Talk:Kava/Archive 2

What will constitute sufficient evidence that kava helps with anxiety and that it is being investigated for its potential anti-cancer properties?
The article currently states that kava is "under research" for treating anxiety. However, the research has been going on for decades with some very decent results. Most notably: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23635869 Is this study not worthy of mentioning?

Also, there have been quite a few studies looking at kava's potential in the treatment of various forms of cancer. Very early research, but wouldn't it be worth mentioning that this research is being undertaken without stating anything about the results? Tehlirian (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither inference meets WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia represents the current status of best-defined evidence, not a newspaper or journal identifying evolving research themes per WP:NOTNEWS. --Zefr (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain to me which part of this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23635869 does not meet these criteria? It was a a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study that gets referenced in the World Health Organization's reports (e.g. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5770e.pdf) and that informs practitioners prescribing kava in Australia. OK, I see it's not a book/literature review. So does it mean that wikipedia cannot contain references to clinical studies? Tehlirian (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a limited short-term study on a small number of subjects; these characteristics identify it as preliminary and non-MEDRS. An encyclopedia should comment on high-quality, long-term, clear research tested by meta-analysis and written into systematic reviews per WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. Please read these guidelines. The WHO report is just a status of research; it is not a regulatory authority like the US FDA or Australian TGA which reports no approvals for use of kava as an anxiolytic or cancer treatment, here. --Zefr (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough about that specific study. How about the Cochrane review though?(http://www.cochrane.org/CD003383/DEPRESSN_kava-extract-for-treating-anxiety) Could we at least put quotes from their summary? The Australian TGA (in the link you provided) lists 3 kava products that are approved for sale with information that they may help with anxiety. Will the results of this study be seen as in line with the standards: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26527536 Tehlirian (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Cochrane review (a 14 year old study) is already used, ref. 7. The TGA links were for supplement products with no proof of safety or efficacy. To be called "anxiolytic" requires the scrutiny and evidence of an approved and regulated drug. is a clinical trial plan, so doesn't have any results to report, falling under WP:CRYSTAL. I separated out the article research section which is well-documented for potential anxiolytic activity under research. What else would you like to say? Perhaps present a draft here first. --Zefr (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and patience. I am not very experienced with wiki, so please forgive my lack of knowledge about how things work around here. What I meant was what you thought about the design of this new clinical trial? Would its results (regardless of what they suggest) be of sufficient quality to make them fit for inclusion here? Tehlirian (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your interest in wanting to add information of substance, but is only an outline of a future, small, single-dose Phase III (design description here human trial. No results applicable to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia are available, and even if there were positive results, one Phase III study would be regarded as 'research in progress' and insufficient for an agency like TGA to approve kavalactones as a drug for treating anxiety. This is where Wikipedia relies on WP:MEDRS for sources having sufficient substance to update the information as clinically factual. --Zefr (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Noted. Thanks for clarifying this Tehlirian (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

North America
Canada: I could not find any government pages confirming licensing of Kava in Canada, however the reference to HealthLink BC has been updated as of May 26, 2016, and contains no indication of restrictions. Personal observation that Webber Kava is freely sold in pharmacies and Natural Factor is sold in Health stores, backed by cites from their respective web sites. I know this is not very satisfactory and rather verbose, but it's the best I could do.D Anthony Patriarche (talk)
 * I also looked but found no NPN number which would normally state safety and purity for sale as a supplement. I removed the commercial references as we do not list retail sites per WP:SECONDARY. --Zefr (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160811031207/http://maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz/WebForms/PeoplePlantsDetails.aspx?firstcome=firstcome&PKey=DF6C4669-4A57-4473-8B3F-CE49593273A2 to http://maoriplantuse.landcareresearch.co.nz/WebForms/PeoplePlantsDetails.aspx?firstcome=firstcome&PKey=DF6C4669-4A57-4473-8B3F-CE49593273A2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029190558/http://www.worldtradereview.com/news.asp?pType=N&iType=A&iID=113&siD=23&nID=22522 to http://www.worldtradereview.com/news.asp?pType=N&iType=A&iID=113&siD=23&nID=22522
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030901220234/http://www.spc.int/cis/kava.htm to http://www.spc.int/cis/kava.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Lactones not alkaloids
The psychoactive ingredients in kava are lactones, not alkaloids as the article stated. The lactones in kava contain no nitrogenous component in their structure and, therefore, cannot be alkaloids by definition. The statement to the contrary has been changed. 162.239.112.184 (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Kava preparation: hot water
An old edit (now removed) suggested that Kava preparation with hot water more efficiently extracts the effective principles. It was inappropriate to the section & not good WP (no ADVICE), so it has been deleted. However, I believe a priori the observation may be valid, & I have seen references to this (not necessarily in good MEDRS sources though). I have also seen a claim that hot water (maybe boiling water) destroys some of the kavalactones. I see three issues that could augment the article: I will do some digging, but feel free to jump in, especially if you have better access to sources than I do. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a traditional preparation that uses hot water?
 * Does hot water improve extraction? How hot? Which constituents does it improve the extraction of? (some are hydrophilic but others are hydrophobic)
 * Does hot water (how hot?) destroy any active constituents? If so which?

Date of review regarding liver toxicity of kava
I am currently working on improving the swedish wikipedia article on kava. I looked at the english wikipedia and saw some interesting reviews regarding the topic, however I noticed that a lot of the reviews are older then 5 years which is not according the guidelines in WP:MEDRS. My question is whether my approach to the guidelines regarding "up to date evidence" is a bit too extreme or if I´m correct in saying that some of the reviews presented in the section "effects on the liver" are too old to be reliable? Laboz125 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense in "kava culture" section.
The "kava culture" section says:

A spoonerism of "coffee time", "keep it warm" and Australian "good ol' cuppa", can be as "Kava time", "good old kava", "keep it fine!".

What is that even supposed to mean? For a start it isn't a spoonerism, and even if it was, why is it relevant? If these phrases are actually used in some context or other, an explanation would be useful - but a quick Google search only turns up texts that seem to have been copied from this article, suggesting that the user who added them had just made them up! Maybe it makes sense if you've consumed enough kava?

--82.28.107.46 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)