Herbal Healing

[The Mighty Thor]

The Mighty Thor
When I said a career in medicine I meant I wanted to be a medical microbiologist, I don't consider aromatherapy and crystal therapy to be careers in medicine, but I consider herbalism to be a valuable sub category of medicine ... if you say I'm wrong see in previous posts the vast list of life-saving medications which are botanical in origin and have revolutionised many areas of medicine. My career has nothing to do with this anyway.

Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out. Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.

It is very difficult and challenging to open up cherished personal beliefs to severe rational scrutiny. It is admirable that you have been honest about your beliefs here. Scepticism can seem harsh and brutal until you witness the damage that unchallenged falsehoods cause in the world. You have to realise that there are many people out there who are just out to exploit others with paranormal claims.

 

[drinkysr]

Phenol and thyme

I woudl like to comment on the claim "thyme oil is 20 time stronger than phenol"

Actually, when you buy phenol in the store as an antiseptic sore throat spray, you are getting a VERY dilute silution. If you order 100% phenol from a chemical company do not even think of opening it without heavy gloves on. If so much as a drop hits your palm, it will barely pause on it its way to the floor.

If thyme oil was 20 times "stonger" than that, it would be a chemical weapon.

 

[drinkysr]

herbalism vs. medicinal chemistry

When you speak about things like Taxol, VP-16, ergot alkaloids, vincristine etc, you are talking about products that occur natrually (in plants) that have been proven to have some sort of medicinal effect. Ergotamine has been shown in double blind studies to reduce the severity and duration of migraine headaches (but ONLY migraine headaches, not tension headaches, or post-concussion headaches or brain tumor headaches).

When I worked with a natural products medicinal chemist, his job was to comb the bioshpere for novel compounds that might have important medicinal applications. When he found one he would have it assayed by someone else to determine if it might be active. The whole time I knew him we never found anything important (but we did find some thing new and/or interesting).

That is what medicinal chemistry is, finding new compounds that might have a medicinal use. Then if they do, you try to synthesize the same compound in the lab becasue harvesting the plant and extracting it is a more expensive and less productive enterprise.

By contrast HERBALISM is a form of traditional medicicne formed through trial and error using teas and tinctures etc. For the most part the claims of herbalism are not subjected to scientific scrutiny, rather they are based on tradition.

The 2 field do interact though. Some time ago a medicinal chemist noted that foxglove tea had been used for a long time to treat heart conditions. He and others would eventually isolate digitalis. Digitalis would then be tested in numerous clinical trials to prove that it does slow the heart and strengthen its contracitons, and is useful for heart failure.

So the medicinal chemist sees herbalism as a huge pile of POTENTIAL biologically active products the he or she will sift through in order to come up with the next Taxol. Unfortunately, there are thousands of herbs, millions of compounds, and therefore the search will take time.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Re: herbalism vs. medicinal chemistry

When you speak about things like Taxol, VP-16, ergot alkaloids, vincristine etc, you are talking about products that occur natrually (in plants) that have been proven to have some sort of medicinal effect. Ergotamine has been shown in double blind studies to reduce the severity and duration of migraine headaches (but ONLY migraine headaches, not tension headaches, or post-concussion headaches or brain tumor headaches).

When I worked with a natural products medicinal chemist, his job was to comb the bioshpere for novel compounds that might have important medicinal applications. When he found one he would have it assayed by someone else to determine if it might be active. The whole time I knew him we never found anything important (but we did find some thing new and/or interesting).

That is what medicinal chemistry is, finding new compounds that might have a medicinal use. Then if they do, you try to synthesize the same compound in the lab becasue harvesting the plant and extracting it is a more expensive and less productive enterprise.

By contrast HERBALISM is a form of traditional medicicne formed through trial and error using teas and tinctures etc. For the most part the claims of herbalism are not subjected to scientific scrutiny, rather they are based on tradition.

The 2 field do interact though. Some time ago a medicinal chemist noted that foxglove tea had been used for a long time to treat heart conditions. He and others would eventually isolate digitalis. Digitalis would then be tested in numerous clinical trials to prove that it does slow the heart and strengthen its contracitons, and is useful for heart failure.

So the medicinal chemist sees herbalism as a huge pile of POTENTIAL biologically active products the he or she will sift through in order to come up with the next Taxol. Unfortunately, there are thousands of herbs, millions of compounds, and therefore the search will take time.

Very well put!

No doubt herbalists have applied treatments down through the centuries. Many of the 'witches' who were persecuted during the great European purges were often lay herbalists or midwives. However, with shamans and herbalists, it was often a very hit and miss affair since dosages were irregular and impossible to quantify regarding active ingredients.

Think of the potency of TTX, Tetradotoxin. It comes from the Fugu fish (commonly the Puffer fish) of Japan and Haiti.

The poison comes from bacteria in algae eaten by the fish and is concentrated in the liver, skin, and sex organs of the fish. It is thought that reports of 'zombieism' reflect the use of this toxin in shamanic rituals.

A small amount causes a floating effect and tingling in the mouth. But it it may just as well cause paralysis similar to suspended animation that looks like death. The victim is still aware of everything going on around them. Higher doses DO cause death. It may be an urban legend that thrill-seeking Japanese gourmets eat the puffer fish, hoping that the chef has removed most of the toxin.

Of course, this is not 'herbal', but such potions were often used by shamans along with herbal drinks that often contained poppy extracts. Peyote was a favoured herb among native American shamans. Ergot may have caused some of the strange behaviour described during the Salem witchcraft trials in 1692 via contaminated bread.

So, 'natural' does not mean 'benign or beneficial'. Belladonna is 'natural' and can be deadly. Atropine is the medical extract that can be dose-tested and then become beneficial.

These are important distinctions, jambo, and you should be able now to see why herbalism IS NOT SCIENCE.

Here is a recent find:

PINE CONE IN MRSA FIGHT
The humble pine cone may become a key instrument in the fight against the hospital superbug MRSA.

Researchers at the University of London's School of Pharmacy found that immature pine cones contain anti-bacterial agents that could fight the killer bug.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13229849,00.html

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out.

But listening to white witches is not a valid methodology! Gah! They say all sorts of silly things! To find out what effect mugwort has on seizures, you have to TEST MUGWORT'S EFFECT ON SEIZURES. Or find out what happened when someone else did.That's HOW you find out its effect.

Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.

Being right is wonderful. (You should try it, you really should). Modern medicine, for example, was created by the process I've described. As a result of which I've never even heard of anyone in the UK in my lifetime suffering from cholera, smallpox, polio, puerpal fever, yellow fever, scarlet fever, diphtheria, typhus, typhoid, the Black Death, sleeping sickness... The exception that proves the rule? I once knew a girl who'd had TB. She was born in Africa, and when she moved here modern medicine was made available, which cured her. If you test your ideas carefully TO SEE IF THEY WORK, you end up with SOMETHING THAT WORKS. Something wonderful. If not, you end up with crystal healing.

(Edited to remove ambiguity)

 

[Dr Adequate]

...oops...

 

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Research has been done on mugwort showing it may help seizures and that's why I believe it may well have an effect.

What you described really has nothing to do with your so called 'wonders of scepticism.

You know no one who's suffered from cholera or typhoid - wow - that has nothing to do with scepticism - it's due to the introduction of proper sanitation and vaccination.

Smallpox - was eradicated by the WHO mass vaccination scheme not scepticism.

Polio - nearly eradicated because of vaccination - not scepticism.

Puerperal fever - eradicated due to sterile methods of child birth - not scepticism.

Yellow fever - again the thanks goes to vaccination and pest control, not scepticism.

Scarlet fever - thanks to antibiotics such as penicillin and erythromycin - not scepticism. I know people who've had scarlet fever in this day and age anyway.

Diptheria - thanks to vaccination again - not scepticism, I also know people who've suffered diptheria.

Typhus - thanks to pest control and antibiotics like tetracyclines, not scepticism.

Black Death - is no longer prevalent in the developed world thanks to sanitation and pest control and is treatable with drugs like Gentamicin - no praise for scepticism here either.

Sleeping Sickness - only prevalent in certain areas of Africa and Tropical America in the case of Chagas disease and often treatable with antiprotozoal medications like Pentamidine - not anything to do with scepticism.

I know loads of people who've had TB and the reduction in it was due to mass use of BCG jabs and it is on the increase again and many strains are now resistant to the first line antibiotic combinations. Nothing to do with scepticism.

