Talk:Sida cordifolia

Is
Is this plant subject to the U.S. bans described in Ephedra? -- Beland 19:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can a scientist do a review so that the article has a more scientific basis? At the moment it has no value because it has no evidence supporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.28 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Gibberish
It's not gibberish to me. It's Indian herbal medicine. Needs a copy-ed, though. See http://www.sidacordifolia.com/ and http://www.cnpprofessional.co.uk/sida-cordifolia-fat-burner-p-48.html It does contain 'ephedrine and pseudoephedrine' apparently, but whether it's subject to US government ban or not I don't know - and it doesn't affect its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Available in the UK as a so-called 'fat-burner'. I say keep it. (I'm not promoting its use - I say nothing on the efficacy or otherwise of the stuff. It is there, it is sold, people do use it.) Peridon (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly isn't an Encyclopaedia quality article - I have difficulty comprehending the first paragraph. The drug is used all over the world, and has been subject to several intense clinical trials, so having the article chock full of Indian (I'm not even sure what language they are) words is completely inappropriate and confusing.Jamief00 (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced
Needs alot of info on ecology and native distribution etc. to balance the medicine stuff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * a good list of where it is weedy. papers to check and add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Paper providing an LD50
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/12/120

©Geni (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)