Non Woo Woo Herbal

[Johnny Pneumatic]

What are some plants that one can eat that really do produce some chemical that numbs pain, helps with sickness etc. Basically what herbal stuff isn't woo woo?

[scotth]

Aloe, aspirin, marijuana, opium, cocaine to name a few.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Basically what herbal stuff isn't woo woo?
Anything that actually works.

[Goshawk]

Ginger rates better than "placebo" at helping nausea. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10793599&dopt=Abstract)

[Brown]

Don't know if there's anything to this "60 Minutes" report (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/18/60minutes/main656458.shtml).

[Goshawk]

SkepticJ, there's a lot of good browsing here (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/herbalmedicine.html).

Most herbal/botanical "stuff" does do *something*, I mean, it's not usually totally biochemically inert, but it doesn't always do what you want it to do. It's not always helpful, is the point. And sometimes it's actually harmful, or even directly toxic.

But I know what you're getting at, like the ginger thing.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by scotth
Aloe, aspirin, marijuana, opium, cocaine to name a few.

Marijuana's bad.-Mr. Mackey

[H3LL]

Foxgloves contain digitalis, but I wouldn't recommend eating one if you had heart problems.

As I understand it, it is better to take the active ingredient after it has been separated from the source, or unwanted compounds removed (thinking of the cocaine removing plant in New Jersey that makes one of the ingredients for Coca-cola, although not medical as such).

I understood that much (not all) of the pharmaceutical industry is concerned with either synthetic production of active ingredients found in nature (plant or animal) or the extraction of such things.

I'm a little hesitant to consume a whole plant as there maybe other toxins that could be harmful. After all, many compounds in plants are a defence mechanism and control of the dose is extremely difficult.

I remember seeing a documentary about the death of Alexander the Great. It was suspected that he died from incorrect dosage of some herbal root (I forget the name). Getting the dose just right was very important.

I would first try to find out what the active ingredient is in the herb/plant and see if there is a product with a refined dose.

[Open Mind]

Aloe Vera
Bilberry
Echinacea
Garlic
GingkoBiloba
Green Tea
Milk Thistle
Nettle leaf or root
Pau D’arco
Saw Palmetto
St John’s Wort

……. And many others I’ missed out …… but I know these ones have proven effects or have had successful medical trials beating placebos, etc.

[Trinity]

Camomile.

I know of a number of others but i do not think they are scientifically tested. Another natural substance with several good medical applications is alcohol;).

Trinity

[Mojo]

I don't consider herbal medicine to be woo woo as much as imprecise. After all, as has already been pointed out, herbs can contain real amounts of real chemicals with real effects.

There may be a few problems though. As H3LL pointed out, because you're dealing with an unrefined product, you don't always know the precise dosage of the active compound, or what else is in it.

There is also the problem that at least some of the people who use herbal medicine are the sort of people who, like Mrs. Mojo, say things like "it's natural so it can't be bad for me," or who don't really look at the evidence for whether or not a particular remedy actually works ("it's been used for thousands of years...").

[Mojo]

Originally posted by H3LL
I understood that much (not all) of the pharmaceutical industry is concerned with either synthetic production of active ingredients found in nature (plant or animal) or the extraction of such things.
When I was a chemistry undergaduate, as far as I can remember (it was rather a long time ago) about half of the final year projects on offer in organic chemistry were simply working out the structure of an unknown chemical, usually isolated from a plant of some sort, and supplied by (and I imagine sponsored by) a pharmaceutical company.

[DeVega]

with any medication you might be on - St John's Wort, used for depression, if taken in combination with the oral contraceptive pill can actually make one MORE depressed! It also makes your skin more light sensitive.

Ginger is a great thing! When I was having chemotherapy I ate crystallised ginger when I actually had the IV in - also had a flask of ginger and lemon tea. I was never sick (vomited) through 8 months of treatment - it might have been a placebo right enough, but who cares!!!!

It's also interesting to me that health store sell herbal supplements for "womens problems" - menopausal symtoms like hot flushes, hair loss, anxiety etc - which are choc FULL of naturally occuring plant oestrogens; things like Evening Primrose Oil, Red Clover, Black Coshosh. Now if you or your family have ANY incidence of certain cancers you should NOT be taking this stuff. SOME tumours feed on the oestrogen i.e are oestrogen positive. Drugs like Tamoxifen actually stop the body producing any which is why being on Tamox is like a 5 year menopause!

Most people selling these supplements seem ignorant of these facts - places like Boots the chemist for example, even Holland and Barrett... Worrying, nes pas?

DeVega

[scotth]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Aloe Vera
Bilberry
Echinacea
Garlic
GingkoBiloba
Green Tea
Milk Thistle
Nettle leaf or root
Pau D’arco
Saw Palmetto
St John’s Wort

……. And many others I’ missed out …… but I know these ones have proven effects or have had successful medical trials beating placebos, etc.

I think Echinacea was recently shown to be pretty much worthless.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Aloe Vera
Bilberry
Echinacea
Garlic
GingkoBiloba
Green Tea
Milk Thistle
Nettle leaf or root
Pau D’arco
Saw Palmetto
St John’s Wort

……. And many others I’ missed out …… but I know these ones have proven effects or have had successful medical trials beating placebos, etc.

What are they supposed to do?

Can I see the (repeated, of course) scientific studies?

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by H3LL

As I understand it, it is better to take the active ingredient after it has been separated from the source, or unwanted compounds removed (thinking of the cocaine removing plant in New Jersey that makes one of the ingredients for Coca-cola, although not medical as such).

I understood that much (not all) of the pharmaceutical industry is concerned with either synthetic production of active ingredients found in nature (plant or animal) or the extraction of such things.



But there are 2 sides to the story. Pharmaceutical companies cannot patent a plant or concentrated plant product, synthetic isolation means it is patentable which means potentially far greater profits. If the isolated active ingredient is still not patentable I'm sure some would prefer to slightly modify it . .....

Personally I'm not opposed to isolation unless, it seems a sensible idea to control dose, I have a bigger problem with slight modification (making something natural in plants structure to sometimes something non existent in nature - greater chance of side effects, perhaps?) ...... however *if* the end product was compared to the highly *concentrated* plant source extract in the trials I would not complain (but by law are they required to do so?)


I would first try to find out what the active ingredient is in the herb/plant and see if there is a product with a refined dose. [/B]
Essential to health vitamins and minerals fall into that category too, yet these aren't patentable either ....... how many pharmaceutical companies sell vitamins/mineral? Not many AFAIK. Is there any bias against using these in very highly concentrated dose rather than pantented medicinal drugs? I think so. The recommended daily amount (RDA) is the amount advised in diets to prevent disease ..... at higher doses vitamins/minerals can have some therapeutic effects, rather than just preventative of deficiency........

.....Now this is where the debate gets complex ........... some pharmaceutical company representatives have been campaigning (EU directives etc.) for vitamin/minerals/ herbs to be reclassified as 'drugs', they claim for public safety, however others claim it is to destroy the competition. Only pharmaceutical companies could afford the safety trials and some even want each new natural herb/vitamin complex to be tested for safety (could that mean animals experiments too?)

If the laws must be tightened, at least if nothing else ... we should support campaigns to have pharmaceutical companies compare each new product to concentrated to best knwon vitamin/mineral/herb combination rather than just a placebo. If they want to kill of a natural health industry, conventional medicine needs to constantly prove to be much more effective and safer too........... are they really doing that?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What are they supposed to do?

Can I see the (repeated, of course) scientific studies? I have read on many occasions and seen films which prove that garlic keeps vampires away.

[kookbreaker]

There are also plenty of herbs that will act as a diurentic. Several (such as Valerian Root) can knock you sleepy.

[Drooper]

I thought St Johns Wort was found to be ineffecitive in some relatively recent studies.


In general, I have no problem believing that naturally occurring substances (i.e. drugs) can have theraputic effects.

The question is, what are the effects and what are the side effects and what is the relative value of these things versus other, usually manufactureed, drugs.

In fact where exactly does modern pharmacology come from if not the evolution of the use and development of naturally occurring chemical compounds through to the isolation of the effective agents, through to artificial replication of such compounds, through to the artifical manufacture of similar compounds, etc.

[jambo372]

Typical - skeptics hog the glory.

When you say non "woo-woo" herbs that's not technically correct.
Just because something works doesn't mean it's not, for lack of a better word, woo-woo.

Herbalists and Witchdoctors, whom you class as woo-woos, would have been using these herbs to conconct remedies long before they were proven to work.

eg Gypsies new of the medicinal properties of Digitalis before it was tested by modern science and used for heart trouble.

Indian shamans knew about the value of cinchona bark against malaria before it was tested by modern scientists.

Herbalists used garlic to treat wound infection long before it was proven by medical science to contain an antibiotic compound.

Hence these herbs are very much Woo-Woo.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Just because something works doesn't mean it's not, for lack of a better word, woo-woo.

Herbalists and Witchdoctors, whom you class as woo-woos...
This is a lie, as you know perfectly well from our earlier discussion of herbal healing. But please continue to construct your pathetic straw man.
, would have been using these herbs to conconct remedies long before they were proven to work.
Don't you suppose that observing that they made the patient better constituted proof?
eg Gypsies new of the medicinal properties of Digitalis it was tested by modern science and used for heart trouble.
I don't know why you mention gypsies particularly, but if it was known to work, then it wasn't woowoo to believe in it.
Indian shamans knew about the value of cinchona bark against malaria before it was tested by modern scientists.
Indian shamans?

But if this was true, then I should have to ask: "Which part of 'knew' didn't you understand? If something is known to be true, then believing in it is not woowoo.
Herbalists used garlic to treat wound infection long before it was proven by medical science to contain an antibiotic compound.
What's more, they did so successfully. Hence there was nothing wooowoo about doing so.
Hence these herbs are very much Woo-Woo.
A herb cannot be woowoo. Try to write more clearly.

Belief that a herb has some healing power is not woowoo if it is known to have that healing power. Believing anything which is known to be true is not woowoo. "Modern science" has not verified that I have two legs, but it is known to me to be true, and it is not woowoo for me to believe it.

Apart from the gross stupidities I've pointed out, you seem to be claiming that everything invented or discovered before the existence of "modern science" is necessarily woowoo. How dumb can you get?

[Nex]

Originally posted by jambo372
Typical - skeptics hog the glory.

...<snipped for space>...

Hence these herbs are very much Woo-Woo.
Well, there is a lot of history with herbalism and what has and hasn't been proven by scientific method.
While your examples are quite accurate, please remember that there are thousands of herbal "remedies" that don't amount to a hill o' beans.

For a few examples:

St. John's Wort supposedly cures tetanus, rids the body of intestinal worms, cures diarrhea, cures hysteria, and removes bunions.

Parsley supposedly cures venereal diseases (all), removes kidney and gall stones, and cures jaundice.

Mugwort supposedly cures tumors.

Comfrey supposedly cures bloody coughs, bloody urine, or bloody bowel movements.

(source: Hutchens, Alma R. Indian Herbology of North America. Boston: Shambhala Press, 1991.)

Also, herbology books constantly contradict each other.

For comparison, from The Complete Herb Book by Maggie Stuckey (Berkeley Books, 1994):

St. John's Wort- not listed.

Parsley supposedly cures rheumatism.

Mugwort- not listed.

Comfrey used as a poutice is supposedly antibiotic. A bath with comfrey leaves soothes sore muscles.

************************

A lot of herbalism is woo. A small portion isn't, but because herbs contain active chemicals that do real things to the body, without a good educational background in botanical chemistry and human physiology/pharmacology it becomes a sort of Russian roulette with your health.

Also, bear in mind that plants of the same species growing in the same plot right next to each other can contain radically different amounts of active chemicals. There is no way to determine how weak or strong your particular herbal remedy is unless you have a lab in your kitchen.

*edited for typos*

[jambo372]

My point is that people you classify as woo-woos were well aware of the power of these herbs long before it was proven.

The gypsies etc did have proof - it made the patient better.

Many herbalist's clients have been cured or at least helped by the herbs they prescribed - skeptics still disregard this and claim it is not proof - a clear contradiction.

[Ashles]

My point is that people you classify as woo-woos were well aware of the power of these herbs long before it was proven.

The gypsies etc did have proof - it made the patient better.

Many herbalist's clients have been cured or at least helped by the herbs they prescribed - skeptics still disregard this and claim it is not proof - a clear contradiction.

These people believed a lot of things about a lot of herbs. They were right about some, wrong about others. And they never knew why.
A patient appearing to get better is not proof that the herb was responsible. Ever heard of the immune system? Remission? Placebo effect?
The gypsies don't exactly do scientifically controlled testing.
And they also believe you will be cursed if you don't buy their stupid heather in Leicester Square, so they are hardly a pinnacle of clear and unbiased thinking that I would use to base my medical research around.

Pharmacologists, biologists, biochemists, botanists etc. will have actual knowledge about these plants and their active compounds.
Herbalists will just tell you they used it in China so it must be good.
These days some herblists may have some small knowledge of the chemicals involved, but only because they are reading it from medical research. They are trusting the scientists to tell them the facts, so an informed herbalist is actually following scientific research, not the other way round.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
My point is that people you classify as woo-woos
I understood your drivel very clearly the first time, and as I have pointed out, this is a lie. I do not so classify them. You have been very clearly informed of this on several occasions. You are lying. Stop lying. Tell the truth. What is the point of lying about my opinion when I have clearly stated to the contrary? Stop telling pointless stupid lies.
were well aware of the power of these herbs long before it was proven.

The gypsies etc did have proof - it made the patient better.
They were aware "long before it was proven" and they had proof?

I don't even see how even you can come up with such rubbish. I have revised my opinion of your intelligence still lower accordingly.
Many herbalist's clients have been cured or at least helped by the herbs they prescribed - skeptics still disregard this and claim it is not proof -
This is a lie, as you know from the earlier thread on this subject. Stop telling me lies about my own opinions. Stop lling lies about what has been posted on these boards. Stop telling lies about sceptics on a sceptical website. Stop telling pointless lies. Stop telling lies. Thank you.
a clear contradiction.
:dl:
As opposed to your crystal clear thought, in which people can "have proof" for something "long before it was proven".

Now, let's make this clear. Your posts on this subject are based entirely on lying to sceptics about their opinions, and in particular, what we mean by "woowoo". You are not going to convince us by lying to us about our own opinions. Why don't you try either telling the same lies to someone else, or some different lies to us.

Or you could try telling the truth. It gets easier with practice.

[Dr Adequate]

Just to remind you, here's that earlier Herbal Healing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46180&perpage=40&pagenumber=) thread again. Since jambo's forgotten all about it, it seems...

It also contains the jambo lectures on ethics, which I shall quote some excepts from for the benefit of a delighted world:

jambo372 steals the widow's mite (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46180&perpage=40&pagenumber=4): "Like the idea of professional con artist but I don't really consider it a profession - the simple schemes can make quite a bit of money and be quite fun ie taking money for a non - existent charity event - you should try it - you end up loaded....About the con thing - Of course I've done it - who hasn't ?...you just say the money is for a worthy ( fake ) cause ( namely yourself which should remain unknown to them ) and accept all they cough up ...Self - Respect ? That's why you do it - to get money to respect ( pamper ) yourself with....Just about everybody I know has done it at least once...I have attempted and fantasized about doing far worse which I will not discuss... I am not corrupt... Fraud and theft are entirely different.... I don't consider it to be theft - they KNOW they're giving the money and are perfectly WILLING to do so... when you think about it it's a bit stupid to work for money when by using fraud you just sit on your arse, enjoy yourself and get gradually richer... The following things aren't disgusting: murder manslaughter theft fraud... What I done wasn't even bad... I do understand why people consider my actions as morally reprehensible but to be honest with you I couldn't care less... " Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.".... I mention Jesus because he is the final judge - not you or anyone else.... you putrid ignoramus ... oh the hypocrisy ! ... if I was like you I think I'd shoot myself... I don't boast about my so called 'swindling'."

His latest lies, however, are evidently being told not for money, but just for the love of it.

[jambo372]

The first time I said proof I meant that it worked for them.

When I said before it was proven I meant before it was proven by modern medical research.

And no the vast majority of skeptics here do not consider a cure or benefit from the gypsies potion as proof. See the case about mugwort and seizures earlier ... he WAS cured but that didn't constitute proof for you. For you proof is a decade or so of scrutiny in laboratories.

Oh and Ashles ... you DO get cursed if you refuse a gypsy.
And as I mentioned earlier herbalists don't always base their work on what scientists tell them. It CAN be vice versa eg Amerindian healers knew about the value of cinchona bark against malaria before scientists discovered this and isolated quinine. It's the same with Garlic ... it has been an old favourite with herbalists for years to treat infected wounds but scientists have only recently discovered it's real utility as an antibiotic and anti-fungal. Herbal tea made by gypsies containing foxglove is what INSPIRED SCIENTISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE to research the potential medicinal values of the digitalis.

[Ashles]

Oh and Ashles ... you DO get cursed if you refuse a gypsy.
So if I am minding my own business walking along the street perfectly happily and a scabby old woman offers me some scrunched-up paper in a tin foil cone and I politely say that I don't wish to buy it, that deserves me to be cursed does it?

Well since then I have had a perfectly delightful life so I guess there is something to be said for not living a life based on fear of mumbo-jumbo and superstition.

Maybe the gypsies could try cursing Osama Bin Laden or doing something useful with their mystical powers rather than bothering everyday folk.

I tell you what, if I had mystical powers I wouldn't be hanging around Leicester Square smelling of wee, begging money off strangers.

But that's just me.

[jambo372]

Ashles
Certainly - I know someone who had a run of terrible luck after pretending to gypsy Natalia that they had no spare change to buy her CD.

[Ashles]

Yes but she smells of wee too.

Here she is wondering why she has no friends:

http://www.nataliazukerman.com/i/opening_image.jpg

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ashles
So if I am minding my own business walking along the street perfectly happily and a scabby old woman offers me some scrunched-up paper in a tin foil cone and I politely say that I don't wish to buy it, that deserves me to be cursed does it?
Well, of course (if you take on Jambo's point of view that scamming people out of money is an honourable profession. He now seems to be adding approval of blackmail to that in his post about "gypsy Natalia").

[H3LL]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
There are also plenty of herbs that will act as a diurentic...

I'm not sure which you meant. I'm often unsure myself as they sound the same, and your statement stands with either:

diuretic adj. Tending to increase the discharge of urine.

diarrhetic adj. (Med.) Producing diarrhea, or a purging.

If the latter; You have to be careful with this one. If memory served me right, it rarely does, I believe that a pellet containing antimony was used as a common diarrhetic as it would irritate the bowels as it travelled through the body. It had the additional advantage of being able to retrieve the medicine afterward. Many families would have one that would be used frequently among themselves and friends. BTW, don't try this one at home. Very nasty and dangerous.

My point (ramble) is that some herbal diarrhetics just have irritating properties which can be from any number of compounds. Which would it be?

