Talk:Lavender oil/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disputed Use on Sunburn

Oil of ANY kind should not be applied to sunburn. The oil acts as a barrier for sweat and can cause more pain than the original intention of lavendar oil to relieve pain. Water based ointments only. It would be preferred to use very strong black tea (black, no sugar) after it has cooled down to room temperature which then should be sponged onto the affected area. Do not rub. For best effect, have a fan blowly softly onto the wet tea to further drop the skin temperature. If blisters form after a few hours, seek medical assistance due to second degree burns. (uncopyrighted text - anon.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.188.225 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not true that no oil should be used against sunburn - coconut oil is a very effective healer of sunburn - and also very effectively prevents it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmgrove33 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger

Oppose There are many other articles on essential oils, apart from the main plant articles. I see no reason to delete this one. Waitak 11:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There's enough information here to justify a separate article. Kyleberk 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lavender Oil and gynecomastia in boys

Science News July 1, 2006 Vol. 170 page 6 indicates that products containing lavender oil or tea tree oil can cause enlarged breast in young boys.

FROM CHRISTINE LEEDS: I was in your pharmacy recently and the saleslady asked me about lavender oil. I looked up the website http://cottageessentialoils.com/shop/categories/Medicinal-Oils/. I have used Cottage Lavender Oil since approximately 1990 and have had no problems with it. However, I don’t know how the new mix compares with the old mix. For example, I used to buy 80%+20% pure Lavender oils, in 200ml bottles for approximately $13.00. I don’t understand their new labeling saying each ml contains 50mcl for 50 mls at $4.95 and I think the bottle contains other ingredients. I am still using my stockpile of 200ml bottles, however I haven’t seen the pure oils on the supermarket shelves for ages. Thus, I can’t say if it is better, or possible, to stay with this brand.

Eureka has a nice product advertised at http://eurekaoils.com.au/product/Lavender-Oil They don’t make it easy to compare prices though. I know you can still buy this brand at supermarkets and because you can get it with your groceries, it probably costs less.

Both oils work well for my purpose, which is to use it for feminine hygiene. I purchased a 50ml spray applicator bottle and filled it half with water and half with 100% lavender oil. The spray bottle is suitable for oil, and one application in the morning lasts all day. After using the product, I notice I don’t have to wash my pajamas every day and I don’t get thrush and bacterial infections anymore. It is especially good for your ears. I often get dry cracked skin in and around my ears and ear infections if I don’t use it regularly. The oil also stops itching, excoriation, dryness and leaves you feeling fresh and clean, with peace of mind that you are not polluting the environment too much.

I also buy a 450ml selecta multipurpose spray bottle and fill it with 100mls lavender oil, 100mls QV ego water dispersible oil, and 250mls water. This mix is perfect to keep in the toilet for when I get my period. I would use it for changing baby’s nappies as well,although I would probably use it at half strength for babies.

It is common knowledge Lavender oil is approved by drug standards for external use. The internet infers this knowledge can give the consumer a false sense of security because there are some serious problems if you ingest lavender oil like breast enlargement and birth defects [1].

Lots of people use lavender oil as an antidepressant. I have concerns regarding the use of inhalants and vaporizers because some have propellants and toxins in them and the lungs are very absorbent. The habit is dangerous as well. The manufacturer can change the ingredients at a drop of a hat and the consumer can keep on using the product, unawares. Your saleslady said she sprayed Bosistos lavender spray from an aerosol can on her pillow at night. I would not recommend the product for that use, although I have sprayed it on sheets and blankets to freshen them up.[2]. I have enclosed a printout of Bosisto’s Lavender Oil ‘FGB’ Material Safety Data Sheet. Note it says the poison schedule is “not scheduled”. They also say the recommended use is therapeutic active, flavor, fragrance and raw material. I think all the sites advertising the use of lavender oils/blends, as well as the Data Sheet, need to be reviewed and the safety information made more specific. For example, if you use it for your feet, make sure you don’t slip.If the consumer is informed regarding the pros and cons of the product, and uses the oil for external use, lavender oil is an excellent product. P.S. I have just found a website that says tree nuts can cause severe allergies. Cottage massage lavender oil has almond oil in it. Take care if you buy blended products and do a small patch test on the skin first.“Cottage Lavender Massage Oil contains pure essential oil of Lavender in a base of Sweet Almond Oil” http://cottageessentialoils.com/shop/search.php?search_query=LAVENDER+OIL&x=0&y=0]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.89.125 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Some quotes:

"Lavender oil and tea tree oil contain compounds that act like female sex hormones and interfere with male hormones,"

"Bloch recommended that the boys stop using lavender-containing products. When they followed his advise, gynecomastia disappeared within a few months."

"These oils possess both estrogenic and anti-androgenic properties," Henley reported at the Endocrine Society meeting in Boston this week.

"Young boys should avoid the oils, Bloch advises. Many personal-care products contain them."

"-B. Harder"

Somitcw 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Full article is only available to subscribers: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8.asp

Non-subscribers can get to the table of contents: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/toc.asp

Non-subscribers can also see the references and sources: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob8ref.asp

Somitcw 07:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with this study is that it only involves 3 cases. This certainly does not mean it should be ignored but it certainly isn't significant enough to devote much space to either. After reading the actual study, all 3 cases involved products containing Lavender Oil and one case involved lavender oil AND tea tree oil. For this reason it's strange that someone devoted a lot of space to this issue on the tea tree oil page when tea tree oil was never isolated. So it's good that this issue is being discussed here at the appropriate page.Imaginenow (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No sale, Imaginenow. Three cases involving adverse affects upon children is certainly sufficient to warrant space on both pages. The essential oils industry may have a vested industry in fudging these findings, but it doesn't alter the facts: A. Gynecomastia occurred following topical application; B. It quickly resolved upon discontinuation; C. Separate research positively identified estrogenic/anti-androgenic compounds in both lavender and tea tree oil. One of those researchers Kenneth Korach wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that pure lavender AND tea tree oils can simultaneously mimic the effects of estrogens and inhibit those of androgens: "This combinatorial activity makes them somewhat unique as endocrine disruptors." An ancient and general priniciple of medicine is "first do no harm." Until and unless, the industry can demonstrate some therapeutic value which could outweigh the detriment of such a known side-effect (and possibly other effects unknown) to a child unable to consent to medication, it should be removed from products sold for topical use, or at the very least labeled with the appropriate warning. In the meantime, Wikipedia is providing information that most young parents considering such a product would be interested to have! Un Mundo (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Endrocrinology?

