Herbal meds don't seem to work

So can we now conclude that Herbal meds don't seem to work except for those that do, er, seem to work:

http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa061403a.htm

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/chlorogen.shtml

and the following:

"Plants have been used in traditional medicine since time immemorial (Cox 1995), and even today, twenty-five per cent of all prescriptions issued in the USA contain compounds derived from them (Roberts, 1988). Our most popular analgesic, aspirin, was originally derived from species of Salix and Spiraea (Katzung, 1995) and some of the most valuable anti-cancer agents (paclitaxel and vinblastine) are derived solely from plant sources (Roberts 1988, Pezzuto 1996). In 1983, the secondary plant product market was estimated to be worth around a thousand million dollars per year (Curtin 1983), and the price of vinblastine was $1000 per gram (Curtin 1983), so there are potentially great rewards in producing these substances. The potential of genetic engineering to improve the yield of these substances from both whole plants and tissue cultures is great. However, as will be seen, there are serious obstacles to making such production economically viable." from Steve's Place (not me) More can be found at:

http://www.steve.gb.com/science/gmdrugs.html



PS: Homeopathic products are not necessarily herbal remedies ..........
in fact, unless water is plant matter and this escaped us, one can hardly see the analogy.
 
I think the big complaint here is not if herbal meds work or not.. it's the fact that we really don't know for sure which herbal meds work and which ones don't. This is because herbal meds don't need to face the same scientific scrutiny as medicine does.. for some strange reason (money).
 
SteveGrenard said:
So can we now conclude that Herbal meds don't seem to work except for those that do, er, seem to work:

http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa061403a.htm

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/10_03/chlorogen.shtml

and the following:

"Plants have been used in traditional medicine since time immemorial (Cox 1995), and even today, twenty-five per cent of all prescriptions issued in the USA contain compounds derived from them (Roberts, 1988). Our most popular analgesic, aspirin, was originally derived from species of Salix and Spiraea (Katzung, 1995) and some of the most valuable anti-cancer agents (paclitaxel and vinblastine) are derived solely from plant sources (Roberts 1988, Pezzuto 1996). In 1983, the secondary plant product market was estimated to be worth around a thousand million dollars per year (Curtin 1983), and the price of vinblastine was $1000 per gram (Curtin 1983), so there are potentially great rewards in producing these substances. The potential of genetic engineering to improve the yield of these substances from both whole plants and tissue cultures is great. However, as will be seen, there are serious obstacles to making such production economically viable." from Steve's Place (not me) More can be found at:

http://www.steve.gb.com/science/gmdrugs.html



PS: Homeopathic products are not necessarily herbal remedies ..........
in fact, unless water is plant matter and this escaped us, one can hardly see the analogy.
Click to expand...
I don't think we can seriously equate compounds extracted from herbs with the herbs themselves. The former can be purified and given in controlled doses, while the latter cannot always be relied upon for purity or consistent dosage. Aspirin, for example, may have been derived from plant sources, but that doesn't make the plant source safe and efficacious. Nobody would call aspirin an herbal remedy, although willow bark would qualify as one. Likewise, the plant sources of paclitaxel and vincristine might be called herbal remedies, but paclitaxel and vincristine are in no way herbal remedies. It would be like saying that because high-octane gasoline works so well, crude oil is just as good in your gas tank.
 
Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>Herbal 'remedies', by and large, don't do anything but line the pockets of the people selling them. That sure makes somebody feel better.


The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>Herbal 'remedies', by and large, don't do anything but line the pockets of the people selling them. That sure makes somebody feel better.

The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...
While it's true that pharmaceutical companies are in business to make money, it's also true that herbal companies are in business to make money. The difference is that the pharmaceutical companies are legally bound to conduct thorough studies to prove efficacy and safety for the drugs they sell; while many such drugs are potentially harmful, in order to be sold it must be shown that their benefit outweighs risk. Herbal remedies are held to no similar standard of efficacy, safety, or good manufacturing processes. In some cases, such as ephedra, the herb may in fact be harmful -- but many people believe the herbal companies when they claim that herbs are inherently safe. I'd rather opt for medication that has been subjected to stringent examination for safety and efficacy, rather than an herbal remedy whose pharmacokinetics are supported by little more than old wives' tales.
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>Herbal 'remedies', by and large, don't do anything but line the pockets of the people selling them. That sure makes somebody feel better.


The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

Another fictional and ludicrous statement by Rouser. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

PS Guess I stumped you with pseudoephedrine.
 
Rouser2 said:



The same can be said for over the counter and prescription drugs, only most herbs are far less harmful.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...
Ummm...herbs often have less side effects because they don't do anything at all. I'm not saying that all drugs are perfect, but unlike you I don't have a near-religious belief in certain remedies. To claim that herbs are some sort of magical cure-all is nonsense, matched only by your claims that the majority of real medicine is somehow bad for you.
 
Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Guess I stumped you with pseudoephedrine.

Funny, years ago I took the stuff in Contac and Nyquil and such. Never did a thing for me.

-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Funny, years ago I took the stuff in Contac and Nyquil and such. Never did a thing for me.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

Funny, that's called anecdotal evidence, with an N of 1, another nonsensical argument. There are many clinical trials in the literature demonstrating a statistically significant AND clinically significant reduction in nasal congestion with this drug. A simple fact - it works.
 
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

Stats please.
 
Rouser2 said:
How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

As opposed to:

a) how many deaths would there be without prescrption drugs
b) how many deaths would there be if homeopat(et)ic "remedies" replaced prescription drugs

if the answer to a) is one more than the deaths then that's just fine. There's a heap of evidence to back up the safety and effecacy of drugs.

of course an answer to b) cannot be produced becuase there have been no large scale, properly conducted, drug trials for homeopat(et)ic "remedies"
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>. All OTC and prescription drugs in the U.S. have, unlike herbal treatments, multiple well-controlled, double-blind clinical trials documenting efficacy and safety.

How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

First you're confusing OTC with prescription drugs. Next you're running on the presumption that prescription drug complications, which are reported to make the drug safer, is any indication in comparison to herbal users, who are not obligated and (it appears) not inclined to report on their findings and their complications. If someone were to take an aspirin, one could ask:
what is its chemical structure?
What is its active ingredient?
What percent is inert ingredient?
How much is in a capsule?
What are the contraindications?
How long does it last?
How many can I take in a reasonable amount of time?
What do I do if I consume too many?

One simply cannot do that with, say, Feverfew, Goldenrod, or Thistle seed extract.
 
Rouser2 said:
How reassuring. Is that why there are only over one hundred thousand deaths from prescription drugs in the US each and every year???

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

For the second time, you are correct, believe it or not. There are over 100,000 adverse reactions to prescription drugs resulting in death in the U.S. every year. The reason is that prescription drugs, unlike homeopathic "remedies" and many other alternative "treatments", have significant physiological activity in the human body. All drugs are approved on a benefit vs risk assessment, as all have risks.

So yes, the risk is 100,000 die every year, the benefit is tens of millions of lives are saved every year. Not a bad tradeoff.
 
Poison Ivy is a natural herb.

Natural and herbal do not make for safe, much less effective.

Willow bark, an early source of salyciates (from which aspirin evolved), is also a natural herb. Where willow bark is effective, aspirin is more effective--and it's easier to find out how much you've just taken.

Herbal substances are difficult to dose--there's no guarantee that every generation of a plant will have the same concentration of the active ingredient.
 
BTox said:


For the second time, you are correct, believe it or not. There are over 100,000 adverse reactions to prescription drugs resulting in death in the U.S. every year. The reason is that prescription drugs, unlike homeopathic "remedies" and many other alternative "treatments", have significant physiological activity in the human body. All drugs are approved on a benefit vs risk assessment, as all have risks.

So yes, the risk is 100,000 die every year, the benefit is tens of millions of lives are saved every year. Not a bad tradeoff.
Click to expand...

link? stats? references to look up myself, even?
 
BTox said:


What are you looking for - the 100,000 deaths stats?
Click to expand...

Well, it's easier to look up 100,000 deaths than finding the other time Rouser2 was right. :p

so yes, please... those stat deaths or something I can look up myself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom