Talk:Oil pulling

Added content for scientific basis

added by maree on Apr-2007 Since there was a lot of discussion on the web related to oil pulling, I have added some basic content on what could be the basis behind oil-pulling. This is only a speculative hypothesis and more references to studies and research in this field are requested.

Here's a published study from 2015 that seems to verify some benefits: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382606/ and it provides a few possible mechanisms in which oil pulling could function. The discussion in this study also cites other studies that were done which confirm some benefit. I personally do not have enough knowledge or experience to analyze this study, but it appears to be of high quality. Mtobey, 4:20 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that swishing with various liquids could have an effect, but a preliminary report clearly fails WP:MEDRS.--tronvillain (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

there is a serious amount of research on oil pulling, I cannot understand how it can be called pseudoscience. Here is a review : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18408265/--Popok75 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Emphasis

Oil pulling is, let's face it, even considered fringe by alternative quacks. The article's emphasis doesn't reflect mainstream respectable medical knowledge and for Wikipedia, that should not be the case. Wayne Hardman 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is a total joke. Probably made by oilpulling.com .Lechasseur 09:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol....mainstream respectable medical knowledge is a contradiction in terms when it comes to their attention to ancient remedies. In case you havent noticed, the past 30 years there has been such a corruption of medical research by the pharmaceutical companies that it is hard to find any medical researcher who doesn't have some conflict of interest involving the pharmaceuticals s/he is researching. Don't take my word for it, even the most prestigious medical journals have found it necessary to implement a number of measures to capture the considerable number of paid-per-research papers by a lot of big-name researchers in the field. There's one leading child psychiatrist who has been pushing off-label anti-psychotica prescriptions for well over a decade now to children, despite NO single paper showing ANY effect on children, and clear indications in the medical literature of both non-efficacy and dangerous side effects of these drugs on children. Corruption is so endemic in the drugs research branch of medical science that it has reached the point where one can seriously doubt the validity of ANY research on new pharmaceutical substances.

The simple reason for almost no research available on this type of medical procedure is simple and two-fold: A) it is an ancient folk remedy and therefore always viewed with unscientific dogmatism by most medical researchers; they have been taught to do so right from the start of med-school (again, don't take my word for it, just bloody well ask them).

And B) simple remedies are usually dirt-cheap and not patentable, so you cant make 5 billion bucks a year pushing it. Claiming some quack is pushing a 0.05 cents a day remedy you can get at any supermarket in the world, because that quack wants to make money, is beyond insane, crazy, lunacy, and reeks foul of sheer uninformed debunkery to me.

I just checked that oilpulling.com you mentioned....it actually advises AGAINST paying anything on this method because it is such a simple method you will not learn anything more by buying books on it. So you make claims about a website you clearly havent even bothered to visit. Nice. (Conflict of interest notice: I have no financial interest, nor am I in any way paid by anyone to push vegetable oils; oil pulling has cured me of a 20-year long acne infection though that resisted both minocin and roaccutane)Crusty007 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No it hasn't. 86.164.23.31 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I Agree

None of the references to this article presented an opposing view and I find that troubling. Until at least one peer-reviewed journal published a study on oil pulling, a more skeptical review of the practice would be preferable. ALifeMoreHerbal 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I suggest for starters, expunging unreliable sources such as online forums. Sorry to say, much as I agree with it, as a personal site this one isn't up to Wikipedia reliabiity standards either. Another issue is synthesis: cherry-picking information that agrees, but are not actually about oil pulling (notably the two PubMed refs). Gordonofcartoon 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the "How it works" section be rewritten to clarify that the benefits are unsubstantiated. The rest of the article generally describes the practice in a neutral tone. The "How it works" section currently presents the suggested (and unverified) benefits in a factual tone. It is not clear what "life science" is being referred to in the first sub-section--perhaps link to some "tongue science" article (else, I suggest using a less loaded term than "life science")? The reference used in the second sub-section (http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james56.htm) does not seem related to oil pulling except in the most vague sense--a credible article about oil pulling and the benefits of sublingual absorption of healthful substances from the oil seems to be necessary (of course, no such article exists). 69.134.79.254 04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I wanted to make essentially the same point. Calling it 'how it works' implies that it does work, and by implication that there is some credibility to the notion that purging toxins from the entire body through the tongue is a plausible concept. 121.45.43.224 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Found a ref for possible effect against bacteria in the mouth, that inserted. Perhaps intense rinsing with ater would have the same effect. Moved paragraph on studies unrelated to oil pulling to a separate section. --Mokgand (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Regarding the specific claim "It is also used to reduce enamel wear from stomach acid in hangovers and bulimics", is a highly suspicious claim and unsourced.

FlowRate (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

As ALifeMoreHerbal talked about above, about 2 years ago, this article appears to be a one sided view and no scientific basis for any of the claims.

FlowRate (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So why not find and add another point of view on it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempted Fixing

I have updated the introduction to make special note of this topic's pseudoscientific nature and also removed the scientific list (2 items) that were in the first section. This list contained references that referenced the unreliable oilpulling.com and this article.

FlowRate (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you think that's an improvement. You removed the one references to a scientific journal that touches on the topic, and added an unsourced assertion that the topic is "pseudoscientific". The idea of NPOV is to represent all viewpoints, not just one. Plus, way too many tags; better to tag a section for sourcing than add many repeated citation needed tags; I added one at article level, but you can move it to specific sections if you think that will be more helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to put the NPOV tag back, be sure to explain here what point of view you believe is over- or under-represented, with sources that support your position. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Caraka Samhita source

Anyone know where in Caraka it's mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyuen (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical claims -> WP:MED

References need to be up to WP:MED standards. Jmh649 pulled the longest uncited claims, but basically every claim needs support - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source for claim about dental plaque

“ Although it has been found to reduce dental plaque, ”

Yes this is a secondary source from a MEDLINE-listed journal, but when reading the whole paper, it does not present a balanced view of the topic. Here are some quotes:

• "In ancient India, problems such as deformities of the oral cavity, plaques and infections could be managed and even cured."
• "In Ayurveda, dental health (danta swasthya in Sanskrit) is held to be very individualistic, varying with each person's constitution (prakriti), and climatic changes resulting from solar, lunar and planetary influences (kala-parinama)."
• "Oil pulling is a powerful detoxifying Ayurvedic technique that has recently become very popular as a CAM remedy for many different health ailments. Using this method, surgery or medication could be prevented for a number of chronic illnesses. The oil therapy is preventative as well as curative. The exciting aspect of this healing method is its simplicity. Ayurveda advises oil gargling to purify the entire system; as it holds that each section of the tongue is connected to different organ such as to the kidneys, lungs, liver, heart, small intestines, stomach, colon, and spine, similarly to reflexology and TCM."
• "Countries with a history of traditional medicine should support and integrate traditional medicine into national health systems in combination with national policy."

This is not a reliable source imo. The whole journal is pushing a non-mainstream POV. This source is used to support the statement above that oil pulling reduces dental plaque. This is in fact cited to a 20 person study [1]. There is not enough reliable evidence to say there is plaque-reducing action of this practice. If it was a less-biased review paper, they would have said this.

Potentially more reliable sources (I have no access): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00784-012-0835-9 Lesion (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that single study as "a single study of 20 subjects" - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left in that secondary source as an example of the claims concerning oil pulling; I've referenced the original study directly as relevant - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Original study shouldn't be included as it is a primary source. Lesion (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, we should be using secondary sources, not cobbling together primary ones. BTW, it's not MEDLINE indexed; it is PubMed indexed through PubMed Central, but not MEDLINE (another reason it shouldn't be included). Yobol (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, yes you are correct, it says not currently MEDLINE indexed [2]. See also [3]. Lesion (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge to mouth wash or gargling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article seems to be about a sesame oil mouthwash or gargle. Other oil mouthwashes should also be discussed on the main article, e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006701.pub2/full Lesion (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's about a more specific phenomenon referred to by the name "oil pulling" that has received mainstream media coverage of late, so is probably noteworthy enough for its own article - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Might have a different name but it is essentially either a mouthwash or a gargle. We would be left with the strange situation where oil mouthwashes (commercially exist outside of this term) would be dealt with on mouth wash, and other oil mouthwashing would be here. It's all the same thing imo... Lesion (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Are the particular oil-based mouthwashes you're thinking of part of the phenomenon referred to as "oil-pulling" per se, though? - David Gerard (talk)

That is my point. Why would we have a situation where some oil mouthwashes are discussed here, and others elsewhere. Lesion (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The procedure is basically doing an oil mouthwash, but it might be noteworthy enough for a separate article due to all the health claims surrounding the practice. This is certainly different from other mouthwashes. I've never heard anyone claim that using listerine helps treat acne or diabetes. That said, I would not oppose a merge. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Oil pulling" is an alternative medicine practice, a social phenomenon with a string of unverified claims attached. It's not so much about mouthwash as about a social phenomenon. You would no more merge ear candling to candle, or homeopathy to water - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not distinguishable from any of the other mouthwash practices that have been proposed over time, each of which often has a mixture of accompanying lay health beliefs, pseudoscientific claims and genuine health benefits. Lesion (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The unifying element of mouth washes is the practice itself, not their efficacy, regardless of whether it is a matter genuine antiseptic function or fictional detoxification. I support the merger, on the grounds that there's really not enough content here (or indeed, to say on the subject), aside from to list the handful better-known of the pie-in-the-sky claims and note that there is no scientific validation for them. That's not really enough to justify the article when there's a reasonably functional spot for them in another article about a class of practices that the subject easily belongs to. But if the merger does proceed, let's re-write it from the ground-up; the wording is not in good shape as it stands, especially in the "Technique" section, which fails to note that the detoxifying actions suggested are unsubstantiated claims that in no way make any sense in the context of actual physiological processes. Snow (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently restructured the mouthwash article to follow the general format "Type of mouthwash ingredient" as headings, with each section populated by some info about why that particular ingredient is used, and what scientific info there is with regards health effects. I merged some content from this page to that parent article (see Mouthwash#Essential oils) because I felt regardless of whether this page is kept or not, we should mention this aspect there. Agree this content needs better sources... had a look on google books and all I got was a load of alt med industry type books. There are few studies about this, and they are primary so we can't really use them. One review paper has been removed because it was biased. Lesion (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We can always use primary sources to support straightforward claims, so long as there is no editor interpretation or analysis involved and I don't see how that would be necessary as any such study is likely to have very straightforward findings. Snow (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect David, those are absolutely false analogies. You're first comparing an article with a topic that is a process to one whose topic is an object and then comparing an article that describes a broad collection of perspectives with one which discusses a physical element. Lesion is talking about two processes that are functionally nearly identical, at least as regards the mechanical action and the motivational intent. An actual analogy would be whether he would place coffee enema and medically-useful enemas in the same article? In that case, both approaches are true with regard to the approach taken by the editors of those topics; the coffee enema is mentioned in the enema article but has its own as well. But then, it has too much of a history and degree of notoriety to be completely merged into an article that is heavy with actual medical practices. Neither factor is relevant here and I think the merge in this case is well-advised. Snow (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I support a merge, or deletion of the article. --BenBurch (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead wording

Should we say that oil pulling has "failed scientific verification" or that claims of benefit remain unverified (or something to that effect) since this practice has received very little study at all. My question is not about whether it works or not, but simply how we are phrasing our statements about a lack of evidence to support claimed benefits. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Would need a source to state that... Lesion (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources that may meet WP:PARITY requirements for reliability at this point:

• science based medicine
• respectful insolence
• Skeptoid Yobol (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Those blogs are not reliable sources. I would say that the lack of reliable sources to support the efficacy, or lack thereof, of this thing means that it is not notable for a stand alone article. I would discuss it in a purely cultural context on the mouthwash article, or indeed the gargling article, (those 2 should also be merged imo). Lesion (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree that these are not ideal sources, however, if we are to have an article, at least the SBM source should be adequate per WP:PARITY. I have no objection to a merge, but I suspect that the recent spike in news sources may make its own separate article inevitable. AFD? Yobol (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

SBM is the best of those 3 pasted above, but it is still just a blog. It seems a bit one-sided to take out the review paper above on the one hand and on the other say these blogs are fine? Agree this is an apparently notable topic, but this does not mean that the best way to deal with it is a stand alone article. There has been one failed AfD already... Lesion (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just knocked the mouthwash article around for a while and now I am more convinced than before that this oil pulling business should be there too in a subsection. There is already some content on oil pulling there for one thing. Lesion (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

See Mouthwash#Oils_and_other_ingredients for what I mean. I guess should wait for some consensus on this. Lesion (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed a merge: Talk:Mouthwash#Proposed_merge_with_Oil_pulling. Lesion (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel like we may have gotten a bit off track from my original question. Th is not to say that the merging issie is not important, it is, but I still would like to see a bit of discussion about the failed verification vs. not studied/unverified distinction. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Recently (23 Nov 2018) Roxy_the_dog added to the first paragraph the following text: "The claims made for the benefits of oil pulling are implausible". The subject of this statement is not defined (what "claims" are being referenced?) and the statement of "implausibility" is without citation/reference. I plan on removing this beginning portion of that sentence unless anyone objects. Mtobey (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What happened on 23 November 2018 was simple a revert. That sentence was moved to it's current position on 26 March, but it was in the lede before that. The various claimed benefits of oil pulling are featured in the body... and the very next sentence of the lede. --tronvillain (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I object. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mtobey: You are absolutely correct and that is because this article is an ideological and emotional WP:BATTLEGROUND. The prose you mentioned is agenda-driven POV and is not a matter of debate as to its unencyclopedic and inadmissible nature. Our job is to describe the WP:CONTROVERSY, not to pick the dominant side and ridicule the other. The quackery wikilink was a cheap shot of using another irrelevant article as a weapon against this one by people who will not WP:DROPTHESTICK so administrative sanctions may be in order. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 06:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

