Talk:Herbal medicine/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Herbal medicine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edits on Herbal Tea

For reference, the lengthy edits by 88.109.221.218 on Herbal Tea were made by me. I forgot to sign in :P Feel free to improve them; I am not an expert, just someone with "a little knowledge" Bards 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the "how to" section to a different page called Herbal Administration to allow a more concise article. The essential oil section was moved too, since it contains good information although strictly speaking an essential oil is far from an herb. Moving this section was discussed previously. KSVaughan2 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal?

This seems like it could be part of a portal or a series.

What exactly is that and how would it be started? I would like to start a Wikipedia Herbalism project, with information added to plant pages, biographies of herbalists, living and dead, topics on herbalism, botanical medicine, pharmacognosy and natural products, and phytochemistry. Don't know how to start one. KSVaughan2 20:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific herbal medicine

As of 9 24 05 the first paragraph is incorrect. There is also scientific herbal medicine. See for example:

Evidence-based herbal medicine edited by Michael Rotblatt, Irwin Ziment.  
Philadelphia : Hanley & Belfus, c2002.

How many pages has that book? JFW | T@lk 17:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dr Wolff - about 300 pages (why?). I also highly recommend Herbal and traditional medicine : molecular aspects of health, edited by Lester Packer, Choon Nam Ong, Barry Halliwell. New York : Marcel Dekker, 2004 - about 1000 pages. I do not object to this herbalism page as a page on folk medicine. The problem is that "herbal medicine" redirects to "herbalism". We should make "herbal medicine" a seperate page that describes a form of scientific medicine, with a link to this "herbalism".

My response was a bit tongue-in-cheek. The evidence base for herbal medication is fairly slim, and sometimes completely absent (e.g. echinacea for common cold). JFW | T@lk 07:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So called Scientific herbal medicine really isn't herbal medicine at all, it is the allopathic use of herbs to treat symptoms. And using herbs to treat diseases allopathically is nothing new, it is the way that standard medicine is practiced in much of the world and was practiced in the US until around WW2. Herbal medicine in the traditions I have studied is constitutional, with the patient rather than the disease at the center: A unique herbal prescription is made which strengthens the patient's weaknesses so that the disease can be thrown off. So instead of focusing on a cough with expectorant herbs, one strengthens the lung and immune function (while perhaps also using antimi<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">crobial and expectorant herbs.) After all you never treat a disease without a patient attached. However since the so-called scientific or "evidence-based" herbal treatment exists, I started a section on it.KSVaughan2 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Medical interaction

Can we remove the "doctors are stupid" part? And maybe add back in the wikilinks that have been removed?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In thoery it might be better to reword it to something along the lines of "herbalists try and defend themselves by pointing out etc etc" but I don't really have the energy to do anything about that.Geni 07:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Math illiteracy

British Medical Journal pointed out, "Even though herbal medicines are not devoid of risk, they could still be safer than synthetic drugs. Between 1968 and 1997, the World Health Organization's monitoring center collected 8985 reports of adverse events associated with herbal medicines from 55 countries. Although this number may seem impressively high, it amounts to only a tiny fraction of adverse events associated with conventional drugs held in the same database." (BMJ, October 18, 2003; 327:881-882).

Sorry, but the BMJ should re-visit their applied statistics. Those numbers are meaningless in supporting the conclusion suggested (Hint: the operative word here, ppl is 'reported'.) I suggest this paragraph be removed.--Miikka Raninen 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

--It doesn't say 'reported' it says WHO collected reports from 55 countries. these could be official reports rather than personal reports. Although it's not specifically stated in this excerpt which it is, I would assume the first unless I had good reason to believe otherwise considering that it's the World Health Organization and British Medical Journal. Something tells me they just might know how to conduct research. 'reports' could mean any number of things[it's the word that the article used, not the official breakdown of the study), I don't think it proves bad research.

concerning Medical interaction

The part relating to the JAMA article is totally irrelevant to herbalism. ADR is not a feature of herbalism i am not conscious of any article assessing its danger and the warning just before is good enough, so I believe this should simply be ommitted, and possibly replace by some relevant source of information.

Plural of "Shaman"

I actually suspect the plural of "shaman" to be "shamans," though I realize this is really a marginal point.--TurabianNights 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually think there is a standardized plural 82.176.194.151 11:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Shamans" is the correct English plural.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/47/S0314700.html

http://www.bartleby.com/61/46/S0314600.html

The dictionary is your friend. -- Writtenonsand 00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cumin and dill

I added "purported" to the phrase "medicinal features of cumin and dill" because there's no evidence in this article or in the articles on those two plants that they have any real medical value. If anyone knows what the illustrated book or any other traditional sources have to say on the subject, that would be interesting to have added in the appropriate places. -- Beland 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted "purported" because their medicinal properties are well established within every major herbal tradition that uses them, including ayurveda, tcm, and unani, as well as countless folk herbalists throughout eurasia. Depending on the information you want, much of the information is easly accessible on the web, including pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi), dr duke' database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/) - just search under dill or cumin, or their scientific binomial. Wikiherbal 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)wikiherbal

I would suggest that the Iranian medical indexes be consulted as they also have a wide variety of papers on the medicinal features of these herbs (in English.) KSVaughan2 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

possible edit?

"and there is no official system, database, or hotline to report and publish adverse reactions." doesnt the FDA have a system for reporting adverse reactions to dietary supplements?

This may be so in the US however in the UK the various professional bodies (NIMH, EHPA) have had a system in place for some time now. Herbal medicine in the UK is undergoing statutory regulation at the moment and recording of adverse reactions of herbal medicine is on the government agenda. However the majority of herbal medicine use tends to be in the form of traditional medicine in developing countries where there are no systems to record adverse reactions. (NEV)

Merging Herbalism and Herbal Suppliments

I do not thing it is wise to merge the "Herbalism" page with the "Herbal Supplements" page as the two are not causally linked. One may be an herbalist, for example, while holding strong beliefs against Herbal Supplements of any kind. In fact, some would argue that the use of Herbal Supplements is oppositive to the use of Herbs.

How would herbal supplements be oppositive to the use of herbs, might I ask? bibliomaniac15 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that some herbalists practice a form of herbalism that requires the patient to connect with herbs on a physical level, even picking it themselves and preparing the remedies - it is thought by many herbalists to be an intrinsic component of the practice. As well, herbal supplement companies usually don't employ actual herbalists, nor follow traditional indications and contraindications for many medicinal plants, and are seen as quite simply as a corporate takeover of what is actually held in common, by all people. Wikiherbal 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Wikiherbal

I'm totally for it--Havermayer 06:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that herbal supplements mst be merged with it becauase the latter are, after all, a crucial part of the former. -- HEMRAJ

I disagree with merge as herbal supplements tend to be commercial products, manufactured and marketed by the health food industry for sale in retail outlets to the general public, also it is not uncommon for herbal supplements to be standardised to contain certain levels of purported active phytochemicals. Herbalists on the other hand do not necessary have anything to do with herbal supplements. Certainly within the UK herbalists tend to purchase their herbs from specialists suppliers, these herbs are not intended for sale to the public and are rarely marketed or standardised. In addition people in the developing world still rely on traditional herbal medicine. I confidently speculate that traditional healers rarely purchase herbal supplements but rely on herbs hat they have gathered themselves. (NEV)

I agree the merge, the article would benefit from the added content.Mighty Ozymandias 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Merge them. --Havermayer 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with merger, as the supplements page does not have sufficient content to merit an article at present, but could be kept as a Redirect with possibilities. --apers0n 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reluctantly. Because there isn't enough body for Herbal supplements and Medical herbalism, merging might make the sum of the parts greater. Let's add them to Herbalism as sub after the [Popularity] section. --Travisthurston 06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done - but left as a redirect with possibilities,[1] so that it can always be reinstated if the amount of material relating to herbal supplements gets enough for it to warrant a whole article.- I have taken the above to be 7 in favour and 2 against, but have taken the views expressed above and added them to the new subsection under the heading of Types of herbal medicine - please expand this section and if there is anything else useful from the former article here please add it to the current article on Herbalism. --apers0n 12:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're awesome! --Travisthurston 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say- there is a saying that if you get any 5 herbalists into 1 room you will get at least 7 opinions. We cannot limit the field of herbal medicine by pretending that part of it doesn't exist. I prefer medicine that I pick myself or that I have direct knowledge of the individual who harvested or grew the herb, but some herbs (eleutherococcus for example) are not well grown where I live (it is strongest when grown at elevations above 6000 feet and I live slightly below sea level). Am I not an herbalist because I want to give my patients the benefits of a world that has grown (pun intended) small and intimate with technology?...Anna Abele, ND 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Anna Abele, ND

Merger with Medical herbalism

The Medical herbalism article is a stub, and based on English terminology and training. It could be incorporated into the Herbalism article to make one broader article with a worldwide view. --apers0n 12:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Like it. --Travisthurston 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to split section on herbalists to a new page

The section listing herbalists could be made into a new page List of notable herbalists, or be added to the List of famous people in alternative medicine. Alternatively the Category:Herbalists could take this section. Comments? --apers0n 18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice. This will give room for the mergers too... --Travisthurston 06:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really enough people here to make a stand-alone list article yet, unless someone wants to add them to the existing List of famous people in alternative medicine. I've added everyone to the Category:Herbalists for now. --apers0n 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Neanderthals!