The article previously stated that Bloch was an "endrocrinologist." I changed this to "endocrinologist," but I'm not absolutely certain that endrocrinology isn't a medical term. IrisWings 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Could we get a photo of an actual bottle of the essential oil? It seems misleading to have the only picture be of a body oil product only containing a small amount of the EO. This could confuse people into believing that that is what is meant by 'lavender oil' throughout the article. Dforest (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo is also used on the page "essential oil" and identified as sandalwood oil. If it is in fact sandalwood oil, the photo is false. If it is lavender oil, then edits need to be made to the "essential oil" page to change the caption on the photo. Shadymilkman22 (talk) 7:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The sentence about kashmirian oil doesn't have any meaning, kashmir is a region on the base of himalias, so the oil produce there is produced on the base of himailas. It's like saying Russian oil is famous to be from Russia..? :) Gatheringwithin (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some references regarding safety of Lavender oil

I recently reverted a change by an IP user which was mainly about recent research into the safety of lavender oil [3]. While unsuitable content for Aromatherapy it occurred to me that other editors might find something of use in the reverted change for this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Confusing opening sentences

"Lavender oil is an essential oil obtained by distillation from the flower spikes of certain species of lavender. Two forms are distinguished, lavender flower oil, a colorless oil, insoluble in water, having a density of 0.885 g/mL; and lavender spike oil, a distillate from the herb Lavandula latifolia, having density 0.905 g/mL."

Are both oils from Lavandula latifolia? If lavender flower oil is not, what species is it from? If it is, please rewrite these sentences to clearly say that.

Partridgefoot (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Lavender: powerful healing agent

One of the qualities of lavender essential oil that is hardly discussed is the fact that it is a strong healing agent for cuts and burns. Healing starts immediately and is not accompanied later by any inflammation or sepsis. I have also used it with good effect against cellulitis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmgrove33 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Would need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the page on Eucalyptol (a significant component of the Lavandula latifolia variant of lavender oil) has a source from NCBI claiming anti-inflammatory effects. "Eucalyptol has anti-inflammatory properties, which may be mediated by the ion channel TRPM8." I don't know how much this really contributes to the talk, though. Forgive me, new to wikipedia page editting. NCBI link- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5387001/ Eucalyptol Wikipedia page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptol Rule Breaking God (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Adverse effects?

The link between lavender oil and gynecomastia / estrogenic effects (primarily the Henley study) has been thoroughly disproven. This claim should be removed. https://roberttisserand.com/2013/02/lavender-oil-is-not-estrogenic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.151.164 (talk • contribs)

We need a reliable source, and some random WP:SPS isn't that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I made this edit to indicate that the gynecomastia effect is rare, and - as of 2016 - is still being reported, PMID 26353172. In the new edit, I limited "adverse effects" to sedation and contact dermatitis which are generally well-documented. The journal Cosmetics is an MDPI publication (on the WP:SOURCEWATCH list), so may be disqualified and removed, but is a review and presents data credibly. --Zefr (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No Alex, we need a WP:MEDRS source for the claim that lavender oil causes gynecomastia, and as you know quite well, just a primary source, a study of a mere three individuals no less, more than ten years old no less, isn't going to cut it. MarshallKe (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It was trivially sourceable, did you look? Better to upgrade the reference than water-down the adverse effects section (it looks like a cross-article pattern is emerging). Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

How about you stop making point-of-view edits in violation of Wikipedia's most sacred principles? MarshallKe (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Now MarshallKe is edit-warring to remove the replacement MEDRS source. What is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Content in violation of WP:MEDRS removed. MarshallKe (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

pmid:33109161 is a recent secondary source in a reputable journal. Alexbrn (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Image Source

Can someone verify what exact oil is in this image? This article claims it is lavender, but in the essential oil article it claims to be sandalwood instead, the latter of which I assume to be true. If possible the image should be switched with an actual representation of lavender oil. Christiaanp (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The photo in this article and the photo in the essential oils article are actually different photos, if you look at the bottom of the container you can see the biggest difference. As for verifying its contents, it looks about the right colour (I have some myself and it is a slightly darker yellow, but that could be down to the uploaders camera, my monitor, or just different plants in a different area). 102% Yield (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The image came from Itineranttrader, apparently a graphics specialist, who uploaded the image as "own work" to Wikimedia Commons in 2009 (searched the image name on Commons). When an editor chooses an image from Commons to use in a Wikipedia article, the information provided by the contributor is all we have to trust. 102% Yield provided an image of a home distillation apparatus, which I removed as a good faith edit, as the apparatus could be used for any oil distillation, and so is not informative specifically about lavender oil, which - in industry - would be produced using manufacturing distillation. Zefr (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Description as a "Poison"

The Adverse Effects section was recently edited by Reba16 to include the sentence "Lavender oil is poisonous, due to the components linalyl acetate and linalool, and should not be ingested." Given that the source cited even includes the line, "Lavender oil is generally not poisonous in adults when breathed in during aromatherapy or swallowed in smaller amounts. It may cause a reaction in children who swallow small amounts. The major effects are due to allergic reactions of the skin.", this seems somewhat disingenuous as a blanket statement. As with all essential oils, and literally any other substance, classification as a poison is completely dose dependent. Lavender oil is considered GRAS by the FDA, and is sold and used as a flavoring in many foods with no issues to speak of, and more recently has been studied as a supplement in the 80-160mg range with few reported adverse effects. Browsing through the literature most of the poisoning cases seem to be in children/infants ingesting large amounts of the stuff, which is obviously a concern, but I don't think any sane person is suggesting going out and drinking an entire bottle of the stuff. Is it appropriate to keep this sort of blanket statement in the article, or would it make sense to at least tweak it to provide some more context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.39.147 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that the blanket statement "Lavender oil is poisonous" is not only inaccurate but does a disservice to the many readers who may benefit from lavender oil, and especially from the anxiolytic impact, corroborated by many recent studies as well as systematic reviews. I wish I had the time to write something up but the "poison paragraph" should be heavily edited or removed. Kim99 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed the subhead and content with this edit to clarify the toxicity concern about ingestion. In a PubMed search for what you say is "corroboration by many recent studies as well as systematic reviews", I didn't see any usable sources, as the studies were of poor quality and published in weak journals that do not meet WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we don't have enough systematic reviews purely focused on toxicity. My main focus is on systematic reviews on the anxiolytic impact, eliminating the reviews on essential oils in general (and many exist). If you examine the discussions on prophylactic dosages, it seems entirely safe. Reports of poisoning seem to result from ingestion of quantities far above medicinal efficacy. Too much of anything is poisonous :-) Kim99 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I include the systematic reviews mentioned: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31655395/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34775136/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31792285/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743795/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22464012/

Kim99 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Using in-vitro studies to support statements about human health effects

@Alexbrn: Do you mean to say that the fact that it comes from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences overrides the fact that the article is based on an in-vitro study? MarshallKe (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The NIEHS is concerned about the possibility of endocrine disruption. We relay that concern since it is due. It's for them to analyse the import of research, not you. If you like, quote their news piece too[4] - it would improve the article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