[rightbrain]

Originally posted by Mojo

There may be a few problems though. As H3LL pointed out, because you're dealing with an unrefined product, you don't always know the precise dosage of the active compound, or what else is in it.

There is also the problem that at least some of the people who use herbal medicine are the sort of people who, like Mrs. Mojo, say things like "it's natural so it can't be bad for me," or who don't really look at the evidence for whether or not a particular remedy actually works ("it's been used for thousands of years...").

I actually had occasion to research medicinal herbs at one point (from a journalist/author's point of view, not as a scientist).

I agree with Mojo. The other problem is that people use herbs out of context. Ephedra is a prime example. Traditional Chinese medicine uses ephedra for opening up the lungs--exactly what it, and its manufactured counterparts, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, are useful for--but in conjunction with other herbs to balance its effects because Chinese doctors know that ephedra alone can be dangerous. That message seemed to be lost on the get-rich-quick U.S. weight loss industry.

There haven't been tons of clinical trials on herbals--though there have been more than most people think, mostly outside the U.S. Testing is expensive and natural ingredients can't be patented.

Some herbs that are considered safe and generally effective (in standardized doses), with varying degrees of clinical evidence:
Aloe vera, for external use
Arnica, ditto
Bilberry, for circulatory health, primarily vision
Chile peppers and their active ingredient, capsaicin, for external use (widely used in pain relief rubs); and of course as an internal remedy to really open up clogged sinuses and induce sweating
Chamomile, for mild stomach upsets
Echinacea, for colds/flu; the research evidence is mixed, but it's safe enough and can't hurt. I swear by it myself.
Eucalyptus, for colds, stuffy nose
Feverfew, for migraines
Dong quai, the "woman's herb"--maybe. A Kaiser double-blind, placebo controlled study found it ineffective at preventing hot flashes, but it may help ease cramps
Garlic, as an antiseptic
Ginger, for nausea
Gingko biloba, for dementia/memory impairment
Horse chestnut, for circulation, primarily the extremities (marketed as Venastat, a varicose vein remedy, in the U.S.)
Licorice, to soothe sore throats
Marshmallow, ditto (the herb, that is, which originally was made into a confection as a palatable kids' medicine)
Milk thistle, for liver dysfunction. One of the more interesting things I read (can't remember where) was that some European hospitals use milk thistle extract as an antidote to mushroom poisoning. Obviously, I wouldn't rely on milk thistle to counteract liver failure, but would consider it a useful supportive remedy.
Peppermint, for stomach upset and flatulence. And sniffing the stuff is a great way to wake up when you're falling asleep at the computer.
Saw palmetto, for prostate
Shiitake mushrooms, for immune system support
St. John's Wort, for mild depression (*not* to be used with other antidepressants)
Tea (and just about anything else with a lot of tannin, such as sage) to ease diarrhea
And most of the herbal laxatives are effective, though probably not more so than a big bowl of bran flakes.

Some good sources for herb info:
Ethnobotanical database at USDA (legacy of ethnobotanist Jim Duke, Duke, a delightful guy and awesome authority on how various cultures use herbs):
http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/

American Botanical Council:
http://www.herbalgram.org
It's a nonprofit with ties to the herbal industry, but in general, the info is well-researched and balanced and there's certainly a lot of it. ABC closely follows the German Commission E listings for herbs.

And as someone else mentioned, the NIH.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
The first time I said proof I meant that it worked for them.

When I said before it was proven I meant before it was proven by modern medical research.
Why did you say one thing when you meant a completely different thing?
And no the vast majority of skeptics here do not consider a cure or benefit from the gypsies potion as proof.
You are still lying. The fact that something cures or benefits people is indeed proof that it cures or benefits people. Stop telling witless lies.
See the case about mugwort and seizures earlier ... he WAS cured but that didn't constitute proof for you.
You are lying, as anyone can see who reads the thread. Indeed, anyone who reads the thread will discover that you have founded a whole way of life on disgusting and stupid lies. You didn't even give us an anecdote of a cure. Your "proof" was "a white witch told me".
For you proof is a decade or so of scrutiny in laboratories
This is a lie, as I have made perfectly clear. What do you hope to gain by lying about what I think? You face immediate exposure.

But I suppose it's easier for you in the short term to argue with imaginary sceptics than with real ones.

[jambo372]

His seizures were brought under control by the Mugwort ... you did NOT accept this recovery as proof ... like I said, your way of proof is to drag a case through a laboratory for years of study.
Do you really expect me to take
your word over hers (the white witch's) ?
That would just be pathetic.

[The Don]

Originally posted by jambo372
His seizures were brought under control by the Mugwort ... you did NOT accept this recovery as proof ... like I said, your way of proof is to drag a case through a laboratory for years of study.
Do you really expect me to take
your word over hers (the white witch's) ?
That would just be pathetic.
Riiiiiight so an unsupported anecdote based on a single case constitutes proof without any kind of indication about other medication.

On that basis, scotch cures influenza my proof :

When I was at university, I caught the'flu. I spent 3 weeks in bed and was very sick. Half way through the third week I had a glass of scotch and my symptoms were brought back under control. Clearly the scotch was responsible.

[Ashles]

Would this be the famous White Witch who refers to medical studies she has allegedly read.
But never shows them to anyone or gives any references to them?

Frankly I'd take a journalist, a politician or an estate agent's word over that of a [attempts to keep straight face] white witch [/attempts to keep straight face].

[jambo372]

But unless of course you died your recovery would have came about quite soon ... he had a long standing illness which wouldn't go away itself.

[Ashles]

he had a long standing illness which wouldn't go away itself.

and we know this because...

Oh yes, you are informing us over an internet forum about something which you were told by someone else who is a white witch.

