Talk:Kombucha/Archive 4

It appears the new content mentioning "randomized controlled trials" fails verification.[9] 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."[10] 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."^[1][11] 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."^[1][12]

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.^[1] 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".^[1][13]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)

^[1]

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.[1] There have not been any human trials conducted regarding its biological activities,[1] and the purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans.[9] So far, there have been animal studies that looked into its biological activities.[1] "

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.[1] There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea.[1] There is no high-quality evidence of beneficial effects from consuming kombucha.[4]"[14]

Too much content is being deleted against consensus. Sourced content was previously replaced with misleading content. "People drink it for its supposed beneficial effects"[15] is misleading. The content "Based on the absence of human randomized controlled trials" failed verification[16] "Although people drink kombucha for such supposed health benefits" is also vague or unclear. The source stated it was "many".[17] 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,[1]...".

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.^[1]

^[1]

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."^[1]

"Research has been conducted using biological assays in vitro as well as in vivo studies using rats.^[1]

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.^[1]

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)

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 [5]."[18] Another source can be added that reached a different conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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..."[19] may not be supported by the source presented. The part "isolated adverse events may be attributable to it"[20] 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.[7][2]" 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.

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

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.[7][3]" 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,[3]" 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)

The 2003 source does not verify "these claims". The specific claims are "ranging from promoting

gut health to curing asthma". The 2003 source does give specific examples of the claims that are not supported by the scientific evidence. QuackGuru (talk

) 22:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I made changes to fix the SYN violation and other problematic content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued changes

See "Drinking kombucha as a therapeutic food is not recommended because its benefits are unclear and do not outweigh the potential harms."[21]

See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the possible benefits, so its use as a therapeutic food is not recommended."[22]

The previous wording is closer to the source. The part "possible benefits" contradicts the source. QuackGuru (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that "possible benefits" does not capture the sense of the source. But more, the source does not say "Drinking kombucha as a

talk

) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

See "The potential harms of drinking kombucha outweigh the unclear benefits, therefore its use as a therapeutic food is not recommended."

What about this wording? The part "unclear benefits" is supported by the source. QuackGuru (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"unclear benefits" is perhaps too-close paraphrasing. I had "vague benefits" but maybe "nebulous benefits" or better still a more thoroughgoing paraphrase ...

talk

) 12:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"unclear benefits" is not too-close paraphrasing if the source did not mention the word "unclear". Where does the PDF file mention the word "unclear"? QuackGuru (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The comment below does not address my question. The source does not mention the word "unclear" in relation to its benefits. If it does mention the word "unclear" please point me to the content. How was it too-close paraphrasing? QuackGuru (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you (the "Yes").

talk

) 12:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well then. I'm not sure about adding more content to the lede. We could add the part about who benefits from it. Something like "It appears to only benefit the people who sell it.<ref name=Ernst2003/>" QuackGuru (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I wonder if we could do better still. The paper itself concludes thus:

Unconventional remedies such as Kombucha are increasingly popular, not least because they are supported by frequent and favourable media coverage [15]. For many of these treatments there is little clinical evidence supporting efficacy. Kombucha is an extreme example in several ways: there is no convincingly positive clinical evidence at all; the claims for it are as far reaching as they are implausible; the potential for harm seems considerable. In such extreme cases, healthcare professionals should discourage consumers from using (and paying for) remedies that only seem to benefit those who sell them.
In conclusion, none of the numerous health claims for Kombucha is supported by clinical evidence. The consumption of Kombucha tea has been associated with serious adverse events. Its therapeutic use can therefore not be recommended.

We need to be faithfully conveying the sense of this.

