Talk:Morinda citrifolia

src: www.nonifamily.net

Video Talk:Morinda citrifolia

Ingredients of the Noni fruit

The fruit contains L-DOPA, the precursor of Dopamine. All fruit fly species beside one avoid the fruit.

https://plus.google.com/101046916407340625977/posts/4UFYTwRm4GJ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.230.12 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Morinda citrifolia

Xeronine

We just discussed that alleged de:Xeronin in german wp, and we decided to keep an article there. Chemical, physical properties and chemical structure of X are unknown. When i asked german TNI-people for more information, i got no answer. Xeronin is completely unknown in medical or biochemical literature. Heinicke published his patented "discovery" 1985 in a rather strange horticultural paper: pacific tropical botanical garden bulletin (1985 15:10-14)

Scientist McClatchey writes: i cite: ...an outrageous publication in the pacific tropical botanical garden bulletin. This unreferenced and authoritatively written report appearing in a horticultural bulletin, proposes the presence of an active compound in Morinda citrifolia known as Xeronine, which is said to be derived from a precursor, Proxeronine.....it may have been better published in the journal of irreproducible results...end citation. source: http://www.gilray.ca/MorindaCitrifolia.pdf

later publications are to be considered as "unpublished reports" by Heinicke himself.

here is something you may find on the websites of TNI:

• http://resorthealth.com/noni_research/heinecke.html
• http://www.nonijuicecentral.com/noni_research.pdf

Redecke 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Changes

Before you go into this article, take a look at patent number 4,543,212. That will clarify what Xeronine is and confirm that it DOES come from the Noni fruit.

I'm confused by the Xeronine claims. It's stated that this substance is the active substance in noni juice (I assume this is for some kind of health claim) and yet someone has a patent on the substance? I assume then that this substance is an additive and not from the Noni? If so, there's no reason to have it in the article -- I've removed it for the time being until someone can provide a reliable reference; the study "Some chemical constituents of Morinda citrifolia" didn't mention this substance. Honestly, this isn't a proving ground for those for and against Noni juice, supposed medical claims etc. There are much better forums for that kind of discussion.

I rewrote the legal section again. We aren't here to tell people what is or is not legal -- just the facts ma'am. If we state that the noni hasn't been approved for medical or theraputic use, there's no reason to point out the obvious and the section reads more like an encyclopedia. Also, it is incorrect to state that the studies determined it was not Noni juice that caused the hepatitis; one specifically states the preparation was juice while the other is more general and suggests the substance might come from a particular substance found in the "preparation" - I haven't been able to get a full copy of that study yet though. Writing a sentence to claim that the juice wasn't at fault is terribly POV and contrary to the referenced studies.

I removed the PubMed external link -- if you want to cite a study, do so, otherwise telling people to go here and search isn't how external links are usually handled. I've also removed the reference to the PDR. First, it was cited incorrectly; there is no volume and issue for the PDR and the name wasn't even correct. Second, it is less than a page of information on a particular brand of Noni juice that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this article other than an attempt to make a particular brand of juice look more legitimate. Again, this is an encyclopedia article on the Noni shrub and should not be used as an attempt to promote or discredit products made from the fruit of said shrub.

I've added {{fact}} in a couple of places that still don't have a reference. For instance, the ancient mentions of Noni or its specific uses. I found a reference for the dye, famine food and regular food and mention of general medicinal uses in Polynesia; I can't find a reference off hand for the medical specifics used in the article. I know the "Noni Research" site includes them, but they don't list their sources and since they are so pro Noni juice/products, it would be better to have a direct source. I moved the references into the article to make verifying which statements come from which sources easier (using <references/>); while there, I change the link to the European Commisions paper on the noni as a novel food to a reference for that statement in the article. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

noniresearch.org is nothing else than a promo site owned by a manufacturer of noni products. noniresearch.org is not a scientific site nor a scientific organization. It's just a marketing trick of Morinda Inc. to mock scientific content. Therefore this site should not be linked. ghw 14:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I did change the link to state that it is promotional, I was going to look over the external link policy here in a bit and see if it meets the criteria for inclusion. If you think it doesn't meet those criteria, feel free to remove it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

