Talk:Reproductive health/Vegetarian breast enlargement
Add topicLatest comment: 9 years ago by Mikael Häggström in topic Comments to recent edits
 |
Text from Reproductive health/Non-invasive breast enhancement research was copied into Reproductive health/Vegetarian breast enlargement with [ this edit]. Reproductive health/Non-invasive breast enhancement research now serves to provide attribution for that content in Reproductive health/Vegetarian breast enlargement and must not be deleted so long as Reproductive health/Vegetarian breast enlargement exists. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see this history. |
Please do not merge histories. It is a separate project. Lucy346 (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments to recent edits
[edit source]- Wikiversity is a learning tool, not an encyclopaedia, so I removed historical notes as they would be more appropriate in Wikipedia.
- Medical content in across Wikimedia projects regarding physiological effects of foods and supplements has a lot of potential for controversy, and I think the same rules as apply for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) apply here as well. The source "Epigenetic reactivation of estrogen receptor-α (ERα) by genistein enhances hormonal therapy sensitivity in ERα-negative breast cancer" was about breast cancer cells, and seems to be used off-topic here.
- The source "Bust Enhancing Herbal Products" was inaccessible, and it's implausible that it mentioned any lasting effect.
- I also removed those entries that refer specifically to galactagogue properties, with the related temporary breast enlargement, since I think that's a separate topic, as applicable to e.g. the shatavarins.
- For 8-prenylnaringenin, there were many entries about raising or lowering levels of certain substances, but none that give evidence of breast enlargement. I found the same issue for the antiandrogen, phytohormones as well as for the other entries as well.
Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I kept effects on cancer lines out of this, except for a case when receptors were up-regulated so anticancer drugs would work against it. This can stay out.
- the source http://www.fugh-berman.com/files/Bust.pdf is accessible and its also a review.
- "Asparagus racemosus--an update" is a review, even if it is about its galactagogue effect it does have direct evidence. Other supported texts also have evidence from the citations.
- the page is sophisticated, and some hormonal properties were based on the biology section. I see how this has potential for controversy.
If this subject interests you, would you mind improving it? Lucy346 (discuss • contribs) 06:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, the Fugh-Berman study confirms the absence of evidence of any effect of herbal supplements. With high quality reviews that reach such conclusions, it is inappropriate to mention individual substances, even if there is a small review that appears to support an effect of it. Furthermore, such effect needs to be separate from a mere galactagogue property. With alternatives of excellent efficacy, that is, surgery for mere enlargement and pregnancy for lactation (and resultant enlargement) when needed, there is little need for trying to find further evidence in this field. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with surgery and not needing more evidence in the field for efficacy. I was looking into endocrinology and biology. However, thank you for your interest. Lucy346 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome to keep looking for further review articles on the subject, but any matter presented here should also be consistent with the Wikipedia article of Breast enlargement supplements. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with surgery and not needing more evidence in the field for efficacy. I was looking into endocrinology and biology. However, thank you for your interest. Lucy346 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, the Fugh-Berman study confirms the absence of evidence of any effect of herbal supplements. With high quality reviews that reach such conclusions, it is inappropriate to mention individual substances, even if there is a small review that appears to support an effect of it. Furthermore, such effect needs to be separate from a mere galactagogue property. With alternatives of excellent efficacy, that is, surgery for mere enlargement and pregnancy for lactation (and resultant enlargement) when needed, there is little need for trying to find further evidence in this field. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)