Herbal use in patients with steroid-sensitive conditions?

[Guest guest]

Someone is probably going to pounce on me for this one, but China has a

tradition for du yao gong xie 'attacking disease evils with toxic

medicinals', just as biomedicine does. Aconite and belladonna have

been used traditional in western medicine, gold injections, and the

toxic chemicals in chemotherapy. Toxic substances such as toad venom,

arsenic, and cinnabar were and are used by Chinese physicians.

 

While I wouldn't recommend these substances casually, or consider them

to be used without regulation, proper training or restraint, why ban

them altogether?

 

For example, an apparently low-toxic arsenic compound has been

discovered in China to be effective in the treatment of one type of

leukemia, more effective than chemotherapy and much less toxic. This

was reported in a cover article in New York Times Magazine last year.

 

This is the trend I don't want to see take hold; where we are too

quick to censure and eliminate our own materia medica from a scientific

bias based on inconclusive data and studies.

 

 

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 06:57 PM, wrote:

 

> Here, I do not mean products from endangered animal species,

> products harvested from abused animals, or products of highly

> dubious from the viewpoint of Food Safety! I am talking about

> undoubted cumulative poisons like cinnabar, lead oxide, arsenic,

> etc.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

>

> This is the trend I don't want to see take hold; where we are too

> quick to censure and eliminate our own materia medica from a scientific

> bias based on inconclusive data and studies.

>

Too late.

 

This trend has firmly taken hold.

 

It depends on ignorance and pretense,

and the only way I think we can counteract

it is through a process of truth and

reconcilliation through which we can

establish a sound foundation for eradicating

the ignorance and simply do away with

the pretense.

 

This is what I want to talk about in San Diego,

and I hope that you and others will join in

the discussions.

 

Your emphasis is more than appropriate.

It is a dangerous situation.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

BZYQT: " When overdoses were attempted, the main finding was that it

brought on deep and highly effective sleep. " - Emmanuel

 

What is " highly effective " sleep?

 

Pat

 

 

 

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are

believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any

computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility

of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is

accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising

in any way from its use.

 

==============================================================================

[Guest guest]

, " Pat Ethridge "

<pat.ethridge@c...> wrote:

> BZYQT: " When overdoses were attempted, the main finding was that it

> brought on deep and highly effective sleep. " - Emmanuel

>

>

 

What about HA's, Irritability, etc...? Herb Rxs can easily have

unwanted side-effects, in my mind they are drugs and can be wrongly

used, wrongly prescribed, and sometimes seemingly rightly prescribed

and have unpredicted/ unwanted side-effects. Some people can drink 5

cups of coffee and it just puts them to sleep immeditely, this is not

good, but pathological. I would like to tsee the above study...

 

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/2/03 5:10:21 PM, writes:

 

 

> is less toxic than WM.

> >

> > >>>>>There we go again with generalization. There is no questions

> that WM has many highly toxic methodologies and at the same time

> there are many assumptions we have about CM that are purely

> speculative.We are assuming safely often just because effects are

> less obvious.With type of attitude we will not find shortcomings if

> they exist.

>

> I think that is a good point.  Pre-modern understanding of what

> is 'toxic' is much different that what we know about today.  We have

> a much more sophisticated understanding now.  So I imagine that there

> are many herbs that may be once considered safe found to be toxic

> (carcinogen or whatever…) from a modern perspective.  We cannot just

> discount these findings b/c they may be in combinations and have been

> used for 1000's of years.  But because of combinations Z'ev is right

> that it is not always as cut and dry as one may think... It is a

> murky subject which we may need to error on the side of safety...

>

> -

>

 

One of the problems regarding the discussion of toxicity is that single herbs

are so complex, that when used in formulations it becomes logarithmically

impossible with todays lab equipment to discern all but the most simple

toxicities, and those are expensive tests that no one wants to pay for. So, the

FDA's

answer is to just take them away until someone pays for them. Could you imagine

the cost of testing each herb and each formulation or its varietal for

toxicity? Don't forget that each combination can cause toxicity by its

interaction,

even though each combination of pharmaceuticals has never been tested and I

see patients with cocktails that amaze me every day.

No. I think we have to go historically, with special care where obvious

toxins like cinnabar (notice I didn't say we shouldn't use cinnabar ever, but to

use it in an educated fashion) are concerned. A new paradigm has to be developed

for our pharmacopea. One that stresses safety while minimizing costly

testing. The fact remains that beyond obvious toxins like the one mentioned

above,

using combination foumulations minimize toxic problems when used in an educated

fashion. We just need to get more educated in some ways. The questin is wheter

we can afford it.

David Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

However, the predominating model of integrative medicine is a

hierarchical one, with biomedicine clearly at the top of the pyramid.

While I may accept this as socio-economic reality, I don't accept its

superiority over Chinese medicine, or Ayurvedic and Tibetan medicine,

for that matter.

 

The point of my discussion isn't that modern methods of analyzing

herbal medicinals is wrong, but that the Chinese did a pretty good job

over the millenia in determining efficacy and toxicity. Whatever

methods can determine this outcome are fine with me.

 

>>>>First you never heard me saying that biomed is superior. Second your belief

in the chinese ability to determine toxicity as well as efficacy is at this

point only a belief. That is my whole point. While we do have good evidence for

some, we still lack good evidence on a huge part of the question both of

efficacy and safety

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Someone is probably going to pounce on me for this one, but China has a

tradition for du yao gong xie 'attacking disease evils with toxic

medicinals', just as biomedicine does. Aconite and belladonna have

been used traditional in western medicine, gold injections, and the

toxic chemicals in chemotherapy. Toxic substances such as toad venom,

arsenic, and cinnabar were and are used by Chinese physicians.

 

While I wouldn't recommend these substances casually, or consider them

to be used without regulation, proper training or restraint, why ban

them altogether?

>>>>>Me too but again we need to know exactly what are the risks and benefits. I

for one do not think you can have only benefits for most active medicinalis

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sorry, it is not just a belief. The principle of toxicity in Chinese

medicinals goes all the way back to the beginning of the tradition. It

may not be in terms of modern pharmacology, but toxicity is clearly

acknowledged in all of the materia medicas.

 

I don't think my post implied that you believed that biomed was

superior. You've made your point of view clear many times in the past.

 

 

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 10:30 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote:

 

>

>>>>> First you never heard me saying that biomed is superior. Second

>>>>> your belief in the chinese ability to determine toxicity as well

>>>>> as efficacy is at this point only a belief. That is my whole

>>>>> point. While we do have good evidence for some, we still lack good

>>>>> evidence on a huge part of the question both of efficacy and >>>>> safety

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree, David. Why ignore the incredible amount of historical data on

herbs? This doesn't mean we should in turn ignore pharmacological

studies, but as you note, because of cost factors they will supplement

but not replace the historical data base of Chinese herbal medicine.

 

 

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 02:25 PM, acuman1 wrote:

 

> No. I think we have to go historically, with special care where obvious

> toxins like cinnabar (notice I didn't say we shouldn't use cinnabar

> ever, but to

> use it in an educated fashion) are concerned. A new paradigm has to be

> developed

> for our pharmacopea. One that stresses safety while minimizing costly

> testing. The fact remains that beyond obvious toxins like the one

> mentioned above,

> using combination foumulations minimize toxic problems when used in an

> educated

> fashion. We just need to get more educated in some ways. The questin

> is wheter

> we can afford it.

> David Molony

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Pat,

 

I didn't ask this question. Good question. I suspect they had deep sleep and

woke up refreshed. Dr. Chiang made a big point of this observation as it was

quite unexpected. If I have time, I'll ask Dr. Chiang. I personally haven't

the faintest idea what it means.

 

E.S.

-

Pat Ethridge

Friday, October 03, 2003 7:10 AM

Re: Re: Herbal use in patients with

steroid-sensitive conditions?

 

 

BZYQT: " When overdoses were attempted, the main finding was that it

brought on deep and highly effective sleep. " - Emmanuel

 

What is " highly effective " sleep?

 

Pat

 

 

 

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are

believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any

computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility

of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is

accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising

in any way from its use.

 

==============================================================================

 

 

[Guest guest]

David,

 

There's people who seriously believe that testing for toxicity of herbs is going

to happen any time soon. For the reasons you have suggested it won't happen.

Practitioners have to rely on historical and empirical evidence. In fact

bio-assay is always more reliable a test for toxicity than chemical analysis.

Humans are the test subjects ... as they have been in China these thousands of

years. BTW, there's now empirical evidence that American cuisine is far more

toxic than any Chinese medical formula both in the short term as well as in the

long term. ;-)

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

One of the problems regarding the discussion of toxicity is that single herbs

are so complex, that when used in formulations it becomes logarithmically

impossible with todays lab equipment to discern all but the most simple

toxicities, and those are expensive tests that no one wants to pay for. So, the

FDA's

answer is to just take them away until someone pays for them. Could you imagine

the cost of testing each herb and each formulation or its varietal for

toxicity? Don't forget that each combination can cause toxicity by its

interaction,

even though each combination of pharmaceuticals has never been tested and I

see patients with cocktails that amaze me every day.

No. I think we have to go historically, with special care where obvious

toxins like cinnabar (notice I didn't say we shouldn't use cinnabar ever, but to

use it in an educated fashion) are concerned. A new paradigm has to be developed

for our pharmacopea. One that stresses safety while minimizing costly

testing. The fact remains that beyond obvious toxins like the one mentioned

above,

using combination foumulations minimize toxic problems when used in an educated

fashion. We just need to get more educated in some ways. The questin is wheter

we can afford it.

David Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " ALON MARCUS "

> >>>>>Me too but again we need to know exactly what are the risks

and benefits. I for one do not think you can have only benefits for

most active medicinalis

> Alon

 

Agreed, I think this is the crux of the issue... Herbal medicine, is

medicine, it has the power to change many dynamics in the body. If

an herb formula raises yang, do you think it can only raise the clear

yang and not aggravate a tendency for yang or fire rising. Of course

not. This shows a potential for harmful side-effects and

demonstrates that formulas are not just homeostatic panaceas. I feel

many people who do not use strong dosages get the impression that

herbs just have this magical ability to bring balance and harmony.

But I can assure you higher 'therapeutic doses' can really cause

harm, but IMO these doses can give swifter responses in acute needs.

I always wondered why more energy was not spent in MMs on

possible side-effects etc. Yes there is a brief CI section, but this

could be expanded... Especially when we notice side-effects that are

contrary to what one would expect (from CM theory). These should be

compiled. Just like western drugs. They list everything! and there

is some sort of boldness/ confidence/ and truth to that.

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen "

<susegmen@i...> wrote:

> David,

>

> There's people who seriously believe that testing for toxicity of

herbs is going to happen any time soon. For the reasons you have

suggested it won't happen. Practitioners have to rely on historical

and empirical evidence.

 

I agree that historical accounts are a good start, but it surely does

not represent any end-all truth for what is toxic or not! It

clearly only has a piece of the puzzle... I am unsure why you say

that further testing won't be done?? IT already is... Modern China

has released much information on new toxicities, i.e. lulutong. What

about modern western toxicity reports (i.e. our previous discussions

on berberine… Although the later is an active constituent, I think

this info is completely valid when considering (i.e. herbs like

huanglian), and should not override the fact that something was used

traditionally without mention of warning. This may or may not be

quite dangerous.

 

>In fact bio-assay is always more reliable a test for toxicity than

chemical analysis. Humans are the test subjects ... as they have

been in China these thousands of years. BTW, there's now empirical

evidence that American cuisine is far more toxic than any Chinese

medical formula both in the short term as well as in the long

term. ;-)

 

Where is this from? This sounds quite silly to me…A) Have you seen

some of the Chinese formulas? There are some seriously toxic

ingredients in them? Many formulas are known only to be taken for

short term, for a reason. Others are toxins to fight toxins, and

named toxin for a reason… Try taking one of those crazy cancer

formulae, at normal dose 3 x a day for 10 years, and then talk to me…

B ) There could never be such study to back up such a broad

statement b/c the statement is too encompassing, many formulas JUST

have not been taken for any length of time, so how would anyone know…

This type of statement seems to portray some romantic view of Chinese

herbology. Maybe you could explain this a little more…

 

-

[Guest guest]

except for the paradox of his nutritional beliefs.

 

>>>>I am not saying it is my beliefs yet! I am saying that in diabetics i have

seen the recomendation of protein intake to less than 15% of calories,fat intake

to less than 30% of calories and having complex carbohydrates to not work too

often. I acknolage that most of the data supports these for the general

population. At the same time i have seen both data and systemic reviews by

people such as Dorman, Scwarzebine, Gabby and his teaching partner which ascapes

my mind, that question many of the studies and show evidence that a higher

protien and fat intake can be healthful. I can also tell you that i have seen

many patients that heal very poorly, in terms of muscucloskeletal disorders, and

that do not respond to prolotherapy when they are on such low protine diets. I

have seen them convert to good healers and prolo responders when their fat and

protien intake is increased.

Alon

Emmanuel Segmen

Friday, October 03, 2003 2:08 PM

Re: Herbal use in patients with

steroid-sensitive conditions?

 

 

Al,

 

I also hold Alon in similar esteem, except for the paradox of his nutritional

beliefs. I've been hired to teach nutrition off and on since 1989 at various

colleges, and the basic principles are fairly simple. We need to get him to

insist on admitting to the basic science regarding nutrition as well. If you're

going to insist on studies to support CM, you might as well be consistent and

follow the first principles of Western science, too. Blood pH should balance

out at 7.40. Reduce concentrated protein intake to less than 15% of calories,

reduce fat intake to less than 30% of calories (to less than 20% of calories in

overweight individuals), increase complex carbohydrates (broccoli, mushrooms,

greens, etc.) to 55% of calories, eliminate refined carbohydrates (sugar, flour

products) where ever possible, increase physical activity to at least 2200

calories per week for females and 2400 calories per week for males.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

Merritt College

 

-

al stone

Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:17 AM

Re: Herbal use in patients with

steroid-sensitive conditions?

 

 

 

On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 10:15 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

 

> BTW, do you really see this as just " feel good " observations. If so,

> why do you go to the trouble of being a CM practitioner in America?

> I'm the skeptical Western scientist here. It's kind of funny don't

> you think that I'm trying to suggest to you, a CM practitioner, that

> your medicine is less toxic than WM. Of course, I can understand you

> are always on the look out for find ways to fend off the > quack-busters.

 

One of the things that I really respect about Alon is his ability to

question everything regardless of its impact on his belief system. When

we act in order to defend our beliefs, it can be at the expense of What

Is. Alon seems to be more focused on What Is than defending his

beliefs.

 

Now, if we can get him to remove the ambiguities from his email

response formating, we'll REALLY be on to something. : )

 

--

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

 

 

[Guest guest]

Could you imagine

the cost of testing each herb and each formulation or its varietal for

toxicity? Don't forget that each combination can cause toxicity by its

interaction,

even though each combination of pharmaceuticals has never been tested and I

see patients with cocktails that amaze me every day.

No.

>>>>What must be created is a data base that can look at posible comlications

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

There's people who seriously believe that testing for toxicity of herbs is going

to happen any time soon. For the reasons you have suggested it won't happen.

Practitioners have to rely on historical and empirical evidence.

>>>There lots of data from testing on herbal toxicity. We even have some data on

LD50 which also makes the point that many herbs are not foods

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Alon,

 

I note your words and respect your intent. Carry on as you must regarding the

treatment of secondary onset diabetes. I have some concern that the use of

Atkins or similar high protein regimes might be better used as a short term

treatment ... if at all. That said I must say that I'm a proponent of the idea

that diets don't work ... in general. Lifestyle changes work. Thus, if it were

me in your place (which I realize it isn't), I'd be looking with one eye at the

blood work numbers and with the other eye at the individual's trajectory through

time. That is, I'd see how that person responded to making new food selections

and scheduling their life with regard to food preparation, aerobic exercise,

adequate sleep, and so on. Adjusting the trajectory of one's life might mean

keeping some foods out of the house and letting other foods in. It might also

mean that their first job in the morning is to punch in with the birds and the

trees and burn 300 or more calories doing a favorite activity: running, hiking,

cycling, etc. Exercise changes vasculature in the heart and skeletal muscles,

increases bmr, increase the number of mitochondria, increases thyroid hormone

levels, and increases growth hormone output at night to name only a few of the

many benefits. Hypothalamic reset for satiety is implicated.

 

This is actually the word from on high: U.S. Surgeon General and Director of the

CDC. Whether we are physiology instructors or CM practitioners, we would do

well to serve the public service by guiding lifestyle changes toward better

diets and more active lifestyles. The current science is that diet and activity

levels are the most important risk factors in America regarding health. All of

us who meet the public as practitioners or as educators would do well to address

that. That you are attempting to address this is a very positive sign, IMO.

 

In friendship and respect,

Emmanuel Segmen

-

alon marcus

Saturday, October 04, 2003 10:22 AM

Re: Herbal use in patients with

steroid-sensitive conditions?

 

 

except for the paradox of his nutritional beliefs.

 

>>>>I am not saying it is my beliefs yet! I am saying that in diabetics i have

seen the recomendation of protein intake to less than 15% of calories,fat intake

to less than 30% of calories and having complex carbohydrates to not work too

often. I acknolage that most of the data supports these for the general

population. At the same time i have seen both data and systemic reviews by

people such as Dorman, Scwarzebine, Gabby and his teaching partner which ascapes

my mind, that question many of the studies and show evidence that a higher

protien and fat intake can be healthful. I can also tell you that i have seen

many patients that heal very poorly, in terms of muscucloskeletal disorders, and

that do not respond to prolotherapy when they are on such low protine diets. I

have seen them convert to good healers and prolo responders when their fat and

protien intake is increased.

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think that is a great idea. . . but it is going to take money we

don't have at the present time.

 

 

On Saturday, October 4, 2003, at 10:24 AM, alon marcus wrote:

 

> No.

>>>>> What must be created is a data base that can look at posible

>>>>> comlications

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 07:28 PM, wrote:

 

> Modern China

> has released much information on new toxicities, i.e. lulutong.

 

Can you elaborate? Got a web link to read more?

 

Tanks.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson