Talk:Galactagogue

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

second sited source

The source for "2" is no longer working, not only that, but it didn't actually say that the evidence is lacking when i looked at it cached. If nobody objects, in one week, i will delete the sentence. Stregamama (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Stregamama (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bias

This page has a pretty strong establishment bias, scientific understanding has caught up on herbals. That said, I don't have time right now to dig up proper references, so am only adding to Talk. Hopefully someone else will have time, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.139.173 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with opinion that the article has an anti-herbal bias. The reviews on purported herbal galactagogues, including those cited as references, are consistent in reaching the conclusion that there has not been adequate clinical trial testing to support claims for any of the ingredients. Looking beyond the reviews to the individual clinical trials confirms weakness: trials often without placebo controls, or too small. More research needed. David notMD (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Galactagogue

second sited source

bias

Navigation menu

Search