While oil pulling is clearly nonsense for anything beyond the mechanical removal of material that would be removed by swishing with just about anything, I don't think it's accurately described as quackery - that's just not what the word means. --tronvillain (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It's quackery. Using 'alternative medicine' to describe it is using two words when one - quackery - is precise. The alternative medicine article has this succinct statement: "Due to its many names the field has been criticized for intense rebranding of what are essentially the same practices: as soon as one name is declared synonymous with quackery, a new name is chosen." We should place our minds in the view of the non-medical WP user coming to this article, and state oil pulling pointedly for the quackery that it is. For those disputing quackery, there is no credible, high-quality clinical research to support any aspect of oil pulling, meaning it fails WP:V. We should be unambiguous about calling it quackery. --Zefr (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Except that it's not precise, given the definition of "quackery." The second sentence unambiguously establishes that it doesn't do anything. I guess we'll see if anyone else agrees with you. --tronvillain (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Right. *We* dont call anything anything, especially not unenyclopedic slang. The preponderance of WP:RS can say things if it serves to neutrally describe the controversy and not as another stick for another agenda. And we will make it explicitly clear that it is the quoted view of the named mainstream scientific consensus, not us. Which is exactly what has already been done here, so people can WP:DROPTHESTICK and find something else non-block-worthy to do. — Smuckola(talk) 20:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed_merge_with_DeToxification

• Propose. Oil Pulling comes under lifestyle/cultural trends/fads unlike Mouth wash - which is a pure Oral hygiene activity - I suggest, that if at all it is decided to delete this topic, then it should be merged under Detoxification (Alternative Medicine)

J mareeswaran (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Detoxification would be a valid merge, but disagree that mouthwash is a pure oral hygiene activity. Any liquid held or washed around the mouth can be called mouthwash. It does not have to be for oral hygiene. Some mouthwashes are painkilling, others anti-inflammatory, etc etc. There are also many studies which suggest that essential oil mouthwashes have an antibacterial, and therefore anti-plaque effect [4]. Although oil pulling is described in terms of "toxins", the only real scientific evidence so far is that essential oils might have some antibacterial activity and therefore the only reason to use them would be for oral hygiene, although it seems that manufactured mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine are more effective. Support some content about oil pulling on detoxification (alternative medicine), but essential oil mouthwashes should also be discussed on mouthwash imo. Lesion 12:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lesion, I now see that, the point you have raised on essential oil mouthwash having anti-bacterial properties is a valid one which supports oil pulling to be included under mouthwash. However, I still think there needs to be an entry under Detoxification, because Oil pulling as understood in modern practice is a daily preventive activity, whereas an anti-bacterial mouthwash is a seasonal/topical curative activity and not daily preventive activity.J mareeswaran (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative and complimentary medicine lies

The claim that the oil goes white is a proof that "toxins" are being pulled out of the body is bullshit. The oil emulsifies in the saliva, which is almost totally composed of water, and appears white. The same can be seen in a glass if u shake oil and water together, no "toxins" involved. 92.41.90.87 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is fair in dealing with scientific issues regarding Oil Pulling. Nowhere, in the article, is it claimed that toxins are pulled out. Ama refers to indigested (and potentially toxic) food still present in mouth/saliva. It is not removed from the blood/body/cells etc, but only via the saliva which is generated due to gargling with oil.J mareeswaran (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is called oil pulling because of a claim that toxins are pulled out of the body. 92.40.90.216 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right in that Technically it should be known as Oil Swishing. But practically everybody googles only for "Oil Pulling". If you want, you can rename this article as "Oil Swishing" and redirect "Oil Pulling" to this article. Personally I would keep things the same way.J mareeswaran (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted link

I would like to add a link to http://www.checkdentdotcom/dental-blog/profiteering-from-alternative-dentistry.html?lang=en. But I am not allowed, as it seems the site is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Can somebody explain why this site is not allowed to be referenced by Wikipedia? J mareeswaran (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's blacklisted, but it certainly doesn't look like a reliable secondary source. It's just a blog, with no indication of credentials, authorship, etc. See WP:MEDRS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My ISP would not let me visit the page. 188.29.93.72 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Beyond the address above not being a valid URL? It's "checkdent.com", not "checkdentdotcom". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I deliberately changed the website name, so that Wikipedia would allow me to post that link. It seems the site as a whole is a marketing site for dental professionals and service which is why it seems to have been blocked. But this particular FAQ page seems to be reasonable and devoid of marketing page. is there a way to provide exception to this url alone and remove it from blacklist? J mareeswaran (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS

Regarding the concerns raised on WTMED about this article ([5]), suggest only those parts of the article which discuss the health impact and science of oil pulling need to comply MEDRS, I would think that the rest of the article, describing the historical/religious/cultural aspects of the topic merely need to comply with RS. 188.29.93.72 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ayurvedic not folk?

Lots of refs out there seems to suggest this remedy is Ayurvedic, but here it says folk. Not sure they are the same thing - Ayurvedic has it's own page too!

We prominently mention Ayurvedic medicine in the lead section, and link to it. There's no contradiction. Ayurvedic medicine is a form of folk medicine. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oil Pulling is FOLK but marketed as Ayurvedic. The difference between Folk & Ayurvedic (Complementary medicine) is that Folk is oral tradition & pop culture but Ayurvedic is about written scriptures and there are educational courses (mainly in India) where you can get a degree in Ayurvedic medicine. Oil Pulling, in its current marketed form - is not mentioned as a remedy in referenced Ayurvedic documents. that is because Ayurvedic treatment is symptomatic and has to prescribed by a practitioner. That is "the patient" has to be examined by expert who will determine which are the major/root symptoms and based on the diagnosis only then specify the treatment which will be tailored to the particular individual and only for the duration as recommended by Expert or till symptoms persist.J mareeswaran (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Toxins and inflammation

Specifically, which toxins and what types of inflammation are treated by this technique. Please be *specific*. Thank you. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

None are actually treated. Oil pulling is pseudoscience. Note that article talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article itself, not a general discussion forum. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"Purported mechanism of action"

(Summary: Jump to the last two lines for the minor change I'm making.)

The "Purported mechanism of action" section begins with this sentence:

The purported mechanism of action of oil pulling therapy is not clear

This wording doesn't really make sense. This wording seems to have been created by taking a part of a sentence from the referenced study and adding "purported".

First, if one believes that word-for-word copying from the study is a bulletproof idea, then just look at the gibberish in the second half of that same sentence in the study:

...further research studies with sesame oil will lead to wonderful approach in the field of dentistry

Indeed.

Then, the problem with the sentence is that it says that those claiming it has benefits are unclear about why. The actual situation is that various people are very clear about where the purported benefits come from, but different people have different explanations which diverge. So I'm correcting this to:

The mechanism of action for the purported benefits of oil pulling therapy is not clear

Yes, that's it. Great floors (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a meta study saying it might work - ok to add?

(Update: I just noticed that the "meta analysis" that article is currently based on is a 2014 *blog post*. So I think the 2016 journal-published meta analysis is ok to add, and I'll do that soon.)

I found this 2016 meta study which includes five randomly controlled trials:

• Effect of oil pulling in promoting oro dental hygiene: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials, Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
• Conclusion: The limited evidence to date from clinical trials suggests that oil pulling may have beneficial effects on oro dental hygiene...

I won't bother adding this right now because I'd probably get reverted.

If anyone wants to be ready to revert this addition, one line of attack would be to say the publishing journal isn't prestigious enough. I don't know how WP guidelines judge this criteria. I stuck "journal ranking" into a search engine and this is the first site I found:

• http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3501&order=h&ord=desc

The journal of the above study has a "H" rating of 29, whatever that means, and it's ranked 45th out of 120 journals in the "Dentistry (general)" category. And ResearchGate gives it a 0.43.

The relevant criteria I found in WP:MEDRS say that good journals are in indexed in MEDLINE (and this one is indexed), and WP doesn't like journals in the predatory journals list, and this journal isn't there, and that meta research based on randomly controlled trials (like this one) are close to the ideal type of source. So maybe this is ok.

Enjoy. Great floors (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We avoid saying useless things like that something "may" (or may not) work. However the source makes substantive comments on the poor quality of research in this area. I have incorporated it and pulled a huge amount of crap out of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tone of this article has been drastically changed. Why??

