Talk:Mānuka honey/Archive 10

Misleading statement
The opening paragraph has a sentence that reads: 'While a component found in mānuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener." Yes, manuka honey has antibacterial properties in vitro, but it has been shown to have antibacterial properties in vivo. Google Scholar lists a number of studies. And the word "conclusive" is subjective. I am sure many people would state that evolution or general relativity have not been conclusively shown to be true. This sentence is biased and needs to be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An antibacterial claim is a conclusive anti-disease statement that would hold manuka honey science to the standards required of an approved drug; it obligates WP:MEDRS sourcing. There appear to be no such sources in the drug or food regulations of any government, internationally recognized health research institutions or the world's randomized clinical trial literature. --Zefr (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence ends "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal or dietary value other than as a sweetener.". That is excessive, and I suggest that it simply end "... there is no conclusive evidence of medicinal value. Even with that, the term "conclusive" is being used in a technical manner that most readers will not understand. Consider this study: "Randomized clinical trial of honey-impregnated dressings for venous leg ulcers" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs.6059/full The abstract states "There were no significant differences between the groups for other outcomes." and "Honey-impregnated dressings did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with usual care." Being that the two therapies tested equally, the conclusion could be restated as "usual care did not significantly improve venous ulcer healing at 12 weeks compared with honey-impregnated dressings." If we assume that usual care is improving continually over time, then at some point in the past, honey-impregnated dressings were superior to the 'usual care' at that time. Currently, there are groups working to improve the use of honey as therapy, so that this approach will continually improve as well (see "Clinical usage of honey as a wound dressing: an update,"  http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2044/CLINICAL%20USAGE%20OF%20HONEY.ocr.pdf?sequence=1

To state that medical honey is nothing better than a sweetener is unfounded and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liometopum (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The RCT you refer to is not a reliable source (see WP:MEDRS). We need to mirror what the secondary sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Advertsing
User:Drfatihustok, the sources that you have used and the content you have added violate WP:PROMO and WP:MEDRS. Please do not add promotional content to Wikipedia. If you don't understand, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * here
 * here, and
 * here