So let’s examine these in more details. Comments inline and at the end:
> On Apr 13, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Juanse Barros <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Potential Uses
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3872021/ <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3872021/>
It’s a review of propolis properties for topical applications and various medical claims. It’s not a trial or study.
> Double Blind ...
>
> https://bmcnephrol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12882-019-1337-7 <https://bmcnephrol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12882-019-1337-7>
Promising for chronic kidney disease, but very small sample - 32 patients divided into placebo and treatment groups, 3 people lost during the study. Extract was in a form of a 500mg tablet. No mention how the extract was prepared, but alcohol is not listed.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43838-8 <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43838-8>
Promising study on impact of propolis on diabetes, but my spider sense is alerted when I read a study that excludes the following candidates:
The patients treated with insulin; severe renal dysfunction [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2]; severe hepatic dysfunction (aspartate aminotransferase (AST) > 100 U/I) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) > 100 U/I); serious cardiovascular and hematological disease; diabetes diagnosed history >10 years; patients with any type of allergies, and women who are pregnant or lactating were excluded from the study.
So diabetics already being treated with insulin were excluded leaving a pool of Type 2 diabetics whose symptoms can be treated in variety of other ways. They were also using 500mg capsules. No mention how the extract was prepared, but alcohol was not mentioned.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27510017 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27510017>
Well, duh. Topical application for oral mucositis in cancer patients. Makes perfect sense. No alcohol extract.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24971228 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24971228>
Same as above - topical application for gingivitis. No alcohol extract.
> https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2017.195.1_MeetingAbstracts.A2675 <https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2017.195.1_MeetingAbstracts.A2675>
Another topical application for excessive sputum production. No alcohol extract.
So, what can we concluded from the above?
- These are all studies plus a review article, not FDA approved drug trial results.
- 3 out of 5 studies are for topical applications of propolis, which no one disputes has antimicrobial properties.
- 2 of the 5 studies used extracts in capsules without mentioning how it was obtained, but they were dry and no alcohol was mentioned. I wonder if the capsules were not only a means of capturing & molding the propolis, but also ensuring that it survives the trip through a human stomach.
- One of the studies implies benefits for diabetics - given the epidemic of diabetes in the US, it’s hard to believe that a Big Pharma company would not have seized on this result already. But, given the small sample and the exclusion of patients already treated with insulin, plus a small relative benefit claimed, this one raises as many questions as it answers.
- None of the 5 studies listed were using alcohol extracts, at least there’s no explicit mention anywhere in the methods.
I stand by my statement - people might like the taste of a propolis tincture, but it’s a long way from a cordial to a medical benefit, much less a medicine.
Przemek
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|