Submited on: 22 Sep 2016 11:04:32 PM GMT
Published on: 25 Sep 2016 05:13:31 AM GMT
More support need
Posted by Mrs. Meredith A Saunders-mattingly on 07 Nov 2016 08:24:23 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The article claims that a medicinal plant mentioned in Hindu myth may not just be myth, but a real plant and that the myth served as a way for the story tellers to preserve their records. Additionally, while previous candidates have been proposed as the "real plant" the authors feel there is evidence to suggest the plant may have been thebaine, the plant from which naloxone is derived. 


    These claims are important to examine as they could add to historical accuracy on the use of medicine at the time, however, it does feel as if the choice of thebaine as the plant may be more trend driven than support driven. 

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes, they are novel. 

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Somewhat, in terms of the author's discussing the original myth and tying it to the MOA of thebaine and how it would play into the original story. 


    However, the authors' fail to give historical reference to the use of opioids (their proposed weapon used in the story) as a viable weapon of the time. They repeatedly state that opioids may have been weaponized in an aerosolized form, and they give a more modern citation to support this use, but not a historical reference to support the existance of the technology- which was not around until the 1900s. 


    Additionally, it is mentioned that thebaine would need to be significantly concentrated, and that its MOA would be inhalation or intranasally in order to revive those harmed. Whether the ability to concentrate to the dose needed, or whether the routes needed were even achievable at this time was not cited as support. 


    Moreover, the text seemed to suggest a therapeutic scent, which does not suggest the more complex analysis of the authors. 

  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    There are no formal results, just a literature review. More supporting literature is required. 

  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No methodology; a literature review is appropriate. 

  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Additionally literature that addresses the holes mentioned previously would greatly add to the strength of the current argument, which currently has very little historical support to lend to its claims. Additionally, the authors' not that thebaine may not even be found in the region of interest, which is a very important piece of evidence which should be secured. 

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No, the argument is still too weak for it to lend itself as an outstanding historical or pharmcological paper. 

  • Other Comments:


  • Competing interests:

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    pharmacology, drug history

  • How to cite:  Saunders-mattingly M A.More support need[Review of the article 'Mythology may NOT be Just A Myth: Theoretical Biology may NOT be Just A Theory: Connecting The Dots: Was "Sanjeevani" Naloxone? ' by Pallekonda V].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003306
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse