Pharmacognozy

[m_huber]

I have an old friend who told me recently that she wants to go into pharmacognozy. The way I understand it, this is essentially herbal medicine, but I don't really know enough about it to understand what it is. Does anybody know if this is woo or if it is real? Thanks!

[arthwollipot]

A very quick Google suggests that it may not be entirely bunk.

[El Greco]

For Ed's sake, Pharmacognosy is a totally legitimate science taught in Universities all over the world. It's the study of the medicinal properties of the plants. I've seen many people who call themselves "skeptics" denying that plants have medicinal properties, as if Pygeum Africanum or Ephedra were manufactured in the lab.

Sometimes skepticism takes very very bad turns and becomes idiotic denial of the very facts it's supposed to be based on.

[arthwollipot]

Okay, okay, settle down. It was an unfamiliar word, and it rang alarm bells due to its superficial similarity with other wooish words. Although my Google search did appear to show a number of hits for reputable universities (which is why it appeared to be not entirely bunk), it didn't get any Wikipedia hits under the provided spelling. Of course, as pharmacognosy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacognosy), Wikipedia has a fair bit to say about it.

[El Greco]

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was referring to you arthwollipot, I certainly wasn't. It was other posters that I had in mind....

[JJM]

The late Varro Tyler was well-respected in the field. A new version of his "Tyler's Honest Herbal" is expected (under new authors); you can probably get an older version through your library. You can also read several of his articles by going to www.quackwatch.org and searching for him. He has a particularly blistering review of Penelope Ody's book on herbal medicine.

Note that his understanding of clinical research is scanty. Also, he makes a lot of unwarranted statements about the putative active-ingredients in herbs. Specifically, he often attributes the claimed activity of an herb to a chemical that seems to characterize the herb- this is a mistake.

[m_huber]

Ok, so I get the idea that it's at least not all bunk. That's good, because it means I can congratulate her on a reasonable career choice and not feel like I'm compromising myself. Thanks for the website, JJM!

[Mojo]

I've seen many people who call themselves "skeptics" denying that plants have medicinal properties, as if Pygeum Africanum or Ephedra were manufactured in the lab.


I've seen this used as a strawman of a "skeptical" position, but I don't recall anyone actually arguing this.

[arthwollipot]

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was referring to you arthwollipot, I certainly wasn't. It was other posters that I had in mind....

Um, there weren't any other posters at the time...

No matter. :)

[El Greco]

Um, there weren't any other posters at the time...

I have more than adequate experience from other threads...

[fls]

For Ed's sake, Pharmacognosy is a totally legitimate science taught in Universities all over the world. It's the study of the medicinal properties of the plants. I've seen many people who call themselves "skeptics" denying that plants have medicinal properties, as if Pygeum Africanum or Ephedra were manufactured in the lab.

Sometimes skepticism takes very very bad turns and becomes idiotic denial of the very facts it's supposed to be based on.

You've been here longer than I, but I've been involved in several herbal threads and I've never seen any of the skeptics come even close to that claim. Sooner or later, somebody always seems to set it up as a strawman of the skeptical position, though. If you are aware of someone that is truly arguing that position, then that would seem to reflect ignorance on their part. In that case, I'll fall back on my 'no true scotsman' defense and say a true skeptic doesn't argue from ignorance. :)

Linda