Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 4 September 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kombucha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elanef, Daniel.rdzbosque, Nicolehsw (article contribs).

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Srmcgraw1 (article contribs).

RfC on adding current research status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The health claim studies overviewed in the Health Claims section are 15+ years old. The below content is from a 2018 peer-reviewed journal and brings the reader up to date with the current status of kombucha health claim studies. Why would we not add something like the below paragraph to the "Health claims" section?

See "Content deleted" and "Sourced content deleted" talk sections for full details.

A 2018 review stated, several in vitro studies have been done for kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol. However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans. WikiGJay (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147. PMID 29508944.

• Support accurate wording. For a more concise wording see Talk:Kombucha#Alternative proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC on adding current research status

It's unencyclopedic primary research in test tubes or lab animals, of no relevance to possible effects from human consumption, leading to conjecture. Contrary to the J Food Sci report, it has no proven anti-inflammatory or antioxidant effects, nor could it have as a consumed beverage digested in stomach enzymes and acids which destroy native compounds in the tea. Fails WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Not adding current updates, though, leaves people to conjecture that the content presented has a high probability of being inaccurate because new information is not being presented (especially given the editorialized comments by the author of the 2003 study). The 2018 peer-reviewed J Food Sci report basically summarizes where we are now, ie, studies up to 2018 have proven no health benefit for humans.WikiGJay (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a 2018 review commenting on the primary research. The title of the paper confirms it is a review. See "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". A recent review passes WP:MEDASSESS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Better to leave out lab research which is unlikely to be reliably duplicated per WP:MEDANIMAL, and state there is no evidence as of 2018 that kombucha has any health benefits. Leaving it in conveys misinformation in the J Food Sci article to non-science encyclopedia users; WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7. --Zefr (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Since we are citing a review for the lab research it meets WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDANIMAL: Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Misplaced Pages, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans." The text is clear what type of studies were conducted and does not imply it holds true for humans. See the wording in the proposal, "However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans." This confirms the lack of any health benefits in humans. Per WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7: "A Misplaced Pages article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field." The text is well written and clear. Therefore, the readers do not need to be well-versed in the topic to understand the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why we should censor information from an actual, recent, peer-reviewed review of multiple studies. Should we, as editors, be questioning what the experts said? Plus, the line "However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans" was added. WikiGJay (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should question and exclude non-MEDRS authors (chemists, according to their affiliations) for a review of primary research in a weak, low-impact journal (1.8 IF). The full article here is mainly about the chemistry and microbial composition of kombucha, with the authors stepping away from their areas of expertise to comment on supposed biological activities which are clearly weak or absent from the evidence shown in Table 3. To cherry-pick this out and discuss it in the encyclopedia article is misleading to users and violates MEDASSESS (bottom of pyramid for evidence, so earns its exclusion) and MEDANIMAL: "The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader"; it's not. Better to wait for preliminary human research. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We usually question and usually exclude non-MEDRS sources, but the source is a 2018 review and meets WP:MEDRS.

See WP:MEDANIMAL: "The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader"; it is. See again: However, the results of biological activities have not been confirmed for the purported health benefits in humans. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur with QuackGuru: the source and content meets Misplaced Pages standards so there appears to be no reason why the paragraph should not be published. Plus - it provides an up-to-date status of the current health claim studies, which is sorely needed since the only other content in this section is 15+ years old.WikiGJay (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, we are censoring a review in a peer-reviewed journal, which I don't believe should be the purpose of Misplaced Pages.WikiGJay (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Old proposal: "Its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans for their purported health benefits."

New proposal: The purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans.

References

1. ^ Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147. PMID 29508944.

This is an alternative proposal to the "RfC on adding current research status". QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with the sentiment, but there's something wrong with the wording, particularly with the word "for". Maproom (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Maproom, I made this change. QuackGuru (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Support the amended version. Maproom (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on alternative proposal

I tried a compromise. It is much shorter than the original proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The alternative Proposal: "The purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans." The current wording is shorter. See "the purported health benefits have not been demonstrated in humans". It is missing the part about the biological activities. The current wording in the article is slightly different than the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. The article was updated to invoke consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on its biological properties

"There is a lack of understanding about its biological properties."

New Proposal: "There is a lack of research regarding its biological properties."

References

1. Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147. PMID 29508944.

I propose adding the content above to the Kombucha#Biological section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfC on its biological properties

The 2018 review says "Even though nowadays Kombucha tea is known all over the world, its biological properties are not well understood.". QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is no objection to the content then I can close the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest changing your wording to something like "its effects on human health are not well understood.", but I don't find it objectionable. Here's another source if you want: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/expert-answers/kombucha-tea/faq-20058126 Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 06:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems this information is pretty well covered in the article already, actually. Is there a reason you feel this is a beneficial edit? Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 06:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Biological properties means the functionality of the physical and chemical properties. Biological activity means its beneficial or adverse effects of its properties. Biological properties does not mean its health effects. QuackGuru (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote from the source that supports that the biological properties are not understood? Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 review says "Even though nowadays Kombucha tea is known all over the world, its biological properties are not well understood.'". QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see a problem with it then. Make sure to phrase it in a way that is compliant with wiki policies, specifically MOS:RELTIME. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 16:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The wording has not changed since I added. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment/Proposal Have only now received an RFC. I agree with the sentiments of QuackGuru et al, and if the proposed wording is preferred, I support it. However, it seems to me that there are two concepts worth mentioning. I propose including both and rewording for clarity and ease of reading:
  "Studies in recent decades have shown neither any health benefits, nor any biological properties of special value."
  Append preferred citations according to taste. We do not really need to speak of the understanding or otherwise of the biological properties, whether beneficial or otherwise, being understood or not. The negative agnostic tone seems to me non-misleading and encyclopaedic. (Feel welcome to replace words like "shown" with "revealed" or "demonstrated", according to the desired tone and register.
  "Studies in recent decades have failed to show either any health benefits, or any biological properties of special value."
  might be slightly less ambiguous, but more cumbersome; again, take your pick.) JonRichfield (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Biological activities and biological properties are different. The researchers are examining its properties as well as examining the biological activities of each of those properties. For the biological activities it has not been shown to be effective for humans. I recently added similar content. I added "Its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans for their purported health benefits.". See Talk:Kombucha#Alternative proposal for the other RfC. As long as the word "activities" remains you or anyone can adjust the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree with initial "there is a lack of understanding" wording. That wording implies that the purported activities exist, but are merely not understood. We need wording that clearly indicates that we have no scientific evidence for the existence of these activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I changed it to "There is a lack of research regarding its biological properties." There is another proposal that shows there is no solid evidence for the biological activities in humans. See "The purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans." See Talk:Kombucha#RfC on adding current research status and see Talk:Kombucha#Alternative proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Content requires a rewrite

Failed verification content again

The PDF file does not specifically mention "randomized controlled trials".

New wording: "Based on the absence of human randomized controlled trials, there remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health.".

References

1. Ernst E (2003). "Kombucha: a systematic review of the clinical evidence". Forschende Komplementärmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde. 10 (2): 85–87. doi:10.1159/000071667. PMID 12808367.

It appears the new content mentioning "randomized controlled trials" fails verification. I propose the edit be reverted until the content can be verified or rewritten. QuackGuru (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Absence of human randomized controlled trials" is verifiable from thorough review of the medical literature, which indeed shows there are no such studies. The content could be revised through the usual editing process. --Zefr (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

What review or MEDRS compliant source verifies the "absence of human randomized controlled trials" via review of the medical literature? The content could be deleted through the usual editing process because it fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in question concerning absence of clinical trials could be abbreviated to: "There remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health," as sourced to Ernst. --Zefr (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That's duplication of other content. We can summarise the content quoted above. Did you read the PDF file before changing the wording? QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

In the Health claims section, I don't see any duplication of content, and the overall coverage of the topic is accurate. The Ernst source says clinical research was reviewed and no evidence of efficacy was found. The Jayabalan source reviewed numerous primary/lab studies, giving further proof that no high-quality clinical research was available for review. Rather than beating around the bush here, make an editorial change or proposal so others can work on it. --Zefr (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If the content is accurate then where does the Ernst 2003 review mention "randomized controlled trials"? I did make a proposal at the opening of this thread. See "I propose the edit be reverted until the content can be verified or rewritten." Content has not been verified. QuackGuru (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In Ernst under Study designs of evaluations included in the review, there is: "absence of human randomized controlled trials, there remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health" (from the current article version), an accurate statement, as there are no other sources discussing high-quality clinical evidence for beneficial effects. The Health claims section is accurate as stated. --Zefr (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In Ernst under the heading Study selection it states Study designs of evaluations included in the review. Under that section it states "Post-marketing surveillance studies, clinical trials, case reports, spontaneous reporting schemes and pre-clinical studies were eligible for inclusion in the review." There is no mention of "absence of human randomized controlled trials". That means the content failed verification. The source must make the claim, not the editor. There remains no high-quality evidence that consuming kombucha provides beneficial effects on nutrition or health, must also be sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content replaced with vague or unclear wording

See "Kombucha tea has been claimed by kombucha drinkers all over the world to have many beneficial effects on human health. However, most of the benefits were studied in experimental models only and there is a lack of scientific evidence based on human models." Also see "There is still a dispute over the beneficial effects of kombucha drink. There has been no evidence published to date on the biological activities of kombucha in human trials. All the biological activities have been investigated using animal experimental models."

Previous wording: "People drink it for its many putative beneficial effects, but most of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies. There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea."

New wording: "People drink it for its supposed beneficial effects, but most of the benefits are assumed from the results of low-quality preliminary studies".QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the sentences that precede and follow this new wording, this sentence is redundant. I say omit it altogether, and if the reference given is valuable, add it to the reference of the sentence that follows. JonRichfield (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Accurate content was replaced with vague and meaningless content. The part "assumed from the results of low-quality preliminary studies" is misleading or inaccurate. QuackGuru (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Jayabalan, Rasu (21 June 2014). "A Review on Kombucha Tea—Microbiology, Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus". Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 13 (4): 538–550. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12073.

The new content is inaccurate and too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I tagged the problematic content. One sentence is too vague and the other fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No further comments were made to address the problems. I edited the article to improve the wording and to clarify the content. QuackGuru (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

New wording was:

"People drink it for its many purported beneficial effects, but the majority of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies. There have not been any human trials conducted regarding its biological activities, and the purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans. So far, there have been animal studies that looked into its biological activities. "

Last year back in December 2017 it stated:

"People drink it for its many putative beneficial effects, but most of the benefits were merely experimental studies and there is little scientific evidence based on human studies. There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea. There is no high-quality evidence of beneficial effects from consuming kombucha."

Too much content is being deleted against consensus. Sourced content was previously replaced with misleading content. "People drink it for its supposed beneficial effects" is misleading. The content "Based on the absence of human randomized controlled trials" failed verification "Although people drink kombucha for such supposed health benefits" is also vague or unclear. The source stated it was "many". The source uses a capital "K". QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Current research

What about adding instead "Research have been conducted using experimental laboratory studies."? QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What is it that you are hoping to convey or add to the article with this line? Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now we say "There have not been any human trials conducted to assess its possible biological effects,...".

We currently don't say what type of research has been conducted. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, I understand. I would say that the proposed sentence "Research has been conducted using experimental laboratory studies." is too vague, and doesn't fully convey your message. Maybe something that details the types of laboratory experiments might be more beneficial. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Research have been conducted using in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies.

References

1. ^ Villarreal-Soto, Silvia Alejandra; Beaufort, Sandra; Bouajila, Jalloul; Souchard, Jean-Pierre; Taillandier, Patricia (2018). "Understanding Kombucha Tea Fermentation: A Review". Journal of Food Science. 83 (3): 580–588. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14068. ISSN 0022-1147.

This conveys the message. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is much more clear. However, there might be some confusion about the "in vivo" studies. Do you know what model organism they used? For the clearest message, I would suggest something like: "Research has been conducted using in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies, with (mice/drosophila flies/etc) as a model organism." Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 17:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Research has been conducted using biological assays in vitro and in vivo studies using rates."

"Research has been conducted using biological assays in vitro as well as in vivo studies using rats.

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I added a little more detail. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Which version to do prefer? Simple wording or more detailed? QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, I would suggest:

"Studies to investigate the (effects/properties?) of kombucha have included in vitro biological assays and in vivo studies using rats as model organisms."Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The in vitro biological assays may not of used rats. From reading the source I know the in vivo studies used rats. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the sentence uses the plural "studies" I don't think readers will confuse the in vitro and in vivo studies, however, either of your sentences will work just as well. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I choose "as well as" so that the readers knows there is a difference between the in vitro and in vivo studies. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Several in vitro studies have been done for kombucha which were in 1998, 2000, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017 as well as several researchers have done in vivo studies using rats from 2013 to 2015 for kombucha in the areas of diabetes, electromagnetic radiation, and liver and kidney toxicities due to diets high in cholesterol.

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Villarreal-SotoBeaufort2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

To be fair I did not propose detailed content such as the text above because I think it might get reverted. I could write detailed text but for certain topics editors don't like it. Too bad. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

pH

The figure of 2.5 seems remarkably low, although it's from a reputable source.

Commercial websites give higher values - are there any independent sources (academic researchers or food analysis organisations) that find the pH to be higher as well?

Best regards Notreallydavid (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Source says "In addition, the high acidity of the drink (pH usually around 2.5) could constitute a risk when large amounts are being consumed ." Another source can be added that reached a different conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes to lede

The previous wording was far better. The new wording greatly weakened the undisputed content. There may also be a verification problem. The part "..ranging from promoting gut health through probiotics to curing asthma..." may not be supported by the source presented. The part "isolated adverse events may be attributable to it" is duplication of the serious adverse effects previously mentioned. See category Health drinks for other drinks being promoted beyond belief. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

People that would drink kombucha for health reasons would primarily do it for the probiotics. The fact it was not even mentioned in the lede was really strange and the fact that it is not really delved into shows that no one wanted to do the research. Bod (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"People that would drink kombucha for health reasons would primarily do it for the probiotics," according to who? The only benefit is for those selling it according to the 2003 review.

Even more problems have been introduced in the article. For example, see "Numerous claims have been made regarding the health benefits from the consumption of kombucha, ranging from promoting gut health through probiotics to curing asthma, but there is no scientific evidence to support these views." Sources 7 and 2 were combined to come to a new conclusion. The unsupported weasel word "some" was added. Too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's like Kombucha 101, it's supposed to be good for your gut. have you actually ever bought and drank the stuff? Google "health benefits kombucha" and you come up with https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-benefits-of-kombucha-tea#section1 and reason #1... you guessed it... "1. Kombucha Is a Rich Source of Probiotics". Bod (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The source healthline is unreliable. You asked "Have you actually ever bought and drank the stuff?" I prefer to focus on the article than chat on the talk page.

Please addresses the purported policy violations I mentioned above or you can revert your the disputed changes. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to know why people drink kombucha: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-drink-Kombucha. Bod (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a New York Times article if you are trying to understand kombucha: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/fashion/25Tea.html. Bod (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not address the SYN violation and other issues. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede changes didn't really make sense and took us away from the sources; have attempted to fix. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

More changes have been made. The current lede is far worse than the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the edits being made by Bodhi Peace are WP:PROFRINGE. Is anything particular left of concern? Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to start a draft and fix all the problematic changes. I was surprised no editor reverted. There was no problem with the previous wording. I'm going to also review the changes to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

See "...but there is no evidence to support these claims." Both sources do not verify "these claims". QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation 3 was added to support the idea that it had been claimed to "cure asthma", so I moved that citation. Citation 7 is the 2003 study that doesn't recommend therapeutic kombucha imbibing.Bod (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the other source verify "...but there is no evidence to support these claims." The part "ranging from promoting gut health to curing asthma," is "these claims". If it does not then add a FV tag and then I will fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

All I did was go to the "health" section and grab an implausible claim from the 2000 study, saying it could cure this or that, like "cure asthma". If you wish to change it to a different "cure", go ahead. Bod (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2000 source is not the 2003 source. It does not verify "these claims". Would you like me to fix it? QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit. Bod (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Food and drink articles
• Low-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class pharmacology articles
• Low-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles