Peterb
Tue, Jan-16-07, 17:16
Alright, here is the promised response to material cited by
Richard Schultz, in a thread devoted to the subject of
potential allergic response to medicinal herbs. If he wishes
to comment on my response without unfairly maligning me or the
entirety of nutritional science in the process, I am open to
it. Either way, I am hopeful that readers can see the relative
benefit in choosing natural medicine over pharmaceutical
drugs. Even that is not the primary purpose of my post,
however. If you are wary of natural medicine (and
pharmaceutical) claims, that is a good thing. If you are wary
of efforts to minimize your right to choose how you manage
your own health, and with what tools, that is even better.
Better still, though, is that you don't take for granted what
I say, or the words of anyone else. The "truth" isn't "out
there," it's in YOU.
At the bottom, you'll find all the citations that Schultz
posted earlier, most of which I am responding to here.
The first study shows that bee products from non-organic
apiaries are exposed to many chemicals used in their
cultivation, particularly those of a synthetic nature. Other
contanimants from the environment may also be present, which
underscores the need to choose our dietary supplements
carefully, relying on organically farmed products whenever
possible. This is another reason I choose food-based
supplements. In today's world, eliminating every possible
contaminant in our food and supplements just isn't possible.
We can, however, reduce our overall exposure by choosing
certified organic.
The next study abstract talks about the toxic potential of
various herbs consumed by mice, which, while interesting, is
not representative of Man because mice don't eat such plants
in their natural habitat when left to themselves. A
force-fed animal model is a poor substitute for clinical
evaluation of physiological responses in humans. It's true
we don't rely on St. John's Wort for food, but our ancestors
had a very wide range of evolutionary exposure to many plant
chemicals, otherwise we would not have become experienced
with their toxic and medicinal properties. It also
underscores why many pharmaceutical drugs, the most
effective ones, are derived from naturally-occuring chemical
analogues. The first drugs were alkaloid based. This is one
of nature's most prevalent phytochemicals. Culinary herbs,
typically used for flavoring, often support homeostasis due
to their antioxidant, vitamin, polysacharride, mineral, and
fatty acid content. Medicinal herbs are potentially toxic
due to the presence of modulating agents, which, despite
producing a desired action, may also lead to troublesome
side effects. Foxglove, for instance, can be helpful in
heart function, but is potentially lethal due to its narrow
range of beneficial function. The synthetidc drug derived
from this herb, digoxin, may ultimately lead patients to
experience the very symptoms of disease the drug is designed
to control. For these reasons, basic nutritional support
should be our first (or at least our underlying) treatment
option, while both herbal medicine *and* pharmaceutical
drugs (including those based on plant chemistry) should be
limited to short-term use whenever possible.
The analysis titled "Safety and Efficacy of Herbal Sedatives
in Cancer Care," notes that "...hypnotic drug use declined
substantially in the past decade [while] use of herbal
sedatives appeared to increase." It points to the "moderate
evidence for both safety and efficacy for [use of] valerian,"
and the fact that insufficient data exists to quantify the
therapeutic value of German chamomile, lavender, hops, lemon
balm, and passionflower. It also comments on the "disturbing
toxicity concerns for kava." So here's my take. All of the
herbals mentioned in the review are known soporifics, meaning
they promote sleep. They have been used widely by millions of
people for decades, and their use is apparently increasing. In
my view, it's a good thing that we have alternatives to
prescription drugs. IOM has reported that prescription drugs
are a major cause of mortality and morbidity in the USA, even
when properly dispensed and prescribed. Toxicity concerns for
kava are ridiculously overblown, as I said earlier in 2006.
Here it is again:
The Journal of Drug Safety reports that analysis of 19
reports of suspected adverse reactions to Kava reveal just
one patient where a probable causal relationship could be
established between kava treatment and liver disease, making
the herbal far less dangerous than aspirin, which killed 52
Americans in year 2000. [Drug Safety 25: 251-61, 2002].
Despite this fact, a worldwide alert was issued and Kava
sales were dramatically impacted. [Phytomedicine 10:440-6,
2003] Note that Kava has been one of the most popular herbals
in history, with millions of users worldwide, and has been
consumed for hundreds of years by South Pacific island
cultures with no reports of hepatic abnormality. Some
research suggests that pipermethystine, an alkoloid found
primarily in Kava stem and leaves, may increase the risk of
liver stress, therefore it may be wise to choose Kava
preparations using only the root portion of the plant. I
personally use Eclectic Institute's Nakamal Kava product
because it uses only the plant root. We shouldn't overlook
the complicit nature of media (as well as FDA) in supporting
the mutually beneficial relationships surrounding the use of
dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, and efforts to impugn the
relative safety of harbals that represent a competitive
threat to the drug makers. Aspirin represents a 5,200%
greater mortality risk compared to Kava (actually more, as
this figure only represents US aspirin-related deaths) yet
aspirin sales continue to climb. Kava is an excellent herbal
alternative for stress and axiety, though persons with
*known* liver disease may be wise to avoid it.
