Posted by Meri-Tuuli on October 3, 2006, at 9:53:11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/5402192.stm
Well, this style of journalistic writing really annoys me. And also the set up of the experiment.
Of course assitants in healthcare shops aren't going to know the ins and outs of herbal products. It would be like asking a shop assistant in a drug store which (conventional) anti-depressant drug they'd recommend. You go to a qualified herbalist etc etc. I suppose the arugment being is that you can buy herbs of the shelf, whereas conventional meds you can't. But still.
And secondly, I don't know why they seem to think that SJW is the only herbal supplement that is supposed to work. I suppose its the one that has significant research into it *just* for depression.
For example theres an article in Phytomedicine about Rhodiola rosea, and the authors say it helps brighten mood - but I guess the focus of that study isn't so much the depression improving effects, its more of a review of RR. Still, I hate the way the jouralists portray the imagine that SJW is the only worthwhile 'alternative' medicine.
Lastly, I dislike the way the jouralists seem to imply that its really danergous or something to take herbs:
"....'had no firm evidence base and had "potentially serious drug interactions" 'I mean, conventional drugs all have potentially serious interactions. I read a statistic somewhere that 10,000 people are admitted into hospital each year for drug interactions due to *doctors* errors and misjudgements.
I seriously seriously doubt that many people are admitted into hospital as a result of interactions between herbs.
And yes, there are side effects, but they are (usually) listed in the leaflet that comes with it!
Oh well. At least the authors are trying to build a bridge between 'alternative' and conventional medicine.
Sigh. Rant over.
poster:Meri-Tuuli
thread:691467
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20060817/msgs/691467.html