Talk:Propolis

Plagiarism and use of the Medline source
This edit is a direct plagiarized copy of the MedlinePlus source, WP:PLAG, and is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. I have opposed use of the Medline source because its own sources are primary research - not WP:MEDRS reviews, and there is no convincing literature to substantiate the statements. The IP user also created a formatting error which disrupted the page style, MOS:STYLE, and is edit warring beyond the 3-revert rule, WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:MEDRS-quality source to indicate sufficient clinical evidence for using propolis as a therapy. The article now states it this way. Responsibility for further changes relies on WP:BURDEN for a high-quality source. Reverting the existing version by will be evidence of further edit warring and gaining no consensus for a change by discussion here on the talk page, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Systematic review of propolis and Covid-19
Potential effects of propolis and honey in COVID-19 prevention and treatment: A systematic review of in silico and clinical studies.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8801981

Witoo Dilokthornsakul, Ramanya Kosiyaporn, Rattanamanee Wuttipongwaragon, and Piyameth Dilokthornsakul⁎

J Integr Med. 2022 Mar; 20(2): 114–125. Published online 2022 Jan 31. doi: 10.1016/j.joim.2022.01.008 - PMCID: PMC8801981 - PMID: 35144898

Feel free to create the links for the above paragraph. I don't remember how. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please read the thread above labeled "Propolis functions". Single studies are generally not compliant with WP:MEDRS guidelines. Be forewarned that you need to be fully familiar with the MEDRS guidelines and related principles and practices before engaging in editing on biomedical topics. Dyanega (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article? It is a review. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Briefly, I have read it, and I can summarize it: it refers to exactly 7 in silico studies with protocols that appear to be sound, and with known sources of propolis. Those 7 studies are from three countries; Turkey, Egypt, and Indonesia. The chemical profiles for the propolis in these 7 studies reveal that no two of them contain the exact same chemicals, and in fact only two sets of samples (one from Egypt and the one from Turkey, and three of the four Indonesian samples) have three or more compounds shared across samples, and could even potentially be considered semi-replicates. The two in the first set gave the same result, the second set had two with the same result out of the three. About the only statement you could make that would be both accurate and truthful about these 5 studies is this: propolis samples containing Rutin, Glyasperin A, or Sulabiroins A appear to have some potential to interfere with COVID-19 virus infection. As for clinical studies, the only clinical study that had more than one patient and used propolis alone (rather than honey or other additives) was cited by the authors of the review as "having high risk of bias", and documented as being largely uncontrolled. More to the point, only one of the many parameters assessed differed significantly among treatments; patients treated with Brazilian green propolis had a shorter mean time in the hospital, but no measurable difference in oxygen therapy dependency time, the number of acute kidney injuries, the use of renal replacement therapy, invasive ventilation, vasoactive agents, or ICU stay. Everything else is just single data points. That is extremely poor evidence for any claims of beneficial effects of propolis. However, it is very good evidence that propolis contains a semi-randomized set of plant compounds limited to a specific time and geographic area, so no two propolis samples have the same chemical profile, rather than being a single substance with a single set of constituents. It is illogical to expect that the biomedical properties of propolis can ever be assayed and evaluated if it is impossible to provide multiple identical samples that can be tested under controlled conditions. What makes more sense is to isolate and test individual compounds from plant resins, like Rutin or Sulabiroin, rather than to use mixed sources like propolis. Dyanega (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If I am remembering correctly there were several results with shorter ICU or hospital stays. Having been in the hospital this year I can tell you it matters being able to cut a few days off of being on those uncomfortable hospital beds. At least in my hospital. And not being stuck in that small space matters.
 * There needs to be more studies of course. But isolating compounds is not necessary most of the time. Propolis is propolis. This is a perennial argument with natural substances. What is that saying about the perfect getting in the way of the practical?
 * No way that we are going to get hundreds of millions of dollars for perfect studies. There are better methods. Comparing new treatments or additions to existing treatments. Comparing to the existing treatment. It is not perfect but it is not bad either. And there is the entourage effect too. I have no illusions about changing how Wikipedia handles medical info. Maybe a few years or decades from now Wikipedia will wake up. I don't have time to do the editing anyway. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Take it from someone who works with bees: propolis is just a collection of sticky substances gathered from the environment, it is not a single substance. It can include tar, paint, cement, and feces, among other things. No two hives have the same exact composition, even in the same apiary. Your comment is directly analogous to saying "soil is soil", or "pond water is pond water". They are idiosyncratic and complex mixtures, so any such statement is demonstrably false, and claims that propolis is a single thing are likewise demonstrably false, and therefore very misleading. You would very rightly challenge anyone who claimed that "pond water improves recovery from chemotherapy" or "eating soil can reduce infections" for exactly that reason: while a single specific soil sample, or sample of pond water, might contain a substance with therapeutic properties, that anecdotal result does not extend to the conclusion that ALL soil samples, or ALL ponds, contain therapeutic agents. The same applies to propolis. I have no doubt that certain plant resins contain therapeutic agents, and if those plant resins happen to be incorporated into a specific sample of propolis, then that sample of propolis may reflect those properties. That does not mean that those resins or their properties are shared by any other samples. If a study is not replicable, it is not science, and it does not get included in Wikipedia. I honestly cannot conceive of any way to test the properties of propolis EXCEPT by breaking it down into individual constituents, since you can't get large numbers of identical samples for testing. Dyanega (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not necessary to get identical samples to get good results. I personally prefer organic propolis. But have gotten good results with non-organic. That is what I mean by "propolis is propolis". More studies need to be done, but they are already getting good results according to the review. It is a natural substance. It is not likely to hurt you. Are you going to turn it down if it would help you deal with Covid in the hospital? Are you seriously going to refuse to take it until massive studies are done breaking down the constituents of propolis from all parts of the world? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Traditional medicine" section
It currently says:

That's not what the reference says. This is what the reference actually says below (additional emphasis added). It says it is possibly effective for several things.

Anecdotally, I and many others have used propolis to speed up recovery from sore throats. In my case since the late 1970s, if I am remembering correctly. It is common knowledge to people into natural foods, medicines, etc.. I would like to see the "scientific evidence" mentioned in the above excerpt. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is just another reason to delete the Medline reference entirely; as noted above in the thread titled "Plagiarism and use of the Medline source", Medline is a poor source, as it cites primary sources that lack corroboration from subsequent research. Quackery is easy to get published, but hard to get anyone to corroborate. Dyanega (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Medline is quoting Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. I don't see a Wikipedia page on it. Here is a search:
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=Natural+Medicines+Comprehensive+Database
 * How does it compile its database, where are its sources? Is it continually updating info on propolis? I have no idea as to the quality of its info. I don't think you do either. I don't have the time. You seem to be one of those med editors that use the word "quackery" at the drop of a hat.
 * Someone with time should find the propolis page on Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * MedlinePlus is a trusted medical source of the US National Library of Medicine, meeting WP:MEDSCI. A compound with evidence rated as "possibly effective" is not strong enough for the encyclopedia. A sufficiently strong source would be a medical systematic review showing efficacy, something that does not exist for propolis. Zefr (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See my latest reply in the section higher up: . Someday Wikipedia will join the modern era. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A systematic review of weak lab or primary human research - as you cited above - is still just a review of inadequate preliminary evidence - so not useful as a source for the encyclopedia. See WP:MEDASSESS where the studies included in that review would fall within "unfiltered information" and "primary research" (pyramids).
 * According to this 2022 review and numerous others like it, Wikipedia's medical content "is potentially the most used source for medical information in the world with billions of visits each year." Informed people would likely say that Wikipedia is very much modern, up to date, and valued for its major medical articles. Zefr (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is OK, but there are often much better sources of medical info elsewhere, even for the standard medical stuff. As I said someone with time should find the propolis page on Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. And find out how they make their determinations. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database sources on propolis
Well, I finally found some time, and found their propolis info sourcing: Unfortunately it is buried behind a $182 minimum subscription paywall: They claim they are scientific evidence based in their rating system: Of course this does little good for Wikipedia without seeing the specific evidence sourcing for propolis.
 * https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/search.aspx?q=propolis&go.x=0&go.y=0
 * https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/search.aspx?q=propolis
 * Advanced search for propolis.
 * https://trchealthcare.com/store/individual/natural-medicines
 * https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/nmber.aspx

The simple search result is not consistent. This search URL seems to be better sometimes (sometimes not):
 * https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/search.aspx?q=propolis
 * Advanced search for propolis (with every box checked) pulls up the main page (with linked subsections) each time I have used it so far.

There is one main page on propolis: All the subsections of the main page are listed in the advanced search result. See list below. All have the same URL listed above. Along with section access via its table of contents. But they are not accessible without a subscription.
 * https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/databases/food,-herbs-supplements/professional.aspx?productid=390

The above searches also pull up individual products. I also just found an index of all the main pages. Here is the "P" page where propolis is listed:
 * https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/databases/food,-herbs-supplements.aspx?letter=P

Maybe somebody working for the philanthropic efforts of some millionaire or billionaire will read this and convince their boss to fund this site and convince them to make everything public and free. No paywall or subscriptions. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Propolis info with better quality references
Editors with more time than me can decide whether to use any of the following info and references. Some of the references in these articles are of higher quality. I found the info, writing, and references in these articles of higher quality than the current Wikipedia article at the time of this writing. And their reviewers are in medical fields. That helps the articles to not make wild claims from the references they use.

"The Benefits and Uses of Propolis": "Medically reviewed by Debra Rose Wilson, Ph.D., MSN, R.N., IBCLC, AHN-BC, CHT — By Rena Goldman — Updated on September 28, 2018."
 * https://www.healthline.com/health/propolis-an-ancient-healer

"What are the benefits of propolis?" "Medically reviewed by Alexandra Perez, PharmD, MBA, BCGP — By Jon Johnson on March 10, 2021."
 * https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/propolis

"Oral candidiasis treatment with Brazilian ethanol propolis extract." Phytother Res. 2005 Jul;19(7):652-4. PMID: 16161031 DOI: 10.1002/ptr.1715. V R Santos 1, F J G S Pimenta, M C F Aguiar, M A V do Carmo, M D Naves, R A Mesquita. Article is buried behind a Wiley paywall. Article summarized here: Maureen Williams, ND, received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and her Doctorate of Naturopathic Medicine from Bastyr University in Seattle, WA.
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16161031
 * https://www.newhope.com/supply-news-amp-analysis/propolis-cures-yeast-infection-mouth

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these are WP:MEDRS. KoA (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the sources in the compilation articles? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are any of them WP:MEDRS sources within? Unless I missed one, they all appear to be primary journal articles that are being referenced rather than secondary sources like reviews, meta-analyses, etc. KoA (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some massive reviews listed. But it seems that most stuff is in vitro, and if in vivo it is in animals not humans. There is the oral candidiasis human trial listed above. It is hard to tell from my cursory skim of the massive reviews and their references if there are some more human trials scattered therein. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing that has listed here is a useable source. For medical content in the encyclopedia, we rely on WP:MEDRS reviews - read that guideline.  This is a similar discussion as occurred in early October. It seems you are not adhering to the quality of sources needed to support medical content, as presented in MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. As I said I disagree with WP:MEDRS. I think preliminary human studies should be reported. And I haven't looked at all the many references in the massive reviews thoroughly enough to find all the human studies. And WP:MEDRS does not have a blanket prohibition against such primary human studies.
 * But the current reference used for this statement in the article needs to be removed: "Propolis has been used in traditional medicine, with insufficient evidence to rate its effectiveness in the treatment of any illnesses."
 * Find a better reference because using the current reference to back up that statement is a lie, as I previously explained.
 * And a better, more accurate WP:NPOV statement would be:
 * "Propolis has been used in traditional medicine, with insufficient evidence beyond a few small primary human studies to rate its effectiveness in the treatment of any illnesses."
 * As I said articles outside Wikipedia do a much better job in many cases. One of the compilation articles manages to provide the current evidence (unlike Wikipedia), and then concludes in a completely logical way:
 * {| class=wikitable


 * Research suggests that propolis has a number of properties that could benefit human health. People can use it on the skin, as a mouthwash, and as a supplement for a variety of minor health concerns.
 * Research suggests that propolis has a number of properties that could benefit human health. People can use it on the skin, as a mouthwash, and as a supplement for a variety of minor health concerns.

However, there is not much high quality evidence to suggest that propolis is an effective treatment for specific conditions in humans. As a result, anyone with persistent symptoms should speak with a doctor about the best treatment options.
 * }
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ignoring MEDRS isn't going to fly here. It's extremely clear we don't use primary sources for biomedical content. Stick to what the secondary sources say. KoA (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You should reread WP:MEDRS yourself. There is no blanket ban on primary studies. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest actually reading MEDRS, especially WP:MEDPRI that I pretty much quoted from above and the section below on secondary sources on trying to "debunk" them with primary sources. If someone tries to claim that primary sources are ok per MEDRS in that fashion being suggested here, that's just WP:IDHT and ignoring the spirit of the guideline. Regardless of if you do not like sourcing norms for medical content that you've been made well aware of already, this is not the place to bring low quality sourcing like this. MEDRS already directs to what you should be looking for. KoA (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of what you are saying is ridiculous. I am not trying to debunk secondary sources with primary sources. We both agree in that there are no quality secondary sources yet. We disagree on whether WP:MEDRS allows some primary sourcing. I never intended to edit the article. I don't have the time. I am just bringing up what sourcing there is. So feel free to ignore it. Other editors down the line, maybe years from now may stop ignoring it. I did bring up a systematic review higher up, but we agree in that it is early going and tentative. See:. There are reviews in the compilation articles too. But they don't seem to be about human studies at first glance. They have great info on the composition of propolis though. That is useful for the article here. Please stop your attacking mode, and assume good faith. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FOC instead of lashing out. This is not the place to rail about medical sourcing standards, that propolis will somehow help with COVID, etc. in your personal beliefs you've espoused in above sections where you've gotten good results. WP:FRINGE stuff to that degree doesn't belong here. KoA (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous replies. I see you are still in attack mode and claiming things about my beliefs that I don't have. Especially about Covid. Please apologize about that. See WP:NPA. I am not some nutcase Covid anti-vaxxer promoting unproven remedies. I posted a review article as requested. In my very last message I said I agree with the consensus that it is an early review with tentative results in need of further study. Please put down the stick. See: WP:DROPTHESTICK. Other editors can go here to see what I am talking about: . --Timeshifter (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Dilution?
This revert was justified because the content has vague significance to propolis and the sources are inadequate, appearing to be only a comment from a meeting abstract, an outdated interpretation, and conjecture from an obscure nanotechnology publication. There is no WP:SCIRS review and no talk page consensus to support using this disputed information in the encyclopedia. WP:CON. is edit-warring to retain the edit, and has been warned on the user's talk page for WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I saw it yesterday too but didn't have a change to really look through it all. It wasn't really clear what dilution was about or why it was really relevant here. It seemed like a lot of words to describe that bees harvest resin. KoA (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is important because it is a new discovery in the behavior of bees. Until now, it was believed that bees manipulate pieces of sticky resin in order to use it. The works that are cited as proof that in fact the pieces of propolis are not sticky, but like a liquid. It follows that the study of propolis as a product with its physical properties does not correspond because it actually exists. Yarik222 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since honey bees dilute propolis to a liquid state, the interaction of this fraction of propolis with artificial materials is a new factor that should be considered. Surface wettability is of great importance in many fields of science and technology - from the mining industry to creation of modern functional materials and biomedical products Yarik222 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, to understand the importance of wetting, see
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting Yarik222 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Although it may be an interesting factor with application in nanotechnology or materials research, this topic is not confirmed in the review literature about propolis. It is WP:PRIMARY research and WP:CRYSTAL conjecture, with sources that are too preliminary and weakly documented to be included in the encyclopedia article. Zefr (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can an editor's article be considered a secondary source to the referenced publication?
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0005772X.2022.2133800 Yarik222 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is simply a commentary on the forum of primary research papers in the journal issue. It does not meet WP:SECONDARY and is not a review article ("an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic within a certain discipline") that would justify use of the original sources. It seems Yarik222 is promoting a basic research paper for acknowledgment in Wikipedia, which is discouraged as WP:COI. Zefr (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)