Talk:Serrapeptase

Untitled

One wants to know what authorities justify the broad variety of benefits being claimed for serrapeptase. I searched "serrapeptase" specifically trying to discover any scientifically proven medical or health benefits.

consistent with the cavalier endorsement of this "proteolytic enzyme", the last sentence offers a dosage, i.e., one or two pills. the writer does not mention that pills (including serrapeptase) come in many strengths and sizes. indeed i know serrapeptase is available in 5, 10, 15, and 40 mg formulations. This is a single fact i know about serrapeptase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispanosuiza (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I personally was looking for any information on this topic. I think it was scolarly enough to help me understand that this is an enzyme. With the information contained in this article, I am able to pursue other avenues of information. I think a reader would realize that this probably falls under the alternative medicine category despite reputable doctors using it. Most medicines are used in Europe and Asia long before the FDA allow American doctors to prescribe them to their patients. I don't think this article is misleading nor a sales pitch at all. A sales pitch would have had a link to one of the manufacturers or distributors such as NOW vitamins. This product is available in my local health food store, but there is relatively little about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.179.97 (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Since SerraPeptase is actually a brand name for the proteolytic enzyme serratiopeptidase should this page not redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratiopeptidase and accurately refer to SerraPeptase as a brand name?Cordof3 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC) cordof3

The article states that this compound can "digest.....inflammation". Inflammation is a process, not a substance, so that should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.20.134 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not very clearly written and seems to still involve a lot of pro-Serrapeptase marketing. Since Serrapeptase is just one brand name, and the Serratiopeptidase article contains somewhat less biased information, I recommend that they be merged, ideally by someone with domain expertise. Tibbetts2c (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The author has not sought to include, or is not aware of, anything negative about the efficacy of the drug. The last line is laughably biased: "Read more about serrapeptase in the definitive book by Robert Redfern 'The Miracle Enzyme'."--Alunwiki (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

no merger

The name "Serrapeptase" is a shortened form of "Serratiopeptidase", used for convenience in being easier to remember. Chemists (especially biochemists) use shortened forms of names regularly for convenience. The "Serratiopeptidase" article is laughably biased; the two articles ought to remain forked and not be be merged, lest an edit war erupt.0XQ (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No way will we have different articles for different spellings or diffent POVs. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Serratio peptidase

Is any of article “Serratiopeptidase” relevant to the topic?

• Which bits? Why not propose additions to this article in a new section. This RfC is a waste of time. Verbal chat 11:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• I assume this is about the recent merger, discussed above? Here is a link to the version just prior to the merge. I have not looked at it yet, but would appreciate specific suggestions for improving the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  The remaining text omits a great deal of puffery and replaces individual studies with a review. This is entirely appropriate. Comparing the versions, I do not see anything we need to drag out of the archive. We can discuss specific sources and text below. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Serrapeptase/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is biased and misleading. It offers no references or evidence to any and many claims it makes with respect to the efficacy of the enzyme and current mainstay treatment NSAIDs. The scant literature it does cite is somewhat credible, but the write-up itself seems to be more of a marketing pitch for the product.

Last edited at 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)