---

patented xeronine: look at these "patents" to see what a patent can be: [1] michael, Redecke 18:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned it actually. By the way, the reason the sentence about the European Commission's scientists findings on the juice was removed is because this article isn't about the juice, and the findings are mentioned in the legal section. If you want to start an article on the brand of juice they reviewed, it would be apropo to include it there (but the article would have to meet other criteria for inclusion obviously). I understand there's some undercurrent here, but honestly, this article isn't about the juice and its magical properties or lack thereof. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 12:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I just read an account from Micronesia of Morinda citrifolia (aka Noni or Weipwul) being used to cure Avian Influenza (aka AI or Asian Bird Flu). While not easily verified, this is of great relevance to a current debate in agriculture: AI is of great concern to farmers, epidemiologists, and policy-makers. Although the following is not verification, this website confirms traditional use of Morinda citrifolia as a natural medicine in humans. [2] At least one academic chemist is researching the power of this plant against AI: [3] I would suggest some cautious wording such as "There is speculation that the fruit has medicinal value against diseases in birds, such as Avian Influenza." JohnBonitz 10:58 04 January 2007 (UTC)

src: www.alternativemedicineacupuncture.com

Sanskrit

I removed this statement and its reference:

The oldest known reference to the plant as a medicine dates back several thousand years to ancient Sanskrit Ayurvedic medicinal texts in India where the plant was called Ach.

Nelson, Scott C. (1992). "Worldwide Names for Morinda Citrifolia L". College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii. 

In the source given, nothing more than the names for the tree from certain areas is listed, along with journal sources for these names. The references it cites for India using the word Ach are modern and do not support the statement about ancient times. Since this was the entire reason for the statement, there's no reason just to have the Indian name in there (its used in the Indian version of Wikipedia). .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 12:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Edits

I realize that I did not use the same format in making the citation for the information regarding the use of noni for menstrual difficulties, etc. I am unfamiliar with the type of reference used on this page. I will attempt to familiarize myself with it, although I wonder why the other format is not used, since to me and others it is likely easier. --Mylitta 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Link Removal

I'm wondering why the link I provided in the External Links section was removed? That article was very balanced, in my opinion. Are only negatively slanted articles allowed there?--Mylitta 06:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Company

I'd really like someone here to create an article about the company at Tahitian Noni. I don't think I'm well suited to the task, but I'll stub it out if no one else does. McKay 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. McKay 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Vandalism

I've posted notices to talk pages about the lack of notability (as per WP:EL) of the link that keeps getting added. I can't revert again without violating WP:3RR. Does anyone else care about the page? cuz if I'm the only one, I may as well leave, as I don't really care about this content myself. McKay 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I care. I just reverted it. I do care about keeping the WP non-commercial, and removing commercial and MLM-promoting cruft when I see it. The linker is clearly over 3RR by now and could be reported for breaking 3RR. I'll do it if I have time later today. I'm busy, but I'll try to back you up. Zora 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, he is still clear on the 3RR, unless the sockpuppetry is shown as being true, then we might have a case for a WP:3RR vio. McKay 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser? Zora 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

an admin already started a sockpuppet check. McKay 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about feeling overwhelmed. As WP gets more popular, we get more people trying to "use" it for various nefarious ends, and more ignorant and fug-headed editors. It feels like protecting a sandcastle against the tide. Zora 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I totallly know where you're coming from. McKay 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Critical assessment of noni juice nutrients

Unregistered contributor 71.67.169.75 posted this on August 30, 2007

I have to say I'm a rather dissappointed in the biased tone the writer took in an effort to "educate" readers about noni juice. Primarily negatives were discussed, excluding much positve that has been documented on the use of noni juice that has been supported by medical research. Other pages that discuss natural health products do not take on such skepticism. The writer responsible appears to have a hidden agenda. Pages like this really call into question the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source for education to the public. I am not suggesting to purport noni juice as a "wonder product" as websites that market the product do, but leaving the page biased is a grave dis-service to the reader.

As there likely will be other challenges to the facts now presented in the article, we can air them out here. Contrary to the above comments, there are no satisfactory, objective studies showing health benefits of consuming noni juice. No putative benefit has either sufficient underlying science and certainly no human studies completed to confirm a specific organ benefit.

Furthermore, the only "agenda" is to tell the truth, a goal of Wikipedia as a source of accurate information.

Published today[4] was a report on hearings held in Europe to evaluate how manufacturers of natural products must word their communications about the potential health benefits of their products. The EU regulations apply to all commercial communications, including every claim made on labels, brochures, web sites, press articles and even verbal statements made at conferences, which is a whole new structure from the way companies operate today.

The health and nutrition claims (Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006), which came into force in the UK from 1 July 2007, mean any food product claiming to have a health or nutritional benefit must meet a list of European Commission approved wording.

The regulation differentiates between claims on the basis of 4 categories: 1) nutrient claims, 2) health claims, 3) disease reduction claims and 4) claims relating to children's development and health.

Under Article 13, claims must be substantiated on the basis of generally accepted scientific evidence, and be well understood by the average consumer.

Now put that information into perspective for how one interprets all the marketing literature about noni juice. It can be easily seen that manufacturers and marketers who make exaggerations about noni's health benefits -- when there is no science to support such claims -- are in violation of these new laws. --Paul144 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This juice is good! It is sweet, and tastes excellent. That is all I have to say (oh - and that it is a stimulant (and that I think you are allowed to sell fruit juice, even if the fruit naturally-contains a patented chemical)). Diego Bank (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WorlwideWarning.net -- Exposing noni juice scams

Captivating reading[5]. The site purports to expose scams and just tell the truth, so is worthy for each person to read and make one's own judgment. --Paul144 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Preventive effect of Morinda citrifolia fruit juice on neuronal damage

I will leave it to better editors to include data from the following paper into this topic:

Biol Pharm Bull. 2009 Mar;32(3):405-9 Preventive effect of Morinda citrifolia fruit juice on neuronal damage induced by focal ischemia. Harada S, Hamabe W, Kamiya K, Satake T, Yamamoto J, Tokuyama S. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kobe Gakuin University, Hyogo, Japan.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/fref.fcgi?PrId=3580&itool=AbstractPlus-def&uid=19252286&db=pubmed&url=http://joi.jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.JSTAGE/bpb/32.405?from=PubMed

Jcline0 (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is very preliminary research in mice from which nothing pertaining to humans can be concluded. If the noni juice used in the experiments was the commercial product available, it is more likely the beneficial effects in the mouse brain were due to grape or blueberry juice (which have significant pigmentation, possibly providing phenolic effects) than to the noni (unpigmented, no evidence for having significant antioxidant activity)[6]. --Zefr (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Neutrality

I have reverted a larger section on medical applications of the noni fruit as it is not really neutral. Just an example:

"[...] and so humanity lost for a while the amazing gift of Health and Well Being that Nature had endowed it with in the form of Morinda citrifolia L.."

Furthermore all mentioned informations are very vague and no medical publication is given, just some names of some people in order to support certain claims. E.g.:

"In 1993, Dr. Ralph Heinicke in his research on Morinda citrifolia L. isolated a new component in Morinda citrifolia L. -- Damnacanthal. Damnacanthal induced normal cell growth in pre-cancer cells."

Damnacanthal seems to be a mysterious magic substance of unknown composition and Dr. Ralph Heinicke never published his findings in a scientific medical journal. Furthermore in the end the list

"150 + Nutraceuticals in Noni are: 1. ethylthomethyl) benzene 2. 1-hexanol 3. hydroxyanthraquinone 4. 2-heptanone [...]"

does not fit into a Wikipedia article. So I completely removed all these parts and added a neutrality warning in order to sort this problem out on the talk page. Arnomane (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Studied medicinal uses

This section needs development and assessment if it warrants being included with the article. --Zefr (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hypoglycemic and hepatoprotective activity

• Anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory properties

• Accelerated wound healing

• Neuronal protective effect

• Improves dyslipidemia

• Protects brain from stress-induced impairment of cognitive function

• Immunostimulant

• Anticoagulant, inhibit the cyclooxygenase pathway to affect platelet aggregation.

• Potential anti-cancer

• Decreasing pain and joint destruction caused by arthritis

References

Categories

The article clearly states that the species is native to Northeastern Australia and that "Australian Aborigines consume the fruit raw". As such it belongs in the categories "Floras of Queensland" and "bushfood". Please do not revert these edits again without obtaining consensus. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has to be built by the editor making the statement with a reliable source. See WP:V. Since none exists, I am removing reference to these categories until you or another editor provides reliable sourcing.--Zefr (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

At least 3 references in the list support these statements. I suggest you take the time to read the references before making claims about what material is and is not reliably verified. You have been reported for vandalism. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the obligation of the author entering information to provide sources. In your case, please insert references or add text providing evidence this fruit is eaten in Australia.--Zefr (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

1) The evidence has been provided. As I have noted, there are at least 3 references in the list that support those assertions. I suggest you take the time to read the references before making claims about what material is and is not reliably verified.

2)You did not request material. Initially you stated that the categories added no value. Then you stated that the article did not mention that the species exists in Australia or that it was consumed by Aborigines. Finally you actually deleted the sections which stated that the food was consumed by Aborigines, while retaining the information that the species is native to NE Australia. You deleted that section in order to be able to delete the "Bush Food" category tag, yet you also deleted the "Flora of Queensland tag for some reason. Clearly you wanted to delete the category tags for reasons known only to yourself, and you keep inventing reasons to do so

3) It isn't my evidence you are requesting. I did not make the edits that state that the species is native to NE Australia nor that it was consumed by Aborigines. All I added was the categories, which for some reason you are hell bent on deleting.