The review titled "Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis
after consumption of chaparral tablets" is purely anecdotal.
It is neither the result of definitive study nor consistent
with known use of the herb by Native American Indians over a
number of centuries. In fact, millions of cancer patients have
used Chaparral for many decades with no suggestion of harm
beyond these narrow and unproven associations. Although this
may not be the same study, there was one in which the FDA
attempted to make a link, in which the patient was a daily
user of various medications, several of which were known
hepatoxins. Compared to acetaminophen and various other drugs,
chaparral is one of the safest herbals known. I might also
point out that Dr. Norman Farnsworth=B9s extensive studies on
chaparral in the 1970s and 1980s found no hepatotoxic effects
whatsoever. Again, someone with *existing* hepatic abormality
might want to avoid it, that is their choice. FDA's evidence
for chaparral toxicity, however, appears quite meaningless.
The review titled "Hepatitis induced by Kava (Piper
methysticum rhizoma)" ignores the fact that millions of people
use kava safely, thus three examples of liver failure is
hardly conclusive proof of a link. It may well point to a rare
allergic response, which is why herbals should be used on
occasion, and not daily. The fact remains that many thousands
of deaths are associated with pharmaceutical drugs annually,
whereas dietary supplements are associated with fewer deaths
than those resulting from allergic response to bee sting
(about 150.)
The study titled "Hepatitis observed during a treatment with a
drug or tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26 cases
reported to the Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance" echoes
the long-standing ban on this herb in France. While the study
authors admit that a contaminant in the germander tea could
have been responsible for liver failure, it underscores the
potential for allergic response, however rare.
I believe I answered all the ones that did not require
registration to read the study abstract. I avoid signing up
for things I don't need. I have plenty of database access to
medical studies without signing up for anecdotal observations
like these.
PeterB
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------=
-----------------------------------
Bogdanov, S. Contaminants of bee products. Apidologie (2005),
Volume Date 2006, 37(1), 1-18.
Woolf, A. D.; Watson, W. A.; Smolinske, S.; Litovitz, T. The
severity of toxic reactions to ephedra: Comparisons to other
botanical products and
national trends from 1993-2002. Clinical Toxicology (2005),
43(5), 347-355.
Gregoretti, B.; Stebel, M.; Candussio, L.; Crivellato, E.;
Bartoli, F.;
Decorti, G. Toxicity of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort)
administered during pregnancy and lactation in rats.
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
(2004), 200(3), 201-205.
Block, K. I.; Gyllenhaal, C.; Mead, M. N. Safety and efficacy
of herbal sedatives in cancer care. Integrative Cancer
Therapies (2004), 3(2), 128-148.
Clouatre, D. L. Kava kava: examining new reports of toxicity.
Toxicology Letters (2004), 150(1), 85-96.
Kauma, H.; Koskela, R.; Makisalo, H.; Autio-Harmainen, H.;
Lehtola, J.;
Hockerstedt, K. Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis
after consumption of chaparral tablets. Scandinavian journal
of gastroenterology (2004),
2004(1), 1168-71.
Hammerness, P.; Basch, E.; Ulbricht, C.; Barrette, E.-P.;
Foppa, I.; Basch, S.; Bent, S.; Boon, H.; Ernst, E. St. John's
Wort: A systematic review of adverse effects and drug
interactions for the consultation
psychiatrist.
ppsychosomatics (2003), 44(4), 271-282.
Whitton, P. A.; Lau, A.; Salisbury, A.; Whitehouse, J.; Evans,
C. S. Kava lactones and the kava-kava controversy.
Phytochemistry (Elsevier)
(2003), 64(3), 673-679.
Stickel, F.; Baumuller, H.-M.; Seitz, K.; Vasilakis, D.;
Seitz, G.; Seitz, H=2E K.; Schuppan, D. Hepatitis induced by
Kava (Piper methysticum rhizoma). Journal of Hepatology
(2003), 39(1), 62-67.
Castot, A.; Larrey, D. Hepatitis observed during a treatment
with a drug or tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26
cases reported to the
Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance. Gastroenterologie
clinique et biologique (1992), 16(12), 916-22.
Richard Schultz, in a thread devoted to the subject of
potential allergic response to medicinal herbs. If he wishes
to comment on my response without unfairly maligning me or the
entirety of nutritional science in the process, I am open to
it. Either way, I am hopeful that readers can see the relative
benefit in choosing natural medicine over pharmaceutical
drugs. Even that is not the primary purpose of my post,
however. If you are wary of natural medicine (and
pharmaceutical) claims, that is a good thing. If you are wary
of efforts to minimize your right to choose how you manage
your own health, and with what tools, that is even better.
Better still, though, is that you don't take for granted what
I say, or the words of anyone else. The "truth" isn't "out
there," it's in YOU.
At the bottom, you'll find all the citations that Schultz
posted earlier, most of which I am responding to here.
The first study shows that bee products from non-organic
apiaries are exposed to many chemicals used in their
cultivation, particularly those of a synthetic nature. Other
contanimants from the environment may also be present, which
underscores the need to choose our dietary supplements
carefully, relying on organically farmed products whenever
possible. This is another reason I choose food-based
supplements. In today's world, eliminating every possible
contaminant in our food and supplements just isn't possible.
We can, however, reduce our overall exposure by choosing
certified organic.
The next study abstract talks about the toxic potential of
various herbs consumed by mice, which, while interesting, is
not representative of Man because mice don't eat such plants
in their natural habitat when left to themselves. A
force-fed animal model is a poor substitute for clinical
evaluation of physiological responses in humans. It's true
we don't rely on St. John's Wort for food, but our ancestors
had a very wide range of evolutionary exposure to many plant
chemicals, otherwise we would not have become experienced
with their toxic and medicinal properties. It also
underscores why many pharmaceutical drugs, the most
effective ones, are derived from naturally-occuring chemical
analogues. The first drugs were alkaloid based. This is one
of nature's most prevalent phytochemicals. Culinary herbs,
typically used for flavoring, often support homeostasis due
to their antioxidant, vitamin, polysacharride, mineral, and
fatty acid content. Medicinal herbs are potentially toxic
due to the presence of modulating agents, which, despite
producing a desired action, may also lead to troublesome
side effects. Foxglove, for instance, can be helpful in
heart function, but is potentially lethal due to its narrow
range of beneficial function. The synthetidc drug derived
from this herb, digoxin, may ultimately lead patients to
experience the very symptoms of disease the drug is designed
to control. For these reasons, basic nutritional support
should be our first (or at least our underlying) treatment
option, while both herbal medicine *and* pharmaceutical
drugs (including those based on plant chemistry) should be
limited to short-term use whenever possible.
The analysis titled "Safety and Efficacy of Herbal Sedatives
in Cancer Care," notes that "...hypnotic drug use declined
substantially in the past decade [while] use of herbal
sedatives appeared to increase." It points to the "moderate
evidence for both safety and efficacy for [use of] valerian,"
and the fact that insufficient data exists to quantify the
therapeutic value of German chamomile, lavender, hops, lemon
balm, and passionflower. It also comments on the "disturbing
toxicity concerns for kava." So here's my take. All of the
herbals mentioned in the review are known soporifics, meaning
they promote sleep. They have been used widely by millions of
people for decades, and their use is apparently increasing. In
my view, it's a good thing that we have alternatives to
prescription drugs. IOM has reported that prescription drugs
are a major cause of mortality and morbidity in the USA, even
when properly dispensed and prescribed. Toxicity concerns for
kava are ridiculously overblown, as I said earlier in 2006.
Here it is again:
The Journal of Drug Safety reports that analysis of 19
reports of suspected adverse reactions to Kava reveal just
one patient where a probable causal relationship could be
established between kava treatment and liver disease, making
the herbal far less dangerous than aspirin, which killed 52
Americans in year 2000. [Drug Safety 25: 251-61, 2002].
Despite this fact, a worldwide alert was issued and Kava
sales were dramatically impacted. [Phytomedicine 10:440-6,
2003] Note that Kava has been one of the most popular herbals
in history, with millions of users worldwide, and has been
consumed for hundreds of years by South Pacific island
cultures with no reports of hepatic abnormality. Some
research suggests that pipermethystine, an alkoloid found
primarily in Kava stem and leaves, may increase the risk of
liver stress, therefore it may be wise to choose Kava
preparations using only the root portion of the plant. I
personally use Eclectic Institute's Nakamal Kava product
because it uses only the plant root. We shouldn't overlook
the complicit nature of media (as well as FDA) in supporting
the mutually beneficial relationships surrounding the use of
dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, and efforts to impugn the
relative safety of harbals that represent a competitive
threat to the drug makers. Aspirin represents a 5,200%
greater mortality risk compared to Kava (actually more, as
this figure only represents US aspirin-related deaths) yet
aspirin sales continue to climb. Kava is an excellent herbal
alternative for stress and axiety, though persons with
*known* liver disease may be wise to avoid it.