So, since NIEHS is considered a high quality source on its own, we will generally trust what it says. However, the cited source is the Endocrine Society. Questions: 1) How would you compare Endocrine Society to NIEHS as far as quality/reliability for MEDRS purposes? and 2) Do you think it would be more appropriate to use the NIEHS source rather than the ES source? MarshallKe (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Both good sources, esp. for matters related to endocrine disruption and the environment. And the claim (that the endocrine disrupting nature of certain chemicals is a potential cause of concern) is not weighty. Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: See this reply per User:Zefr. In short, Zefr argues that rejecting the article because it's based on an in-vitro study is a normal part of assessing the quality of evidence and does not run afoul of "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." MarshallKe (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If other editors have something to contribute to this here, I await their contribution with interest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue in this case is more about assessing toxicity in an essential oil with significant potential for human poisoning. In toxicology assessment, in vitro methods are preferred as screens over lab animal testing, and certainly over the typical process of human clinical research. Including the section under Environmental impact is justified. Zefr (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see how an in-vitro study might be allowed into an article if it's a toxicology study. Are you also willing to overlook the fact that this article is based on only a single study plus a few case reports? I wouldn't think the fact that this is a toxicology study would allow us to skip the principles of MEDASSESS altogether. MarshallKe (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not here citing "an in-vitro study" (though primary sources are sometimes used about toxicity) and are heeding the "the principles of MEDASSESS" in that the sourcing for merely stating there is a concern about lavender oil toxicology is fine and this knowledge is due. Alexbrn (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that's fine. If a statement about toxicological concern can be supported by such a low quality source, I see no reason for a similar quality source to support a statement of medical interest for, say white button mushrooms in prostate cancer research, or a statement that there is a lack of toxicological concern, for example, in this article on a supplement popularly taken for anxiety. If toxicology has such a low bar for evidence, there are so many studies that support the safety (but not efficacy) of fringe folk medicine substances. Or, are you saying the low bar of evidence only applies when the toxicological studies come to certain "approved" conclusions? MarshallKe (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not "such a low quality source". It shows this concern is on the radars of the most relevant major medical orgs. I'm not sure about your other reasoning but if it means you're going to keep deleting "negative" MEDRS sources (e.g.[5]) here or pushing weak sources then it's not good. Probably better to make concrete proposals about Lavender oil here, about button mushrooms there, and about MEDRS itself at the relevant guidelines Talk page or WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Anxiolytic impact

I think we now have enough systematic reviews to devote a sizable section on this topic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31655395/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34775136/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31792285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743795/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22464012/ Kim99 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence. Looks like "no good evidence of benefit" would be a reasonable summary. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your response. Are you saying that in the 5 minutes between my message and yours you looked through the five systematic reviews and came to that conclusion? What sources do you base at opinion on? Do you have stronger evidence than the five systematic reviews I submitted? Kim99 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Enough to see they're not five systematic reviews, and some are too old, and none is in a stellar journal considering the WP:EXCEPTIONAL topic area. And from the abstracts/conclusions I looked at this seemed to be the upshot. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay let's respond point by point. 1. One is a network meta analysis, the rest are clearly systematic reviews. 2. What do you mean by old? It's a relative term. Many "old" studies are still extremely relevant. 3. Try actually reading stuff before talking about it. After that let's try to have an intelligent exchange. Kim99 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources is reliable, as they are not high-quality clinical publications, and there are too many deficiencies of research in conducting the studies. Neither is there any medical organization recommending lavender oil to treat anxiety, failing WP:MEDSCI. I revised the Uses section using the Drugs.com review to include treatment of anxiety as having "no good evidence." Zefr (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kim99: It's generally useful to know what one is looking at beforehand, because Wikipedia has preferences for sourcing. Five years is generally a cut off in actively researched fields. On the three remaining, Phytomedicine seems a reasonable, relevant journal (impact factor ~5). Considering the caveats on offer in the 2019 article ("The most important limitation of this review is the low average quality of available studies on the topic. The majority of included RCTs were characterized by a high overall risk of bias") the most this would support is "weak evidence of benefit", or "no good evidence" as suggested. Alexbrn (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the detailed reply. You mention that neither is there any medical organization recommending lavender oil to treat anxiety." As a self-described skeptic, could I suggest you apply your skepticism to cover medical organizations as well as wacky naturopaths. As you may know major funders of pharmaceuticals are very reluctant to fund studies on natural products. You can't sell a bottle of lavender oil or probiotics for $1,000. That's a major reason why we don't have many reviews of traditional medicines. And of course many naturopaths have no clue about how to apply the scientific method. It's a sad story. As a result I think two or three systematic reviews of traditional medicines should be acceptable. Kim99 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So you think the NHS (say) isn't keen on low-cost healthcare and wants expensive "$1000/bottle" drugs? That is bonkers, as well as nearly 180° wrong, and not a good basis for interpreting disappointing results wrt lavender oil in a more positive light. Incidentally, the lavender oil market is worth ~ $100 million pa, with some large companies involved:[6] big suppla is a thing too. I'm not sure who the "self-described skeptic" is? Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You use the word "bonkers" so I guess you are from the UK or one of the ex-colonies. Perhaps you you are not fully aware of the situation in the United States. The FDA is in bed with Big Pharma, and the naturopaths are in bed with fairies in their back gardens. Nobody really applies the scientific method anymore. Big Pharma still buries the studies that fail (publication bias) so we have no idea who is telling us bigger lies. Producers of plant-based medicines are actually very tightly controlled behind the scenes. For example, no matter how effective or scientifically solid a plant-based product may be for depression and anxiety, the manufacturers are not allowed to use the words "depression" or "anxiety" in their marketing. Those words are completely monopolized by Big Pharma. This is not a free country. Kim99 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

PS I'm throwing in the towel.. I can't deal with someone who dismisses multiple systematic reviews based on the abstracts and the relative respectability of journals. Of course it's the Western Europeans and Americans who control the parameters of respectability. The usual eurocentric crap. Kim99 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2019 meta-analysis "Efficacy and safety of lavender essential oil (Silexan) capsules among patients suffering from anxiety disorders: A network meta-analysis"

For some reason user User:Alexbrn believes the meta-analysis published in Scientific Reports (peer-reviewed open access scientific mega journal published by Nature Portfolio) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54529-9 findings should not be included in this wikipedia article. I would like to know why. It is a more recent than any of the articles mentioned in the "drugs.com" article that is also cited in this article, as well as being a more reliable source than "drugs.com". I'm fine with keeping the "drugs.com" citation around as long as it is made clear that it does not include studies newer than 2018 and as long as the actual claims made in the "drugs.com" article are made clear rather than interpreted in a biased way.

Similar HAM-A change findings are found in a separate review of clinical trials as well https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28511598/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Diff reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1095131761&oldid=1095130792

"Weak source for exceptional claim."

The source is not weak and the claim is not "exceptional" nor is it even a claim, it is just the exact findings of the meta-analysis. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Any claim about drug benefit is exceptional. And Scientific Reports (not "Nature" NB) is rather notorious. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a claim about a "drug benefit". This is a description of the findings of meta-analysis. Review wording of above diff.

Peer reviewed papers published "Scientific Reports" are used as a source in many Wikipedia articles, so I don't see how your claim of "notorious" holds any weight beyond simple name-calling. It's the 7th most cited journal in the world and the largest journal in the world. There are only a handful of controversial articles published to it that were later removed out of the millions of peer-reviewed articles published there.

Other analysis's exist as well with similar findings: "A total of 697 patients were assessed for efficacy. Silexan was superior to placebo in reducing the HAMA total score during 10 weeks' treatment [mean value difference, 95% confidence interval: 3.83 (1.28; 6.37) points]. Superiority was comparably pronounced for psychic and somatic anxiety as well as for observer- and self-rated anxiety. Silexan had a beneficial effect on sleep (secondary to the anxiolytic effect) without causing sedation and improved the patients' health-related quality of life. Adverse event incidence in both treatment groups was comparable [risk ratio: 1.06 (0.85; 1.33)]. Silexan has a significant and clinically meaningful anxiolytic effect in subthreshold anxiety. The results cannot be generalised to other lavender oil products." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29150713/ 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe get some better source then? Wikipedia wants good ones. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What is your reasoning that the anonymously authored article on drugs.com article is a better source than the 3 papers I linked? Of course I can link more if you want but your criteria for what is a "good" source is inconsistent with what hundreds of other editors on wikipedia think, considering the widespread usage of Scientific Reports citations.

If not I can request an uninterested third-party to mediate. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not super-keen on drugs.com either. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll take your lack of engaging with the conversation as request for DRN. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:StellarNerd Please undo your revert. The RfC below is *not* to determine if the current source should stay in, it's to determine if *more* source should be added. Consensus was already reached on the current source that Zefr keeps removing. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Scientific Reports is indeed not sufficient. IRT "conflicting results", it's like "more research is needed", "There is no good evidence to support [...]" is a good description for it... —PaleoNeonate – 09:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• PMID:33638614 is a better, if still not stellar, source with similar conclusion, but which mentions as a limitation that all the data comes from one research group. Not sure how to handle this, if at all. May need more thoughts from WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  It is not an encyclopedia's job to do a peer-review of research. If you don't think the conclusion of these papers are correct because of bad methodology then you should reach out to the journal itself to see if you can have it removed.

  In any case, at least the methodology and findings are clear and the publishers' names are known for these papers. The "conclusion" of the drugs.com article is simply anonymous and not peer reviewed, and many many papers are missing from their page in the first place.

  Perhaps a middle-ground: find all relevant papers published in the last 5 years on the topic, no matter what their findings are, and write up a summary of what was found. Example, "Some studies show effectiveness[1][2], while others do not[3][4][5]" or "There is some evidence of effectives[1][2][3]", etc etc whatever we find gets summarized. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  It is an enyclopedia's job to evaluate sourcing strength and summarize whole papers accurately, including caveats. Just selecting everything in a time window, no matter how strong/weak, would seem dumb. Alexbrn (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that would be dumb. That's why my proposal is all *relevant* papers published in the last 5 years. So I'm sure we'd both agree that alternative medicine journals and other such crackpottery are out of the question. But perhaps we will still need a volunteer to help us come to a conclusion about which journals should be considered relevant. As I am still currently of the opinion that every journal I've linked thus far is still worth being mentioned 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I made this edit to provide a succinct statement about the meta-analysis in question. First, I don't see any consensus here that this source and the content were agreed among several editors, so adding it back into the article was premature both for this talk page and the incomplete DRN discussion here. Accordingly, the entry in the article is temporary and may be removed. Second, the meta-analysis and the 5 trials included in the review were all by the same Vienna-based Kasper group, giving concern about bias and conflict of interest, which is revealed further by the numerous potential COI issues of corporate funding sources for the authors of the meta-analysis (end of publication). Third, there is confusion about dosing and effect on anxiety in the two meta-analysis studies the IP proposed: this one concluded that 160 mg/day of oral silexan was needed for effect, whereas this one said the effective dose was 80 mg/day. Fourth, until yesterday, the only edits by IP 50.45.170.185 were on promoting this anxiety topic, raising concerns about the motivation and potential COI of this editor. Fifth, contrary to the IP's wish to include several other weak publications about using lavender oil for anxiety, there is no justification or consensus for using them. I retain the position of our previous article conclusion: There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety, and the Drugs.com review is a superior source over a meta-analysis of weak research. Zefr (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zefr.

By the way, are you familiar with this image on MEDRS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#/media/File:Research_design_and_evidence.svg

I'm still curious though why "drugs.com" is being pushed as superior to a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. From my understanding, the new source would be considered "2nd best" and "drugs.com" would be considered "2nd worst". I feel it has no place on this article, and all instances of it being used for medical claims should be replaced by secondary sources from reputable peer-reviewed journals. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:MEDASSESS and perhaps are too easily persuaded (or mesmerized) by the word, meta-analysis. As in the case of this report, a meta-analysis of poor-quality research is a poor-quality encyclopedia source, especially for medical content. When good reviews are absent - as in this case - we rely on academic or clinical guidelines with summaries of evidence. Drugs.com reviews are used across Wikipedia in articles where journal reviews are inadequate. Drugs.com is published by a reputable organization (American Society of Health-System Pharmacists) (see here). Its review on lavender is the most thorough overall coverage available on material that is difficult to standardize and finance for long-term clinical research. It also offers critical assessment of the state of research, such as in the case of using oral lavender oil for anxiety: trials often included healthy volunteers, and most were considered to be of poor quality and displayed inconsistent results and significant heterogeneity, lack of blinding, small sample sizes, and small number of studies. Better to side with skepticism about research quality than put misleading content and poor sources into the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Zefr, it does sound like you agree with me that "drugs.com" is not a better or equivalent source to a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials from a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.

I know I have not been responding to your various criticisms of the paper(s), that is because I still think this stance is the correct one and the only way to avoid bias: It is not an encyclopedia's job to do a peer-review of research. If you don't think the conclusion of these papers are correct because of bad methodology then you should reach out to the journal itself to see if you can have it removed.

The article as it stands now accurately summarizes the findings of the most recent, highest quality secondary sources on the subject matter. Reverting now would be a strict downgrade from this position, and I feel like people in this position that want to move away from peer-reviewed secondary sources to something that is not peer-reviewed are usually motivated by bias... (at least looking around on some wikipedia talk pages that seems to be the case usually) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Waaaaaait a minute...

>"Drugs.com is published by a reputable organization (American Society of Health-System Pharmacists) (see here)"

What are you talking about? These are the claims made on that page:

1. "The Drugs.com website is owned and operated by Drugsite Limited, as trustee of the Drugsite Trust. Drugsite Limited is a privately owned company administered by two New Zealand Pharmacists."

2. "The only funding we receive from pharmaceutical companies is by way of advertisements that appear on the Drugs.com website"

If you are correct that "drugs.com" is widely used as a MEDRS across multiple wikipedia articles that is highly concerning. Not only is this a for-profit site that takes money from pharmaceutical companies, but it is not peer-reviewed at all. I think you misunderstood this line: "The Drugs.com Drug Information Database is powered by several independent leading medical-information suppliers, including; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Cerner Multum and IBM Watson Micromedex."

Pinging other users to look at this possible widespread problem on Wikipedia about a misunderstanding of what "drugs.com" actually is: @Alexbrn @Pyrrho the Skipper @User:Robert_McClenon 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The article's current form, with the summary by Zefr, seems fine to me. Nothing about the conclusions of any of the studies mentioned are red flags for not including. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Pyrrho. What are your thoughts on including other sources as well, such as this one that got reverted? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1095480708&oldid=1095476822 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Does adding that source affect the content? If not, then we should use whatever source is the least contested. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is misleading the way it is currently worded, it implies there is only a single meta-analysis on the subject matter (or worse, there are multiple but only a single one holds these conclusions).

Note his claim of "Not a reputable clinical publication" is contradictory to Alexbrn's position on the journal: "Phytomedicine seems a reasonable, relevant journal (impact factor ~5)" 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, I don't feel misled as a reader since the conclusion is the same whether it's one meta-analysis or two. Maybe the other source is fine, but since there is opposition to it from more than one editor, I'd say leave it out. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Pyrrho.

