Original research and synthesis[edit]

Information from the article I quote: "If ingested, lavender oil is poisonous in amounts as small as 5ml due to its constituents linalyl acetate and linalool"

Therefore, combining these three sources in the article we have a violation of Wikipedia rules, i.e. classic synthesis and OR.

Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Source which talk about 5mL does not mention lavender oil" ← this is wrong. By your reading nothing is poisonous. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite where lavender oil is mentioned in the source or that lavender oil is in the context of the source. Expose it here or don't make baseless claims because it is violation of the OR rule. Mikola22 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean but this precise point is discussed in the two section(s) above. Bon courage (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Show me quote where the source mentions lavender oil. Mikola22 (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above: last paragraph. Bon courage (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not mentioned lavender oil. That is, this information does not exist in the source. Mikola22 (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are making no sense. It is mentioned right there. Is English not your first language because this seems like a waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand english? Expose source, quote, which page or context if the source talking about lavender oil. If you don't expose it on talk page, then it doesn't exist and that's OR. Mikola22 (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My problem one, is with the phrasing of the source "Smaller Ingestions of 2-3 mL of some (note: does not say all) essential oils have been associated with toxicity in children", it says some essential oils but does not mention lavender specifically as the one being toxic at that dose. Dictionary definition of some: "being an undetermined or unspecified one".
Two, the cited guidelines also say "Toxicity depends on the dose and the essential oil ingested" so we can't generalize all essential oils to be the same.
And three, lavender is only mentioned now in two places in the guidelines as a "Common essential oil" and under "Specific oils and associated clinical manifestations".
I want a quote that says something like 'Ingested lavender oil causes illness at doses of 5ml'. Luka's not a fish (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously things would then be easy. We don't have that, so the job is managing what we do have. Bon courage (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on toxic dose that are acceptable to policy[edit]

Two of the three references given mention toxic doses of essential oils in general, none are specific for lavender oil. The guideline from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne has: "Dose related toxicity. Essential oil concentrations range from 1-20%. Volumes of 5-15 mL are likely to cause toxicity in adults. Smaller Ingestions of 2-3 mL of some essential oils have been associated with toxicity in children., Lee, Harnett, and Cairns write: "Flow restrictors and child-resistant closures would be desirable, but containers are only required to have such closures when the essential oil volume exceeds 15 mL; as severe toxicity can be caused by as little as 5 mL, this is inadequate for protecting children.". The third reference does not mention any toxic doses.

On this basis we could, if there is a consensus to do so, include something like "Many essential oils including lavender can be poisonous if swallowed. For essential oils in general, 5ml of the undiluted oil may cause toxicity in adults, 2-3ml in children." But we should not say, or imply, that this is specific to lavender oil, because we have no source to substantiate such a comment. So, should we include something to this effect? (We don't have to.) And, how could it be better expressed? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Something like that (see my "possibly" wording proposal above too). Bon courage (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your wording was also an improvement. How do you feel about the "For essential oils in general, 5ml of the undiluted oil may cause toxicity in adults, 2-3ml in children" wording suggested? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It's still fairly meaningless because of the concentration question - but that's a fault with the sources we can't fix ! Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this 100%, hence the discussions above and the RfC. I'm totally fine with your suggestion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this edit I have made the change, with a minor tweak. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is good! Luka's not a fish (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why I think it's worth mentioning Silexan (brand name "Calm Aid")[edit]

All the RCTs I've seen on lavendar for anxiety, insommnia, and somatic symptom disorder were done with a particular lavendar oil preperation called Silexan (brand name Calm Aid), 80 mg daily. I understand the hesitancy to highlight a particular brand, but I think this is important to mention Silexan in particular, given that lavendar oil preperations vary enormously in what strains are used, distillation technique, encapsulation, dose, etc etc. Look at this excellent blog post for more information on Silexan and a review of the studies. Danski14(talk) 15:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't we think should mention the Silexan brandname. That blog post (obviously an unreliable source) is in poor English and invokes the WP:DAILYMAIL in its argumentation. That is far from "excellent". Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The gynecomastia claim was removed. What changed?[edit]

Talk:Lavender_oil/Archive_1#Using_in-vitro_studies_to_support_statements_about_human_health_effects Remember this discussion? @Alexbrn @Zefr I came back to check this article and found that the claim was removed several months ago but I didn't see any discussion on it. What happened to the idea that because it's unethical to perform toxicology study on human subjects, that in vitro studies are all we have and therefore are okay to use to back up toxicology claims on Wikipedia? MarshallKe (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion seemed to be about the "Environmental impact" section and the source/content is still there, which seems good. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search on PubMed for "lavender oil gynecomastia" produces this result, all discussing 3-4 case reports from around 2007 in children chronically exposed to lavender oil; (original 2007 report). This review discusses the cases more completely. As this condition in relation to lavender oil exposure is so rare, it is a WP:UNDUE issue for the article, justifying its removal here. Zefr (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zefr's reverts[edit]

A reference in the article, "Chemicals in lavender and tea tree oil appear to be hormone disruptors", describes a 2018 presentation about then-unpublished research by J. Tyler Ramsey & other researchers. The reference does not link the published article, which is unhelpful for research, so I looked it up. This research was published afterwards as "Lavender Products Associated With Premature Thelarche and Prepubertal Gynecomastia: Case Reports and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Activities", Ramsey et al 2019. Having looked it up, I helpfully added it to the reference in question.

User:Zefr has chosen to revert my addition twice, with the justification

Source is not about environmental concerns and is not a WP:MEDRS review; case reports are primary research - discuss on talk page, if warranted

All of these are irrelevant. Of course if the environmental concerns section links a press release about a specific research paper, it ought to cite that research paper. If there are any problems with the research, then perhaps it should be removed entirely, and I encourage Zefr to improve the section if that is their concern. But removing the research paper and not the press release makes zero sense - under what circumstances would we want to link only an obsolete press release about preliminary, un-peer-reviewed, unpublished research, and forbid linking in addition the final, peer-reviewed, published, fulltext research paper...? --Gwern (contribs) 22:29 19 June 2023 (GMT)

The existing source is an Endocrine Society press release (about "hormone disruption") which does not represent the content of the section on "Environmental impact". Simply, the source does not match the content even remotely.
Environmental factors affecting oil yield and quality would include such factors as soil and climate, and the impact of large-scale lavender farms would address effects on other crops or wildlife habitats. I did not find a suitable source for the section, so am removing it. Zefr (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories