "The effects on humans usually include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and liver damage;". Regarding the liver damage, it does not seem like we have a proper source that Kambo "usually" causes liver damage. The two sources for that paragraph, sources [1] and [2], do mention liver damage, but [1] (a scientific paper) mentions it only in 1 person, a chronic alcoholic. Source [2], a Guardian article, has an anonymous "spokesperson" describing the practice, who is not directly quoted as mentioning that liver damage is a "usual effect" but rather it is reported that they mentioned it in a list of adverse effects that can happen along with "rare deaths".

So, do we have a source for this assertion that liver damage is one of the usual effects of Kambo on humans? If not, I propose removing it from the "usual effects" list in the lede, and if needed, mentioning it somewhere else and/or mentioning it as a potential effect but not claiming it's a usual effect without providing a source. That said, I see more discussions of medical risks, and of the liver's role in the "cleanse", happening on this Talk page (though nothing about "liver damage"). I see discussion of some MEDRS sources, so maybe one of those sources will back up the claim that "liver damage" is one of Kambo's "usual effect on humans"? --Murftown (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I made a small edit to the lede, saying the effects on humans "can include" instead of "usually include". This is more in line with what the relevant source (the Guardian) indicates. Nowhere in that article does it say all those effects "usually" happen. --Murftown (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: VdSV9 made a further edit reintroducing the (still uncited) "usually includes" verbiage, while correctly separating "liver damage" and "death" out of that list. The user says there are sources that justify "usually includes", but did not add them, so I am adding a tag. I'm not disputing the claim itself (though I have heard anecdotes that e.g. the vomiting is not necessarily "usually"), but in any case the claim needs sourcing.

Comment
There are a plethora of research papers into the peptides and their effects to be found online. In reading this article, I found it to sound quite biased against Kambo, specifically a trend towards claiming there was "zero scientific basis" for any of the health claims. However, many of the research papers into the peptides will show a basis for the health claims, though clinical trials in humans do not exist.

It seems quite odd to begin the article with the word "dangerous", which is a subjective term and goes against Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy. There is no overdose potential and the substance is only dangerous for people who are contra-indicated with medical issues such as blood clots or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablations (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Any source for WP:Biomedical information needs to be a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue I had was that this article as it stands is a little bit of an embarassment to wikipedia (no offense to the creators or contributors - I realize how much work is involved and they have done a great job). Specifically, there are non-subjective terms in there which do not have sources or citations (such as opening with "dangerous"), ironically going against the WP:MEDRS. Other parts of the article use daily rag news sites as sources for some health-based claims. How has that been allowed? Perhaps you could help educate a new wikipedia user as to what exactly it is you are checking for here. Abaltions (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the article's in a poor shape the solution is not to pile in unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess that's what needs to be made clear for this article. As it stands it is sourced/cited on unreliable sources such as news articles, and overall it's an embarassment to wikipedia's standards of neutrality (for example, how does one console the use of the word 'dangerous' in the opening sentence, when the article itself only mentions 3 deaths, compared with something like Krokodil or some other activity which is very dangerous and has scores of deaths? More to the point, why is the word 'dangerous' used at all?). I'm also not sure why it has been titled 'kambo cleanse', when this is clearly a smaller/underlying part of Kambo itself - Kambo itself is the subject, and isn't chiefly used traditionally for "cleansing", it is primarily a hunting aid, as the article's own sources state. Ablations (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the sources used in this article are high quality, respectable, secondary sources which are required under the guidelines of No original research and Fringe theories, they are not "rags" and represent nearly the entirety of secondary sourcing available on the subject matter. If the article was considered an embarrassment to Wikipedia it would have been quickly be removed at its review. I do think you might have a point with the word dangerous so I've changed it to a directly quoted phrase from an expert cited in the references.


 * The page has been called Kambo cleanse for several reasons. Kambo is also a small town which already had a page so this page needed a different name. This article is written in English and in country's where English is spoken, as per the references, it is considered a cleanse or detox or a purge and not a hunting aid. The origins of kambo have been addressed in the article and given due weight. I have no objections to the page name being changed to "Kambo" but it would first require the changing of the town of Kambo's page name which might not be necessary. OneUpOnUs (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your response and apologies if it sounded like I was referring to all of the sources as "rags". I meant specifically the news articles, which is worrying from a neutrality standpoint given the often highly sensationalized portrayal that occurs with this subject in the media - the article itself is also well made and well constructed, I didn't intend to offend on that front, when I said a bit of an embarassment I meant in terms of neutrality and lack of all (or at least some very important) available information on the subject.
 * The title of "Kambo cleanse" gives a strange focus on the smaller 'cleanse' aspect, which is only one part of it's touted benefits (the detox or physical purging is not the goal or aim, only one result of some of the peptides in the substance - as a small example, one of it's frequent uses is to lower blood pressure via the phyllokinin peptide ). The frog itself is simply referred to as 'kambo', also. So while I think 'kambo' is the most suited title; the issues you mention with the city name are something I hadn't considered. I don't know what to do about that - I thought WP had other methods of dealing with that, but I defer to your knowledge here. Something more holistic like "kambo treatment" might be a better alternative in that case, as that remains neutral and also covers the any kind of use of it (including the indigenous use). I would suggest 'kambo ceremony' but the degree of 'ceremony' varies widely in it's western usage, and might not be appropriate as a result. Ablations (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added a bit that says that "kambo" is the name of the frog, not the secretions, with a source. We don't need a MEDRS of etymologies. Thanks for catching that one, Ablations. I'd agree that whether Kambo is termed a "detox", "cleanse", "abortificant", etc. does seem to depend on cultural context. "Treatment" implies that it treats something, which is a claim we'd need MEDRS for. I think calling it "Kambo purge" might make sense, as all uses do involve vomiting, indisputably, and I think "purge" is a term used by anthropologists for describing practices from a variety of cultures, so it has a certain culture-neutrality. HLHJ (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, HLHJ. That all makes sense, including the 'treatment' part - sadly I'm not sure I'm up to the task of finding sources good enough for WP's standards for us to add this. The only comment I really have is that swapping 'cleanse' for 'purge' is basically the same thing - indeed, it does essentially always involve a purge, but I think the point is that by adding 'cleanse' or 'purge' it heavily implies that that is it's main objective or purpose, or main goal, which isn't isn't the case and gives the wrong impression - it's just part of the overall experience/treatment/whatever - as an example, imagine the hunters in the Amazon using it prior to their hunt - they aren't interested in the purging aspect, they are interested in the boost it gives them (probably resulting from the dermorphin/deltorphin peptides) Ablations (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ablations, it is no reflection on you that you cannot wave a magic wand and create years of medical research (if you could, I'd direct your attention to Neglected tropical diseases). I'd agree that in many cases cleansing is likely not the main goal, or not a goal at all; vomiting is presumably ~never the goal. My understanding of the anthropological use of the term "purge" is that it applies to behaviours that induce vomiting, regardless of other cultural context, which pretty much has to be there, as vomiting is not something that many people would voluntarily do for its own sake (that is, without expecting some benefit). HLHJ (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about impartiality and overall tone of rejection in the article, further comments from Ablations
Just to follow on from previous discussion which seems to have come to a standstill, the article as it stands gives an impartial tone with some degree of rejection given to the notion that kambo is in any way helpful or in any way has a scientific basis for the claims - while we may disagree on this, WP should be imbalanced and provide aspects of all available information, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. The talk page for this article shows a concerning back-and-forth discussion amongst some WP editors with an apparent bias in this regard.

According to WPMEDRS, "Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles but may be useful for "society and culture" content." As has been discussed here on the talk page, there are multiple health-related claims in the article which are sourced from news articles.

Of primary concern is that the article repeatedly uses the statement "poison", "poisonous peptides" - however there is no source or basis for the notion of it being "poison" cited. What is the source for this claim? In particular, even if we give a pass to the phrase "poison" in general, why is the phrase "poisonous peptides" used when 'poison' is subjective and research is clearly available in Wikipedia itself showing peptides are merely long-chain amino acids that perform various functions in the body?

Another way this is apparent is that the article itself cites a "drop in blood pressure" (due to the phyllokinin peptide), which is one of the reasons it is used/one of the claims made around it, yet the article portrays a picture of rejecting any notion of scientific basis for health claims (conveniently, 'lowering blood pressure' is left out from the 'Claims' column).

It is also concerning from a neutrality standpoint to see this article listed under 'See Also' as "Quackery" - such a term relates to entirely implausible methods and practises that border on fradulent, as described by WP's own article: "as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale". In regards to kambo, multiple studies show us, as editors, that there is certainly scientific rationale for the claims made, such as:

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/11/474/htm "when used in the right proportions or structurally engineered, several venom peptides can be used directly as therapeutic drugs or as drug leads" - without even delving into kambo-specific research, this should show that such amphibian peptides clearly have therapeutic potential.

In terms of Kambo-specific research, here is one example of research which supports this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447859/?fbclid=IwAR06bX8EaaZ-IYWqdsw3h33slIWJCHxcAJZUcLhueQN4PHUiTZo4T3kqkXc

Can I ask, what is going on with this article? I note some of the editors such as Alexbrn have a history of editing alternative medicine articles which raises the question of an agenda. It has a concerning number of issues in regard to it's impartiality and that appears strongly to be the case with the article overall painting a specific tone of rejection, which obviously isn't in line with good WP practises.

Ultimately I would like to help improve the article, but based on initial attempts I got a feeling of being shut out and shut down here. The solution apparently isn't "to pile in (so-called) unreliable sources" and yet nothing else is being done to improve what is already an unreliable article that sources health claims from news articles and has a clear tone of impartiality. Apologies if I come across as rude or brash, the article needs serious revision and needs to include all (or at least more) of the available information so as not to appear so biased, and I would like to help but my attempts previously haven't given me much to work with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablations (talk • contribs) 03:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC) --Ablations (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Ablations, I'm very time poor at the moment but would be happy to try and work with you to address your concerns. I'll take some time to process your comments and read up on the links provided. OneUpOnUs (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Every instance of the word "poison" in the body of the article is sourced (the lead does not require in-line citations, since it summarizes content from the body). References that mention "poison": –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to get fully involved in this discussion but I wanted to point out that https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/iacp/international-archives-of-clinical-pharmacology-iacp-4-017.php?jid=iacp is not a reliable source because it's from ClinMed International Library, a predatory open-access publisher. There is actually a filter that prevents ClinMed sources from being added to articles for this exact reason, but it wasn't triggered on this article because the reference used the URL and not the DOI. You can see what happens when I try to cite that article using the DOI here.  SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the followup comments everybody, I appreciate you chiming in on this and I particularly respect OneUpOnUS mentioning you will try and digest the above wall-of-text. Also I do appreciate that not everybody has as much spare time as I do! I understand there are procedures and standards to be followed for a proper upstanding WP article and that this requires more time than just citing things, in fact given what SpicyMilkBoy has said about ClinMed it seems there is more than meets the eye. There is clearly much I need to be aware of as a newcomer to editing Wikipedia. In fact I am even somewhat struggling to format these Talk Page comments presentably for you. @DLTheWave, regarding your comment about all the references to poison being cited, you are correct they have been cited, but some of them are from news articles which are 1) sensationalist in nature to begin with (there is a strong tendency for the media to capitalize on the scandalous image of kambo by portraying it as 'pain rituals' and people "poisoning themselves with frog venom" etc etc), and 2) From what I can tell, goes against WP:MEDRS in that media should "not be used to source content about health". Regarding the term poison itself vs the phrase "poisoning", it is tricky IMO as the frog itself doesn't have any known predators and it is certainly not like the defensive poison of something like the Poison Dart Frogs - as far as I have read, it is unknown what use this substance has, David Attenborough suggests it is a kind of suncream. I guess I can't comment whether this would still make it a 'poison' despite having no 'poisonous' effects. Regarding it's use in people, the science has identified (most? all of?) the various peptides (being that they are bioactive peptides, something our bodies are intrinsically familiar with due to their chemical composition) and largely understands how they function - the science has shown they perform various functions in our bodies such as smooth muscle contractions and gastric secretions (I use this particular example as this is what leads to the nausea, which is what often causes people to assume "they have been poisoned"). Is 'poisoned' not a subjective term? E.G chocolate is 'poisonous' for dogs, but we don't consider it a poison; or how alcohol gets us drunk by poisoning/overloading the liver, but we ignore this aspect when discussing it. If the effects of kambo are pharmacological and totally expected based on the functions of the peptides - rather than being adverse effects or allergic reactions as most people think at first glance - would this not mean human use is not "poisoning oneself"? I digress. It is worth pointing out however, that it is used by hundreds of practitioners around the globe daily, and yet the number of deaths is comparatively extremely low, and of those deaths the IAKP states "Kambo is 100% safe in the right hands...the circumstances of these deaths have shown that Kambo should not have been given to them because of their pre-existing health conditions." (of course I expect this to be taken with a grain of salt) Ablations (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MDPI journals also fails WP:MEDRS, generally speaking. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Ablations has quite grasped what WP:UNDUE means. Impartiality doesn't mean we present all sides of an argument as if they were equally valid, because they often are not. It means we should present the facts of science: "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". I also suggest reading WP:FRINGE, as the traditional usage of Kambo is superstition (Amazon Indians say it is meant to bring good luck) and pseudoscience (they also say it removes "panema", a quasi-mystical, pseudoscientific concept). Its appropriation for urban use is dangerous pseudoscientific alt med. Scientific findings that show that some substances found in Kambo's secretion can be useful doesn't change any of this. If one of the substances is found to be useful and safe, it only means that the substance is useful and safe, for certain specific conditions, at certain specific doses. It won't validate using frog poison, which contains loads of different compounds, applied at hard to control doses. The article, as it stands, is neutral enough. VdSV9• ♫ 15:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts related to this and above discussions:
 * Yes, the title "Kambo cleanse" is a bit odd. The article talks about both the traditional practices and the recent use as an alternative medicine "cleanse". It's ahistorical to refer to the traditional practices as a "cleanse". I suggest moving the article to Kambô which is the term used in academic sources: . Although we might want to wait until the DYK nom is done to not make that any more of a bureaucratic mess than it already is.
 * On MEDRS and neutrality: I agree with VdSV9 above. I do have concerns, though, with this bit of the "Criticism" section, which is basically someone's speculative opinion about potential side effects, published in a non-medical source:
 * Martin Williams, a post doctoral research fellow at the Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, said that when kambo is placed on the burnt skin on people's arms and legs, it enters the body via the lymphatic system. When kambo is applied to the chest (a growing trend, as the chest is considered a chakra area), he said that it could enter the bloodstream more quickly and result in cardiac arrest.
 * It's good that the article presents this as someone's opinion, and not in Wikipedia's voice, but I don't think it is especially useful or encyclopedic., what do you think?
 * Please note that primary research studies such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447859/?fbclid=IwAR06bX8EaaZ-IYWqdsw3h33slIWJCHxcAJZUcLhueQN4PHUiTZo4T3kqkXc are also not usable per WP:MEDRS. A lot of primary research in biology and medicine never replicates and results in vitro rarely generalize to in vivo activity. MEDRS requires secondary sources - review papers and textbooks. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your comment, I'm crazy busy at the moment so I'll be more brief than I would normally like. In regards to the criticism of Martin Williams on the subject, I hadn't considered the possibility of the speculation (especially as he is an expert in the field) not conforming to MEDRS but I can see your point of view and agree, I will remove the speculation. I also think renaming the page to Kambô is an excellent idea and unless we receive reasonable objection I'll change it over after the DYK nom is finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneUpOnUs (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OneUpOnUs, I'd prefer Kambô purge, as I've found a RS source saying that "kambô" is a common name for the frog. This being so, it should probably redirect to Phyllomedusa bicolor. I think "purge" might make sense, as all uses do involve vomiting, indisputably, and I think "purge" is a term used by anthropologists for describing such practices from a variety of cultures, so it has a certain culture-neutrality. It avoids making claims that the process does anything other than make you vomit, but does not assert that there are no other effects (obviously there are, as in most purges). See my comment in Talk:Kambo cleanse. HLHJ (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks HLHJ, I had no idea that kambô is a common name for a frog. If that's accurate then changing the page name to kambô might not be the best solution. You make good points about the term "purge" and I'm inclined to agree with you that Kambô purge is a good option.OneUpOnUs (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess what I was referring to when I made some of the above comments was overall, the article gives me the impression that it's TRYING to paint the subject negatively - if we take for example the suggestion of it being a poison or 'defense mechanism' - well, where are the WP:MEDS studies to show this is a poison? All I can see are news articles, which are of course having a field day capitizalising on the scandalous nature of the 'poison' angle. Meanwhile, we know the frog has no natural predators, and studies like these two: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8074751 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8306981 along with the David Attenborough segment linked above, say it's more like an antibacterial protective coating. Now here's what I'm getting at - I gather that while we seemingly can't use these studies as citations in the article to say something like "it is thought the secretion is a form of antimicrobial protection", surely these are more relevant than random biased news articles? Even if we can't quote them (and to be honest, I'm not sure why, but I have refrained from making any edits just in case), surely we as editors can recognize that these studies are more likely to be trustworthy compared to news articles? I guess what I'm saying is - as one example, do we actually have a valid cited source in the article for this being "poison"? I only see 1) news articles, and 2) a couple of studies which use the term 'poison', but only in passing - not actually focusing on whether it is a poison or not. Does that still make them valid as a source for the claim it is "a poison"? (I admit I am really struggling with what studies are allowed and which ones aren't.) Note that I don't have a huge gripe with this per se, but more the notion it represents and how I think it has affected the overall tone of the article. Another example might be the discussion way up near the top about the "marketing myth of detoxification" and how this has carried itself into the article with users of kambo wrongly believeing they are removing toxins from themselves. While I agree with the general marketing myth and hype around detoxification, it's not like the process of the body removing toxins is itself a myth - in kambo's case, we know that kambo causes gastric secretions and induces the liver to remove fat soluble toxins, and we know this gets vomited out - doesn't this make it indeed a kind of 'detoxification'? To clarify, I'm not suggesting these two things are the biggest issues with the article, I'm more using these two things as examples of what I think is a tone that does the article (and WP) a disservice. While I'm sure this isn't the case, in parts it almost feels like it was edited by a PR person from a pharmaceutical company or something, you know what i mean.Ablations (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ablations, your criticism of the use of news sources for biomedical information are entirely justified, and right on Wikipedia's policy. We really cannot have a double standard on MEDRS. I have replaced or marked all the content citing non-MEDRS sources for biomedical information. I've also found a MEDRS, from two months ago. It says that there is no solid medical evidence on pharmokinetics, efficacy, or safety (by which they mean we have case reports and anecdotal evidence, but no proper clinical trials, even phase-1). It also describes some adverse effects including death, and says that such cases have occurred even with experienced guidance. Given this, Wikipedia will have to say the same.


 * I have not yet seen any MEDRS source (or other source, even though we couldn't use those) that says that kambo causes gastric secretions and induces the liver to remove fat-soluble toxins, which then get vomited out (not sure I've understood you; are you saying that the liver expels some chemicals into the stomach?). If you have a MEDRS source that says this, though, we can include it. I entirely agree that the body removes some things that are toxic to it from itself. The marketing myth is that (often expensive) products will help. As far as I can tell, the medical consensus seems to be that healthy food, enough sleep, exercise, and abstaining from addictive drugs will all help, but this is basically just saying that being healthy makes your body work better.


 * "Peptides" is a pretty broad class of molecules. Some are definitely poisonous to humans, some are essential parts of our bodies, and many others, like the ones here, have not been properly studied. If the frog's skin secretions are intended to poison fungi and bacteria, then the frog uses them as a poison. I assume that if you ate one of these frog raw, there might also be some adverse effects, which might be why the frog has no natural predators. Words like "poison" and "toxin" are rare in medical articles, because they are vague, but common in everyday English. "Toxic" is more common. This case report, which obviously is not a medical review, speaks of "toxicity". We could discuss this further in a dedicated section on terminology.


 * If anyone here is a PR person for a pharmaceutical company, or otherwise has a financial interest in the content of the article, they would have to declare it on their talk page, per WP:COI. I am not a PR person and do not have a COI here; I'd never heard of kambo before seeing it on DYK . Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money form alternative medicine these days, but I don't think any of the big ones are likely to be selling kambo yet; they'd probably worry about getting sued. On the other hand, I can't imagine it's cutting into their sales noticeably, either; since adverse effects have been treated with pharmaceuticals, it might even slightly increase their revenues. So I don't think it's likely that a big-pharma rep would bother. We might get a small-scale seller of kambo on here, I suppose, and they would also need to declare their COI.


 * The hostility from other editors is more likely to be based on some of them having spent years dealing with an endless stream of dubious medical claims which someone wants to post on Wikipedia in order to sell something. Obviously this is not excuse for treating you brusquely or ignoring legitimate issues you've raised. For getting responses, it might help if you split your future comments into sections, dealt with only one topic per section, and kept your posts short (max a few hundred words, I say in a much longer post...). For formatting, I recommend Help:Cheatsheet; I see you have figured out signing your posts already. HLHJ (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've been working on some of the issues you've tagged and some of the other concerns brought up here. Can you expand on why you tagged the "Science" and "Deaths" sections? I replaced the citation to a news article in the science section and moved the other bit to the criticism section, and added "as of" to the deaths. Does that address the concerns? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just saw your comment in the other section. Yeah, those aren't the best MEDRS sources. Frontiers journals, which you added, are not great either (search the WT:MED archives for discussion of these journals). It's difficult writing about obscure subjects like this because there's not exactly going to be a Cochrane review on the topic. As I mentioned above, some of the introductory material from case reports might be usable (not the actual case report but the material summarizing the previous literature). Not a lot of options here, so trying to make do with what we have. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy! On Frontiers, see "Some medical sources that may be useful" section. I'm going to take my own advice and split my response into sections. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your detailed comments HLHJ, I can see you have taken the time to read the article, read the Talk page commentary, and also done further investigation of your own on top of this, as well as providing a very clear and thought-out response addressing many of the issues that have been mentioned. I much appreciate this (as well as the link to the cheatsheet - thank you). I am very glad this has seemingly got some discussion going on the subject/the article, including the broader discussion exploring things such as the nature of peptides, the terminology of 'poison', etc. Considering this particular topic (kambo) is (a) reasonably recent in terms of entering western culture and western science/medicine sphere (only really taken off in the past 5~10 years) (b) has quite a misinformed and very scandalous image in general, I think this kind of discussion is a very positive thing for the editors here, to help guide it towards being a better article. Based on WP's standards of acceptable citations (WP:MEDS etc etc) and the ones I have presented so far, I am not confident the sources I can find will pass muster, so I will need to do some more study of the guidelines in the meantime. There are certainly studies and things out there, the majority of them focus on the study of the substance itself and the peptides within, sadly there aren't many/any clinical trials on humans etc. I guess it's just a question of whether or not said articles meet WP's standards. Please feel free to edit anything I've put here if it is not presentable or you believe it requires changing Ablations (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ablations! Sorry to be replying so belatedly. I've fixed the location of a few of your signatures, and corrected a couple of timestamps, but not any of your content, of course; thank you for the permission. I see you've been copying your signature manually, which is a lot of work. It's actually much simpler to do than that; just type ~ and the software adds your signature automatically (see also Signatures, if you have difficulties). I should have explained that earlier and saved you the trouble. Thank you for all the effort you have been putting into reading up on our MEDRS guidelines; I'm afraid you've plunged straight into one of the most difficult and rule-ridden topic areas on Wikipedia, biomedical information. If you'd like to get some practice in editing other areas, or if you have questions about anything, the Teahouse can help; as you have no doubt noticed, I'm not always here, nor do I reliably follow up promptly.


 * I think we are all pretty dissatisfied with this article. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of good sources (based in turn on the shortage of research). I've no doubt this will improve with time, but right now, the article is a sort of detailed "further research is needed". I've tried to strip out language that calls the indigenous use "pseudoscientific" and the like; while there is currently a lack of scientific evidence, I don't think anything can be pseudoscientific unless someone is falsely claiming a scientific basis. It looks like most of the content it would be good to include will have to wait on the research, though.


