Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 21 December 2006

Original Stub

The original stub article was largely a copy of the verbiage on the Nambucca website. The health claims are not yet backed by sufficient clinical research to be considered mainstream. Myron 22:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Acne and other claims

Therapeutic use of tea tree oil is increasingly popular, but solid evidence from clinical trials is sparse. Efficacy for acne vulgaris is weakly supported by perhaps no more than one reported single-blind clinical trial. Thus it is misleading to bestow special emphasis on this application (such as including a description of specific antimicrobial action against the "main cause" of acne). At best, one can legitimately say that tea tree oil "shows promise", but the promises of scads of compounds and traditional treatments have evaporated when subjected to the "gold standard" of objective, properly run, adequately-sized, replicated, prospective, double-blinded, randomized, peer-reviewed clinical trials. Inasmuch as tea tree oil can have troublesome and even nasty adverse effects that may go unrecognized for quite some time, it is unwise for an encyclopedia to seem to endorse any particular use of it absent sufficient reliable medical evidence. This is why I have pruned the statements about acne. Myron 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't 'pruned the statements'. You've totally torn up NPOV. NPOV is the cornerstone of the wikipedia. If there are qualifications to the evidence supporting its use, add those qualifications. You have no right to remove information to that degree.WolfKeeper 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, there. An encyclopedia article is not a review of the literature and should be balanced, not comprehensive. The verbiage I removed overemphasizes one potential use of tea tree oil and derives its authority from a single weak study done several years ago that no one seems to have bothered to follow up with further, more definitive research. This does not justify such a detailed description of a single study here. "Alternative medicine" enthusiasts tend to seize on such poorly substantiated material and to recommend self-treatment rather blithely, but that is not what Misplaced Pages is all about. Wolfkeeper, is your objection based on a wish to promote use of tea tree oil? I don't really understand what you mean by "torn up NPOV" and your concept of "no right". Could you please explain your position more concretely and without polemic? I invite others to comment on all this. Myron 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The only concept of balance in the wiki is NPOV. By removing stuff not in agreement with your opinion you are NOT following NPOV. NPOV is more about cataloging opinions NOT achieving some magical, mystical balance. I repeat- have you read NPOV???? Most editors of the wiki get this quite wrong.WolfKeeper 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, 1) I don't know where you get the idea that "the only concept of balance in the wiki is NPOV".Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Read it: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of viewWolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Balance in a presentation is a concept beyond wiki and beyond NPOV and is neither magical nor mystical and is even more than aesthetic. A good encyclopedia article balances detail against generalization, clarity against conciseness and precision against reaching the audience meaningfully, among other dimensions of choice. 2) I did not remove stuff "not in agreement with" my opinion; the matter is so poorly substantiated in scientific literature that I can have no opinion as to the advisability of trying tea tree oil for acne.Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's your opinion.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that my having no POV as to efficacy may come across to you as POV by dint of its possible contrast to your strong belief. 3) If a conviction that tea tree oil is pretty definitely pretty good for acne is connoted by the way you phrased your contribution, then your contribution violates NPOV and calls for redaction.Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It's not wrong to have an opinion under NPOV. It's just wrong to remove other peoples. (Slight exageration/oversimplification.)WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

4) You assert "I repeat": could you substantiate that by describing where you previously asked if I read NPOV? Or is your question merely polemical?

My bad. I was getting ahead of myself. I knew we were going to get here.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

5) There is no scientific evidence in the literature backing your implication (when you wrote "thus") that antibacterial action of tea tree oil against P. acnes accounts for the remedy's anti-acne effect. 6) Although P. acnes is commonly associated with acne vulgaris, it is not strictly correct to say that the organism is a "cause" and certainly not "the main cause" of the condition. Causality in illness is a complex matter. Finally, the study behind your contribution did not show that tea tree oil was "less effective" than benzoyl peroxide, but rather that its onset of action was slower. The study at issue was: Bassett IB, Pannowitz DL, Barnetson RS. A comparative study of tea-tree oil versus benzoylperoxide in the treatment of acne. Med J Aust. 1990 Oct 15;153(8):455-8. Myron 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey I never said it was the root cause; but it clearly is a main cause; removal of P.Acnes very often stops acne.WolfKeeper 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WolfKeeper, you are not clear when you write about "cause", let along "main cause". When you claim P. acnes removal very often stops acne, it is unclear what you mean by "removal", "very often" and "stops". These may seem like simple common English terms, but if you think about them they don't really convey useful information here. Acne vulgaris results from complex processes and it is not known that infection of a comedo by P. acnes is sufficient or necessary. Suppression of bacterial growth may be beneficial in reducing the amount of inflammation in existing lesions or in reducing recurrence of lesions or the rate of appearance of new ones, but it is not always clear whether whatever inhibited the bacterial growth influenced the acne directly or whether its benefit was mediated by its effect on the bacteria. For example, use of tetracycline agents for acne may work not so much through its antibiotic properties as by its direct effect on skin physiology. To get back to your claim, what exactly do you mean by "very often" and just how often is that? What evidence can you cite that P. acnes is a "main cause" rather than a mere opportunistic infection that may or may not make acne more severe, or dramatic, or annoying but that does not in itself initiate evolution of a lesion and that is not necessary for its appearance or development? The current state of the art of acne therapy does not include tea tree oil and even benzoyl peroxide is usually not the treatment of choice. As of now, tea tree oil remains unsubstantiated as being worth using for acne in preference to proven approaches and it is only one of hundreds of thousands of potion notions that attract offbeat champions of disparate motivation. While there is some truth to be found amidst the welter of unscientific health claims circulating in cyberspace, Misplaced Pages should not be a vehicle for every medical claim that anyone, however passionate or convinced, is moved to post. I tried to act respectfully by reducing the prominence of the material you inserted into the current article, although it should actually be stricken. Can you back your position with science or do you hold that science should be cast aside here? This is less a matter of NPOV than of upholding reasonable standards in Misplaced Pages. Myron 11:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reasonable standard for the Misplaced Pages is NPOV. It is a reasonably widely held view that Tea tree oil helps acne; and there is some science to back this up. Many commercial acne products contain tea tree oil, and it does indeed kill many bacteria, including P.Acnes. Most treatments that kill P.Acnes improve acne, and the scientific evidence is that Tea tree oil does improve acne. Even so, ultimately it doesn't matter whether the view is right or not, the fact that it is a widely held view makes it ok to add to the wikipedia, since it is a noteable point of view.WolfKeeper 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit of a private spat, but I found the article to be biased in favor of widespread use of tea tree oil, to the point of being off-topic and sounding ridiculous. Tea tree oil is presented as a magical cure-all, despite a lack of evidence that it does anything more than have an antiseptic effect and contribute slightly to healing acne. Benzoyl peroxide was found by the study to be much more effective. Tea tree oil can be used as a substitute for BP by those who prefer "natural" ingredients, but it is not a replacement. Spreading hearsay as fact, especially medical fact, harms credulous readers of Misplaced Pages. The article has a POV problem, and I side with Myron.

"For fungal nail infections, application is twice daily and relief or cure is typically seen in 3–4 months." Fungal nail infections CANNOT be treated by topical applications. Creams, lotions etc simply can't get in to the nail root; to treat any nail infection, a drug must be adminstered systemically. E.g. an oral antifungal would treat a fungal nail infection, a topical antifungal would have no effect.--KX36 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wart treatment?

I've read a lot of anecdotal reports about Tea Tree oil being effective for warts and Molluscum Contagiousum. Any comments?

As common warts and molluscum contagiosum are self-limiting conditions it is difficult to tell if a particular treatment applied in an individual case was efficacious or whether lesions would have resolved anyway. Only an experimental study can resolve this question. Anecdotes are valuable in suggesting topics for research and, with responsible expert consultation, for suggesting treatment where proven remedies have failed. However, they do not belong in an encyclopedia, which should not tout every fad and nostrum even when some people become enthused about it and even when popular articles depict it as a miracle cure or whatever. The encyclopedia should not be cluttered by swarms of claims that will for the most part be discredited after a few years, but should reflect the current state of knowledge which, in this case, does not include reliable answers about using tea tree oil for warts, molluscum contagiosum or, for that matter, acne vulgaris. Tea tree oil carries some risk. Misplaced Pages should not throw its weight behind promoting it for unproven uses. What, if any, peer reviewed published research supports using tea tree oil for warts or molluscum contagiosum? We need references (not from health fad literature, vendors or from other secondary sources that duplicate and feed off each other) to continue any serious discussion of this. Myron 11:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally skeptical about anti wart properties, it has no known antiviral properties AFAIK, and it doesn't burn skin like most other wart treatments.WolfKeeper 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the following is helpful at all, but my understanding is that it does seem to have some antiviral properties.

