Talk:Mānuka honey

History with Jim Wales leading to bias?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837971/#B34 https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-6-188 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7693943/

I'm not an expert but these look like good sources to me. The antibiotic properties of Manuka honey seems to be well established. Can we not say so since Jimmy Wales once said this article made big claims that were poorly sourced? Gripdamage (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no bias. Two of the sources are in vitro studies having no relevance at this stage to therapeutic uses. See the quality of evidence for the encyclopedia at WP:MEDASSESS. We don't cite in vitro sources because they are far too preliminary to describe anything with certainty. The Research section already states that Manuka honey is under research for its possible antimicrobial effects. This is a review of in vitro studies which can be stated as a "review of preliminary research" which remains too early for conclusions. The authors state: "there is a shortage of clinical data to support the topical use of honey. Guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on chronic wounds, which has been heavily influenced by a Cochrane review by Jull et al. (2015), have concluded that there is little good-quality clinical evidence to support the use of honey dressings for chronic wounds." Another concern is that this article was published in a predatory journal listed as questionable on WP:CITEWATCH, possibly indicating that the authors paid a fee for publication and/or the article did not receive rigorous editorial review. Zefr (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Archive?

This article's Talk page seems like it has too many sections. Is there a consenseus on setting up a archive bot? Or will anyone be willing to do it ( you don't have to, I can)? Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A few threads archived. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. | Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Second sentence

That second sentence is a weird non-sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.167.255 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As a topical medication

For some reason, the article has this in the lede "There is little clinical evidence for its use as a topical medication." using a BBC article as the source. Yet that BBC article says: "In terms of honey being used as a medicine, 'medical grade honey' is licensed around the world for wound care treatment. There have been many recent research developments stemming from Cardiff University which have shown honeys in general, and particularly manuka honey, as effective with chronic wounds and MRSA (antibiotic-resistant infection)." How do we get "little evidence" from that? KRLA18 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The WP:Who Wrote That? tool (used on several older versions of the article) shows several interesting morphs of the text in that area of the article. Grorp (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Health claims?

People pay crazy prices for manuka honey for its claimed health properties, but the article currently doesn't even mention them? I know it's a minefield but we can't just ignore this. Jpatokal (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Some crazy people think the Earth is flat, but we do not give them a platform on the encyclopedia. There are no WP:MEDRS sources to support any health claims for consuming manuka honey - it is just a sugary food composed of carbohydrates and water, with little nutritional value. Zefr (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Many Australian mainstream doctors and nurses swear by the benefits of this product, as do many hospitals. I present that merely as a statement of fact. Not trying to prove anything about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Can you provide a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for that claim please? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Surely that's obvious. I'm simply making the point that a lot of non-crazy people think it's good stuff. Your implication that one has to be crazy to believe in it is both insulting and wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)