 * It's fairly common to have extensive in-vitro testing and characterization of biochemical substances before anyone starts a human trial; generally, the human-research ethics committees won't let anyone test anything on people unless they've made a solid effort to understand as much as they reasonably can without exposing people to risk. Since kambo is being widely used, someone could do a medium-scale observational study (there are already published case reports, which are a type of tiny convenience-sample observational study), but that does not provide evidence as solid as that provided by a clinical trial. Observational evidence is useful for planning full clinical trials, though. Pharmaceutical development is slow, and there's currently a lot of effort going into speeding it up without producing things like the thalidomide disaster. HLHJ (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks again for your time spent looking over this, doing investigation and reading of your own, and taking the time to digest it all, HLHJ. I'm actually very impressed with what you have added to the discussion and I can see you haven't simply taken a quick glance at the subject and made some kneejerk judgments. I also see I've been caught with my manual signatures! You are correct, and now that I know the code for it, I'm surprised I didn't notice it beforehand, it's right there at the bottom of the editing window. I appreciate your explanation about the hurdles this particular article (and by extension, similar articles) face in regards to medicine and trials and all that - this makes a lot more sense to me now, than when I first came across the article and had the initial impression that upstanding medical sources were being willfully ignored in favor of sensationalized news articles and hearsay. I think the article has actually improved a little bit thanks to the discussion that has been generated and your earnest effort that resulted from that. I would hazard a guess that some of the research articles listed/promoted on the IAKP website would not meet the standards for inclusion on WP, based on what you've said- This is a shame because the result is an article that feels as if it's presenting a one-sided story, though in reality as you rightly mention that is simply down to the standards for research. Once again thank you so much for you discussion on this, I somehow feel like I've made an impact. In the meantime I think I should wean myself on some less rigorous articles of WP! Ablations (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ablations (and thanks for the link, I expect the article list there will grow and become more useful in future). I'm glad our crazy wikiworld makes a bit more sense now; a lot of the rules haven't initially made sense to me; only when I see them in action a bit to I start to really understand them. You did make a difference; news articles were being cited not only for facts like the presence of yoga mats and incense (which is fine) but for biomedical information that they should not have been cited for. Thanks to SpicyMilkBoy, who did the hard work trying to get the best medical sources available, the sourcing is much improved, and the content more accurate and reliable. If you come across news sources being used for biomedical information again, a " " inserted directly after the source will alert editors in the area to fix it. Your thoughtful attitude and constructive approach to conflict has impressed me; you listen, and try to figure things out. These are very valuable skills for a Wikipedia editor. I wish you the best of luck in your future editing, and I'm very glad we haven't scared you off. I don't know what your interests are, but finding a less-fraught topic area will not be difficult! If you live in a large city, you may have a local meetup, and there are subject-specific Wikiprojects. Please feel free to post on my talk page, or ping me with " HLHJ " from yours, if I can be helpful. Cross-posting this to your talk page, as it's about you as well as about this article. HLHJ (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Science" section
I'm not sure if it would be suitable to rename this "pharmocology" per WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide, with "Adverse effects" in another section; Wikipedia talk:MED might have advice. Honestly, I'm not sure if this is a plain medical article, so I'm not sure whether we should format it entirely as such; most of the sources are on the cultural side, but obviously medical content is needed.

Separately, everything in this section should really be supported by MEDRS (non-medres sources are not OK per policy, but they also contradict one another: is euphoria present or absent, for instance?). I think we can use the old 1990s MEDRS for the basic chemistry of the peptides involved where necessary, as this is not likely to be time-sensitive information, and "peptides" is a bit general. Since we do not have really good MEDRS, this will be hard to source. "Science" is even more general, and we do mention scientific research in other parts of the article. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Deaths section
I think the non-English sources mentioned some more deaths, and the Frontiers source mentions some. I don't think this section is a comprehensive list of fatalities, and it gives that impression. Since some of these are older deaths, "update" may not have been the most informative template here, and I could have added a reason param; my apologies. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section
There is a view that criticism should be integrated: Criticism. I support this in principle, due to evidence that leaving information that might induce a critical POV until the end causes readers to read and remember content less critically. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"Poison" and "Toxin"
Technically, "toxin" is a sub-category of "poison". In common use, both generally mean "toxic to humans". The terms include things that are toxic on ingestion, things that are toxic on inhalation, things that are toxic on skin contact, things that are toxic on inhalation, and things that are toxic if you get some in a break in your skin, among others.

If something makes you vomit and your blood vessels dilate until your blood pressure falls so low you may faint and your heart races and you feel as though you are going to die, and indeed it can kill you, I'd tend to say it is toxic to humans; I think I'm in line with medical sources here. Now many medicines do have noticable toxicity; chemotherapy drugs, for instance, work by being a bit more toxic to cancerous cells than healthy ones. Warfarin is a poison, but has legitimate medical uses; our article describes it as both a medication and a poison, both highly useful and highly dangerous. Here, we are dealing with a substance which can certainly kill people, and does not yet have medical uses recognized in MEDRS. Calling it a "toxin" seems reasonable, and calling it a "poison", while more general, seems not incorrect or misleading, especially in light of the common term "poisonous frog". The widespread use of these terms in non-technical, non-MEDRS texts is not evidence of accuracy, but is evidence on what the English term likely means to the reader. I'm open to source-based arguments here, though. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources regarding the pharmacological nature of the peptides and their mechanisms, describing gastric secretions and the reason for vomiting, amongst others
For now though, I will provide these sources regarding the gastric secretions and the vomiting (I realize these may not pass muster for direct inclusion into the article). Though I do think it's important to mention this nonetheless as the vomiting aspect in particular is one of the largest contributors to the misinformed angles that the media presents (e.g. "it makes you vomit, therefore you are clearly being poisoned!" is how they tend to present it, when in reality it's an expected result of the smooth muscle contractions and other actions of the peptides): In the final link there, I would call attention to the paragraph headed "Kambo consists of 16 bioactive peptides" for info such as "The general peripheral efects of these peptides are cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects on smooth muscle contraction, and gastric and pancreatic secretions. Caerulein induces symptoms such as nausea, vomiting,  facial flush, tachycardia, changes in blood pressure, sweating, abdominal discomfort and urge for defecation. The gastrointestinal symptoms in the early phase of Kambo ritual are a result of the action of this peptide. Caerulein also provokes contraction of the gall bladder, a reason for the yellow vomit (‘cleansing the liver’)."
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266343
 * https://www.clinmedjournals.org/articles/iacp/international-archives-of-clinical-pharmacology-iacp-4-017.php?jid=iacp
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328960893_Kambo_A_ritualistic_healing_substance_from_an_Amazonian_frog_and_a_source_of_new_treatments

From the second link: "Clinicians will most probably define this above described symptom-complex as an anaphylactic shock. However, all these symptoms can be attributed to the pharmacological activity of the peptides of Kambo, and thus the symptom-complex seems not to be anaphylactic of nature, but directly related to its pharmacological effects."

I do understand these cannot be included in the article directly, they were just the first links I found to help provide info and provoke discussion Ablations (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The second and third sources are from predatory journals and are unusable. The first one could be useful (haven't grabbed the full text yet to see whether it is primary or secondary) but it's very old: the MEDRS rule of thumb is to stick to publications from the last five years. It may be possible to bend the rules a bit for an obscure topic like this, though, and I would generally rather use old information from a good source than new information from a bad one; and there's nothing in the newer sources that contradicts what's in the abstract of this source, anyway., would you like to to weigh in here? By the way, we try to put comments in chronological order to make the conversation easier to follow, so I've moved this post to the end of the page.


 * Provoking discussion is good but at the end of the day, the role of an encyclopedia article is not to be on the cutting edge of research or to right great wrongs, but to summarize information that has previously been reported in reliable secondary sources (which, by WP's definition, does include news articles - just not for biomedical information). We work within those constraints and whatever bias is present in those secondary sources will be reiterated here. We should make an effort to do the best we can within those constraints, of course - I'm going to take a look on JSTOR, etc. when I have the time and see if we can get some scholarly sources for the cultural aspects of the procedure; I've looked at Pubmed, but not at the social science literature, which I am not as comfortable with. But as mentioned above, Wikipedia defines WP:NPOV as including all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources and explicitly notes that The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. We are limited to summarizing what reliable sources say, not getting to the ultimate truth of the matter - we leave that to the researchers, whose work we may report on several years from now, once other researchers have summarized it first. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, did not see this before today. I don't have the fulltext for the 1996 paper either, I'm afraid, so it's hard to judge it. Pubmed does not consider it a review; the abstract sounds as though it's the write-up of a chemical analysis of the frog secretions, which would make it primary, although it might summarize what was known about the individual peptides from previous work. No objection to anyone runnign down the fulltext and evaluating it more closely. The other two are also fairly clearly not usable, as Ablations said. The latter two papers don't seem to have been edited at all, which makes sense if they're published in predatory journals, which usually don't bother, but it makes them a lot harder to understand.


 * Some of it does not make sense to me. For instance, in the second paper: "The secretion of the frog consists a number of bioactive peptides and within few minutes after intake, nausea, vomiting, facial edema, palpitations and hypotension can occur. In the pharmacological and medical literature, these are reported as transient adverse events, although in essence the reactions are purely pharmacological". If kambo were, for the sake of argument, a magic cure for everything, people would take it for that, and not because it causes nausea or vomiting. The paper argues that the practitioners expect nausea etc. and accept it as necessary, but not that they seek it for its own sake. Nausea etc. are undesirable, and are therefore adverse effects and adverse events; adverse events include expected bad side-effects. The idea that pharmacologically-based = not an adverse event is a bit odd. Adverse events caused by drugs are pharmacologically-based by definition. The paper's positive recommendations (such as "In addition to this, it is recommended to ask some significant other to join if one intend[sic] to participate in a ritual") often seem to be rather disconnected from evidence base. Separately, while the paper seems to present a counterargument, I don't think anyone is arguing that the effects are generally not caused by the peptides; being caused by peptides does not make an effect more or less beneficial or adverse. The argument that the acute effects of kambo look like a severe allergic reaction or a conventional recreational drug makes more sense, but context is missing.


 * On the second paper, yellow bile being vomited is not evidence of a beneficial effect; it itself, bile reflux is harmful (though as a one-off, it seems the harm is mild). I'm not sure if the quotes around 'cleansing the liver' are scare quotes. I find this paper rather unclearly-phrased, and I'm not quite sure why they raised the bile-vomiting or what they are trying to say about it other than relating it to the expected effects of caerulein (in which I suspect they are following the 1996 paper). Are they claiming something related to the enterohepatic circulation? If they presented evidence, this would be obvious. 'Cleansing the liver' is clearly the sort of statement we need a good MEDRS source for, precisely because of this sort of muddle.


 * Both of you are right; the latter two journals are not WP:RS, let alone MEDRS; we can't use these no matter what they say. I shouldn't really spend my time evaluating the quality of the papers, I am not reviewing them for acceptance in a journal! HLHJ (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS on properties of petides
Miel Bartels, I'm afraid that Biomedical information on Wikipedia has to be cited to medical reliable sources, a specific category of evidence. "Solid medical evidence", on Wikipedia, means specific types of human trials (detailed in that link). We can't include statements about anti-cancer properties in the article without such evidence. I know this seems limiting and narrow-minded, but from experience this policy has served well, and when Wikipedia did not have it, it caused major problems; unreliable and contradictory information, and hard-to-resolve conflicts. Unfortunately there have not been any controlled human trials on kambo secretions or their constituents. Someday, we will be able to include this, which will make it a much better article. I've had to revert your edit on the scientific basis for now, but the content has not been lost; it is still in the edit history. Feel free to discuss it, and any other problems with the article, here. User:SpicyMilkBoy, you read up on the pharmacology; how do you feel about the new content on dermaseptin? HLHJ (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The cited paper makes it fairly clear that the antimicrobial effects have only been demonstrated in vitro; I've revised the content as such, per WP:MEDRS. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Undefined references
The references contain the following entries which do not have any supporting details; there is nothing to identify what they are intended to refer to: Perhaps somebody with a better knowledge of the literature can salvage these? --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lima (2000)
 * Erspamer et al (1993)
 * Lima (2008)
 * Labate y Lima (2007)

Review of holistic delivery/presentation of article, and some specific points regarding the 'evidence'
Hello WP editors - hope I'm not ruffling any feathers by inserting this as a new section or in the wrong place.

I understand there's a lot of pre-conclusions and temptation to write-off health-related things outside the clinical sphere such as this - particularly something that at first glance seems as wild and unbelievable as kambo does - but in coming back to view this article and see how it's evolved I'm left wondering if there isn't still a degree of prejudice (perhaps 'unfairness' is a better word) coloring this article unfairly.

Just a few notes about my thoughts here:

The effects on humans usually include tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea (good - this is true but it's not 'usual', it's essentially guaranteed, that's how the peptides work - except for diarrhea which is case-by-case)...and can lead to kidney, pancreas and liver damage, seizures and death (I won't argue, but it is worth stating that these are hardly common and the certainly not the usual outcome; there's only one known report of liver damage that I'm aware of - this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5497453/, and less than 10 deaths that anyone can seem to find - out of hundreds of sessions taking place around the world each week. Regarding the claims of liver toxicity - it seems everyone just keeps referring back to this one case report and then making sweeping claims about it, for example).

There is no scientific evidence that it is an effective treatment. (I disagree, but I can accept that WP likely has a higher standard for what is considered an "effective treatment")

There is currently no scientific basis to these claims. (I have an inkling of WP's stance on MEDRS, but this sentence seems far too short given the plethora of research around the topic. A quick look at this Talk page shows a number of links have been posted showing some research and there's much more out there - but this sentence makes it sound as if there is absolutely zero substance *whatsoever*, not just clinically-proven research. I could be barking up the wrong tree here, but amongst the wealth of research out there, some of it is in-vivo such as this: https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/1fd349a9-6ac4-3441-9ed5-6ab8d58e816c/ or this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447859/ and I would've thought that in the interests of balance, that kind of thing would at least bear mention instead of how the sentence stands at present - i.e. a complete shutdown and negation of any possible scientific basis)

There is no solid medical evidence on how the frog toxins work, whether they are useful for treating anything, and whether they can be used safely: no clinical trials have tested them on humans, as of November 2019. (I think it's at least good that this has been contextualized with a colon and the follow-on sentence about no clinical trials. Having said that, again, I have the same serious qualm as I've written just above this - while the research may not meet the high WP standards, the delivery of this sentence almost entirely shuts down the notion completely, despite the foundational research that exists. Again, apologies if I'm wholly misunderstanding WP MEDRS policy, but the delivery of the sentence just seems very one-sided).

Reports of adverse events are numerous, including for use with experienced guidance. (I think this is an example of sentence that's a bit strange - what is being defined by adverse events here? The results such as tachycardia, nausea, vomiting etc - are essentially guaranteed based on how the peptides work. These are intrinsic and wholly inseparable elements of using kambo. Anybody doing kambo will have these types of things, unless 'adverse events' refers to something else here. Essentially what i'm saying is that this sentence makes it sound like there are *other* kinds of events beyond what science and common-usage has shown so far. It's kind of like saying that reports of adverse events from hangovers are numerous).

On the "detox" nature - while I agree the general notion of a 'detox' has been carried away by pseudo-wellness charlatans over the years, should there not be some consideration given to the physical action of kambo on the liver insofar as it literally "squeezes" the bile etc out (from the smooth-muscle contractions of some of these peptides) which is then vomited up? I'm not saying here that this necessarily makes it a sound detox option for the average user - just that its mechanisms are different to the usual cadre of "detox" options.