Just to clarify, both I and Alexbrn think that the journal is fine. It is only Zefr that claims it is not reputable for unspecified reasons. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, the Phytotherapy journal? It seems fine to me, too. If there's only one editor who takes issue, then the source could be added, if helpful to the article to have additional sources (which it may be, if some editors find the claim exceptional). If Zefr is the only one objecting, I suggest they create an RfC to bring in a wider range of opinions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's Phytomedicine (not Phytotherapy), an alt-med publication listed as unreliable on WP:CITEWATCH, section 7. Reputable clinical research would not be published there. Zefr (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the journal is not listed as unreliable on that page. The only reason it is on WP:CITEWATCH is simply because a Wikipedia editor tagged the journal's page as "Herbalism", so the reasoning for a Wikipedia editor to reject it as a source is pretty weak. We should ask RSN to see if the journal is appropriate or at least if this article was okay to use. We could also ask them about "Scientific Reports", "Brain and Behavior", and "The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry" which you seem to reject.

I am also still curious what their position is on drugs.com is given the nature of it explained here [7] 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on adding more sources for anxiety treatment section and summarizing their findings

I would like the article to have an encyclopedic summary of the findings of all relevant sources. And by "relevant" I of course mean the MEDRS guidelines, namely (A) published in a peer-reviewed journal (B) a meta-analysis (C) recent (five years old or less) and (D) related to the particular claim at hand (effectiveness of Silexan capsules). The article as I found it a few days ago had only a single source, the source was not (A) nor (B) at all, it was 90% not (C) nor (D) either. And of course way the Wikipedia article summarized the source is also pretty much the exact opposite way I would summarize the sources that meet (A) (B) (C) and (D). So I would like the changes I have made to stand as they do now, add more details about the findings of these papers (e.g. which symptoms does it treat exactly?), also add other relevant sources like possibly this and this and this.

• Are the journals I linked above appropriate for the article? Namely "Scientific Reports", "Brain and Behavior", and "The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry".

• Also I would like to input on the journal Phytomedicine. Wikipedia editor Zefr removed the citation to a study in it because of its appearance in the WP:CITEWATCH list. However, Wikipedia editors put the journal on that list simply by tagging the journal's wikipedia article with "Herbalism", so the reasoning as it stands it pretty weak. Would love more input it or at the very least if this article was okay to use.

(Optional). One final note: Assuming that the community at large agrees that a journal is reliable and uses it, and a paper published in the journal meets criteria (A)(B)(C), and (D): what place does a wikipedia editor have to remove it as a citation because they personally disagree with the paper's conclusions or the methodology they used to reach those conclusions? Does removing such sources for those reasons not fall under original research? I ask this because it seems to be a recurring theme during this dispute to prefer drugs.com (where the methodology isn't even stated) and remove recent meta-analyses from peer-reviewed journals.

Thank you everyone that took the time to read this or help with this issue. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Scientific Reports is the journal with the largest volume of articles, and they misbehave a lot, but not in any very serious ways in the last couple of years. Should we tolerate them just because they're big? Don't ask me, I don't know.
• It's fine for one Wikipedia editor to remove what they think is a bad source, and for another editor to challenge the removal, and for this to result in a discussion on the talk page. Does removing such sources for those reasons not fall under original research? No. You can say "the community at large agrees that the journal is reliable", in that hypothetical situation where we have already agreed.
• How's about this modification? I know it's a WP:SPS, but as I say in the summary, it's also a published subject-matter expert in the relevant field and thus "may be considered reliable" per the same link.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason I say the community at large agrees that the journal is reliable is because:

• Scientific Reports is cited 6424 times on Wikipedia.
• Brain and Behavior is cited 26 times.
• The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry is cited 46 times.
• Phytomedicine is cited 131 times.

This shows that many editors across many pages came to a consensus that these journals are reliable enough to use. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I saw that already, and if I recall rightly the page also said "a large number of citations does not necessarily imply reliability". Personally I think we're probably going to have to accept that it will be used as a source a lot just because it's so big and ubiquitous, but we don't have to like it, and a similar attitude to drugs.com (looking at cases individually) might be in order.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It does not necessarily imply reliability because of the possible reasons listed. Unless you can point out which "reason" listed on that page is the cause of these four journals all being misleadingly cited so many times, you're not really making a point. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Incidentally, these capsules are made by The Willmar Schwabe Group, whose flagship product is a ginkgo biloba extract called Tebonin, supposed to relieve tinnitus and generally pep you up. They were found in breach of the advertising code in Australia: "on balance, the evidence before it would support a representation that the product could be effective in relieving the symptoms of tinnitus. However, the Panel also considered that the countervailing evidence was such that the strong emphasis on clinical and scientific proof and the breadth of scientific evidence available could not be supported." In other words we can't be sure it doesn't help, a similar situation to all this research on swallowing lavender oil for anxiety. I'm sure you'd be concerned as I am with the possibility that the Wikipedia page might accidentally provide them with free advertising, as a result of a billion smartphones summarising the article, and parroting a phrase like "oral use of the lavender oil capsule Silurian at a dose of 80 mg per day reduced anxiety symptoms". I mean we really shouldn't encourage that kind of thing, or else Wikipedia will be exploited constantly by SEO types.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• That is some interesting original research you posted, but no this page is no more a form of "free advertising" than the Vyvanse page is free advertising for Shire. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not OR because it's not in article space, natural health supplements are in a very general sense a big rip-off, and their producers do crave scientific credibility just like plants crave Brawndo (except actually), whereas dextroamphetamine at least definitely does something (however terrible), and furthermore that Vyvanse article is full of a huge number of offputting phrases like "substance abuse", "could exacerbate tics", "rapid muscle breakdown" and "stunted growth", so if we're going to include information about these lavender capsules it's only right that it should be balanced by criticism, and "studies not independent enough" is extremely light criticism by comparison.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, though, it seems just a liiiitle cherry-picky and undue to go looking for something and then give half of the paragraph to a random psychiatrist who wrote an opinion on substack. But then again, I've been wrong before. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm grateful there was a random psychiatrist. He seems noticed and respected by a few people, including Stephen Pinker, not that I think Stephen Pinker is wonderful, but anyway. (For any casual spectators reading, this is about Scott Siskind and a blog page about lavender for anxiety.) In many other cases there'd be some allegedly beneficial product like Highliironic Acid, a bunch of dubious studies, and no impartial criticism to cite at all. It's fortunate that anyone even cared about thinking about this product critically. I know that's what the meta-analyses (of Prof. Kasper's studies, by Prof. Kasper, funded by the producers of the thing being studied) were supposed to do, but hey, maybe they didn't, that's the whole point. And that may be exaggeration of the potential for bias, of course - one of the studies wasn't by Kasper, and there were many other co-authors - and Scott Siskind says as much, his criticism is actually rather forgiving and he in the end he gives it 50/50 that a more independent study would confirm the results.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

