Medical Herbalism

keiran110

Hey there, eventually this is going to be my career if all goes well and i make it through the long haul of college.

I was just wondering what people's are on using herbs as medicine. I'd be very interested to hear people's views (especially other medical pracitioners).

From my experience people either accept and practice it or think its a waste of money.

For the people who believe the latter, I would love to hear why you think that, even though countless medical trials exist proving herbs to work and they have been used for thousands of years as medicine as apposed to a hundred years or so for pharmaceuticals

tallaght01

As this is a scientific discussion board, why don't you post up some of those studies, and tell us why they're strong enough evidence to incorporate herbs into clinical practice.

if you can do that, you might get some converts

Dr Galen

what is it your studying OP? something directly related to medical herbalism or something that will allow you to go on to do that?

keiran110

tallaght01 wrote: »

As this is a scientific discussion board, why don't you post up some of those studies, and tell us why they're strong enough evidence to incorporate herbs into clinical practice.

if you can do that, you might get some converts

Pick any herb, then pick a night where you have about 2 hours reading time spare!!
The amount of clinical and pharmaceutical studies on a single herb is intense, we can be talking thousands for some herbs such as St.Johns Wort for example.
I accidently came across about 20 on nettles in the space of 2 minutes without even specifically looking for studies on that herb, I was looking for something completely different!
So, yeah....intense....:)

O,and Mystik Monkey, I'm currently studying my Bsc Hons in "Herbal Science" and soon hope to go on to complete the Msc in "Clinical Practice". The 4th years who graduated from the degree stage of the course this year were the first 4th years to do so as it is a relatively new course. They were like guinea pigs in a way. Unfortunetly because of the economy, theres no masters set up for them yet as no college in the country seems to be able to run it without charging the students a crazy amount of money.
I think whats going to happen is the masters stage of training to be a medical herbalist will have no base and will take place in various colleges across the country.
Hopefully a masters will be up and running next year.

Ostrom

keiran110 wrote: »

Pick any herb, then pick a night where you have about 2 hours reading time spare!!
The amount of clinical and pharmaceutical studies on a single herb is intense, we can be talking thousands for some herbs such as St.Johns Wort for example.
I accidently came across about 20 on nettles in the space of 2 minutes without even specifically looking for studies on that herb, I was looking for something completely different!
So, yeah....intense....:)

I'm curious about this myself - can you post citations for studies of St. John's wort mentioned above? And also some of the citations for the nettle studies? What journals publish such studies?

JuliusCaesar

keiran110 wrote: »

I'm currently studying my Bsc Hons in "Herbal Science" and soon hope to go on to complete the Msc in "Clinical Practice".

Are these courses accredited by NUI?

GradMed

This would echo my opinion

from
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e2772e34-45a0-11de-b6c8-00144feabdc0.html

Even Colquhoun concedes that not all alternative medicines are bogus. Herbal medicine, he says, is plausible to the extent that many pharmaceutical drugs contain versions of substances found in plants. “Of the common ones,” he says, “St John’s Wort is said, on some plausible evidence, to be good for mild depression, but the evidence is that it’s no more effective than conventional anti-depressants. The other very common one is echinacea: there’s some evidence that it may reduce the duration of your cold by about six hours. Even if that’s right, it’s such an entirely trivial effect that it’s barely worth having.”

A cochrane library review of the use of St. John's wort for major depression http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000448.html

A cochrane library review of the use of echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000530.html

keiran110

Homeopathy and medical herbalism are completly different areas. I have very little faith in homeopathic medicine, I've never used it and i doubt i ever will.

Echinacea is a tricky subject. Many health shops sell the wrong species of Echinacea and claim it to rid yourself of colds and flus. One must ensure you have the correct species for it to work.
Herbal medicine is a delicate matter. Herbs give a push and boost your system so our body can treat the problem with our own natural mechanisms stonger and more efficiently. So for example, taking echinacea for a cold and flu, one must do so on the on-set of the sickness for it to work. Otherwise, echinacea will not do much help. Taking echinacea a few days into the flu or cold will not really help.

Pharmaceuticals generally enter your body and destroy the problem using their own chemical mechanisms rather then assiting our body. Note:"generally".
This is why it is possible to take pharmaceuticals a few days into the cold and flu and still have a good effect.

As for St.Johns Wort, literally thousands of trials have been completed on this herb and have shown it to be just as good as pharmaceutical anti-depressants. However, St.Johns Wort is much much more then an anti-depressant.

The "Herbal Science" degree is done through the CAO and uses the Leaving Cert points system like any other degree course. It is government recognised just like any other CAO course and takes place in C.I.T.
As for the masters, yes it is validated and accredited also but has not taken place yet.

keiran110

as a side note, heres what shadows my opinion on homeopathic medicine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

This is not herbal medicine.

enjoy! :pac:

2Scoops

keiran110 wrote: »

Herbal medicine is a delicate matter. Herbs give a push and boost your system so our body can treat the problem with our own natural mechanisms stonger and more efficiently. ....
Pharmaceuticals generally enter your body and destroy the problem using their own chemical mechanisms rather then assiting our body.

I'm all for herbal science where it has proven efficacy, but the above reads more like the propaganda I normally associate with Big Pharma conspiracy theorists. If either herbs or medications work, it is due to their active ingredients. End of story. This 'boost' your 'natural' defense mechanisms vs. 'chemical mechanisms rather then assitsing our body' false dichotomy demeans the good science that has been done in this area, IMO.

Ostrom

keiran110 wrote: »

As for St.Johns Wort, literally thousands of trials have been completed on this herb and have shown it to be just as good as pharmaceutical anti-depressants.

Can you post some citations?