I have not visited this article since I made an extensive update last year to inject some sanity into it.[6] Much of what I added - especially in the Critical analysis section - is gone. Also, there is now way too much pseudoscience material claiming positive health results in the Effectiveness section. Please explain. RobP (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

LoteyZao made a bunch of strange edits no one contested back in November, and some of it is still left.--tronvillain (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Oil pulling

The description is incorrect . Swishing is not the way it is done . The correct method is to keep you lips together and alternately suck and release . Five minutes is lots . Turkeytrotlogan (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Question. What does "swished" around mean? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article claims that there is no "high quality research" on this subject but also dismisses it as disproven by science. These two ideas are contradictory.

Personally I don't have a dog in this fight, but I felt I should highlight this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.70 (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Dunno, neither is there high quality research on the claim that clapping your hands five times while running at exactly 18kph results in the spontaneous birth of an albino chicken, yet it is dismissed by science. Maybe the wording could be a bit better. --Kraligor (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much per Kraligor. Feel free to suggest tightened wording though. Guy (help!) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that, and that a number of the comments did not reflect the citations given for them. In particular, "no understanding of a possible mechanism explaining how it would work" is false given a couple of the citations which give scientific hypotheses for why it might work, as opposed to the least credible possible proposed mechanism of removing "toxins". I made a conservative edit, changing it to sat that there are proposed mechanisms of action, though perhaps I should qualify it with "scientific" or "scientists propose". --192.252.228.7 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Per the other comments in this thread, and the wording of the citation you used, I have reverted your edit. Thanks though. -Roxy the dog. wooF 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The mechanism seems to be pretty simple. It is not removing toxins, it is suppressing/reducing (plaque?/maybe all) bacteria in the mouth and if that is a person's major inflammation source then this reduces overall inflammation reactions in the rest of the body and it makes a person feel better. Studies (I know I have read them, I don't have them at hand) have correlated good/bad dental health/teeth cleaning/oral hygiene with a fewer/more heart attacks and other events that have been tied to inflammation.

It is a sort of mouthwash, and just about any oil would be expected to create a hostile environment for the bacterial in the mouth (I have not tried oil pulling myself). I can get similar results to oil pulling with simply gargling religiously after brushing/flossing with a peroxide and/or anti-bacterial mouthwash. The advantage of the peroxide/anti-bacterial mouthwash it that it can be done in a lot shorter time period as it creates a significantly more hostile environment for the bacteria.

The mistake on oil pulling is the garbage mechanism theory of it "removing toxins" that it does not make any scientific sense (no mechanism to do that). "toxins" in this case seems to really be inflammation and there are mechanisms for the reduction of bacterial in the mouth to reduce inflammation in the mouth and that if that is your major inflammation source then also reduce inflammation in the rest of the body and feeling better. Rogerhks (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL A120 Critical Thinking

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Senakim (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Senakim (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Lauric acid in Coconut oil antiseptic?

If yes, I believe it should be mentioned as Coconut oil is a commonly used for oil pulling 2A0D:6FC7:214:794C:D57:6B22:AE51:259A (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Please provide a reliable source (WP:RS) that indicates coconut oil (not its constituent parts, see WP:NOR) is an antiseptic. --Yamla (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tone has come back too far the other way IMHO

Recently my wife got interested in oil pulling so I started doing some research about it. Strikingly, Wikipedia (which is supposed to be NPOV) now reads as one of the more "anti" sources on the practice (e.g "there is no evidence that it provides any benefit"). Whereas that is far from the real-world consensus and, indeed, is simply untrue. It is easy to find studies that suggest that the practice may provide some benefits, flatly contradicting the statement that no such evidence exists. Those studies may be flawed, many people feel that they are, and that is worth discussing, but "many studies, though potentially flawed, suggest some benefit" is very different from "there is no evidence of any benefit".

Many other articles on oil pulling on reputable websites that I found take the tone that there may be some benefit, and many even cite studies suggesting this to be the case. I came to this talk page to get a sense of how the Wikipedia article got into this state, and I get it: in the past the article had an inappropriately worshipful tone towards the practice and that needed to be corrected. But now the tone is too far back the other way to meet the test of NPOV. The "pro" side is now dismissively over-simplified. One example: while is true that some proponents assert a questionable mechanism of "pulling out toxins", there are many other views and proposed mechanisms. None of these are fairly addressed or even mentioned.

When there are controversies, guidance like WP:STRONGVIEWS states, "Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." Through however much well-intentioned history, this article is now a comfortable home to the strong view that oil pulling is a sham and a pseudo-science wholly without any basis in scientific study. But that that view, certainly an important one, should be described in the article; it should not be the intrinsic view of the article itself.

WP:UNDUE states that "mainspace articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." It allows exclusion of views from a tiny minority, but that is far from the case here. The simple fact is that there are numerous reliable sources that discuss oil pulling favorably, yet this viewpoint has utterly no representation at all in the article as it exists at this point. Blorblowthno (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. Please provide examples of sources that meet WP:MEDRS that show oil pulling provides benefits. I haven't found any but that certainly doesn't mean none exist. Be warned, WP:MEDRS is fairly strict. --Yamla (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is one example. Per WP:MEDRS, "Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not given equal weight. Studies can be categorized into levels in a hierarchy of evidence, and editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews." Here, then, for example, is a meta-analysis of 226 studies on the topic of oil pulling which concluded: "Evidence shows that oil pulling can reduce total oral bacterial counts and reduce plaque and gingival scores. In addition, it reduces susceptibility to caries from marked to mild or moderate [16,23,24]. The exact mechanism of oil pulling is not clear. There are three possible mechanisms...", which it summarizes as (1) alkaline hydrolysis of the fat (saponification); (2) viscous properties of the oil inhibit plaque accumulation and adherent bacteria; and (3) antioxidants prevent lipid peroxidation and form antibiotic-like substances.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/10/1991

This was just one example, but it strikes a fairly common tone found in the individual studies I had previously found in my earlier research. When I have some more time to spend on it, I can work on finding some more such studies, but there are a lot. The point being, the current tone of the article that sweeps all this aside with "there is no evidence" or "there is no 'good' evidence" does a disservice to users who turn to Wikipedia for thoughtful discussion and context. Again, many many seemingly positive studies exist and are easy to find. The article's posture either needs to be, to fairly present these as credible viewpoints, or at a very minimum, to thoughtfully represent these views alongside relevant dissenting expert commentary from reliable sources. Blorblowthno (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Err, WP:MDPI? That would tend to confirm that it's quackery. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, "numerous studies have found potential benefits but their reliability is questionable and here's why" is very different from what the article currently says. This isn't something where you need to convince me on the talk page. This is something where the main article needs to appear at least as well-informed as the users turning to it for context. At present, to anyone who's even done a Google search before coming to Wikipedia, because the main article turns a blind eye to so much of the information that's out there, because it so mischaracterizes and over-simplifies the "pro" point of view, it just reads like it's either willfully ignorant or poorly researched or both. Blorblowthno (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids WP:FALSEBALANCE and pseudoscience and quackery is identified as such. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Your link to WP:MDPI rates it as, not as "generally unreliable", but as "no consensus" and states, "About 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by the Norwegian Scientific Index, and another 5% are under review." Big jump from there to your position that any paper available there is quackery.

As for WP:FALSEBALANCE, it states, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."

- First, I think there is far from consensus that "oil pulling may have some health benefits" is a fringe theory on par with the examples cited there such as "the Earth is flat, the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, or the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax."

- Second, there is that "as if they were of equal validity". Mentioning that there is a lot of research that seems to support some benefits for oil pulling, and then possibly discussing why that research may be considered controversial, is far from giving such practices equal footing with well established best practices like the use of fluoride toothpaste or getting regular dental cleanings. In fact most of the studies about oil pulling state that it is best considered as a supplement practice to brushing and regular cleanings.

You clearly have a very strong personal ax to grind on this topic, which is fine, but read WP:UNDUE:

- "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." This is not an article about general oral health best practices where I am trying to get "oil pulling" equal time with "brushing your teeth". This is, as mentioned in the policy, an article about this specific practice. This is the correct place, in Wikipedia, to fairly consider (and possibly contextualize) the "pro" side of the question instead of just the "con" as we have now.

- "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Your opposition to even addressing the reasons that people think this is a good idea is making this a weaker article that isn't persuasive and doesn't serve its intended purpose, which is to educate. Even if your intent is to dissuade people from the frankly harmless practice of putting coconut oil in their mouth once a day and swishing it around, you will be much more persuasive if the people reading your article see that you are aware of, and have considered, the arguments in favor. The hand waving approach in which there's nothing good and no support just seems out of touch. Blorblowthno (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It's just like a lot of of this other altmed things, like squirting coffee up your bum. All Wikipedia can do is summarise the WP:BESTSOURCES and make sure woo is identified as woo. The rest is noise. Bon courage (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

> Make sure the woo is identified as woo

This is exactly what I'm advocating. As opposed to the approach the article currently seems to have taken, which is "wave your hands and claim that no other view exists". And yes, if there's a Wikipedia article on the benefits of squirting coffee up your bum, then it should also fairly summarize the views of those who think it's a good idea and why, and then also provide the views of those who think it's a bad idea and why. If there is a page on a topic, then it should fairly summarize that topic. That is not the same as inserting fringe theories alongside mainstream best practices on equal footing.

Take a look at Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs for a good example of how to handle a controversial topic. Importantly, note that it is not a one-sentence dismissal stating "there is no evidence that the earth is flat." Blorblowthno (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Fringe stuff can be presented with a mainstream framing if sources exist for that. Otherwise policy is to omit it. Bon courage (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you, I will look for sources like that. I appreciate the constructive comment. Blorblowthno (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

So, in one of the references currently cited in the article, "Bad science: Oil pulling" from the British Dental Journal, it states "A recent review suggested that it may have beneficial effects in dental hygiene" and it links to a study, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096522991630019X?via%3Dihub .

May I cite that study? Would that be considered sufficient "mainstream framing"? The part I am specifically interested in including in the article is the part that more accurately summarizes what exponents of oil pulling believe: "Advocates of this method believe that harmful bacteria are removed from the mouth resulting in improved gum and dental health... The mechanism through which oil pulling achieves this function is poorly understood, though it has been postulated that sesame seed oil reacts with alkali in saliva, initiating a process of saponification (soap formation), with a resulting cleansing effect.8 Sesame seed oil also contains lignans (sesamin, sesamolin, and sesaminol) possessing anti-oxidant and health-promoting properties.9 Furthermore, oil may act as a viscous barrier against plaque formation and bacteria aggregation." Blorblowthno (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

May I cite that study? ← No, that is an unreliable source for WP:BMI. It may be used to describe the false claims of advocates, so long as it was clear they are unevidenced. Bon courage (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

> It may be used to describe the false claims of advocates, so long as it was clear they are unevidenced.

That is literally all I'm trying to do. That has been the entire point of this hourlong boondoggle in the middle of my workday. Thank you. Blorblowthno (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is another meta-analysis from 2017 of papers published over the prior 20 years found in the PubMed and ISI web of knowledge databases. It finds, "Oil pulling is shown to have antibacterial activity against C. albicans and S. mutans using coconut oil, while sesame oil also has similar activity against S. mutans and Lactobacilli. Following a 40-day regimen of oil pulling, an average reduction of 20% was observed in the total microbial count in the oral cavity. Similarly, another study testing the susceptibility to dental caries before and after oil pulling showed that in 50% of the subjects the susceptibility was reduced from 'marked' to 'slight.' Whereas, in the other 50% of the subjects the susceptibility reduced from 'marked' to 'moderate.'" It also found positive effects for gingivitis, halitosis, and oral thrush.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5654187/ Blorblowthno (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Another weak source (non-MEDLINE journal). In general it's best to find reliable sources and summarise them, rather than trying to find sources to "fit" a prior POV. Bon courage (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Shucks, you caught me, I'm a shill from "big coconut oil" here pushing my POV. No, in reality, I'm just a guy trying to make the article better. I haven't even said, "Let's promote oil pulling", because that isn't my view. Stick in these references and then explain why they're bunk if you want. You clearly have an extremely strong POV on this topic and the article reflects that. That's the problem I'd like to see addressed. Blorblowthno (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

"You clearly have an extremely strong POV on this topic " ← no, this is just one of hundreds of articles on my watchlist. While throwing around such accusations as a reminder, it's you whose here because of your wife. Bon courage (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And so your idea is that my wife told me oil pulling is great and now I want everyone in the world to know how fantastic it is and join the faithful? Alternative possibility: my wife has some friends who told her it's a good idea and I'm trying to do some independent research to see if I agree with them. Just because I have a family member who is curious about a topic doesn't mean I'm afflicted with True Believerism. Blorblowthno (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way, as far as approach, I did not "go looking for sources to 'fit' a prior POV". I honestly would rather not have to swish my mouth with coconut oil every morning and went looking for information to show my wife that there's no point to it. I went to scholar.google.com and typed in "oil pulling" and all the hits were studies that showed benefits. Then I came to Wikipedia looking for context on all of those and the article had nothing for me; the article's take is that non of that even exists so no need to give context on it. That is why we are here having this conversation. Just so you know who you're talking to and where I'm coming from. Blorblowthno (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Change "no evidence" to "no good evidence" and it's sorted then? Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)