Talk:Herbal medicine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Clean start

Note: WP:DNFTT. Trolling comments that violate WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NPA and WP:TALK will be deleted in the future and the responsible parties risk blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there no criticism section? There are criticisms scattered all over the article, they should be put together so people can easily see. XcepticZP (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I like a criticism section but we try to avoid criticism sections here. That's the way our articles are supposed to be written. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree why not put all the criticisms on flu vaccines together 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)unknown14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk)

Please sign your posts properly with four tildes, not three or five, and not with "unknown". Just FOUR tildes. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

True; why do we put criticisms on all other medical practices but never put a criticism section on vaccines? I mean we put it on pharmasudical medicines why not put one here on this article and in the vaccine articles? 68.70.14.63 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever a consensus not to have a criticism section? If not, I will start one, unless there is a really good reason why I should not.HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed start one se we can pull the criticisms all into 1 place. Granted if we do we will have to take all the criticisms in the article and relocate them into that place.Ploxboy119 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A non-biased article should always have a section on criticism. If criticism has a negative connotation, then called it "critique". Critique has always found expression in academic essays, policy position papers, trade journals, periodicals, political and religious leaflets, civic testimony, and judicial cross examination, so what is wrong with it? And as XcepticZP says, "There are criticisms scattered all over the article", so it sounds ironical that if you scatter it, it is okay, but if you gather them into one section, then it is not. — PM Poon (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 12 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no article on the herb Gokulakanta why?

Please you people out there write an article on Gokulakanta. I have been trying to find a source for the herb to buy it but with no success. An article needs to be written on it to create more public awareness. 108.81.134.236 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't help buying but the herb seems to be something of the Indian mallow aka Abutilon, possibly Hygrophila spinosa kind and if you search for that name you will find at least some sources at pubmed. I am good on biochemical aspects but not an expert in botanics. Let us know what you find. - Richiez (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there two pages of articles for Hygrophila spinosa on the internet? When I click on your link above I am given a different wiki version then the one I am seeing from a Bing Search here in Ohio with the keyword "Hygrophila spinosa". Some weird games are going on and I suspect the government may be behind it. Even the talk pages were different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygrophila_auriculata What is weird I compared the two links from both versions of the page and the link is the same. Is this some kind of phishing going on? Am I being directed to alternate wikiversions depending on where I enter them from the internet? Is this being done through poisoning of my DNS Cache? 108.81.134.236 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please double check and post detailed information to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical). -- 18:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article needed on "List of Medicinal Herbs"

Someone needs to start an article on "List of Medicinal Herbs" or "List of Medicinal Plants" with links to the various plant articles. 2602:306:C518:62C0:6800:3456:2F93:AB51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. There was an article called List of plants used in herbalism. This title seems unwieldly, and I think people are much more likely to search for List of medicinal plants, so I renamed the article to that. Furthermore, almost every plant on the planet has been used by native peoples in some way, so the List of plants used in herbalism would include just about every plant species. List of medicinal plants should focus only on those species that have modern studies describing their chemical constituents and their biological effects. That would be a much more reasonably sized article (with perhaps a few thousand species, if every such species was actually included, which is unlikely) ... Anyhow, I meant to do that a few weeks back and it just slipped my mind. Thanks for bringing it up and reminding me to do the page move. Feel free to start adding plants at List of medicinal plants. Also, I think we need more pages like Medicinal plants of the American West that focus on medicinal/edible species in particular bioregions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It has that title because people kept inserting unproven medical claims. The set of plants which have produced usable modern medicines is pretty small, far smaller than the list we have now; this list is accumulated from herbalism claims, not real medicine. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I think we need a smaller list. The list of plants used in herbalism is enormous (many thousands of plants). However, the number of plants containing chemicals known to modern science to be bioactive is much smaller. We don't need to focus only on plants (like foxglove or Salix) that have modern pharmaceutical drugs manufactured from them. There are plenty of other plants, such as thyme and datura that have chemical constituents whose medicinal properties have been very heavily studied, even though they aren't synthesized in pharmaceutical factories today. This is what the list should be composed of. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe it would be good to keep the article of all of the plants that have been used in herbalism, and then have a separate article for plants with known medicinal properties, so that when people are coming to look for those plants that have known bioactive chemical constituents, they can find those, without having them all mixed in with a bunch of plants that don't have known effects. I think maybe List of plants used in herbalism should just be any plant that people anywhere have used in traditional herbal medicine, while List of medicinal plants should be plants that have chemical constituents with known medicinal properties (e.g. datura, thyme, etc.)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Valium-valerian connection?