YFlyer

[SIZE=-1] BMJ 1996;313:253-258 (3 August) [/SIZE]
Papers

St John's wort for depression--an overview and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Klaus Linde, scientific assistant,a Gilbert Ramirez, codirector,b Cynthia D Mulrow, professor of medicine,b Andrej Pauls, consultant psychiatrist,c Wolfgang Weidenhammer, biostatistician,a Dieter Melchart, project leader a[SIZE=-1]a Projekt "Munchener Modell," Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, Kaiserstrasse 9, 80801 Munich, Germany[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]b San Antonio Cochrane Center, Audie L Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital, San Antonio, TX 78284, USA[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]c Private Practice for Neurology and Psychiatry, 80796 Munich[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Correspondence to: Dr Linde.[/SIZE]
Abstract

Objective: To investigate if extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are more effective than placebo in the treatment of depression, are as effective as standard antidepressive treatment, and have fewer side effects than standard antidepressant drugs.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials revealed by searches.
Trials: 23 randomised trials including a total of 1757 outpatients with mainly mild or moderately severe depressive disorders: 15 (14 testing single preparations and one a combination with other plant extracts) were placebo controlled, and eight (six testing single preparations and two combinations) compared hypericum with another drug treatment.
Main outcome measures: A pooled estimate of the responder rate ratio (responder rate in treatment group/responder rate in control group), and numbers of patients reporting and dropping out for side effects.
Results: Hypericum extracts were significantly superior to placebo (ratio = 2.67; 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 4.01) and similarly effective as standard antidepressants (single preparations 1.10; 0.93 to 1.31, combinations 1.52; 0.78 to 2.94). There were two (0.8%) drop outs for side effects with hypericum and seven (3.0%) with standard antidepressant drugs. Side effects occurred in 50 (19.8%) patients on hypericum and 84 (52.8%) patients on standard antidepressants.
Conclusion: There is evidence that extracts of hypericum are more effective than placebo for the treatment of mild to moderately severe depressive disorders. Further studies comparing extracts with standard antidepressants in well defined groups of patients and comparing different extracts and doses are needed.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

I'd be very interested to hear people's views (especially other medical pracitioners).

Hi, Kieran,

I'm just a little curious about the above sentence, particularly the bracketed part. Do you mean by that that you consider yourself to be a medical practitioner? You may want to be careful about that: there are certain restricted titles in law, and I'm fairly sure 'Medical Practitioner' is one of them. It may have been better to say something like 'practioners in other health professions'. I would not have used the above sentence myself for fear of giving the impression that I'm a Medical Doctor.

That said, as a pharmacist I'm all for the correct and appropriate use of herbal medicines that are backed up by proper scientific evidence. Unfortunately many practitioners of herbal medicine (and I am aware that herbal medicine is not the same thing as either homoeopathy or any other of the so-called alternative therapies) take a less than rigourously scientific approach to their work. Many people seem to be willing to put forward the view that 'if it's natural it's harmless', and even more seem willing to believe it. The various therapeutic substances that are found in plants do definately have a place in modern medicine. But in order to claim that place, those substances should ideally be identified, isolated, and studied. Examples that spring readily to mind are Digoxin and Opium. That is a branch of science called Pharmacognosy.

I didn't know that there was a degree course in herbal medicine. If it's a proper, serious scientific course*, than I'm sure its graduates will be welcomed into the healthcare professions. If so, I wish you luck, but I'm afraid you'll have an uphill battle to differentiate yourself from the many quacks out there. (I'd be interested to know, for example, if there's a Pharmacognosy module in your course)

Welcome to the board. I'm sure there's some interesting debate on the way!

* Unfortunately, the fact that it's a CAO course is no guarantee of that. I don't have Irish figures to back that statement up, but UCAS (the UK's equivalent) offered 49 degree level courses in various 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine' disciplines in 2008, including:
BSc in Aromatherapy (Anglia Ruskin University)
BSc in Ayurvedic Medicine (Middlesex)
BA (Hons) in Accounting and the Healing Arts (University of Derby) and
Complementary Therapies (Stress Management) is offered as an option in Greenwich.
(Source: Suckers - How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All, Rose Shapiro, Vintage Books, 2009, pp. 248-9)

SomeDose

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm all for herbal science where it has proven efficacy, but the above reads more like the propaganda I normally associate with Big Pharma conspiracy theorists. If either herbs or medications work, it is due to their active ingredients. End of story. This 'boost' your 'natural' defense mechanisms vs. 'chemical mechanisms rather then assitsing our body' false dichotomy demeans the good science that has been done in this area, IMO.

I think this is basically the bottom line wrt herbal medicines. Any substance entering the body that exerts a therapeutic effect (be it food, synthetic pharmaceuticals or herbal/natural products) does so by some kind of chemistry. For example, Echinacea was mentioned above in terms of treating colds, URTIs etc by "boosting" the immune system. This is in fact thought to be due to its action on TNF and other immunomodulatory cytokines*, so in that sense it's no different to any other drug. I think the OP will find that many of us from a traditional scientific background will agree that some herbal medicines do indeed have therapeutic benefits, and there will be a certain degree of evidence to support such claims.

*Referenced from naturaldatabase.com (one of the very few natural medicines resources trusted as a reference source in conventional medicine).

2Scoops

samson09 wrote: »

You're very funny

You too

keiran110

locum-motion wrote: »

Hi, Kieran,

I'm just a little curious about the above sentence, particularly the bracketed part. Do you mean by that that you consider yourself to be a medical practitioner? You may want to be careful about that: there are certain restricted titles in law, and I'm fairly sure 'Medical Practitioner' is one of them. It may have been better to say something like 'practioners in other health professions'. I would not have used the above sentence myself for fear of giving the impression that I'm a Medical Doctor.

That said, as a pharmacist I'm all for the correct and appropriate use of herbal medicines that are backed up by proper scientific evidence. Unfortunately many practitioners of herbal medicine (and I am aware that herbal medicine is not the same thing as either homoeopathy or any other of the so-called alternative therapies) take a less than rigourously scientific approach to their work. Many people seem to be willing to put forward the view that 'if it's natural it's harmless', and even more seem willing to believe it. The various therapeutic substances that are found in plants do definately have a place in modern medicine. But in order to claim that place, those substances should ideally be identified, isolated, and studied. Examples that spring readily to mind are Digoxin and Opium. That is a branch of science called Pharmacognosy.

I didn't know that there was a degree course in herbal medicine. If it's a proper, serious scientific course*, than I'm sure its graduates will be welcomed into the healthcare professions. If so, I wish you luck, but I'm afraid you'll have an uphill battle to differentiate yourself from the many quacks out there. (I'd be interested to know, for example, if there's a Pharmacognosy module in your course)

Welcome to the board. I'm sure there's some interesting debate on the way!

* Unfortunately, the fact that it's a CAO course is no guarantee of that. I don't have Irish figures to back that statement up, but UCAS (the UK's equivalent) offered 49 degree level courses in various 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine' disciplines in 2008, including:
BSc in Aromatherapy (Anglia Ruskin University)
BSc in Ayurvedic Medicine (Middlesex)
BA (Hons) in Accounting and the Healing Arts (University of Derby) and
Complementary Therapies (Stress Management) is offered as an option in Greenwich.
(Source: Suckers - How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All, Rose Shapiro, Vintage Books, 2009, pp. 248-9)

Indeed there is pharmacognasy module in my course. In fact, the vast majority of my course if made up of biochemistry. I have no time for quacks and find them an insult.

As for people who believe that "beause its natural, it is safe", thats insanity and i absolute ignorence if anything. People these days are under the impression herbs are safe. They are not. There are so much more herbs and chemicals than digioxin and opium that cause problems.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

Indeed there is pharmacognasy module in my course. In fact, the vast majority of my course if made up of biochemistry. I have no time for quacks and find them an insult.

As for people who believe that "beause its natural, it is safe", thats insanity and i absolute ignorence if anything. People these days are under the impression herbs are safe. They are not. There are so much more herbs and chemicals than digioxin and opium that cause problems.

Glad to hear it.
All the best.

ps. I loved the Homoeopathy A&E sketch. Absolutely brilliant.

keiran110

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm all for herbal science where it has proven efficacy, but the above reads more like the propaganda I normally associate with Big Pharma conspiracy theorists. If either herbs or medications work, it is due to their active ingredients. End of story. This 'boost' your 'natural' defense mechanisms vs. 'chemical mechanisms rather then assitsing our body' false dichotomy demeans the good science that has been done in this area, IMO.

Im sorry Scoops if this sounds like propaganda and something you`d hear off a television advert. Im not trying to throw out buzz words like "free radicals" and "anti-oxidants" etc.

But in the case of Echinacea, it most certainly does nothing more then boost your bodys immune system. It does not target and destroy any cold or flu virus like pharmaceuticals do. You do indeed have to take the herb on the onset of the cold or flu otherwise it will not work.

Herbs for the most part do not target and destroy illness, they drive the bodys natural system to fend for itself. They do this via the endorcrine system for the most part.

I used "the most part" twice in the above paragraph. There are herbs which target specific illness and use other bodily systems to their advantage.

keiran110

locum-motion wrote: »

Glad to hear it.
All the best.

Thank you very much.

O and i shall publish the trials on St.Johns Wort and Urtica Dioica (nettle) tomorow when i have them at hand.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

Herbs for the most part do not target and destroy illness, they drive the bodys natural system to fend for itself. They do this via the endorcrine system for the most part.

I used "the most part" twice in the above paragraph. There are herbs which target specific illness and use other bodily systems to their advantage.

Notwithstanding your disclaimer in the following para., the bit I've bolded seems a bit like a sweeping generalisation to me.

keiran110

locum-motion wrote: »

Notwithstanding your disclaimer in the following para., the bit I've bolded seems a bit like a sweeping generalisation to me.

First of all, sorry for ignoring your last query. I do not consider myself a medical practitioner, but i hope some day i will. I would like to hear the opinion of people that do consider themselves practioners to better myself. And im glad you like the homeopathic A and E! comedic genius!

Ok let me rephrase in a general sense.

Herbs drive, benefit and promote our bodys natural systems so they can function better, unlike pharmaceuticals which enter our body and change our natural functioning to the pharmaceuticals function. Most theraputic herbs use the endocrine system to drive their beneficial effects.

Other beneficil herbs directly target bodily systems without getting involved with hormones such as herbs which interact with the digestive system.

Hope this clears things up in what i meant.

If examples are needed let me know. I will post tomorow as like i said above with st.johns wort and nettle, I'm nowhere near any literature

YFlyer

It is better if one can stay healthy than be cured of a serious illness that they caught.

keiran110

Before I forget. I dont have literature for trials with me at the moment. However, i do have some herbal trivia!

At the recent Chinese Olympics, an Irish horse was banned from racing as the trainer was using chilli as a painkiller. This was seen as medication in the eyes of the Chinese but not in our culture.

More trivia! The Greeks were the first to seperate body and soul in medical treatment. Up until that point, the two were treated together. It has now grown to the point where you go see a psychiatrist and a doctor for example.
In the beginning, for your mental health, one would go to "Aesclepian" temples where one would sleep in a bath of water and your health would be restored. Aesclepian was a God who was always pictured with snakes and for this reason the temples always had snakes in them.
When the Christians insisted that the Greeks were wrong about their religion, all the temples got burnt to the ground, except a few. The origin of baptism originated here where new christians were bathed in a bath of water.

Aesclepius still lives on though. He was always pictured with a tridant and snakes, this is the pharmacy logo.
He also had two mythical daughters "pangea" and "hygenia". You figure out what words they gave rise to.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

At the recent Chinese Olympics, an Irish horse was banned from racing as the trainer was using chilli as a painkiller. This was seen as medication in the eyes of the Chinese but not in our culture.

True-ish, but not quite!
An Irish horse (Waterford Crystal, ridden by Cian O'Connor) and three other horses were withdrawn (prior to actually competing) from show-jumping because they were found to have been administered a product containing Capsaicin. Yes, Capsaicin is the active ingredient of chilli, and could therefore be considered herbal. However, it is completely false to imply that the horse was banned because the Chinese see it as a medicine and westerners don't.
In fact, there are prescription-only products on the shelves of every pharmacy in Ireland containing Capsaicin (Axsain).
Capsaicin, when applied topically, can relieve musculoskeletal pain by a process called counter-irritation (think Deep Heat on steroids!), and it works just as well in horses as it does in humans.
The problem is that some unscrupulous horse trainers have been known to rub Capsaicin on the shins of horses in training. This makes the skin on their shins very sensitive, and therefore if the horse doesn't jump high enough to completely clear an obstacle, it's very painful to the horse if they brush the top of the fence. Basically, it's a cruel and therefore banned way of training horses to jump higher and tuck their legs in while jumping. However, it is also used to relieve pain in out of competition horses. The problem is that when a blood sample tests positive for Capsaicin, there is no way of knowing if the product was rubbed on a sore back (as Cian O'Connor claimed) or on the horse's shins. Therefore a positive test is a ban, but it may be used out of competition for pain relief.

nesf

One word of caution for you, seeing that you're an undergrad and may not have had this explained properly to you yet. Just because a study shows a result doesn't necessarily mean anything. What matters in a study is not its result but its quality: i.e. sample size, study design, whether it was double blind, whether it has a control group, the journal it was published in, who did the study etc. Different journals have different standards for publishing, but conversely just because a study is published by a top rank journal doesn't mean it's automatically true! Some alternative/herbal medicine journals are crap, someone who's specialised in the rough area might be able to give you a list of the better ones. As a general rule of thumb, if a study doesn't have a control group, then treat its results with extreme scepticism and do not take them to be true. It's possible to "prove" loads of things that aren't true when you don't use a control group. Herbal and Alternative Medicine papers often use this trick, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

There are many good papers on these subjects, an easy way for a beginner is to look at the Cochraine Library reviews like those linked to above by Grad Med. They are meta studies where a group of extremely competent neutrals gather together papers on a question, pick those that satisfy some design requirements (such as the need for a control) and then weight them according to survey quality (i.e. sample size, whether it was double blind etc). The end result is a far better answer than any of the single studies give. With the Cochraine Library you are guaranteed that neutrals are doing the work, sometimes even with highly respected institutions like the WHO meta studies this is not the case.

When you read an article learn to pick it apart. Look for flaws, there will always be a couple, no matter how tiny. Remember always that a study published by neutral people (i.e. non-practitioners in a speciality or technique etc) is worth more than a study published by naturally biased people (i.e. practitioners/those with a financial interest) and that this is not because of people deliberately faking results but because of a thing called confirmation bias. If you believe something to be true then you're more likely to find that to be the case when presented with ambiguous results (you can look up studies on this if you're curious, it's amazing how even highly trained professionals of international renown can fall victim to it).


I'd echo the above comment about medical practitioner. You're not one and you won't be after your BSc either. Get that into your head before you give anyone advice, you know one area of medicine but are (through no fault of your own) ignorant of many other areas.

tallaght01

nesf wrote: »

One word of caution for you, seeing that you're an undergrad and may not have had this explained properly to you yet. Just because a study shows a result doesn't necessarily mean anything. What matters in a study is not its result but its quality:.

never a truer word said!

GradMed wrote: »

This would echo my opinion

from
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e2772e34-45a0-11de-b6c8-00144feabdc0.html

A cochrane library review of the use of St. John's wort for major depression http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000448.html

A cochrane library review of the use of echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000530.html

YFlyer wrote: »

[SIZE=-1] BMJ 1996;313:253-258 (3 August) [/SIZE]
Papers

St John's wort for depression--an overview and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Klaus Linde, scientific assistant,a Gilbert Ramirez, codirector,b Cynthia D Mulrow, professor of medicine,b Andrej Pauls, consultant psychiatrist,c Wolfgang Weidenhammer, biostatistician,a Dieter Melchart, project leader a[SIZE=-1]a Projekt "Munchener Modell," Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, Kaiserstrasse 9, 80801 Munich, Germany[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]b San Antonio Cochrane Center, Audie L Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital, San Antonio, TX 78284, USA[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]c Private Practice for Neurology and Psychiatry, 80796 Munich[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Correspondence to: Dr Linde.[/SIZE]
Abstract

Objective: To investigate if extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are more effective than placebo in the treatment of depression, are as effective as standard antidepressive treatment, and have fewer side effects than standard antidepressant drugs.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials revealed by searches.
Trials: 23 randomised trials including a total of 1757 outpatients with mainly mild or moderately severe depressive disorders: 15 (14 testing single preparations and one a combination with other plant extracts) were placebo controlled, and eight (six testing single preparations and two combinations) compared hypericum with another drug treatment.
Main outcome measures: A pooled estimate of the responder rate ratio (responder rate in treatment group/responder rate in control group), and numbers of patients reporting and dropping out for side effects.
Results: Hypericum extracts were significantly superior to placebo (ratio = 2.67; 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 4.01) and similarly effective as standard antidepressants (single preparations 1.10; 0.93 to 1.31, combinations 1.52; 0.78 to 2.94). There were two (0.8%) drop outs for side effects with hypericum and seven (3.0%) with standard antidepressant drugs. Side effects occurred in 50 (19.8%) patients on hypericum and 84 (52.8%) patients on standard antidepressants.
Conclusion: There is evidence that extracts of hypericum are more effective than placebo for the treatment of mild to moderately severe depressive disorders. Further studies comparing extracts with standard antidepressants in well defined groups of patients and comparing different extracts and doses are needed.

Guys, there's no point in just linking papers, or cutting and pasting abstracts. You can find a link or an abstract with a conclusion to back up almost anything you want to claim. it's all about study design. So, link your papers by all means. but then talk about why they're good or bad papers. Even when something is published, you still have to sell it to people before they'll change their practice.

sam34

keiran110 wrote: »

The Greeks were the first to seperate body and soul in medical treatment. Up until that point, the two were treated together. It has now grown to the point where you go see a psychiatrist and a doctor for example.

psychiatrists are doctors.

furthermore, they treat disorders of the mind and brain rather than "the soul".

your sentence above is like saying that there is now a separation between treatment of the stomach and the rest of the body, that one now would go to a gastroenterologist and a doctor. makes no sense.

tallaght01

DrIndy and I have just taken the exceptional step of banning sampson09 for a week for his post earlier in this thread,within the context of his history of being disruptive to the forum.

keiran110

nesf wrote: »

One word of caution for you, seeing that you're an undergrad and may not have had this explained properly to you yet. Just because a study shows a result doesn't necessarily mean anything. What matters in a study is not its result but its quality: i.e. sample size, study design, whether it was double blind, whether it has a control group, the journal it was published in, who did the study etc. Different journals have different standards for publishing, but conversely just because a study is published by a top rank journal doesn't mean it's automatically true! Some alternative/herbal medicine journals are crap, someone who's specialised in the rough area might be able to give you a list of the better ones. As a general rule of thumb, if a study doesn't have a control group, then treat its results with extreme scepticism and do not take them to be true. It's possible to "prove" loads of things that aren't true when you don't use a control group. Herbal and Alternative Medicine papers often use this trick, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

I agree completely. There are alot of crap papers. The same can be said for pharmaceutical medicine. Also, I am well aware of the requirements, expectations and results needed to ensure a quality study

garythemong

I guess lots of modern drugs are derivatives of compounds isolated from herbs, trees, sealife etc so the pharma industry and common do-it-yourself herbalist in a small cottage are very closely related and doing much the same thing at the end of the day, if for different reasons.
All best to you, some herbs defo work, esp NYC diesel:D

JuliusCaesar

nesf wrote: »

When you read an article learn to pick it apart. Look for flaws, there will always be a couple, no matter how tiny. Remember always that a study published by neutral people (i.e. non-practitioners in a speciality or technique etc) is worth more than a study published by naturally biased people (i.e. practitioners/those with a financial interest) and that this is not because of people deliberately faking results but because of a thing called confirmation bias.