Yes, we do; and in similarly robust language. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

Numerous "implausible" claims have been made for health benefits from drinking kombucha. The word "implausible" is not encyclopedic and not needed. Another editor stated "Now "implausible" is not encyclopedic, and should be removed, but this didn't seem to be the reason for your tagging." There is not talk page consensus for this. The previous thread did not include this language. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a good word for ... implausible things. Per NPOV we should reflect decent sources and if they say the health claims for kombucha are implausible (that it cures AIDS, FFS!) then we do do.

talk

) 06:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If it's an editorial comment, i.e. not in quotes, then it seems to me very clear that "implausible" is not encyclopedic – it's not for Wikipedia to say what is or is not "implausible". The solution is to explicitly quote the source that uses this word; in quotation marks, it's fine. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely for Wikipedia to say what is implausible, if it is according to RS. There is no dispute so it should just be

talk

) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer something like 'Claims that ... are described as "implausible"^[ref]', which makes the point without implying it's an editorial summary. The core point of

WP:EDITORIAL is that we should "maintain an impartial tone"; quoting makes it clear that we are not taking on ourselves to say that something is implausible (however much we all agree that it is), whereas the current words read as an editorial judgement. But it's a fine point, which I why I left it. Peter coxhead (talk

) 09:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think attributing it like that is unnecessary and may even give the false impression it's in dispute, or is just one source's view. The idea that drinking fermented tea can cure HIV/AIDS fails a prior plausibility assessment - there is no disputing that from any sane quarter, either in RS or in real life.

talk

) 09:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The word "implausible" does not maintain a neutral tone. I'd rather remove it all together. QuackGuru (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that "neutral tone" argument we hear about words like "pseudoscientific" all the time. This wording is neutral alright because it is factual and used by RS. The idea that drinking tea can (e.g.) halt/reverse retroviral disease progression is, literally, implausible: there is no plausible reason to suppose such an effect would follow. I'd be happy to replace it with "ridiculous", "far-fetched" or "preposterous" though. If in doubt ping

talk

) 11:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have made the corrections to the citation, as you have noted. Thanks for the feedback. (TheCalculus (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC))

WP:NOTNEWS, so we can wait over the next few to see what shakes outs. Your well+good citation fails WP:MEDRS for the same reasons that kombuchacenter.com did. I have looked, and aside from the kombuchacenter.com link that also links to the well+good article, I cannot find evidence of Square making such claims. Again, not saying I know the information isn't correct, but the current citations don't prove the claims to the standards of wikipedia. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk

02:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Basilosauridae Thanks again for your feedback. I agree that a citation directly from the mayor's office is the best source. I'm not sure if their site is where this information can be found, but I will keep checking in the meantime. Not that any of the following necessarily constitutes as a proper source, but this event was reported by numerous local news stations, in addition to affirmations from the mayor's social media account of him making such declarations, as can be seen here: https://twitter.com/WesleighOgle/status/1037326310610108416.

In a word, the

talk

) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn While I do understand your point of view, the thing is, the way the statement was said makes it extremely objective. Again, why would the extremely subjective statement "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use" be on a completely objective Wikipedia page? As I said before, you could just quote somebody making that statement (ex. "According to Dr. Nick, kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use") and that would be OK, but as that statement currently is, it's not OK for Wikipedia to use. Plus, as it currently is, the page has an extremely negative view towards kombucha and the results of consuming it, which isn't even remotely neutral. Hopefully, we can work out a reasonable solution to these issues.--Neateditor123 (talk

) 19:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

We reflect RS. And we

talk

) 19:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn Even if those claims are true, they're still way too subjective. Seriously, how is "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use" not a subjective sentence? As I've been saying this entire time, couldn't you at least just quote the person who wrote the sourced article saying that so you know it's just that person's opinion?--Neateditor123 (talk

) 19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

It's an evidence-based therapeutic assessment. By your reasoning you seem to be saying that every such assessment (the goal of evidence-based medicine) is "subjective" and then somehow (not clear how) problematic on Wikipedia. We should be summarizing, not quoting; we should be asserting what is not in doubt. Your objections seem to inhabit a parallel reality to the

talk

) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn Look, I'm not saying these statements are necessarily wrong or don't belong on a Wikipedia page. It's just that it looks out of place without somebody actually being quoted on that statement. The purpose of this Wikipedia page is to educate viewers about what kombucha is, not to tell them whether it's right or wrong to use.--Neateditor123 (talk

) 19:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

"not recommended" is expanded on in the Health claims section. Also, "not recommended" is different from right and wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Gråbergs Gråa Sång At the very least, the claim should state who says this (ex. "According to many doctors, kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use"), if not quote that person.Neateditor123 (talk