Are you going to call the media or shall I?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
His seizures were brought under control by the Mugwort ... you did NOT accept this recovery as proof ...
Now listen, you stupid, pathetic liar, you did not give, on the earlier thread, any case involving anyone whose "seizures were brought under control by the Mugwort ". And this is a very stupid thing for you to pretend, since anyone interested can read the thread and see this for themselves. (They can also, in doing so, find out what a filthy despicable conman you are.) Why do you tell such stupid lies? My hypothesis: you are stupid, and you are a liar.
like I said, your way of proof is to drag a case through a laboratory for years of study.
As I've poited out, this is not "my way of proof", and to say so, after you've been told the contrary so repeatedly, is yet another of your pathetic halfwit lies.
Do you really expect me to take
your word over hers (the white witch's) ?
Hey, you inadvertantly let the truth slip out. Careful!
That would just be pathetic.
My word for what, idiot? Your gibble doesn't even make sense any more, though I'm aware that in your stupid childish way you're attempting to be offensive.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What are some plants that one can eat that really do produce some chemical that numbs pain, helps with sickness etc. Basically what herbal stuff isn't woo woo? Gravel - assists gizzard function
Lightning - aids soreness in muscles
Hats - sunburn remedy
Peanut Butter and Crackers - for difficulty whistling
Toe Jam - clears nasal passages

I'm sure there are more. I don't know if all of them are herbs though.

[jambo372]

Your definition of proof isn't years of trials by scientists ... you do accept a cure/obvious improvement as proof. The Mugwort and seizure case produced a recovery after Mugwort was administered. You do NOT accept this as proof.

The case of St. Johns wort and depression is another example ... it has worked ... you don't consider that as proof.

... And you except clinical recovery as proof.:o

Now that I think about tests have shown St. John's Wort in proper doses to give a better response than placebo.

I wouldn't take your word over hers, for what ?
The Mugwort/Seizure case ... or anything else for that matter.

[Nex]

Jambo, studies on St. John's Wort (hypericum) do show effectiveness on mild to moderate depression, but I fail to see what that has to do with the conversation at hand. We're talking about mugwort and seizures, not hypericum and depression.

Originally posted by jambo372
The Mugwort and seizure case produced a recovery after Mugwort was administered. You do NOT accept this as proof.
We don't even know if this guy exists and you want us to accept your convenient tale as proof?

[Ashles]

I wouldn't take your word over hers, for what ?
The Mugwort/Seizure case ... or anything else for that matter.

So you believe her that Crystal Healing works then do you?

[jambo372]

http://www.northdaysimage.ca/mugwort.html

http://www.saille333.home.mindspring.com/Mugwort.html

http://www.cherylsherbs.com/FAQ_6.htm

[jambo372]

Ashles
I have no reason not to believe that crystal therapy works.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jambo372
Ashles
I have no reason not to believe that crystal therapy works. This explains SO much.

[TLN]

Originally posted by jambo372
http://www.northdaysimage.ca/mugwort.html

http://www.saille333.home.mindspring.com/Mugwort.html

http://www.cherylsherbs.com/FAQ_6.htm

Are we sharing fantasies? Cool. Here's one of my favorites:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/

[Ashles]

Jambo I am your white witch.

Do you have any reason not to believe that this is true?

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What are some plants that one can eat that really do produce some chemical that numbs pain,.........


Aspirin comes form willow bark and leaves, known to reduce pain by Hippocrates around 400 BC but probably dates back much earlier still ....

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Aspirin comes form willow bark and leaves, known to reduce pain by Hippocrates around 400 BC but probably dates back much earlier still ....

No it doesn't. Aspirin is an artificial compound (acetylsalicylic acid) prepared in a laboratory. Its discovery is usually accredited to Felix Hoffman in 1897.

Willow contains salicylic acid, which although related to aspirin is not aspirin.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
No it doesn't. Aspirin is an artificial compound (acetylsalicylic acid) prepared in a laboratory. Its discovery is usually accredited to Felix Hoffman in 1897.

Willow contains salicylic acid, which although related to aspirin is not aspirin.

Well I think they clearly evolved the idea from willow bark/leaves, eventually isolating salicylic acid (tough on stomach) and eventually it lead to Aspirin the 'spirin' coming from the plant source Spirea .... at least acording to ......

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blaspirin.htm

Amusingly it says a french guy invented aspirin 50 years earlier .....

Charles Frederic Gerhardt. In 1853, Gerhardt neutralized salicylic acid by buffering it with sodium (sodium salicylate) and acetyl chloride, creating acetylsalicylic acid. Gerhardt's product worked but he had no desire to market it and abandoned his discovery.

He abandoned what became the most successful drug in history? :)

[Dr Adequate]

[Originally posted by jambo372
Your definition of proof isn't years of trials by scientists ... you do accept a cure/obvious improvement as proof. The Mugwort and seizure case produced a recovery after Mugwort was administered. You do NOT accept this as proof.
You stupid, pathetic, whining little liar, you have not given any account of any such case. You have based your claims for mugwort on "a white witch told me". If you know anything else about mugwort, you've kept it to yourself. Stop telling such stupid lies.
The case of St. Johns wort and depression is another example ... it has worked ... you don't consider that as proof
You stupid, pathetic, whining little liar, I would indeed accept the fact that St John's Wort work as proof that it works.
... And you except clinical recovery as proof.:o
In English, please, halfwit.
Now that I think about tests have shown St. John's Wort in proper doses to give a better response than placebo.
I heard that too. Why bring St John's Wort into it?
I wouldn't take your word over hers, for what ?
The Mugwort/Seizure case ...
You're letting the truth slip out again.
or anything else for that matter.
Then you will remain a deluded drivelling halfwit all your life.

[jambo372]

Considering that her friend ( also a witch, herbalist and biochemist of years experience ), agrees with what she says about Mugwort, it would certainly be stupid of me to take your word over their's considering her friend's experience in the field and the experience both of them have using herbalism, not to mention that I actually know her.

Another link giving a mention of the mugwort case as well as it's general use to treat fits & seizures :

http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/m/mugwor61.html

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Considering that her friend ( also a witch, herbalist and biochemist of years experience ), agrees with what she says about Mugwort, it would certainly be stupid of me to take your word over their's
What have I asked you to take my word for, bozo?
Another link giving a mention of the mugwort case as well as it's general use to treat fits & seizures :

http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/m/mugwor61.html
Thank you for the link. You're finally posting about herbal healing! What a change that makes from your whining and your lies.

[Ashles]

Considering that her friend ( also a witch, herbalist and biochemist of years experience ), agrees with what she says about Mugwort, it would certainly be stupid of me to take your word over their's considering her friend's experience in the field and the experience both of them have using herbalism, not to mention that I actually know her.
And suddenly another source is quoted and, conveniently they are a witch AND a biochemist.

Well Jambo I've got a friend who's a witch and a biochemist and a doctor and a film star and they own their own medical research company and they grow Mugwort and experiment on it all the time.
And they said you were wrong.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Well I think they clearly evolved the idea from willow bark/leaves, eventually isolating salicylic acid (tough on stomach) and eventually it lead to Aspirin the 'spirin' coming from the plant source Spirea .... at least acording to ......