There's a brilliant feature article by Dr Ray O'Connor on that here, p.1 of the bulletin (p12 of the pdf)

I know it's a bit off topic here, but I'm so impressed with this! (I like his style too: "Most at this stage are suffering from terminal boredom and wondering how they can sit through the next 30 minutes without a
caffeine fix.")

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

Also, I am well aware of the requirements, expectations and results needed to ensure a quality study

Ok, I don't think that's a healthy attitude to have. I've a lot of training in statistics and research techniques and I wouldn't consider myself as being well aware of the requirements, expectations and results needed to ensure a quality study in general. Within my own sub area sure, but when reading papers from areas outside my research speciality I know I'll miss mistakes that a specialist would spot.

keiran110

nesf wrote: »

One word of caution for you, seeing that you're an undergrad and may not have had this explained properly to you yet. Just because a study shows a result doesn't necessarily mean anything. What matters in a study is not its result but its quality: i.e. sample size, study design, whether it was double blind, whether it has a control group, the journal it was published in, who did the study etc. Different journals have different standards for publishing, but conversely just because a study is published by a top rank journal doesn't mean it's automatically true! Some alternative/herbal medicine journals are crap, someone who's specialised in the rough area might be able to give you a list of the better ones. As a general rule of thumb, if a study doesn't have a control group, then treat its results with extreme scepticism and do not take them to be true. It's possible to "prove" loads of things that aren't true when you don't use a control group. Herbal and Alternative Medicine papers often use this trick, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

If you are suggesting that I do not have knowledge or information on the requirements, expectations and needed results to provide a vallid scientific paper, I find that offensive. I get the vibe from your comments that you are looking down on me and I feel as if you are insulting my intelligence. This is a discussion forum, nothing else.

As yourself, within my area, yes I am aware of the requirments etc.

I may not have a piece of paper saying I have completely a course but i do have life experience and knowledge in using herbs. Herbs work for me and always have. Thats better then any trial for me. Obviously that wouldnt hold up in a clinical setting but I'm talking for myself.
Herbs make up 90% of our medicines and majority of cultures in the world use herbs as their main source of medicine. Saying that, herbs definetly have their place in the world. I believe pharmaceutical drugs have their place also and I do use pharmaceuticals also. Herbs work for me and thats what matters matters most,individual opinion. If you feel herbs dont work for you, don't take them. If you feel herbs work for you, take them.

I didnt come here for an arguament or to try convert people, I came to discuss views. That is all

I also don't claim to be a medical practioner. That would be both dangerous and stupid.

The sad fact is however, people don't need a degree to open a medical herbal clinic. In Ireland it is perfectly legal to practice herbs and open your own clinic with no qualification. This is because herbal medicine is one of our traditions and is hugely related back to Ireland. The same cannot be said in Europe where only a GP can practice herbs. Even if you have 6 years college experience in the field. Thats why many quacks can be found in Ireland.

To sam 34
I was using historical reference. In those times it was the soul that was treated and not the brain. Historically and even to this day, most cultures in the world treat the body and "soul" (or brain) as one entity and believe you need strenght in both to be healthy. If one came to a doctor with a sprained ankle, the mind would also be treated. If one came to a doctor with depression, the body would also be treated.
I realise there is still a faint sign of that in our western medical culture. However, there is a clear division in treatment of the mental health and treatment of body. We have psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists etc for the mind and doctors specialised in various areas for the body. In our culture it was the Greeks who first made this division. It goes back to the time of Hippocrates and Aesclepius.
Aesclepian temples were where one went to treat the soul (or brain) and if one had a physical problem, one would go to Hippocratic practioners.
Yes a realise psychiatrists are doctors also. They are doctors of mental health. Before the Greeks, there was no such thing a doctor for mental health and a doctor for physical health.
This division of brain and body is not as distinct in other cultures as it is western. This is all fact. I suggest looking up western medical history, it's a good read.

To Locum Motion
I am well aware of the chemical properties and applications of capsicum. To my knowledge, the horse was not administered a product containing capsaicin but pure capsicum (topically). Correct me if I am wrong.
In Ireland, this herb for medical purposes (horse racing and personal) is not controlled, I use it myself. In China, this herb is used regularly for its medical properties. When the rider was using capsicum as medicine, the Chinese regulation stepped in instantly. In Ireland this would be overlooked and nobody would think twice about a man using chilli as medicine.
This is because in China, herbs are on the front line for treatment of illness. If herbs do not work, then they use pharmaceuticals. I agree with the Chinese on this matter.

Herbal Studies:
To find non bias scientific studies on herbs, i suggest to check out these main groups.

German Commision E
ESCOP

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

If you are suggesting that I do not have knowledge or information on the requirements, expectations and needed results to provide a vallid scientific paper, I find that offensive. I get the vibe from your comments that you are looking down on me and I feel as if you are insulting my intelligence. This is a discussion forum, nothing else.

It's not a question of intelligence, it's one of experience and as an aspiring scientist you shouldn't feel offended by my post but acknowledge the necessity of it. That herbs work for you should mean nothing when you are judging the quality of a paper. I'm not posting to offend you, I'm posting to teach you a few things that from your posts you seem to be unaware of, or not paying enough attention to.

I'm not a medical professional and I don't have any qualification in medicine or a related area, so I am most certainly not looking down at you for lacking a piece of paper that I myself don't have. And to be doubly clear, having said piece of paper means nothing to me since I've met many doctors and pharmacists who couldn't judge the quality of a paper if their life depended on it! And that same goes for most other academic and science professions that I've had contact with.

keiran110

It was just the vibei was getting from your comments so please excuse that. This is a discussion forum on views, not a fight.

I achknowledge the neccesity of quality studies.

If you read my post you will see that I said that just because herbs work for me does not mean this is conclusive evidence. Herbs working for me is evidence enough for myself that they work.

If somebody goes into a health food shop or chemist and buys some milk thistle, saw palmetto or any other herb and find that it works wonders, that is proof to them that herbs work. They don't need to read 20 scientific papers to try convince them. The fact that the herb worked and improved their health is good enough for them.
It is personal. Aspirin works great when i get a headache. Have i ever read a scienfific paper on it?? no!
If a herb works for you and improves your health, take it. At the end of the day, it's all about trying to be as healthy as possible and to optimise your life. If a herb is doing nothing for you, don't take it. Simple as that.
Like i said previously, I'm not a medical practioner yet but I do believe i have the mindset of one and definetly have the drive to help people and improve people's health. Herbs work for me and improve my health, I want to share that with the population someday.

Putting that to one side....

That is using everyday examples and the lay person with no scientific backround.
In science, there are a lot of papers which are biased, incomplete, inaccurate or just plain wrong. This goes for herbal or pharmaceutical.
Though I may not understand the quality and requirments for studies on pharmaceutical drugs, i do understand what is expected for studies on herbal drugs. Pharmaceuticals is not my area and I'm not pretending it is.
There was a case a few years back in Belgium where inaccurate studies deemed a herb as effective and safe. Throughout the following few weeks, over a hundred people died. Don't ask me the name of the herb, I don't know it off hand, google it or something.
Anyway, like I said, geniune valid scientific proof is of the upmost importance in the herbal community. Also, it is of the upmost importance in the larger scientific community.
I suggest reading ESCOP and German Commision E for studies.

As a note, it may be a surprise to some that the majority of the modules in the training to be a herbalist is in various aspects of chemistry: enzymology, general biochemistry, pharmacognasy, pharmacy, phytochemistry etc. Herbalists and modern medical practioners arn't too far away from each other at all!
The head of the board of Medical Herbalists is in fact a GP and a Herblist.

sam34

keiran110 wrote: »

I do not consider myself a medical practitioner, but i hope some day i will.

do you intend to complete a medical degree or do you think that you will be a medical practitioner when you will have your medical herbalism degree?

keiran110 wrote: »

To sam 34
I was using historical reference. In those times it was the soul that was treated and not the brain. Historically and even to this day, most cultures in the world treat the body and "soul" (or brain) as one entity and believe you need strenght in both to be healthy. If one came to a doctor with a sprained ankle, the mind would also be treated. If one came to a doctor with depression, the body would also be treated.
I realise there is still a faint sign of that in our western medical culture. However, there is a clear division in treatment of the mental health and treatment of body. We have psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists etc for the mind and doctors specialised in various areas for the body. In our culture it was the Greeks who first made this division. It goes back to the time of Hippocrates and Aesclepius.
Aesclepian temples were where one went to treat the soul (or brain) and if one had a physical problem, one would go to Hippocratic practioners.
Yes a realise psychiatrists are doctors also. They are doctors of mental health. Before the Greeks, there was no such thing a doctor for mental health and a doctor for physical health.
This division of brain and body is not as distinct in other cultures as it is western. This is all fact. I suggest looking up western medical history, it's a good read.

maybe im missing your point, but i dont see why you are making a song and dance about different doctors treating the brain and the body.

psychiatrists and neurologists treat disorders of the brain. however, it's not like every other doctor treats every other part of the body.

cardiologists and cardiac surgeons treat the heart.

endocrinologists treat the thyroid, pancreas etc

gastroenterologists and surgeons treat the stomach, colon etc

etc etc etc etc etc

the brain is simply another part of teh body that has specialists devoted to treating it.
i dont see what the big deal is.

and, as there are in psychiatry, there are allied health professionals in other areas of medicine also, eg physios, OTs, SALTs etc.

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

If you read my post you will see that I said that just because herbs work for me does not mean this is conclusive evidence. Herbs working for me is evidence enough for myself that they work.

Ah but it isn't at all! Just because you took something and then felt better does not mean that it actually worked! You can't draw any conclusions of efficacy of any treatment based of anecdotal evidence. It's an intuition trap that one has to work very hard to get out of, we are all born with the tendency to make mistakes in inductive reasoning: i.e. x happened and then y happened therefore x caused y, which is actually a completely fallacious way of reasoning unless you study a very very large amount of x's and y's.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

To Locum Motion
I am well aware of the chemical properties and applications of capsicum. To my knowledge, the horse was not administered a product containing capsaicin but pure capsicum (topically). Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. The horse was found to have Capsaicin in its bloodstream. The source cannot be determined by the presence of the substance in the blood. It was claimed by O'Connor that he had used a product (whose name escapes me at present) containing Capsaicin to relieve muscle pain in the horses back.

keiran110 wrote: »

In Ireland, this herb for medical purposes (horse racing and personal) is not controlled, I use it myself. In China, this herb is used regularly for its medical properties. When the rider was using capsicum as medicine, the Chinese regulation stepped in instantly. In Ireland this would be overlooked and nobody would think twice about a man using chilli as medicine.
This is because in China, herbs are on the front line for treatment of illness. If herbs do not work, then they use pharmaceuticals. I agree with the Chinese on this matter.

The reason Cian O'Connor withdrew was because if he had competed he would have received a ban from the Olympic authorities. It was nothing whatsoever to do with any differing approach to herbal vs pharmaceutical medicines by Chinese and Olympic and/or Western authorities; to suggest that it was is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
Please do not take FACT and twist it around to fit your view of things, especially if you wish to be taken seriously by other posters on this board. As Lucinda Creighton TD said recently, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. They're not entitled to their own facts."

locum-motion

nesf wrote: »

we are all born with the tendency to make mistakes in inductive reasoning: i.e. x happened and then y happened therefore x caused y, which is actually a completely fallacious way of reasoning unless you study a very very large amount of x's and y's.

That is known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
The translation is "after which, therefore because of which", and it is a common logical fallacy.

nesf

locum-motion wrote: »

That is known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

And that was a very good episode of the West Wing too.

The hardest part to get through to people is that trusting your gut or your intuition is a bad way of doing any kind of evidence based reasoning. Intuitively we use post hoc ergo propter hoc because for a lot of things it works: "I touch a very hot saucepan and then get burned, ergo touching very hot things will burn me". The thing is you see with very young children that they need to learn to analyse, at first they don't think of the very hot part and believe that all saucepans, regardless of temperature, will burn them.

As adults, we're still hardwired to learn this way because for a lot of situations it's not a bad rule of thumb. The issue is that this is the case only when we're dealing with binary situations that have an obvious cause, such as burns. Touching things that won't burn you won't burn you, it isn't the case that random things that aren't hot will burn you. With illness it's different because even if you do nothing you can get better. In fact, for most illnesses you will get better at some point. So trying to draw any simple causality here is likely to be false. Indeed even something like cancer can suffer from this, patients for some reason that isn't well understood have a small chance of going into spontaneous remission. This is where most of the alternative therapies for cancer have their grounding.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

Like i said previously, I'm not a medical practioner yet...

Kieran,
This is serious.
As you say, you are not a medical practitioner at the moment. But I have to add the following...
Nor will you ever be unless you obtain the requisite medical degrees (I believe MB, ChB are the usual ones), do the appropriate post-graduate, pre-registration work and study, and obtain registration with the Medical Council.
Your quote above implies that you think you will be a medical practitioner after you've finished your degree. You will not be. A 'medical practitioner' is what is generally known as a doctor. Your qualification will not make you a doctor. There are laws against people using titles to which they're not entitled. A man went to jail yesterday for pretending to be a doctor. Now, I'm not suggesting that you're pretending to be a doctor, I know you're not. But, for your own sake, DON'T use legally restricted titles to describe what you are now or will become in the future.
I suggest you use the term 'healthcare professional'. And even that could be controversial.

As noted before, I am a pharmacist. All will agree that I am a healthcare professional. But as I said before, I wouldn't use a sentence like the one you used for fear of giving the impression that I'm a doctor.
BTW, there are other titles that I am allowed use to describe myself: Pharmaceutist, Pharmaceutical Chemist, Chemist & Druggist, and Apothecary are 4 of them.

locum-motion

nesf wrote: »

And that was a very good episode of the West Wing too.

Josh: "After hoc...therefore something hoc?"

locum-motion

Some suggested reading here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055628849

keiran110

sam34 wrote: »

do you intend to complete a medical degree or do you think that you will be a medical practitioner when you will have your medical herbalism degree?



maybe im missing your point, but i dont see why you are making a song and dance about different doctors treating the brain and the body.

psychiatrists and neurologists treat disorders of the brain. however, it's not like every other doctor treats every other part of the body.

cardiologists and cardiac surgeons treat the heart.

endocrinologists treat the thyroid, pancreas etc

gastroenterologists and surgeons treat the stomach, colon etc

etc etc etc etc etc

the brain is simply another part of teh body that has specialists devoted to treating it.
i dont see what the big deal is.

and, as there are in psychiatry, there are allied health professionals in other areas of medicine also, eg physios, OTs, SALTs etc.

Sorry, it seems that i simply cannot get my point across. I am not going to try explain myself a third time.
I suggest reading up on the history of modern medicine. This will hopefully explain the facts more clearly and consisely than i can.

Best of luck.

nesf wrote: »

Ah but it isn't at all! Just because you took something and then felt better does not mean that it actually worked! You can't draw any conclusions of efficacy of any treatment based of anecdotal evidence. It's an intuition trap that one has to work very hard to get out of, we are all born with the tendency to make mistakes in inductive reasoning: i.e. x happened and then y happened therefore x caused y, which is actually a completely fallacious way of reasoning unless you study a very very large amount of x's and y's.

"felt better" is one thing. But when a herb completly rids a condition and its symthoms is another thing. This is what herbs have done for me. This is what has given me the drive to pursue this career as medicine

locum-motion wrote: »

You are wrong. The horse was found to have Capsaicin in its bloodstream. The source cannot be determined by the presence of the substance in the blood. It was claimed by O'Connor that he had used a product (whose name escapes me at present) containing Capsaicin to relieve muscle pain in the horses back.

Taken from pure capsicum as far as i have read.

locum-motion wrote: »

Kieran,
This is serious.
As you say, you are not a medical practitioner at the moment. But I have to add the following...
Nor will you ever be unless you obtain the requisite medical degrees (I believe MB, ChB are the usual ones), do the appropriate post-graduate, pre-registration work and study, and obtain registration with the Medical Council.
Your quote above implies that you think you will be a medical practitioner after you've finished your degree. You will not be. A 'medical practitioner' is what is generally known as a doctor. Your qualification will not make you a doctor. There are laws against people using titles to which they're not entitled. A man went to jail yesterday for pretending to be a doctor. Now, I'm not suggesting that you're pretending to be a doctor, I know you're not. But, for your own sake, DON'T use legally restricted titles to describe what you are now or will become in the future.
I suggest you use the term 'healthcare professional'. And even that could be controversial.

As noted before, I am a pharmacist. All will agree that I am a healthcare professional. But as I said before, I wouldn't use a sentence like the one you used for fear of giving the impression that I'm a doctor.
BTW, there are other titles that I am allowed use to describe myself: Pharmaceutist, Pharmaceutical Chemist, Chemist & Druggist, and Apothecary are 4 of them.

It is your opinion and nothing more that leads you to believe that the phrase "medical practitioner" implies "doctor". Furthermore, I never said my qualification will lead me to be a doctor or a practitioner.
I started this tread for opinions and views. It is causing nothing but arguements, controversy and the feeling of insult to myself. Therefore I am withdrawing from posting on this thread from this post on.

It was good to hear what people had to say before it turned into attacking rather than opinion.

I will leave this thread on this note. I believe all people who swear by pharmaceuticals need to read in depth[/B the history of modern medicine to get a clear view on where it all arose from. Also, scientists up until around the 1920's were not just scientists, but also philosophers. From this thread, I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion people need to "think outside the box" when it comes to medicine and stop being so clinical. Excuse the pun.
Also, In my opinion from this thread, it seems that people who use herbs as medicine have great time for pharmaceuticals but people who swear by pharmaceuticals have absolutly no time for herbs. Strange.
It was good to hears your opinions.