) 02:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

No, because then it gives the misleading impression this is "just" one person's opinion, when this is rather the uncontested state of human knowledge on this topic. See

talk

) 04:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn "this is the uncontested state of human knowledge on this topic". Says who? Seriously. That entire sentence is bullshit and you know it.--Neateditor123 (talk

) 16:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Alexbrn As a matter of fact, there most definitely is. Again, I don't want to delete these statements. I just want to modify them so its clear who's stating this. There's a big difference between saying "Time Magazine says Paris is the capital of France" and "Kombucha is not recommended for therapeutic use by doctors".--Neateditor123 (talk

) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

That is the purpose of a citation. I agree with alexbrn’s argument against your edit. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly I don't agree. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@

I agree and think that purported is the best word for the context. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view; "claimed" might work too.

talk

) 06:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

See

WP:CLAIM. QuackGuru (talk

) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Claim" would be fine here - since its negative connotation (like that of "purported") is warranted.

talk

) 15:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"The living bacteria are said to be probiotic, one of the reasons for the drink's popularity." This seems like an important point, and one of the more plausible benefits. However the point is not further elaborated in the body of the article, and the this is the only mention of the word "probiotic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"It has been proven experimentally that KT has the four main potencies necessary for numerous biological activities:a detoxifying property, protection against free radical damage, energizing capabilities, and promotion of immunity. KT health prophylaxis and curative effects on a number of metabolic and infective diseases are confirmed often by proving the particular bioactive compounds, present in KT; and the possible biochemical mechanisms of their actions have also been suggested.(Redacted) (see PMID 24192111) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Previously discussed.[23] We have more recent sources now.

talk

) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Will you kindly be more specific, where exactly is it discussed here? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This exact paper. It's a low-quality source. It used to be in the article. We have better sourcing on Kombucha and health now.

talk

) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Another: Antibacterial Activity of Polyphenolic Fraction of Kombucha Against Enteric Bacterial Pathogens. "The overall study suggests that Kombucha can be used as a potent antibacterial agent against entero-pathogenic bacterial infections, which mainly is attributed to its polyphenolic content."(see PMID 27638313) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I seem to be a little slow, please bear with me, do you mean to say, in context of the diff you've shared above, the said paper is discussed? I am not able to find it. disregard, found, trying to understand. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rather than reverting my corrections, will somebody please update this article in accordance with the latest scholarly knowledge of the subject? As it stands it is _factually incorrect_ - e.g. in the introduction it is stated "there is no evidence to support any of these claims" (regarding Kombucha's efficacy in the treatment of "AIDS, aging, anorexia, arthritis, atherosclerosis, cancer, constipation, and diabetes"). Yet the most recent systematic review clearly contradicts this assertion:

J. M. Kapp and W. Sumner, 'Kombucha: a systematic review of the empirical evidence of human health benefit', Annals of Epidemiology 30 (2019) 66e70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.11.001

e.g. "Health benefits reported from in vitro and in vivo studies include antimicrobial benefits, liver and gastrointestinal functions, immune stimulation, detoxification, antioxidant, anti-tumor properties, health prophylactic and recovery effects through immune stimulation; inhibiting the development and progression of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases; and normal central nervous system function."

While the authors are citing animal studies here, those studies (and the systematic review itself) do not amount to "no evidence".

See also the following reviews:

Jessica Martínez Leal, Lucía Valenzuela Suárez, Rasu Jayabalan, Joselina Huerta Oros & Anayansi Escalante-Aburto (2018) A review on health benefits of kombucha nutritional compounds and metabolites, CyTA - Journal of Food, 16:1, 390-399, DOI:10.1080/19476337.2017.1410499

"Kombucha beverage is a source of bioactive components, such as polyphenols and glucuronic acid. The beneficial outcomes of kombucha consumption are attributed to the synergistic effect between these components, making it a drink with potential beneficial health properties (when elaborated under adequate sterile conditions). It is apparent that its consumption can protect against the development of CVDs, mainly due to its polyphenol content that inhibits the oxidation of LDL, regulates cholesterol metabolism, and prevents high blood pressure by promoting smooth muscle relaxation. GlcUA, one of its main components, plays a role in xenobiotic liver detoxification and endobiotic elimination, thus potentially enhancing liver functions."

