For DentArthurDent to read

Post Reply New Topic

This is where we disagree you have consistently likened Herbal medicine to quakery and witchcraft "dangerous nonsense". And denied it has any basis in science or more to the point that Herbalists and Nutritionist have no interest in the science. These people are tainted by the fuckwits who believe in medicinal fairy tales.

As to extracting individual compounds that is a valid medical tool, but on the other hand so is leaving the plant extract whole. This is especially so when the other constituents of the plant have additional healing actions that are going to be beneficial to the patient. It is this ability of Medicinal Herbs to act on several body systems at the same time, that makes herbal medicine so effective in treating many chronic conditions, where conventional therapies have difficulty, often because of this desire to use individual compounds and treat on a symptom by symptom basis. It is this abiltiy of whole herbs to have a multi-factorial effect that needs so much research and why Herbal Medicine should be practiced by people trained in the paradigm working in close association with MD's and Pharmacists

Take this study on Withania somnifera for example http://www.anaturalhealingcenter.com/documents/Thorne/articles/Ashwagandha.pdf

It is sort of interesting that the website from which you get the study is noted for being an acupuncturist and chiropractor.

http://www.anaturalhealingcenter.com/

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-10-21/ (chiropractics)

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-10-08/ (accupuncture)

I think this kind of favors Orwell's point that often this junk is used to substitute for legitimate science, as if you are being forced to justify

As for the study itself, I am really not sure that a study of one plant, even if it is a scientific study, really supports herbalism that much. Even if it can be proven that an herb has positive benefits, it does not prove that the herb would be more effective than a better designed delivery mechanism, or that the herb is better than other treatments.

Why not just extract components and prescribe them as necessary? I mean, first off, medicine is about poisoning a person in the right manner, it isn't "healing", as it isn't as if your actions are directly making the person better, but they are indirectly promoting the healing processes of the body. Given that medicine is just poisoning a person in the right way, I have a difficult time seeing why more poisons will generally be better. I can see why to give a vitamin supplement, but generally speaking, the less we do to a patient, the better. I mean, if I said "We should give many patients a drug cocktail full of many random chemicals" I think most people would question me, so why is an herb really so different?



Why do you want action on several body systems at the same time? If anything, you want to be able to pick and choose what body systems to impact, and do so in an intelligent manner. I don't really see your justification here from a rationalist standpoint. If we give a patient multiple drugs at once, these drugs will impact different systems, and affect multiple factors in the patient's body. I am not sure that herbalists really add much to the mix, or why they are better than biochemists and standard pharmaceutical researchers. Certainly, I see good reason to distrust herbalism given the allies that herbalists have in their quest. Y'know, the other "alternative medicine folks", and I generally distrust that paradigm.

to be honest I have know idea about the site I simply searched for scholarly articles in google and the found that study. My link did not even bring up the hosting site.

Of course a one off study on a single plant is not conclusive evidence of the efficacy of herbal medicine. The point of the study was to demonstrate the accuracy of traditional uses of the herb or otherwise. Each individual Medicinal herb needs to have its traditional claims tested. I do not doubt that some if not many will prove to be less than efficacious but by the same token I do expect the majority to pass the test. That there may be a better delivery mechanism for some of the pharmaceutical constituents is also not unlikely. That is not my point of contention with Orwell



And here is the main argument and the paradox of herbal medicine. If the plant material contains so many active constituents and you only want to target one of them surely the rest must either be doing harm or causing side effects. Logically this would make sense, however anecdotally it would seem that Medicinal herbs have a very low incidence of negative side effects and contraindications especially when compared to contemporary medicine, and the constituents that are not being targeted do not seem to be causing negative effects. Naturally what is required is serious peer reviewed research to get to the truth of this



And that is exactly what the prescriber attempts to do, by matching up the herb/herbs that cover the various systems. In some case one herb will have enough major indications to cover the lot, sometimes a second or third will be required.

The safety of this approach ie giving a patient preparations which contain some constituents the pharmaceutical actions of which they do not require is very open to debate. My side of the fence goes to the anecdotal evidence that it does not seem to matter, yours and Orwells take the logical viewpoint that it must. The answer to this debate is peer reviewed research. The results of which must also take into account the level of side effects found in many conventional preparations before determining if it is a just and valid practice

There exist many remedies like this that are more effective than their current pharmaceutical counterparts. But this is due to our current lack of complete understanding of biology. Bioinformatics (link) gives a means to begin to not only understand processes on their own (like the painkilling operation of Vicodin), but complex interactions of endless combinations of chemicals in the body. In fact even the precise way in which vicodin works is not yet fully understood! (link). Bioinformatics is a relatively new field. But regardless of what we don't know yet, this isn't an excuse to become plant-luddites in favour of old methods.

Because detailed information trumps faith in a system.

Yes, apon looking further (link) that would indeed be the job of a specialist. A Dietitian, who studies biochemistry, physiology, microbiology, anatomy and chemistry, no holistics required, as it would be unnccessarily simplyfing explanable processes.

Your move.

[qoute]Firstly why? secondly are you aware of just how little nutrition MD's actually study[/quote]
Because detailed information trumps faith in a system.



Hmmm lets see, just what does a nutritionist study over their 4 year degree Bio Chem tick, physiology and anatomy tick, nutritional pharmacology tick, clinical medicine tick along with other studies in the use of actual food, interpersonal skills etc.

That a person working in a pill shop should not be able to call themselves a Nutritionist you will not here any argument from me. This is a problem of regulation not of the qualified Nutritionist. As I have said several times already in this thread access to professional medications/supplements and insurance is restricted to those who belong to the recognised industry associations which in turn only take membership from people with a TGA number which you can only get by obtaining a degree in the subject, a bit convoluted and certainly not as tight as it should be. I cannot and am not discussing the state of affairs in the US as my experience only extends to Australia.

As to plant luddites considering that these plants are being shown to be in some possibly many cases to be as or even more effective than the contemporary counterparts your metaphor is an epic fail, also dont get fixated just upon vicodin we do not yet know the actual mechanism of pain full stop, we only know how to block pain. (at least that was still the case when I last read on the subject.

I think divergent definitions of herbal medicine might be in use in this thread.

If you're just talking about studying plants to see which ones can be medicinally useful, you have no argument from me. (Don't expect me to help; I hate botany, but go right ahead) A large number of our medications are derived from plant compounds anyways.

If you're talking about herbal medicine as in "don't take scientifically tested drugs, instead try this special tea I just brewed" then no, that is still quackery.

You have mentioned that useless superstition is taught in the naturopathic degree courses that are required in Australia for licensure. In the US they teach homeopathy and similar garbage in naturopathic schools. Degrees from such programs are meaningless. That is the state of naturopathic and herbal medicine today, in the world we live in. You can talk about what it "should" be, but I think the field as it stands is filled with quacks beyond the point where it can be reformed. Better is to get researchers and physicians turned towards any promising areas for new treatments. There are plenty of researchers who are willing to look at folk cures to see if there is any scientific basis to them.

A person working at a pill shop can claim to be a nutritionist, it has no legal meaning or regulatory body in a lot of countries. A Dietitian has to study and be an expert in the mentioned areas, as well as be trained to apply that knowledge to counseling individuals on how to improve their lifestyle and health. But given we're using Australia as a frame of reference, here is the distinction:
http://www.daa.asn.au/index.asp?PageID=2145871671
A degree is needed for either, but to be a dietician a substantial understanding of theory is also needed; understanding the underlying processes of illness and treatment in addition to the treatment itself, which is taught to both.


I wouldn't discard the metaphor so quickly. Some Herbs and plants have good effects on illness. This means they contain chemicals and compounds that can be disassembled and used in pharmaceutical drugs, ideally in a manner that avoids side effects, this is ongoing.

The side effects of the plants. They're listed on here:
http://www.personalhealthzone.com/herbsafety.html
And that's why I re-mentioned vicodin. Neither plants or pills are fully understood, it isn't justification to shun one for the other.

It is only in some isolated cases that plants are more effective. The big 4:
-Heart disease
-Cancer
-Diabetes
-Stroke

Please demonstrate more effective plant remedies than the current medical treatments for these.

I am talking about the both the need to discover/affirm the actions of constituents in folk loric medicinal herbs and the action of the herb as a whole and the ability of herbal practitioners to dispense these. You will undoubtedly stick to the notion that individual constituents are the way to go, I beg to differ. What needs to be researched is the claim by herbal practitioners that you get less side effects by using the whole plant and that you can reduce the variety of medications by utilising the various pharmaceutical actions of one or two whole plants rather than given 5 or 6 constituents to cover all the body systems involved. If this is proven untrue I will happily fall into line with your way of thinking. This is much like the French concept of naturopathy where (and I am going from memory) the naturopathy is a post grad medical degree, ie the Naturopath is an MD and from what I have seen the treatment is based on isolated compounds, usually volatile oils.

As for your question "If you're talking about herbal medicine as in "don't take scientifically tested drugs, instead try this special tea I just brewed" then no, that is still quackery" Taken literally I would totally agree with you. I would never suggest that a patient (not that I am practicing and wont be, because I have been out of it for too long and would need a severe amount of revision just to catch up on what I have forgotten let alone learn about new research) to not take the MD prescription or for that matter not to get a medical Dx or undertake tests to discover what is going on. In fact I think the herbalist should not have the legal right to diagnose and that the patient should have seen an MD first. As I have stated consistently the role of a nutritionist or herbal practitioner should be a complementary one

Asmodeus do you really want to get into a side effects war, seriously some the the 'side effects' listed on that site are rather spurious. That side effects and contra indications exist with herbal medicine is not in dispute, hence the importance of studying pharmacology and its related subjects.

Again that synthetic versions of herbal constituents are generally stronger is not really in dispute although your claim of all is false. Also basing the efficacy of a medication purely upon its effect on the targeted system is a rather narrow gauge, adverse side effects and their prevalence must also be taken into consideration.

But more to the point is many herbal constituents have not been studied and taken into the realm of contemporary medicine. Herbal Medicine is often used by people who have not found an answer to their general malaise, and after years of tests and specialists still feel 'unwell', often a herbalist will here the phrase "I have not felt well since......". The ability to improve general systemic debility is well shown in Herbal Medicine, and the research on various herbs are beginning to shed light on just why this is.

Call this quackery if you like, but you would be in the most part wrong, more correctly it is something that has plenty of anecdotal evidence and needs to be researched further. Fuzzy made the comment to me privately that in this case the medications should not be used until tested, which in part is a valid point, after all new medications must undergo a barrage of test before being released.

To answer your claims that the paradigm is so infested with lunacy that it cannot be reformed. All it would take is legislation to bring in a national curriculum and ban outright anyone who is not qualified. This is exactly what happens with MDs, so it should apply across the board. I would even support the notion that a herbal practitioner must first qualify as an MD but that would lead to a heck of a long course. Better would be for conventional medicine to actually sit up take notice of the good aspects of both herbal and nutritional medicine , then there would be no need for herbal practitioners. We could chose our Dr on the basis of their preferred approach to their profession.

When we discovered sulfonamides and antibiotics we seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The philosophy that I am talking about still existed less than 80 years ago, the idea of supporting the body to heal itself and the idea of convalescence are well understood, yet we have thrown them away. So until modern medicine recovers some of what it has lost I will advocate for the necessity of herbal practitioners .