1219:
topically for at least 40 years. I feel that alone gives credence to my giving evidence. First let it be known that I do not use aloe as any product. I grow my own, and use it fresh, topically, by splitting a portion of leaf and applying the juice of the crushed jel, only, discarding all other portions of the left over skin. Though aloe is not antiseptic, and that should be handled first, the juice dries to a reasonable, short term, bandaid substitute. However, my main use is after the fact curative for burn relief, and before the fact sunblock. My skin is very white, and I sunburn quickly. As example, to gain a tan I must keep first exposure to less than 15 minutes, and extend that time very slowly. I find that aloe used as above has a sunblock value equal to that of
Neutrogena 6, which gives me two hours in hot New Orleans sun. For longer periods I carry whole leaf segments with me. As comparison Neutrogena 100 gives me only 4 hours. Robert Leslie 12:13 AM April 23, 2023
789:
768:
635:
376:
355:
684:
559:
532:
663:
694:
569:
233:
482:
464:
324:
203:
799:
386:
879:
973:
meta-analysis and had no major summary" and there was no check for publication bias. The latter is a serious problem, since it's well known that positive results are more regularly published. The second is fine as a report on ethnobotany, and I would certainly use it for that, but not for any medical claims. The third is an
1105:. High-quality trials on aloe vera are mostly absent because there is no sponsor to protect intellectual property or to pay for years of clinical research. The article states "There is no good evidence aloe vera is of use in treating wounds or burns" which is sourced to the conclusion of the Cochrane review. --
1079:
reference to the dozens of studies that support the thoroughly well-established use of this plant for minor skin injuries like abrasions, burns, sunburns, etc.. If we cherry-pick a reason not to include 90% of the research out there, is that justification to state outright that the research doesn't
1218:
I have to side with the huge body of unreliable evidence instead of the name calling of existing better evidence. The exception is ingestion, which I have never done because I have always been leery of it through research. My reason is personal experience. I am 80 years old, and have used aloe Vera
1160:
The core issue is that the "no good evidence" phrasing is completely dismissive in spite of a huge body of evidence that supports every facet of the claim, that simply doesn't live up to every random
Knowledge rule that's applied to it. The article should at a minimum acknowledge the existence of
1165:
the study), or that the review is too small, etc., completely fails to properly inform the reader about the state of research on the topic. Shouldn't it say, "hey, in-vitro studies exist, reviews from publications on CITEWATCH, reviews that are too small for
Knowledge or don't include a check on
1119:
Just to clarify my position: it can certainly be stated, with reliable sources for the claim, that AV is widely used for minor skin injuries like abrasions, burns, sunburns, etc. What can't be stated here, at present, is that it's efficacious when used, because there isn't an acceptable source to
1100:
serves - it's worth a read and study of the sources shown in the pyramids. A high-quality source would be a
Cochrane review of completed large-scale trials on aloe vera which - for skin wounds - is PMID 22336851, as used in the article. Knowledge isn't a textbook for all studies to be cited on a
1083:
And most of these justifications seem like "weasel word" kind of issues. "Low quality" by whose standards, yours? In-vitro studies relating to biological mechanisms possessed by most "higher" animal species"? Retracted condemnations of a conglomerate in control of dozens of journals? Can you
999:
Deleted ethnobotany study which, fair enough, shouldn't have been included initially. Reason for not including the review, come on, lack of check for publication bias? ] doesn't say in-vitro studies are unacceptable, it says to avoid unnecessarily extrapolating conclusions about human health
1170:
state of research in the "Research" section of the article, instead of, "no good evidence exists" and then silence about everything else that does exist, which, hey, has actual relevance to someone interested in the subject and prepared to spend more than five seconds researching the topic.
972:
Consider the first. It's actually a compendium of separate reviews, if you read it. Each table is based on a relatively small number of reviews. Table 1, for example, showing the effects of AV in the treatment of burns, is actually based on 5 studies. They say "the present study was not a
1032:
less than 1, making it unreliable and unusable; 2) although stated as a review, PMID 30153721 included only 3 small prospective trials with limited subject numbers; it is a low-quality report with limited interpretation about efficacy of aloe vera in reducing symptoms of
1037:, a condition for which there are no high-quality reviews concerning aloe vera; 3) PMID 26090436 is based mostly on animal studies published more than 1-3 decades ago. It is an out of date, low-quality, unusable source; 4) PMID 31379961 is published in an
1000:
effects from it -anyone who actually knows some basic cellular biology should understand that benefits to wound healing by factors such as antiseptic/hydration/barrier etc. mechanisms are basically universal as far as all mammals and avians go).
