User talk:Maxim Masiutin/Archives/2020/June


Rutin

On my talk page, you said: "The information is from articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, and there is a scientific consensus of at least two different groups of authors. Maybe we leave this information, providing that we have emphasized that these studies are in vitro? This in vitro information is better than nothing. What do you think?" - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel this is too preliminary and too speculative to mention per WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDANIMAL, i.e., it is likely non-replicable information and irrelevant to the in vivo or human condition. It is unencyclopedic to mention such content; see here. You can take it up for discussion on the article talk page to gain consensus, if you wish, WP:CON, or respond here. Zefr (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Zefr, thank you for the link to the “Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology”. It gives one of the following reasons: “Only egregiously bad papers are actually retracted; there are loads and loads of papers that draw conclusions that turned out not to be true, but that remain in the literature. People who are not experts in the field have no way of knowing which research papers have been left in the dust by the scientific community. These papers are not retracted, nor are they labelled in any way. They just sit there, ignored.” However, the articles I have given as a source are most recent, and the consensus is emerging in the other sources that Rutin is somehow involved in P450 (CYPs) enzyme metabolism. May I ask a third opinion? - Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we talk at Talk:Rutin#Metabolism_section? -Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 

Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia