User talk:GWeditor

I am open to discussion on the proper data regarding noni as the subject.

In regards to noni and Hepatoxicity: Details which should have included what harmful amounts of pesticides may have been used or any other harmful ingredients, impurities are missing from the report. Also a lack of details regarding the preparation of the specific analysis or the product and the care and storage of the product was not included. Most important was the lack of data regarding whether it is noni juice or extracts made from the roots or leaves that may contain anthraquinones. Therefore the case lacks sufficient data to conclude noni was a direct connection for creating hepatoxicity in the patients and requires further investigation.


 * Hey there. You mentioned not being able to find my email -- there's a link to it at the top of my user page, or, when your on my talk/user page you'll see a link called "E-mail this user" in the lower left toolbox (that works for anyone with an email set up on Wikipedia).  To make it easier, you can click this link to send me email (assuming you have that set up here).


 * In regards to the studies on hepatoxicity - Wikipedia reports what third-party sources have said. In other words, unless other sources can be found that show both studies to be fatally flawed or otherwise incorrect, we report what those studies found and allow the reader to make a decision about the worth of the study themselves.  It might help to look over our verifiability and original research policies to get a better idea of what I'm referring to.  Perhaps there's a way to rewrite that paragraph to make it a bit more neutral.  Also, if you can point to any studies other than the European commission that have shown Noni to be harmless, those should be included to provide both sides of the story.  I believe in the EC paper they mentioned several studies their group had done on toxicity; I'll review that and see if I can't find a way to get that in the paragraph.


 * Another policy that might really help is neutral point of view. It describes how we handle topics in a neutral fashion, equal time to any largely held view on the subject.  You may wish to review the welcome page and tutorial as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log.  You'll want to read all of our policies at some point.


 * By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~ . This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. Let me know if there's anything else I can do! .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)