Talk:Hydrogen peroxide

Article says "H2O2 demonstrates broad-spectrum efficacy against viruses, bacteria, yeasts, and bacterial spores.[69][70]" - Hm, not so fast, or only in specific cases, which need more detailing.

Ref 1: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jhin.2020.10.003 - "In conclusion, there is no scientific evidence supporting the indication of hydrogen peroxide mouthwash for control of the viral load regarding SARS-CoV-2 or any other viruses in saliva."

Ref 2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33299988/ - Says "Both 5% (v/v) Colgate Peroxyl and 5% (v/v) povidone-iodine inactivated virus effectively" - which doesn't fit other findings, however it's a different mixture, etc.

Ref 3: https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9781118425831.ch9 - e.g. "H2O2 is found to be resistent against Poliovirus"

Information was added to Virucide too. KR,

17387349L8764 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

:The dose makes the poison. Humans and viruses seems to be able to tolerate 5% solutions, but for sterilization of surfaces (which is what the paragraph is discussing) you might use up to 30%. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So, regarding the uses of hydrogen peroxide as an alternative medicine. It's hard to determine how common the practise is, but I feel that it warrants mentioning. If it is included then we need to say what people are doing with it and why - otherwise we're not describing the practise. WP:MEDRS compliant medical assessments of those activates of that can obviously follow - but sources describing the beliefs themselves will probably be fringe, because it's a fringe belief. I'm not sure how to get around that. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

:Is it covered in non-fringe reliable sources? If so, great. But if it's nonsense we're taking it upon ourselves to excavate then WP:VALIDity would be a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

::My intent was merely to say why people did this. Explanation need not be validation. There did seem some virtue in linking back to a fringe source; as that's where the 'why' originates. I'm not sure if the reasoning is covered much in reputable sources, those mostly focus on the provable facts of the practice. I suppose I can look. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

:::My question is: is this something that good sources discuss? Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary publication. What I'd want to see is a source discussing why people use/promote Hydrogen peroxide as an altmed treatment. Perhaps [https://quackwatch.org/consumer-protection/fdaactions/h2o2/ this]? Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

::::Well I think that source actually illustrates my point: a focus on outcomes rather than the beliefs that lead to them. I've no real experience editing alt-med material, but surely such questions have come up before. Is there's a taskforce? I do see your point but I'm not sure how swayed I am by it - if an explanation isn't given elsewhere then it shouldn't be given here either? --Project Osprey (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

:::::I think that's the point of WP:VALID - fringe ideas shouldn't be covered except through a contextualizing rational lens. The place to get more input is WP:FT/N. Surely somebody has written about the false claims made for Hydrogen peroxide? (Add [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-drink-hair-bleach/ this] looks more promising.)Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

::::::I had aimed for context when I first wrote the section. My reasoning as a narrative was something like:

:::::::"Why would someone drink hydrogen peroxide?" - "Because they think it might fight cancer"

:::::::"Okay, but why would they think that?" - "Well, unfortunately, because of things that can be made to sound reasonable: phagocytes over-generalised, the Warburg hypothesis told backwards"

::::::The second paragraph, which you have left, picks at those points but you have removed the context that framed them, so now it doesn't make a lot of sense. Hence my reverting your edit.--Project Osprey (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

:::::::This non-primary reference{{cite journal |last1=Allen |first1=John M. |title=The Pseudoscience of Oxygen Therapy |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |date=2000 |volume=24 |issue=1 |url=https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2000/01/22164859/p40.pdf}} explicitly covers the phenomenon of hydrogen peroxide consumption and may help put it in context. I'm unsure whether Skeptical Inquirer is considered reliable; not mentioned in WP:RSP and I cannot find a doi or references to this article, so use your judgement. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks, I think at the moment I'm just trying to determine if explaining the reasons behind its alt-heath use is allowed by WP:VALID and beyond that, if it's wanted. If not then much of the section needs to be re-written. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I thought the SBM source[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-drink-hair-bleach/] was fine for this? I'll do it myself if I get the time ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

So apparently this is a thing now: https://community.aafa.org/blog/danger-don-t-nebulize-hydrogen-peroxide-and-breathe-it-to-try-to-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

A concerning and dangerous trend is circulating on social media channels like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok. People are breathing in hydrogen peroxide through nebulizers to try to prevent or treat COVID-19.

141.77.225.60 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Always tricky removing references, so here is what I have removed or soon will, together with explanations:

• Penney WG, Sutherland GB (1934). "The theory of the structure of hydrogen peroxide and hydrazine". Journal of Chemical Physics. 2 (8): 492–498. Bibcode:1934JChPh...2..492P. doi:10.1063/1.1749518. Penney WG, Sutherland GB (1934). "A note on the structure of H2O2 and H4N2 with particular reference to electric moments and free rotation". Transactions of the Faraday Society. 30: 898–902. doi:10.1039/tf934300898b.
• presumably info from 1934 is obsolete and no one cares.
• Housecroft CE, Sharpe AG (2005). Inorganic Chemistry(2nd ed.). Pearson Prentice-Hall. p. 444. ISBN 0130-39913-2.
• Combined two refs to the same book
• Kröger M (1989). "History". Chemie in unserer Zeit. 23: 34–35. doi:10.1002/ciuz.19890230106.
• Its just a letter to an editor.
• Cooper A (12 January 2005). "A Prescription for Death?". CBS News. Archived from the original on 17 July 2007. Retrieved 7 July 2007.
• dead
• {{cite journal | vauthors = Bernstein C, Johns V | title = Sexual reproduction as a response to H2O2 damage in Schizosaccharomyces pombe | journal = Journal of Bacteriology | volume = 171 | issue = 4 | pages = 1893–7 | date = April 1989 | pmid = 2703462 | pmc = 209837 | doi = 10.1128/jb.171.4.1893-1897.1989 }}
• specialized. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agua_oxigenada&redirect=no Agua oxigenada] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8#Agua oxigenada}} until a consensus is reached. PleaseStand (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)