Talk:Eurycoma longifolia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed Merge of Eurycoma longifolia and Tongkat Ali

The following is the current content of Tongkat Ali:

Tongkat Ali (Eurycoma longifolia) is a small</nowiki> tree found in Malaysia and Indonesia that is used as a relief for a variety of ailments. In Southeast Asia it is used as a post partum medication, as well as for its antimalarial, antipyretic, antiulcer, cytotoxic and aphrodisiac properties.

Locals in Southeast Asia are convinced that it can improve desire and sexual initiation. Numerous scientific studies performed by Malaysian Universities, including University Science Malaysia (USM) have confirmed its effects on enhancing sexual characteristics in animal models. Currently, it is being researched for its possibilities as an anti-cancer supplement.

The abstracts of the published scientific reports on this plant can be viewed at: http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=(eurycoma+longifolia)

(Also in Category:Trees and marked as a tree-stub)


These really seem like the same article, and should somehow be merged (perhaps Eurycoma longifolia being the article to merge information into). Opinions?

Also, the names Long Jack and Pasak Bumi are cited as other common names for Eurycoma longifolia. So, to spare two more articles about this being created (perhaps by people in different regions), and also so that people can find what they're looking for, I've set those two names to redirect to Eurycoma longifolia. Czj 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, merge Tongkat Ali into Eurycoma longifolia - MPF 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12-Aug-2007: The merge/redirection of "Tongkat Ali" finally occurred on 27 September 2006, redirected by User:Jpfagerback. -Wikid77 11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected names

12-Aug-2007: The following names have been redirected to the article:

Considering the current ongoing medical research, other names should perhaps also be redirected to the article "Eurycoma longifolia" as well. -Wikid77 12:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia spamming

This article has for a long time been subject to spamming by promoters of Herbal Powers products.

In spite of the scientific-sounding word, eurypeptides are not a chemical compound. It's a registered brand name.

Furthermore, there are other extract strength, not just their 20:1 and 100:1.

There is now a Thailand based spammer who inserts a whole paragraph of his sales blog, and then links to it. I deleted this contamination.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.67.114.107 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Thai spam is ongoing. A blogger named pittichong abuses this article to insert a section about tongkat ali water method (sic) for the sole purpose of promoting his sale of tongkat ali chips. Irrelevant. Can somebody block that guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.228.122.102 (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

Sorry that I put my message here. I have seen that you handled administrative matters concerning Eurycoma longifolia, a page that I edited because I am a user of this herbal. I am otherwise not very familiar with doing Wikipedia, so I do not know how to bring this to your attention.

Anyway, there are persistent attempts by some companies in Malaysia and Indonesia to tilt the Wikipedia entry in their favor.

This happens via a claim that research on Eurycoma longifolia was done with an patented extract (theirs), which is a lie (most of the research is older, and if you see the abstracts you can see that researchers typically prepare their own extract from roots). The plant itself, and its use, cannot be patented anyway. There are numerous patents including Eurycoma Longifolia. They are usually specific formulations, which indeed can be patented. Anyway, I could refer to other patents (see Google scholar), but those who do not want neutral info on the plant will anyway just delete it, so I am discouraged of doing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.31.126.81 (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to provide a point of view regarding this. The extract used (Phytes TA 100) is a trademarked extract and was used in many of the earlier research that I assume you have referred. The plant itself was not patented but rather 1)the bioactive fraction, 2) the 'novel' use of the plant (you may refer to the patent description here) and 3)the process.

However I do agree that there are many patents out there which relates to different uses of Tongkat Ali however the bioactive fraction and the more 'popular' use (novel at that time) had already been legitimately patented by the Malaysian Government.

Eenabeena (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the three examples in the article as of August 2017, one was a U.S. patent and the other two were patent applications, now identified as such. A search at the U.S. Patent office showed no other patents, and a total of nine applications. Given that many applications never become patents, my action was to delete descriptions of specific applications and just state that applications for other processing technology or method of treatment have been submitted. David notMD (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviewed Study

The section on biological effects has a misleading reference a meeting abstract published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine. Its the one with the 6.67% increase in strength, (Br J Sports Med 2003;37:464-470 doi:10.1136/bjsm.37.5.464). The reference is to a meeting abstract and NOT a peer-reviewed article. Published meeting abstracts do not meet the standards of peer-review and I don't think should be included on this page. Many conferences ask publish their meeting abstract in a journal for wider reference, some require it as a condition of attendance. These abstract are published in peer-reviewed journals but that does not mean that the work featured in the abstract was under peer-review. The wording of this paragraph suggest otherwise and I feel is deliberately misleading and should be removed. Further, since the abstract was dated 2003, its pretty clear that these findings never passed the peer review process and thus are bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrodoStrong (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this study would be a better evidence for increase in strength i.e. biological effects that you are looking for. While the study you have referred to may not meet the standards of article peer review (which also can vary from journal to journal), it is still a legitimate published information.Eenabeena (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia now strongly recommends that secondary sources, i.e., review articles, are required as references for any medical/health related topic. Individual clinical trials - even those published in peer-reviewed journals - should not be used as references. See WP:MEDRS David notMD (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libidus did not contain acetildenafil

      • In the US, the FDA has banned numerous products such as Libidus,[39] claiming to use Eurycoma longifolia as principal ingredient, but which instead are concoctions designed around illegal prescription drugs, or even worse, analogues of prescription drugs that have not even been tested for safety in humans, such as acetildenafil.[40] In February 2009, the FDA warned against almost 30 illegal sexual enhancement supplements,[41] but the names of these products change quicker than the FDA can investigate them. Libidus, for example, is now sold as Maxidus, still claiming Eurycoma longifolia (tongkat ali) as principal ingredient.[42]


As one of the four main partners of the company that distributed Libidus under site license approval by Health Canada and was the company directly involved with the FDA when they issued their health warning that Libidus was contaminated, I am here to set the record straight.

Since 2006 our company NorthRegentRx has been in never ending discussion and negotiation directly with Health Canada including the Health Minister and members of the Conservative, NDP and Liberal caucus regarding what is now widely understood (and has been documented by senior members of parliament to the Canadian PMO) as an attempt to squash Libidus from the North American marketplace.

Beginning in 2006 with the FDA public health warning, our product Libidus was accused before any contact was made with our company. It was further discovered that HPFBI branch inspectors in Quebec and Ontario had made seizure attempts of Libidus the day the FDA public health warning was released, again not contacting our company first to make us aware there had been an issue.

No one from NorthRegentRx was contacted or was aware of any investigation. No one contacted NorthRegentRx to ask for our retention samples or to get batch number information. No agency contacted NorthRegentRx when the public health warning was issued and we ourselves had to contact the FDA to find out what was happening.

Within the first week of this warning our company gave our HPFBI inspector all retention samples and all copies of current testing. Health Canada also ran their own tests and found the FDA was incorrect and there was no acetildenafil. From there the Minneapolis branch FDA where the investigation and contamination determination was made admitted to securing a box of Libidus from a local US website. This 'website' was NOT an authorized distributor of Libidus and the material secured by the FDA was in fact counterfeit. However the FDA and Health Canada would not take the public health warnings back.

Health Canada continued to 'test' Libidus repeatedly, again breaching The Food and Drug Act (how can you continue to 'test' something when you don't know what you're testing against).

The second tests claimed to have found an analogue, same molecule different analogue name. When this was pointed out to HPFBI branch they changed their accusation a third time and claimed that an analogue called piperadino vardenafil was in Libidus.

The claim in 2006 was the analogue slipped by testing because it was new and never before seen in the marketplace. It was later discovered that piperadino vardenafil has never been found in the marketplace because it has never existed. It was a paper molecule found within the Chromatography along with the note from the authors (both were currently on staff with the FDA) that no standard or footprint of the molecule had ever been made.

You can read for yourself that the health warning has been quietly changed to now read that Libidus was contaminated with 'a form of Levitra', no longer even giving a precise accusation.

In 2008 NorthRegentRx received hundreds of emails from a request under Access To Information in which damning evidence directly from Health Canada's own lab technicians indicating no contamination of Libidus and more disconcerting a direct acknowledgment of using lab results from a faulty test reading by purposefully having tests run beyond retention time.

In 2010 in confidential consolidated lab reports handed to NorthRegentRx, Health Canada admitted they had never secured any sample of piperadino vardenafil to test Libidus against, admitting again to defrauding the test and recall procedures of The Food and Drug act.

In August 2012, NorthRegentRx filed a massive federal court lawsuit against Health Canada for the wrongful and malicious recall of Libidus, of which a full reinstatement of the product along with product licenses is being demanded. From the first moment we knew Libidus was not contaminated we have never stopped fighting to remove the accusation, have the product reinstated and clear the reputation of both the partners of NorthRegentRx and Libidus.

The reality of Libidus is that there was a product on the marketplace that was:

1) Being distributed world-wide. 2) Was being distributed in a regulated marketplace in Canada. 3) Being manufactured and distributed under proper licenses and according to GMP certifications. 4) In 2006 had become the number four selling product directly behind Viagra, Cialis and Levitra.

Libidus was publically attacked in a reckless manner for the purpose of discrediting both the product and NorthRegentRx and to cause an official recall in Canada before any further work could be done to continue to establish the legitimate licensing and distribution in North America. In all aspects Libidus was a commercial mafia-style hit using government resources.

It should also be known for the record that at no time has the use of Libidus ever been a contributor to any adverse health affect by any customer. This fact is even confirmed by Health Canada and represents just one of many clear contradictions to any allegation of hidden prescription drugs inside a product primarily used by consumers already on all sorts of nitrate based prescription medications. NorthRegentRx will be in federal court as plaintiffs on June 2013. Because of this sensitive documents cannot be posted here but a source reference is included from author John Towns of the Selkirk Journal who has seen those documents and has referred to them in this article:

http://www.interlaketoday.ca/2010/02/11/recall-destroys-local-business-2

--24.77.55.106 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article text mentioning Libidus and Maximus removed from article. In its place the article now describes U.S. FDA actions taken in 2006, 2009 and 2017. As these actions were against 7, 17 and 3 branded products, respectively, the purpose of the content is achieved without naming specific brands. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babi kurus

According to these wiki pages, "Babi kurus" is a different plant. http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokok_Babi_Kurus (Malaysian wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crudia_scortechinii

In addition, the words "babi" and "kurus" are Malay words, not Javanese. In Malay it means 'thin pig' or 'slim pig'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.170.249 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message from User:49.48.124.57 - regarding extracts and standardisation

User:49.48.124.57 left a message on my talk page I believe in response to the edit warring over the extracts section in this article in the past few days. I'm copying my reply here. Quotes from their message are in bold, while the rest is my response:

  • "The references claim that for certain herbal medications, there is a wide divergence of quality. These references do not relate to Eurycoma longifolia." The references refer to the use of extract ratios for herbal extracts in general. I believe that all herbs would be subject to this statement, and E. longifolia is a herb.
  • "Furthermore, glycosaponins are not specific to Eurycoma longifolia but to a huge array af plants. To make claims that glycosaponins would work as a marker to differenciate Eurycoma longifolia from non-Eurycoma longifolia is trickery." I think you're confusing identification techniques with standardization. The section you’re referring isn’t identification of the species, but the methods to quantify the quality of extracts.
  • :There is a reference to a Malaysian government-approved standardization body, but the page were standardization markers are specified is not in the reference." The full reference is behind a paywall. I have uploaded the necessary page here: [1] Just to clarify, I don't mean that the listed standardization method is the only ways to quantify the quality of E. longifolia. This is only one example, and I think notable enough to be shared on wiki. Cominion (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this FDA Recall be added.

There is an article on Ars Technica discussing the FDA recall of two brands of coffee "Stiff Bull" and "New of Kopi Jantan Tradisional Natural Herbs Coffee" both of which claimed to contain Eurycoma longifolia but which in fact contained a Sildenafil analog called desmethyl carbodenafil. Also mentioned in the article is a third coffee brand "Caverflo Natural Herbal Coffee" which was recalled after it was found to contain both Sildenafil and another drug called Tadalafil. This might be worth adding to the article.

Graham1973 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two references to FDA recalls already cover the three recalled products (Caverflo, Stiff Bull, Kopi Jantan). David notMD (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Eurycoma_longifolia"