"Antiviral activity of Australian Melaleuca alternifolia and eucalyptol plant extracts against herpes simplex virus in cell culture. Schnitzler P, Schon K, Reichling J. Department of Virology, Hygiene Institute, University of Heidelberg, Germany.

The antiviral effect of Melaleuca alterfernolia (TTO) and eucalyptol (EUO) and other plant extracts against herpes simplex virus was examined. Cytotoxicity of TTO and EUO was evaluated in a standard neutral red dye uptake assay. Toxicity of TTO and EUO was moderate for RC-37 cells and approached 50% (TC50) at concentrations of 0.006% and 0.03%, respectively. Antiviral activity of TTO and EUO against herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) was tested in vitro on RC-37 cells using a plaque reduction assay. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of TTO for herpes simplex virus plaque formation was 0.0009% and 0.0008% and the IC50 of EUO was determined at 0.009% and 0.008% for HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively. Australian tea tree oil exhibited high levels of virucidal activity against HSV-1 and HSV-2 in viral suspension tests. At noncytotoxic concentrations of TTO plaque formation was reduced by 98.2% and 93.0% for HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively. Noncytotoxic concentrations of EUO reduced virus titers by 57.9% for HSV-1 and 75.4% for HSV-2. Virus titers were reduced significantly with TTO, whereas EUO exhibited distinct but less antiviral activity. In order to determine the mode of antiviral action of both essential oils, either cells were pretreated before viral infection or viruses were incubated with TTO or EUO before infection, during adsorption or after penetration into the host cells. Plaque formation was clearly reduced, when herpes simplex virus was pretreated with the essential oils prior to adsorption. These results indicate that TTO and EUO affect the virus before or during adsorption, but not after penetration into the host cell. Thus TTO and EUO are capable to exert a direct antiviral effect on HSV. Although the active antiherpes components of Australian tea tree and eucalyptus oil are not yet known, their possible application as antiviral agents in recurrent herpes infection is promising." Siraj88 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Added POV tag

This article reads like a sales pitch. I'm all for tea tree oil, and use it for many things, but the it-cures-what-ails-you tone of this article is innappropriate for an encyclopedia article. "It also reduces hypertrophic scarring." Umm... Says who? Misplaced Pages? Leading scientists? Piercers? "Tea tree oil is extremely effective in healing blemishes caused by acne or herpes simplex virus." Whose opinion is this? This article needs some NPOV love. 24.23.141.156 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

working on NPOV

I'm working on adding more citations and getting this article in line with a more appropriate tone, balance, etc. I added some context which will hopefully help ameliorate problems with the health claims. I also added some more information on the history and scientific facts of the compound (there is a lot out there!), which aren't controversial nor up for debate. Oasisbob 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good, useful article. Please don't remove disputed claims from the main article -- that would not be neutral, that would be censorship. It seems that some people "believe" in tea tree oil, and some don't. At the very least, it seems a relatively innocuous "active placebo", like Vitamin C -- something to do/take while you wait for your body to heal itself, a way to avoid using stronger modern drugs. Seems like it worked for my "ring worm" and for my eczema. Not a miracle cure - not for people in a hurry! 69.87.200.179 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made it a point not to remove disputed claims, but to label them as such and focus on adding more information. However, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources makes it very clear that statements need sources, otherwise they can and should be removed. The burden of proof is with editors who want the unsourced information to stay. In any case, as long as this article stays factual it doesn't really matter what people believe. Oasisbob 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

I think this article better represents a NPOV now, I removed the POV tag. The "other claims" section has information which still needs citations or removal, but I view this as more of a issue of verification rather than POV issue. Oasisbob 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Safety

