Talk:Kombucha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Trivia

• Chef Josef Desimone of Google makes kombucha for Google employees. Almost 100 glasses of kombucha are served every day at Google cafeterias.
• The popular alternative metal band System of a Down references kombucha in the song "Sugar" on their self-titled album. Lead vocalist Serj Tankian screams, "The kombucha mushroom people sitting around all day."
• Singer-songwriter and guitarist M. Ward listed kombucha as his "best purchase of the past year" in 2006, stating that "It's an acquired taste, but they tell me it rejuvenates, restores, revitalizes and replenishes." [1]
• On an episode of MTV Cribs featuring the home of surfer Laird Hamilton and volleyball player and model Gabrielle Reece, their refrigerator opened to reveal several bottles of "Kombucha Wonder Drink," a bottled tea drink containing kombucha. Reece removed a bottle and displayed it to the camera, stating that kombucha is "a very good healthy drink, it helps support mental health and gives energy."[2]
• Lindsay Lohan has been spotted drinking kombucha after leaving rehab.[3]
• Jenny Lewis, frontwoman of Rilo Kiley, offers kombucha to Strawberry Saroyan while being interviewed for the September 2007 edition of Spin (magazine).

[4]~Removed from main text by Knorrepoes 12:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Source of information, Kombucha Cultures & ready-made Ktea [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.105.117 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Grib

I'd give its alternative Russian name a little more prominence, and also a redirect from the GRIB page. Would anyone agree? Malick78 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to hav everyone who's interested on the same page.BrewJay (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The indication of the Blog - a external link

In line with the proper norms of good use from Wikipédia : " before inserting blogs and personal pages, the publishers owes to open a topic on the page of discussion of the product and explain the motives they think the link is important to be on the extenal links. " The link Kombucha Blog exposed on the page above the Kombucha on Wikipédia haven't none of the terms prohibited about to links. The contents of the site is purely informacional, do not have neither commercial objectives and have the constant preoccupation with the update of our content just as with the quality and exemption of exposed information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombuchablog (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to create a specific blog for a newsgroup.BrewJay (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

bull pucky

I reverted the removal of information in this edit because it is improper to simply remove "sourced" information from a Wikipedia Article without first discussing the matter, even if you disagree with the information and even if you know that the information is incorrect. To contest sourced material, bring the matter up on the Talk page, first, presenting evidence why the contents should be removed.

On reviewing the information, I found that the sources provided did not substantiate the claims made and therefore struck those statements. Everything else that was left didn't belong in its own section, so I integrated it further into the article. If you still disagree with the remaining information, please discuss it here, first. Because the remaining information is unsourced, it is fair game to remove outright prior to discussion. —  X  S  G  14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Flavor and other aesthetic qualities

I notice that while there are reams of text on the history, contents, production and supposed medicinal qualities of the beverage, there is nothing about its flavor.

Since I myself would sum it up as vinegar+soda water=kombucha, it would probably be best if someone that likes the stuff wrote it. 67.180.206.34 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it tastes like a slightly fermented soda. Some brands are very mild and taste like iced tea. Of course, there's WP:NOR so I'd need references to add this to the article. Calibas 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If harvested "young" before it becomes very acidic it can taste rather like cider, hence one of its names, "tea cider". That was very much the flavour of a previous culture I had. My present culture when young tastes more like ginger beer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.162.94 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Now...same person except signed in, the name "tea cider" isn't mentioned in the article I notice. Jeremy (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.213.232 (talk)

Ale-fungus??

The "additional observed effects" section mentions "ale-fungus". There is no wiki-link to such a thing (instead it links separately to ale and to fungus. I'm puzzled by this because ale is made using yeast, like any beer, and has nothing at all to do with fungus. I'm going to remove that sentence, but if there is an explanation of this phenomenon of which I'm not aware, please inform me. --IronChris | (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that Yeast are classified as a type of fungus! John Elson (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Components within Kombucha "tea"

The first claim: "Interestingly, it [Lactic Acid] is not found in the tissues of people with cancer" is false. Tumors produce copious amounts of Lactic acid due to their enhanced rate of glycolysis, and it is found in serum levels of those with cancer. (Blood. 2007 May 1;109(9):3812-9. Epub 2007 Jan 2) The author and reference page site no sources for this claim, nor any other claims under this heading.--Evander25 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mycologist Paul Stamets was involved in some Kombucha research which suggests that it produces a novel antibiotic, and goes on to suggest that it is unwise for healthy people to consume it. Article and citations - http://www.fungi.com/info/articles/blob.html quote: "I do not see the advantage of taking Kombucha by people in good health. Given the detrimental effects seen from prolonged exposure to antibiotics, the repeated, long term use of Kombucha may cause its own universe of problems. I wonder about those people who have adverse reactions to antibiotics? What about those with sensitivity to the microorganisms in Kombucha? I personally believe it is morally reprehensible to pass on this colony to sick or healthy friends when, to date, so little is known about its proper use. At present there are no credible, recent studies as to the safety or usefulness of Kombucha, despite decades of hype." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.212 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"I do not see the advantage of taking Kombucha by people in good health." That's a good quote. It's interesting that I found that before even looking at the talk page...must be a sponsored google link, but the CDC cited him, and it's certainly a lot of fun to read that page. BrewJay (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New comment 8/29/09:I have issue with the statement that reads ending ...probably makes the liver more efficient. There is no citation and this insinuates that it has been proven. This is not the case or a citation would have been made. To make such a profound statement with a minimal qualifier of "probably" may suggest to readers that this is fact. Please rephrase, my suggestion would be ...it has been suggested by some that it makes the liver more efficient. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.83.97 (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mycoderma aceti

In Schlegel (2008) Microbiology you can read, that if you infest an alcoholic fluid with acid bacteria, e. g. with Acetobacter xylinus, after some time a skin upon the surface of the fluid forms, the so called Mycoderma aceti. Thus the "mother" does not exist of but is called Mycoderma aceti, it's just latin. --Osmodi (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad?

Kombucha “mother” Culture w/ Starter tea This image is so tiny as to be unusable, and the wikimedia description leads to a page that sells the item in the picture. How could this not be considered an ad? John Elson (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

hmmm

Forgive my interjection, but am I the only person to whom this sounds ewwww?Merkinsmum 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you should just *LOVE* the picture and videos I added! John Elson (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. If you think this looks disgusting, check out how they make beer. You'll be on the wagon tomorrow. 212.17.87.133 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Section "Kombucha mother and the symbiotes"

This seems like a poorly written summary of the rest of the article... In particular, the use of the non-word "symbiote" in the title seems suspect. I think this should be removed. ~XarBioGeek ^(talk) 20:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved the information here into other sections as part of a [major reorganization and rewrite] of the article. ~rezecib ^(talk) 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience edits

I reverted two pseudoscience-heavy edits by 72.177.100.229. Here's a point-by-point breakdown of why:

• 2000 years of anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal evidence. "Often imbibed for medicinal purposes" covers this with greater neutrality and specificity. There are probably 2000+ years of anecdotal evidence for alien abductions, but that doesn't make it something we take seriously, does it?
• "kombucha detoxifies the body and energizes the mind" is a vague claim. A specific claim would involve providing a mechanism of action, chemical components responsible, and specific bodily conditions.
• Acid "serves as fuel for many of the bodies organs"? What? Really? Okay... Let's see... if you had to settle on a specific chemical, it would be glucose. "Acid" is a blanket term for a virtually infinite number of different chemicals. Kombucha contains a few of those, which do have biochemical roles, but their mechanisms (and utility) are mostly unclear in humans.
• "glucosamine and vitamin B … anecdotally benefit …" - First, there are many B vitamins. Second, if this is just more anecdotal evidence, then the current explanation of "proponents commonly claim …" is fine, because it's saying exactly that, but is less misleading (people get excited when they hear/see "evidence").
• " … unverified by Western medicine" - Western medicine is defined by verification. Other schools of medicine only use anecdotal evidence. We're talking about health claims here, and we've already said that it's "proponents commonly claim" ("people think it might", basically equivalent to "anecdotal evidence")

I will, however, reincorporate the improvements to wording in the list of purported benefits.

I think this may begin to raise the issue of protection--I've seen this page get a lot of spam links for stores selling kombucha, as well as pseudoscientific edits like this, and it seems to me that this page might benefit from a low level of protection. ~rezecib ^(talk) 13:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternate history and name

what the heck does this mean in the history section? "though in both cases centuries prior to knowledge of leaf-based teas"??? all tea is leaf based, regardless if it was initially made with steamed tea leaves 5000 years ago in China, or later made with compressed tea leaves, or in the last few hundred years using dried tea leaves... in addition, I would assume that kombucha would still be formed regardless of how the leaves were processed to make the tea, so I do not see the point of having this statement in the history section unless you can prove that kombucha can not be made when your tea is made with steamed or compressed tea leaves.

The main page is saying, in Japanese, 金武 reads Konmu. This is one possible way to read the characters, but in Japanese 金 and 武 can actually read Kon and Bu. So, one way to read the characters in Japanese is indeed Kombu. Still, it is a mystery to me that it is called Kombucha, because we in Japan have not used the name for it.

Shouldn't it have the Chinese name of this beverage? Does anyone have that information? 69.204.244.206 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Name “Kombucha” (as I understand it from the Tom Valentine book: Search for Health, [ISBN: 0-9648325-0-X, 1995]), comes from a Korean doctor named Kombu who was trying to cure the Japanese emperor, Inkyo (Ingyō), circa 415 CE with such a tea (cha). Can anyone verify this to be true/false?

Related to the Russian origins (also from Valentine’s book), Kombucha was called “tea kvass” (“квас”).

The yeast and other organisms (in symbiosis) “eat” sugar and tea. Black or green tea is typically used for the preparation, and sugar is added as the “fuel” for the growth of the Kombucha.

Günther W. Frank is probably the leading, modern-day expert on the subject. He has a website that may shed more light on this substance. [6]

I have no affiliation with him, nor have I even any idea how this stuff tastes (and so therefore I cannot advocate or denounce its use even as a tasty beverage at this point); however, Herr Frank seems to know the “culture” quite well and is noted in Valentine’s book (of which I also have no affiliation nor own a copy). I’m just trying to understand more about the substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.25.39 (talk • contribs) 23:31, May 16, 2005

I got a start of a "Mother" from a friend who told me Kombucha means "mother." Need sourcing tho. No idea what language it is from. I have tasted it and am making my own, but the commercial tastes better than I can make. Flavors vary from batch to batch. Kristinwt (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Really not understanding the need for the Russian reference? This stuff has been around for centuries, included in written history in both China & Japan and there is little doubt the Kombucha in Russia can trace it's origins to the Chinese and was not developed *separately. (*In Russia)

Sorry, but this is commercial propaganda. Can you cite one Chinese or Japanese history that mentions kombucha? I've checked and can't find any early references in either language. Keahapana (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Commercial propaganda?? So you apparently have read the Chinese & Japanese texts? Or did you merely search for the English words on Google? Your amusing information about commercial propaganda comes directly or indirectly from other unverified internet sources, like this source: http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/kombucha::sub::History amusing because it is just like Wiki, user generated (who knows maybe you are that source too....)and gives highly conflicting information.

The biggest joke rolling throughout this entire article's history section? All of it is repeated verbatim on at least a dozen sites, none of which are listed as sources and at least three of which pre-date this Wiki by years. Your information about it being a commercial propaganda is also prominent on many websites. It appears to me the author(s) of this Wiki and your requisite for "sources" or lack of sources has to be web based or it counts for nothing. Several sites list Japanese and Chinese literature as a source, it appears no one has bothered to verify this one way or another. However just because you read this is commercial propaganda on yet another website, does not make it true. As is so prominent with Wiki style websites accuracy and verification all depends upon who creates the Wiki, who catches the unverified sections, and how much interest (and how strict) an editor takes in the individual definitions, history, usages etc. So the individual Wiki can range from highly accurate, somewhat accurate, to totally unverified opinions. As Wiki grows in size, scope, and popularity it will surely get worse before it gets better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.201.107 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Milky appearance of magnified tea on slide

'"The tea has a "milky" appearance due to the presence of bacteria and yeast in suspension."'

I don't know where that nonsense came from but at 400X the individual yeast cells and bacterium are clearly visible there is nothing in suspension! The combination of the common bright field technique and the limited depth of field at 400X leads to the overall milky appearance. The background is washed out and the bacteria fade out when they move to the background as if they were disappearing into a thick white liquid.

What I originally wrote was correct. John Elson (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) So which "version" of Kombucha did you magnify? Before I would give credence to either your statements or the other we need to establish a consistent beverage for testing. We also apparently need to establish what is meant by suspension! So you state yeast and bacterium are clearly visible. This does not preclude suspension! Are you stating yeast and bacterium are not suspended in the liquid? I personally believe that is exactly what the author was referring to. Example for clarity. If I mix milk with chocolate to create chocolate milk the final product appears - Brown... This is due to the chocolate being suspended in the milk, however if you are referring to the scientific definition of suspension you have taken this to a different level. You could go to the section of Wiki on vinegar and oil salad dressing and tear into the use of the word suspension there as well.. Some discretion is required concerning definition of the words used to describe a beverage versus chemical analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.201.107 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, whether or not the bacteria are "in suspension" is not relevant. The "milky" appearance is due to the limited depth of field at 400X. The liquid being observed has a very clear appearance to the unaided eye. If you were to look at a glass of the same tea it wouldn't appear to be milky. The liquid towards the bottom is blurred because of the magnification and that is what gives the magnified view a milky appearance. John Elson (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

How is Kombucha pronounced in English? 110.33.5.16 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kom-boo-cha. Rumiton (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity issue

Does anyone else think this statement "Some kombucha producers make vague claims such as 'kombucha detoxifies the body and energizes the mind',[11] but do not make specific claims because there is little published research on the health benefits of kombucha" is heavily one sided? Whatever the case, this article needs serious objectivity work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.31.144 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Before I rewrote those edits it read like pseudoscience propaganda. It's not one sided; it notes the claim, but also notes that there isn't much support for them yet. If that has changed, I'd love to see the citations and would gladly incorporate them. My concern is that this article was previously providing unsupported claims as if they were facts, which is a serious problem if we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously. ~rezecib ^(talk) 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as reliable sources, the reference that is referred to regarding the lack of glucaronic acid in Kombucha is suspect. It's simply a sole proprietor's website. The study is not supported by any governmental or academic groups. It seems to be someone trying to sell their PDF. I have found several links to studies, done by ostensibly more reliable sources, that say it does contain glucaronic acid. Here is one: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v5463w6u446761v3/fulltext.pdf?page=1. Unfortunately, it's things like this that largely indicate an apriori bias on Wikipedia's part. This is the main reason why it's not being taken seriously as an objective source of information. I am not going to edit it, but I wanted to point this out. I for one am fervently spreading the word about Wikipedia and it's subsequent lack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.205.82 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Google cafeteria

Does anyone really care what they serve at the google cafeteria? I mean, does it have any encyclopedic value at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.249.202.53 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).I think that is true

Google represents a large block of culture. I think it's fine (a bit late I know.) jrabbit05 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we want to know how Google employees are killing themselves with waste water, apparently? 68.231.208.53 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone may care; anyone might care; anyone may really care; some might; some might not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.11.254 (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

mushrooms

The article frequently misuses the word "mushroom." Mushrooms are the fruiting bodies of fungi in the phylum Basidiomycota. The word is sometimes also used to refer to fruiting bodies of the Ascomycota. The biofilm that forms in kombucha is a symbiotic polyculture of microbes, not a fruiting body of either of these phyla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufdionysus (talk • contribs) 07:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the word "mushroom" is used by the community, and therefore is valid to be used. It is being used as a noun not an adjective and nouns, unfortunately, don't always have to be directly reflective of the object they name. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 00:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

this is not an herxheimer reaction

the article states that side-effects of kombucha can be caused by a herxheimer reaction, and cites a questionable source. Herxheimer reaction is caused by antimicrobials. To demonstrate that kombucha causes one, we would need to show that kombucha has antimicrobial effects, and identify the specific pathogens which are being killed by it and realeasing toxin, leading to a herxheimer reaction. Neither the article nor its sources do this. I propose that the claim that kombucha causes a herxheimer reaction be deleted.