All four of these meta-analyses are peer-reviewed by reputable journals. If they purposely used faulty methods to reach incorrect conclusions then they would have been rejected for doing so. To quote WP:MEDRS: "Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of the meta-analyses should be included (and currently is, thanks to this revision). Not personal objections. The criticism could be referenced to drugs.com or to Scott Siskind, or both, or (as at present) neither (since the necessary facts are given in the 2021 article). You seem interested in having the article mention the meta-analyses without criticism, and with a string of references because there have been three of them. You can include the older two meta-analyses if you want, but the science has been noted as dubious by sources, not by us, and the criticism of the science should be mentioned. I am content with the section as it is at present, which includes mention of this anxiolytic use and criticism of the quality of the science.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So Support for adding the other two meta-analyses as sources? You can include the older two meta-analyses if you want

Can I get a hand? User:Pyrrho_the_Skipper He's talking about this and this. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I abstain, because other people have ideas about their quality (or lack of it) and I don't know.  Card Zero  (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@50.45.170.185: There are multiple points of contention, it seems:

1. Inclusion of the Silexan paragraph

2. If included, which studies to use as sources

3. If included, should there be a mention of criticism of the study (what Card Zero seems to be concerned about)

If it were me, I would start a new RfC to discuss number 1. And then if more discussion is needed after that to address 2 and 3, then we can discuss (and RfC) as needed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying but I think it's a little out of order.

I would say first we need to determine if a MEDRS-compliant source (or sources?) should be summarized added to this article. If there isn't one then there's no point in asking if the Silexan paragraph should be added, so we need that consensus established first.

Secondly then determine how to summarize the source(s). Whether to include things like HAM-A, particular symptoms treated, honoraria etc.

Since this RfC and the related RSN post are both mostly about determining which sources to use, I'd say we can continue using the existing RfC to reach a consensus on the first step. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The negative side-effects of lavender oil are already listed on this page. Just as it would be biased to remove the positive benefits of Vyvanse from its article, it would be biased to purposely omit studies showing positive effects on this article.

Anyway, this RfC is not even about whether or not to include the findings of PMID 33638614, it's about which other sources we should include that have the same findings and how to summarize all of the sources together. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh-huh, but those are different forms of criticism. That is not the criticism of the science, which is what I was talking about.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts on how the findings of the meta-analyses should be summarized below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lavender_oil#Anti-anxiety_content_and_sources_-_revision

Please take a look and let me know what you think. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose addition. It appears to be promoting a commercial interest to me. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  See above: This page is no more a form of "free advertising" than the Vyvanse page is free advertising for Shire.

  Do you have any actual problem with the journals that are listed? We should focus on the content of the encyclopedia by summarizing reliable, third-party published secondary sources, from roughly the last 5 years as per WP:MEDRS guidelines. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose not only for Silexan advertising concerns, but the report in question is a low-quality analysis in a low-quality journal (low impact factor and low ranking in neurology publications), having numerous deficiencies identified in the above discussion and summarized in this reputable monograph, which stated under Anxiety "significant heterogeneity, lack of blinding, small sample sizes, and small number of studies (4 of which were by the same author)". There is also a concern about the authors' numerous conflicts of interest with German drug and supplement companies funding the research, as declared in the article. Medical editors are expected to assess the quality of evidence in a source, WP:MEDASSESS, for which the report in question fails completely. As of this date, only the IP and Pyrrho support use of the source; Alexbrn did not, calling it "weak" and "not stellar", failing WP:EXCEPTIONAL and not achieving WP:CON. This content and source were never a MEDRS matter, as such use is alternative medicine not accepted in mainstream psychiatry practice for anxiety. This long worn out conversation is being perpetuated by one WP:SPA IP editor, who has made some 150 edits in the past 4 days, nearly all of which are related to lavender oil and anxiety. Time to WP:DTS. Zefr (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  1. Alexbrn did not call it weak. He said "PMID:33638614 is a better, if still not stellar, source with similar conclusion".
  2. The impact factor of all four of these journals are fine, even though you have conveniently ignored three of them. All of them are used at least dozens of times on Wikipedia currently.
  3. The consensus is that drugs.com is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for biomedical claims, so I'm not sure why you're still referencing it to defend your position of excluding peer-reviewed meta-analyses. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#drugs.com_for_MEDRS
  4. All of these meta-analyses are peer-reviewed by reputable journals. If they purposely used faulty methods to reach incorrect conclusions then they would have been rejected for doing so. To quote WP:MEDRS:

  Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Support. I don't really barely care enough to vote on this, but for what it's worth, the original sentence and source supporting it seemed fine to me. The bigger issue for me is that I wish we could strive to AGF and keep these discussions about the content. So much unnecessary reporting, suspicion, and aspersion-casting. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, it was this original sentence and source that seemed fine to you right? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that statement and source seems fine to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support adding all three sources and briefly mentioning which specific symptoms they were found to treat or not treat effectively. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons mentioned below. The proposed addition reads too much like an academic journal and doesn't offer a balanced viewpoint, based on the discussions. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  The RfC was mainly about if any of the meta-analyses linked above, here and here, should be included, after deciding that we can work together to figure out the wording of summarizing their findings. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Weak studies in weak journals, and even then caveats are raised. Richard Keatinge’s bold edit captures the current state of knowledge fairly and well. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  As explained below, there is a consensus on WP:RSN that NCCIH is not MEDRS-compliant. And even if you went to RSN and got a new consensus, the current wording in this Wikipedia article is using "weasel words and phrases" and so needs to be re-worded to not be WP:OR, see here for explanation.

  Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Anti-anxiety content and sources - revision

In the hope of finding a way through I have tried a bold edit. It is intended to comply with all relevant policies and demonstrate a useful NPOV way through the above issues. In particular I have summarized the findings of the meta-analysis, removed the trade name from conspicuous display, omitted drugs.com, and also summarized, from a reference gleaned from drugs.com, the major weaknesses of the meta-analysis. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I moved the parenthetical sentence to the end, which seems slightly more readable to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with keeping the the bold edit mentioned above. It's more neutral/balanced than the proposed changes, which also seems to read like an academic journal to me, see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I think that the bold edit captures the main points and adding anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Richard Keatinge for attempting a balanced edit, but I respectfully disagree and recommend WP:BRD be implemented here first. Issues: 1) the above talk discussion is relatively new and active, with no consensus reached among editors, so restoring the anti-anxiety content was premature to WP:CON; 2) having this source in the article gives it credibility as having quality, which it does not - it has too many research and design deficiencies, acknowledged in your parenthetical comments (and my summary above to Oppose); 3) if the issue of anxiety treatment by oral lavender oil had credibility, there would be a reputable systematic or Cochrane review published, which of course do not exist because the research on this topic is so poor and resides in the category of herbalism quackery; 4) by WP:MEDSCI, the article's content and sources about anti-disease research should represent mainstream scientific status, which the revised version does not, as there is no good scientific evidence, mainstream consensus or clinical guideline that oral lavender oil alleviates anxiety or is being undertaken in research by reputable clinical neuroscience groups. The original statement in the article is the state of science on this topic - There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety - it has one Cochrane review as a source, while the best available source for no good evidence for treating anxiety is the Drugs.com monograph which summarizes the criticisms you provided, with more sources. Zefr (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The NIH national center for complementary and integrative health [8] has written "Studies of a lavender oil product that is taken orally (by mouth) have suggested it might be beneficial for anxiety, but because of limitations of the research, including the small size of the studies, no definite conclusions can be reached about its effectiveness." Would including something like this be helpful to incorporate both views? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree, Eucalyptusmint - applied this edit using the NCCIH source as the conclusion, which is identical to the one in the Drugs.com monograph. The temporary consensus among editors is to include discussion about the von Kanel analysis, but other editors may disagree, as I still do for the reasons above. Zefr (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that works since both of those points are included and is WP:BALANCED. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr There is wide consensus that NCCIH pages are not MEDRS-compliant. Please revert this change. Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Eucalyptusmint,

