Talk:Artemisia annua

Human Toxicity

Does anyone have a reference indicating human toxicity, parts of the plant, and in what concentrations? — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese name

The article gives the Chinese name "青蒿; pinyin: qīnghāo" but the link to the Chinese WP leads to an article named "黄花蒿（学名：Artemisia annua)".I think the Chinese characters 黄花蒿 are pronounced "huanghuahao". Furthermore, when I search for "青蒿" in the Chinese WP I get still another article, where the scientific/ binomial name of 青蒿 qinghao is given as "Artemisia carvifolia", which I didn't find elsewhere. Could someone with sufficient knowledge in English, Chinese and biology please clarify this discrepancy? Baltshazzar (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

@Baltshazzar: According to [1], this name starts from some mistakes made in ancient traditional chinese medicine catalogs which gave two names for the same species, with the name "青蒿" being better-documented for its medical uses. Later the name 青蒿 is assigned to "Artemisia carvifolia". --Artoria2e5 contrib 16:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Folk medicine section

What does the second sentence refer to? What is TCN? This is likely a non-sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki-dog (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"TCM", not "TCN", is explained in the first sentence – traditional Chinese medicine. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This section probably should instead state what the traditional uses of the plant are instead of a statement criticizing folk medicine. I am critical of it myself, but it make no sense in this part of the article, unless there was a particular criticism or problem with this specie's folk uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki-dog (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artemisia annua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170525105020/http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf to http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6VqJ46atN?url=http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls to http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting information on WHO position on use for malaria

The article says both "The efficacy of tea, made with either water or urine and A. annua, for the treatment of malaria is dubious, and is discouraged by the World Health Organization (WHO)" and "Although WHO recommends artemisinin-based remedies for treating uncomplicated malaria, artemisinin resistance has become a concern". So, the WHO both recommends and discourages this? The source cited for the former assertion is an abstract that doesn't confirm it, and I'm not going to pay to access the full paper, but another source does make this assertion. The sourced cited for the latter assertion supports it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a conflict, artemisinin is simply the main active compound in the plant but it's concentration in the plant varies depending on many factors same goes for the effectiveness of administering it. It is also a pretty strong way of putting it that might not even be entirely correct. The WHO simply doesn not promote non-pharmaceutical administration of the plant as opposed to it's pharmaceutical form. I personally find it rather dubious that the author of that sentence used a secondary source on the stance of the WHO instead of basing it on a document of the WHO. Rastanarcharismarx (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The efficacy of tea, made with either water or urine and A. annua, for the treatment of malaria is dubious, and is discouraged by the World Health Organization (WHO)" seems pretty inappropriate for Wikipedia and does not even seem correct. Officially in the October 2019 technical document on this topic simply states that "WHO does not support the promotion or use of Artemisia plant material in any form for the prevention or treatment of malaria." Has anyone read the full article? if so, could the following be verified:

• does the full article state that its use with water or urine is dubious?
• does it cite a primary source of the WHO saying this?

If the author of the cited document doesn't state it being dubious, we shouldn't either, if they have no source of the WHO stating this, we have no reliable source of the WHO saying so, however if they do cite the WHO saying so, we should use the primary source, rather than a secondary source which most people cannot even verify. Rastanarcharismarx (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)