Talk:Apitherapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	Agropedia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Beekeeping task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Removed ads for conference in Toronto - Wikipedia is not a platform for advertizing, no matter how well intentioned.

Contents 1 Merger 2 Revert that I made 3 Edit 4 Removal I made 5 Recent Edit, removing cite. 6 ?

[edit] Merger

Think it should definitely be merged into Apitherapy, when apitherapy is used it is usually focused on bee venom therapy (which is a subset of apitherapy anyway)

[edit] Revert that I made

Reverted your changes, you added:

"Four of the nine patients had to drop out of the study because of exacerbations of their disease or because of possible progression of the disease."

This is unimportant. Every study has people drop out. MS gets better and worse, it does not indicate - nor should it be indicative - that the venom treatments had anything to do with this. Given the length of time the study takes place, they always have people opt out. Note also the study wasn't even around the efficiay of treatment, only saftey.

You also removed several links, why? They aren't ad sites, nor are the sites a collection of links, they have further information and are from apitherapy proponents.

Oogles 17:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Removed this sentence:

"While many areas of apitherapy is often just consuming bee products, bee venom therapy is the most commonly associated and not nutritional benefits of honey/bee products."

There are at least three grammatical errors in this sentence and its meaning is not clear.

Beeswax is by far the most common non-food bee product, much more common then bee venom therapy.

When "Apitherapy" is used, it commonly refers to bee venom treatments. If you see an "Apitherapy Clinic", you won't go there to eat beeswax and honey - but doing so can technically be 'apitherapy'. The useage of the term usually refers to a very specific subset of Apitherapy - Bee venom treatments. Not usually associated is any kind of nutritional benefits from consuming, say, honey - or nutritional benefits of any of the bee products. Oogles 02:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a month, you had no further questions about it, I placed it back. Oogles 03:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal I made

I removed this

"MSAA says about bee venom therapy, “Bee venom therapy entails a real risk of dangerous allergic reaction as well as an emotional and monetary cost in chasing false hopes"[1]. "

The actual quote from this page is:

""BVT entails a real risk of dangerous allergic reaction, as well as an emotional and monetary cost in chasing false hopes. The MSAA does not recommend or endorse the use of honeybee venom for the treatment of MS or other disorders. We are funding this study to determine if this approach has any neurological benefit. If the results prove positive, then additional clinical studies and possible treatment practices of MS can begin. If the results prove negative, then the MSAA has helped to eliminate false hope. Anyone interested in BVT should first consult his or her physician."

The first one implies that it's bunk. The second one implies that it's possible either way. They're actually funding studies to see if it has a benefit. Regardless, much of this info is already discussed elsewhere in the article and is redundant.Oogles 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that whole section - it's uninformative and Wikipedia does not give medical advice about seeing a doctor. Anyone seriously considering any medical procedure should not use Wikipedia as their only source of information. Graham87 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. But, think danger of beestings to those with allergies should be included. (and was root reason for doc, I suspect from MSAA, though certainly dosage and personal situation/dosage/effectiveness comes into play, where it becomes more "medical advice") But....certainly, a portion of the population is allergic to beestings. And even more is allergic to many beestings. Is this information, or medical advice? Oogles (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics about allergy to beestings would be appropriate if they can be found in reliable sources. Even a link somewhere will do. Graham87 07:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So you need exact statistics to say that a bee sting can cause anaphylaxis? why is that? Why does number of people come into account? Point of fact is a beesting can triger anaphylaxis. Perhaps you should be editing "Bee Sting" and not here. Oogles (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote my previous comment. I don't know much about this topic ... I just watch the article because I stumbled upon some vandalism to it that stayed for an unacceptable amount of time. Any info referenced to a reliable source is okay, as long as it is presented neutrally and doesn't give specific advice. Graham87 10:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. I agree with edits to actual article. The bee sting is mentioned elsewhere, but stastics isn't necessary to state a "beesting can trigger anaphylaxis". As then it just becomes a population poll of allergies. The advice portion was about consulting doctor. (unstated:to determine if you have an allergy) Cause if you do, well, getting stung by a bee, or any bee venom injections will trigger anaphylaxis. Possible someone can make it to adulthood without knowing this, depending on the area they live. (ie, no bees / limited) or medical care available (no childhood allergy tests) or a child could be admistered it/stung Oogles (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edit, removing cite.

Problem with that cite was it was a different study, and editing a paragraph of one study, suggesting it resulted in the results of a different one.

If person (or someone else) who placed it there, doesn't edit in a paragraph about it, I'll do in a few days prolly, as the referance was fine, but out of context.

Oogles (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ?

I fixed a spelling error in this sentence but as it stands it doesn't make any sense. "Likely a combination of acupuncture" and what else? Or maybe "combination" isn't the right word? Not sure just what the intended meaning is.

There is no standardized practice as some purport the location of the sting is important and is likely a combination of acupuncture. Gr8white (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apitheraphy" or (Bee Venom Treatment) or injections. This is administered to the body, or the site where there is a problem. However. There is no "standard place", and some use it akin to administering beestings in acupuncture points, but didn't want to say it "was" (despite many various uncredible sources saying it was) instead chose the word "likely". (Look to accupuncture article, this means, admistering bee venom to a different site than the problem, or multiple different specific sites with accupuncture in mind) Oogles (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing English isn't your native language. As written, the sentence says that some purport the location of the sting is important and the location of the sting is likely a combination of acupuncture. But for one, nothing can be a combination of just one thing, it has to be a combination of two or more things. For another, judging from your statement above it isn't the location that is a combination but the purported effect of the therapy (correct?).

What I think you intended to say was something like: There is no standardized practice as some purport the location of the sting is important, with the sting acting as a sort of acupuncture in addition to the effects of the venom, while others regard the location as unimportant.

Yes? Gr8white (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. English is certainly my native language. /Boggle. The "Combination" is of Bee Venom Treatments and Accupuncture. Instead of using a needle, it's a bee sting. That could be changed to "There is no standardized practice as some purport the location of the sting is important and in some cases is likely a combination of bee venom treatments and acupuncture." Though, the combination thing, I thought it was kind of assumed as it's also assumed "there no standardized practice" (for bee venom treatments, also not stated) But ALSO, some say the location is important, and nothing to do with accupuncture. (Such as near / at the site that is experiencing the problem) Oogles (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can rewrite it, it's fine, while certainly the only language I know is English, I'm certainly not an english major :P But your description of what it currently says is really spot on. So maybe no change necessary ;) BTW, I appreciate your time here, about wording. Oogles (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you say my description accurately reflects what you wanted to say I made the change. Sometimes when you know what you mean it may not be obvious that it isn't clear to someone else (it wasn't to me until you explained it above). I also reworded the next two sentences to (IMO) make them somewhat clearer. Hope you weren't offended that I thought maybe you weren't a native English speaker, I guess I'm more of a stickler for clear usage than some. (I still think the last sentence in that section should be reworded or something, as it says what you "should" do, I think the same thing could possibly be stated differently but I'll leave as is for now.) Gr8white (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, just surprised :P Btw, pain was removed in edit. Pain is subjective, so some people aren't bothered by it, some very much so. "Extreme caution should be used before considering this, as there is a possibility of potentially fatal anaphylactic shock."

It's hard to avoid the 'should', since (according to Bee sting) article 2% humans are allergic to beestings, which can cause death without immediate intervention/care. Perhaps "This treatment can cause pain, and even result in death if subject has an allergy to bee venom, which results in anaphylactic shock" Oogles (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about pain being removed, there was nothing in there about pain before I edited it. But I replaced the last sentence per your suggestion, just reworded slightly to avoid using "result in" twice in the same sentence. Gr8white (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was. Look at history of article if you forgot about it. (It was under saftey and risks, an agreed upon removal of the section, but pain was there, but not in the other mention in article, though death was  ;) Oogles (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was another case of my misunderstanding exactly what you meant. I thought you were saying I had edited it out, which is why I said it wasn't there "before I edited it". I'll take your word that it was there at some previous time. Gr8white (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just edit myself, but since it's become an issue, going here first. If you have an allergy, anaphylactic shock is a certainty. Not a 'maybe'. Ie: not "can" produce, but WILL produce. Of course, the effects of that depends on medical care, area, etc, but... as stated it sounds like "if allergic" then it "might" cause anaphylaxis... it "would" cause. An additional example, if you are allegic to peanuts, then eating one "will cause" anaphyhalaxisOogles (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (based on reading the anaphylaxis article was that while anaphylaxis may be an inevitable result, anaphylactic shock isn't necessarily. The article distinguishes between the two terms which you seem to be using synonymously - it says the latter is "the severest form" of the former. But I don't pretend to be an expert.

By all means feel free to edit the article - I never intended to take it over, was just trying to be helpful in clarifying the wording. I'll just continue to watch and if it looks like it could use some help I'll let you know here, fair enough? Gr8white (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your understanding is correct (The "effects" depends on medical care available) Of course, I used a food allergy as an example to a venom alergy. But, like, I still thank you for all your edits to article. As they're fine, and recently, great :) I don't want to come off as "pouncing on you" just explaining the current wording. To give some info, Anaphalaxis can very minor, like getting hives, from eating a certain food, etc. Usually Nuts, as a food, is more popular for shock (or huge ingestion of lesser).... However. 1 BEE STING, venom induced into a human with an allergy, will much more likely (if not certainly) trigger anaphalactic shock. This may or may not result in death. If medical care available (like a needle nearby you keep incase you are stung cause you know you have an allergy) or medical care in area you are in. Or medical care (in sense you medically as a child, were determined allergies), or medical care in sense of means to be moved to a location in an amount of time..... I mean, the "medical care" thing, goes all over board. Anyway, it's cool, I again thank you for all your edits (to actual article), as I think they're right on. So you understand "can" here takes a very narrow approach, like you got a needle in your back pocket to inject. Or "can" in the sense that, if you're stung alot, you need to get a place quickly that can give you a shot. But, if none of that is there... well.. they're dead. Yep, stone dead. 2% of humans. From airway being gone, and no medical care to stop that, or open it. (note even primitive methods to open airway is still medical care)(talk) 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, man, can you lend your editing skills on another article I started? Only if you have time and want to, I really like how you keep watch over it. The Devil's Advocate (film). Would be awesome of you :) Oogles (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)