Franklinsterling (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

Oddly, when I searched for "Mushroom Tea" via Google, I was linked to an article about a hallucinogenic tea made from hallucinogenic mushrooms. I don't think this makes much sense, because I was looking for Kombucha, without knowing the name. I think that article should redirect here, with possibly "/Mushroom_tea(drug)" or some such be used as the drug-related article. Of course, that article is a tiny stub and could easily be deleted. That's just my thoughts. T-4 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on your description, I'd say that that article is acccurately described as mushroom tea (since it is made from mushrooms) whereas kombucha has absolutely nothing to do with mushrooms! John Elson (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about redirects, "kombucha" should really be an article about Japanese kelp tea, or there should be a disambiguation article at the very least. As noted under "Etymology," kombucha is a modern name based on a "pseudo-Japanese" word. --Which is a nice way of saying it's totally bogus. The kelp tea definitely has a longer history and prior claim on the word. If the Japanese have been using the word "sake" to refer to their alcohol for hundreds of years, and then some company comes along and decides to name their new orange soft drink "sake," should the main Wikipedia article for "sake" refer to the soft drink or the alcohol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.15.102.170 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If probiotic, then why...

I don't understand why this article supports the fact that Kombucha is a probiotic, but at the same time states that any health benefits are mere claims. And then I click over to the article Probiotics, and that article doesn't deny the health benefits of probiotics. There are many health benefits stated there in that article in fact. So why one, and not the other is what I'm trying to say. The top editors of this article have to assess for themselves why this article has such a low rating (or at least low true quality, the banners at the top of the article are evidence of that), and this may be one reason; if not the foremost. Just sayin'... Lighthead ^þ 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a probiotic, as probiotics are well defined strains that exert health benefits. Komucha is a wild fermentation with many different species and strains, which have not been characterised. So it can never be a probiotic (no product can), but if someone develops a kombucha starter with probiotics, it may contain a probioticKnorrepoes (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I admit my mistake. I actually don't know anything about Kombucha, as is obvious. I just happened to see a product that mentioned Kombucha along with probiotic; I see now that, as you said, they were saying that it developed into a probiotic. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for the misunderstanding I may have caused. In fairness to myself, they didn't exactly make it clear from what I remember. Lighthead ^þ 05:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A funny thing happened on the way to the Dictionary

the etymology section is horribly confusing. as i understand from the Kombu article, English picked up the WRONG WORD from Japanese? Kombucha there means a kind of seaweed tea; not this thing we're now calling Kombucha in English (called unambiguously KINOKO [mushroom] tea in Japanese).

have i got that right?

worse yet, the History section casually slips in that it's called Kombucha in Russian and that it means mushroom THERE! as if!

so what's the deal, did Russian pick up the mistaken term from English or did English pick up the mistaken term from Russian?!

in any case, we're already in the habit of using Kombucha for the seaweed tea in Asian markets, etc. in the US, so whose using this new "mushroom" term? can anyone attest to actually SEEING it in the wild??

how about two seperate entries with a disamb page? I.e. Kombucha (Japanese) and Kombucha (English/Russian)?

it's way too confusing as currently treated. 66.105.218.32 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Synergy

I lack the wikipedia "experience" and probably the free time to do up a whole "citing" of sources and addition to this article. But could someone please add a section on Kombuchas newest incarnation that is "Synergy"? Synergy is a drink that bottles Kombucha juice in thick glass bottles and sells them for $3 a pop. The store that sells it is almost always out of them, it's a really big thing. Heres the source http://www.gtskombucha.com/

An unsigned comment proffering unverifiable claims of popularity about a product I've never heard of before? No offense, but this sounds like shilling. 209.30.170.226 02:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be shilling, though I've also personally noticed the brand carried at much higher frequency here in New York over the recent months. Our local Queens working class supermarket recently set up a display case (where a POM brand pomegranite juices display previously stood) Gropo 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 209.30.170.226, let's wait until there's an article about it in the Guardian. Alexwoods 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Synergy is simply a commercial blending of fruit juice with the company's Kombucha tea. It is of no significance to the article. Liberato 08:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning in the context of commercial brands based on Kombucha tea? Mentioning how it is produced, concetrations of kombucha within it, and what the branding looks like might be of relevance in this article if presented in a NPOV way... --Tomhannen 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Commercial brand names should be mentioned, in particular the leading brands. Fruitcake mentions brands. Soft drink mentions brands. It's really awkward not to mention brands when talking about a product that is sold commercially. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a verifiable source to cite, and then include the information in the article with the citation. Otherwise you are proffering original research. JoGusto (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Synergy should be mentioned as a commercial brandATM707 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

History

I deleted the following paragraph because it looks total nonsense:

The name Kombucha is derived from the name of a Korean physician, Kom-bu, who introduced the drink to the Japanese Emperor Ingyō in the year 414 AD as a healing drink. The drink became known as Tsche of Kom-bu (Kombu cha).

I guess this refers to an event recorded in Kojiki and Nihonshoki: Emperor Ingyō invited a doctor from Silla and let him heal the emperor. According to Kojiki his name was Kon (Komu) Hatori-kanki (Hachin-kanki) Mu (金波鎮漢紀武). But neither Kojiki nor Nihonshoki explains how he cure the emperor. Of course, he has never been associated with tea, mushroom or kelp (kombu). --Nanshu 10:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Daijisen (Yahoo Japan) Dictionary entry for "kombu", the Japanese word kombu (昆布) came from Ainu.--Endroit 08:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't think the etymology of kombu has a direct relation with that of kombucha (in western sense).
2. FYI, the etymology of kombu is controversial. This page explains two other theories.

--Nanshu 00:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why were my additions concerning continuos fermentation deleted? What is the point of contributing?

Deleted as part of spam link removal on several articles. Feel free to re-ad the info with reliable (preferably non-commercial) references. Cheers, Vsmith 16:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the Qin dynasty sounds very suspicious. I'd like to see it backed up, otherwise I don't think it belongs there. Alexwoods 14:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be irrelevant but there is a Chinese medicinal substance called Konbu which is a kind of seaweed. It is also used in Asian cooking. This may be an additional source for the confusion surrounding the word "Kombucha". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.227 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with all the accounts of kombucha being "ancient" is that it depends on refined sugar being freely available. Taht is a comparatively recenet phenomenn isn't it?¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.115.108.107 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alcoholic beverage?

Had to read to the last section to find out this drink is mildly alcoholic. Doesn't this seem to be first paragraph information? or is the content too low? MDSNYDER 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When it's made according to the standard recipe, it's about as strong as dealcoholized beer. When it's not, it doesn't seem to be safe, and nobody seems to know anything about it. BrewJay (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's noted under the Components heading. I removed the line stating that Ethyl Alcohol is Drinking Alcohol... seems somewhat irrelevant. Robb37 (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Newer Kombucha labels for at least one major brand using its "Original Formula" (GT's Synergy line) now carry an aggressive alcohol warning identifiable on the newer bottles which are now partly black. The flavors I saw at the store today included Green Algae, Grape and Chai, but the rest will surely follow. Clicking on the link below won't show you the new labels, but it will bring up the new prompt stating you have to be 21 or older to buy "Classic" Kombucha: http://www.synergydrinks.com/index.php/products#classic-synergy

Here's an article which goes into detail about the year of the withdrawal of GT Kombucha due to the alcohol level (2010): http://www.bevnet.com/news/2011/the-kombucha-crisis-one-year-later Sepium Gronagh (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2010 shortage

most people in the US are aware that there was a shortage this past summer due to concerns about the alcohol level. Is this worthy of inclusion here?--76.124.53.220 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source, I think that'd be fine. ~rezecib ^(talk) 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt "most people" were aware, and I haven't found a good reliable source on this ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There have been several news items about the withdrawal at Whole Foods due to the alcoholic content of the GT Synergy brand, which alerted the FDA to other brands: http://www.bevnet.com/news/2010/6-17-2010-kombucha_pulled_whole_foods

Verification from Whole Food's own Facebook Account: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=123679807674014&id=159428521240 An article in the Huffington Post reporting the same wording and message: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100617/us-fea-food-whole-foods-kombucha/ Sepium Gronagh (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Glucaric / Gluconic Acid

The source is the link to a web page to buy the authors book, there's no actual research listed.

"However, a more recent and thorough analysis of a variety of commercial and homebrew versions of kombucha found no evidence of glucuronic acid. Instead, the active component is most likely glucaric acid. This compound, also known as D-glucaro-1,4-lactone, helps eliminate the glucuronic acid conjugates produced by the liver. When these conjugates are excreted, normal gut bacteria can break them up using a bacterial form of the enzyme beta-glucuronidase. Glucaric acid is an inhibitor of this bacterial enzyme, so the waste stored in the glucuronic acid conjugates is properly eliminated the first time, rather than being reabsorbed and detoxified over and over. Thus, glucaric acid probably makes the liver more efficient."

What does everyone think of this paragraph and its source? Kombuchamaster (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Psychoactivity of Theanine

This claim might need to be changed: "There are no known psychoactive or psychotropic substances found in Kombucha other than trace amounts of alcohol and, if not made with decaf tea, caffeine."

Kombucha contains the amino acid L-theanine. Synergy brand lists 100mg L-Theanine per serving. Theanine is what makes green tea relaxing despite the caffeine content.

This is taken from the Theanine page: Theanine is an amino acid commonly found in tea (infusions of Camellia sinensis). Theanine is related to a glutamine, and can cross the blood-brain barrier.[1] Because it can enter the brain, theanine has psychoactive properties.[2] Theanine has been shown to reduce mental and physical stress[3] and may produce feelings of relaxation.[4] Ridesbikes 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt in my mind that kombucha is mildly psyhoactive although the effect is subtle. I notice breathing becomes much more regular and the qulaity of sleep is markedly changed. 203.87.64.23 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From personal experience with a small not representative sample, Kombucha, when consumed with alcohol, has some psychoactive effects. 71.192.163.223 (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because L-Theanine can cross the blood-brain barrier does not make it psychoactive. It must have a higher binding affinity for certain receptor sites, and it must agonize or antagonize them in the correct way. Also, warm beverages and small amounts of caffeine can have a mental calming affect. Might want to check that sources further. As an asthmatic, I have certainly noticed a marked response in my breathing ease and regularity from kombucha. Also, seems to help my sleep apnea by regulating respiratory function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.226.52 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

More ways to make kombucha?

in G.T.'s raw kombucha there is no sugar. it looks like there are more ways kombucha can be made. there's not much info i could find. try gtskombucha.com there's not much there though.

G.T.'s raw kombucha had sugar in it, as all kombucha does in the beginning. One of the things that happens during the fermentation process is that the sugar (as well as the caffein from the tea) is "eaten" by the culture so that only trace amounts remain.

But speaking of more ways to make kombucha, there is at least one other method that I know of (the one i use myself), and I am going to add it to the article. --Romarin 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

GT's labeling is somewhat deceptive in that they do not list the sugar in the ingredients list, just "100% organic raw Kombucha" (which implies a sugar content by definition) but they do at least list 2 grams per 8 oz serving of residual sugar in the nutrition panel.

A second fermentation can ferment longer than a two weeks. It is safe to allow the second fermentation to incubate for up to a month, then should be refrigerated.

Kombucha can ferment for a month and still be considered palatable; it's just very acidic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.149.223 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The GT bottle also says they ferment for 30 days which seems quite a bit longer than the referenced recipes.

Also, the article says not to use plastic as fermentation container but this is irrational since one of the cited references is a commercial enterprise that sells FDA-approved food-grade plastic containers for that very purpose. Plastic buckets are also regularly used in home brewing of beer. Liberato 08:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that plastic is avoided as the somewhat porous nature of the material causes a culture 'slime' to develop along the walls during fermentation. Not detrimental to the SCOBY or tea, just non-optimal when it comes to harvesting. Plastic would be the obvious choice for high-volume production regardless of this effect. Home beer brewing entails brewer's yeast, not a SCOBY so they're not really equivalent. Gropo 18:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends on a brewer's discipline of purification. Some re-use yeast, hoping that it'll be faster, and of course it is, because it's no longer pure. I know the smell of Molson's and Brewster's drying process. So, yeah, SCOBY and brewer's yeast don't compare for purity as regards the ratio between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, but I saw something from a descendant of Leuwenhoek that tells me a typical brewer's yeast isn't a monoculture, either.BrewJay (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states that kombucha should only be brewed with black or green tea and not herbal infusions. I've been brewing kombucha with white tea with superb results, and my local co-op sells a bottled kombucha fermented in rooibos. I also made a batch with yerba mate, which came out bitter but worked nonetheless. In Sandor Katz' book Wild Fermentation, he writes about a friend who fed his kombucha on Mountain Dew – not very traditional, but possible. The culture clearly doesn't care what it drinks, so long is has some sort of sugar (I use brown sugar or honey) and maybe some caffeine, though the article could talk about this more... Morganfitzp 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I hav the same opinion -- just about any plant matter, and one of the references I just put in tested Lemon Balm. I've been trying to figure out what would work for a solid substrate. Maybe that'll give me mycellium and a monoculture. I'm thinking that oak leaves, dried and pulverized might work. Just keep gradually adding powder or boil-concentrating a portion of liquid until the aerobic part pretty much has to surface. BrewJay (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Japanese name

I noticed that the term for Kombucha in Japanese is writen in two ways in the article, once in Katakana (キノコ) and once in Kanji (茸). This seems odd to me, and posiblly mistaken -- it seems like it should be either Katakana or Kanji that is used in the context of the term kōcha kinoko. Does anyone know enough Japanese to confirm or deny this? --Keithonearth (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory Claims in Etymology Section

The Etymology section claims both that the word kombucha appears in English first in 1995 and that a 1965 study lists the word kombucha among other names for this fermented tea drink. The links lead to non-publicly accessible articles (JStore). Not sure what the proper move forward is. Someone with access to the articles want to track this down? 50.90.246.165 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of a source in the article lede

Given that the American Cancer Society source we cite in the lede [7] clearly refers to 'deaths' (plural), it would seem to me that an assertion that Kombucha has been linked to '1 death' supposedly cited to this is - to put it bluntly - complete bollocks. Since, unlike User:NR biogeochemist I have no wish to violate WP:3RR, I'll not edit this myself for the moment - but I'd appreciate someone who hasn't yet edited the article doing so, rather than leaving this bit of blatant misinformation in the article lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please actually read the entire source. Yes, int he overview there is an "s" after death, but it is unsupported, and is in fact contradicted further down. You will see that this source only cites 1 case of death. This, by the way is not a peer-reviewed secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It is the source cited in the lede. It says "deaths" twice. Nowhere does it assert that there has only been one death linked with Kombucha. It documents one such death, but also states that "full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete." It cannot possibly be cited for something it doesn't say. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can guess that the ACS was also drawing on this material from another paper they cite:

While Kombucha tea is considered a healthy elixir, the limited evidence currently available raises considerable concern that it may pose serious health risks. Consumption of this tea should be discouraged, as it may be associated with life-threatening lactic acidosis.