The Mighty Thor
It wouldn't be a surprise if substances in pine killed MRSA, after all pine extracts have been used in disinfectants for years.
Shockingly enough I've heard some microbiologists say that being more dirty as opposed to more clean may possibly reduce MRSA - their idea was that MRSA are weaker than normal S.aureus strains but MRSA are more capable of surviving anti-infectives through natural selection, so using them will barely touch MRSA but kill off their sensitive competition giving them extra space, but if they aren't used then the sensitive competition will just eventually dominate over MRSA again.

 

[Ashles]

Dr Adequate
Research has been done on mugwort showing it may help seizures and that's why I believe it may well have an effect.

What you described really has nothing to do with your so called 'wonders of scepticism.

You know no one who's suffered from cholera or typhoid - wow - that has nothing to do with scepticism - it's due to the introduction of proper sanitation and vaccination.

Smallpox - was eradicated by the WHO mass vaccination scheme not scepticism.

Polio - nearly eradicated because of vaccination - not scepticism.

Puerperal fever - eradicated due to sterile methods of child birth - not scepticism.

Yellow fever - again the thanks goes to vaccination and pest control, not scepticism.

Scarlet fever - thanks to antibiotics such as penicillin and erythromycin - not scepticism. I know people who've had scarlet fever in this day and age anyway.

Diptheria - thanks to vaccination again - not scepticism, I also know people who've suffered diptheria.

Typhus - thanks to pest control and antibiotics like tetracyclines, not scepticism.

Black Death - is no longer prevalent in the developed world thanks to sanitation and pest control and is treatable with drugs like Gentamicin - no praise for scepticism here either.

Sleeping Sickness - only prevalent in certain areas of Africa and Tropical America in the case of Chagas disease and often treatable with antiprotozoal medications like Pentamidine - not anything to do with scepticism.

I know loads of people who've had TB and the reduction in it was due to mass use of BCG jabs and it is on the increase again and many strains are now resistant to the first line antibiotic combinations. Nothing to do with scepticism.

Please replace 'scepticism' with 'herbalism' and you may yet get the point.

Scepticism does not argue against the existence of useful chemical compounds in plants or the existence of vaccination.

Herbalism, as a discipline would never have discovered any of these things. Herbalism has no methods for distinguishing the effective chemicals in a plant. Or other harmful ones.
How does herbalism help with vaccination? What does a herbalist understand about the subject?

To try and prove your point you have leapt completely into the "look what scientific methodology has done for the world".
That is EXACTLY what we have being saying all along.

Proper science saves lives. And if you plan to study it when you are older then I respect that totally. But you have to start letting go of the whole "Someone told me this once and I believe it" method of thinking.

For example, have you asked the White Witch about their 'report'? You are happy enough to quote scientific studies when they support your beliefs. What about when they don't?

It wouldn't be a surprise if substances in pine killed MRSA, after all pine extracts have been used in disinfectants for years.

Please tell me you aren't talking about pine SCENT, and that you actually have some information about the disinfecting properties of pine.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Skepticism...

results in the search for effective cures, solutions, etc. like vaccines.

Or we can remain unskeptical and just do some crazy dance to ward off evil spirits in the hopes that will cure your cancer.+

Or down some herbal junk and hope that works. There's no way to tell what dose you are getting or what is the active ingredient, but it might work.

Herbalism messing up modern medicine:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62671-2004Sep4.html

Trying to hide under the guise "natural" makes some people very dishonest.

 

[Jas]

I think another valid point to bring up when mentioning herbalism is the environmental factor. I am always surprised when environmental - minded people promote 'natural' over synthetic compounds. What if the herb in question is rare, and/or important to biodiversity? Wouldn't it be much better to synthesize to compound in question, in a controlled setting, rather than decimating the natural population, or destroying an ecosystem in order to replace it with farmed versions of the herb?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

jambo372

You just haven't got the point at all, have you?

The scientific method is, by its very nature, sceptical. Good scientists are sceptical, or, at least, they should be if they are to be credible, respected by their peers, and effective.

You will be telling us next that you believe that Padre Pio cured people, or that homeopathy has been proven scientifically. If you truly want to pursue a career in medical research, then your beliefs regarding science and psuedoscience will definitely be scrutinised by your professors. So, it is relevant to the discussion, jambo.

There is nothing wrong with admitting "I've looked at some of the beliefs I had with a critical eye, and I see now that I was wrong." But it does take a lot of courage and quite a bit of work to do that. After all, what would you be losing by seeking out the truth?