I took this out of the main article since I think its wrong: "There is evidence that suggests Neanderthals living 60,000 years ago in present-day Iraq used plants for medicinal purposes (found at a burial site at Shanidar Cave, Iraq, in which a Neanderthal man was uncovered in 1960. He had been buried with eight species of plants). ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}"

Introduction

Made a couple edits to the first part, namely herbal medicine is a practice, not an idea; secondly, shamans and herbalists are not synonymous - the role of spiritual healers and herbalists often overlap, but do not necessarly cover the same scope of practice. A shaman mediates the relationship between the human community and the natural world, whereas herbalists simply use herbs as healing agents. Wikiherbal 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)wikiherbal

Suggestion to delete "Examples of herbal medicine"

It has been suggested that this section should be harmonised with the "List of Medicinal Herbs" page. But this will result in much duplication and difficulties in keeping the two harmonised. I propose that this section is exported wholesale into the "List of Medicinal Herbs" page, and deleted from the main article. The main article can be reserved for overviews, methodology, issues, etc, with examples of herbs within the text where appropriate. Bards 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, not a suggetion to delete, but black cohosh has been proven not to be a phytoestrogen!!!! get it out of there.Anna Abele, ND 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Anna Abele, ND

Phytoestrogens:

There are many phytoestrogens, but black cohosh isn't one of them. Soy is the most common, red clover, licorice, anise etc.. Maybe we should talk about estrogenic activity (black cohosh has plenty), where phytoestrogens are concerned though- please don't list a known non-estrogenic compound!! Anna Abele, ND 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Anna Abele, ND

I have no expert knowledge of that Anna. If you are certain of it, go ahead and edit it. It's not for me to decide! Bards 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the thoughts that this so called man was buried with herbal medicines has been completely dissmised by most scientific laboratorys

Mixing of herbs:

side-effects is confusing when associated with an ailment- usually used to describe undesirable effects of a medicine.

I think herbs are used and chosen based on effects desired. Are side effects appropriate when discussing a substance that has not been intentionally engineered for a specific purpose (as far as we know)?

The art of herbal medicine is to take substances (plants) with many effects and use them to the best advantage of our patients. Eg. There are many estrogenic herbs, but anise is also carminative, so if you have menopause and gas it is your best bet. There are thousands more examples in this vein. They are not side effects in my opinion, but guides for which of the hundred of herbs that are available world wide for any given condition that we should use to help you.

Anna Abele, ND 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Anna Abele, ND

Long lead

Just wandered by and noticed that the lead on this page is really long (see WP:Lead), and seems to kind of meander a lot.--Margareta 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Length

I realize Herbalism is a very broad topic, but I feel the content needs to be further revised and shortened considerably. As the commenter above mentioned, the introduction is daunting on first appearance. I suggest completely removing certain sections from the page, and instead include reference links to this removed information. 74.120.67.135 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Types of Herbalism

I added references to Ayurveda, TCM, Cherokee medicine, Unami and the Triune formulation since the Wise woman/ heroic is not a sufficient recap. Ksvaughan2 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metals "therapeutic"?

There's a claim on the page that heavy metals "may be processed in such a way as to inactivate negative aspects". Unless by "processed" they simply mean "removed", this is wholly unsupported by any evidence - there is no scientific evidence demonstrating a particular way to "safely" consume lead, arsenic, cadmium, etc. - and should be removed from the article. --Soultaco 05:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is some evidence in Indian medical literature using the samskaras that heavy metals can be substantially inactivated. There is double blind research cited on the rasayanas page. Ayurvedic doctor Alan Tillotson found people in Nepal who had worked for 40 years processing mercury according to samskaras and were none the worse for wear. They were dismissive of the idea that all forms of heavy metals or other toxins could not be inactivated. www.oneearthmedicine.com KSVaughan2 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Let's just fill kids with mercury, lead, and other heavy metals. No, not my kids, your kids. This is the worst recommendation. Orangemarlin 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the processing is called alchemical processing. Wow it sounds so advanced and modern. Is there any research that supports this claim?--Filll

I am not even going to bother discussing this further. I notice it's been deleted, so this article is slowing being improved. At least no one will die reading it, thinking that drinking a cup of mercury, a few hibuscus flowers, and downing it with homeopathy water will cure their cancer. This article needs further cleaning up. Every reference I read that was in here indicated that using the products had no effect whatsoever. I should have left the references, and put the negative statement in there. But heavy metals? Who thought that was a good idea. And these people who did were none the worse for wear? I swear cigarette smokers say that all the time. Orangemarlin 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry

I am not sure there should be in the introduction to this article any mention at all of chemistry. Herbal medicine does not need to pander to chemistry in any way whatsoever; it stands as an ancient and noble empirical science in its own right for thousands of years before chemistry was even invented. So why mention chemistry? isn't it a tad deferential? thank you Peter morrell 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to take the above post. Do we not want this article to be a verifiable, reliable source of information? There are many many commercial sites that have all kinds of unverified and unverifiable natural medicine claims. However, Wikipedia should be adhering to encyclopedic standards. And that means applying our best scientific knowledge to the article. What is wrong with chemistry? Even the "natural" herbal products are complicated cocktails of chemicals. Chemistry is everywhere, and if we know a bit of chemistry that is relevant to a given medication or treatment, then we should reveal it. It is far better than the several references in the text to alchemy. --Filll 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Science? Pseudoscience or junk science, since it meets all of the standards of pseudoscience, including:

The use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
lack of progress
Personalization of issues (ancient and noble? you mean like astrology, alchemy, creationism, and attachment therapy?)

I realize that some plant material has had some effect on humans. But that requires a double-blind, scientific study and analysis--otherwise, people get sicker because they don't get appropriate treatment. Orangemarlin 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone here. Herbalism does tend to the inflated, vague claims which can be dangerous. However, there are a lot of uses that have been independently verified time and time again, here's a short list: Willow= antipyretic (salicylic acid) Yarrow= styptic (achilleine) Echinacea= immune-enhancing

Chemistry would be GREAT to prove the efficacy of herbal medicine , if references weren't deleted, I have my scientific journal references deleted without cause before.Wiki wiki1 03:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

References

As in, where are they? For instance: High quality trials involving proper controls and double blind methods are being increasingly carried out, with many useful results. Got some examples?

This whole article, reads like an add, or one of those magazines you see in supermarkets by the register. Oh, and I'll let you guys in on a little secret... there's no such thing as "Western Medicine", there are doctors in china, india, south east asia et al, who practice it, and they just call it medicine. ornis 15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are none. Where it has been done, where safety and efficacy have been established, they are sold either as prescription or approved OTC products. The very rare instances where herbal products have actually shown efficacy are now on the market. There may be more, but may be is not science. Orangemarlin 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, anyway I've removed it now, but the point remains this article is in dire need of referencing. ornis 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to slap a neutrality and factual accuracy tag on this article. After reviewing the list of herbs, not a single reference actually supported the statements. I figured that one or two might, but so far none. I'll do more and see. This is ridiculous. Orangemarlin 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sad to say that the more I read, the more disappointed I became. This article does not have to be this bad, but it is substandard in several different ways. The problem is that in the case of medical advice, any wrong information is potentially far more serious than it is in other articles.--Filll 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There actually is 'western medicine' it's not a slur; but a classification mainly dealing with the concept of pure-compound use to treat disease.

Commercial influence

Now that I have read a bit more of this article carefully, I see that there are suggestions of commercial advertising in spots. We might want to consider how to deal with this, or spin it.--Filll 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean stuff like: At the University of Central Lancashire, the training of medical herbalists is extensive, and involves the study of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, differential diagnosis, etc. This enables the herbalist to be able to talk on equal terms with conventional medical practitioners....? I've been looking at that particluar section and wondering what to do with it.ornis 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there are several others like that. Some useful information can be extracted, but I do not want the article to read like a bunch of advertisements strung together.--Filll 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I go back in the history of the article, I see further evidence of commercial influence, with names of companies appearing and being edited out by competitors etc. It is a mass of crap in several ways, and the commercial jockeying makes it worse.--Filll 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted two spam links. Orangemarlin 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

which links? Wiki wiki1 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Language

To be honest, the English in this article is a bit stilted in places. I am taking the liberty of trying to massage it a bit and make it closer to standard English.--Filll 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

got to agree here, there is definitely not a lot of english majors working on this article.Wiki wiki1 02:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbal administration

The section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism#Herbal_Administration and the main article Herbal administration appear to be some sort of "herbal" or instruction manual for administering herbal medications. I wonder about the ethics of this. Should the wording be changed. I also think that any book should be in Wikibooks or Wikimedia Commons or something.--Filll 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyleft in action I guess. How about for the moment I just cut the section from this article and dump it commented out into herbal administration so it can be integrated ( assuming there's something in here missing from there ). ornis 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

As I update the links and references, more problems emerge. There are a lot of blog entries and references. I also think we need to discuss the placebo effect, the nocebo effect, Adverse effect (medicine) and hormesis, among other topics.--Filll 23:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regulation

The article currently gives the impression that the FDA closely regulates the herbal industry, and cites a pro-herbal site as evidence. This is misleading. Herbal medicines and supplements in the US are far less regulated than other pharmaceuticals and medicines, both in what they contain, how they are sold, and what sorts of advertising statements they can make about their efficacy. They are considered food, not drugs, by the FDA, and regulated quite differently from drugs. This was made quite explicit in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1994. This needs to be clarified; the current statements in this article are highly misleading and their source does not look neutral to me on this subject. --24.147.86.187 12:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This page and its daughter pages have to be updated extensively. They were allowed to evolve into basically advertisements for the patent medicine and natural medicine industries. This would not be particularly serious, except that as WP becomes more and more of a respected and sought-after source, this can be incredibly misleading for the readers. Why don't you get an account and help us clean up this mess? It is like cleaning out the Stygian stables, and more hands make light work.--Filll 13:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(conflict):Well by all means plases make the change then. Just make sure it's properly cites and the facts are stated in a neutral tone. ornis 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to clean these up one by one. By law in the US, herbals can make just about any claim they want. I bought this one product, and it said tall supermodels would throw themselves at my feet. It didn't happen, and now I'm going to clean up these articles. Orangemarlin 13:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've made that change now, if anyone has input on regulation in other countries, please speak up. ornis 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire area of regulation and standards is quite interesting and complex, according to my limited understanding, and could produce an article or two of its own. There have been pitched political and lobbying battles in the US about regulation of this industry. There are several internal industry organizations that attempt to "certify" products for efficacy and purity etc. There has been a long and ugly history of regulation and testing of herbs in the US and other countries. There was the controversial development of an alternative medicine branch of the NIH. There is the very different European (particularly German) experience, or differences with Asian countries. Basically this section of the article is completely inadequate. --Filll 13:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you're joking right marlin? I mean tall supermodels can only be enticed by AXE and other such formulations ;)...Wiki wiki1 02:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no scientific studies??

>>(NO it can't. Also, it's hard to prove a negative, if you think some herbs do things, then show it in the article.)

>>You don't have to search far to find an example ^[1]^[2]Cayte 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Honestly, you need to read these references better. It is in a mouse model treated with Benzopyrene. It was a high concentration extract of ME. And it "may" have been a result of ME. What does this prove? And I didn't say there weren't scientific articles. Just that there are a lot fewer than you're imagining. Orangemarlin 20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

>>But your current statement is more nuanced than the one in the article. It should be replaced with the more accurate statement that there ARE studies but their quality and interpretation is under dispute.Cayte 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Why exclude the in-vitro antimicrobial tests on garlic especially since I added the caveat that in-vitro tests are weak sources of evidence?Cayte 18:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

>>FDA does not regulate herbal products. >>But they still have opinions >>AMA comments are lower grade references than articles On scientific studies, yes. But this is an opinion article on policy. Svience is silent on policyCayte 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte >>There is no "mainstream medicine." The term is in current usage. The NCI provides a definition[2]Medicine is a more inclusive term that applies to ANY study of disease or treatment ( preliminary studies, archeological medicine, forensics, etc )Cayte 00:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Edits and references look pretty good. I'll take a look at some of them in more detail, since I can access the full articles. I might have to tweak some things, maybe find some other references (if one is good, 2 is better). Orangemarlin 22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opininion vs fact

Opinions should not masquerade as scientific fact. Calls for policy change remain opinion even if supported by the majority of scientists. The majority of scientists probably vote Democrat but the statement "You should vote Democrat" is not a scientific statement. Opinions are OK if it is made clear. eg "A recent survey shows that the majority of doctors support regulatory change." But it belongs in the regulatory section.Cayte 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte Other probems with the article are: The contents and the risks described are inaccessable w/o a subscription to the journal> Without acess it is not useful to most readers It doesnt match the text. The text referes to the community of medical professionals but the document is a single editorialCayte 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Cayte, accessibility does not make a reference good or bad. What matters are reliable sources, that is references that are peer-reviewed, meet the standards of the field (whether science or not), and do not represent fringe theories. You are confusing secondary references with reliable ones, and that vast research supports most scientific statements, and they are not opinion. I notice that you take references that actually don't agree with the statement. One reference hardly ever confirms a theory or hypothesis--usually it takes a lot of research. Some of the articles you have chosen state things like "results may assist in blah blah blah, but more research is required." That doesn't confirm your statement. That's why I back off your statements with what appear to be weasel words, but are more in line with what is stated in the article. Moreover, you can tell a lot about an article from the abstract. If the abstract seems like it doesn't fit with the statement, I'll assure you that the rest of the article will do more of it. Orangemarlin 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In the lead I added the caveat that the studies only provided weak supportive evidence. I have no problem with pointing out their limitations. They are still of interexst. A reference is opinion if it advocates something like legislation. Science deals in IS statements not SHOULD statements.Cayte 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Well, actually science doesn't deal in "IS". Science asks questions related to a hypothesis and attempts to test the validity of the hypothesis. Science rarely states "facts" in the sense of a legal fact.Orangemarlin 20:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting nuance but moot to my point. Requests for the government to DO something are not scienceCayte 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Echinacea

Just a critique. There are actually three outstanding references for echinacea and colds. The problem with any of them are that they are meta-analyses, which means they are analyzing the data, not making an analysis of the how the data was derived. Just remember, echinacea does not prevent colds, its only effect appears to be lessening the duration and intensity of the cold. I take echinacea about 2 seconds after I think I have the symptoms of a cold. :) I'll add the other two references.Orangemarlin 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion vs fact continued

Finally, I found the full article, PM16685816. It is in a section called essays so it does not claim to be science. It has no references except for an unsourced anecdotal report. The artcle asks no questions of nature. Instead it advoctes more regulation and government hiring and funding. In short it is a political and not a scientific statement.

It is VERY important not to comingle science and politics. It can only undrmine confidece in both.Cayte 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)cayte

Looking under the lampost

Describes the problem with excluding foreign language ( Polish ) references. They need to be flagged until they can be vetted by a qualified speaker of the language. Unfortunately, I have not yet found the right templateCayte 03:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

No, they need to be excluded in favour of english sources. If general readers can't read them for themselves, then they're worthless. ornis (t) 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not worthless because among other things, Wikipedia is a source for researchers( some of whom are multilingual ) and herbal medicine is international in scope. The conclusions may be skewed if they are limited to a single language.CayteCayte

Well, yes they are. Wikipedia is primarily useful as somewhere readers can go to find references on a topic. Other language wikis might be different, but as english speakers we're absolutely spoiled for good academic publications. The fact is we should almost never have to resort to non-english sources, particularly not in a science or medicine related article. ornis (t) 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is not true of herbal research which is rarely done in the US for financial and cultural reasons. There are Indian studies of some herbs. Lots of studies in other languages. If it is possible to find them in English, fine, but the quality of studies in English often leaves much to be desired. KSVaughan2

Cayte, this is an English encyclopedia, so articles should be in English unless translated or there are notable items in the article. Please see WP:VERIFY#Sources in languages other than English. Ksvaughn, Wikipedia expects reliable sources, whether English or otherwise, which verifies statements made in an article. To quote Marcia Angel of the New England Journal of Medicine, ...since many alternative remedies have recently found their way into the medical mainstream [there] cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of POV

I added some info, as well as reworded elements under the list of herbs for blatant POV pushing in terms of pro-pharmaceutical ideas. I removed only a few sentences and words because they were out of place, POV, and/or irrelevant. Please don't simply remove edits without first reading them and then discussing them here, I would say that is fair since I'm staying neutral on both sides. Wiki wiki1 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make such sweeping changes you need to discuss them first, you can't just go cutting out neutral material and replacing it with partisan ( and unsourced ) comments, then demand everyone else justify reverting you, when you made no attempt to achieve consensus in the first place. ornis (t) 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any 'sweeping' changes, I simply changed words that were overtly negative, and tried to make statements that could be applied to both sides apply to both sides, i.e. 'dosage can lead to death' which was used in many ways (many of them sneakily written) in order to basically bash herbalism without any justification.

Almost none of these statements can be 'sourced' since they aren't discussed in a neutral manner anywhere that I know of, so I did my best to just make the language more neutral.

Would anyone consider some of my edits neutral enough to be added back in? Wiki wiki1 23:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I've re-read your edits and I certainly believe they were made in good faith, however many of them ( even the ones I agree with, such as needing tighter regulation) are not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and some of them look like an attempt to bury criticism and caveats under wordy equivocation. What specifically are your problems with the article as it stands? ornis (t) 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks that way to me as well. To state that one "simply changed words that were overtly negative" and "tried to make statements that could be applied to both sides apply to both sides" is a bit of an understatement of the impact of the edits. Whether they were made in good faith is irrelevant; what is relevant is that they cleary read as POV edits.

In any case, please follow Ornis' advice. Jim62sch 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read over the edits too. Though some of them I agree with, in general WikiWiki's edits decrease NPOV and increase the "support" of the validity of Herbal remedies. If it has been scientifically and clinically tested, then it is a medical tool. Otherwise, it's speculation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there cannot be a double standard here, had I written what is up currently, it would be called POV just because of sneaky wording and applying statements to herbalism that could just as easily be applied to western medicine. It occurs to me, why is western medicine being mentioned in this page other than in a passing phrase such as 'herbalism is an alternative to western medicine' after all, this page is not titled "herbalism versus western medicine". Wiki wiki1 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Substantial changes

As I understand it, Wikipedia only requires that entries be verifisble and the author adopt a neutral point of view. He/she may however present various points of view provided they represesent either the consensus or a signifigant minority view .How have I violated Wikipedia policy? Additionally, the changes were substantial. I only changed a littleCayte 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

BTW WP:DR requires that disputed content NOT be reverted, simply flagged as POV and discussed. I didn't revert anytnhing, just added clarification. Likewise my edits shouln't simply be reverted.Cayte 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Oh very good. And why then did you not simply flag the statement and bring it up on the talk page? And I did improve you edits, I returned the statement to the established consensus. As far as I only changed a little goes, character count has little bearing on whether or not a change is substantial, for example: Jamie is man --> Jamie is a woman. Two characters and the meaning of the sentence is completely reversed. As for your changes, I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary to remove this statement: due to the status of herbs in the United States as dietary supplements which are technically not supposed to have medicinal functions? ornis (t) 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I retained the information that standardization is not mandated in the US. The statement sounds tendentious to me but normally, I just flag tendentious posts as POV or unreferenced. But as is the statement is not coherent. The lack of standards are not caused by DHSEA becuse its logically possible to have a separate category for supplements and still require standardization. Also if plants have inherent variation the statement it is due to DHSEA must be false. Cayte 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Cayte

I agree with Cayte, that statement 'technically, etc etc...' seems very POV; the FDA simply set herbal medicine as 'supplement' in the U.S. because they don't have the manpower/funding to classify and regulate the growing medicinal herb business. DSHEA was passed after tens of thousands of letters from all over the U.S. (comparable to the number of letters sent during the vietnam war period) were sent to Washington to say that herbal medicine was important to those people. By statistical likelihoods, and the many studies that have been done, it can easily be said that herbalism is not by virtue of its 'scientifically untested'(not true to a large extent) a fraud. Wiki wiki1 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbs used as medicine

Removing POV tags without discussion is against WP:DR. If Herbs with Medicinal Effects implies too much it could be Ongoing Herbal Research or Herbs under Investigation or whatever verbiage implies some research is underway but it is still a work in progress. But Herbs Used as Medicine may be construed by some as meaning it is endorsed by mainstream opinion.Cayte 02:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

The tag was spurious. It's "Plants used as medicine" because the lists cover plants with proven efficacy, plants with disproven efficacy, and plants whose efficacy has either not been sufficiently researched or not researched at all. The title currently in use is the most NPOV and least cumbersome possible that covers all those criteria. ornis (t) 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Used as Medicine is ambiguous. It begs the question "used by whom?". Some readers may assume "by mainstream medicine." If it means by anyone, anywhere, anytime it borders on meaningless.I'd prefer a title that is not open to misinterpretation.Cayte 04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Perhaps. I read it to mean "used by anyone inclined to use herbs, past and present." However, you may want to have a look at the talk page of List of plants used as medicine, that was where the present title was adopted, and personally what ever the consensus ends up being on the title of that article I will harmonise the title of this section with it. ornis (t) 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually on that note, I think part of the confusion may be less to do with the title than with the format of the list itself. If this list were laid out like the main list, it would be much clearer I think. ornis (t) 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for rewrite of the article

I have been reading this article and have noticed that it seems to be in pretty bad shape, numerous sections under dispute, countless unreferenced material, etc. I just wanted to get everyones opinions on a rewrite of the article. By this I mean a total rewrite of the article with introduction of new material, reformation of material, all citations added, etc. This would be done by me on my own time and when finished I would ask anyone willing including all major contributors to come to the drafts talk page to propose changes to the article on it's talk page. Once all editors are agreed on the article and no disputes are left, we would replace this article with the rewrite and then nominate it for a Good article and then hopefully a featured article. I'd like some input on this proposal. For those of you unfamiliar with the process please see the Parapsychology or (in progress) the Homeopathy article for more info. Please add some input on this. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of NPOV, undue weight issues, and general bias on Homeopathy, I would prefer that you not rewrite this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the messy process of various editors with different points of view and (hopefully) an NPOV consensus emerging. Thats what Wikipedia is about.Cayte 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Thanks Cayte. I think this article is genuinely becoming NPOV, and you've worked hard to add in references and the such. Let's not change it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Cayte and OM, this article has some issues yes, but it's shaping up nicely. What it needs is a few more citations and some copy-editing, not a total re-write. ornis (t) 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It's up to all of you. I could probably have it up to GA status within a few weeks. How long do you all think it will take simply to get the "Disputed" tag at the top of the article off and the article sourced? If it's not rewritten that is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It'll take exactly as long as it needs to take. Frankly the totally disputed tag could probably be removed now without too much drama, as it's largely an artefact of an earlier clean up. ornis (t) 23:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been stagnant for weeks. No improvements, no sourcing, nothing. The disputed tag is the least of it's problems. It's badly written, Not encyclopedic, Not sourced, Missing relevant information and containing irrelevant information, needs a 'wikification' cleanup, far too many External links, The "Examples of plants used as medicine" is too 'listy', it should be formed into paragraphs, The current citations need to be formated. The list goes on. I offered to rewrite it and get it up to a Good Article status within a few weeks but if you're all unwilling to participate then I guess I'll just leave it. Because as it stands, I don't see it improving much as is. It needs an overhaul. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am astounded by this comment. This article was began Jan 23, 2004. It has been edited a total of 953 times. In the last year, there have been 693 edits, about 73 % of the total number of edits. In the last month there have been 147 edits. In the previous month there were 151 edits. In the year before that, monthly edits were never higher than 62 (September 2006) and often 30-50. It strikes me that the last 8 weeks have seen an explosion of activity, almost 1/3 of the activity since this article was started over 3.5 years ago. How does this constitute being stagnant? I am astounded, sir. Frankly, astounded. I do not know what to say. --Filll 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff. That looks like a lot of changes in the last 8 weeks, since June 1, 2007. And the article has gone from 51 KB or so to 46 KB. That is stagnant? Wow. --Filll 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, It hasn't been stagnant the past several weeks. I was just looking at the recent differences and noticed there wasn't much action on the talk page and figured it hadn't seen much editing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You looked at the talk page and figured it had been stagnant on the article? If it weren't for the fact that you were being serious, that would be funny. Well, you've certainly confirmed my decision re the rfa. Jim62sch 09:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's consider the Talk page. A total of 158 edits over 3.5 years, 145 in the last year, and 96 in the last 8 weeks. So about 2/3 of ALL talk page activity has been in the last 8 weeks. My goodness...--Filll 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll up through the talk page you'll notice how quickly the dates of the discussions start going back to a few weeks ago and then a month ago, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk page needs archiving, so what? In any event, sparse recent discussions, is more indicative of the fact that major content disputes have been hammered out, and most of the recent edits have been largely uncontroversial. ornis (t) 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be a sign that no one's paying attention to the article anymore because they've abandoned it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

...if it weren't for the fact the article itself has seen fifty-six edits in the last week. ornis (t) 01:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

About 90% of which has come from just 3 people. Going back 2 and a half weeks, the last 100 edits have been made about 90% by only 4 people. Here's my guarantee. I guarantee that this article will be GA status within 3 weeks if it goes through a re-write project similar to the way Parapsychology went through, as long as everyone participates. The Parapsychology article was a mess, however after only 2 days of the re-write it was promoted to GA status. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Really? Does that come with a thirty day, money-back guarantee^*, if we're not completely satisfied with the results?
* _{(postage excluded, product must be returned in original packaging with receipt)}

Seriously, this isn't going anywhere. ornis (t) 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside, I'll be frank with you, I believe that the best way to improve this article is the method I've outlined above. I believe that it would be much more difficult to drastically improve this article the conventional ways it's been done until now. I've offered to rewrite the article and invite all major contributors of it to make proposals to improve my rewrite on a separate page until all parties are agreed. This has been proven successful if all participants work at it. Since I don't believe it can be improved the conventional ways I won't spend time attempting to do it that way. If you as well as other major contributors to this article decide to go my route then we can do that. Otherwise I'll spend my time improving other articles that don't require total rewrites or that do require total rewrites and the contributors are willing to participate in a rewrite. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that I and the other major editors have in fact decided not to go down your route. ornis (t) 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate wikidudeman's enthusiasm for helping to improve the article, and I would whole-heartedly welcome his rewrite of the article since he hasn't been involved in the POV war going on here. Also, a break for all from this article for a couple days would be welcome. I say we let him go ahead, since he seems to have some good outside perspective, as well as some fresh 'wikification' ideas. We definitely need a re-write here, just take a look at the categories and format.Wiki wiki1 03:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A break?! You've only made 11 edits to this article. ornis (t) 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, good research there, I've done a lot of research into references for this and other related pages, and tried to fix some of the POV on this page. How much of what you have done is not just herbalism-bashing (without reference) and POV pushing, or just straight talk page bullying? Wiki wiki1 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What ever you say buddy. ornis (t) 04:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not anti-herbalism. I use herbs myself. However, I am a scientist too. And many of the claims of herbalism are false, or unsubstantiated with the appropriate scientific tests. And I recognize that too. We must try to approach this honestly and reasonably from a scientific perspective, since this is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a sales manual for promoting herbalism. Here we have to stick to "just the facts ma'am".--Filll 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal hope for the article is that it becomes a useful research tool not a tidy GA article. If its heavily used by plant scientists and it NEVER achieves featured article status I'd be happy. This is the value added of Wikipedia over traditional encyclopedias. Phytomedicine instrinsically a dynamic but ongoing field. I expect new POV issues to erupt in the future as new evidence or controversy arises and I'd prefer that to a polished, static but irrelevant article.Cayte 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Totally. I'll take interesting and useful over featured and static any day. ornis (t) 01:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Wikidudeman's homeopathy rewrite

Having checked out the homeopathy draft to get a sample of Wikidudeman's writing. I have two issues. One is style and the other is bias. I found the original article more readable. Thats not a problem if it is only my personal opinion but it is if others share it.

At the outset I'd like to clarify that I have no interest or belief in homeopathy and have never used any homeopathic remedy because it all seems so hokey. At the same time I believe all points of view should be represented fairly. Whether intentional or not is irrelevant. I found what appear to be straw man arguments or unclear writing. A couple examples.

>>Cichona bark contains quinine and is often used as a treatment for malaria, however Hahnemann noticed that if ingested by healthy individuals, cinchona bark would produce some symptoms of malaria. From this experience Hahnemann deduced that an effective drug must produce the symptoms in healthy individuals that are similar to the symptoms of the sick patient which they are supposed to be treating.

Not even a quack would commit such a glaring fallacy as to generalize from a single substance. It turns out Hahnemann test a lot of substances, cinchona was only the first.^[3]

>>From his experiments, Hahnemann reasoned that because of its strong similarity, using natural doses of a drug would not cure a disease because it produces effects similar to the disease, and would only make the symptoms worse.

Huh???The whole premise of his first experiment was that cinchona DOES cure malaria

This would normally not be a big deal. Its broke, you fix it. But once an article achieves a “consensus” and “featured status” it is considered naughty to tweak it and the POV freezes in. That is why I am leery of a rewrite by a single individual.Cayte 00:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Hahnemann was a quack. He generalised a system from thin air and his allergy to quinine. The "provings" bore no more resemblance to clinical trials than does haruspex. Actually apart from the vast reduction of the section on subesquent testing and failed attempts to demonstrate any effectiveness at all, the thing that annoys me about that draft is the implication that hahnemanns methods were in some way a precursor to modern clinical trials... ah no... that was James Lind thank you. ornis (t) 00:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Hahnemann did research and test numerous purported remedies however the initial one that gave him the idea of the "like cures like" was the Cinchona bark. Based on the sources I have, He concluded from this single substance that "like cures like" and diseases must be treated with substances that cause similar symptoms of the disease. He later tested other substances for other illnesses but that was where he got the idea from. Secondly, Hahnemann believed that an average dose of a remedy that causes similar symptoms as the disease it's supposed to be treating would only make the symptoms worse. This isn't a flaw in the writing, this is homeopathic philosophy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So Hahnemann believed both that cinchona cured malaria and that it didn't cure malaria? For 200 years scientists have focused on the implausible dilutions and nobody noticed the internal inconsistencies? I find that a bit much to swallow. You can't test incoherent claims.Cayte 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Let me explain. Cinchona bark has been used to treat the symptoms of malaria for centuries. Hahnemann took Cinchona bark and experienced side effects similar to those of malaria. Some people have said that Hahnemann might have had an allergic reaction to the Cinchona bark and that was the reason he experienced the side effects similar to those of malaria, but from this experience he concluded that all effective drugs must produce the effects in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease being treated. When Hahnemann applied this to other substances he noticed that in high doses, the substances wouldn't be useful because they would make the symptoms worse. So he then came up with the idea of diluting the proposed remedies to super low levels so that patients no longer experienced the side effects but (as he believed) still got the benefits from the remedies. I hope that clarifies it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That clarifies it but its not what the draft says.Cayte 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Cayte

The wording might be a bit unclear. Tell me what you think of this change and tell me if it clarifies it. Here [[3]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Help Requested

I'm interested in writing an article on Neoplasene, an FDA-approved drug that is derived from herbs. I just started it at User:Otherlleft/Neoplasene, and at this point it's only a few links to references that I've found. I'm looking for some specific help, and anyone willing to do so may feel free:

appropriate infobox
opinions about category
any examples of good pages I can use as a guide for developing the structure
- I won't turn away anyone just writing the darned thing, since I think it should be, but I'm not actually asking for that

Again, thanks in advance for any help you may be able to provide. --otherlleft 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Synergy

"They argue that the synergy of the combined substances enhances the efficacy and dilutes toxicity.[64] Unfortunately, this assertion is difficult to prove" To me, "difficult to prove" implies something is accurate but they just can't prove it. The concept of synergy as herbalists describe it, not to be confused with the legitimate concept, Synergy#Drug_Synergism is not even open to scientific discourse. It's an unfalsifiable claim. Synergy as I understand it is saying that the effect of the herb is somehow greater than the effects of all the active ingredients combined and the interactions between them. For some reason you can't just for the presence of an interaction by taking two active ingredients out and checking if the effect of them both together is greater than either alone. It's all got to be done in the plant. Of course this can't be tested effectively either for lack of standardisation. I move that the second sentence of the above be changed to "Unfortunately, this assertion is not supported by scientific evidence." I will be making this change myself in a few weeks if someone does not either provide me with evidence. This sentence will be lacking a necessarily lacking a notable reference, because you can't publish an article in a scientific journal to show that an untestable claim lacks evidence.JamesStewart7 02:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Several points. The first is that the statement begins with "herbalists argnue that". In other words the sentence makes no claim that synergy is a scientific established fact. It simply reports the verifiable fact that herbalists make the argument.

In addition science is not sufficiently advanced to do justice to the complexity of plant biochemical reactions. We can't assume we have a full understanding of how "axctive ingredients" work. Perhaps some "inert components" modulate the effect. Herbalists and mainstream physicians alikw fall back on intuition and clinical experience when scientific data is limited. Cayte 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, however, follows the scientific approach with its articles. Your entire argument boils down to "scientific knowledge is limited". This is true of course but the exact same argument has been used to support a whole range of pseudosciences such as ESP, homeopathy etc etc. As wikipedia guildines suggest that all notable opposing viewpoints should be included, I can see a reason to allow the synergy concept if it is referenced and the opposing viewpoint is included. As synergy is completely undefined in the article this is somewhat hard. Please include an appropriate definition so the opposing viewpoint may be included. PS the reason I push for a definition is that the herbalist concept of synergy seems to differ from the mainstream medical concept. JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

I think the definition of synergy is identical, The difference is practical. The mainstream attitude as I see it seems to be "We don't know the interactions of the combined phytochemicals so lets mix the ones we know about into a pill." The herbalisr mindset on the other hand is "We don't know the interactions of the combined phytochemicals so lets use the whole herb". The latter BTW is quite mainstream when it comes to recommendations that we eat our veggies.Cayte (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the pharmacists saying they don't know the interactions or that they don't think there are any interactions because no such interactions have been found, despite testing? A lack of evidence for something, despite testing is not the same as don't know. It is far closer too there is no relationship, as it is not possible to provea negative. Anyway as soon as I get time, I'll have a look for references concerning drug synergy, trace elements and reducing toxicity through drug synergy then. This argument should not be presented in the form of "These people say.., these people say". There must be evidence on the topic. JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But presenting arguments w/o taking sides is what NPOV is all about. Let the reader decide. As long as we source our statements and describe the concensus position as such there should be no problem.Cayte (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is necessary to present both arguments without taking sides but I am referring to one section; "Effectiveness". WP:Fringe states that "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community." and that scientific claims should be evaluated, thus an article on effectiveness should be about the evidence for or against the effectiveness of herbal treatments, not people's opinions. The rest of the article can present both sides. This is what you see in many other alternative medicine articles such as homeopathy. There are clear sections devoted to the evidence for an against the treatments that are devoid of the opinions of various groups. When there is evidence it is also unneccessary to state, for example, "Skeptics say...". Note that the homeopathy article states "the idea that any biological effects could be produced by these preparations is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs." Remarkably similar evidence could be used to demonstrate that trace elements (which I can only assume are verging on undectable as otherwise they could be added to the pill) can cause any measurable effect. Given the weight of evidence the argument should state "The observed relationship.." or similar, not "Skeptics state..." Of course studies should the be cited so this change is pending finding those studies.

Also, some of the claims from herbalists in this section are problematic as they assume things which have not been stated and they are impossible to counter without going way off topic. "Our understanding of phytochemical interactions and the effects of trace components is too limited". The sentence clearly implies that if more research would done there would be a point where our knowledge is complete enough to know how these interactions work. It also implies that phytochemical interactions exist. I'll edit the article so the premises are more clear but there is still another problem with this sentence. In no other alternative medicine article that I am aware of has an argument in the form of "Scientific knowledge is too limited to know this" been accepted. It is not accepted because you have to explain pragmatism, how science works etc in order to refute it which drags the article way off topic. The argument contains a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance. Herbalists are assuming that phytochemical interactions exist merely because the can't be proven not to exist. Actually a very similar example is given in the argument from ignorance article "Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true". So we can go one of two ways; remove the comment completely or we can say it and then say that it is a logical fallacy. Seeing as such arguments are not present in any other article, I think it should be removed completely in order to bring the herbalism article in line with other topics. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comment in reply to trace elements because on review of the article I am unsure what exactly "trace compoenents" refers to and the comment was only valid for one definition of the word. According to the wikipedia page, in analytical chemistry an element of concentration <100 micrograms per gram. Evidence concerning the dose-response curve would apply here as it may be assumed the element is a drug. However, in biochemistry, a trace element is a chemical element that is needed in minute quantities for the proper growth, development, and physiology of the organism. In this case trace elements are a specific set of elements and they are more akin to dietary supplements than drugs (drugs are substances not taken for nutritional value). In this case, dose-response curves would not really apply. If "trace components" means "trace levels of an active ingredient" can that be written instead. If the biochemistry meaning is intended can the term "micronutrient" or "trace minerals" or similar be used instead. I would do it myself but I can't access one article and it the meaning is unclear in the other article.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the meaning of trace is micronutrient and that herbs are along a continuum between supplements and drugs. The argument is more than just an argument from ignorance. With nutrition and botany there is a definite trend toward the discovery of new micronutrients and more complexity. Its reasonable to expect this to continue.Cayte (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well how would you suggest balancing this argument with the opposing viewpoint then? The problem with logical fallacies is the only real way to counter them is to point out that it is a logical fallacy. "With nutrition and botany there is a definite trend toward the discovery of new micronutrients and more complexity." You could say that about any area of science so the same argument could be used to support basically any claim eg. in defense of ESP one could say "With psychology and neuroscience there is a definite trend towards the discovery of new mental processes and more complexity." As you can see, despite the fact that science advances rapidly, arguments from ignorance are still arguments from ignorance. So how would you go about balancing the POV in this section. Do you think it is better to remove them comment, add a balancing remark or resolve the POV dispute in another way?JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Its an important issue so we can't just delete it. It may take time to resolve. Maybe we need to bring more people on board. If you have access to an academic library you could get the article.

Meanwhile I have more links. [4]

[5]

There is evidence of synergy in specific cases. As I see it the question is how widely it can be generalied. Reasonable extrapoloation is not the same as argument by ignorance. Saying that biodiversity leads us to expect to find new sticklebacks in Lake Victoria is reasonable but expecting to find mermaids would be argument by ignrance.

Herbalists base their opinions partly on studies and partly on their understanding of botany and coevolution. All hard to put in a one-liner. Ironically the mainstream position is that we should not rely on supplements because there are unknown nutrients in food.Cayte (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to include reliable evidence for the existance of synergy in the effectiveness section. I would agree reasonable extrapolation is not the same as argument from ignorance. If the synergy comment was changed to something like "Herbalists argue that since evidence for drug synergy has been found in some herbs [reference], other herbs may produce similar effects" we could avoid the argument from ignorance present in the article. Of course this would have to be balanced with something like "Skeptics argue that herbalists are overgeneralising as many drugs do not exhibit synergistic effects with specific other drugs [reference]." My primary objection is to "scientific knowledge is limited" type comments not comments about the existance of synergy. As you stated the issue really is about the appropriate level of generalisation. Phrasing the dispute in this way makes generalisation the issue. This seems like a more balanced approach to me.

I think that would be a reasonable solution for now.Cayte (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if the synergy dispute can be resolved I would like to retain the POV tag on this section. Overgeneralisation seems like a problem throughout a lot of the article. The problem is not so much what is said. It is what is not said. There are definately some herbs that are effective but there are also a lot that aren't. Currently only the herbs that are effective are mentioned eg. "Many herbs have shown positive results in in-vitro, animal model or small-scale clinical tests." This may lead the reader to believe that all herbs are effective for what they are proported to treat whereas many trial have in fact shown negative results (there are also things like publication bias to contend with). It is never actually stated in the article that negative results have found for many herbal treatments. This leads to a POV imbalance. I do have access to academic libraries but it has not been working lately so I will try to correct this when I can. Also, I agree that more people are needed to do this.JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

St John's wort note removed

"However the target population was different in the new study because it included severely depressed subjects." This is misleading for two reasons. Firstly, according to this NIH release; http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2002/nccam-09.htm, the study targeted moderate depression, as clearly indicate in the title. Secondly it was a multi-site trial including 340 patients, making it a lot bigger than the original studies. You would expect more range of severity for this reason only. This means the study is both likely to be more reliable and have higher power (greater chance of detecting a difference if there is one). The presence of some severely depressed patients in the sample would not have meant that the study would show St John's wort to be ineffective in the treatment of moderate depression, even if the severely depressed patients did not respond. If the moderately depressed patients respond to the drug and the severely depressed patients do not a statistically significant difference would still be found. Thirdly, the most severely depressed patients are often excluded from studies like this because it contravenes ethical regulations. No one wants to put high risk patients at risk by giving them an experimental drug when there are effective treatments available, hence the use of moderately depressed patients. So, given that the study targeted moderate depression and the presence of a few severely depressed patients is unlikely to alter the results (effect size maybe, but the study was looking for significance) I think that note stay out of the article. I'd like to hear some scientific reason why these results may be unreliable or at least some reference to the mean HAM-D score for the patient group before such notes are reincluded. JamesStewart7 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Numerous misleading statements in medicinal properites of herbs section

"Nigella sativa is a a general medicinal plant can be used for..." This statments suggests that Nigella sativa is an an panacea (cure-all). This is laugable in scientific terms. The reference only found evidence for analgesic properites, "not general medicinal uses". Also the mechanism is unclear (I'm betting on observer bias due to lack of blinding) as naloxone did not reference the effect. Some of the reserach in other areas is pretty weak and the original authors often state this. If you look at the original articles you'll find the authors using the words "may" and "possibly" a lot. Then when you come to this article "can" and "does" are used instead. I altered the article to use more appropriate terms (may, possibly) where the evidence is unclear. JamesStewart7 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC) A quick scan of Pubmed showed a bunch of Nigella sativa refs for a bunch of stuff. Unfortunately, I won 't have time to dive into the details till December.Cayte (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find journal references for the efficacy of Nigella sativa in specific uses I have no problem with that information being included. Feel free to add any information of the form of Nigella sativa has been used to treat ___. It's efficacy in this area has been supported by ___. Just avoid terms like "general medicinal plant" as nothing can be used to treat everything.JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The st john’s wort extraction can ease anxiety, stress, and chronic pain, and can stop bleeding, has the resistance transcriptase virus's function. Serves as the central nervous system inhibitor and the anti-melancholy medicinal preparation 。if somebody is in bule just let him have st John”wort extract.

If you want other plant extract please contact

JESSIE! tel 86-731-2967873 mobile 86-13507440140 fax 86-731-2967861 E-mail jessie@organic-herb.com MSN upshenyan@live.cn www.organic-herb.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upshenyan (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Extremely questionable valerian/hops study removed

"Both the extracts were prepared with 45% methanol m/m with a drug-extract ratio of 5.3:1 (valerian) and 6.6:1 (hops), respectively." They prepared it with ALCOHOL. There was also more alcohol in the valerian/hops combination than valerian alone. It's no wonder people got to sleep faster in that condition. The effect on alcohol (and basically all sedatives) on sleep, especially getting to sleep is well documented. I can't believe anyone even published this study. This is perhaps the biggest confound I have seen in any study, ever. There is no way that anyone can say that we know valerian/hops helps insomnia because of this study alone.JamesStewart7 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This stuff is bull!!

  I have not seen this study, so I can't speak for specifics, but I do know that the actual amount of alcohol consumed when taking most herbal tincture is negligible. Alcohol is just used as a medium to extract constituents. It is used for countless herbs. Usually when you take these alcohol based tinctures you take 30-50 drops, maybe 100-200 drops at most in more extreme situations. I do not know  how much was used in the study, but I assume that it wasn't nearly enough to notice any effects from the alcohol alone. 
  I agree that you can't say that we know for sure that valerian and hops help with insomnia through this scientific study, but believe me, if you were to ever consume fresh valerian or fresh hops, you would know for sure that they sedate you! especially hops.. (I know this is anecdotal, and therefore doesn't hold much value to this community,I'm just saying try it sometime!) Petie159 (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My reading of that is 45% of it was methanol. The only way that the presence of methanol is not a significant confound is if valerian/hops is far, far, more potent than alcohol for this purpose. If they are of equal potency then half the effect is alcohol. If valerian/hops is of less than equal potency then it may all be alcohol. Of course, to establish that valerian/hops is more potent than methanol we would need another study comparing the two but then if we had this we wouldn't need the other study anyway. In any case I have to question the concealment of the placebo group. The presence of methanol should be enough to distinguish the placebo group from the treatment group (through smell and taste) so blinding is probably gone anyway. A lack of proper blindings is a problem by itself. JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What Happened?

This used to be an excellent article, and now it's all negative, jumbled and incoherent. WTF?

pixiequix (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Negative is ok if that happens to be the scientific status of any particular herb but feel free to clean up the article so it flows better.JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all I don't agree that negative is okay. The article is about herbalism, not herbalism as it compares to the practice of pharmacology. And the information is supposed to be presented in an informative manner, but currently it reads like a critique.

Also, there seems to be a shortage of solid herbal references, although it's not due to a lack of availability. The sheer quantity of information that's available on the internet about herbalism, the scientific basis for herbalism, plants, botany, phytotherapy, etc. is truly staggering.

For example:

Dr. Duke's Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases for anything that pertains to plants and their chemical or medicinal value.

Michael Moore's website offers extensive information on medicinal herbs, and a database that can be searched by genus and species.

HerbalChem is a resource on the phytochemistry of herbs.

And the Herbs Research Foundation has even got the latest scientific news as it relates to herbs and herbal research.

There's plenty of information and research on herbs, it's just not being put to good use.

pixiequix (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add any reliable scientific source into the article. However, websites like herbs.org are probably not as good references as the original study as they are clearly POV. Scientific critiques have been accepted in many articles, perhaps all the alternative medicine articles that have received sufficient attention eg the Homeopathy article states that "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" in the third paragraph. Furthermore, WP:Fringe clearly states that "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." so wikipedia policy clearly supports the notion that negative is acceptable if that is the current scientific status of the topic in question. If you feel that the scientific status of herbalism has been misrepresented in the article you are encouraged to change any innaccurate claims and support your changes with reliable sources.

Also I feel that there is actually a huge amount of positive research on herbalism that has been included in the article especially in the plants used as medicine section. Many of these studies, however, have recieved a negative spin in the article due to conflicting reserach, poor methodology or being in-vitro only. Such shortfalls cannot be ignored as they are a huge threat to the scientific validity of the results. So, if you know of any large, well designed studies on any herb that show positive or negative findings I would love to see them included in the article. JamesStewart7 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, the continuous efforts to vilify and marginalize ancient folk wisdom have got to be some of the most misguided undertakings ever embarked upon... Anyway, I thought I'd mention that I'm a lay herbalist, and I'd be happy to help with the article if it were ever needed.

pixiequix (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comments on the herbal philosophy section where the traditionalist POV is presented.Cayte (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of comments are you looking for?

pixiequix (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether is accurately represents the herbalist POVCayte (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so.
See below, comment #49

pixiequix (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New section needed to avoid a sprawling mess

If there no objections I intend to move the synergy discussion to a separate section on herbal philosophy where other differences in emphasis between herbs and drugs can be described. As I try to compose text it is becoming clear that it doesn't fit happily into the Effects section.Cayte (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Cayte

I think it is a positive change. There are a few sentences I would like clarified though, "Because herbs can moonlight as vegetables, teas or spices epidemiological studies are possible" I'm not really clear on what moonlight as vegetebles etc means. "Herbalists may use forms of evidence that are not available to pharmacists." What forms of evidence? Why aren't they available to pharmacists? Surely pharmacists can use any form of evidence that meets appropriate scientific standards.JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ginger, turmeric and sage are used as spices as well as herbs. Ordinary tea has medicinal aspects. Garlic and olives are vegetables but they have purported pharmceutical effects. Because of the huge numbers of users epidemiological studies are feasable. New drugs have less of a user baseCayte (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I'm uncomfortable with the use of the word "state" because there is no equivalent of the AMA or FDA that makes official pronouncements or claims to speak for all herbalists. However there is a general consensua among scientifically oriented herbalists.Cayte (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag effectiveness section

I am seeking consensus for the removal of the POV tag on the effectiveness section. I originally placed this tag before substantial edits on this section. I have since added several new references and many other comments have been moved out of this section. I now consider this section sufficiently NPOV to remove the tag and the POV disputes seem to have been moved to other sections. JamesStewart7 (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Herbalists have their own critiques such as that studies diverge from traditional use. More work needs to be done before the POV tag can be removed.Cayte (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what are the current complaints with the effectiveness section? Please be specific. Scientific articles should really be NPOV be default. WP:NPOV, in fact, states that a particular position does not have to be given "equal validity" if that is not what the evidence supports. So please be aware that reliable evidence suggesting that herbal trials are of poor quality or trials showing negative results do not violate NPOV policy. Hence it is not necessary to "balance" scientific evidence with the opinions of herbalists. That would actually be Wikipedia:Undue#Undue_weight. As far as I am aware herbal medicine is largely untested or has received insufficient support so as this, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/280/18/1618, "Alternative Medicine Meets Science" article suggests, they are regarded by the scientific community simply as unproven therapys. Obvsiouly treatments with scientific support are an exception and should be stated as such. The opinion that traditional use is worth anything is likewise the minority scientific opinion.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some herbalists criticize studies in that the designs do not reflect traditional use in terms of dose, species, etc. but I need to find a reference. I think the idea that anecdotal evidence is worthless is an overstatement. The consesus it that it has major limitations because of bias, faulty recall and misinterpretation and should be followed up by rigorous scientific studies. If someone told me an abandoned house glowed green at night because of spirits, I'd be inclined to believe the glows green part and suspect wood rot. In Germany anecdotal evidence from doctors is accepted if no other is is available, so its not a worldwide view . Herbals were written by doctors or experienced lay herbalists, not uneducated. people. Was Gerard a bozo? But I agree herbs need more rigorous investigation.Cayte (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to compare RCT trials. If you compare a mix of RTCs, in-vitro and animal tests you're comparing oranges and apples. Cayte (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find you plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest a whole host of implausible treatments are effective. Many of the reasons anecdotal evidence is not considered reliable are labelled here /Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic. Using anecdotal evidence is only accepted by EBM when there are no higher forms of evidence for any treatment for the condition. If herbals are written by doctors then this information would classiy as expert opinion and still fall in the lowest category of evidence. There are various standards of evidence guidlines that are commonly referred to that place anecdotal evidence/expert position at the very bottom of the trial which state also state to use the highest form of evidence available (for any treatment, there is nothing to say a particular condition must be treated with a herb). I'm sure I can find these references if you wish. I believe that since the majority scientific opinion is that anecodotal evidence is of very low worth (as shown by these evidence guildines), that it is fair to represent it as such.

It may be fair to compare RCT trials but it would also then be worth noting that few trials of herbal medicine are actually RCT trials.JamesStewart7 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Traditional use is not evidence for effectiveness

I am aware that herbalists consider traditional uses of a herb evidence and I have no problem with statements saying that herbalists consider it as such. I do, however, have a problem with the statements that suggest that traditional use actually IS evidence. The belief that traditional use constitutes evidence is simply one POV, one that is not shared by the scientific community. As far as many scientists are concerned, traditional use is just a collection of anecdotes about effectiveness and is hardly evidence for efficacy. As such I am change the word evidence to information in all instances of this.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Traditional use is evidence but the issue is what level of evidence. It it were NO evidence traditional use would be no better than chance at finding medicinally useful plants. The stats suggest otherwise.Cayte (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What stats? There are no such stats in the article This doesn't count "Among the 120 active compounds currently isolated from the higher plants and widely used in modern medicine today, 80 percent show a positive correlation between their modern therapeutic use and the traditional use of the plants from which they are derived" because it is looking only at the plants that have been proved to work (and ignoring those that didn't." This is also doubtful "In fact, according to the World Health Organisation, approximately 25% of modern drugs used in the United States have been derived from plants" as the WHO doesn't say how they came up with this number and the rest are from POV sources and have verification needed tags. I also fail to see how traditional use is anything other than a lot of anecdotes. Wikipedia says this about anecdotal evidence "For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as “clearly correct."" so even if it does do better than chance I'm not sure that clearly differentiates it from the strength of anecdotal evidence. Also speaking realistically, herbal medicines are likely to beat chance just because any medicines that make people violently ill or die aren't likely to retain in continued use (then again there are some cases of this). You can beat chance just by excluding the plants that kill you without any respect for the plants that any help, so I'd like to see an analysis that shows whether traditional use does better than chance AFTER the plants that produce dangerous effects are excluded.JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think this quote pretty much settles it In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers".JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Matched study of research quality

The following is in reference to this article "Matched-pair study showed higher quality of placebo-controlled trials in Western phytotherapy than conventional medicine". I have to say, a matched pair design is about the most dodgy research design you could use in this area. It allows the researcher to pick and choose what studies they would like to include and they can really get any results they want. If you read the report, there is pretty good evidence that this is what they did: 237 publications randomly selected. 147 were excluded for reasons such as ineligible study design, non western herbal medicine, insufficient information and report not available. Of particular interest are the 29 trials excluded for ineligible design and the 18 for insuffient information. If they had included these trials in their final analysis their results would be completely different. I think some note of their exclusion criteria needs to be made in the wikipedia aritcle.

Their inclusion criteria as quoted from the article "Inclusion criteria were (i) controlled trial of treatments or preventative measures with clinical outcomes, (ii) parallel group design with placebo control, (iii) random or quasi-random assignment to treatment and placebo groups, (iv) availability of written reports (journal publication, abstract, thesis, conference proceeding, unpublished report, book chapter, monograph, etc.) with sufficient data to allow the calculation of odds ratios, and, for the herbal medicine sample, (v) trial of herb listed in the monograph of the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (ESCOP) [15] or approved by the Swiss licensing authority (Swissmedic)." Points (i), (ii) and (iii) may be summarised as "only trials of reasonable scientific quality were included". If they did the matching the opposite way (found conventional medicine trials that meet these criteria and found matched herbal trials) they would have found that the herbal trials were far worse.

They also note this in the discussion "Furthermore, reporting on adverse effects has been shown to be inadequate even in larger trials" and this "The methodological quality of randomized trials cannot reliably be assessed from published articles because reporting on important aspects of methodology is often incomplete and the quality of reporting is an inadequate proxy measure for methodological quality".

So my proposal is to include some addendum such as "However, this study excluded any herbal trials that were not controlled, did not use a placebo or did not use random assignment". I believe this statement is perfectly accurate and is not OR as very similar is stated as the inclusion criteria. JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Herbal Philosophy

The Herbalism #Herbal philosophy section seems too heavily focused on trivial technical details, which is a shame because there's definitely a certain philosophical basis at the core of modern herbalism. Today's herbalists are generally people who have made a conscious decision to move away from the medical mainstream, and there are a wide variety of reasons to make such a decision. Some have an interest in living more harmoniously with the Earth, some are looking for more choices or greater freedom in connection to their health, and some just have a more naturally holistic vision of themselves and the world around them.

This essay addresses a few of the common philosophical themes that are prevalent in modern herbalism.

pixiequix (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody tell me what ROS is? When I click on the wiki-link I am told that

"ROS is a robotic operating system available form the Animusoft Corporation."

which seems somewhat odd in the sentence

"Bacteria, inflammation, nutrition and ROS may all play a role in arterial disease"

--ClaireMullan (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most practical/best herbalism books

Please include following book in the article (include new section) as a usable book for using herbs in practice:

Rational Phytotherapy: a physicians Guide To Herbal Medicine: 4th Edition by Volker Schulz, Rudolf Hânsel and Varro E. ISBN:354067963

It will allow people in the developing world of reducing their costs on medical expenditures. The book is noted by independent research as the most objective, highest recommended.

Thanks,

KVDP (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, such an endorsement is unencyclopedic. -House of Scandal (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

200BC, not 2700BC

The first Chinese text on Herbology came about in 200BC, not 2700BC. The 'misunderstanding' here is that the writer(s) in 200BC ascribed or dedicated the text to a the Yellow Emperor, a semi-mythical figure who lived a couple of thousand years before. Also, see this site: [6]. According to it, the oldest herbalism texts are Egyptian, Indian, Greek, then Chinese. Provided no objections, I'll change it.88.105.117.108 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)