"Tea tree oil is very toxic if ingested internally, and may result in dizziness, nausea and disorientation." Well, that is daunting, and good to know! What quantities are how toxic, and what would be appropriate treatments? 69.87.200.179 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This statement about tea tree oil being "very toxic" isn't very well supported by the literature. There are reports of infants and children having toxic reactions, but all of them recovered quickly with treatment. The toxicity of TTO is believed to be similar to other essential oils with similar proportions of terpenes. I updated the article with more health info. Oasisbob 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"If ingested internally," is there an external way to ingest now? :-D --KX36 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good point. A quick check in my med dictionary confirms that ingestion can only be by mouth. Oasisbob 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Other claims - reliability

Can we get a consensus on deleting the "other claims" section containing a number of unsourced claims if sources are not provided in, say, a week? Bluntly I have to say that none of it looks very reliable and none of it is sourced. The Crow 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, I've been trying to source as much of it as possible. I went ahead and removed this section. Oasisbob 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tea Tree Oil and 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.

Some qoutes:

"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 02:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link to that article? It would be good to put it in the Reference section. Catawba 23:05, 13 August 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 07:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

False attribution in Safety section

The Washington Post article cited in the Safety section does not contain the words "shrinking of the testes" as added by user 71.228.24.41 If you have a source for this, please cite it separately. Catawba 23:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lobbyist quote in Safety section

For Steven Dentali to say "it's premature to worry, given the paucity of clinical evidence and many questions that the lab work left unanswered," is a boiler-plate special interest group response. His employer, the American Herbal Products Association, has nothing on its website clarifying what questions still need to be answered. Catawba 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Medicinal use section

I eliminated subheadings in this section because once the language was tightened there was insufficient material to warrant special subsections for fungi and bacteria. Antifungal and antiseptic are mentioned in the first paragraph of the article and that is enough. A reference to an in vitro study was incorrectly indicated as in vivo so I moved it. Boils are not wounds. The article lacks citations to show that tea tree oil is useful for bug bites, cuts, scrapes and boils (I'm not disputing that it is effective) or that it has "cosmetic properties", whatever that means. Can anyone find scientific support for these claims? Myron 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Impact

Does anyone have information on the environmental practices commonly used for commercial production of tea tree oil? The plant is native to the wilderness of Australia. Is it commercially grown, or is it harvested from the wild? What is the plant's growth rate, and what length of time does it take to attain a mature plant? Tsugaguy 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some informative links found so far: http://oilganic.com/teatreeoil/ttdefault.htm#crop Click Crop Rotations and Harvesting bookmark link. Sounds like the plants are not destroyed during harvesting, and a plant can live up to 10 years (during repeated 12 to 18 month harvesting?).

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture determined in the 1970's that M. alternifolia is amenable to cultivation for tea tree oil production: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/EA9810439.htm

Zandella is at least one large commercial melaleuca farm, with certifications/acreditations from TGA, NOP, NASAA, and BFA, according to their website at http://zandella.com/organic%20tea%20tree%20oil%20Melaleuca%20alternifolia.cfm

There have also been some concerns about invasive plants in this genus introduced in Florida. See http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/FieldCourses/MarineEcologyArticles/MelaleucaMadness.html. Invasive plants destroy ecosystems by outcompeting other plants native to the environment and can destroy animal habitat as well. This may or may not be a factor in Melaleuca alternifolia, the species used commercially to produce tea tree oil.

Please expound on this if you have any further info, especially if from governmental agencies or environmental groups who would not be biased commercially. Tsugaguy 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename a good thing?