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blaspirin.htm

Amusingly it says a french guy invented aspirin 50 years earlier .....

He abandoned what became the most successful drug in history? :)

Yes it evolved from experiences with willow. As for who invented it first there are plenty of contenders. I thought the main one was some Jewish guy - I forget his name. That was why I said "usually accredited" to Hoffman. BTW I wouldn't rely too much on that article you linked to. Take a look at the dates for a start. According to that, the guy patented it before he discovered it! :)

[Dr Adequate]

He invented asprin and the time machine?

[songstress]

What medicine isn't taken from plants and natural substances? Aspirin for example, is an extract from the willow tree.

To say 'Non woo-woo herbal' is a contradiction in terms.

(What is a 'woo-woo', anyway? I can't see anything strange in different beliefs...just a different way of looking at the world.)

[Ashles]

Er, songstress, have you read all the posts in this thread?

Firstly they delineate between herbal and woo-woo herbal which is pretty much the difference betwen herbal remedies that have been shown to work repeatedly in clinical trials and are scientifically accepted, and herbal remedies for which there is no actual real evidence that they have any useful effect as claimed, but in which people still believe for some reason. Old wives' tales in essence.

And, regarding Aspirin, see Pragmatist's higher up the page:
Aspirin is an artificial compound (acetylsalicylic acid) prepared in a laboratory. Its discovery is usually accredited to Felix Hoffman in 1897.

Willow contains salicylic acid, which although related to aspirin is not aspirin.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by songstress
What medicine isn't taken from plants and natural substances? Aspirin for example, is an extract from the willow tree.

To say 'Non woo-woo herbal' is a contradiction in terms.

(What is a 'woo-woo', anyway? I can't see anything strange in different beliefs...just a different way of looking at the world.) Welcome to the forum songstress. You've come to the right place. You should get a few responses to your question, "What is woo-woo?"

Mostly it's stuff that is claimed to work but doesn't. Or rather, doesn't work any better than placebo.

It can also be any witch's brew that does work but not for the reasons given. "To release the sleep demon that causes your sleepiness you must consume this heavy mix of dog doo doo and caffiene."

A lot of people consider anything unproved and unscientific and unrepeatable to be on the woo side of any assessment until there is demonstration and proof of the stated effect.

(edit: Upon rereading I see the question was "What is a woo-woo" not "What is woo-woo." I really must start reading EVERY word. A woo-woo is an adherent of unscientific thinking. For a woo-woo proof by feeling or anecdote is as sound as any other kind of proof. Some believe that if they can imagine the possibilty it should be as valid as strange invisible forces like gravity. The fact that their ideas are often scoffed at is sometimes PROOF of government conspiricies to silence the truth. A synonym for woo-woo is nutjob. )

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by H3LL
I'm not sure which you meant. I'm often unsure myself as they sound the same, and your statement stands with either:

diuretic adj. Tending to increase the discharge of urine.

diarrhetic adj. (Med.) Producing diarrhea, or a purging.

If the latter;

The former, I assure you.

[songstress]

Hello Atlas,

I am sorry about that outburst. Totally ill-mannered of me, especially as I am quite new to this forum. Please forgive me.

Thank you for explaining what a 'woo-woo' is. You are right - a person's perceptions and feelings are as much valid proof as anything else because it is relative to that person. Relying on one's utter faith in something is wrong, just as relying on total science is wrong - I like to think that enlightenment comes from a mixture of the two.

I am a Spiritualist medium, sceptic of many things and also a scientist (Earth Science.) However, I do know that there are many plants, which on the face of it do not work to cure ailments because they aren't used in the right way and might therefore be described as 'useless.' For example, who would have thought that the simple bark if a tree would work as an analgesic? People in the days of yore worked it out, long before aspirin ever was invented. This is true for Aloe Vera and dock leaves. It is finding the best way of using such plants, which makes them useful to humans and animals.

Very interesting discussion.

Patsy.
:p

[Mojo]

Originally posted by songstress
It is finding the best way of using such plants, which makes them useful to humans and animals.
...and we do this by using science: i.e. by observing reproducible effects, whether this is done in a laboratory or a rain forest, and whoever it is done by.

[songstress]

Totally agree with you there, Mojo. We have the facilities with which to test plants nowadays, something that wasn't available to people in the days of yore.

It can only add to the enlightenment of mankind.

Patsy.
:)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by songstress
Hello Atlas,

I am sorry about that outburst. Totally ill-mannered of me, especially as I am quite new to this forum. Please forgive me.

Thank you for explaining what a 'woo-woo' is. You are right - a person's perceptions and feelings are as much valid proof as anything else because it is relative to that person. Relying on one's utter faith in something is wrong, just as relying on total science is wrong - I like to think that enlightenment comes from a mixture of the two.

I am a Spiritualist medium, sceptic of many things and also a scientist (Earth Science.) However, I do know that there are many plants, which on the face of it do not work to cure ailments because they aren't used in the right way and might therefore be described as 'useless.' For example, who would have thought that the simple bark if a tree would work as an analgesic? People in the days of yore worked it out, long before aspirin ever was invented. This is true for Aloe Vera and dock leaves. It is finding the best way of using such plants, which makes them useful to humans and animals.

Very interesting discussion.

Patsy.
:p No need to apologize. You'll make an interesting addition to the discussion if you are able to stay long term.

You bring a scientist's background as well as a Spiritualist medium's. Around these parts that is considered woo and you'll be given the 3rd degree as well as some unexpected ridicule if you join in on a thread discussing the topic.

Am I correct that your talent lets you communicate with the departed, like a Johnathan Edwards? If so, you can expect heated debate. If you like to mix it up you'll really enjoy yourself here.

I generally lean toward the skeptic position on a lot of topics myself. Since joining the forum I've been on an inquiry into the feeling side of my nature. That is, I've lived in my head pretty much my whole life, looking at life one step removed from the moment. The woman I was married to was totally in the moment and being with her was like seeing the world again through a child's eyes. Everything was new all the time.

Anyway, it gave me a somewhat uncomfortable appreciation of feelings. As much as we know the contributions of science are moving humankind into a rapidly evolving technological future, it is through our feelings that we live that experience. Intellect is so pure and intangible but feelings are the blood and guts of everyday life.

I use the expression: Feelings are their own proof. To me it encapsulates both a self-evident truth and is an expression of the danger inherent in that truth. Knowing the touch of God can move a person to display acts of self sacrifice and heroicism for the good of many and the same feeling can drive one toward suicide bombing.

I'll keep my eye out for your posts. I wish you well.

[Khonshu]

My personal favorite herbal remedy is a brew made from the coffee bean. It keeps me awake, no matter how boring the day becomes, with few noticeable ill effects.

Have there been any real trials on glucosamine? It seems to be really popular as an anti-inflammitory - I know several people that swear by it.

[JAK]

Originally posted by songstress
Totally agree with you there, Mojo. We have the facilities with which to test plants nowadays, something that wasn't available to people in the days of yore.

It can only add to the enlightenment of mankind.

Patsy. :)
Welcome, Songstress. I, too, am a newbie around here. Atlas is a "friendly" in this chaotic place, and I'm glad you had a chance to meet him.

BTW Atlas, I loved the gravel, lightning, and toe jam remedies. Though irreverent, they were timely and appreciated by some of us.

With the lull in the battle between Dr Adequate and Jambo, let me quickly return to SkepticJ's original request:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What are some plants that one can eat that really do produce some chemical that numbs pain, helps with sickness etc. Basically what herbal stuff isn't woo woo?

With the recent Vioxx debacle, technology, science, and the FDA’s credibility have become tarnished. Worse, what has not been noted for drugs is the infamous LD50 rating. All drugs carry it, and it stands for “lethal dose for 50 percent of the test animals.� If it doesn’t kill something, the FDA won’t approve it as a drug. Further, if it is sufficiently lethal to be a drug, it must also be designed for a specific medical problem – asthma, cancer, MS, etc.

Generally, this poses two difficulties for herbal medicines. First, they usually don’t kill anything. Second, they sometimes are effective for a multitude of ailments. If so, for FDA approval, they would need to declare themselves as useful for only one of the ailments. As a result, herbals and the FDA frequently do not mix. Of course, herbals are an anathema to the drug companies, the favored children of the FDA. (Am I biased or what?)

Even so, herbals are not without some risk. Allergic reactions are the concern of all drug AND herbal companies, and researching an herb should be paramount before taking it – especially if you have allergies of any sort.

One herbal showing up in many responses to this thread mention Aloe – the aloe vera plant which has been used medicinally for about 4000 years. Some people have an allergic reaction to it, but it has been shown to be safe for consumption by most people.

SkepticJ, this is one area where science and herbalists have come together. With government concerns for a nuclear war, research commenced regarding the healing properties of the aloe vera plant for radiation burns. The point of the research was to uncover the healing agent. Only fresh aloe vera is effective, and the government needed something with a long “shelf life.�

As it turns out, the immune system was the healing agent, and it benefited directly by the presence of a sugar molecule in the aloe vera plant called “mannose.� From this research came the new science of Glycobiology with 7 more “super sugars� having since been discovered. Nobel Prizes have been awarded in this new field over the past decade, and major articles about it have appeared in Science and Scientific American magazines among others. This is serious health science and is well funded:

National Cancer Institute
Center for Cancer Research
Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology
Structural Glycobiology Section
http://glycores.ncifcrf.gov/

Oxford Glycobiology Institute
Department of Biochemistry
University of Oxford
http://www.bioch.ox.ac.uk/glycob/

The focus of the research is "cellular communication." Basically, your immune system relies upon cellular communication to check the status of tissue cells as the immune system's macrophages pass by on their "rounds." The communication is performed through chains of these microsugars found on the outside of all cells.

The microsugars are - mannose, xylose, fucose, n-acetyl-galactosamine, n-acetyl-glucosamine, n-acetyl-neuraminic acid, glucose, and galactose. (Please note Khonshu's glucosamine reference above.) Some of the herbals noted in this thread have been identified as sources for some of these 8 super sugars. For more technical detail, you can visit GlycoScience.org.

To speak with a real person about all of this, try Jane at 719-473-8500.

[crimresearch]

Has anyone had a chance to look at the recent study on combining SAM-e with prescription anti-depressants?

I may be misremembering, but I thought it was in the current Journal of Psychopharmacology?

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by JAK
Worse, what has not been noted for drugs is the infamous LD50 rating. All drugs carry it, and it stands for “lethal dose for 50 percent of the test animals.�

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your point here. It just seems to be an indicator of at what dosage a substance would become fatal. Salt, for example, becomes fatal at about 150g. Water becomes fatal at about 10 liters if exercising heavily. These aren't marked - it is assumed that adult humans simply won't cosume those doses. Since some drugs do become fatal at remarkably low dosages, though, isn't it a good idea to find out what that dosage is? Or are you protesting the killing of animals?

[Loon]

Originally posted by JAK
Generally, this poses two difficulties for herbal medicines. First, they usually don’t kill anything. Second, they sometimes are effective for a multitude of ailments. If so, for FDA approval, they would need to declare themselves as useful for only one of the ailments.

As Rambling Onwards noted, pretty much everything is lethal if the dose is high enough. Now the dose may be more than will fit in the animals stomach, but there is an LD50 for everything.

As to approving drugs for specific things, this does not mean a drug can only ever have one use- it means that it has to be tested for each use. Wellibutrin is an antidepressant that is also used for smoking cessation. Aspirin is an analgesic that is also used for heart conditions.

Nothing need be declared targeted to only a sinlge thing. But each usage of the compund must be tested seperately. It is not enough to say "sucking down a 100 of these puppies won't kill you." You also need to show that they will offer some benefit.

[JAK]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your point here. It just seems to be an indicator of at what dosage a substance would become fatal. Salt, for example, becomes fatal at about 150g. Water becomes fatal at about 10 liters if exercising heavily. These aren't marked - it is assumed that adult humans simply won't cosume those doses. Since some drugs do become fatal at remarkably low dosages, though, isn't it a good idea to find out what that dosage is? Or are you protesting the killing of animals?
First, I inadvertently stirred up the “animal testing� controversy. For this, I apologize. I had no intention of broaching that issue. Further, I am not a doctor or pharmacist nor affiliated remotely with FDA drug approval. My information is not first-hand but has come from others who have gone through attempts of FDA approval. Animal testing was mentioned only because it is part of the FDA drug approval process as defined on their website:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/handbook/

LD50 testing was more to my point. Yes. I agree that virtually anything can be toxic in excess. Extremes are generally bad for us. As Aristotle said, "There are, therefore, three conditions: two are vices - one of excess, the other of deficiency - and there is one virtue, the mean" (Bambrough, The Philosophy of Aristotle, pg 312, NY: Mentor Books, 1963).