I have heard that the valium name is derived from the herb name valerian
but I do not know whether this is true
or whether diazepam is chemically related to any active constituent of valerian
Laurel Bush (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

herbalism is about traditional plant medicine

The name of this article, or information in this article needs to be addressed. Information in this article is about medicinal plants on the whole, while the definition herbalism is about traditional alternative medicine and not covering modern phytotherapy. Information was crammed into this article that had no better place to fit at the time. Changing the name or moving information in this article covering plants that have been used in modern science medicine to another article seems appropriate. This article name shouldn't end in "ism", either. "Herbal medicine (or "herbalism") is the study and use of medicinal properties of plants," is misleading, while it conflicts with the phytotherapy article stating, "Traditional phytotherapy is a synonym for herbalism and regarded as alternative medicine by much of Western medicine." Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. There is a disconnect here. The section titled "Modern Herbal Medicine" relates to the use of natural plant products as leads for the development of drugs, which is a very interesting subject, but is only peripherally related to herbal medicine. I would move that entire section to one of the drug discovery/development articles. Desoto10 (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Contamination and Substitution in North American Herbal Products

The following article in BMC Medicine has important information that should be included in this article.

• Newmaster, S.G.; Grguric, M.; Shanmughanandhan, D.; Ramalingam, S.; Ragupathy, S. (2013). "DNA barcoding detects contamination and substitution in North American herbal products". BMC Medicine. 11 (1). 222. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-222. PMID 24120035.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

This article discusses the journal article and others.

• Rettner, R. (11-10-2013). "Herbal Supplements Often Contain Unlisted Ingredients". LiveScience. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

- - MrBill3 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Use by animals

Kind of off topic from the discussion preceding me, but zoopharmacognosy is a good place to put the stuff in the "use by animals" section. I don't think "Herbalism" needs more than a sentence or two on use by animals. Plantdrew (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As this seems a separate but related topic I took the liberty of splitting the above comment into a separate section.

I agree the existing article covers the content. A more concise comment on the subject is appropriate for this article. I am interested in other opinions on this. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good find. I have added stuff to the animals section without ever knowing about the separate article. An overview of this might fit inside or close to the history section. Richiez (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Article restructuring / splitting off content

I don't have all the answers for restructuring this article, but share the concern raised in the current/recent rename discussion over the conflation of historical, pseudoscience, and science-based subjects under the single title.

As a first pass, I would suggest splitting off history content to new article, history of herbal medicine as there enough content for a non-stub article currently.Dialectric (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick look tells me that we need disambiguation. We have a page for List of plants used in herbalism geared towards "modern" herbalism. We need a page on "real" medicine derived from plants. Herbs as a component of Humoral medicine needs a place to live. I'm out of town for the week but I'll check in later. J8079s (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

These seem to be excellent ideas. My understanding is that modern herbalism is based on a belief in a comprehensive healing system based primarily or exclusively on herbal medicines. There is likely to be some overlap but I think a separate article on the history of herbal medicine would be a useful split. I think the material on evidenced based medicine developed from plants should also be split off. That would leave this article to deal with what seems to be a separate and fairly clearly delineated practice of using herbs that have not been refined or processed and for the most part do not have defined and quantified active ingredients i.e. standardization. The use of herbal medicine in Europe (where there is some standardization and use of refined ingredients) and elsewhere should also be a part of this article (re:comments in previous discussion) without duplicating the existing material on for instance Traditional Chinese Medicine etc but discussing them in brief with links to the appropriate article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be restructuring. The term "herbalism" sounds condescending or hippie-like. Is there any other term that everyone, even from different perspectives, can agree on? Medicinal plants should have its own page, even if it's merely a disambiguation page or gateway to the separate related articles.

A history of herbal medicine split is ok. Evidence based plant medicines/treatments as an article might work. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization is laudable, but please note that what you are talking about is not "disambiguation", which is the creation of a page listing nothing but unrelated titles that happen to share the same name (such as Vegetative, which can refer both to plant matter and to a human medical condition). bd2412 T 14:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The current article here is a mishmash of several topics which should be separated. Particulary, the section on drugs derived from plants should go to the main drug discovery article or could be split off as a part of "natural products drug research" or similar. Using plants as sources of leads for drug discovery is a traditional mainstream pharmacologocial endeavor. Herbalism, on the other hand, is the use of plants as medicine--it is not about using plants in drug research. I could see a herbalism article that just talks about the use of plants and, I suppose, plant extracts as medicine. A section of that would encompass any evidence based conclusions. Desoto10 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I will break off the history section into a new article in the next day or two. Beyond that, I agree that the article is a mishmash, but I'm running into a confusion of overlapping articles - pharmacognosy,Phytotherapy,phytochemistry,Traditional medicine,Folk medicine,Alternative medicine,ethnopharmacology,Category:Medicinal plants by tradition all have some relevance to some aspects of herbalism. The next step in clarification could be to separate out all of the hard science findings, but I'm not clear on where would be the best target for a move of this information.Dialectric (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

To simplify the process. First split off content into Phytotherapy and Pharmacognosy. Move information about plants that have been used to make modern medicines (like aspirin) into Pharmacognosy. Information about (standardized) plant extracts can go into phytotherapy. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree, this would be a good first step. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