This page was recently retitled from "Tea Tree Oil" to "Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil." I don't think this is a bad thing per se, but MTTO is not the normal term used, most of the primary literature I've seen simply calls it TTO or "essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia". Is there really enough confusion to warrant using a more-specific yet not-common title? Oasisbob 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The move was surprising, unexplained and unwarranted. I have seen many publications referring to "tea tree oil" and none to "melaleuca tea tree oil". Someone's notion of "specificity" does not trump common usage or the expectations of people coming to Misplaced Pages seeking information. There is little danger of people confusing "tea tree oil" with "tea oil". A move like this demands discussion. I say revert to the previous title. Myron 05:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - this was a good thing to question. Thanks so much for inviting me to chime in Oasisbob :-)

• 1. "Surprising" - I would agree it could be surprising. Improvements can be just as surprising as deteriorations.
• 2. "Unexplained" - it was indeed explained I promise! :-) - "This title is more descriptive for where the oil comes from". Is this in dispute?
• 3. "unwarranted" - is a bit strong since it means 'having no justification', not 'having a justification I don't agree with'. I did justify the move. Whether you agree with the justification is another matter. That warrants discussion - which is why we're in the 'discussion' tab. I agree that I should have explained the justification much more than I did though.

I regularly order much needed medical supplies for Unicef for a small village (but people from the surrounding area come there) and one of the supplies ordered is melaleuca oil because it reduces the number of separate supplies needed. Much confusion occurred when our supplier simply called it 'tea tree oil'. Since that literally means different things to different people depending on what region of the world they're from and the individual, 'tea tree oil' not only lacked specificity, it also lacked accuracy. Now it is called 'Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil' when we order it in bulk and no one is confused about what exactly we are getting. The best thing about this term is that it shows up easily in searches for both "Melaleuca Oil" and "Tea Tree Oil" in the medical supply database (and also on the web.) I am not 'married' to the term "Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil" though. However, I strongly believe in the importance of having the word "Melaleuca" in the title somewhere. The other accurate and helpful terms that are commonly used are "Melaleuca (Tea Tree Oil)", "Melaleuca Oil (Tea Tree Oil)", Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil), and "Tea Tree Oil (from Melaleuca Alternifolia)". Oasisbob's suggestion of "Essential Oil of Melalecua Alternifolia" would work too. As long as 'Melaleuca' is in there somewhere, it will satisfy both kinds of searches and it will at once be more informative. The way it stands now "Melaleuca Tea tree oil" solves this issue but I agree that it's not the only way to do it. :-) I also apologize if I was too 'abrupt' about this.

I also apologize for not providing more explanation than I did. It's just that I've been involved in a big off-line discussion about this with all those involved, and that was the consensus reached that seemed to resolve everyone's confusion as succinctly as possible. Cheers. Siraj88 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think changing the title for ease of searching is not a good idea. Personally, I like the name "Melaleuca tea tree oil", but it just isn't a common name, and wikipedia isn't in the business of creating neologisms. (WP:NEO) ISO 4730 and AS 2782 both call it "Melaleuca oil" or "tea tree oil". If there are concerns about confusion, perhaps clarification in the article about what TTO isn't could be helpful. Is there anything else that is really called "tea tree oil"? I found some mentions of commonly mistaken substances in section 2, but TTO seems unambiguous. Avoiding confusion is good, but I really think we should stick with convention, common usage, and international standards on this one. (I don't think the move was unreasonable, as long as we're here on the talk page now.)Oasisbob 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Though it's really not a new term (doing a Google search for 'Melaleuca Tea Tree Oil' in quotes yields over 680 results), your point is well taken since it's not as common as the other two. If the current move is not acceptable, would a move to "Melaleuca Oil (Tea Tree Oil)" or "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" be agreeable then? No hint of neologism created there, both commonly used terms are there, and it makes it easy for people familiar with either one to find. I personally knew what 'Melaleuca Oil' was a couple years before I ever heard of the term "Tea Tree Oil". For some it may be the opposite. One thing we can probably agree on is that despite both terms being commonly used, everyone heard, and prefers one term before the other. Both terms are conventional, are an international standard (as you pointed out ISO 4730 and AS 2782 both call it "Melaleuca oil" OR "tea tree oil"), and commonly used. Siraj88 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to titling the article "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)". It's more specific, and articles titled in the "Common Name (Scientific Name)" format are common. I propose waiting a few days for any other voices, then move. Oasisbob 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" as well. Anyone else to chime in? Siraj88 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week. I'll change it from the current "Melaleuca Tea tree oil" to "Tea Tree Oil (Melaleuca Oil)" 12.152.168.248 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)