1011:
153:
1124:
Stating that there's no evidence to support a conclusion is not biassed, and does not mean that the conclusion is false. "Absence of evidence ≠evidence of absence" is a well known observation.
1084:
actually show that this study is "predatory"? This just seems like a convoluted form of an ad hominem fallacy. I already retracted PMID 31379961 anyway for non-applicability, regardless.
1166:
publication bias, which do purport to validate these uses for AV exist, but no super-high-quality-bona-fide research exists according to
Knowledge's standards". Some mention of the
1007:
194:
1224:
1130:
studies regularly show effects that don't replicate to whole organisms, regardless of whether they relate to biological mechanisms possessed by most animal species. See
644:
542:
147:
1015:
750:
625:
1161:
this volume of studies on the topic. Just blithely calling them "bad" because you don't like the publication, or that the study is in-vitro (which doesn't
1070:
446:
1267:
498:
855:
1307:
1277:
740:
615:
1120:
support this claim. I don't want to get into yet another long discussion, but please take seriously what Zefr wrote above. In particular:
1287:
1312:
1297:
1292:
489:
469:
79:
1210:
1180:
994:
967:
244:
1201:
and related guidance has been correctly applied. In my view it has, and I don't see where you have convincingly argued otherwise.
1302:
1272:
1257:
1247:
1028:
for the quality of evidence: 1) the journal for PMID 30666070 is a low-quality publication not indexed in
Medline, and having an
716:
591:
436:
1322:
1189:
If you don't agree with the standards applied to the reporting of medically relevant research in
Knowledge, then take it up at
845:
1220:
85:
1262:
202:
1327:
262:
168:
1131:
707:
668:
582:
537:
30:
135:
1282:
1172:
412:
44:
1154:
1317:
1252:
1242:
821:
497:
related articles on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
948:
250:
99:
104:
20:
74:
1228:
1114:
399:
360:
335:
129:
812:
773:
65:
1138:
anti-oxidation effects, which have impeccable biochemistry behind them, turned out to have no relevance
921:
185:
125:
1021:
1057:
and the IP review this discussion and gain consensus to add limited additional content, if any; see
1034:
190:
820:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
715:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
590:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
411:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1206:
1150:
990:
904:
175:
109:
911:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
1176:
1102:
963:
944:
341:
1190:
1080:
exist, that there's "no evidence" to support a conclusion? This seems horrendously biased.
1042:
1038:
1003:
494:
232:
8:
1097:
1046:
1025:
912:
699:
574:
55:
1202:
1146:
986:
955:
302:
295:
141:
70:
1096:
Medical editors have to apply a standard for judging quality of evidence. That's what
254:
51:
1054:
959:
940:
891:
788:
767:
634:
161:
1198:
978:
1110:
1066:
937:
934:
931:
213:
1236:
1058:
1050:
1029:
391:
804:
712:
587:
375:
354:
711:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
218:
899:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
683:
662:
558:
531:
1106:
1062:
927:
217:
24:
930:, could you please explain more why these sources are not reliable?
481:
463:
1075:
This is pretty ridiculous, my intention was to give literally just
215:
408:
219:
817:
404:
385:
160:
816:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
794:
689:
586:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
564:
493:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
403:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
381:
15:
1234:
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
260:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
174:
1053:: reverting to the previous version while
507:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative medicine
510:Template:WikiProject Alternative medicine
1041:journal of the Hindawi company, and is
1008:2605:E000:CAC3:2400:D66D:6DFF:FE1E:5C03
958:. Why are these sources not reliable?--
1268:GA-Class Alternative medicine articles
1235:
1308:Low-importance Saudi Arabia articles
1278:Low-importance South Africa articles
873:
810:This article is within the scope of
705:This article is within the scope of
580:This article is within the scope of
487:This article is within the scope of
397:This article is within the scope of
323:
321:
317:
340:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
1288:Unknown-importance PSP SA articles
1132:Oxygen radical absorbance capacity
725:Knowledge:WikiProject Saudi Arabia
633:
600:Knowledge:WikiProject South Africa
14:
1339:
1313:WikiProject Saudi Arabia articles
1298:WikiProject South Africa articles
1293:Knowledge Primary School articles
1049:, so is unreliable and unusable.
728:Template:WikiProject Saudi Arabia
603:Template:WikiProject South Africa
253:. If you can improve it further,
1022:Concerning this series of edits,
877:
797:
787:
766:
692:
682:
661:
645:Knowledge Primary School project
567:
557:
530:
490:WikiProject Alternative medicine
480:
462:
384:
374:
353:
322:
231:
201:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
850:This article has been rated as
745:This article has been rated as
620:This article has been rated as
441:This article has been rated as
1303:GA-Class Saudi Arabia articles
1273:GA-Class South Africa articles
1258:High-importance plant articles
1248:Natural sciences good articles
245:Natural sciences good articles
241:has been listed as one of the
1:
1323:Low-importance Yemen articles
824:and see a list of open tasks.
719:and see a list of open tasks.
642:This article is supported by
594:and see a list of open tasks.
513:Alternative medicine articles
501:and see a list of open tasks.
415:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1211:12:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
1181:07:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
1155:12:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
1115:03:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
1071:01:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
1016:23:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
995:19:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
968:19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
949:18:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
421:Knowledge:WikiProject Plants
7:
1263:WikiProject Plants articles
830:Knowledge:WikiProject Yemen
424:Template:WikiProject Plants
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1344:
1328:WikiProject Yemen articles
1229:05:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
856:project's importance scale
833:Template:WikiProject Yemen
751:project's importance scale
626:project's importance scale
447:project's importance scale
903:] The anchor (Products)
849:
782:
744:
677:
641:
619:
552:
475:
440:
369:
348:
277:
273:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1283:GA-Class PSP SA articles
1035:irritable bowel syndrome
708:WikiProject Saudi Arabia
583:WikiProject South Africa
1318:GA-Class Yemen articles
1253:GA-Class plant articles
1243:Knowledge good articles
1193:. All that is relevant
638:
330:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
731:Saudi Arabia articles
637:
606:South Africa articles
251:good article criteria
195:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1039:alternative medicine
504:Alternative medicine
495:Alternative medicine
470:Alternative medicine
303:Good article nominee
105:No original research
981:and the section on
700:Saudi Arabia portal
575:South Africa portal
922:Unreliable sources
639:
400:WikiProject Plants
336:content assessment
278:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
1018:
1006:comment added by
919:
918:
894:in most browsers.
870:
869:
866:
865:
862:
861:
813:WikiProject Yemen
761:
760:
757:
756:
656:
655:
652:
651:
525:
524:
521:
520:
457:
456:
453:
452:
316:
315:
312:
311:
269:
226:
225:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1335:
1024:we should apply
1001:
913:Reporting errors
905:has been deleted
881:
880:
874:
838:
837:
834:
831:
828:
807:
802:
801:
800:
791:
784:
783:
778:
770:
763:
762:
733:
732:
729:
726:
723:
702:
697:
696:
695:
686:
679:
678:
673:
665:
658:
657:
608:
607:
604:
601:
598:
577:
572:
571:
570:
561:
554:
553:
548:
545:
534:
527:
526:
515:
514:
511:
508:
505:
484:
477:
476:
466:
459:
458:
429:
428:
425:
422:
419:
394:
389:
388:
378:
371:
370:
365:
357:
350:
349:
333:
327:
326:
325:
318:
298:
275:
274:
258:
235:
228:
227:
220:
206:
205:
196:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1233:
1232:
1221:174.251.224.101
1134:, for example:
924:
915:
897:
896:
895:
878:
835:
832:
829:
826:
825:
803:
798:
796:
776:
730:
727:
724:
721:
720:
698:
693:
691:
671:
605:
602:
599:
596:
595:
573:
568:
566:
546:
540:
512:
509:
506:
503:
502:
443:High-importance
426:
423:
420:
417:
416:
390:
383:
364:High‑importance
363:
334:on Knowledge's
331:
294:
222:
221:
216:
193:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1341:
1331:
1330:
1325:
1320:
1315:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1245:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1196:
1184:
1183:
1144:
1143:
1125:
1103:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
923:
920:
917:
916:
910:
909:
908:
892:case-sensitive
886:
885:
884:
882:
868:
867:
864:
863:
860:
859:
852:Low-importance
848:
842:
841:
839:
836:Yemen articles
822:the discussion
809:
808:
792:
780:
779:
777:Low‑importance
771:
759:
758:
755:
754:
747:Low-importance
743:
737:
736:
734:
717:the discussion
704:
703:
687:
675:
674:
672:Low‑importance
666:
654:
653:
650:
649:
640:
630:
629:
622:Low-importance
618:
612:
611:
609:
592:the discussion
579:
578:
562:
550:
549:
547:Low‑importance
535:
523:
522:
519:
518:
516:
499:the discussion
485:
473:
472:
467:
455:
454:
451:
450:
439:
433:
432:
430:
427:plant articles
413:the discussion
396:
395:
379:
367:
366:
358:
346:
345:
339:
328:
314:
313:
310:
309:
306:
299:
291:
290:
287:
284:
280:
279:
271:
270:
236:
224:
223:
214:
212:
211:
208:
207:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1340:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1316:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1238:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1203:Peter coxhead
1200:
1194:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:Peter coxhead
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1045:according to
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1030:impact factor
1027:
1023:
1020:
1019:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
998:
997:
996:
992:
988:
987:Peter coxhead
984:
980:
976:
971:
970:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:Peter coxhead
953:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
935:
932:
929:
914:
906:
902:
901:
900:
893:
889:
883:
876:
875:
872:
857:
853:
847:
844:
843:
840:
823:
819:
815:
814:
806:
795:
793:
790:
786:
785:
781:
775:
772:
769:
765:
764:
752:
748:
742:
739:
738:
735:
718:
714:
710:
709:
701:
690:
688:
685:
681:
680:
676:
670:
667:
664:
660:
659:
647:
646:
636:
632:
631:
627:
623:
617:
614:
613:
610:
593:
589:
585:
584:
576:
565:
563:
560:
556:
555:
551:
544:
539:
536:
533:
529:
528:
517:
500:
496:
492:
491:
486:
483:
479:
478:
474:
471:
468:
465:
461:
460:
448:
444:
438:
435:
434:
431:
414:
410:
406:
402:
401:
393:
392:Plants portal
387:
382:
380:
377:
373:
372:
368:
362:
359:
356:
352:
351:
347:
343:
337:
329:
320:
319:
307:
305:
304:
300:
297:
296:July 23, 2008
293:
292:
288:
285:
282:
281:
276:
272:
267:
265:
264:
256:
252:
248:
247:
246:
240:
237:
234:
230:
229:
210:
209:
204:
200:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1217:
1167:
1162:
1145:
1139:
1135:
1127:
1118:
1098:WP:MEDASSESS
1095:
1076:
1047:WP:CITEWATCH
1026:WP:MEDASSESS
1002:— Preceding
982:
974:
925:
898:
890:Anchors are
887:
871:
851:
811:
805:Yemen portal
746:
722:Saudi Arabia
713:Saudi Arabia
706:
669:Saudi Arabia
643:
621:
597:South Africa
588:South Africa
581:
538:South Africa
488:
442:
398:
342:WikiProjects
301:
261:
259:
255:please do so
243:
242:
238:
198:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1197:is whether
1173:24.94.72.77
1055:SharabSalam
1043:"predatory"
977:study; see
960:SharabSalam
941:SharabSalam
148:free images
31:not a forum
1237:Categories
249:under the
985:studies.
239:Aloe vera
88:if needed
71:Be polite
25:Aloe vera
21:talk page
1199:WP:MEDRS
1191:WT:MEDRS
1163:disprove
1136:in vitro
1128:In vitro
1004:unsigned
983:in vitro
979:WP:MEDRS
975:in vitro
332:GA-class
263:reassess
199:730Â days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1140:in vivo
1101:topic;
854:on the
749:on the
624:on the
445:on the
286:Process
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1168:actual
1059:WP:CON
1051:WP:BRD
543:PSP SA
418:Plants
409:botany
405:plants
361:Plants
338:scale.
308:Listed
289:Result
126:Google
954:Ping
827:Yemen
818:Yemen
774:Yemen
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1225:talk
1207:talk
1195:here
1177:talk
1151:talk
1111:talk
1107:Zefr
1077:some
1067:talk
1063:Zefr
1061:. --
1012:talk
991:talk
964:talk
945:talk
936:and
928:Zefr
888:Tip:
437:High
407:and
283:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
939:.--
926:Hi
846:Low
741:Low
616:Low
176:TWL
1239::
1227:)
1209:)
1179:)
1153:)
1113:)
1069:)
1014:)
993:)
966:)
947:)
541::
266:it
257:.
197::
156:)
54:;
1223:(
1205:(
1175:(
1149:(
1142:.
1109:(
1065:(
1010:(
989:(
962:(
943:(
933:,
907:.
858:.
753:.
648:.
628:.
449:.
344::
268:.
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