The review titled "Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis
after consumption of chaparral tablets" is purely anecdotal.
It is neither the result of definitive study nor consistent
with known use of the herb by Native American Indians over a
number of centuries. In fact, millions of cancer patients have
used Chaparral for many decades with no suggestion of harm
beyond these narrow and unproven associations. Although this
may not be the same study, there was one in which the FDA
attempted to make a link, in which the patient was a daily
user of various medications, several of which were known
hepatoxins. Compared to acetaminophen and various other drugs,
chaparral is one of the safest herbals known. I might also
point out that Dr. Norman Farnsworth=B9s extensive studies on
chaparral in the 1970s and 1980s found no hepatotoxic effects
whatsoever. Again, someone with *existing* hepatic abormality
might want to avoid it, that is their choice. FDA's evidence
for chaparral toxicity, however, appears quite meaningless.
The review titled "Hepatitis induced by Kava (Piper
methysticum rhizoma)" ignores the fact that millions of people
use kava safely, thus three examples of liver failure is
hardly conclusive proof of a link. It may well point to a rare
allergic response, which is why herbals should be used on
occasion, and not daily. The fact remains that many thousands
of deaths are associated with pharmaceutical drugs annually,
whereas dietary supplements are associated with fewer deaths
than those resulting from allergic response to bee sting
(about 150.)
The study titled "Hepatitis observed during a treatment with a
drug or tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26 cases
reported to the Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance" echoes
the long-standing ban on this herb in France. While the study
authors admit that a contaminant in the germander tea could
have been responsible for liver failure, it underscores the
potential for allergic response, however rare.
I believe I answered all the ones that did not require
registration to read the study abstract. I avoid signing up
for things I don't need. I have plenty of database access to
medical studies without signing up for anecdotal observations
like these.
PeterB
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------=
-----------------------------------
Bogdanov, S. Contaminants of bee products. Apidologie (2005),
Volume Date 2006, 37(1), 1-18.
Woolf, A. D.; Watson, W. A.; Smolinske, S.; Litovitz, T. The
severity of toxic reactions to ephedra: Comparisons to other
botanical products and
national trends from 1993-2002. Clinical Toxicology (2005),
43(5), 347-355.
Gregoretti, B.; Stebel, M.; Candussio, L.; Crivellato, E.;
Bartoli, F.;
Decorti, G. Toxicity of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort)
administered during pregnancy and lactation in rats.
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
(2004), 200(3), 201-205.
Block, K. I.; Gyllenhaal, C.; Mead, M. N. Safety and efficacy
of herbal sedatives in cancer care. Integrative Cancer
Therapies (2004), 3(2), 128-148.
Clouatre, D. L. Kava kava: examining new reports of toxicity.
Toxicology Letters (2004), 150(1), 85-96.
Kauma, H.; Koskela, R.; Makisalo, H.; Autio-Harmainen, H.;
Lehtola, J.;
Hockerstedt, K. Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis
after consumption of chaparral tablets. Scandinavian journal
of gastroenterology (2004),
2004(1), 1168-71.
Hammerness, P.; Basch, E.; Ulbricht, C.; Barrette, E.-P.;
Foppa, I.; Basch, S.; Bent, S.; Boon, H.; Ernst, E. St. John's
Wort: A systematic review of adverse effects and drug
interactions for the consultation
psychiatrist.
ppsychosomatics (2003), 44(4), 271-282.
Whitton, P. A.; Lau, A.; Salisbury, A.; Whitehouse, J.; Evans,
C. S. Kava lactones and the kava-kava controversy.
Phytochemistry (Elsevier)
(2003), 64(3), 673-679.
Stickel, F.; Baumuller, H.-M.; Seitz, K.; Vasilakis, D.;
Seitz, G.; Seitz, H=2E K.; Schuppan, D. Hepatitis induced by
Kava (Piper methysticum rhizoma). Journal of Hepatology
(2003), 39(1), 62-67.
Castot, A.; Larrey, D. Hepatitis observed during a treatment
with a drug or tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26
cases reported to the
Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance. Gastroenterologie
clinique et biologique (1992), 16(12), 916-22.