Unfortunately we can't include that as a source because there is wide consensus that NCCIH pages are not MEDRS-compliant. It's pretty cut and dry when you consider the requirements outlined in the guidelines of WP:MEDRS 50.45.170.185 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I read through the consensus and it seems like the consensus was that NCCIH "can be used to say non-surprising things about treatment efficacy," moreover the tea tree oil article was also used as an example to show how it was used properly. In my view, it's similar to what Zefr added. Additionally, I was also reading through the WP:MEDRS guideline that you linked and I noticed that in the WP:MEDORG section it states that information and statements from the NIH can be used. It states "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization." Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Everyone on that page agrees that it is a tertiary source and so not MEDRS compliant.
2. The one guy that says he's okay with using it for non-surprising things, adds the qualifier to only use them when (e.g. treatment efficacy not covered in other good MEDRS) Since we have MEDRS-compliant meta-analyses available, we should use them
3. Further down in WP:MEDORG you can see that The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. In this case the NCCIH page is absolutely not a scientific report, so is strictly weaker.
4. In this case the NCCIH page isn't actually guidelines, it's just an info page. But even if it were guidelines, MEDORG says Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia. <-- which btw this weasel wording is exactly how the current article is phrased.
5. Ultimately, MEDORG says these sources are "encyclopedic". WP:MEDDEF says encyclopedias are tertiary. The very first sentence in MEDRS says biomedical information must be based on secondary sources sources. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

   I understand. I'm not suggesting that the meta-analyses shouldn't be used, I agree that they are valuable along with systematic studies per WP:MEDASSESS. I was trying to understand why the NIH source couldn't also be used along with the meta-analysis study, since the tea tree oil article cited NIH to say something similar. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Card Zero: It looks like in your edit summary, and the use of scare quotes around "for flow" you may have gotten the wrong impression. The sentence clarifying the study acts as a caveat, and is therefore useful, but its position as a parenthetical between the two sentences disrupts the flow, in my opinion, and is clearer at the end. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an inopportune time to modify the contentious paragraph for flow in a way which, AGF, coincidentally moved the sentence which you could happily do without to a less prominent position. I like it in the middle, where it disrupts the potential for quoting the positive parts out-of-context.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Card Zero Pyrrho the Skipper please see my comment below about how to summarize the conclusions of the papers to avoid WP:SYNTH

thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding all of these qualifiers to the research is WP:OR, for example do you find any of these acceptable?

• "The IPCC claims global warming is real, however most IPCC members identify as left-leaning."
• "Multiple studies show effectiveness of the new COVID-22 vaccines. Many researchers in these studies received funding from companies manufacturing the vaccines."
• "According to a 2021 meta-analysis, Windex does not cure cancer. The meta-analysis was published to a journal that only has an impact factor of 2.5"
• "Three systematic reviews came to the conclusion that most Chinese traditional medicine is ineffective at treating any disease; all of the authors of these papers were from NATO countries."
• "American leaders, who were actively at war with the Nazis, claimed the Nazis committed atrocities against the Jews."

All of these things could be true but they shouldn't be written this way. They are doing WP:OR indirectly by setting up an argument to discredit something and just falling short of posting the conclusion to that argument. When WP:MEDRS explicitly states that you can't reject a source because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions then why would those things belong in the article itself?

Also, we should add that it is in-fact multiple other meta-analyses that came to the same conclusion, here and here, once these are added as sources it becomes even more unclear why the "weaknesses" of one meta-analysis should be shown in such a WP:OR way. When WP:MEDRS says "editors should not perform detailed academic peer review" that includes "summarizing the major weaknesses of the meta-analysis" yourself rather than citing weaknesses found by a reliable MEDRS-compliant source. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Back in revision 1095819461 I cited a source for the criticism, Scott Siskind's blog (which Pyrrho promptly removed because it's self-published, but I looked at the policy first and I think it's allowed). This covers all the meta-analyses. The fact that there are three of them looks good, but actually changes nothing when you examine it. Read the blog, go on, hold your nose and give it a go.

Speaking of which, let's knuckle down and examine those five bullet points. The last two are basically poisoning the well by pointing out that a criticism (as you might expect) originates from opponents of the faction being critiqued. That's not a good parallel for the criticism of the meta-analyses. The first one is of this type as well. The middle two are a bit different. I think the key thing here is the idea of what is or is not controversial.

• Is it good to highlight the financial involvement of vaccine manufacturers in studies of their vaccines? I think actually it might be, a bit. Rumour has it that the Chinese vaccine, for instance, doesn't actually work very well. (Sorry for spreading rumours, and not actually investigating this, but at least hypothetically, that might be the case.) I feel ill-equipped to discuss this point because I don't know much about studies on vaccines, are there no independent studies?
• Is "Windex does not cure cancer" like "lavender quells anxiety"? Sterling defence, but no, because we (humans generally) already assume that Windex doesn't do that. This is about burden of proof, or that phrase extraordinary claims require & etc.. (I haven't actually read what I linked to there, so sue me.) The point is that we're right to be skeptical and disparaging about an extraordinary new idea like lavender curing anxiety, or, say, the platypus, and wrong to be skeptical and disparaging about well-established claims like, say, lavender not curing anxiety, because casting doubt like that would be misleading. There's more going on in this than I can express: I think it reveals that, in invoking one bit of research, in the manner in which we invoke it, we also inevitably say something about the whole wider realm of opinion about it. My attitude to neutrality is that we should try to be neutral, but will inevitably fail. Being uncontroversial, on the other hand, is often achievable.
• Sorry for being longwinded, somebody else can probably say the above more succinctly.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I totally understand where you're coming from and it's probably a very common viewpoint. In fact, I was just recently reading Jimbo Wales's beautiful and perfect explanation of neutrality here and it's basically addressing that exact same concern: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." Of course, we can't just use what anyone believes in this case because we need to follow MEDRS guidelines, but basically even if you know for certain that everything in this blog is correct and true we still can't use it as a source or a basis for how to write this encyclopedia article. We need to summarize the latest MEDRS-compliant research.

An amusing coincidence, in the same thread Lee Daniel Crocker (who wrote the Wikimedia software) states "Every now and then a crackpot's speculation turns out to be right--that doesn't mean that we shouldn't call it speculation when it still is. Chiropractic, herbal medicine, accupuncture, and chelation are all still quackery in most cases, and we should not shirk from saying so, except in those few instances where they have been studied scientifically for specific things. Chelation to treat heavy-metal poisoning, for example, or drugs derived from certain herbs. "Science" as I use the term here is just methodical honesty. Once you have honestly and properly tested something and evaluated the results, you can say that it has some reasonable basis."

