Talk:Hoodia gordonii

Need to be aware of the "catch 22" situation which could be relevant here. Whilst its may be true that there is no published scientific evidence that hoodia works as an appetite suppressant in humans, this may be simply because scientists are wary of carrying out such a study, and the reason they may be wary of carrying it out, is because the scientific community has already decided that they don't like the idea of a positive result! Scientists are, lets not forget, incredibly closed minded.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.82.121 (talk • contribs)

No, an "incredibly closed minded" scientist would simply be a bad scientist. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Marketing and spam" section should be removed as it does not reflect to Hoodia but does reflect the spammers and marketers. If anything it brings credibility to it as such people are only attracted to good things that they want to manipulate for a selfish benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlado1979 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think spammers care one bit that it doesn't work. They just want to sell their products to gullible people. Deli nk (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's utterly absurd to argue that the "Marketing and spam" section should be removed, and beyond absurd to base that argument on the idea that the section "brings credibility" to spammers and marketers. And if that argument is not good enough, this is an encyclopedia. If it is reliably sourced and presented in an unbiased manner, there is no reason to remove it. Editors please note: Vlado1979 (talk · contribs) so far is a single purpose account who has posted only to talk pages related to non-prescription nutrional supplements, even suggesting that he could "offer clues" about dealing with erectile dysfunction. Keep an eye on his edits. Cresix (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Spammers and marketers always promote something of value while really dealing with fakes that earn them something by pretending to be something else of real value like jewellery, apparel,food, electronics. No one is marketing the image of something that has no perceived value. What the spammers are selling is an image ,not the actual product. It has no relation whatsoever to the actual content and so in this case if they market hoodia, it has no guarantee that they are selling an actual hoodia. So I fail to see how that can be held against hoodia in this case and the tone of the section is held against hoodia itself. Unless you go around writing such sections for every fraud spammers/marketers promote, I fail to see how it contributes to this section unless to bring undeserved negativity and confusion. Cresix I am fairly new and have only made very few edits so why are you singling me out? Vlado1979 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm singling you out because you post only on talk pages for non-prescription supplements (with one exception undoubtedly made to give the impression you are not pushing such supplements), and because you continue with much irrationality to argue that any criticism of snake-oil salesmen should be removed from Wikipedia, despite no scientific evidence to support hoodia's effectiveness and overwhelming evidence that it is sold to vulnerable people desperate to believe that it might work. Every post you make confirms my suspicions. If Wikipedia is "holding something against hoodia", please cite peer-reviewed journal articles of double-bind, well-controlled studies that unequivocally support the effectiveness of hoodia. If you can do that, no problems. If not, stop pushing hoodia. Cresix (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You can criticize snake oil salesman however much you want but it has no place on the hoodia page unless you put them on every other page including the other artificial so called weight loss drugs. Talking about spammers/marketers is barking up a wrong tree and only seems to bring negativity and confusion which is all you need if you don't want anyone to use it . Now you say that hoodia needs to be proven as if you want proof? Here is where you are wrong. Hoodia isn't an artificial man made substance that needs to be proven as not dangerous. People have used it apparently for thousands of years in african desert so that's all I need to know. Studies that you demand are only meant for artificial disrupt normal physiological pattented pharmaceuticals.I have a proof and I know it worked for me though . only in higher doses like 5grams/3 times per day but that's not what you want to hear , right? Well I am not asking anyone to believe meVlado1979 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to ask anyone to believe you, because it's more than a little obvious what your real agenda is. Keep writing. With every word you hang yourself. Where are those citations to peer-reviewed journal articles? Oh, that's right ... they're in the same place as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Cresix (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Skimpy science

A PubMed search yielded only two clinical (human) trials, of which only one was a RCT, i.e, randomized enrollment, double-blinded, placebo controlled. Until there is better science and a decent review, this abides in not proven/not unproven limbo. "It works for me" is not evidence. And the fact that the one trial (Blorn 2011) picked up adverse consequences for blood pressure and heart rate and other biomarkers strongly suggests the untruth of "natural = safe." David notMD (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a specific problem with the article that you are concerned about? Nowhere in the article is "It works for me" presented as evidence, and the article covers extensively the lack of adequate studies. Anastrophe (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hoodia gordonii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210191909/http://www.csir.co.za/plsql/ptl0002/PTL0002_PGE013_MEDIA_REL?MEDIA_RELEASE_NO=7083643 to http://www.csir.co.za/plsql/ptl0002/PTL0002_PGE013_MEDIA_REL?MEDIA_RELEASE_NO=7083643
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821131708/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wl-ltr14.html to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wl-ltr14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010051709/http://www.macleans.ca/science/health/article.jsp?content=20050801_110122_110122 to http://www.macleans.ca/science/health/article.jsp?content=20050801_110122_110122

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Gordoniihoodia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gordoniihoodia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)