Talk:Ukrain

might be worthy of an article

Came here initially to speedy delete and recommend WP:SALTing, but there are some hits for the term on both PubMed and Google Scholar, so I think a better solution would be to properly tag it and recommend cleaning up and wikifying. Still, the product's official website looks like total spam. WTF? (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it, perhaps, be better to merge it into Chelidonium? But in any case, yes, let's get better sources, by all means. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Would support merge... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistyped Ukraine and ended up here. Merge/redirect sounds good. AIRcorn (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge is unjustifiable. The article has significance as a standalone article. I will provide better sources.--Sanya3 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have completely reworked the page and provided sources from scientific journals throughout.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Biased, incomplete and misrepresentative

The article displays UKRAIN as kind-of-a-treatment. It is not, compare with the far more comprehensive German article -> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain

UKRAIN is a fraud and neither its chemical structure could not be reproduced independently nor the claimed specific action against cancer cells. Trails have been found to be poor and applications for this product have been denied by regulatory authorities. Source: summary from the German wiki

Also the statement "Ukrain is registered at the National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, Maryland, USA) under the number NSC-631570" is misleading. An application for a trial has nothing to do with the pharmaceutical's actual efficacy - this could be mistaken. Could anybody do something against this? The problem is that an article as poorly written as this one could probably make cancer patients think this cure *could* work. 93.203.240.25 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made some edits in response to what you have pointed out. However, I don't read German, so there is probably more that could be done. It would be very helpful to provide more references in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional legal incident

I am going to work on adding the case of T.R. Shantha to the legal incidents sections. In 2007, He was pleaded guilty to health fraud in federal court, which included using ukrain in addition to other illegal substances. He had his Georgia medical licensed revoked. Citations:

• http://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/gan/press/2008/01-24-08c.pdf
• https://www.casewatch.net/board/med/shantha_revocation.pdf
• https://www.casewatch.net/doj/shantha/shantha_plea.pdf
• http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/icht.html

Delta13C (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Structure

While I'm aware that there's quite a bit of uncertainty regarding the actual structure of this stuff, however it seems that our image of the proposed structure may also be wrong. Refs in the article doi:10.1016/S0304-3835(00)00595-4 imply that those conjugates alkenes should in-fact be benzene groups (6 in all). Anyone got any information that conflicts with this? --Project Osprey (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Britt Marie Hermes

I've currently removed the paragraph in the legal issues section regarding Britt Marie Hermes. There were three problems as it stands:

• The paragraph named a living person, but used a self published source, which we can't do per WP:BLPSPS.
• The source didn't mention the name of the person reported, but we did, so we can't use it as a source of the name and it failed verification.
• The actual issue was minor, so I have due weight concerns - the only thing he was found guilty of was importing Ukrain from a source not registered with the US FDA, and all that happened was a reprimand.

The event was significant in terms of Britt Marie Hermes, as this is apparently a factor in here opposition to naturopathy, but it doesn't seem like a significant event in terms of Ukrain - one person getting reprimanded because of their choice of supplier after they stopped using it. - Bilby (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, misrepresenting policy is pretty naughty: the BLPSPS applies to biographical information, not to everything - and as for "The source didn't mention the name of the person reported" ... there are three sources in play, and the letter of censure says "Dr. Michael Uzick" right at the top. Do not just blindly repeat bad edits, that leads to edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You really should read WP:BLP before accusing me of misrepresenting it: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". If we make any claim about a living person, on any article, BLP applies. You should also read WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please don't return BLP violations to an article. At any rate, I have added a better source now, so that's something. We still have the due weight issue - is one obscure naturopath being reprimanded for importing ukrain from an non-approved source a significant event? - Bilby (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am extremely familiar with BLP, and yes you were misrepresenting it, while agressively deleting content. Do that again and I shall seek sanction. As to the weight issue, presumably the knowledge value is that such fake cures are used in naturopathy, and that is why this issue has attracted third-prty coverage. I shall ping WP:FT/N to get some more views on this. Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, why do you believe that claiming that a person reported her boss, and that her boss (who was named) was reprimanded, was anything other than "biographical information"? As to the other issue, everything I've read so far mentions this in regard to Britt Marie Hermes, and how it helped her move away from naturopathy. I do think it is a significant event in regards to her. What I'm not seeing is that it is a significant even in terms of ukrain. Now that the BLP issues are covered I'm open to leaving it in place, but I'd like to consider the weight issues. - Bilby (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, WP:FRINGE hasn't helped. How about a trim? There are no secondary sources discussing this, he does not appear to be a public individual, he has not been convicted of a crime, and the only mentions I could find in Google News are passing references via Britt Marie Hermes. I don't think that we should be mentioning a name, per WP:BLPNAME, and there's a clear due weight issue. I'll try and trim it back and see how we go. - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Err, I thought you were concerned about Hermes being named, but you've trimmed Uzick out!! He's named in the sources so I'm not sure what the point of being coy is. Facts are facts. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I was always concerned about Uzick, not Hermes He's a non-public individual, never convicted of a crime, who is only mentioned in relation to Hermes and we're relaying on a WP:PRIMARY source to add most of the content about him. I looked for any secondary source talking about this allegation other than a passing reference in relation to Hermes and couldn't find one. This has significant weight issues, along with problems with naming a non-public individual. BLP needs to be considered here. - Bilby (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by non-public? The guy has a website and has appeared on PBS so far as I can see. And what policy discourages naming (when the sources do)? The reprimand is mentioned in the Stat source, so for what information are we "relying" on primary sources? Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board source is a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY for the source, and WP:BLPNAME/WP:BLPCRIME. - Bilby (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

My question was, what primary source are we RELYING on? (as you said). We are citing that primary source, obviously - but only as backup to the secondary one which mentions the reprimand so I'm not understanding what the "reliance" is. Considering BLPNAME I think on balance Uzick's name is sufficiently already "out there" to not need to be supressed here. (I notice BTW the case made CaseWatch.[1]) Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We're heavily relying on the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board source. What I'd like to do is keep the general statement, but remove a name and trim back per WP:DUE. We keep the information that it has been used by a naturopath, but we don't accuse a named individual of a crime given that they were never charged. - Bilby (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so you want everything except the name. I've answered on that aspect just above. The only use of the word "crime" I can see has been by you, here. This is not a criminal matter surely? Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)