Sorry for also being long-winded (or for quoting windbags). I think this is a really interesting topic. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

To quote WP:SYNTH

• Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

The conclusion reached/implied by this is that the studies are not trustworthy, which is not the explicit conclusion of the source. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We have at least one (two?) sources with the criticism of the meta-analyses, independent of personal opinion. We also have the "extraordinary claims" reasoning. I might say that including the meta-analyses without the criticism is akin to synthesis (this is stretching the point a bit, but then, you keep calling everything OR, so you'll forgive me for playing fast and loose with terminology). Well, it would be biased, is what it would be.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I like everything about Richard Keatinge's edit. I remember (before all this imbroglio, which although slightly absurd is still probably smaller than the one I had many years ago about tablespoon sizes) that I used to be interested by the idea that lavender might be psychoactive against anxiety, so despite Zefr's points I support the inclusion of the information. I mean (hurriedly) readers would be interested probably.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's as close to consensus as we're going to get. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should include MEDRS-compliant sources that either criticize a cited meta-analysis or show a different result from a cited meta-analysis. However, what I see on the page right now is:

• A 2021 meta-analysis by von Känel. It's establishing the initial claim.
• A 2017 meta-analysis by Generoso. It's being used in the article to criticize the paper that came out 4 years later somehow.
• An NCCIH page, last updated in 2020, that cites the 2017 Generoso paper. This page is also somehow being used to criticize the later 2021 meta-analysis.

So basically because of the dates here, the last two sources there can't actually be criticizing the 2021 paper, so that's why I say the wording as it stands right now is synthesis as it reaches or implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. On top of that, I still don't see why we are still choosing to only use the 2021 meta-analysis when there are two other meta-analyses published in 2019 that we can also use (linked above). They are both newer than the 2017 meta-analysis, according to WP:MEDRS "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The point about a meta-analysis is that it can't be stronger than the individual studies included in it. The Generoso paper comments on the individual studies and remains valid for any meta-analysis based on those studies. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree that we can keep the Generoso source since it is MEDRS-compliant. What do you think about adding the two other 2019 meta-analyses as well?

Also, an important point:

• There is consensus that the NCCIH pages are not MEDRS-compliant

So it should really be removed. Genoroso can just be cited directly anyway, so it's no big deal. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

No, NCCIH is an NIH institute which draws its information from all NIH resources, including Medline and the US National Library of Medicine, which are government resources at the highest quality of MEDRS. Those are good medical editors in that thread, but in 2020, they were mostly talking about the previous NCCAM, which was subject to valid criticisms, leading to reorganization and better scientific information for the public as NCCIH. The NCCIH article on lavender oil states the straightforward facts; the Drugs.com monograph is equally good. Even better is the statement that "There is no good evidence that oral lavender oil is useful as a treatment for anxiety." As stated elsewhere in threads concerning your obsession with this trivial topic, a meta-analysis of junk studies published in the Journal of Junk is still junk, applying to all the sources you are pushing so hard to include. If lavender oil had any validity to anxiety treatment, NINDS and other major neurological organizations would be talking about it - they are not. Please take a rest from here and go explore Wikipedia for other topics that may interest you. Zefr (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You are literally going against established consensus. Take it to WP:RSN if you want to try to change the consensus. Remove it and cite the secondary-sources directly. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that NCCIH is unreliable for the comment for which we are presently quoting it, namely that "the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined". The NCCIH is "the Federal Government’s lead agency for scientific research on complementary and integrative health approaches. We are 1 of the 27 Institutes, Centers, and Offices that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The mission of NCCIH is to determine, through rigorous scientific investigation, the fundamental science, usefulness, and safety of complementary and integrative health approaches and their roles in improving health and health care." I'd have thought it an excellently reliable source for our present purpose.

As for incorporating other meta-analyses of the same primary studies, I really can't see how that builds a better encyclopedic article. If there is a consensus to do so, it might be reasonable to include the others as bare references. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge Hi, please see my explanation above about why consensus thinks it isn't a reliable source for biomedical claims, and also the way we are currently using it is WP:ORIGINAL because of "weasel words and phrases": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1096218588&oldid=1096202607

I don't see any consensus that NCCIH is unreliable for the comment for which we are presently quoting it, namely that "the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined". <-- this is a biomedical claim, so must be backed by a MEDRS-compliant source. We have these strict guidelines in place so that statements like "Vaccine effectiveness remains undetermined" and "This miracle pill cures everything" requires a higher standard of source. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. For very unremarkable claims, such as the one we're quoting here, the lead Federal agency in the subject area seems entirely reliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The is a biomedical claim, so it is remarkable. See WP:BMI. And once again, MEDRS-compliant meta-analyses exist so even that one guy's weak support for it doesn't apply since he explicitly said it shouldn't be used if MEDRS sources are available.

There is a reason MEDRS exists. And there's a reason that the RSN post about it came to the consensus that NCCIH isn't an appropriate source for biomedical claims.

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's see if there is a consensus here about the specific use on this page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If we decide to keep it, what do you think about rewording it to be more inline with advice on Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources

Their examples:

x Wrong way to cite two conflicting conclusions: "Source A asserts the town's population as 5,000; however, this is disproven by the following sources and circumstances, and the true population was at least 7,000 in 1990.""

o Right way: "Famous Expert A says that because inflation has been low, the economy will improve. Famous Expert B says that low inflation will lead to a worsening of the economy."

Since it's worded more like the first way right now, what do you think about rewording to be more like the second way?

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Like this? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah that is closer. Basically the point though is to not intertwine them. Especially since the NCCIH page isn't talking about the 2021 meta-analysis. Basically, just as we did with the paper, we put the claimant first and the claim after. How about this:

"A 2021 meta-analysis [...] Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. According to the NCCIH, studies of lavender oil capsules taken orally have suggested it might be beneficial for anxiety, but because of limitations of the research, including the small size of the studies, no definite conclusions can be reached about its effectiveness." 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the wording above as it includes both sources. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It's more verbose than the present version "Due to the limitations of these studies, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health says that the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.". And it's minimally less clear in context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge Just re-arranging the less verbose version to put the claimant first I think would make this follow the guidelines much closer. Basically:

According to the NCCIH, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined due to the limitations of these studies.

That way it's clear that Wikipedia isn't claiming there are limitations to the studies, it is the NCCIH that is clearly saying there are limitations and that is why they reach the conclusion they do.

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge I can't. Zefr requested that the page become protected until the 7th. I'm sure he'll undo any changes I make anyway, just as he did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZefr&type=revision&diff=1096010398&oldid=1095847751 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Change made. As always, there is no final version and I look forward to comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I really cannot figure out why Zefr is elevating the objectivity of NCCIH articles above systematic reviews. Many countries around the world have many federal agencies pronouncing lots of stuff. The fact that they are federal agencies says nothing. We have three systematic reviews from 2019 and one from 2021 concluding that lavender probably has an anxiolytic impact. Many of the contributors are respected academics from around the world, Kim99 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS and convention, Wikipedia has consensus that in the general case, governmental agencies are a higher level of evidence than systematic reviews. MarshallKe (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)