Take care,
Ciaran

tallaght01

so presumably you won't be posting any papers then?

thanks anyway

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

Taken from capsicum as far as i have read.

*Exasperated sigh*

Did you say

keiran110 wrote:

To my knowledge, the horse was not administered a product containing capsaicin but pure capsicum (topically)

?

Yes you did. But you have no possible source for your "knowledge" of what exactly the horse was given, unless...your name isn't Cian O'Connor, is it?

Did I deny that Capsaicin comes from Capsicum?

No, I didn't. So it makes absolutely no sense for you to try to top off your argument with "Taken from capsicum as far as i have read". It doesn't prove your earlier point, which was that the horse had been administered pure capsicum. It's another example of logical fallacy (like the post hoc.. above)

YFlyer

keiran110 wrote: »

Sorry, it seems that i simply cannot get my point across. I am not going to try explain myself a third time.
I suggest reading up on the history of modern medicine. This will hopefully explain the facts more clearly and consisely than i can.

Best of luck.



"felt better" is one thing. But when a herb completly rids a condition and its symthoms is another thing. This is what herbs have done for me. This is what has given me the drive to pursue this career as medicine




Taken from pure capsicum as far as i have read.



It is your opinion and nothing more that leads you to believe that the phrase "medical practitioner" implies "doctor". Furthermore, I never said my qualification will lead me to be a doctor or a practitioner.
I started this tread for opinions and views. It is causing nothing but arguements, controversy and the feeling of insult to myself. Therefore I am withdrawing from posting on this thread from this post on.

It was good to hear what people had to say before it turned into attacking rather than opinion.

I will leave this thread on this note. I believe all people who swear by pharmaceuticals need to read in depth[/B the history of modern medicine to get a clear view on where it all arose from. Also, scientists up until around the 1920's were not just scientists, but also philosophers. From this thread, I have come to the conclusion that in my opinion people need to "think outside the box" when it comes to medicine and stop being so clinical. Excuse the pun.
Also, In my opinion from this thread, it seems that people who use herbs as medicine have great time for pharmaceuticals but people who swear by pharmaceuticals have absolutly no time for herbs. Strange.
It was good to hears your opinions.

Take care,
Ciaran

Hi Ciaran remember that preventative and natural health care medicine is the way to go. Even Barack Obama was hinting about it with his speech tonight.

nesf

keiran110 wrote: »

"felt better" is one thing. But when a herb completly rids a condition and its symthoms is another thing. This is what herbs have done for me. This is what has given me the drive to pursue this career as medicine.

You miss my point entirely. That the condition and symptoms went away doesn't mean that the herbs worked and you should, as someone studying in this area, be able to appreciate that. It could have been cancer that you recovered from after taking a herbal remedy yet it still wouldn't have necessarily meant that the herbs had anything to do with that.

locum-motion

keiran110 wrote: »

It is your opinion and nothing more that leads you to believe that the phrase "medical practitioner" implies "doctor". Furthermore, I never said my qualification will lead me to be a doctor or a practitioner.

Ciaran,
Since you've given up, maybe you won't read this, but here goes anyway.
Have a look at http://medicalcouncil.ie
There you will see any number of references to the term "medical practitioner", to The Medical Practitioners Act, 2007 and the responsibility of the Medical Council for the registration of medical practitioners. So, no, it is not my opinion and nothing more that leads me to believe it implies "doctor". It is the law of the land.

You are right, you never said you were claiming to be a doctor. But three times you used phrases that implied that you thought you would be a medical practitioner after you'd graduated.

keiran110 wrote:

I'd be very interested to hear people's views (especially other medical pracitioners).

keiran110 wrote:

I do not consider myself a medical practitioner, but i hope some day i will

keiran110 wrote:

Like i said previously, I'm not a medical practioner yet

All I and others did was point out that you are not allowed, nor will you be allowed following graduation, to use that title. It was said to you in the form of a piece of advice, not as any criticism of you. You chose to ignore that advice on each occasion that it was given to you.

Furthermore, having re-read the whole thread, I don't see any personal attack on you. All I see are people discussing your posts, logically and reasonably. It is your responses to those discussion that show less and less logic as they progress. Did you expect that a forum dedicated to Biology and Medicine would be populated by people who would just roll over and say "Oh, so that's alright then, I'll just forget all my training and work experience because Ciaran says that herbs are great"?
From the outset, you have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence, and to argue the validity of that evidence. You have chosen not to. But yet you repeatedly point out what a great scientist you are.
I'm sorry, Ciaran, you haven't presented any evidence of scientific thinking to me. Make your claims, show your evidence, and back up that evidence with logical argument. Then you will earn the respect on this forum that you feel you deserve.

Oh, and by the way, I am aware that I presented no evidence of what I asserted as fact in connection to Cian O'Connor's horse. The only evidence I can actually point out right now is my own memory of the extensive reading I did on the subject at the time. After all, I am interested in the Olympics, in show-jumping and, professionally, in drugs. Let me know if you think that's insufficient evidence.

Skapoot

nesf wrote: »

You miss my point entirely. That the condition and symptoms went away doesn't mean that the herbs worked and you should, as someone studying in this area, be able to appreciate that. It could have been cancer that you recovered from after taking a herbal remedy yet it still wouldn't have necessarily meant that the herbs had anything to do with that.

Have you ever tried any Herbal Remedies?


Herbal Medecine is the regulation of correct diet and nutrition to ensure a healthier body and mind.(a diet including Herbal Remedies)

GP medecine is to fight disease once it has already started. I'm all for Herbal Medecine.

Also - Keiran110 said that he hopes to be a Medical Practicioner one day. The response to that was "Oh, you better watch out there, dont be calling yourself that

....Did you not read his posts correctly? He didnt call himself that. He said after his Masters he would be one, and that yes, according to Irish Law he could set up his own practice after finishing his degree.

Patronising him is an insult. Warning him not to get too up himself too soon is an insult.

tallaght01

So, will you be discussing any papers in relation to herbs? Or is this just another morally outraged herbalist?