We use reliable sources (like the ACS) to intepret and synthesize the data for us; we mustn't do that ourselves. This "1 death" stuff needs to come out. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The current sentence contains the phrase "especially if", which draws a connection between adverse health effects and improper contamination. This is an original synthesis that's not found in the source. The source points out that kombucha could be contaminated by mold and fungus that could cause harm, but it does not say that this was actually the case or suspected to be the case in any of the medical events that have been possibly linked to kombucha. There's no indication that those were connected to improper preparation or contamination. If anything, it suggests that the possible link to kombucha was the high acidity and chemical content. The "has been linked" is also a bit problematic, since it gives the impression of a much more definite connection than was actually established. --Amble (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Claims

The health claims about kombucha should be edited to show how the scientific dialog about its biological efficacy is equivocal. The scientific evidence presented to support the health claims on the Wikipedia page are scant and from low ranked journals. See: Greenwalt, C.J.; Steinkraus, K.H.; Ledford, R.A. Kombucha, the Fermented Tea: Microbiology, Composition, and Claimed Health Effects Source: Journal of Food Protection, Volume 63, Number 7, July 2000 , pp. 976-981(6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.188.118 (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The early suspicion of two deaths in Iowa in 1995 of two women supposedly related to kombucha consumption[8] has been found unsubstantiated. Therefore, I deleted the reference to these death cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadi (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was angry when I read the above post, as well as the wiki article which seems to be slated toward the "goodness" of this tea. It was MY aunt who died on April 3rd 1995 of acidosis associated with the drinking of this tea. Had I not talked other friends and family members out of drinking it, there may have been more deaths. Her name was Lila Williamson, and the town was Spencer, Iowa. She was 59 years old and the mother of 13 children. To this day she is deeply missed. Be careful of the "magic" cure all. I beg you to always research first![9] and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039742.htm MValli (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)MVallie

An article published in 2009 conclusively associated the drinking of kombucha to a condition of life-threatening lactic acidosis. 64.223.119.126 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2011

The above statement is rather vague. Additionally, the link it points to is dead. The third comment is a flat-out falsehood, as the original link from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039742.htm, shows that the woman died of peritonitis, which is unlikely to be caused by drinking 4 oz. of kombucha a day. She was also taking several medications at the time. Considering the other 115 people who drank the tea made from the same SCOBY had no problems, (other than 1 person — who did not die) it doesn't seem likely kombucha was to blame. Also, the initial report's credibility has been brought into question: http://www.kombucha-research.com/papers/index.htm. This is unfortunately why Wikipedia has failed as an experiment. Emotional thinking outweighs reason.99.167.82.158 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)JoeV

It is a bacterial colony, which contains mutations and variable strains. Generally, the colonies which exist are pro-biotic. It is widely accepted in current nutritional theory that a majority of the immune system is our intestinal bacterial colonies. It seems a logical conclusion of these facts that adding the correct bacteria would boost health.
Like other types of bacterial colonies, knowing what you are growing is vital. Im my personal experience with making kombucha tea, the white solid parts grow in layers, which the brownish cloudy bacterial layers grow between. Separating these carefully and a few times a month, can, occasionally, reveal small areas of other, greenish and blueish bacterial areas which resemble molds which one finds on old breads.
I propose that any non-healthful results of kombucha culturing and consumption, can be logically explained by the variations in sterility and bacterial types that form and that in general, the Kombucha SCOBY does produce healthful benefits, if carefully and properly cultured. FmK --74.195.18.29 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we edit the first few lines of this article to match up with the reality that there are no health benefits supported by any science to Kombucha? -Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halolauren (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting that the first few lines of the article be changed to say that "there are no health benefits supported by any science to Kombucha" than it should be quantified with "because there have not been sufficient studies of Kombucha. Otherwise, the statement implies that scientific studies has shown no health benefit to consuming Kombucha and that isn't true. Science hasn't really proven anything about consuming Kombucha because there haven't been sufficient studies of Kombucha consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.138.222 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

November, 2013. Re: the potential health benefits It is simply untrue to say that there is scant scientific evidence for health benefits of kombucha. There are in fact many studies, particularly int he last 5 years that show cancer fighting properties, reductions in LDL and increases in HDL cholesterol, diabetes control and production of powerful anti-oxidants. One of you cite a review from 2000, there has been a great deal of research in the last 13 years, please look at that before you say there are no health benefits. There have been no double blind human trials, which is the gold standard in health science, but the absence of a double blind human trial, does not equate to the absence of scientific evidence of healthful properties. I have added a few sources to the first paragraph, but I think many more should be added throughout the page.

Re: the potential danger. There has been exactly 1 death associated with kombucha, and this association is only an association. In fact the coroner found the cause of death to be a perforated colon, and lactic acidosis, which was the condition diagnosed in the two cases cites in the claim that "kombucha may cause death", is caused by many factors (see page on lactic acidosis) and there is no science to support that consuming acidic beverages, or ferments is a possible cause. Correlation does not equal causation, and one case is not even a correlation. Regarding the potential for the culture to become contaminated and people to get sick from the contamination, no one has ever found the presence of mycotoxins in a kombucha ferment that people's illness was associated with. There is no evidence (other than circumstantial) to support the claim that kombucha can cause death and could have serious side effects. NR Biogeochemist — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed the statements: "Although kombucha is claimed to have several beneficial effects on health, these claims are not supported by scientific evidence. Drinking kombucha has been linked to serious side effects and deaths especially if the tea has become contaminated through improper preparation." to "Kombucha is claimed to have several beneficial effects on health, these claims are supported by some scientific evidence. Although, careful preparation of kombucha is required because kombucha has been linked to serious side effects and deaths especially if the tea has become contaminated through improper preparation." because the former statement. that kombucha's health benefits are not supported by scientific evidence, is inaccurate. There is some scientific evidence to support the health benefits of kombucha. I would highly appreciate it if AndyTheGrump did not continue to revert the latter sentences to the former inaccurate ones, which are not based in fact.Jbozz21 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my edit summary, any citations regarding medical matters have to comply with WP:MEDRS guidelines. You are citing an open-access journal, [10] which seems unlikely to comply. If you still wish to cite the article, I suggest that you ask for assistance at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and/or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the bit above about 'open access' - I was clearly thinking of something else. Having said that, I don't see how the source cited can support a claim that "There is some scientific evidence to support the health benefits of kombucha". The paper cited suggests that there may be possible benefits, but states that a review "revealed a lack of evidence to support many of these claims and raised doubts as to the validity of others. A more scientific approach is needed to separate real and indirect activities from unjustified claims". A "lack of evidence" cannot support an assertion that there are "health benefits" to kombacha. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have issues with the beginning paragraph introduction. It reads:

"Kombucha... is a lightly effervescent fermented drink of sweetened black tea that is used as a functional food. It is produced by fermenting the tea using a symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast, or "SCOBY". Although kombucha is claimed to have several beneficial effects on health, these claims are not supported by scientific evidence. Drinking kombucha has been linked to serious side effects and deaths, and improper preparation can lead to contamination."

The way that that sentence is read is inaccurate. "Although kombucha is claimed to have several beneficial effects on health, these claims are not supported by scientific evidence." Just because there is not enough scientific evidence to prove kombuchas health benefits does not mean that the claims about it's benefits are not supported by science. I believe that the sentence should read: "Kombucha is claimed to have numerous health benefits, scientific research into those claims are still under way." This way we do not give the reader the impression that science has disproven or found no health benefits to drinking Kombucha, which is the inaccurate assumption that the previous statement was implying. Because, there is quite a bit of research which suggests that kombucha has numerous health benefits.

Not to mention the beginning paragraph is quite biased. The claims about the efficacy of kombucha is one thing, but the claims about the deaths concerning kombucha are way more ambiguous. Don't get me wrong it's sad that people have died, but claiming that their deaths are caused by kombucha is jumping the gun. People have been drinking kombucha for it's health benefits for thousands of years, and we need to mention that. People do not need to be afraid to drink kombucha because of a few deaths that were blamed on kombucha without sure knowledge.

So since a couple of people want to keep undoing my edits lets discuss this. Jbozz21 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(Please note that new posts go at the bottom of threads, per talk page guidelines.) "Just because there is not enough scientific evidence to prove kombuchas health benefits does not mean that the claims about it's benefits are not supported by science". Um, no, either there is scientific evidence to support the claims, or there isn't. And so far, none meeting the relevant guidelines (WP:MEDRS) has been cited here. As for assertions about research "under way", you would again need a source - though it wouldn't alter the statement that science has yet to support the claims. And no, we aren't going to remove the sourced statement about the risks. Without scientific evidence, any assertion that kombucha is safe is entirely unjustifiable. 'People have been doing it for hundreds of years' could be said about lots of things, from the entirely benign to the utterly reckless. As frustrating as you may find it, you are going to have to accept that any material on Wikipedia relating to 'health benefits' will have to meet rigorous sourcing standards. They have been arrived at by consensus after much discussion, and aren't open to negotiation here. If you wish to promote kombucha, you will have to either find the necessary sources, or do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Placement of text in Relevant Sections

The Cancer Society health claim should be listed in the HEALTH CLAIM section, rather than in the introduction. Whether anyone thinks the claim is right or wrong or important or not, its placement outside the appropriate location comes across as an agenda on behalf of wikipedia. I corrected this and Andy grumpily reversed the correction, twice. Just kidding about the grumpy bit, I'm glad you are looking out for the entry, and hope this criticism may be constructive in helping it read a little bit more neutrally.Gerridavis (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a "health claim", but an evidence-based finding. We need to summarize notable criticism and controversy in the WP:LEDE. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The lede is supposed to summarise the article body - which includes the very relevant facts that (a) it is claimed to have health benefits, (b) there is no scientific evidence supporting those claims, and (c) there are possible risks in drinking it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag 2/7/11

This article seems to have gone from a pro-kombucha bias, to a series of well-meaning but confusing contradictions, to its current state (as per user:ovaltineplease) in which it slants against kombucha.

There is limited scientific information supporting any health benefits

Frankly, I agree, but limited compared to what?

few studies are being conducted

Most of the sourced studies were removed in these edits, who has the right to add these modifying words to the simple fact that there ARE studies for and there ARE studies against kombucha. Let the facts sit as they are, stop modifying them. 68.3.119.83 (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the last 10 years there have been quite a number of studies, in peer reviewed scientific journals, which support health claims, however there has been no double blind studies on humans. I encourage any one with access to scientific literature to simply do a serch of kombucha. This article is quite strongly anti-kombucha; if you held any other food substance to the standards that a few editors here have held kombucha too, then virtually every food would be deadly. There have been far more deaths from contaminated apple cider for example. If you look at the history of this page and its edits, it seems that many people have tried to make edits, but roughly three people are constantly removing those edits to A) keep out any mention of a health benefit B) keep in alarmist and unsubstaniated claims about dangers For B, they cite the American Cancer Society webpage on kombucha, which, no disrespect to the ACS, is not a credible scientific source, and on that webpage there is a mention of one case, which has been thoroughly rebuffed. I have tried to bring these limited few individuals domination over the content of the page to the attention of the wikipedia people, but these few bad actors cannot be deterred. So, thanks to them, in what one of them calls "an effort to bring credibility to wikipedia" after one of their edits, this page is worthless, actually it belies the science, so I would say it is worse than if this page didn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.80.198 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The state of science and avoiding the insertion of personal bias (pro or con).

The statement "Drinking kombucha can cause serious side effects or even death, especially if the tea has become contaminated through improper preparation" keeps getting inserted into the first paragraph, which, besides the fact that its inclusion misrepresents the fact that it has been consumed by millions of people with one possible fatality cited in the available literature, is a factually inaccurate statement. It has never, not one single time, been shown, with any bar of evidence, to be lethal. THis statement seems to is based on a source which cites exactly 1 death associated with kombucha, and this association is only an association. The coroner found the cause of death to be a perforated colon, and lactic acidosis, which was the condition diagnosed in the two cases cites, is caused by many factors (see page on lactic acidosis) and there is no science to support that consuming acidic beverages, or ferments is a possible cause. Correlation does not equal causation, and one case is not even a correlation. Thus the statement that "Kombucha can cause ...death" is not supported by the available evidence. Regarding the potential for the culture to become contaminated and people to get sick from the contamination, no one has ever found the presence of mycotoxins in a kombucha ferment that people's illness was associated with. There is no evidence (other than circumstantial) to support the claim that kombucha can cause death or could have serious side effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"it has been consumed by millions of people with exactly one possible fatality"? Really, and you have a reliable source for that astonishing claim? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not edit your posts after they have been replied to - it makes understanding the discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many studies to support health benefits of Kombucha. I have cited some in the introduction, but one or two individuals keep removing them, one is stating that "such claims must comply with WP:MEDRS)" I have read the page on sources, and these sources INDIAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, and FOOD & FUNCTION are primary sources with ISI citation indices, and the studies cited are primary literature, that is peer reviewed. The inclusion of these sources reflects the available scientific evidence, and does unequivocally constitute "scientific evidence" for "beneficial effects on health". There are a few journals mentioned in the WP:MEDRS page, but it is nowhere stated that this is an exclusive list. I would kindly ask those objecting to the validity of the inclusion of these sources, to explain why "such claims [do not] comply with WP:MEDRS)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You may well have read WP:MEDRS. You seem not to have understood it. I suggest you read it again, paying particular regard to what it says regarding the relative merits of primary studies and review articles. And no, we don't cite primary studies on rats as evidence for benefits to human health. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is a contentious claim, could someone please below please copy the statement in question and then follow it with a citation to the source from which it is derived? Everything can be sorted by considering the sources. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to copy the statement in question and link to the sources: statement in question: "Although kombucha is claimed to have several beneficial effects on health, these claims are not supported by human trials, though none have been performed. Studies have shown that kombucha decreased diabetes progression[1], LDL cholesterol[2] and cancer formation[3], and increased wound heeling[4] in rats, and a number of compounds have been found in kombucha that have conclusively been shown to be beneficial to human health [5], [6] "

The cited sources are: 1: Aloulou A, Hamden K, Elloumi D, etal. 2012. Hypoglycemic and antilipidemic properties of kombucha tea in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE Volume: 12 Article Number: 63 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-63 2:Aloulou A, Hamden K, Elloumi D, etal. 2012. Hypoglycemic and antilipidemic properties of kombucha tea in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. BMC COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE Volume: 12 Article Number: 63 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-63 3: Jayabalan R, Chen PN, Hsieh YS. 2011. Effect of solvent fractions of kombucha tea on viability and invasiveness of cancer cells-Characterization of dimethyl 2-(2-hydroxy-2-methoxypropylidine) malonate and vitexin. INDIAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Pages: 75-82 4: Banerjee D, Hassarajani SA, Maity B et al. 2011. 2010. Comparative healing property of kombucha tea and black tea against indomethacin-induced gastric ulceration in mice: possible mechanism of action. FOOD & FUNCTION Volume: 1 Issue: 3 Pages: 284-293 DOI: 10.1039/c0fo00025f 5: Blanc PJ. 1996. Biotechnology Letters 18 (2) 139-142 6: Bhattacharya S, Manna P, Gachhui R. 2011. Protective effect of kombucha tea against tertiary butyl hydroperoxide induced cytotoxicity and cell death in murine hepatocytes. INDIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 49 Issue: 7 Pages: 511-524

As you can see I have NOT claimed "primary studies on rats as evidence for benefits to human health". But it is standard medical and scientific procedure to cite studies on mammals in the context of possible beneficial effects, which adds to the science, and does constitute evidence. This is how the decision to make human trials is decided, and given the difficulties of interpreting the results of human trials is an important part of medical science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now go away and read Wikipedia policy on original research. You will have plenty of time to read it, as I expect you shortly to be blocked for blatant violation of Wikipedia edit-warring policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided was not to a page on original research (It was to this "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPOR" ?). Excuse me, I do not see why my conduct can be considered edit-warring. I have backed up every change i have made with a reasoned discussion of the merits of the literature. You keep removing the edits, which is exactly the same conduct as mine, but in contrast you fail to adress the content and do not show that you have read the source material, or investigated the literature on the topic. Please, please, read the primary literature, and stop damaging the content of this page.

Apologies for the typo - see WP:OR. And yes, you have violated policy on edit-warring. Believing that you are right is not legitimate grounds to ignore policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - NR biogeochemist's edits are inserting bad content in violation of policy. In particular, an extremely strong source would be needed to overturn the statement from the ACS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, why would the cited sources above listed by NR biogeochemist constitute original research? Is it against a certain policy to use those sources in this wiki? These responses to NR biogeochemist's post are confusing to me. Hope someone can help me understand why these citations are not admissible. 76.27.36.219 (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Andy the Grump's objections to my addition of scientific results in the article with reference to the "Original Research" policies of wikipedia, are due to wikipedia's strong preference for "secondary" sources (for example review articles and meta-analysis) over "primary" sources (including peer-reviewed articles). This general policy does make some sense since there are more often contradictory primary sources than contradicting secondary sources. However, on the same policy page the statement "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages" indicates that this not such an iron policy, and in this case, when there has been a wealth of primary sources (from peer-reviewed ISI certified journals) and no secondary source of equivalent quality for 15 years, good judgement and common sense favors their inclusion. Moreover, I would like to say that instead of constantly telling people to read a policy page, which is long, you could use your own words to explain what you are referring to. This is a community and we should try to help people and the information in improve wikipedia. signed NR biogeochemist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.46.44 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Kombucha Safety

Hello,

While the source for the line in the header description is legitimate, the context of it does not seem reasonable or appropriate for the page. No statistics or other corroborating information is included which would indicate health risks of a standardized, commercially produced kombucha product.

Quoted via the CDC website, "FDA has evaluated the practices of the commercial producers of the Kombucha mushroom and has found no pathogenic organisms or hygiene violations (5). However, because the tea is produced under varying conditions in individual homes, contamination with pathogenic organisms such as Aspergillus is possible."

I could find no references suggesting commercially produced kombucha associated with any health problems. The problematic issues arise from kombucha produced at home with no regulation. This should be noted in the wiki page as there are many food products (alcohol, cheese, cured meats, etc.) that are potentially dangerous when produced non-commercially and in the absence of a regulatory body, but which are perfectly safe when properly produced.

73.53.53.138 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. The CDC source you're quoting is from 1995, which is pretty old by WP:MEDDATE standards, but the wide-spread commercial availability is barely even touched on in the article. If that's expanded, and it looks like it should be, then it might make sense to change the lead. Here's one source:[11] More research is needed. Grayfell (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

References

POV

I've added a POV tag to the "Health claims" section. The section makes no effort to be neutral and instead seems to indicate this relatively common beverage is some kind of dangerous and borderline poisonous snake oil with zero benefits. It does have nutritional value and millions of people drink it without any adverse side effects. Commercially produced kombucha is sold in grocery stores. It's lazy and incorrect to denigrate a harmless beverage simply because some new age types glommed onto it years ago. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've been reverted. The section is POV, yet I'm being told to shut up. I think that section needs to be expanded to include all health and nutritional information, otherwise it's purely negative. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS - the relevant guideline for claims regarding nutritional or health benefits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against including the current information, I'm trying to say that it's a POV section without including some basic information regarding the nutritional content. Surely there's nothing controversial about saying how much vitamin C (etc.) is in kombucha? It would also be nice to edit the section so that it doesn't read as some kind of slam piece, which is how it currently appears to me (and I don't even like the stuff). Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The article already contains a section entitled 'chemical and biological properties', which states (amongst other things) that "Kombucha contains about 1.51 mg/mL of vitamin C." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. This is my first talk page post. I came here because the "Health Claims" section has nothing to do with health claims and instead talks about the dangers. I feel like the headline should be changed. Also I was disappointed to be unable to find out what the health claims are by reading this article. I just came here to learn why Kombucha is sold in my QFC! Doctrix (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah its kinda rubbish. Totally POV and lacks any impartiality. Heads up their ... Zarkme (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It might not support your point of view, but it seems completely in line with the opinion of the American Cancer Society. Take a look at http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/kombucha-tea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.131.58 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been added by someone, but it lacks impartiality. Does POV policy apply when authoritative sources basically make statements which are misleading because the statement could apply to all? You could make the same statement for water that the ACS is making here. False equivalence argument. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please fix this biased entry!

The entry on kombucha is the most biased I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and that bothers me greatly because I am an educator who advocates for the site as a valuable source of initial information on any topic and a superb example of a self-policing community. I have no vested interest in kombucha whatsoever; I just wanted to know what it is because someone handed me a bottle and said it was good for me. The wikipedia page taught me that it doesn't cure cancer (which is hardly surprising)and that it is dangerous (which IS surprising). There seems to be no middle ground between these two extravagant claims of Ultimate Health on one side and Death on the other side. If this is an acceptable way to present a topic, then someone should edit the article on carrots to focus primarily on dissuading readers from the belief that eating them helps you see in the dark, followed by a discussion of the dangers of allergic reactions and other carrot-related health hazards.

I can see that my critique of this article is nothing new, but the issue seems to be perpetually unresolved so I had to add my thoughts from a kombucha-neutral perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.235.137 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Zarkme (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the article intro should be completely rewritten. I am tempted do so myself, but need some guidance. Research referenced in the intro section seems to be misused. Statement "the claims are not supported by scientific evidence" should probably be replaced with "The research on animals does indicate health benefits but no sufficient research has been done to validate lauded human health benefits". Also, the line referencing death should be replaced with "There is no substantial evidence to confirm the toxicity of any kombucha tea or the occurrence of illness by earlier studies" which is the quote right from the referenced research paper .

That would provide more balanced picture which would be more in line with listed references. Sashalav (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't pick stuff out of primary sources, but instead rely on the secondary review from the American Cancer Society. Their document is accurately reflected here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

But you did pick and choose a secondary source which doesn't have any actual statistics in their statement. The same statement could be made of water or jam. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:MEDRS, we are not going to cite animal studies for claims of supposed benefits in humans. And secondly, you have cherry-picked a single sentence from a section which starts by saying that "Although kombucha tea has been reported to have curative effects, there is some evidence of toxicity associated with it...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I do understand and accept that we cannot use finding about health benefits to animals but I do not agree with your statements regarding toxicity. The sentence you quoted goes on and refers to lead poisoning. There is no lead in kombucha. The poisoning was the result of fermenting in the jar containing lead. If lemonade was prepared in such jar, there would be the same risk of lead poisoning. There is no scientific evidence that kombucha itself is toxic in any way. The sentence I quoted "There is no substantial evidence to confirm the toxicity of any kombucha tea or the occurrence of illness by earlier studies" is the conclusion of the research on, among other things, kombucha toxicity. Any food prepared in unsanitary conditions, or kept in the wrong place on in the wrong conditions can become toxic. That stands for kombucha in a same way it does for chicken breasts, so I do not see why is it necessary to mention it on this page. Sashalav (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The source we reference refers to a number of problems arising from Kombucha's brewing conditions (not just from lead vessels), and serious side effects and death linked with Kombucha drinking. It's a good source, possibly the strongest in this entire article. We need to reflect it. Failing to do so would not be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we are slowly getting to the point here. Sources quoted do not state that there is scientifically proven direct connection between drinking Kombucha and health benefits, so those benefits are not stated in the article intro. In a same way sources quoted do not show scientific proof that health issues linked are due to toxic properties of Kombucha but rather issues in fermentation process. As there is no scientific proof for either positive or negative effect of Kombucha to human health - neither should be highlighted in the article intro. Both are just claims but not necessarily facts and that should be noted. For an example, searching news for salmonella poisoning resulting from chicken consumption will yield many results but that is not mentioned in Wikipedia's Chicken article intro, and, in a same way, it should not be in the Kombucha article intro but not in the intro. I think that pointing to the lack of scientifically documented health benefits while at a same time listing possible health problems which are not scientifically documented makes for unbalanced article intro.Sashalav (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We have an entire section on health claims, some summarizing some of it in the lede is quite in line with WP:LEDE and also satisifies our need for a WP:NPOV. We wouldn't want to airbrush all "critical" content out of the lede, now would we? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Not only that the content is NOT supported by sources in the same magnitude as showcased here, but no such content exist for any other item on Wikipedia. Look at pages on Kefir, Chicken, Grapes, Aspirin ... all of them can cause sickness or even death when not prepared, used or cared for properly but that is not listed right in the intro of those pages. Under 10 documented people got sick that may or may not be in some way related to consuming Kombucha (none of the sources listed claims direct connection) but that certainly is not the most important thing about it. Sashalav (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As WP:LEDE says "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". We need to follow the WP:PAGs, and not try and invent rules derived from completely unrelated articles. One of the principal aspects of Kombucha in the reliable litertaure (and on many dubious web sites too) is its supposed healthful properties. Wikipedia faithfully reflects that as neutrality requires. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The review article cited as the source for "the claims are not supported by scientific evidence" concluded that the claims were supported by preliminary studies but that further research is necessary. This is far from saying that "the claims are not supported by scientific evidence," and an average reader may infer from the wording of the statement that the claims have been refuted, something which the review article most certainly does not claim. The sentence should be changed to be NPOV Trinu talk 05:37 23 January 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To quote: "There has been no evidence published to date on the biological activities of kombucha in human trials". We are true to the source. Implying there might be benefit would be OR and not neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The study did NOT conclude that there was lack of evidence; merely that the evidence was preliminary in nature. Quote: "Kombucha tea's current status as a functional food as summarized in this review, lends credibility to what has been believed by kombucha tea drinkers for a long time." We could say that there have been no human trials to this effect, or that the only trials thus far have been in animal models and cell culture, but implying that the claim has been refuted is POV and misleading, particularly when the source cited lends (limited) support to the claims. Trinu (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all: you're assuming the preliminary research has some bearing on human health effects; the "refutation" is in your mind. As regards human health we accurately reflect the source, as we should. (Add: another issue here is that this source does not appear to be published in a proper medical journal, and so is not a WP:MEDRS for health information in any case.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Probiotic, unsourced, unrelated, chicken feed

I have moved the content below here from the article.

"Another main ingredient found in all fermented foods and beverages are probiotics which are beneficial bacteria necessary for adequate digestion and absorption of nutrients. They are viable microorganisms that improve gut microflora by secreting enzymes, organic acids, vitamins, and non-toxic anti-bacterial substances once ingested. Probiotics have also been shown to improve metabolism and to treat antibiotic-associated symptoms such as diarrhea. In a recent study, alternative diets such as probiotics, green tea extract and kombucha tea were fed to broiler chickens to measure their effects on growth and immunity. The chickens fed with kombucha showed an increase in protein digestibility. The conclusion of the study stated, "adding kombucha tea (20 % concentration) to wet wheat-based diets improved broiler performance and had a growth-promoting effect. Probiotic diets also resulted in enhanced growth and performance, but to a lesser extent.""

The first sentence is unsourced and doesn't really jibe with the article on probiotics. Specifically "necessary for adequate digestion and absorbtion" and "found in all fermented foods and beverages". The characterization as "main ingredient" is unclear, are probiotics a main ingredient of kombucha? The next sentence is sourced to a study on chickens, followed by a sentence sourced to a 2008 article that makes no mention of kombucha at all. Discussion of the general benefits of probiotics belongs in that article and would hopefully be based on much more MEDRS quality source. Then the removed content goes on to extensively discuss a study of broiler chickens. Animal studies are not appropriate for basing content on human biomedical information. If something is of use to humans it will be studied in humans and those studies reviewed. We are not talking of kombucha as chicken food so the content is undue, primary and irrelelvant. I added a reference, (Jayabalan, 2014) that is a decent review that could be used to improve the article. Jayabalan's conclusion section doesn't reflect the facts of the review but the review itself is pretty decent. Perhaps those that find the article "biased" could read that review and make a proposal or two. A good read of what the actual WP:NPOV policy says would good coupled with WP:MEDRS and WP:V and for good measure WP:RS. WP is an encyclopedia that reflects what is published in reliable sources with due weight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

By definition, a 'probiotic' is the main ingredient of kombucha. And if something is of use in humans, there's actually no evidence that it would be studied in humans... Someone has to pay for the study. Not all foods have had this treatment. It's not a very good presumption you've made.

However, the chicken link probably should stay on the comment page until it's gotten more specific review. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Section entitled "Kombucha Drops - Kombucha Extract - Information"

Kombucha drops has been merged and redirected to this article, however, the information appears to be copied and pasted verbatim from this webpage: [[12]]. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights, I am removing that information. Edwardian

Mention of possibly unrelated deaths do not belong in Lede

In this edit, I added an update to the claim of linked deaths. However, I am not convinced this deserves mention in the Lede. It would be different if the deaths were found to be caused by Kombucha drinking. That side effects have been noted seems fitting for the Lede, but 2 deaths with no causal link found after 10 years seems more like a fringe claim, and creates a Lede/article that violates WP:NPOV. petrarchan47คุก 22:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing the otherwise well supported dead link seemed premature, per WP:LINKROT, as it still supplied enough information to find the article offline. I'm restoring the link, and moving the dead link template inside the ref tags, per Template:Dead link. Grayfell (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Any mention of the history, especially in such cryptic terms as "remedy for immortality" should be clearly explained with solid sources in the body before it is introduced to the lead of the article, otherwise it is undue and non-neutral. (Isn't poison a remedy for immortality?) Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi GreyFall, I'm not tremendously interested in working on this article, but it does seem strange to leave all mention of history out of the Lede. Would you go ahead and add something you find appropriate? It doesn't read well to have a one line description, and then to jump right into the dire warnings. The unsubstantiated health claims are unsubstantiated because no trials have been conducted, however the current wording suggests that perhaps they have actually looked for evidence and found none. So this is misleading, and what you reverted was my attempt to fix it. Further, I did not remove the dead link from the article, only the Lede, since the claims sourced to it in the Lede were also covered in the NBC reference. Best, petrarchan47คุก 05:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with the removal of the linked-deaths thing (although I suspect that may prompt further discussion as well). I agree it's odd to leave out the history from the article, but I'm also not all that interested in digging deep on this article, and I don't have any sources handy. I don't understand why you didn't include your source? It was a direct quote from something, no? What you added was reasonable, but without a source it was still scuttlebutt and this article already gets a lot of opinion editing and pseudoscientific blogspam and such, so the last thing it needs is more scuttlebutt. "The claims are not supported by scientific evidence" seems like a perfectly accurate way to phrase it. A lack of studies or trials is the same as a lack of support by scientific evidence. This is veering into WP:MEDRS territory, but when we have multiple sources saying that no benefits have been found, it seems reasonable to me. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it's in the NBC puff piece. I'll look it over and expand the history section a little. It's very weak as a source, though. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually if I am citing multiple claims to one source, I will link to it only at the end of all claims, rather than at the end of each one. I'm open to suggestions, though, as this has confused people before. petrarchan47คุก 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell Thanks for expanding the history section in the article, however it was the Lede that seemed to be missing mention of the origins of the drink. It is half definition and half warnings, which doesn't reflect the article contents as it should per WP:LEDE. petrarchan47คุก 06:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The NBC source was just too weak to be much use in this case, and I don't think the added content reached the threshold for inclusion in the lead. The bit about etymology (Dr. Kombu) is directly contradicted by other, more academic sources earlier in the article, and the info about its ancient origins is two sentences which are very broad, and are not supported by any other sources. Mentioning when the drink first appeared is a good idea, but there are too many ambiguities and contradictions, and I don't think a date-range should be mentioned in the lead based on this one flawed source. Otherwise saying unambiguously that its 2,000 years old seems like an appeal to tradition. These things should be properly addressed in the body first. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Grayfell. This Swedish source has a good bit about the history. If I find some time, I will help with this. petrarchan47คุก 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We should summarize the best sources. The ACS mentions death by kombucha. So we do too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the CDC, Kombucha's "beneficial and/or adverse effects have not been determined scientifically". This is a much more neutral account than the WP article gives. Are there any objections to rephrasing the Lede/article in accordance with the CDC?

I don't know what ACS source you are referencing, perhaps you could leave a link, Alex? Do you consider it stronger than the CDC? petrarchan47คุก 06:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you read this article or are you just lede bombing? We quote the ACS in the body: "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Kombucha tea promotes good health, prevents any ailments, or works to treat cancer or any other disease. Serious side effects and occasional deaths have been linked with drinking Kombucha tea". ACS is a strong MEDRS source and does not contradict the CDC statement. Do not edit war and be aware this page is subject to discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Chill out, no one is edit warring, Alex. petrarchan47คุก 06:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Here is the American Cancer Society piece, it references the CDC/FDA article I linked above. An excerpt from ACS:

"No studies have been done on humans to support any of the claims made for Kombucha tea. There have, however, been reports of some serious complications associated with the tea. In April 1995, two women who had been consuming the tea daily for two months were hospitalized with severe acidosis--an abnormal increase of the acid levels in body fluids. Both had high levels of lactic acid upon hospitalization. One woman died of cardiac arrest two days after admission. The second woman’s heart also stopped, but she was stabilized and recovered. The mushrooms used by both women came from the same "parent" mushroom. While no direct link to Kombucha tea was proven in this case, the FDA has warned consumers to use caution when making and drinking the tea."

Details on the case from the CDC:

"The mushrooms used by both women were derived from the same parent mushroom. At least 115 additional persons in the town had used or were using mushrooms from the same source as for the two ill women, but no other cases of unexplained acute illness were reported among these persons. A review of hospital emergency department records for March 1-April 10 did not detect other cases of unexplained lactic acidosis or other likely cases of tea-associated acute illness.

Samples of the mushrooms and samples of the tea consumed by both case-patients were sent to FDA for analysis. Microbiologic analysis of the tea and mushrooms identified several species of yeast and bacteria, including Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida valida. No known human pathogens or toxin-producing organisms were identified. The alcohol content of the tea ranged from 0.7% to 1.3%; no methanol was detected."

Having seen the ACS document, do editors feel Alexbrn's preferred version:

"Drinking kombucha has been linked, in rare cases, to serious side effects and deaths, and improper preparation can lead to contamination."

is preferable to this?

"Drinking kombucha has been linked in rare cases to serious side effects and several deaths, although no causal link to these deaths has been established. Improper preparation can lead to contamination."

Saying Kombucha is linked to death, when no causal or direct link has been established in the 10 years since this case, as opposed to noting "no direct link" is non-neutral and misleading. I'm unclear whether the ACS source meets MEDRS requirements, but Alexbrn would know more about this. The 10 year old source does not seem to adhere to MEDRS. petrarchan47คุก 06:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We say what the sources say, and do not engage in editorializing and OR. Trying to discredit a good MEDRS source with a 20-year-old CDC case report (which even warns in red text at its head it may be outdated) is highly problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. The source you prefer says:

"No studies have been done on humans to support any of the claims made for Kombucha tea. There have, however, been reports of some serious complications associated with the tea. In April 1995, two women who had been consuming the tea daily for two months were hospitalized with severe acidosis--an abnormal increase of the acid levels in body fluids. Both had high levels of lactic acid upon hospitalization. One woman died of cardiac arrest two days after admission. The second woman’s heart also stopped, but she was stabilized and recovered. The mushrooms used by both women came from the same "parent" mushroom. While no direct link to Kombucha tea was proven in this case, the FDA has warned consumers to use caution when making and drinking the tea."

And you want to summarize this as:

"Drinking kombucha has been linked, in rare cases, to serious side effects and deaths".

Your source specifically says "no direct link", and you want to quote them as saying "has been linked". I see this as highly problematic and misleading. petrarchan47คุก 07:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comprehension is poor. The "no direct link" phrase applies to one case. As the ACS say in general (in their "Overview"): "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Kombucha tea promotes good health, prevents any ailments, or works to treat cancer or any other disease. Serious side effects and occasional deaths have been linked with drinking Kombucha tea." We reflect that, which is NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Alex, could we discuss this sans personal attacks? IMO, this is a fringe claim and although you have one good source, does it not strike you as odd that Kombucha death is mentioned literally nowhere else? It is a strong claim to make, and it is possible that the ACS got it wrong given that they are the only source with such a claim. I would prefer to see at least one MEDRS backing this claim. petrarchan47คุก 07:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that the ACS is a source of 'fringe claims' is nonsensical. And we don't second-guess a source because a contributor thinks they might have 'got it wrong'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks, merely pointed out your error. The ACS are not essaying a fringe claim and I suggest if you want to clarify that you raise it at WP:FT/N. We have a good source and will not be swapping it out for outdated primaries or your personal suppositions such as "it is possible that the ACS got it wrong". For further background see also PMID 12808367. Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You pointed out their error, but in an unnecessarily harsh way. A little tact goes a long way and encourages civil discourse. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with petrarchan47 in regards to the text, I have answered also at original post (since there was already a response there) furthermore I will look for additional sources that dispel any link. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie, it would be better to find and summarize the best WP:MEDRS sources, we shouldn't go questing for sources to support some pre-decided POV. If there are stronger sources than the ACS (or earlier, Ernst's 2003 systematic review) then bring them forth! Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

actually a review 2014 is posted on the other discussion on wikiproject med. will look for more--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We already cite that - does it bear on the "death" question? I can't (currently) get access to a full text. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources related the the death, health, safety issue

Alexbrn has introduced this source to support this statement in the Lede (emphasis mine):

Drinking kombucha can cause liver damage and, in rare cases, death.

This is in conflict with even the originally cited ACS' wording, "linked". "Cause" is a big leap forward, and the source used does not support such a claim.

Sources that do not support death claims:

• Mayo Clinic

"There have, however, been reports of adverse effects, such as stomach upset, infections and allergic reactions in kombucha tea drinkers. Kombucha tea is often brewed in homes under nonsterile conditions, making contamination likely. If ceramic pots are used for brewing, lead poisoning might be a concern — the acids in the tea may leach lead from the ceramic glaze.

In short, there isn't good evidence that kombucha tea delivers on its health claims. At the same time, several cases of harm have been reported."

• Science Based Medicine

"The best that can be said about kombucha is that it probably won’t kill you."

• Swedish Medical Center creds

"...there are case reports, which suggest that Kombucha preparations can cause such problems as nausea, jaundice, shortness of breath, throat tightness, headache, dizziness, liver inflammation, and even unconsciousness. 4,5,6 It isn't clear whether the cause of these symptoms is an unusual reaction to a generally nontoxic substance, or a response to unusual toxins that developed in a particular batch of Kombucha.

"In addition, there is one case report of severe lead poisoning caused by regular use of Kombucha brewed in a ceramic pot. 7 When brewed or stored in some ceramics, the risk of lead poisoning results because Kombucha tea is acidic. Many ceramic glazes contain a low level of lead that would not make the pottery dangerous for ordinary use; but if an acidic solution like Kombucha is steeped in them for a long time, a dangerous amount of lead may leech into the solution.

"There is also one report of Kombucha becoming infected with anthrax and passing along the infection to an individual who rubbed it on his skin to alleviate pain. 8 Apparently, anthrax from nearby cows got into the Kombucha mixture and grew."

• NYT reports where the link began, confirming there was no real evidence of a link:

"In 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report linking kombucha to the death of an Iowa woman and the illness of another woman. Both experienced severe metabolic acidosis, excessive acid buildup in the body that health officials thought may have been related to their daily use of kombucha. Though the federal center did not definitively cite the tea as the problem, the incident put a damper on kombucha consumption."

The death claim we have in the Lede seems fringe at best. petrarchan47คุก 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 has written of the text "Drinking kombucha can cause liver damage and, in rare cases, death", “the source used does not support such a claim.” I am very surprised by this accusation since the source has "kombucha tea can cause serious hepatic damage and even fatality." In what way is our text not supported by the source? Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

— Additionally that same reference is referred to several times as a different reference (eg 2 and 21 are the same reference basically. It looks like there is just the one death "caused"?? by the drink, which is the AIDS guy. I haven't got access to the full paper so I am unclear if the link is actually causal, it just said he had the tea 15 hours before dying. 92.19.86.173 (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I was researching matcha tea and came across this discussion. Regarding the RS that alleges kombucha can cause liver damage, etc. I researched the cited source in the footnote of the source cited in the article for verifiability in accordance with WP:V. Btw, Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false is a great essay. The source that caused the misapprehension in the cited book is here: [13] I found no such determination specifically stated in that journal entry. It appears the author of the source cited in this article made an assumption. It is a classic example of what can happen when we ass-u-me. I'm of the mind that the cause statement and RS used to support the assumption is inaccurate. The passage should be modified for factual accuracy and properly cited. Perhaps we should exercise as much care and concern when citing RS in these types of articles as we do in all medical and science related articles such as those involving GMF and GMOs, for example. It would certainly save time and megabytes of space on TP. --Atsme^📞📧 12:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

“... I researched the cited source ... ” / “... I am of the mind ... ” ← yes, that's called original research and it's what we must not do. We follow reputably-published secondary sources instead of editors' non-expert views. Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not considered OR.  It is considered researching for verifiability which editors are actually obligated to do because V is one of the 5 pillars.  OR, for example, is when an editor includes a passage about laboratory research or experimental results that cannot be cited by published sources.  I suggest you read WP:V and familiarize yourself with the policy.  The book that was cited to support the claim that it causes death is incorrectly stated and not supported by the book's own cited source. That is factual inaccuracy - verifiable but false.  The information has been removed, and now the onus is on those who want it included to validate why it should be.  Please keep in mind that It may be considered a violation of WP:V to revert its removal. --Atsme^📞📧 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is the very epitome of OR. You are reintepreting the primary sourced drawn on by a secondary source to reach a different conclusion (and of course this is explicitly called out as a no-no in MEDRS). You've also been deleting secondary-sourced content and using primary sources (a case report). Also bad. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(ADD) Well, you're now edit-warring your poor content in. I have issued a warning ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your edit warring and battleground behavior and stop the false accusations. I reverted your notice on my TP as it was an abuse of the template. It was also posted to my TP after I posted a friendly warning to you about edit warring which is exactly what you are doing. Policy clearly states that the onus is on the editor who wants to add back the disputed material, and you have not provided one ounce of evidence that supports the extraordinary claim you made in lead. I provided intext attribution from the conclusion of the report in a published, peer reviewed journal, and did not reinterpret anything. The source you are using cited that journal report with an inaccurate statement that was not supported by their cited source, therefore it failed verifiability. Per policy: extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources and that is exactly what I provided with inline text attribution. The onus is now on you to find a RS that is compliant with V and also passes the scrutiny of MEDRS. Furthermore, the simple fact that your source is a RS per MEDRS does not guarantee inclusion of the material cited. I strongly advise you to stop your battleground behavior and edit warring. Atsme^📞📧 16:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are mis-stating policy, and have replaced a secondary source with a primary because you personally disagree with the secondary (which has nothing to do with WP:V, this source directly supported the cited content). You have twice inserted your preferred text. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps the reason you believe I misstated policy may actually result from your misinterpretation of it. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources - the claim that kambucha tea causes death is an exceptional claim.  Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.  Sorry, but the death claim was cited to a single source that was disputed for factual inaccuracy.  The source is verifiable but not true.  Red Flag.  Per policy Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;  The following also applies: claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. Atsme^📞📧 19:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Certain plants and fungi can cause illness and death; that is a commonplace and not "exceptional". Since we have high quality MEDRS sources saying so here we should use them, rather than privileging your inexpert personal opinions. Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course plants and fungi can cause illness and death, but you need to present a source that establishes causality specifically between kombucha consumption and death. Can you do this? Has causality been firmly established? The source in the article that cites the 2009 case report does indeed say "cause", but the original case report does stop short of that: "While Kombucha tea is considered a healthy elixir, the limited evidence currently available raises considerable concern that it may pose serious health risks. Consumption of this tea should be discouraged, as it may be associated with life-threatening lactic acidosis." and says it may be associated with life-threatening lactic acidosis. One case report saying may be associated sounds like a relatively weak case for establishing causality. More evidence is warranted to state that it can cause fatal reactions (associated with fatal reactions...sure). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What Tyler said. petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd not object to "has been suspected of causing" as that is still in line with the source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a fringe claim unsupported by the blurb in your book. Why would the Mayo Clinic fail to mention death if this were an established fact? We should summarize what the best sources say. No good sources are making this claim, and even the ACS was referring to an old case that was so weak the FDA merely gave a warning about the drink. The sources give a much more nuanced picture of how negative health effects arise, such as contamination during the fermentation process, and we should do the same. I think statements about death should be removed until this has been settled. Right now it's an embarrassment to host this 'information'. We should err on the safe side as Wikipedia has a bad reputation for misinformation regarding health content as it is. petrarchan47คุก 07:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what is included, please do not try and tie this in with Wikipedia's supposed reputation. What some groups may or may not think of some aspects of Wikipedia is extremely vague and is a terrible precedent to set for why content should be altered. If anyone is embarrassed by content someone else has put into Wikipedia, that's their problem. Grayfell (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, why would editors place questionable claims in an article that end up giving skewed information and so give fodder to such groups? The goal should be to have a reputable source of information. If an editor is embarrassed by skewed claims they need to be edited, thats the nature is WP, to improve what others have done. AlbinoFerret 11:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The only people finding this "questionable" are those indulging their own prejudices. Some folks here are in effect arguing for Wikipedia to depart from the established pharmacological literature on this subject:

• Jean M. Wible (2005). Potentially dangerous herbal medicines. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 266. ISBN 978-0-7817-4798-1. Kombucha tea; a general cure-all; can cause acidosis and death {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• Bronwen Jean Bryant; Kathleen Mary Knights (2011). Pharmacology for Health Professionals. Elsevier Australia. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-7295-3929-6. Kombucha has been associated with illnesses and death. A tea made from Kombucha is said to be a tonic, but several people have been hospitalised and at least one woman died after taking this product.

Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn Do not to comment on other editors, its against a few policies that you should be aware of. AlbinoFerret 14:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to find what this comment is referring to, but there is nothing here. This is yet another aspersion cast against fellow editors here, insinuating that there is off-wiki communication. The Komucha cabal? It's almost as bad as this one. petrarchan47คุก

CAM (alt-med) haters systematically use exaggerated claims of side effects and death to discredit natural remedies, most of which are not scientifically supported as in this case. Maybe the benefits of kombucha are also exaggerated and scientifically unsupported but it's not our job to promote or debunk it. Our job is to write about the topic in an encyclopedic manner; i.e. neutral, informative, and sourced to RS that are Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false. I'm sure that's what we're all trying to accomplish, right? The kombucha review basically confirmed that for centuries there have been no reported issues linked to the consumption of kombucha tea prior to reports from the 90s forward but feel free to correct me if I misstated the dates. So what changed? It appears the fermenting process and the utensils used have had a significant influence. Lead seeping into the mix is a concern but it's not an inherent property of kombucha - it's an inherent property of the ceramic utensils. All it takes is a little common sense, a pinch of IAR, and the MEDRS approved review that was conducted last year confirming the safety of kombucha products for consumers. There are lots of books out there and most reference the same reports and articles covered in the review. The review also includes a relatively brief section on toxicity citing a small number of reports involving a small number of cases that MAY be linked to consumption of the product. We cannot state it as the cause in Wiki voice regardless of the misstatements and erroneous conclusion made by a chemist at a Texas university who cited a report that doesn't support his statement. False statements do not belong in the lead of this article. --Atsme^📞📧 22:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are ownership issues, coupled with hostility, and no real, NPOV concern for the article itself. The concern here seems only to make sure the worst claims possible are front and center, and this is evidenced by the recent edit history. The Lede is in violation of WP:LEDE but I've absolutely no faith that my edits to fix this will not be immediately reverted. History of the drink does not require MEDRS sourcing. There is no reason not to mention the story of the article subject in the Lede as any other WP article would do. Editors are required to edit in a neutral manner, and those with a bias against or for the article subject should recuse themselves if that bias is drowning out the most basic WP guidelines. Because of the hostility and ownership issues, this will be my last comment here. petrarchan47คุก 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And Atsme, who just did such an excellent job of covering the issue, might just walk away as well. Anything to do with natural healing methods has been taken over by a few biased editors and it is a waste of time to attempt to change the campaign that's been going on for some time now. Too bad for our encyclopedia, but at least for now I have no idea on how to go about changing it... Gandydancer (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A passer-by's view: couldn't agree more with Gandydancer. This sort of bias and ownership is immensely damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Although (apologies, off-topic) having read the entirety of this talk page, from a dispassionate point of view the carnage is rather entertaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.171.174 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Health benefits

• A Review on Kombucha Tea—Microbiology Composition, Fermentation, Beneficial Effects, Toxicity, and Tea Fungus Rasu Jayabalan, Radomir V. Malbaˇsa, Eva S. Lonˇcar, Jasmina S. Vitas, and Muthuswamy Sathishkumar

pg. 10

Although kombucha tea cannot be granted official health claims at this time, it can be recognized as an important part of a sound diet. Not exactly a traditional beverage, kombucha tea is now regarded as a “health” drink, a source of pharmacologically active molecules, an important member of the antioxidant food group, and a functional food with potential beneficial health properties. Research on kombucha demonstrating its beneficial effects and their mechanisms will most likely continue to increase substantially in the next few years. It is apparent that kombucha tea is a source of a wide range of bioactive components that are digested, absorbed, and metabolized by the body, and exert their effects at the cellular level.

• LWT - Food Science and Technology creds

Kombucha a fermented tea has prophylactic and therapeutic properties.

Antimicrobial activities of kombucha were studied against human pathogens.

Five new Kombucha-like drinks were investigated by fermenting herbal extracts.

New fermented beverages exhibited strong antimicrobial potentials (against Candida).

Fermented Lippia citriodora and Foeniculum vulgare may be very healthful.

Just adding newer reports that have found benefits. Our article cites older references stating that none had been found. I won't add anything as I know I will be reverted, so will just leave it here for you. petrarchan47คุก 07:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The first is already cited here. I don't believe either paper has "found benefits" (in people) but rather suppose beneficial mechanisms may exist based on lab work. Have you actually read Jayabalan et.al.? (I'm finding it hard to get a full copy right now.) Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A supposition that benefits may exist based on promising laboratory studies from several sources certainly warrants inclusion under phrasing such as "preliminary studies suggest ... though these benefits have not been conclusively demonstrated in human trials" or similar. Human trials are always valuable, but the laboratory indications are also important, suitably caveated. This has been repeatedly pointed out above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.171.174 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@87.115.171.174: Yes, and we already say this: "Although laboratory experiments are suggestive of possible health effects, there is no evidence that kombucha consumption benefits human health." Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Laboratory studies constitute _preliminary_ evidence, not a lack of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.171.174 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The second study doesn't seem to meet WP:MEDRS standards. LWT may be reputable, but the study is a primary source. Wikipedia articles generally do not include WP:PRIMARY studies, especially not for medical content, and should never use such material to make generalized health claims, even obliquely. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greyfell, please explain why you think the second study "doesn't seem to meet" MEDRS standards, and then explain why you think the "death" claims do. Are you saying what was stated in a book written by a chemist at a Texas university is more reliable than a report by 4 MDs, a PharmaD plus a Journal Review which cites that same report? Perhaps I've overlooked something. --Atsme^📞📧 20:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources are sources which analyze or summarize primary sources. They are, in almost all cases, preferable for use on Wikipedia. WP:MEDPRI spells it out pretty clearly. Because this is medical content, those secondary sources are also held to higher standards. If the study is important, it should be possible to find it explained in a reliable secondary source. The study itself is perfectly fine as a study. This isn't a comment on the credentials of any scientists, it's about neutrality and due weight, and avoiding WP:SYNTH. I have no idea why Texas would be relevant. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV, V and MEDRS

Agree with your comment from last year, Grayfell That reference needs to be deleted all together and the statements cited to it need to be modified to reflect current sources.  Also, per WP:MEDRS Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources.  The only evidence related to illness and death regarding consumption of the tea are case reports published in a peer reviewed medical journal, all of which lack scientific evidence to confirm causality. The book that is cited to the lead statement that links consumption of the tea to death is not cited to a RS and is noncompliant with MEDRS for the following reasons: (1) the claim in the book is misstated, factually incorrect and not supported by the source cited in the book, (2) the cited source is a case report (3) the claim is only one author's opinion and it conflicts with the 2014 Journal review which cites that same case report. Policy dictates extraordinary claims require (multiple) extraordinary sources and all I've seen that link the tea to death cite the same case report which MEDRS considers to be anecdotal and below the minimum requirements. Furthermore, the inclusion of such material in this article demonstrates noncompliance with two core policies, NPOV and V.  I am asking for GF collaboration without the WP:OWN and WP:Battleground behavior we've seen demonstrated by the reverting of GF edits that correct policy noncompliance regarding the unreliable case reports and links to death.  The DS notice is now visible on this TP for all to see.  We all must abide by PAGs and MEDRS when editing this article. Atsme^📞📧 13:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC) 

I'd forgotten I wrote that. The problem as I see it is that there are two angles this article needs to cover. Kombucha is a beverage which is, at least in places I've been recently, widely available in supermarkets, convenience stores, coffee-shops, etc.. From this perspective, mentioning the rare illnesses and deaths in the lead seems a bit undue, because death and illness can be found associated with virtually every consumable product, and sources are are mostly about outlying cases (right?). However, and this is a huge issue, kombucha is also a characterized by some as a health product. It may have some health benefits, but it's also been misrepresented as a treatment for a number of illnesses without any reliable sources at all. If we're talking about a commercially bottled beverage, then the health risks and benefits should be mostly ignored, because the benefits don't have any sources, and the health risks are effectively minimal (one source facetiously said something like "it probably won't kill you"). When talking about how kombucha is made, and if we're describing this as a health tonic, I don't think it's at all undue to mention the risks and to underscore the lack of scientifically studied benefits. Mentioning the death in the body seems like it may be appropriate to the extent that this is about a fringe medical practice. I would like the lead to say something like "risk of potentially fatal illness". That seems like a concise way to explain that it's a serious issue without overselling it. As I understand it, explaining potential risks and being very cautious about medical claims is the underlying rational for MEDRS. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Grayfell - I agree with you. Let's work at getting WP:UNDUE and WP:Balance fixed and the rest will self-correct. I suggest using the Journal review since it is the most reliable source we have at this point in time. There are plenty of mainstream media articles on the subject that pass the RS acid test. Mayo is another good source. I am looking forward to collaborating with you. --Atsme^📞📧 20:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Claim tied to primary source (case report)

This claim "Other reports of adverse reactions may be related to unsanitary fermentation conditions, leaching of compounds from the fermentation vessels, or "sickly" kombucha cultures that cannot acidify the brew.[25]" is tied to a primary source. It is unsuitable for a MEDRS claim. AlbinoFerret 19:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the statement (about the leaching of compounds) is adequately referenced since it's referring to individual case reports, which is covered by the primary reference. However, the rest of the sentence is unreferenced; I'll see if I can find something that references each part. (updated) Ca2james (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you will need to find reviews, secondary sources for all of it, including the initial claim. Case reports are the most primary form of sources and should not be used for medical claims. Per WP:MEDRS "in general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom." AlbinoFerret 12:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of poorly-sourced stuff there; I've trimmed (and reversed some NNPOV interim edits). Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and you keep replacing it. I fixed the problem in the lead and in the body of the article using the updated journal review which is compliant with MEDRS. It replaces the old review that is 13 years old. The extraordinary claims of death and toxicity have been removed as they are antecdotal case reports which are considered below minimum requirements for inclusion per MEDRS, not to mention grossly UNDUE. I highly recommend that you stop the unwarranted reverts and your disruptive behavior. Atsme^📞📧 13:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What is it you think is "MEDRS" ? Please focus on content. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the type of source used for medical claims. That is the topic of this section. Replace the primary sources or the claims need to be removed. AlbinoFerret 13:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

They've gone. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, WP:MEDRS doesn't say that primary sources must not be used; it says that they should not be used. In circumstances where data is limited, primary sources might be the best-available evidence. Therefore, using them isn't problematic according to the spirit of MEDRS, which is to use the highest-quality sources available. That said, the case study in question is quite old and hasn't been cited or its conclusions repeated anywhere so including it is UNDUE. Ca2james (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and in practice the circumstances where primary sources are acceptable for health information are extremely limited. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This isnt just a primary source, but one of the lowest quality primary sources, a case report. MEDRS putts it on par with "anecdotes or conventional wisdom" and neither of those is possible to be used for medical claims. That makes the extremely rare use even harder to justify. If a high quality primary source can be found it can be discussed and possibly brought in through consensus. Any primary source should not be added without consensus. AlbinoFerret 15:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Another Primary sourced claim

"Some adverse health effects may be due to the acidity of the tea; brewers have been cautioned to avoid over-fermentation.[21]" is sourced to a primary source. It needs to be a secondary source for medical claims, of which "adverse effects" is a medical claim. AlbinoFerret 13:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the "Food and Drug Administration model" primary? The source is secondary to that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No the Food and Drug Administration model is just that, it is a model, that is applied to different foods. The source is primary as it is applying the model to Kombucha and discussing that. The source is avilable at the Freelibary for those who dont have access to the print link AlbinoFerret 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Might just want to say "To avoid excessive acidity ..." then (and move it out if the Health section)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable course of action. AlbinoFerret 15:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

CRD Summary of unsupported claims in Ernst review

I have repeatedly asked editors to stop including the poorly sourced, noncompliant extraordinary claims of toxicity and death linked to kombucha products because they are scientifically unsupported claims, and the sources used do not even meet the minimum requirements of MEDRS.  I have added DS alerts to the TPs of those editors who have not been alerted previously. I added the DS alert notice at the top of this article's TP. I have posted friendly notices on TP of those editors who have been edit warring and asked them to please stop the disruption. I have provided below the information that clearly demonstrates why the Ernst systematic review does not meet even the minimum requirements of MEDRS for inclusion of the scientifically unsupported claims of death and toxicity in this article. Reverting in order to include such claims is disruptive and noncompliant with PAGs including WP:MEDRS, UNDUE, NPOV, V but not false, and simply do not belong in this article.

See Results of 2003 Ernst review and CRD commentary. I have included them below for your convenience.

Results of the review

Three case series and two case reports of adverse events were included in the review. These included 28 patients in total.

No studies were found relating to the efficacy of Kombucha.

The reporting of the individual cases was poor, making it difficult to ascertain if Kombucha was the cause of the adverse events reported. The adverse events included suspected liver damage and metabolic acidosis from Kombucha drunk as a tea. One case series described cutaneous anthrax infection through topical application of the tea, although the Kombucha could have been contaminated due to storage in extremely unhygienic conditions.

CRD commentary

The inclusion criteria for this review were necessarily broad to allow for a full analysis of the efficacy and safety of this remedy. A wide range of information sources were searched, making it less likely that studies were missed. It was not possible to assess the validity of the evidence, nor was pooling possible due to a lack of efficacy data. Reports of adverse events were described and comments were made on the likely cause-effect relationship. It was unclear whether the review involved more than one reviewer in the study selection and data extraction processes, which could serve to minimise bias. Although the author appropriately cautions the use of an unproven remedy with potential side-effects, it is important to note that not all of the adverse events may be attributable to the remedy itself.

Please respect our PAGs. Atsme^📞📧 00:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is a review, meaning it is secondary, correct? Edzard Ernst is certainly a notable authority on CAM, so I'm not seeing how it fails to meet MEDRS. Is the journal not reliable? Systematic reviews are ideal for medical content. I could easily be missing something, but this source doesn't look fundamentally unusable. The wording is debatable, and it would certainly be nice to have something a bit more recent, but that's typical. Grayfell (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

When the review of the review itself states: The reporting of the individual cases was poor it is a clear and unambiguous indication that is represents a poorly sourced' review to make claims that Kombucha was the cause of the adverse events reported. Read the review and the commentary. Just because it is a secondary source doesn't mean it's ok to use it. Read the essay, WP:Verifiable but not false. MEDRS also clearly states the case reports are anecdotal and do not meet minimum requirements so the latter coupled with a review that assesses portions of the systematic review as "poor" tells us we cannot use it as a RS. Atsme^📞📧 02:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm listening, okay? I hope you wouldn't feel the need to yell at me to my face, so maybe cool it with the unnecessary emphasis, because that's the appearance it gives.

Earnst does acknowledge that the reporting was poor. That doesn't automatically make the source poor. The distinction is important. Since the source is reliable, but the content is preliminary, the article content could still be included in a way that reflects that. The author's conclusion seems like a very useful point to bring up, and the article can reflect that. (Again, it would be really nice to have something more recent and comprehensive here):

The author concluded that the claimed benefits of Kombucha were not supported by clinical evidence and, in view of the adverse events profile, its therapeutic use could not be recommended. However, he also noted that the adverse events were described in isolated reports, which cannot allow firm conclusions about causality and allow for generalisation.

Isn't that exactly the point you're trying to clarify in the article? Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that AlbinoFerret removed this source[14] on the grounds that it is old when we have newer ones, which is reasonable enough. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears that references to this 12 year old source are growing. There are plenty of newer sources available. This source should be removed per WP:MEDDATE AlbinoFerret 06:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen "plenty of newer sources". QuackGuru (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There are 28 sources. 2 of the claims are already backed up by other citations, 1 of the remaining can be sourced to whats there. The remaining is an opinion. This is way to much usage for a 12 year old source, and from a journal (though renamed) that has an impact factor of 1.079 and has not made it above 2. Thats extremely low. AlbinoFerret 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring; please respect WP:MEDRS

Atsme is repeatedly deleting MEDRS-compliant material (e.g. that sourced to a 2011 Pharmacology textbook) and creating a section entitled "Health benefits" to which is then added material sourced to this article, which so far as I can see is not even PUBMED indexed - a WP:REDFLAG. These changes are not in line with how we source medical content here, and this edit warring of poor content has got to stop. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn is repeatedly reverting to add back unsupported claims cited to sources that are non-compliant with NPOV, UNDUE, MEDRS, and V. The sources he is citing are referencing case reports which MEDRS considers anecdotal and below the minimum requirement for RS. The claims of toxicity and death are extraordinary claims because they are rare, and random case reports involving unsupported evidence from a very small group of people. The 2003 systematic review and other RS he keeps citing all refer back to the unsupported case reports because there are so few. The recorded case reports have been assessed in the Ernst 2003 systematic review as poor and scientifically unsupported (see my comment below). The material Alex keeps adding back is written in such a way to purposely effect public opinion regarding kombucha which is noncompliant with NPOV. I am concerned that this issue is high enough on the scale of importance that an admin needs to review it and impose DS as needed because of the unsupported medical claims subject of this dispute. Atsme^📞📧 13:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Right so you're talking - good! The claims that kombucha tea drinking is associated with (N.B. that does not mean "causes") fatalities is sourced to two well-published medical textbooks, which as WP:MEDRS tells us are good sources; is has also been mentioned in many earlier works. On what grounds do you say the sources we use are "below the minimum requirement for RS"? (Disagreeing with them does not count).

(Add:) BTW, here's another recent textbook which might be useful:

• Dasgupta A, Sepulveda JL (2013). Other Supplements that Cause Liver Damage. Elsevier. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-0-12-415858-0. the limited evidence currently available raises safety concerns, especally regarding potential hepatotoxicty and the possibility of life-threatening lactic acidosis {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Alex, implying that I haven't been talking is unwarranted as are your attempts to make me appear to be the one who is edit warring and being disruptive. You are reverting my GF edits which correct the noncompliant material you keep adding back. You are also abusing rollback privileges with your use of TW.  I have long since advised you on your TP to stop edit warring. Your repeated warnings on my TP are also abusive because I am not edit warring, you are. Keep in mind, you warned me to stay off your TP. [15]  It is unacceptable for you to repeatedly add contentious, scientifically unsupported material and reverting my edits which cites the most recent review of kombucha, and meets all the requirements of MEDRS as a verifiably accurate, high quality RS. PAGs tell us that a RS may not be considered reliable for inclusion of contentious material that is scientifically unsupported and/or that is noncompliant with our 3 core content policies, not to mention UNDUE and FRINGE. For the umpteenth time, the sources you keep citing do not meet even the minimum requirements for adding extraordinary claims of death and toxicity because they are based on case reports which are considered anecdotal. As I demonstrated below via Doc James' post at Proj Med, it doesn't matter how many sources you cite if they are all making the same scientifically unsupported claims.  Perhaps you should read more closely the review of the 2003 Ernst systematic review and pay closer attention to the CRD summary because it rates the review's mention of case reports as poor.  My post includes the full summary.  [16] Atsme^📞📧 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my very specific question, about why the sourcing we use is in your view "below the minimum standard for RS". Sure they are based on case reports etc. but the expert, reliably-published assessment in the sources we use is that those case reports give rise to concerns about possibly of life-threatening adverse effects from kombucha tea. So we relay that expert, reliably-published view as we should. As another editor has explained to you above that the case reports are "poor" does not make secondary sources evaluating those case reports poor. You need to understand that. (Add: I do not think you're right in saying WP:FRINGE applies to these claims either: I shall ask at WP:FT/N for clarification.) Alexbrn (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I note that there seems to be a good deal of reversion and edit warring in this article. Please remember to Assume good faith, and don't revert edits simply because you don't like another editor's referenced version, which seems to be happening all the time here. Reversion is for combating vandalism not for establishing your version of reality.

This talk page is for discussion, and I suggest that it's used before making edits that revert another editor's GF edits. If you really can't reach an agreed text through adult discussion here, then ask an uninvolved editor to arbitrate, bang heads or whatever.

I'm not going to work back through the edit history to apportion blame, because that is unconstructive, I'm just asking that you play nicely and talk rather than revert. This isn't an FA or GA candidate, so there are no requirement for perfect prose. If an edit is GF and referenced to an RS source it should not e removed without discussion with the other editor

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note this had already been raised at WT:MED. I don't know what you mean by saying reversion is happening because "simply because you don't like another editor's referenced version"? In my case "simply not liking" doesn't come into in: I am reverting for the reasons I have given on this talk page, which centre on our need for WP:MEDRS for health information. That's right, no?
Perhaps if there are still questions to decide, an RfC might be the way forward? Alexbrn (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I was trying hard to avoid pointing fingers, but since you ask here are a couple of examples where you have used Twinkle, an anti-vandalism tool, to revert what appear to be GF edits with summaries that do not identify the nature of the vandalism Not an improvement Rv. whitewashing deletions & insertion of comparatively weakly-sourced material. Your edit for these summaries suggest that you are reverting on opinion rather than vandalism. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. The same user was reverted in each case. I can't see how his/her edits were vandalism, and it seems to be that discussion would be better than unilateral bashing with Twinkle. I have no personal interest in this article, and I know that positions can become entrenched. I would just like to see unnecessarily confrontational actions avoided with an aim to reach some consensus.

I think we are a long way from this sort of thing, but there seems to be a need for a more measured approach Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle's just a tool. I don't see any difference between using it and doing a manual content edit if the result is the same. In both cases I followed up here to the Talk page but have had no response[17][18] which makes it difficult for a measured approach to flourish. And of course the issue at hand has been discussed ad nauseam above. I have no doubt the edits were GF but they are adding medical claims sourced in once case to a primary source and in another to a questionable source, while at the same time deleting material which is not dubiously sourced. We have a responsibility to ensure the health information carried in articles is accurate. I am happy to discuss the particulars of that further if that would help here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The onus to restore material that was challenged for noncompliance is on the editor who wants to restore it which in this case is you, Alex. I think an RfC would be a good plan if you think it will support your position but keep in mind that an RfC cannot override policy. The discussion you wikilinked above WT:MED did not include any diffs to support your position. Following are diffs from that discussion that support mine. For convenience, I also included below the comments made by Doc James.

• "we must use the best available sources"
• "Sources / evidence are like school children. 5 first graders do not equal one 5 grade in ability."
• "extreme ideas require extreme sources"

Following is Doc James' post in its entirety:

Reading through a couple of comments: I would disagree that 5 major newspapers are reliable sources when it comes to medical content. Sources / evidence are like school children. 5 first graders do not equal one 5 grade in ability. I like the "true to presentation" bit. I also like that extreme ideas require extreme sources. One would need amazing sources to support the idea that TMers can actually fly Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 6:10 pm, 11 June 2015, last Thursday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)

Perhaps you should read more closely the summaries and conclusions of the 2003 Ernst systematic review and pay closer attention to the CRD summary because it rates the Ernst review's mention of case reports as poor.  My post above provides the full summary - [19]

Bottomline - having multiple RS that make the same scientifically unsupported claims based on the same case reports (extraordinary ones, at that, considering they include claims of death and toxicity based only on a small number of anecdotal reports with no scientific evidence to confirm causality) are still considered unreliable for citing those specific claims. It is noncompliant with MEDRS, not to mention noncompliant with UNDUE, NPOV, V, and FRINGE. The 2014 Review, and the review of the 2003 Ernst review represent high quality sources and they also don't support the material you want included rather they contradict it. Claims of health benefits based on anecdotal evidence is not allowed when writing about health benefits or negative reactions. Refer to the articles on GMO, GMF, Atrazine, Bull Red and the like. Alex, you are well aware of MEDRS and what is and isn't compliant, and you should know the material you want in this article is noncompliant because the claims of death and toxicity are based on anecdotal case reports. I strongly advise you to drop the stick. Atsme^📞📧 17:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James; I disagree with you. Yet you've gone ahead and re-asserted your edit yet again (I have reverted). You are using a 2014 article which does not seem to appear on PUBMED yet alone in MEDLINE's index. That is a WP:REDFLAG so far as WP:MEDRS is concerned. As I said above, you are simply wrong in dismissing secondary sources because you personally disagree with their use of primary sources. We have a longstanding consensus version of the text (and lede) for this article you are seeking to overturn. You can't just blank well-sourced material because you value your personal assessment more than that of the well-published sources we use. You spout a lot of wiki-acronyms but show very little sign of understanding what they betoken. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(Add:) Oh, and you've just re-reverted again[20]. I'm backing off and will await the input of other admins/editors as the discussion route with you just seems to be going nowhere. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

:Really? If PUBMED is what you want, I'm happy to cite a 2014 review in PUBMED as well. The abstract is below and I imagine some of our GF collaborators will be adding health information published in that review as well. There are numerous others - it's only a matter of citing them.

J Med Food. 2014 Feb;17(2):179-88. doi: 10.1089/jmf.2013.0031. Epub 2013 Nov 5. Current evidence on physiological activity and expected health effects of kombucha fermented beverage. Vīna I1, Semjonovs P, Linde R, Deniņa I. Abstract Consumption of kombucha fermented tea (KT) has always been associated with different health benefits. Many personal experiences and testimonials of KT drinkers are available throughout the world on the ability of KT to protect against a vast number of metabolic and infectious diseases, but very little scientific evidence is available that validates the beneficial effects of KT. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the recent studies in search of experimental confirmation of the numerous KT health-promoting aspects cited previously. Analysis of the literature data is carried out in correspondence to the recent concepts of health protection's requirements. Attention is given to the active compounds in KT, responsible for the particular effect, and to the mechanisms of their actions. It is shown that KT can efficiently act in health prophylaxis and recovery due to four main properties: detoxification, antioxidation, energizing potencies, and promotion of depressed immunity. The recent experimental studies on the consumption of KT suggest that it is suitable for prevention against broad-spectrum metabolic and infective disorders. This makes KT attractive as a fermented functional beverage for health prophylaxis. PMID: 24192111 [PubMed - indexed for

Happy reading! Atsme^📞📧 18:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That article has long been cited by us (until YOU removed it in fact calling it "noncompliant, scientifically unsupported"). I sometimes wonder whether some editors aggressively editing are actually in control of the content they're using: the article is getting damaged as a result of such carelessness. Alexbrn (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Atsme the phrasing you're adding is problematic for several reasons: health is in scarequotes, the quote is undue because there's only one source that says that it's an important member of any group, the sentence "There have not been any human trials conducted to confirm any curative claims associated with the consumption of kombucha tea." is awkward, the phrase "small number of random anecdotal reports" is POV, and you've added the exact same text to the lead and to the health effects section.

Alexbrn, it's not unreasonable to think that a food sciences journal wouldn't be indexed in PUBMED, and not being in PUBMED doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad source, especially considering that there isn't a whole lot of research out there on this. The journal apparently has an impact factor of 3.54, which seems pretty good.

Both of you are edit-warring and both sets of sources are MEDRS-compliant for this article. The text you're both looking to add is also quite similar. I can't see why both sets of sources couldn't be used to support something like this in Health Effects:

Kombucha has been promoted as an antioxidant health drink that can treat a variety of human illnesses including AIDS, cancer, and diabetes, and that it can stimulate the immune system. Although laboratory experiments are suggestive of possible health effects, human clinical trial evidence that kombucha consumption benefits human health is lacking. The consumption of Kombucha has been associated with some adverse effects including muscle inflammation, poisoning, infection, and the death of at least one person.

And for the lead:

Kombucha is considered to be a health drink with antioxidant properties and has been promoted as treating a number of illnesses, although there have been no human clinical trials verifying kombucha's beneficial effects. Some adverse effects related to the consumption and production of kombucha have been reported in anecdotal case reports. Anecdotal reports have raised concerns over the potential for contamination during home preparation, as well as toxicity concerns due in part to the leaching of lead in ceramic containers during fermentation.

Ca2james (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

References

That seems good. That a source isn't in PUBMED does't make it bad in itself, but it makes it iffy for any kind of non-obvious health claim. In general such sources are best avoided for that purpose. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please stop the WP:DONTGETIT behavior? You can bring the whole Guerrilla Skeptic team in here to support your POV but it isn't going to change the fact that the sources being cited for the extraordinary claims of death and toxicity all reference the same case reports and are not reliable for that purpose. The case reports are anecdotal, so it doesn't matter what book they're in. The reviews are what matter. I've already provided the necessary reviews, and a review of a review, all of which are high quality RS. I am not the only one who has tried to explain the reasons we cannot include the scientifically unsupported claims of toxicity and death in this article - for the umpteenth time, they all reference the same small group of case reports, all of which do not support causality and are considered anecdotal and noncompliant per MEDRS. And please stop accusing me of edit warring. The editors who keep reverting my edits to restore noncompliant material are edit warring. I am quite confident in my understanding of MEDRS - I've had the best teachers in Doc James and MastCell. Other editors have explained the same thing here and/or at Proj Med, including Petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, Ozzie10aaaa, Special:Contributions/87.115.171.174. I already commended Grayfell for the suggestion to treat it as a beverage. Atsme^📞📧 20:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

PS - with regards to the suggestion made by Ca2james, it is not too unlike what I had written that keeps being reverted. It all boils down to whether my prose is accepted or yours. I like mine better because there is no need to mention toxic in the lead. If you can get the negatives of Red Bull added to the lead in that article, then we can do it here, too. The main difference is kombucha is a natural product. Red Bull is not. Atsme^📞📧 20:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, edit warring requires at least two editors and by repeatedly inserting your text while reverting, you are in fact edit-warring along with the other editors.

Atsme is at least at 3RR.[21][22][23] Alexbrn (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You've said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I take it that you mean that saying someone died because of ingesting kombucha is an extraordinary claim and that somehow the reference that supports that people died isn't extraordinary enough. Death due to the ingestion of a substance isn't an extraordinary circumstance at all; it would be much more remarkable if no one died after ingesting a particular something.

To comply with MEDRS means to use the best available sources - that's what the guideline boils down to. When something like kombucha isn't well-researched, we have to use the best sources out there. These sources may not appear on PUBMED; they may be older than five years; they may even be case studies. The fact that these case reports are themselves reported in review references means that those review references do adhere to MEDRS. That's the way reviews work - they review the available literature and that can include case reports.

I agree that detailed mention of the adverse effects (including death) doesnt belong in the lead, which is why my lead proposal just says adverse effects have been reported anecdotally.

Since you both appear to be fine with my proposed text I'm going to add it within the next couple of hours, after dinner. Ca2james (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not fine with your proposed text. I am fine with the text I wrote that is already in the lead. Your text does not improve what is already there. Atsme^📞📧 22:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot going on here, but Ca2james' proposal seems like an improvement in terms of readability and weight. While I agree that the article should treat kombucha as a beverage, I did not mean it should only be treated as a beverage, as sources clearly support that it's more complicated than that. The comparison with Red Bull seems flawed, and a more apt one would be energy drinks as a category. I'm not sure what being natural has to do with anything. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Greyfell. Atsme, are you fine with the text I'm proposing for the health effects section? If you're fine with that, then I'll add it. As for the lead, I've already pointed out the problems with your proposed wording, as has Doc James, and so we need to figure out a different wording that will work for us all. What, specifically, do you object to in my proposed wording? Ca2james (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) (ping Grayfell - apologies for the typo - Ca2james (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC))

No, I am not fine with it. The same way you believe my wording is wrong, I believe your wording is wrong. The difference being, my words are backed up by science and what you want to include is anecdotal and not supported by science. The review issue has not yet been resolved and until that is done, unsupported claims will be removed from the article. There is no deadline so please stop trying to rush things. It is not helpful. Atsme^📞📧 01:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that you weren't fine with the health effects section because you only mentioned the lead. I'm not trying to rush anything; I was trying to negotiate a compromise so that the edit-warring would stop. I specifically pointed out the issues I had with your wording, and I'd appreciate it if you'd do me the same courtesy instead of making general comments. I thought the review issue had been resolved although I'm grateful for the additional references that have been provided in the next section. Ca2james (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page size

I changed the archive time to be seven days from the original 90 because this talk page is 200K, which is huge. I edit primarily on my mobile and it's crashing when I edit sections and enter edit summaries. I'd appreciate it if some of the earliest sections could be archived now so that I can edit the page. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims

I support this version [24] for the following reasons:

Food group

What is with "Kombucha tea is considered a health drink and "an important member of the antioxidant food group."

There is no such thing as an "antioxidant food group". Nothing comes up on pubmed for the quoted phrase [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a quote cited to the review. Why does it have to show up in PUBMED if its quoted from a RS Journal review? Atsme^📞📧 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Because, as Alexbrn has pointed out, MEDRS sources are typically indexed on PUBMED. This reference you're using is an exception. Aside from the fact that the quote isn't actually referenced, the quote is UNDUE for the lead as there's only this one RS that says that it's "an important member of the antioxidant food group". If this were a characterization expressed in many RS, then it would be part of the lead. As it is, this needs to stay out. Ca2james (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Being in a review is not enough. There are many poor quality reviews out there. The review generally also needs to be pubmed indexed. The journal needs to have a impact factor more than zero and for extra ordinary statements such as one introducing a new "food group" many high quality sources would be needed.

This is also not something we would put in Wikipedia's voice. Major statements should be supportable by dozens if not hundreds of independent high quality sources. I found zero / O sources discussing this new food group in pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What you're asking us to do is OR, Doc. It's a violation of policy. You are also contradicting MEDRS, so if we are not supposed to trust reviews, MEDRS needs to be rewritten. What you are saying in essence is to perform OR, review all the research and determine which ones are the high quality articles, and formulate our own review. Uhm, that is highly unlikely. You need to rethink your statement. Atsme^📞📧 13:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". Contributors are expected to assess the reliability of sources, rather than blindly following guidelines. Though WP:MEDRS specifically mentions indexing as being an indicator of quality anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a new section because your OR comment has no relevance to anything I said and neither does the remainder of your comment. I addressed Doc James. Atsme^📞📧 14:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is open to all contributors - and when you accuse contributors of "violating policy", based on a misunderstanding of guideline you cite, I shall comment on the fact if I so choose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear - you are making unsupported allegations against me. I did not accuse contributors of "violating policy". I said OR is a violation of policy which is not an accusation, it is a factual statement. If I was accusing contributors, I would have said "you", "he" or "she" is violating policy. Perhaps you think I don't understand policy because you don't. You can comment away as long as you are not casting aspersions against me as you just did, but you can also try to be polite by not making rude comments, and allow other editors a chance to speak for themselves. I am not the least bit interested in any comments that demonstrate ill-will toward me, and so far that's all I've been seeing from you. Atsme^📞📧 16:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You said What you're asking us to do is OR, Doc. It's a violation of policy which does accuse contributors of being asked to violate policy. Editors have to find the best, most high-quality sources to support statements. MEDRS codifies how to do that - and it's easy to follow when a subject has been well-researched. Kombucha has received very little research so the best-quality sources all fall short of MEDRS for one reason or another. This doesn't mean that we can't use those sources, however. Ca2james (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I know what I stated - it's there for all to see. It appears a couple of editors have encountered some difficulty grasping the context of what I wrote. It brings [[WP:CIR] to mind, but even more relevant is the fact that my statement was not directed to anyone but Doc James. In the future I will use private email to avoid the disruption. To reiterate - What you're asking us to do is OR, Doc. I further clarified OR, "It's a violation of policy." I wasn't accusing Doc James of violating policy but if you misconstrued it as such, I'm not the one with a problem. I did not accuse anyone of violating OR which is what has been alleged. The allegation that I, "accuse contributors of being asked to violate policy" is really a head scratcher. Wow. Accuse editors of being asked? Mull that around in your heads for a while. Perhaps we've found the root of the problem for the unwarranted reverts. Atsme^📞📧 19:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Busterism

This is spammy wording "recent scientific research indicates the presence of active compounds in kombucha tea that are "responsible for a particular effect and to the mechanisms of their actions" which further indicate that kombucha tea "can efficiently act in health prophylaxis and recovery due to four main properties: detoxification, antioxidation, energizing potencies, and promotion of depressed immunity."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A couple of low / very low quality reviews does not support "detoxification" / "energizing potencies" / "promotion of depressed immunity". This are pseudoscientific terms with no real meaning in the context give. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The prose can probably be polished, but it includes quotes from a recent review that did come up in PUBMED so if you are calling one low quality because it didn't show up in PUBMED, and another low quality because it did, then that's pretty wishy-washy. Your reasons for agreeing with the reverts lack teeth, Doc. I realize you are an avid supporter of science based medicine, but we're talking about a natural product that has been around for ages. How did you determine the quality of the two reviews, and where in MEDRS does it say we can do that? Is it based on your POV, expertise, what? Where is the quality gage so I can use it in the future? You might also look at the credentials of the authors involved and if you haven't already, take a look at the papers/research that was reviewed and where it originated. I am not convinced by your argument that your conclusion represents a totally unbiased, objective analysis of two reviews. Please provide some supporting documentation, links, diffs, whatever. Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 00:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure 1) should be pubmed indexed (if it is not that is a worrisome sign) 2) should be in a high impact journal (think IF of greater than 10, or 5 at least) An IF of 1 or 2 is low. IF is 1.7 [26] Doc James (talk

What one can pull out of the paper [27] is "very little scientific evidence is available that validates the beneficial effects of KT" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, and you consider those reviews unacceptable to source any of the benefits the science indicates per their conclusion, then the anecdotal claims that are unsupported by science including claims of toxicity and death absolutely positively do not belong in this article at all. Atsme^📞📧 00:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How is someone dying an 'anecdote'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Reports of death lead back to a case in 1975, where a mother and daughter became ill, and had been drinking Kombucha for a few months daily. However, so had 130 other people in the town. At the time it was considered to be linked to the Kombucha, but after viewing the evidence the FDA could not conclude that the illnesses (and one death) were caused by the drink, and simply issued a warning. There has never been a conclusive link to any death. Originally this article linked to a blurb on the American Cancer Society website that cited this 1975 case and claimed Kombucha was linked to a death, but that webpage has been removed and the ACS does not make any mention of Kombucha now. (There remain other sources that link to this same case which should also be removed, but this is how it is with science - a good portion of study results end up being redacted, but there are many papers referring to those studies that don't update accordingly.)

The Mayo Clinic is on par with the ACS, and their blurb on Kombucha does not mention any link with death. Editors at this page have not seemed interested in quoting from the Mayo Clinic link as with the ACS. Sourcing was never the issue, the goal is to claim Kombucha is deadly. This is the main problem here. petrarchan47คุก 01:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that it is 'deadly'. We are however citing reliable sources which state that it has been linked with deaths. Demanding 'conclusive evidence' regarding the possible toxicity of something people concoct themselves under uncontrolled conditions is probably beyond the skills of contemporary science - but that is no reason not to cite the sources. And no, we can't cite the Mayo Clinic for not saying something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan, are you sure you have the details right? I think you're referring to an incident from 1995, not 1975, in which the two patients were not mother and daughter (and were not reported to be relatives). The case study was published [28]. It has not been retracted, and it noted that no causal link had been established. --Amble (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that will be the last time I try to depend on my memory. petrarchan47คุก 01:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, I just wasn't sure whether there was a separate incident that I had missed. --Amble (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nitpick? I completely mangled the story ;) No, there was just this one incident in '95 as far as I know. petrarchan47คุก 06:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a frustrating item, since there's no evidence that the acidosis had anything to do with kombucha. But since it's brought up in reasonably reliable sources with language like "linked to" or "possibly linked to", I don't see how we can get away from some mention. --Amble (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree - it's mentioned in the vast majority of sources, but shouldn't be in the Lede, and really should have a bit more explanation. When I first saw this article, the Lede had 4 sentences. The last one read: "Drinking kombucha has been linked, in rare cases, to serious side effects and deaths, and improper preparation can lead to contamination."

There is still no mention of the history of the subject, all attention seems directed toward medical aspects, which is strange. But the Lede reads much better now: "A small number of adverse effects related to drinking kombucha have been reported, and reports have raised concern over the potential for contamination during home preparation." petrarchan47คุก 00:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The question is what is the review acceptable for. If a review in an obscure journal claimed that medication can make you fly (which some do claim) that is not enough evidence to add it to Wikipedia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the review states little evidence exists that is not hard to believe and thus does not need excellent evidence.

If you state that substance X "detoxifies" that is an extra ordinary claim. First question is what does it detoxify? Are we speaking about lead, mercury, iron? There is evidence that antioxidants cause harm (think vit E in smokers and lung cancer) so are we stating that this stuff causes lung cancer. Does this "promotion of depressed immunity" mean it makes autoimmune diseases worse? Does this "energizing potencies" mean it causes mania? Sounds like dangerous stuff. This paper is speaking in pseudoscience speak. The Mayo site is better [29] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Another review

As this is a poorly research area using slightly older reviews is reasonable. For example we have "On the basis of these data it was concluded that the largely undetermined benefits do not outweigh the documented risks of kombucha. It can therefore not be recommended for therapeutic use." [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Another is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10914673 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Doc, surely you can't be serious, can you?  Your talking about reviews that are 12 to 15 years old - researchers weren't even conducting the same experiments back then because they sure as heck didn't have the technology they have today. Your arguments are not substantive and if I can see that as a layperson, I doubt it will hold up under the scrutiny of the community, much less our more advanced readers. Jiminy Cricket.  Atsme^📞📧 01:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you really want to draw the attention of the community to your pro-Kombucha/anti-science advocacy, feel free to do so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I strongly advise you to stop the PAs. Making unwarranted claims that I am anti-science anything is harassment and could very well get you blocked if it keeps up. Atsme^📞📧 01:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to bring alleged PAs up too: you can start with this "Guerrilla Skeptic team" post. [31] Oh, hang on a minute, that's one of yours, isn't it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Because Kombucha isn't well-researched, the best available sources might in fact be a review that's 15-20 years old. When we're talking about benefits and effects, technology isn't a factor. If we were talking about something that depends on new technology, it would make sense to favour newer reviews if they're available. In this case, the older reviews are still valid because the technology upon which they were based hasn't been superseded by other technology. Please note that these arguments are definitely substantive. Ca2james (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WRT "Doc, surely you can't be serious, can you?" Yes I am. This is an exceedingly poorly researched area. This is not the article on diabetes or cancer. A 15 year old review is fine. Especially because no large RCTs have been done. In fact no RCT of any size has been done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, sir, I disagree and for good reason. I took the time to dig into the sources you suggested above.  I also went back and re-read your responses thinking maybe I missed something the first time around.  Following is what I've surmised from your suggestions and recommended sources:

• The Journal for Food Protection, re: the 15 yr. old review you recommended has an IF of 1.7 which you claim is low quality.
• The Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd, re: the 13 yr. old Ernst review you recommended has an IF of 1.6  - I also included the DARE Abstract (previoiusly included it above on this TP) which includes the CRD Summary of the Ernst review and can be seen in its entirety here: [32]

The journals I cited are:

• The Journal of Medicinal Food, re: the 2014 review I cited has an IF of 1.699.  Its editorial review board is here: [33] It is a much better source than either of the two you recommended.
• The Journal of Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, re: the 2014 review I cited has an IF of 3.54.  Its editorial board can be reviewed here [34] It is the highest quality review based on its IF.

The comparisons between your suggested sources and the sources I cited to support the material included in the article indicate the sources I used are higher quality for more reasons than just the IF (which is a controversial means of measuring the quality of journals anyway). The age of the reviews I chose reflects updated research methods that weren't even available or thought of in the reviews you consider acceptable. The journal review board credentials are better by far as well. I am somewhat disappointed in the position you've taken regarding this article. I also found your mention of pseudoscience a bit disturbing because it makes it appear that you are biased toward natural products despite the reviews that are compliant with MEDRS. If that is the case, please explain how you can possibly be a neutral collaborator. Atsme^📞📧 05:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes all the reviews are of low quality. I have not claimed that any are of high quality. So the question than becomes how should we summarize these low quality sources?

The 2014 review states in it's conclusions "There is still a dispute over the beneficial effects of kombucha drink. There has been no evidence published to date on the biological activities of kombucha in human trials. All the biological activities have been investigated using animal experimental models. Toxicity reports on kombucha drink are very rare and scattered." "Although kombucha tea cannot be granted official health claims at this time, it can be recognized as an important part of a sound diet." [35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

With respect to pseudoscience I do not see any acceptance of this "antioxidant food group" by medicine or public health [36]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, it appears to me that you're making judgement calls based on ??? (your expertise?) because for some reason, you don't like the conclusions stated in the two 2014 Reviews I cited. They represent more recent research than the 12 to 15 year old reviews you cited. I find it rather odd. The toxicity reports are anecdotal case reports - and what does MEDRS say about case reports? You're disputing the Reviews - so it's one medical professional vs an entire team of credentialed medical professionals who conducted the review, so please explain to me how the average editor is going to get away with that same practice. I'd really like to know because I seem to be having trouble getting the article updated per MEDRS. It is regressing instead of progressing as a result of the new research. Can you please explain what you just did? Atsme^📞📧 07:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Where are the new human RCTs? Please provide links to them here. One needs human RCTs to state health benefits. Thus why the papers use vague non medical language.

Anyway you need consensus. And there is no consensus to add "Kombucha tea is considered a health drink and "an important member of the antioxidant food group." or "can efficiently act in health prophylaxis and recovery due to four main properties: detoxification, antioxidation, energizing potencies, and promotion of depressed immunity."

We are allowed to use common sense when editing Wikipedia. Rules are applied using human judgement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Then please, use common sense which applies to all of us. You are asking editors to conduct OR by challenging summaries and conclusions in peer reviewed, scientific journal reviews with editorial boards comprising several qualified researchers and medical experts, and for what reason? To simply report the information from those summaries and conclusions per MEDRS and RS? My edits include inline text attribution and quotes with statements that properly identify the sources, and they are not claims made in Wiki voice. Show me in the GMF article where RCTs verify that the consumption of genetically modified food is harmless. Show me the RCTs that verify Red Bull is a harmless "energy" drink. I did not conduct OR, make-up any specific claims and did not state any review claims in Wiki voice rather I clearly identified the research, used "referred to as" for the ubiquitous terms, and properly included relevant statements per the conclusions and summaries of those reviews. I followed WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDRS yet my edits were reverted and challenged based on arguments that are not substantive - such as "not an improvement". The 13 yr old Ernst review you and other medical editors are supporting for inclusion in this article is outdated, and there's no need to read any further than the CRD summary of that review which confirms that it doesn't meet the lowest standards for inclusion per MEDRS regarding the anecdotal case reports. Furthermore, you referred to consensus but it appears you may have overlooked the fact that consensus does not trump policies. I am thoroughly confused over your stance regarding this beverage, Doc James. Atsme^📞📧 13:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Lede - removal of death claims, addition of Mayo Clinic source

The second paragraph of the Lede now reads:

Kombucha tea is considered a health drink with antioxidant properties, however no human trials have been conducted to confirm any curative claims.[1] A small number of random anecdotal reports have raised concern over the potential for contamination during home preparation, as well as toxicity concerns due in part to the leaching of lead in ceramic containers during fermentation.

Sourced to the Mayo Clinic:

Proponents claim kombucha tea can stimulate the immune system, prevent cancer, and improve digestion and liver function. However, there's no scientific evidence to support these health claims.

There have, however, been reports of adverse effects, such as stomach upset, infections and allergic reactions in kombucha tea drinkers. Kombucha tea is often brewed in homes under nonsterile conditions, making contamination likely. If ceramic pots are used for brewing, lead poisoning might be a concern — the acids in the tea may leach lead from the ceramic glaze.

As has been argued on this page previously, the best idea is to find a good, solid MEDRS source and stick closely to it. petrarchan47คุก 02:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that the lede violates WP:NPOV. I shall accordingly revert it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The death claims do not appear to be significant enough to the subject to be in the lede. Many products including peanut butter, salami, hamburgers, all have issues with potential contamination during preparation and have a history of contamination-associated deaths. These articles do not carry a similar statement in the lede. Commercial sales currently exceed 25 million bottles a year and no deaths have been linked to the commercial product. Dialectric (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

'Claims'? If a reliable medical source links kombucha with deaths, we take their word for it - we don't describe them as 'claims'. As for the safety of commercial products, please provide a source making such a statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The lede no longer includes the fact that deaths have been reported. I agree with Andy that describing the deaths as "claims" when they've been reported in RS is a POV characterization and wouldn't be acceptable anywhere in the article, let alone the lede. Ca2james (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

History section

Doesn't the history section usually appear first? See Green tea for instance. I'm going to move it and expand it a little bit. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to ask that Etymology be put first but then I saw it was a subsection of history. I'm fine with the change. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ca2. MOS states that there is no firm guideline for the ordering of sections except to refer to similar articles (not that you asked). petrarchan47คุก 03:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the history from this review. The text from which I quoted is as follows:

Another beverage known as Kombucha, is produced by the fermentation of tea and sugar by a symbiotic association of bacteria and yeasts forming a "tea fun-gus". It also originated in China where the "Divine Che" was prized 220 BC during the Tsin Dynasty for its detoxifying and energizing properties (Roche, 1998). In 414, Doctor Kombu brought the tea fungus to Japan from Korea to cure the digestive troubles of the Emperor. "Tea Kvass" was introduced into Russia by oriental merchants and then into Eastern Europe and Europe around the turn of this century.

Tweak my wording if needed, or add what I've missed. If my reprinting the above is in violation of something, I give you my deepest apologies. (But no more templates to my talk page, please.) petrarchan47คุก 07:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source that could be used to further expand the history and etymology coverage. I can get to this soon if no one else does. petrarchan47คุก 08:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)