Posted by bleauberry on November 7, 2009, at 18:28:13
In reply to Re: You Must Use Caution With St. Johns Wort » bleauberry, posted by SLS on November 7, 2009, at 6:34:04
> I agree that St. John's Wort has antidepressant properties. In fact, I recommended it to a family member over Nardil. Her depression was mild at the time, and I preferred that she not go back to another antidepressant right away. It seemed to work. Were she to have been severely depressed, I would have recommended the Nardil first. I don't think she would have tolerated so much time invested in experimenting with a substance that does not have enough scientific evidence of utility in treating severe depression.
I totally agree with you Scott.
>
> Once someone becomes severely depressed, non-functional, or suicidal, time is of the essence. Until I am persuaded otherwise by evidence that I trust, I would not choose SJW as a first-line treatment.I think everyone has their own source of trust. Some rely on academics, others on anecdotal stories, others on experience, many on the simple word of their family doctor. Me, I happen to be a bit questioning of all sources, and thus take a deep look at all sides before forming an opinion.
I do agree with you that if someone is severely depressed to the point of non-functional or suicidal, SJW is not an appropriate option at that time. Something really fast, like Ritalin, would be, while waiting for the antidepressant of choice to have a chance to kick in (if it is going to).>
> I am glad that you question the validity of clinical studies. In kind, I question the validity of much of the literature extolling the virtues of herbal remedies, as I find them extremely biased towards these treatments and wholly dismissive of standard drug treatments.This is changing before our eyes. While the majority of clinicians do take sides on either the pharmaceutical side or the natural side, there are some fantastic MDs pioneering the combinations of the best that both have to offer. Usually the meds are the big guns to do a limited targeted function, while the naturals are to synergistically intensify the effectiveness from several angles as well as provide support to the damaged areas. For example in Lyme, simply killing spirochete with antibiotic is not the best option. Killing spirochete with antibiotic, killing broad spectrum with herb, increasing CD4+ count with herb, reducing exaggerated TH1 activity with herb, reducing inflammation and pain with herb, and enhancing energy with herb...this patient is going to kill a lot more bad guys real fast than the one on just antibiotic, and will also experience almost immediate relief of symptoms due to the supportive herbs for specific symptoms. The same kind of strategies can apply to psychiatric illnesses.
>
> As I have said before, herbs are drugs too. Prior to the last century, medicines were exclusively herbal. These substances should be subject to the same scrutiny as are other pharmaceuticals to establish safety and efficacy if they are to be recognized by mainstream evidence-based medicine as being effective. This would be important since it is mainstream medicine that treats the mainstream patient.
>
>
> - ScottThey are indeed drugs. The herb Artemisin, extremely safe, near zero toxicity factor, does a better job on Babesia and Malaria than do the most powerful pharmaceutics, which are not safe and are toxic. Just one example, but yes, herbs are drugs. The difference is that they are multifaceted broad spectrum with dozens or hundreds of synergistic chemicals, not a single isolated molecule.
Herbs can and do provide amazing healing in HIV, Hepatitis, Malaria, Lyme, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Arthritis, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and many others. So I agree with, they should be studied more. Not scrutenized, but studied. The word scrutenize automatically has a negative bias to it, which is not a healthy way to enter into studying anything. It should be unbiased open minded with no preconceived opinion.
That is beginning to happen. While the eastern side of the planet can tell us what herbs do what for whatever symptoms because of thousands of years of experience, the western world is studying them to figure out exactly how they do it. The east don't care how they do it, just that they do. The west however cares more about how they do it. But of course don't really want to consider something that will not be patentable for a profit. That is the over-riding reason herbs are not heavily studied in the west...there is no financial reward to do it. That in no way downplays the efficacy of an herb. It is just ignored or shunned instead, regardless that it may in fact be more efficacious and safer than any similar manmade chemical. The west has narrow vision focused primarily on profit potential.
The two combined makes a fantastic combination. The experience of the east combined with the science of the west equals dramatic disease reduction worldwide. The few that are already doing that deserve a pat on the back.
There is a great deal more research needed, in both existing meds, new meds, and plants. I see no distinction between those three groups. All are equally in need of attention.
poster:bleauberry
thread:924178
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20091107/msgs/924883.html