Ilmara Vina, Pavels Semjonovs, Raimonds Linde, and Ilze Deninxa, 'Current Evidence on Physiological Activity and Expected Health Effects of Kombucha Fermented Beverage', JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL FOOD 17 (2) 2014, 179–188

(Refers to a number of animal studies purporting to demonstrate the efficacy of kombucha in the treatment of gastric diseases, obesity, diabetes, cancer, hepatotoxicity, etc.)

Finally, rather than accusing editors acting in good faith of "promoting" kombucha or writing "fluff", would the interested parties here please spend a little more time reading the relevant literature and keeping your comments polite and neutral, as per Wikipedia regulations? I really shouldn't have to ask this people. (Rosenkreutzer (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC))

Lab work on animals doesn't translate to health benefits, so "no evidence" is correct. We don't use weak sources like articles in the journal CyTA - Journal of Food. We don't say "

See my reply to Johnuniq below - the "clichéd fluff" came more or less verbatim from the latest systematic review in the Annals of Epidemiology. Is that a weak source? Obviously not. And note the authors are not saying "further research is needed" - they are saying further evidence is _warranted_ by the results of animal studies. Note too that animal studies are the lowest level of evidence listed at WP:MEDASSESS - i.e. they do constitute evidence, hence my re-wording of 'no evidence' to 'little evidence'.(Rosenkreutzer (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC))

It's not a weak source, but the article is written a bit rhetorically. It says nothing we aren't already covering in the article. There is no need to splat this stuff into the lede using promotional/fluffy language. Generally, article ledes summarize material in the body in any case.

talk

) 08:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "promotion", this edit changed "no evidence" to "little evidence" (from human studies) and introduced "Nevertheless, a number of animal studies and literature reviews describe potential health benefits that warrant further testing in human subjects." The good intentions and good faith of the editor are asssumed—that is not the issue. What matters is that the wording is promotional—it suggests "kombucha is great as will soon be shown". Articles, particularly on health topics, do not use that kind of wording. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion is demonstrably false. My edit concerning "potential health benefits that warrant further testing in human subjects" was taken more or less verbatim from the latest systematic review in the Annals of Epidemiology. Their conclusions were "the nonhuman subjects literature claims numerous health benefits of kombucha; it is critical that these assertions are tested in human clinical trials" and "several reviews describe potential health benefits of kombucha that warrant testing". Neither their wording nor my own suggests that "kombucha is great as will soon be shown".(Rosenkreutzer (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC))

From the article:

"Standard Kombucha production procedures include starts with boiling 1L non-chlorinated water and dissolving 50g sugar in the boiling water. Next, 5g of tea leaves are steeped in the hot sugar water for 5 minutes and then tea leaves are discarded. Sweetened tea is cooled to around 20°C and 24g of SCOBY culture is added. This is poured into a sterilized beaker or other glass container along with 0.2L of previously fermented kombucha tea. This will lower the pH. The container is covered with a paper towel or breathable fabric that will not allow insects such as Drosophila fruit flies to contaminate the kombucha. The tea is left to ferment for a period of up to 10 to 14 days at room temperature (18°C to 26°C). A new "daughter" SCOBY will form on the surface of the tea to the diameter of the container. After fermentation is completed, the SCOBY is removed and stored along with a small amount of the newly fermented tea. The remaining kombucha is strained and bottled for a secondary ferment for a few days or stored at a temperature of 4℃.[36]"

Any reason not to remove this per

Here is a paper that reviews research literature on the benefits of S. Boulardii for human health. Efficacy and safety of the probiotic Saccharomyces boulardii for the prevention and therapy of gastrointestinal disorders

Encyclopedant (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The following source might turn out helpful to editors of this article.
https://kombuchabrewers.org/kombucha-code-of-practice/
23.30.146.165 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Is a non-notable trade organization really a

reliable source? --Orange Mike | Talk

20:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems notable according to the membership: https://kombuchabrewers.org/about-us/membership/

23.30.146.165 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this edit [24] which changed the Japanese spelling, but I'm not sure which is correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the edit was made because the article

Lead:Kombucha is thought to have first originated in Manchuria where the drink is traditional.[3][4]

Body:The exact origins of kombucha are not known, although the most likely place of origin is the Bohai Sea district in China.[4]

Which do we want? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think some of the claims at the adverse effects are exaggerated and "cherry picked" from certains papers, almost suggesting that the kombucha is a lethal beverage. The "At least one person is known to have died after consuming kombucha, though the drink itself has never been conclusively proven as the cause of death." is outright sensationalist and no research have found direct evidence between kombucha and the cause of death (if I also have numerous underlying health conditions and pass away anytime after drinking Coca-Cola, can we assume that I died because of coke?), therefore I do not think that is fair to put this much emphasis on contamination or possible health hazards. Susceptible, allergic or immunocompromised people may experience adverse effects (just like from any other drink or food if one happens to be allergic), but this entire section implies that the alleged health benefits are close to some kind of hoax, whereas people can die just by consuming kombucha. Adlersson (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adlersson: All claims appear to be reliably sourced, although from ancient sources, with the 2019 review concluding that 4oz daily is not dangerous and also describing the circumstances under which it can be dangerous. It seems to me that if the 2019 systematic review is the most complete review on the risks of kombucha, it should at the very least be at the top of the section rather than the bottom as almost an afterthought. I agree that the inclusion of single dubious cases is probably POV and unscientific, but I am unsure where Wikipedia consensus stands on this issue. I believe the least controversial change will be to move the most recent, most complete findings to the top of the section. MarshallKe (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I added Kombucha is not considered harmful if about 4 oz (120 mL) per day is consumed by healthy individuals. However, it has been implicated, but not necessarily confirmed, in a number of case reports of severe adverse effects., and @Roxy the dog: reverted it with the comment "not in source". I will directly quote the source below. Also, this statement is still in the article, so if you want to remove it, you'll have to remove it from the other place.

Kombucha has been implicated (but not necessarily confirmed) in a number of case reports

Despite these implications, kombucha is not considered harmfulif about 4 oz per day is consumed by healthy individuals

MarshallKe (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Roxy the dog: has reverted my edit with the comment "Already in the section. Editor obviously hasn't read it." I have revised my edit to remove the content from the bottom of the section and move it to the top. Now is the time to have discussion. MarshallKe (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Returned to good. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 22:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What is your reasoning? The source is as far as I can tell, the most recent and complete systematic review on the topic, and my edit is an accurate summary of its findings on side effects. I believe the most recent, complete information belongs at the top of the section. I will quote the relevant section of the paper.

Kombucha has been implicated (but not necessarily confirmed) in a number of case reports, including hyponatremia [57]; lactic acidosis [58]; toxic hepatitis after consuming kombucha tea daily for two years [59]; a patient newly diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus who presented with a case of hyperthermia, lactic acidosis, and acute renal failure within 15 hours of ingesting kombucha [60]; anti-Jo1 antibody-positive myositis [61]; symptomatic lead poisoning from brewing kombucha in a ceramic pot [62]; an outbreak of cutaneous anthrax reportedly from applying the kombucha mushroom to the skin as a painkiller [31]; pellagra [63]; an allergic reaction, jaundice, and nausea, vomiting, head and neck pain [64]; metabolic acidosis [26]; hepatotoxicity [32]; and cholestatic hepatitis [65].

Kombucha contains small amounts of alcohol. In a Food and Drug Administration investigation, the alcohol content of samples ranged from 0.7% to 1.3%; no methanol was detected [26]. Kombucha is contraindicated in pregnant women [7] and likely people with significant renal, pulmonary, or liver disease.

Despite these implications, kombucha is not considered harmful if about 4 oz per day is consumed by healthy individuals; potential risks are associated with a low pH brew leaching heavy metals from containers, excessive consumption of highly acidic kombucha, or consumption by individuals with pre-existing health conditions [26], [66]. Proper brewing methods are described in detail [66].

MarshallKe (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The earliest date of 1944 can probably be pushed back several years by someone with the patience to search carefully. For example, a 1932 USDA paper describes kombucha under that name, albeit capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indanthrene (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @

Anyway, what can work here is something like this [26], which is used in the pop-cult section at