4) If you do wish to "request evidence" on a topic, you should add tags. You should never delete material simply because you are ignorant of the subject. The plant in question is not at all rare. The IUCN lists it as "least concern". It is an extremely common rainforest plant throughout northern Australia. It is regarded as an interesting piece of bush tucker trivia by Europeans, and a famine food by Aborigines. Hardly a "rare tropical fruit". While it may amaze you that this "rare tropical fruit" is a native weed in Australia, that does not make it untrue.

5) Even the use of tags should be sparing. Wikipedia is meant to be readable, not intensely footnoted. For example, there is no need to specifically state "the species occurs in Australia in the states of Queensland and Western Australia and in the Northern Territory" when the article is much more readable when it simply states, as it does now, that this is a rainforest species found in Northern Australia. Anyone interested in details can follow the references to find out more. Your demand that, within the text, we list every state in which it is found with citations would make any article an unreadable mess. The same applies to who eats it. This is a common famine food throughout its range. There is no need to specifically state in text and provide citations that it is eaten by umpteen Aboriginal groups and umpteen ethnicities within Indonesia and umpteen within India and so forth. Once again, this would make the article an unreadable mess. The plant is edible, it is eaten throughout its native range. There is really little to be gained by your requests that we list every single group that eats it and provide references to the same.

Since you clearly have no intention of discussing this in good faith I will leave it to the Administrators to educate you on how to engage in constructive dispute without edit warring. Since you reverted this article 7 times in a 26 hour period, I suggest using the 24 block to think over you behaviour and peruse Wikipedia policy. Mark Marathon (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

External links

The link provided at [http://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/noni] is not a reliable source, is not scientifically valid in the categories of research presented, and content of the Medline abstracts displayed is not discussed in the article. External links should be relevant to the article's content according to WP:EL. The content is adequately addressed under Possible medicinal properties.[7]

The GreenMedInfo.com list catalogs the research as though noni has been shown to positively affect diseases, as one can see from the list of "Ailments Studied" and the misleading inferences that noni "inhibits", "improves", "reduces", "works synergistically", etc. All of these studies are from in vitro or lab animal research, indicating the preliminary stage of identifying whether noni may have health benefits, for which none exist in accepted science.

Only one human safety study is included in the list, and it is disputable, as noni juice consumption has been shown in other clinical reports to be toxic.[8][9][10].

As the GreenMedInfo site is promotional toward noni consumption and certainly is misleading and scientifically invalid by its catalog headings, I am removing it from the External Links. --Zefr (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain why the link provided at [http://www.greenmedinfo.com/substance/noni] is not a reliable source? Can you provide an example of any information that the page provides that is inaccurate?

Whether the page is considered "scientifically valid" by you is irrelevant. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth--whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Since the article is neither more than a list of articles provided by one of the premier academic search engines in the field, it clearly meets this standard.

The content of the Medline abstracts displayed is discussed in the article. There is a complete section on "Possible medicinal properties". The content is not adequately addressed under Possible medicinal properties; it would be impossible to list all the literature cited on that webpage, therefore the link is relevant to the article's content and acceptable under WP:EL, specifically: "liinformation that could not be added to the article for... amount of detail". The content of the link is detailed, meaningful and relevant. Until you provide verifiable evidence of a lack of accuracy, it clearly is acceptable under [[WP:EL].

The GreenMedInfo.com list does not catalogue the research as though noni has been shown to positively affect diseases. It lists "Ailments Studied", nohting more. If you can provide an example of where the wording on that site might lead anyone with basic fluency in English to believe that it is "noni has been shown to positively affect diseases" then please do so. Until then, the claim has no basis.

What precisely can "one... see from the list of "Ailments Studied"? Do you dispute that those ailments have been studied with respect to M. citirfolia?

How are the "inferences that noni 'inhibits', 'improves', 'reduces', 'works synergistically' "misleading". Please provide a specific example of where they are misleading. For example, the author of the article cited under "Noni (Morindia citrifolia) leaf enhances wound-healing." states that he found that M. citrifolia extract "Enhanced wound contraction" and had other positive effects which "suggest that noni leaf extract may have therapeutic benefits in wound healing." How exactly is a claim that author found that M. citrifolia enhances wound healing "misleading" in that context?

What is the relvance of the fact that all of these studies are from in vitro or lab animal research? I don't see any relevance at all to this claim, even if it is true. Nowhere does the linked website claim that the research is from in vivo human trials.

Ditto for claim that only one human safety study is included in the list. Why is this relevant?,

The GreenMedInfo site is not promotional toward noni consumption in any way that I can see. It is simply a list of articles.

Until you can provide examples of where the linked page is misleading or scientifically invalid by I am reinstating it. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The link fails WP:ADV because it was added by the owner of the site. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

When you can provide evidence of this claim, you may remove it.Mark Marathon (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ELBURDEN --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the WHOIS info for the website you'll see that the admin contact is "sayerji@gmail.com". --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been going over the history of the additions of GreenMedInfo.com to various articles, and got sidetracked with the problems I found. Sorry for not making a comment here when I removed the link for the first time.

What is the rationale for it's inclusion? To provide a list of studies that we'd not otherwise include in the article? --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible medicinal properties

I've removed the section. We simply shouldn't be presenting any pilot or preliminiary studies at all from my understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS unless there are being used to source additional, important details from far better sources. I'm also concerned about the change in information, sources, and tone from June through September. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• 11:53, 18 September 2011

M. citrifolia was evaluated in a pilot study involving cancer patients who reported minor improvements in quality of life measures. The US National Cancer Institute is funding preliminary studies of noni for breast cancer prevention and treatment. In 2007, a registered clinical trial on the potential benefits of noni in patients with osteoarthritis was completed, but noni remains scientifically undefined for any effect on human health.

Other preliminary research indicates potential antioxidant and cancer preventive activity in smokers, and possible effects on post-operative nausea. Preliminary research indicates the M. citrifolia root compound, damnacanthal, may have antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects. While several studies have found potential adverse effects of consuming noni products, such as on bone development or the uterus, other assessments indicate noni consumption may not cause toxicity, but ongoing vigilance is needed.

• 06:06, 28 June 2011

M. citrifolia has been evaluated unsuccessfully in preliminary clinical trials for possible use in treating cancer, although the US National Cancer Institute has undertaken further preliminary studies for potential preventive effects against breast cancer. Since 2007, there have been no other registered clinical trials on potential health benefits or anti-disease effects of noni which remains scientifically undefined for any effect on human health.

Preliminary research indicates the M. citrifolia root compound, damnacanthal, may have antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects.

Names in other languages

Removing this section from the article where it can serve as a reference, but is not essential information for the English Wikipedia. --Zefr (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Vernacular names include Ayushka, Achuka (Sanskrit), Pongeephal, Ach (Hindi), Achu (Urdu), Pindre (Oriya), Bartundi (Bengali), Lorange (Nicobarese), Surangi (Gujarati), Aseti (Marathi), Kakaipalam (Malayalam), Tagatemara (Kannada), nunaakai (Tamil Nadu, India), dog dumpling (Barbados), mengkudu (Indonesia and Malaysia), apatot (Philippines), kumudu (Bali), pace (Java), ahu (Sri Lanka) "Duppy Soursop" (Jamaica)."Molaye" (Reunion Island) French

refers2 1GLAS/FRUIT??

When M. citrifolia juice alone is analyzed and compared to pulp powder, only vitamin C is retained[10] in an amount that is about half the content of a raw navel orange.[11] Sodium levels in M. citrifolia juice (about 3% of Dietary Reference Intake, DRI)[9] are high compared to an orange, and potassium content is moderate. The juice is otherwise similar in micronutrient content to a raw orange.[11]81.11.218.210 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)  

Octanoic and hexanoic acids and the vomit reflex.

This is featured in the Season 8 Episode 8 (S8E8) of Outrageous Acts of Science, broadcast on 8/9/17, where they discuss this Youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqISqL8M8yQ). They explain that the vomit reflex that is often stimulated by eating noni fruit is caused by high levels of octanoic and hexanoic acids in the ripened fruit. Since this is the most recent episode, I can't link directly to it as a Reference, so my edit was reverted by User:Zefr. If anyone can help me get this edit accepted, I would appreciate it. I hope eventually the episode clip itself will appear on Youtube, but who knows how long that will take. Gil gosseyn (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't use Youtube as a WP:RS source, explained in WP:YT, especially as something specifically related to a physiological response to fatty acids. There is already discussion of the foul odor in the description of hexanoic acid. I don't know why the specific mechanism of the vomiting reflex is important to mention; WP:UNDUE. --Zefr (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the reference for the content Gil added isn't really YouTube, it is the science program Outrageous Acts of Science in which experts discuss the science behind popular YouTube videos. Maybe still not a reliable source, but certainly much better than some random YouTube video. Deli nk (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia