Talk:Tinospora cordifolia

Common names in other languages

This material is unencyclopedic per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Moving here from the article for archiving. --Zefr (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanskrit: guduchi, amrta, cinnodbhava (छिन्नोद्भवा) ,etc Punjabi: گلو (Gllow), Telugu: తిప్ప తీగ (Tippa-teega), Tamil: சீந்தில் கொடி (Shindilakodi),siva Malayalam: ചിറ്റമൃത് (Amruthu, Chittamruthu), Kannada: ಅಮೃತ ಬಳ್ಳಿ (Amrutha balli),[14] Khmer: បណ្តូលពេជ្រ (bândaul pich), Sinhala: රසකිද Rasakinda, Thai: บอระเพ็ด (boraphét), Lao: ເຄືອເຂົາຫໍPali: galocī, Hindi:geloy (गिलोय), guruc (गुरुच), gurcha, Gujarati: galac, garo, gadu vell, Bengali: Guloncho (গুলঞ্চ), Marathi: Guduchi (गुडूची), Gulvel (गुळवेल), Odia: ଗୁଳୁଚୀ Guluchi, Myanmar: ဆင်တုံးမနွယ် Nepali: Gurjo (गुर्जो). Konkani: amritvel Manipuri name – ningthou khongli Mizo: theisawntlung Urdu: gurch, guluncha Sanskrit Synonyms: There are different Sanskrit Synonyms for Tinospora, mainly denoting its properties or characteristics. For example: Amrita (अमृता) - it is one of the most used synonym. It means nectar. Many formulations use this name of Guduchi. Example: Amritottara Kashaya, Amritarishta, Guduchi (गुडूची)– It protects and guards body from diseases. Chakrangi, (चक्रांगी) Chakralakshana (चक्रलक्षणा)– wheel-like appearance in transverse section of stem. Chandrahasa (चंद्रहासा)– It refers to the moon like appearance of transversely cut stem. Chinnaruha(छिन्नरुहा), Chinnodbhava (छिन्नोद्भवा) – Regular growth of plant even if it is cut-off several times. Regular emergence of plant even if it is cut-off several times. Jwarari(ज्वरारि), Jwaranashini ज्वरनाशिनी)– Useful against fever Ayattha, Amravalli, Kundali, Guduchika, Jivantika, Tantrika, Devanirmita, Dhara, Nagakanyaka, Bhishakpriya, Madhuparni, Somavalli, Vayastha, etc

Use in Ayurveda

Zefr, the issue with your removal your removal is that the section is now quite POV. The single sentence not approved by any regulatory agency as a prescription drug is not enough to counter the extensive claim, being made in Wikipedia voice about its safety, by the sentence In Ayurveda, Tinospora has been used over centuries to treat various diseases. There is extensive content - both scientific and journalistic - about Tinospora induced liver injury. Same about the AYUSH ministry recommendations - it has been reported upon in 2020, 2021 and 2022. All the refs I've given are WP:RS. Can you please elaborate - which specific clause of NOTNEWS bars us from covering AYUSH ministry recommendations and the possibility of liver damage? Hemantha (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

ping Zefr once again. I've corrected the diff link above. The removed text, in my view, properly described the studies, in line with what WP:MEDASSESS says about such initial research - The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., "first-in-human safety testing"). Hemantha (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

References

According to the Drugs.com review, - and as shown in your news sources - there are only case reports to discuss the potential for liver injury, and overall, there is little reliable information about dosing for any given illness or its clinical effects. Due to their perpetuation of quackery, Ayurveda and AYUSH sources are unreliable and unusable. I made this edit to clarify. Zefr (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Zefr, did you read what I wrote above? I'm asking (among other things), which policy bars us from briefly mentioning that there are studies showing hepato-toxicity. Another is the NPOV issue, which still is unresolved. The lead (It has been in use for centuries in traditional medicine to treat various disorders), as well as the text in 'Traditional medicine' section, is implicitly making a safety claim, which your addition of a vague disclaimer does nothing to counter. Also, there are no AUYUSH/Ayurveda sources - the sources I list are all WP:RS, used only to support the fact that the ministry had been promoting it; not to make any medical or quack-ish claim.

Further, can you please tell me which text in the drugs.com reference supports your new addition that there is no evidence that it is effective or safe? The ref actually seems to say something quite opposite - At Ayurvedic therapeutic doses, no toxicity has been observed. I see that even the previously existing text (about regulatory approvals) is unsupported by that ref, but your version seems to be even more so. Hemantha (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Under Uses and pharmacology in the Drugs.com article, all the studies reviewed and discussion are about "no clinical data" concerning efficacy and safety. Concerning your sources - which are brief news reports, WP:NOTNEWS - we have to apply WP:MEDASSESS to determine evidence quality: a) Ayurveda and AYUSH sources are not reliable, and these were used to produce the news; b) the news stories are about liver toxicity case reports, which have not been reported by the India Ministry of Health, but rather via AYUSH, a source that treats Ayurveda as a valid profession, not the quackery that it is. Summarizing, MEDASSESS (left pyramid) would say that there is not enough evidence and no review to verify the significance of these news reports, and that the format of the news - online newspapers - does not meet the quality level. If you have a revision and better sources to offer, please do. Zefr (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please, Zefr, I'm completely unable to follow what you are saying. None of the liver toxicity reports are from AYUSH (why on earth would they report such results when they have been recommending it quite freely for three years and continue to do so?). In direct contradiction of your "no clinical data" claim, the Drugs.com article reports multiple studies under "clinical data" and as I quoted, makes specific claims about safety at odds with your edit.

You seem to be preoccupied with that Flavonol debate to the extent that you are totally confused here. Would you be amenable to restoring my edit and reverting your there is no evidence that it is effective or safe until you have time to properly review the references? Hemantha (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's deal with the Drugs.com source first. Under Uses and pharmacology in several sections: Antineoplastic effects - "no clinical data"; Antidiabetic and hypolipidemic effects - "no clinical data"; Antioxidant effects - small, weak studies (not a quote, but obvious); CNS effects - small, weak studies. Re-examine the left pyramid of MEDASSESS - no clinical data and small, weak studies are flashing lights for no-to-low evidence quality. Concerning your edit using the news sources reporting on uses and possible relationship to liver injury during Covid, we have only news summaries of a case report publication (low quality of evidence, MEDASSESS). Below is a draft to consider, although in my opinion, the evidence is too weak for the article. Zefr (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

During the 2020-22 COVID-19 outbreak in India, the Ministry of AYUSH recommended use of T. cordifolia as a home remedy for immune support, but such a practice appeared to be associated with hepatitis cases among six people who used boiled or capsule preparations of the plant.

References

Not just 6. You've ignored the latest, wider study which mentions 43 cases. The reference to that study was there in my edit which you'd reverted. Hemantha (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding addition of the content

@Velella- Regarding that controversial content in this article(Tinospora Cardifolia), there is no good evidence that it gives illness, rather some cases and that too is not a proper verification.. Moreover, the statement itself don't have enough weightage to be published here. Regarding, Ministry of Ayush, I think the statements should be concluded there since Wikipedia is open sources and it's should tell both way. Please, I request to look carefully onto this. Edit:-I found some other Scientific papers like [1], this could be useful for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.207.224 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References