By removing all of the "hard-science findings", you paint an inaccurate picture of herbalism as having no scientific basis. Instead of removing all of the scientific information, we should include it here, as well as having separate articles such as pharmacognosy, which go into greater detail). We also need to be very careful to distinguish between information that is supported by science and those that are more based in traditional practice, but do not have scientific studies backing them up. Anyhow, the best solution is certainly not to remove all of the hard science information. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think, as above, there is a distinction between the practice of herbalism as an school of therapy based on using herbs as a primary broad reaching approach to health and the use of specific herbs for treatment. IMO this article should distinguish that and focus on it. The scientific support for this and some of the scientific support for various treatments used in herbalism certainly belongs here. Pharmacognosy is a separate subject and deals with modern medicines derived from natural sources it may warrant some mention here but just that a mention. Phytotherapy would have substantial overlap with herbalism and several references to it are appropriate, but again the distinction is between the "practice" or "theoretical school" of herbalism and the items used in that practice. For example, the article on medicine refers to the article on pharmaceutical drugs but does not describe a great number of them specifically. The "hard-science findings" in this article should focus on the scientific support for the practice of herbalism in general not the specific treatments. The history of herbalism should certainly be summarized here, especially emphasizing historical "schools of theory" and other broad health approaches centered on herbalism. In short I am suggesting a distinction between the use of individual herbs and the practice of using herbs to manage health. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The sections about history and use by animals are the less problematic ones so I would leave those here, also the overview/introduction should center on history. The modern stuff is suffering plenty of confusion so here is most of the work to be done. Perhaps give just a very short overview what changed with the advent of modern medicin, modern pharmacognosis and phytotherapy and the problematic of modern herbalism/TCM? Richiez (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro, broken off history, and some content to phytotherapy. It does look like there is a need for a new article on evidence-based plant-derived medicine, though a concise title for such eludes me. Above, it was suggested that the existing pharmacognosy article would be an appropriate place but from that article, it is clear that pharmacognosy differs in some ways from evidence-based plant-derived medicine, and that article ends with the quote "In the U.S., pharmacognosy has been long lumped together with quack herbalism by both proponents and opponents." Should I just create evidence-based plant-derived medicine and work out a better name later? Medicinal plants sounds better, but has the potential to be unclear, and several editors above noted problems with using this.Dialectric (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

How does just 'plant-derived medicine' sound for the medicine content split? Medicine already implies evidence-based, and the article intro can make this clear.Dialectric (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, however it is still not entirely clear that the material does not belong in Pharmacognosy with clarification or improvement there. Perhaps some discussion on the talk page of that article is needed. Plant derived medicine seems like an aspect of pharmacognosy. Not an insistence just discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better now. My feeling wrt plant-derived medicine/pharmacognosy is to avoid having two articles with content where we have difficulties to pinpoint any conceptual difference. Taxol might be interesting as an example trying to pinpoint some differences? Richiez (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking again at pharmacognosy, the whole 'Acceptance in the United States' section that I drew the uncited statement above from looks out of place, and many of its points refer not to pharmacognosy but to non-scientific herbalism. Looks like pharmacognosy is likely an appropriate target for the science content here, but I'll do a few more searches to see if I can get a clearer picture of how the word pharmacognosy is defined/used. Dialectric (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The creation of a separate article that focuses specifically on the history of herbalism is a great idea, but that doesn't mean that we should remove all of the content from this article. Instead, we should split it off and summarize the content here per WP:SUMMARY. The same goes for plant-based medicines. A more extensive separate article would be useful, but we should still summarize its contents here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As above, history should certainly summarized in this article with focus on "schools of theory or practice". I disagree that plant based medicines belong here as summary I think pharmacognosy should be distinguished and phytotherapy referred to. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv recently undid most of the changes I had discussed and made here. My edits did not involve deletion of referenced content - rather, it was moved to one of three related articles, as discussed here. I beleive I provided sufficient justification for all of my edits, and reworded and condensed sections in a way that made the content more clear. Does anyone except for Jrtayloriv think his version is better? The history section I replaced the long block of content with was a summary. Two paragraphs is sufficient summary in my view, and the more detailed info is clearly linked. Dialectric (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv wrote on Plantdrew's user page that "I undid these revisions, because I think that removing all of the science and history of herbalism leaves the reader with the false impression that herbalism is based completely on tradition, with no basis in science." In response, I think the intro section makes clear that phytotherapy is herbalism with a basis in science, and the use of clinical trials for herbal remedies is discussed in both articles.Dialectric (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources for pharmacognosis?

Moving this paragraph here instead of deleting because especially Fabricant-2001 seems an interesting source for the pharmacognosis article. It can't stay in the clinical testing section where it was misrepresented and is too old for MEDRS.

Herbalists criticize the manner in which many scientific studies make insufficient use of historical knowledge, which has been shown useful in drug discovery and development in the past and present. They maintain that this traditional knowledge can guide the selection of factors such as optimal dose, species, time of harvesting and target population.

Richiez (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

References in the above comment:

I think the opinions of the herbalist community / "school of theory" warrant discussion in this article. Claims which require MEDRS should of course be appropriately supported or stated as historical and / or opinion and may be more appropriate for another section.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the claims can be certainly discussed somewhere but do not seem to fit into the clinical testing section. It would certainly fit into pharmacognosy better. I found the same statement in Phytotherapy. Also, I did look at the mentioned source and did not immediately see where that statement came from.

As of the clinical testing section, it's a lucky coincidence that there is the one recent source giving a broad review but in the long term it will be easier to gather clinical evidence for specific plants in their articles. Richiez (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move this page to "Medicinal plants" or similar name

This page should move to "Medicinal plants". "Herbalism" is not a good name for this article. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 15:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Sidelight12 ^Talk 15:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - There had been trouble in the past with leakage between "mainstream" use of plant in medical products, and herbalism: Plant sources of anti-cancer agents for example was originally called Anti-cancer plants and tried to surf "promising" pharamceutical research on a herbalism wave. As I understand it herbalism is a full-on system of woo in which entire plants only must be used because of magical properties arising from their wholeness. I'd like to keep this stuff clearly identifiable in a controlled zone rather than mix it up with "medicine". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes many chemicals of one plant work synergistic-ally in medicine, but, as you mentioned, not the whole plant in itself. I think everyone understands this, but the whole plant is used because of the lack of scientific knowledge/ability to isolate desired chemicals. - Sidelight

12 ^Talk 02:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just came across this interesting blog post by Edzard Ernst which has reinforced my opinion; wondering whether we should rename "Phytotherapy" → "Rational phytotherapy". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it should stay as "phytotherapy." Rational phytotherapy can be added to the article as an additional viewpoint. (continuing) Traditional plant medicine is often scientific in a primitive, but evidence based way, provided there is sometimes scarcity of advanced modern scientific research. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Alexbrn, a separation is needed between the alternative medicine area covered by herbalism, and medicinal plants which are found effective by mainstream medicine.Dialectric (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As has been said there is a clear difference between plants with recognized medical properties and the pseudoscience of herbalism. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• The idea to research to find the recognized medical properties of many plants came because of reports from traditional herbal use. Actually, modern research is limited in quantity, but it doesn't mean that under-researched plants can't have medicinal constituents. Also, "herbal'ism'" is the improper name for any article, and a lot of information is misplaced into this article. The name is an implication of pov. I can understand a split between traditional herbal medicine, and medicinal plant chemicals known by modern research. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Opposes by User:Dialectric, User:Alexbrn and [[User:MrBill3 are totally misguided (sorry guys). Did you read the article? The content of this article is not really about "herbalism" in the sense of woo/alternative medicine. Which is exactly why it should be moved to a different title. I'd expect a much more woo-filled article at the title "herbalism". I'd be happy to find this content if I searched for medicinal plants (and the article currently at that title is glorified dab). However, I'm not totally sure that "medicinal plant" is the best title for this article. There's a lot of overlap with phytotherapy and pharmacognosy so merges might be in order. This article has more of a historical perspective than those, but a historical perspective is needed. Addressing the historical uses of medicinal plants (and current uses in places with less access to modern medicine) is quite different from going the woo route and having an article that presents a perspective that rejects modern medicine (which this article is not). Plantdrew (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I'd only paid attention to the evidence sections of this article before. But, reading the whole article I see that the thing I feared happening has already happened - this article is a horrible splicing of different concepts that misrepresents what "herbalism" is (according to, say, Britannica – "Phytotherapy is a science-based medical practice and thus is distinguished from other, more traditional approaches, such as medical herbalism, which relies on an empirical appreciation of medicinal herbs and which is often linked to traditional knowledge. An herbalist’s approach generally has not been evaluated in controlled clinical trials or in rigorous biomedical studies, whereas numerous trials and pharmacological studies of specific phytotherapeutic preparations exist."). Some portions of the text here need to split-off and moved (probably to the "phytotherapy" article, which will benefit from it) and the neutrality problem with the remaining content needs to be addressed according to WP:FRINGE. In fact, this is such a job it may well be worth raising it at WP:FT/N and/or WT:MED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'm not saying the article is 100% woo free, and "herbalism" seems like a better place for the woo to sit then some of the alternatives (though naturopathy seems to be a good fit for stuff about "magical properties arising from their wholeness"). Move medically validated content elsewhere, figure out what to do with historical content. Medicinal plants gets ~600 page views a day, and seems to me like an article that should be expanded to include more medically validated and historical content. Plantdrew (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's a problem knowing how best to partition this but "Medicinal plants" strikes me as an unhelpfully smeared categorization: so I think its function as some kind of DAB is right ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So rather than vote on a rename that does little to improve the situation, let's discuss writing an alternative article structure that makes more sense. I will start a new section for this.Dialectric (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is already pharmacognosy which should be exactly the article dedicated to scientific study and use of plant components. We have a kind of US vs rest of the world problem with the terminology. Anywhere else in the world there is serious research and accepted terminology.. those who know the US know what herbalism means there:( Richiez (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Phytotherapy is a modern term created by and for those who wish to integrate their practice of herbal medicine with a scientific perspective. Herbalism is a much broader discipline, stretching back well beyond science, and not limited by it. Pharmacognosy is a component part of herbalism, but very much a separate unit, that of correctly identifying the herbs to be used. Aniksker (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

CONDENSATION OF INFORMATION

ALL THIS INFO COULD BE CONDENSED DOWN TO MEDICINAL PLANTS AND HERBS ALSO ALTERATIVE NATURAL MEDICINAL PLANT THERAPIES EACH PLANT TYPE WOULD HAVE HEADINGS LIKE NAME EFFECTIVE INGREDIENT PREPARATION AND USAGE WARNINGS [LIKE RIDICULOUS FDA OPINIONS] SOURCES

MY INTEREST COMES FROM RESEARCHING THE <<Larrea tridentata is known as creosote bush >>

69.108.24.52 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This classification is called a monograph. But be aware that it works best for a scientific POV, and not for a traditional one. One could also condense down all the information about footballers into headings like: Name, total muscle bulk, speed turning a corner, team played for, brand of shoes worn. Do you really think it gives a proper picture of the person? Aniksker (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis

The wl for cannabis was recently changed to point to Cannabis (drug) instead of Cannabis and a comment, "given cannabis is being talked of as banned we should link to the drug and not the botany article, and the drug article doesn't make it a herb". Regardless of what article is linked to Cannabis is clearly a herb. Should the link be to Medical cannabis? I think so. Should the content be changed to reflect the legal status of Cannabis more clearly? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Err, of course cannabis is a herb. But... the article on cannabis the herb is not cannabis more than it is cannabis (drug) as I believe I pointed out in the edit summary. I think we should link to the drug article, shouldn't link to the botanical article and I have no objection to linking as well to the medical and/or legal status articles♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now added material linking to the medical article, legal articles and even the botanical article again but I haven't sourced anything directly though all that I have added can be sourced in the articles I have linked to♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Extinction of medicinal plants

This section is such a mess that I am removing it. For example it suggests that a species of yew tree is endangered. In fact the ultimate source says only this about yew:

The compound paclitaxel (found in Taxus spp. and source of the anti-cancer drug, taxol) was described as the kind of molecule that no chemist would ever sit down and think of making - http://www.bgci.org/files/Worldwide/Publications/PDFs/medicinal.pdf

- and this (itself is uncited and dubious) has become garbled through press release, BBC's jobbing writers, and WP editors to become totally misleading. Other parts are almost as bad, Hoodia is no longer on the menu, the list of plants comes from "suggestions" rather than any CITES style research. Basically the report itself is a dubious source, the press release less so, and the BBC article, especially after 6 years, worthless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

Changes require discussion, must be supported by sources

Recent changes have been made and reverted that remove sourced content and other changes that don't reflect what is in the sources. Discussion here is required for substantial changes. Edits that don't reflect what is in the sources are not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Corroborated Efficacy

"and herbal medicines without established efficacy, may unknowingly be used to replace medicines that do have corroborated efficacy."

So if someone uses an herb and it's effective in treating something that a drug could otherwise treat then what's the problem? That a pharmaceutical corporation would lose some profits? Why should that person pay more money for an expensive drug when the herb is (knowingly or unknowingly) treating the problem well enough to prevent the person from seeking treatment? Or is the problem that they're not paying tons of money to get a prescription? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.88.189 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless the herb's effects are corroborated (in this we are referring to those "without established efficacy"), you can't know that the herb is effective. Even when there is a possibility of effect (since many herbs do have proven pharmacological effects), care must be taken because dosage is uncertain. That's why aspirin is better than willow bark. The dosage is precise and the parts causing nasty side effects have been removed and buffered so what's left is what you want. The old mantra "if it's natural it's good" is BS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying if it's natural it's good. The argument is "If it's good then what's the problem?" Being natural doesn't make it any less good. The foods you eat are natural and they cure the problem of hunger and various nutritional deficiencies. So the foods you eat have therapeutic effects. Food can sustain you yet medicine can't (you'll starve without food). Foods containing vitamins can cure their deficiencies. So what now, they're bad too? Just because it's natural also doesn't mean it's bad. Natural herbs absolutely can safely and effectively treat various aliments. Yes, this may not be popular with the pharmaceutical corporations and neither may it be popular with a government-industrial complex that absolutely insists you pay tons of money for prescriptions to everything. Doesn't mean if it's natural it's bad. As far as care needing to be taken because dosage is uncertain what's the dosage of H2O to cure dehydration? It's uncertain and may vary. When you need more you naturally take more. Too much is bad. Likewise the dosage of food is uncertain. Too little and you may lack an essential vitamin. Too much and you may have other problems. The right amount and it may cure my health problems by providing the right nourishment. How many apples do I need to get the right dosage of vitamin C? Too much or too little and I may have health problems. Do I need a prescription for apples too since they can cure or cause health problems? I don't need to pay a doctor or a prescription for every little thing. and I don't need you or an irresponsible government to micromanage my life or health. No thanks. It's not like the government can manage anything else correctly so why should I trust them anymore with my health? You are free to manage your own health but stay away from mine. That's my personal responsibility and is absolutely none of your business. It's also not like the government has a problem legalizing stuff that's bad for you. Cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, junk food. But that's OK because then tobacco companies make money. Heaven forbid a doctor or clinic or a pharmaceutical corporation loses money because I found a cheap and effective way to treat myself. If I take herb X and, through trial and error, I determine dose Y fixes my problems then you just have to accept that and leave me alone because it truly is none of your business. It's not the business of the FDA, the government, any doctor, or you. It's my own business. If you don't like it then you can take whatever pharmaceutical you like, no one is telling you what to take. and this is where my philosophy against over regulation stands. I don't care what you think is or is not good for me, it's absolutely none of your business what I take. Just like it's not my business to micro mange your health and what you take or to tell you that you can't smoke it's likewise not your business to manage my health. As far as the effects being corroborated if I take an herb and I determine that this herb cures my problems with the least amount of side effects then that's all that matters to me. I don't know or care if it doesn't cure your problems or my neighbors problems or the person across the street. All that matters to me is when I take this herb I get better. Let me be the judge of that. I don't need the herb to cure someone else I need it to cure me. but what I do know for certain is that I absolutely positively do not need the FDA or the government interfering with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.88.189 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just had to chime in here and say the above poster has hit the mark spot on, and unfortunately such wisdom is lost amongst those indoctrinated into pharma-funded medical education. The reality is, many natural plants can and do heal, and the reason there are limited published clinical trials is that the funding for these trials is non-existent, since there's no motive for profit to begin them in the first place. Unfortunately modern "science" isn't really science at all. It's the scientific method selectively applied when there may be profit involved, this wasn't always the case - but it is now. The end result is, with enough 1 in 20 chances to make a pharmaceutical drug look better than its natural derivative, the quantity of studies that have the correct confidence intervals and P values will inevitably outnumber the supposed efficacy of any natural plant in any journal due purely to the huge quantity of "hit or miss" studies that are published (no, the "miss" ones aren't). Compromised governments and their pharmaceutical lobbyists ensure this process continues without objection. The end result isn't real science (by any traditional sense), despite the intro to this article eluding to anything that doesn't follow this method to be "alternative" and not substantiated via the "scientific method", whatever that means these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.66.19 (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's useful material (if sourced) for other articles, such as pharmaceutical industry and lobbying.

This page is for discussion of the article. It is certainly true that dosing is more easily controlled with pharmaceuticals than plant materiel. However dosing is not always critical. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Herbalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Zeyw2hfS?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fmediacentre%2Ffactsheets%2Ffs134%2Fen%2F to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Zeyw2hfS?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fmediacentre%2Ffactsheets%2Ffs134%2Fen%2F to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131222231154/http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/ka5/en/00111.html to http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/ka5/en/00111.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302210029/http://ekspedisi.kompas.com:80/cincinapi/index.php/detail/articles/2012/02/21/06231614/Jejak.Mataram.Kuno.di.Sindoro to http://ekspedisi.kompas.com/cincinapi/index.php/detail/articles/2012/02/21/06231614/Jejak.Mataram.Kuno.di.Sindoro

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge since February 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The majority consensus of this discussion was to merge Phytotherapy into its own section within Herbalism. --Zefr (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

---

• I see it has been proposed since last October to merge Phytotherapy into this article. Since the Phytotherapy article covers substantially the same ground as this article, is a less well-known title for the general reader, and is in need of work including citation, I would support the merge. There should have been a discussion here on this page but I couldn't see it, so let's (re)start the discussion now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge. I don't see there's anything in phytotherapy that couldn't be covered here. Plantdrew (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Will require some earnest integrative editing, but the two articles should be one. --Zefr (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The case seems pretty clear that herbalism is an overarching title that includes phytotherapy, and the latter is so closely linked that two articles aren't really warranted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW I have accordingly gone ahead and merged the articles. Please take a look and help fix any slight overlaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. It against sources. Cathry (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Michael Heinrich (head of the Centre for Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy in the School of Pharmacy, University College London.) "Phytotherapy is a science-based medical practice and thus is distinguished from other, more traditional approaches, such as medical herbalism, which relies on an empirical appreciation of medicinal herbs and which is often linked to traditional knowledge. " (https://www.britannica.com/topic/phytotherapy) (Also same info here Fundamentals of Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy

By Michael Heinrich, Joanne Barnes, Simon Gibbons, Elizabeth M. Williamson https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=NZXQAQAAQBAJ)Cathry (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Phytotherapy/herbalism is a minefield for quackery. --Zefr (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

this source has nothing common with your beloved MEDRS Cathry (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really; phytotherapy is the use of plants as medicine (herbal medicine, herbalism, see attached quotations), and the practice (whether called P. or H.) is steadily becoming more scientific, with better trials and quality control, as many reliable sources attest. There is certainly a special interest section who would like P. to be different from H. (I hope you are not one of those, or else please declare your interest now), but that aside, there's really nothing concrete to distinguish the two. Further, I see you state that the discussion has only been since the 21st of this month: but it's just the formal continuation of the merger proposed in October last year by other editors. For the sake of process however, I'll leave it to run until 1st March now.

References

--Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources you bring don't speak about herbalism. Herbal medicines are used in phytoherapy (scientific-based medicine) and in herbalism (traditional medicine) Cathry (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read the sources. I've listed quotations in each of them. The first one states "Phytotherapy or herbalism is the oldest medical practice in the world." The same message is repeated in many sources from around the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This source is not reliable Cathry (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's one of many good sources of different types that all agree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cathry: Checking the references for both articles, there are highly limited or no aspects of current phytotherapy that would stand to scrutiny by sources meeting the quality of basic research for WP:SCIRS or clinical evidence to meet WP:MEDRS. By the base of literature for the two fields, phytotherapy is closely related to herbalism, justifying the merger. --Zefr (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Suppport. While there may be some distinction between the two topics in limited contexts, the scope and content of both articles are related enough that merging the two is entirely sensible. The combined article can address any situations where a distinction between herbalism and phtotherapy may need to be made. Deli nk (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  Herbalism in traditional meaning include not only medical uses, but also religious and magical, so it is too big theme to diminish it to one article. Cathry (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note: So the merge, informally proposed since October of last year here and formally proposed here a few days ago, was executed on this page, and diff there and then reverted by Cathry in this diff at this article and in this diff at the other article. I reverted there; Cathry re-restored there (diff).

Thinking about next steps, the consensus thus far is clear, but an ANI would be messy as the formal merge proposal is only few days old. This is where following process closely is useful. Please allow this to run the 30 day course and be closed formally per WP:MERGECLOSE; if the close finds consensus to merge than doing so will be secure. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, belt and braces it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - While phytotherapy can be considered a subset of herbalism, the herbalism article is quite long - if there is sufficient distinction in sources to establish phototherapy as a distinct topic, it should say separate. Confusion arises from the way the term is used - some use phytotherapy as a synonym for herbalism, while some treat it as a distinct topic grounded in science. See Blueraspberry's comment on how the confusion could be addressed by a rename. It may be possible to improve the phytotherapy article with MEDRS citations - the Ernst source describes various herbal / plant-based treatments with proven effects.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Evidence-based use is subset of science-based use (latter began earlier) Cathry (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• support - "phytotherapy" is just a gussied up version herbalism; it is along the same bullshit marketing lines as the use of "nutraceuticals" instead of "food ingredients" or "dietary supplements". Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explicit reference to herbalism

User:Cathry, you have made reversions based on the objection that "herbalism" must be explicitly stated in a source as follows:

• diff 13:15, 24 February 2017
• diff 16:26, 24 February 2017
• diff 18:33, 24 February 2017
• diff 19:07, 24 February 2017
• diff 19:17, 24 February 2017
• diff 19:21, 24 February 2017

Please discuss your objection. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is common sense, source must me about article's topic. Cathry (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please say more - four other editors differ. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is stated in britannica's article by expert "Phytotherapy is a science-based medical practice and thus is distinguished from other, more traditional approaches, such as medical herbalism, which relies on an empirical appreciation of medicinal herbs and which is often linked to traditional knowledge. An herbalist’s approach generally has not been evaluated in controlled clinical trials or in rigorous biomedical studies, whereas numerous trials and pharmacological studies of specific phytotherapeutic preparations exist. " "Likewise, preparations used in phytotherapy and in herbalism may be referred to as herbal medicines or phytomedicines." So herbal medicine is more broad term, which is used by scientific research as well as by ethnographers to describe traditional use. Cathry (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

:: I have provided seven reliable sources, all from respected organisations, all concerning herbalism and its synonyms, herbal medicine and phytotherapy. Several of them go into considerable depth on the matter. They are beyond all doubt "about the article's topic". User:Cathry is reverting (far) more than 3 times, and without reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, reliable sources your provided speak about herbal medicines, it is not only herbalism. Cathry (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, there is a ridiculous overcite at the start of the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, why not read the sources: "Definition: Therapy based on plant-derived preparations ... Synonyms & Abbreviations: herbal medicine ... Phytotherapy or Herbalism". "Phytotherapy or herbalism is the oldest medical practice in the world." I think most editors will agree that herbalism is indeed mentioned. The sources equate herbalism with herbal medicine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I read your sources, and this "Phytotherapy or herbalism is the oldest medical practice in the world" statement is not from reliable scientific source. I provided link to britannica article, where expert describes this confusion as mistake. https://www.britannica.com/topic/phytotherapy Other sources do not contain word "herbalism" Cathry (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to evade the point. I just quoted 2 sources, one from a national practitioners' association, the other from the NCI. The practitioners know their own practice - sources about a practice do not need to be scientific, when the question is not science but definition. On the question at hand, the sources are of exactly the right kind - people in the field who know what they are doing - and certainly reliable. Britannica is, like Wikipedia, a tertiary source and to be used with great caution, if it is to be used at all. The other sources were provided to show that phytotherapy was equated with herbal medicine, and they are reliable on that question too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead section cannot be based on non-scientific source if there is scientific. Britannica's article is article by expert. Closer look to other your sources shows there are otner non-scientific sources Cathry (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Britannica entry is an essay by a herbalist. Wouldn't touch it. Use independent secondary sources: much better. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is essay by expert from here UCL School of Pharmacy (ranked 5th in the World for Pharmacy & Pharmacology) Cathry (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So what? It's a tertiary source and fails WP:FRIND, so such prominent use of a weak source is dodgy. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's has nothing common with fringe theories. Same stament contains here https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=fgyeCAAAQBAJ Also, britannica is common source for definitions in different articles. Cathry (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Obvious special fringe pleading in this guy's essay - "phytotherapy is a system of medical practice that is based on scientific or medical evidence". We base our article on independent secondary sources, not advocacy-tainted tertiary ones. This is all pretty basic stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not fringe, it is mainstream scientific view. You must provide reliable source speaking something else to oppose. Cathry (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Some peer-reviewed journals Phytomedicine (journal), Phytotherapy Research, [[Planta Medica

]]Cathry (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Three refs, showing "herbalism" is the umbrella term within which "phytotherapy" falls:
  • popular media ref by Edzard Ernst: "Herbalism: what is it? The treatment of disease by plant products is called herbalism, or phytotherapy." He does go on to make a distinction between traditional herbalism and phyotherapy, but puts them both under "herbalism".
  • PMID 12919112, a MEDRS source albeit dated, discusses the history of herbalism in dermatology and puts it all on a continuum as well
  • The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine article on "Herbalism, Western" discusses contemporary training and says "Some programs are comprehensive, with curricula in physiology, clinical diagnosis and treatment, ethnobotany, pharmacognosy, phytotherapy, plant identification, ethical wildcrafting and cultivation, and preparation and application of herbal remedies". ref: Hanrahan, Clare; Odle, Teresa G. (2005). "Herbalism, Western". In Longe, Jacqueline L. (ed.). The Gale encyclopedia of alternative medicine (2nd ed. ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. ISBN 0-7876-7424-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There are plenty works describing continuum from alchemy to modern chemistry, so what? Merge alchemy and chemistry articles?
    • Popular media is not reliale.
    • So you want to merge this article with physiology and cultivation? Cathry (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

a) No; b) in this case the article is by an authority and the actual definition of the field does not require MEDRS (but does, as everything, require high quality), and c) no. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

a) and why? it is obvious that herbalism and phytotherapy, is like alchemy and chemistry b) He is not authority " Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation " is other branch c) and again, why? Cathry (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cathry: please don't joke, this is a serious discussion. The Gale Encyclopedia, like Britannica, is a poor tertiary source. Ernst correctly puts phytotherapy under herbalism. I have not used "popular media". You are grasping at straws; it is overwhelmingly clear from "multiple reliable sources" that these terms are close synonyms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, in science these are not synonyms. I provided already this book https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=fgyeCAAAQBAJ Search term "herbalsim" there Cathry (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Textbook by Heinrich, Fundamentals of Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy ISBN 978-0-7020-3388-9, makes it clear that these are not distinct: " Today, pharmacognosy embraces the scientific study of compounds from plants, animals and microbes, of both terrestrial and marine origin, and has evolved relatively recently to also include phytotherapy and nutraceuticals. The teaching of pharmacognosy has become even more relevant than previously over the last decade, as a result of the increasing use of herbal remedies (phytomedicines) by the public in Europe, North America and Australasia. When entering a pharmacy today it becomes apparent that considerable shelf space is devoted to a selection of ‘herbs’, to a degree which would have been quite unimaginable even 20 years ago. If the United States is taken as an example, community pharmacists nowadays have to deal with a rather bewildering array of botanical ‘dietary supplements’ ,many of which were introduced soon after the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994." "herbal remedies (phytomedicines) " Yep. Jytdog (talk)

Don't you understand herbal remedy is not only used in herbalism (traditional medicine) but also in phytotherapy (science-based medicine). For whom Heinrich wrote page 3 in Ethnopharmacology book? Cathry (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also there is "COMPARISON OF HERBALISM WITH RATIONAL PHYTOTHERAPY " part in "Fundamentals of Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy" Cathry (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you believe this. And there are indeed, a very few botanical drugs (I created that article) but those are medicine, not "phyotherapy". Phytotherapists don't practice medicine; they practice alternative medicine. They don't prescribe carefully controlled and well-defined substances; drug manufacturing, including the manufacture of botanical drugs, is extremely well controlled. Herbal preparations vary widely and that undermines anyone's ability to do valid science with them much less claim they are doing science-based medicine. Your claim is not supportable with mainstream refs. You will find alt med "in bubble" refs making those claims but per NPOV we give WEIGHT to mainstream refs. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is not reliable source. Expert from high-ranked Pharmacology university is authority instead. <redact>

Herbalism contrasts with rational phytotherapy in several ways (Table 13.2). Importantly, the herbalist’s approach has not been evaluated in controlled clinical trials, whereas there are numerous controlled clinical trials of specific phytotherapeutic preparations. Another important difference is that, although many of the same medicinal plants are used in each of the two approaches, the formulations of those herbs are often very different (Heinrich et al "Fundamentals of Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy" https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=NZXQAQAAQBAJ).

Cathry (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledged that you will find in-bubble references trying to draw a big bright line. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You cited this source few minutes ago as reliable. I don't know what is "in-bubble", but suppose it is something like current sources in lead Cathry (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

ISTR when I looked at this before this is one of those topics where there's a distinct European view, and a push to draw a bright line there. Sadly, I can't remember the sources for this ... Alexbrn (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)