Pharmacology section: I think it's a tiny but respectable step forward that this has been added since I last checked this page - even if it should be much longer and even if it pales in comparison to the 'slant' presented in the rest of the article. Good work WP editors, this is a nice addition and helps flesh it out a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablations (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You are unlikely to ever ruffle feathers by starting a section on a talk page, ! It's a good thing to do. You should have pinged me (as you did in the Fringe Noticeboard) or posted to my talk page, too. I'd have seen this earlier, then. Or you can ask on the talk page at WP:Med; there will always be people there. Or ask in the WP:Teahouse, for non-medical stuff, or just add to your talk page post.


 * You say "I understand there's a lot of pre-conclusions and temptation to write-off health-related things outside the clinical sphere". I'm afraid it's the other way around; Wikipedia policy is to write off health-related treatments until and unless there is solid clinical trial evidence. It's the only way to ensure we don't present unreliable information.


 * Wikipedia policy is that only medrs evidence constitutes evidence for a medical claim. If the research doesn't meet our standards, we ignore it, because a lot of the research that doesn't meet our standards is contradictory, misleading, or plain wrong. If we let people edit in weak, indirect, suggestive evidence, based on their own interpretations, we'd have a mass of contradictory speculation and a lot of arguement, plus we'd be wrong a lot of the time, which in medicine is serious and can kill people.


 * I'm glad you like the content specifying what sort of evidence there wasn't. There is really no way that trials on cells in a dish and mice can be made to count as scientific evidence that kambo purges, or any treatments, are good for humans. Things can work well in dishes and in mice but are useless, harmful, or even lethal, in humans; sadly, it has happened. I'm afraid you are wholly misunderstanding WP MEDRS policy, and I'm sorry it's been seven months before you got a reply to your queries.


 * "You write 'There is no scientific evidence that it is an effective treatment. (I disagree, but I can accept that WP likely has a higher standard for what is considered an "effective treatment")'. Almost. Wikipedia has a higher standard for what is considered scientific evidence. That standard was developed by a lot of medical editors, many of them doctors, over many years. If you can come up with a good arguement for changing it, we'll change it, but probably you'll need to study and use it some more first; an inkling is not really likely to be enough!


 * The serious negative effects from kambo may be rare, and the milder, expected ones worth it for the positive effects. But we don't yet have enough medical evidence to be sure, so we can't say so on Wikipedia. As I recall there's only one well-documented case of liver failure, but more of biochemical markers of liver harm. I'm not sure bile reflux (which must have happened if someone is vomiting bile) is good for the liver, either, but I really don't know.


 * You write "I'm not saying here that this necessarily makes it a sound detox option for the average user - just that its mechanisms are different to the usual cadre of "detox" options"." The article documents that "detoxing" in this sense is a pseudoscientific notion; there's some more on this at this link, tho it's not medrs. It also implies that "detoxing" by vomiting is nothing unusual, and bile reflux I think occurs with really intense vomiting, so I'm not convinced that part of the mechanism is unusual. The fact that it initially makes you feel awful, then, much later, good, is pretty unusual for a recreational drug; most do the reverse.


 * Adverse effects are effects people don't want. Even if they are inseperable from the effects people do want (and the pharmacologists hope they aren't; they might be intrinsic to different peptides), nausea and vomiting are unpleasant. The source is referring to stuff like organ failure and death, though, which I'm sure kambo users aren't okay with and don't expect, saying there are "numerous" reports of such really nasty and unexpected effects. If you follow the link to the source and search on the word "numerous", you'll find that passage.


 * The pharmacology section is acceptable because it strictly avoids saying anything about treatment. If "slant" is what information we present, what Wikipedians usually call a "point of view" or "POV", one could say that Wikipedia deliberately echoes the "slant" taken by WP:MEDRS sources. As Neutral point of view says: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources".


 * Thank you for using edit summaries well, and most of the time. It was really helpful in understanding your concerns, and I made multiple modifications based on them.


 * Again, I'd urge you to learn the basics of editing on less controversial and high-stakes topics before trying to edit medical content. If you really want to write or edit medical content, please do it in the wp:draftspace, and request a review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You might want to find a mentor; they can help you learn to edit Wikipedia by helping you complete progressively harder tasks. You don't have to, but it migh be helpful for this sort of query.


 * And again, sorry for the slow response. HLHJ (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Response to May 2002 edits by Ablations
In response to these edits, I have serious concerns. I have undone a lot of the edits, and modified others. All but one of the sources added were not medrs, and many of the statements were not supported by the sources, but appear to be good-faith WP:OR interpretations of the sources, with a serious misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS. To be fair, Ablations suspected that they didn't understand medrs, and posted a query a month earlier in the section just above this one, which went unanswered until now.

,, and all edited the altered article; Headbomb removed one source and associated statement, which it seems was cited to a predatory journal. The edits were discussed at Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 86, with and also  participating. No-one tried to verify the statements (check if the sources supported them), and they stayed in the article for six months. I rather fearfully searched for news reports of kambo-related deaths in the last six months, but didn't find any.

On the plus side, Ablations has found some new solid medres sources, and we should rewrite the article accordingly. I don't have time just now, but I've made a start.

Lede
Ablations, you changed:

to

Someone later fixed the citation format, which is great. It seems to be a decent medrs source, which is wonderful. But I can't find any statement in the source that supports the claim you added to the text. It's true that they only reviewed nine cases, but since this is a literature survey for case studies and not a stats-gathering study, that doesn't provide much information on how common these effects are, and the authors made no statements about how common they were. Nor did they attribute them to negligence or counterindication, that I can see. If I'm missing the supporting statements, can you please quote them here? I'm not sure why you removed the seizures when they are clearly mentioned in the source you added.

In your edit comment, you said: "The whole presentation of this page is bizarrely one-sided - even the references it sources such as liver damage are of single users, who the papers note had other factors such as alcoholism or drug use. It's very misrepresentative to say it "can lead to liver damage" based off such flawed reports of single cases. This edit cleans that up a bit by pointing this out properly." The medrs source you added clearly states that use can lead to liver damage, and we have no data on how common it is, so we can't say "it's rare" or "it's common". Nor can we dismiss effects as only occuring in those with other risk factors, unless medrs sources do. This is especially the cae with comercial products, as this sort of claim is often falsely made by marketers, without evidence.

In fact, the same medrs source says:

This sounds to me much more like the pre-existing "slant" of the article which you were objecting to than your "slant" ("point of view", or POV, is what we usualy call it; see WP:NPOV for the POV that Wikipedia requires).

Medical claims
You replaced

with

commenting: "As it stood previously, this section was in need of a review by someone else as it was surprisingly one-sided for WP. There are plenty of refences in this article alone, as well as PubMed and NCBI which outline various research and studies, *including* with human cells. The phrasings used here previously deny this entirely. Additionally, quoting the media(!!) for this as a source beggars belief."

While quoting the media for medical info is bad, the article in question reported that the Australian drug regulator has banned kambo, saying "There is no evidence of any medical benefit from Kambo, the TGA found". It also says that the Australian Medical Association supported this. They said: "There is currently insufficient evidence for its intended therapeutic effects" (there's the difference between a regulator providing public health info and a medical association talking to a regulator that will understand scientific evidence). We could cite them directly, tho. That would be better, and I've now done it, putting them in the same ref tags as they are likely to be used together. They are probably actually medrs sources, which is great! Derma is the quasi medrs source we previously used for lack of anything better. I've left it in for now, but we should probably review its use now we have multiple medrs sources.

You changed the statement without changing the sources. I think you did that because you think that in-vitro tests of chemicals extracted from frogs provide scientific evidence that the frog secretions are useful for treating some illnesses in humans. The medical research community very strongly does not believe this, and Wikipedia follows it. There are very, very picky rules for how to test whether things are useful for treating human illness, with good reason. Humanity has paid to develop those rules in blood, suffering, and death (ask a thalidomide victim). In-vitro evidence is not clinical evidence, even if there are human cells in the petri dishes. Animal experiments are not clinical evidence. You need tests on real humans before you can say how something will affect humans. This is solidly laid out in WP:MEDRS.

You replaced

with

commenting: "Same thing here - please approach these articles with a more holistic and balanced presentation, as there were serious issues with omission of detail and phrasings used thus far. This is WP after all"

This is the sort of thing Wikipedia can't mention without WP:Medrs sources; it's against the rules, because in-vitro studies cannot be safely used to guess the therapeutic effects of something. Painful experience teaches us that. It's why the people participating in phase-one clinical trials are heroes; even with the best possible in-vitro testing, actually dosing a human with a brand-new drug might seriously harm them or kill them. See Theralizumab, Fialuridine, and BIA 10-2474.

The source you cited is clearly a primary research study and not medrs. If you can't tell the difference, please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and ask, before citing them for any sentence that you think might cause anyone to draw conclusions about effects on human health.

You replaced

with

commenting " Reports of adverse events are not numerous - what is the source for this? Unless the 'adverse events' are being taken to mean the regular and reliable effects this produces. In which case, a different phrasing entirely is required. This has been clarified (with a reference added) to present a more holistic view to the reader - please check wording if necessary."

The source cited in the original text says "Besides its traditional use in the Amazon, Kambo has found its way into the Western alternative healing scene as well. While the reports on the beneficial effects of this ritual are numerous and range from relieving symptoms of pain syndromes, autoimmune diseases, skin disease, and cancer to substance abuse and depression (Hesselink, 2018), so are the accounts of adverse effects of participating in a rite, with or without experienced guidance. These include a transient syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (Leban et al., 2016), presumed drug induced liver injury in a chronic alcoholic (Pogorzelska and Lapinski, 2017), sudden death upon chronic kambo use in which autopsy revealed underlying heart disease possibly related to reduced myocardial perfusion (Aquila et al., 2018) and delayed kambo related symptoms in a 24-year-old woman 22 hours after the ritual (Li et al., 2018).". This clearly supports the statement, though I've changed "events" to "effects" to match the source more closely.

The source clearly shows it means unusual effects. AMA says kambo has "harmful effects both intended and adverse", but I think this is a quibble. Vomiting is an undesirable side effect. I have yet to read of anyone taking kambo in order to vomit; if they did, they could take an emetic with a stronger medical evidence base. They take kambo for what that Nature paper calls the "afterglow".

Of the citations you added, the first article is not MEDRS. It doesn't even seem to be on Pubmed, which suggests the journal is not reputable. The content also sounds like advertising copy rather than a scientific paper. It makes the very odd claim that symptoms aren't symptoms when they are pharmacological effects, which we have seen in previous similar poor-quality papers. Native advertising can be hard to spot, so I don't entirely blame you for falling for this one. Headbomb spotted it when it was well-formatted, probably using their useful automated script, and removed it.

The second paper is really interesting:

It's an observational study of people who were taking kambo anyway (inducing people to take kambo with would, in the current state of research, never get past a research ethics committee). But while it's a solid primary research paper, it isn't medrs. Only review papers are medrs. Primary research is never medrs, though we may very very rarely use the intro review section in one where no medrs is available.

Marketing
You removed this, and wrote: "This section needs review. It is not used/marketed routinely as a "detox", there are more uses than this. This section focuses too hard on this single term, and the inclusion of the quote from Edzard Ernst is a rather strange addition as a result". You were right that the existing sources didn't provide very good sourcing for the use of "detox", so I added a solid source that does. Given this, I think the quote provides useful context for the two meanings of "detox", which I think should be in the article.

Notable deaths
In the "Notable deaths" section", you made these edits, commenting: "As it stood previously, this whole section is rather egregious in its presentation - without going overboard, very minor changes have been made to reflect the background context of some of these, which are evident upon reading the associated (and related) papers." I think this means that you added content not supported by the sources already cited at the ends of the sentences (which, as I recall, don't support the statements you added), but which you found obvious from other papers. I'm afraid the sources need to be cited in a way that makes it clear which information comes from what source.

Specifically, you replaced

with

If I'm wrong, could you please quote the sentence(s) in the sources that say(s) the person had ventricular hypertrophy?

You added the bolded text below:

The first medrs source you added supports the idea that drinking water might cause problems (and I've dded itto the article), but I don't think this information is in the sources cited.

You added this:

The last ref is the medrs source again, but again it does not seem that these statements are made in that source, nor do I recall it in the other sources. They seem to be your interpretation of the sources, which is WP:OR. Again, I'd love to be proved wrong, if you can quote the statements from the source that paraphrase what you said.

Pharmacology
This text needs a medrs source, because it could be interpreted to mean that kambo purges treat cancer. This is a primary research study, testing on human cells (some of them tumour cells) in a petri dish, and in a Patient derived xenograft. The latter is in vivo, technically, but it's not a clinical trial in humans, let alone a review of such trials.

I'm sorry if this has been a bit unrelentingly negative. I don't mean it that way; I've taken time to explain exactly what I'm doing, because I think you could learn to be a skilled editor. I really wish I'd seen your talk-page post sooner. I hope you won't be discouraged, and will continue to edit in a variety of topic areas. HLHJ (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @HLHJ, good to hear from you. I see you have done an extensive look through everything here which is great. I also appreciate your maturity and professionalism in your responses. I'll keep this short as I'm feeling overwhelmed and quite deflated after what I thought was a balanced set of edits with appropriate enough sources; certainly what I thought was at least on par enough with some of the overly fear-inducing statements made about it (some of which still remain) despite there being very little evidence for them. Not a dig at you (or any of the other editors) and I do appreciate my grasp of WP:MEDRS etc isn't perfect, but some of those things listed in the article are written in very overblown and factual terms despite there being very little evidence for some them; and the evidence that does exist for them is often on-par or even less than some of the evidence that counteracts their claims. Which is why I am feeling so deflated about having put in the work to a degree that was phrased appropriately for WP:MEDRS (or so I thought) to help improve what I see as a largely incorrect article, yet in many cases it appears (to me, at least) that due to the medical nature of it, there appears almost a tendency to readily agree with the 'dangers' despite small amounts of evidence, while simultaneously ignoring evidence that goes against this. I think this goes beyond merely being skeptical and actually will erode people's trust in WP as anyone who is experienced with kambo (such as myself) will read the presentation here and realize the presentation is not very honest or accurate. Which is unfortunate and ironic in today's age of misinformation. No digs at you personally or any of the other WP editors here.
 * So, sorry for the rant - but I'll try to keep it short and just address a couple of things that illustrate this:
 * In regards to venticular hypertrophy of the Italian man who died, you mention: "If I'm wrong, could you please quote the sentence(s) in the sources that say(s) the person had ventricular hypertrophy?"
 * Source is here, from the same study that the article in the WP page cites:
 * 
 * "'The histopathological examination showed left ventricular hypertrophy."
 * and if you read the actual full report it goes even further:
 * "'The autopsy showed left ventricular hypertrophy of the heart, focal moderate coronary artery narrowing, and pulmonary emphysema. It is possible that hypotensive effects of Kambo could have resulted in reduced myocardial perfusion particularly given the presence of moderate coronary artery disease and left ventricular hypertrophy. In addition, tachycardia induced by Kambo in the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy could have provoked a cardiac arrhythmia. The possibility that the death was unrelated to Kambo use cannot be excluded. This is the first death associated with Kambo use reported in the literature.'"
 * The fact that I cannot register to present this full report aside from a scihub link (which WP removes) should not be reason to present wrong information instead.
 * It would be truly bizarre to me to see this sort of thing ignored, despite being from *the* direct study of the case in question, yet the WP article frames it (incorrectly!) as "with no known pre-existing conditions" and gives the impression there was nothing wrong with the man at all and it's entirely due to kambo killing him. This is the sort of imbalance and irony I referred to above.
 * The fact that I cannot register to present this full report aside from a scihub link (which WP removes) should not be reason to present wrong information instead.
 * It would be truly bizarre to me to see this sort of thing ignored, despite being from *the* direct study of the case in question, yet the WP article frames it (incorrectly!) as "with no known pre-existing conditions" and gives the impression there was nothing wrong with the man at all and it's entirely due to kambo killing him. This is the sort of imbalance and irony I referred to above.

In regards to "As I recall there's only one well-documented case of liver failure, but more of biochemical markers of liver harm. I'm not sure bile reflux (which must have happened if someone is vomiting bile) is good for the liver, either, but I really don't know. You need tests on real humans before you can say how something will affect humans." - if you look at the sources of any page that mentions this, they ALL refer back to that one, lone case of the Italian man who died (with venticular hypertrophy, and was overweight with a drinking habit!) - [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28886207/ This one, for which the full paper goes into great detail. This study is the one that every article claiming "liver damage" refers to, but WP doesn't care that the article itself has pre-existing contributing factors making it misinformation to say it usually causes liver damage]. This is the sort of thing that I've been finding so disheartening. It makes WP very untrustworthy. But it seems to be taken simply as fact even when the original source isn't scrutinized with anywhere near as much depth as the positive aspects are. Please can we do something about this.
 * In regards to the anti-tumor effects of Dermaseptin, this isn't a stretch - it might be 'interpreted' by some as 'treating cancer' but that is not how I wrote it. Additionally - back to the irony and imbalance - the same treatment is not given when it comes to potentially harmful effects; they seem to be all readily accepted and presented by the WP as common results, when in fact they aren't. Regarding the proof of dermaseptin:
 * [Https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-13676752 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-13676752] and [Https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044351 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044351] and [Https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.01421/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.01421/full].
 * The statement "Research using human cells has created interest in immunostimulatory and anti-tumor effects of one of the peptides, Dermaseptin" is entirely accurate and fair in my opinion. I would love to dig through for more specific pieces of the article to present here, but I am really disheartened to see how this panned out after my last set of notes and edits to the page, having most of them shot down and instead have inaccurate info presented as fact instead. It really isn't accurate or fair from what I can see. "The effects on humans usually include....SIADH, kidney damage (including acute renal failure), pancreas damage, liver damage including toxic hepatitis, dermatomyositis, bursting of the food pipe/gullet due to vomiting, seizures, and death" - this is simply flat out wrong. People would be dropping dead on a weekly basis if half the claims the WP page makes were even remotely true. Where is the proof of this being a usual result?
 * I think I will basically just give up here I'm really sad to say. The irony mentioned earlier comes from approaches to editing like "You need tests on real humans before you can say how something will affect humans" or But we don't yet have enough medical evidence to be sure, so we can't say so on Wikipedia - and yet, the article readily lists the most extreme and uncommon outcomes of kambo sessions as if they were common results, whilst being too scared to even hint at the therapeutic research that has been done. Again, I say this with as much respect as I can muster and it's not meant to be personal as I appreciate your input. But the article legitimately is dishonest to the point that it makes me wonder how there couldn't be any sort of bias behind it. Ablations (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ablations, I agree that the content is unbalanced and now we have some medrs we can and should add some more content. I didn't do it because the edits I mad took me forever, and I had several other commitments and hoped others might take it up. But one of the new medrs sources is the medical research commmunity recommmending legal bans on kambo until further research is done. The precautionary principle is a bias, but it's not dishonesty; more bending over backwards not to fool yourself that something harmful isn't. I'll give a fuller response when I can, and I hope some other contributors to this page will work on the article, too. HLHJ (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks HLHJ and in retrospect after cooling off a little - I appreciate your framing and explanation of the precautionary principal, and the linking to it. This has helped me see and understand better part of the prevailing approach that has taken place here (even if you can gather from my inputs that I'm not fully on board with it for the reasons outlined in the previous response from me). It is very draining when you're emotionally invested in a topic to find what you think should be fair sources that help paint a fuller and more balanced picture, and yet have them ignored - but that's ok - I appreciate having been heard and I'd like to apologize for both taking your time and for my awfully unkempt editorial style of the responses. I wish you all the best of health for your holiday period 🙂 Ablations (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ablations, I agree that the content is unbalanced and now we have some medrs we can and should add some more content. I didn't do it because the edits I mad took me forever, and I had several other commitments and hoped others might take it up. But one of the new medrs sources is the medical research commmunity recommmending legal bans on kambo until further research is done. The precautionary principle is a bias, but it's not dishonesty; more bending over backwards not to fool yourself that something harmful isn't. I'll give a fuller response when I can, and I hope some other contributors to this page will work on the article, too. HLHJ (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks HLHJ and in retrospect after cooling off a little - I appreciate your framing and explanation of the precautionary principal, and the linking to it. This has helped me see and understand better part of the prevailing approach that has taken place here (even if you can gather from my inputs that I'm not fully on board with it for the reasons outlined in the previous response from me). It is very draining when you're emotionally invested in a topic to find what you think should be fair sources that help paint a fuller and more balanced picture, and yet have them ignored - but that's ok - I appreciate having been heard and I'd like to apologize for both taking your time and for my awfully unkempt editorial style of the responses. I wish you all the best of health for your holiday period 🙂 Ablations (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Some scientific sources, collated
 Preamble 

There is a lot of contention in this article it seems about what should and shouldn't be included. Some editors have left notes such as "this might imply it works" and/or have removed very valid sentences from the page mentioning simply that therapeutic interest and medical interest exists and is a promising topic of research. These types of behaviors do not seem fit or unbiased enough for WP where the core credo is open access to information - and this is absolutely achievable without having to make strong statements based off non-clinical sources. The following are just a few sources which back up a few of the avenues of research, but there are plenty more. The point here is not to provide conclusive proof of medical effectiveness (although some of these, particularly the Dermorphin clinical trials, are extremely close) but moreso to show you, as editors, that there is serious medical interest in various properties of kambo which is based of a wealth of studies and research.

I would implore you to take this aspect into account in order to keep the article open to all, rather than policing what you think people should and shouldn't know about by removing references to general interest in therapeutic potential and all the rest including comments like "this might imply it works" (this is far too generalized a comment and you should not be concerned with policing what people 'might' think, rather focus on providing open access to info as long as it adheres to proper WP protocols).

 Dermaseptin in kambo 

''[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044351 Recently, we have found that the skin secretions of the Amazonian tree frog Phyllomedusa bicolor contains molecules with antitumor and angiostatic activities and identified one of them as the antimicrobial peptide dermaseptin (Drs) B2. In the present study we further explored the in vitro and in vivo antitumor activity of this molecule and investigated its mechanism of action.]''

[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21132338/ Here, we report the presence of two anti-proliferative peptides active against cancer cells in the skin secretions of the South American tree frog, Phyllomedusa bicolor. Sequence analysis indicated that this activity was due to two antimicrobial α-helical cationic peptides of the dermaseptin family (dermaseptins B2 and B3). This result was confirmed using synthetic dermaseptins. When tested in vitro, synthetic B2 and B3 dermaseptins inhibited the proliferation of the human prostatic adenocarcinoma PC-3 cell line by more than 90%...Dermaseptins B2 and B3 could, therefore, represent interesting new pharmacological molecules with antitumor and angiostatic properties for the development of a new class of anticancer drugs.]

--This is a PUBMED source.

 Dermorphins and Deltorphins in kambo 

"Moreover, it has been established as more selective and potent with long-lasting analgesia compared to morphine after intracerebroventricular administration in animal models. In 1985, the first clinical trial results of a randomized, placebo-controlled study in postoperative pain were reported, and dermorphin administered via the intrathecal route was again impressively superior over the placebo and the reference compound morphine."

--and a link to one of the papers this is referencing

"Deltorphins are endogenous linear heptapeptides, isolated from skin extracts of frogs belonging to the genus Phyllomedusa, that have a higher affinity and selectivity for delta opioid binding sites than any other natural compound known"

 General interest in therapeutic and medical uses 

Most of the bioactive peptides so far characterized have displayed potential applications in medicine, such as phyllocaeruleins with hypotensive properties, tachykinins and phyllokinins as vasodilators, dermorphins and deltorphins with opiate-like properties, and adenoregulins with antibiotic properties (Daly et al., 1992; Mor et al., 1994a; Lacombe et al., 2000; Hesselink and Sacerdote, 2019)

Due to the numerous biological activities of these substances and the similarities with the amino acid sequences related to mammalian neuropeptides and hormones, many have aroused the interest from a medical and pharmacological perspective, such as in the production of new drugs (Lazarus et al., 1999; Basir et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2002; Doyle et al., 2002; Severini et al., 2002; Conceição et al., 2006).

--full paper here, with further links and plenty of sources Ablations (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)