However, many people are unaware that most (if not all) drugs are toxic and may carry significant side effects (or worse), but the issue is well known within medical and pharmacological groups, universities, and institutions. An excellent and brief PowerPoint presentation about LD50, ED50, Therapeutic Index, and other related toxicity concepts is found at this Texas A&M University website:
http://psychology.tamu.edu/courses/wellman/489/drugtakingbehavior.ppt

Those who seek alternatives to drug therapy, typically, are looking to avoid drug toxicity. Sometimes they are also looking for more effective means to alleviate their physical ailments. (In other words, allopathic treatments either have failed or have been marginally effective.)

If I understand the true spirit of this thread, SkepticJ is asking for a non-woowoo natural herb or product. My suggestion is that some presently exist through the new science of glycobiology where science and natural approaches are coming together. Since these nutrients are of natural origin, it would also indicate that changes in diet, by themselves, may have beneficial effects for the body. Here is a PowerPoint presentation from a doctor and instructor from the University of Nevada Medical School encouraging the synthesis of nutrition, glyconutrients, exercise, and allopathic (western medicine) treatments:
http://www.cellwellness.net/drsletters/Do%20No%20Harm.pdf

[Ashles]

I never really inderstand this continued reference to "Western Medicine".

There are two types of medicine - that which works and that which doesn't.

If chewing lotus blossom petals is claimed to alleviate acne and it doesn't then it isn't part of medicine. Calling it 'Ancient' or 'Eastern' won't make it work any better.

If it is tested and does prove to alleviate acne then it is welcomed by global medicine and added to text books.

'Western' medicine does not deny that there are active chemical compounds in plants, and welcomes any new set of tests that show a positive benefit from plant extract - whether it be ancient or thought of last week.

I notice that when people in eastern countries have serious ilnesses or car accidents, or lose a lot of blood or are unwell for most reasons they seem to pretty much use the same medicines and medical techniques as we do in the west.

[Dr Adequate]

I should like to add that claiming any science to be "western" in this day and age is inaccurate at best and racist at worst. Is it really supposed that no progress is being made anywhere else? Much of what you call "western" medicine has been developed by researchers in India, say, or Japan. And lots of the whacky woowoo stuff is, so to speak, home-grown.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I should like to add that claiming any science to be "western" in this day and age is inaccurate at best and racist at worst. Is it really supposed that no progress is being made anywhere else? Much of what you call "western" medicine has been developed by researchers in India, say, or Japan...
...and all that parasitology and tropical disease study going on in Africa and South America. I guess that could technically be "western," but my impression of that term was that it meant western European.

Hey, I never looked at that term that way... that could really be taken offensively, couldn't it? :o

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by JAK
Those who seek alternatives to drug therapy, typically, are looking to avoid drug toxicity.

This is a very good case for requiring all products (those sold as food as well as those sold as drugs) to come with toxicity warnings. I don't think you'd get much support for testing to figure out how toxic bananas are, but it does seem reasonable to require labelling in what quantities and in what combinations alternative medicines are toxic.

Sometimes they are also looking for more effective means to alleviate their physical ailments. (In other words, allopathic treatments either have failed or have been marginally effective.)

Just a BTW, herbal medication is also an allopathic treatment. Allopathic means to treat with a product that produces the opposite effect of the symptom. Homeopathic means to treat with a product that produces the same effect as the symptom.

[rightbrain]

Originally posted by Loon
As Rambling Onwards noted, pretty much everything is lethal if the dose is high enough. Now the dose may be more than will fit in the animals stomach, but there is an LD50 for everything.

As to approving drugs for specific things, this does not mean a drug can only ever have one use- it means that it has to be tested for each use. Wellibutrin is an antidepressant that is also used for smoking cessation. Aspirin is an analgesic that is also used for heart conditions.

Nothing need be declared targeted to only a sinlge thing. But each usage of the compund must be tested seperately. It is not enough to say "sucking down a 100 of these puppies won't kill you." You also need to show that they will offer some benefit.

In the U.S., it's legal for physicians to prescribe drugs for "off-label" uses, meaning uses for which the drug has not been FDA-approved but observed to be effective, whatever that means. Wellbutrin is a good example of this, actually--it's also used fairly widely to treat attention deficit disorder, although its official approval is as an antidepressant.

Most of the antidepressants, for example, have not been well tested in children, although they are widely being prescribed for them, with sometimes lethal consequences. (This is often more likely due to misdiagnosis; e.g., the child has bipolar disorder rather than unipolar depression--but that's another story.) When drug companies are aware of off-label usage, they're supposed to test those off-label uses, but that regulation is rarely enforced. And testing after the fact doesn't do much good when your kid commits suicide or Mom drops dead from her weight-loss regimen.

Natural remedies, labeled as dietary supplements, don't have to undergo any rigorous testing.

[JAK]

Originally posted by Ashles
I never really inderstand this continued reference to "Western Medicine".
...
If it is tested and does prove to alleviate acne then it is welcomed by global medicine and added to text books.
...

For those who were offended by my reference to "western medicine," I apologize. It was more of an historical reference stemming from Paracelsus, who has been called the "father of modern pharmacology" (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Paracelsus.html). He was born in Switzerland and lived from 1493 to 1541.

Based upon the responses, this moniker might also reveal an underlying bias. I am ignorant of the history of "pharmacology" in other countries, and there may have been a counterpart to Paracelsus in China, India, Japan, Egypt, Kenya, the americas (perhaps of Mayan or Anasazi or other heritage), polynesia, australia, or somewhere else in the world. And this counterpart may have been of a much earlier time.

I like Ashles' term "global medicine." I will use it henceforth.

Thanks Ashles for highlighting my weakness. I find that I see myself more clearly through the eyes of others.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
Homeopathic means to treat with a product that produces the same effect as the symptom.
Nope. It means to treat without a product that produces the same effect as the symptom. :D

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Mojo
Nope. It means to treat without a product that produces the same effect as the symptom. :D

:) I stand corrected!

[Mojo]

You're welcome! ;)

[Ashles]

I like Ashles' term "global medicine." I will use it henceforth.

Thanks Ashles for highlighting my weakness. I find that I see myself more clearly through the eyes of others.
Oh pshaw.

And you might find that a purple shirt complements your high cheekbones.:)