People here, some of whom have trodden that well-worn path, are trying to point you in the right direction. Others are probably experts in their field of study and wish to advise you wisely. But you don't seem to be listening.

Do you think that scepticism is somehow a bad thing? If you do, why do you think this?

 

[patchbunny]

I'd just like to know what people here believe about herbal medicine if anything.

Supposedly there is proof available for the following claims :

Ginger and Galangal root can help deal with travel sickness.

Well, I've heard that recent studies have shown that ginger can help with motion sickness. A quick search revealed <a href ="http://ajpgi.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/284/3/G481">this article</a> in the Americal Journal of Physiology - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology which indicates that ginger can help prevent motion sickness.

I'll let others disect the article. I need a dictionary just to get through the introduction.

--Patch

 

[cajela]

Traditional medicines can be good places to look for new drugs. After all, it's not like homeopathy; there are actually active ingredients in there. St John's Wort does seem to be quite psychoactive, for one.

If you're interested in depression, here is a proper medical journal review of complementary treatments, which ranks the quality of the evidence.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/176_10_200502/jor10311_fm.html

Here is the relevant excerpt:
===================================
Description:
St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) is a herb available in tablets, capsules and liquid form from supermarkets and health food shops.

Rationale:
St John's wort is a traditional herbal remedy in Europe. Its mode of action is not fully understood, but it appears to inhibit the synaptic reuptake of serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.30

Quality of evidence:
Level I. (Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant randomised controlled trials)

Review of effectiveness:
A meta-analysis of 27 randomised controlled trials concluded that this treatment is superior to placebo and not different from tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of mild to moderate depression.31 A meta-analysis of six studies that met stringent methodological criteria concluded that St John's wort is 50% more likely to produce an antidepressant effect than placebo and is equivalent to standard antidepressants.32 The side effects and drop-out rate are lower with St John's wort than with tricyclic antidepressants. Fewer trials have compared St John's wort with the newer antidepressants, but results to date indicate that it is as effective as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.33-35 Although most of the evidence on St John's wort is positive, the largest trial so far found no difference between St John's wort and placebo.36 This study was too recent to be included in the meta-analyses cited above.

Although St John's wort is generally reported to have fewer side effects than antidepressants, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has warned that it can interact with a number of prescription medicines, leading to a loss of therapeutic effect of these medicines. Medicines affected include HIV protease inhibitors, HIV non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, cyclosporin, tacrolimus, warfarin, digoxin, theophylline, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, SSRIs and related drugs, and triptans. An information sheet is available for healthcare professionals.37
Conclusion:

The use of St John's wort for mild to moderate depression is supported by most of the available evidence.
==================================
(Numbers refer to references, follow the link to get those.)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Jambo, since you seem utterly determined to miss my point, I'll repeat it.

If you test your ideas carefully TO SEE IF THEY WORK, you end up with SOMETHING THAT WORKS. Something wonderful. If not, you end up with crystal healing.

Science consists entirely of

(a) Thinking up new ideas
(b) Being sceptical about them

Without (b) modern medicne would be impossible. Take cholera, for example. John Snow put his ideas to the test . If he'd just run around like a woo-woo saying "I KNOW that cholera is caused by water contaminated by the feces of cholera victims" then people would have asked him the question that we're always asking. HOW DO YOU KNOW? He knew because he took the trouble to find out.

Pseudoscience consists entirely of

(a) Dredging up old, discredited ideas
(b) Not being sceptical about them.

Finding a scientific study of mugwort saying that it is good for fits would speak well for mugwort. Having it praised by a "white witch" is worthless evidentially. I have just been reading a book on crystal healing by a white witch. She gets her information by channeling the goddess Bridgit. The goddess Bridgit is apparently under the impression that the human body is 98% water, 'cos she says so on the first page. When someone tells you that they're a white witch, you should be extremely suspicious of anything else they tell you, not swallow it down uncritically.

Oh, and that Nigerian guy who wants to make you incredibly wealthy if you'll just give him your bank details? Don't go there.

 

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

The other scientists did have their way. They demanded that Pasteur provide good evidence and replicable experiments. He did. His ideas about disease were the only ones that withstood scepticism. There were dozens of others, which didn't. Scepticism found the right one. That's how we got where we are now. There is no other way.

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

Alexander Fleming had done hundreds of experiments looking for a mould with just such properties before he noticed penicilium's effect on a different experiment. AND THEN HE TESTED IT TO SEE IF IT WORKED ON HUMANS. He went back to testing mould after mould, strain after strain: the best strain, if I remember rightly, grew on grapefruit. HE TESTED IT. IT WORKED. If he'd just seen this thing in vitro, and then gone around yelling that he had a magic mould which would cure bacterial diseases, he would have been a woo-woo.

Every piece of genuine scientific knowledge has been tested by the best methods we have. That's what makes it scientific knowledge. The content of science is just those ideas about the natural world which so far have survived sceptical inquiry. No more, no less.

 

[Hellbound]

Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

We'd be exactly where we are today.

Other scientists were rightly sceptical of Pasteur's germ theory. It was a new idea. Do you expect them to simply accept it right away, based on Pastuer's word alone? They were sceptical, which is the nature of science. They questioned the theory, tested it, and when the theory failed to fail, it was accepted as truth. That questioning, that scepticism of the theory, is what gives us confidence in it.

Likewise for penicillin. How was it known that the penicillin caused the bacterial death? Because Fleming was sceptical of it himself, and tested it himself. Again, other scientists were rightly sceptical of the idea, and questioned and tested it to determine it's truth.

You seem to be confusing scepticism (the attitude of requiring credicle evidence before accepting an idea) with cynicism (the attitude of rejecting any new idea offhand). Without sceptical review of Fleming and Pasteur's discoveries, we would not have been able to place a high measure of confidence in them.

Think where we would be without scepticism. The idea that humors or demons caused illness would be prevalent, because no one would question it. Everyone would still "know" that the earth was the center of the solar system. It is precisely by questioning and testing new ideas...being sceptical of them...that we can seperate truth from fiction.

The second quote in my sig line is on precisely this subject. Scientific method is based on scepticism. Science advances by trying it's best to disprove new ideas and new theories. They try to crash them into the wall. If the theories can be disproven, then they weren't true to begin with. If the theory stands up to the tests, providing accurate answers matching the predictions, then it is accepted. If the car hits the wall and stays intact, it's considered safe. If the car hits the wall and shatters it, this is an exceptional result that requires more testing to confirm...concepts like relativity, evolution, and quantum mechanics fit here. They cahnge the entire directions of their fields, and as such were (rightfully) more rigorously tested before acceptance.

Edited to add:

Dammit, Dr Adequate, get out of my head!! Stop reading my mind!!!! Dirty psychic...

 

[Ashles]

No jambo no. You are getting this all very badly wrong. Are you doing this on purpose?

Scepticism involves questioning theories and observations.
Scepticism is NOT outright dismissal - you have been apparently brainwashed into thinking that.

Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

Scientists DID have 'their way'. They tested the theories and found it to be incredibly useful.
You have, yet again, given an example in which scientific method has been successfully used.

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

You really are looking a bit silly now jambo. A lucky accident happened. The results were observed. Theories were developed and tested. Penicillium was isolated and its properties tested and utilised.
A triumph of scientific process.

Your understanding of the word sceptic appears to be woefully wrong. The way you are uing it seems to imply that you think scepticism is about saying "No" to everything. It is not. If that were the case you would never have heard of Penicillin or Louis Pasteur or quntum physics or plate tectonics, or, almost anything.
Scepticism involves asking "Show me evidence and repeatability" not just blindly trusting anyone who claims something.

Why do you not believe in Uri Geller any more? Because sceptics analysed his claims and demonstrated his fakery. That's a sceptical process. Without it you'd still happily believe he can do what he claims.

Scepticism is not about concealing the truth, it is about trying to unearth it by throwing many questions at claims and seeing if they stand up.

Why do you not understand this? You want to be a scientist, yet you don't understand this process? Do you just believe every single thing you are told? If not, why not? It is a sceptical procedure of your own designed to try and tell what is true.

Scepticism in science is just much more rigorous than your own personal scepticism, because it is dealing with trying to find scientific facts that can be used for the future.

It is a useful tool in life and without it you will be taken in by many charletans, fakers and liars. In my opinion you already have been - by the readers and the White Witch with her 'report' which you haven't seen.

 

[Dr Adequate]

"Synchronicity can happen almost any time." --- Ursula K. Le Guin.

 

[Hellbound]

"Coincidentally, coincidences do happen" - Me, just now.