AW: Remedies used long-term with unrecognized side effects

[Guest guest]

Zev,

 

I don't see how and why you want to explain away the fact that ALL

medicinals from the aristolochiacea family should not be used any longer

because they are nephrotoxic. I am also cautious when I see western

scientists screaming and running to ban medicinals because of potential (not

real-life) toxicities (as is happening in Germany). However, when it comes

to AA, many people have died from it and it is, in my book, beyond any doubt

that medicinals containing AA are toxic, regardless what traditional sources

say.

 

In cases like Ma Dou Ling, Fructus Aristolochia, etc., it is clear. In other

cases, such as with Fang Ji, it is a problem of substitution. According to

the Chinese pharmacopoeia (2000 ed.), Stephania should be used, not

Aristolochia. Hence, if a factory adheres to the Pharmacopoeia and

identifies the type of Fang Ji correctly, there is no nephrotoxicity. The

nephrotoxicity is only there if the Aristolochia species is selected. In

" Ten Lectures " it says: " only the abscence of AA and the positive

identification of of tetrandin can lead to a positive identification. "

Inspection by eye is not a safe method of differentiating the various types

used. Many granules from Taiwan are not entirely clean, although on the box

it says Stephania. I have found AA in various batches where I was assured

from the producer that only Stephania was used. If that were the case,

however, it is impossible to find AA.

 

As a profession, we don't become very credible if we negate such basic

biomedical facts as the toxicity of AA. The people who died in Belgium did

so because of Aristolochic nephrotoxicity. That other factors also played a

role (i.e., the kidneys were under a lot of stress because of the dieting

and other medications, etc.), but the toxic damage did occur because of a

Chinese herb which contained AA.

 

I would be very interested in knowing how many patients in China have died

because of AA-toxicity. Just because nobody kept track of it does not mean

that it was not happening. A famous pharmacologist from Chengdu University

who was on an herb-hike this summer with a group from Switzerland and

Germany said that he thinks this number is quite high and that

pharmacologists have identified and pointed to this problem quite a long

time ago. " The traditionalists were unwilling to listen, " he said, " and

still believed that the therapeutic use of the aristolochia species

outweighed the toxic effects. "

Simon Becker

 

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

Von: [zrosenbe]

Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Oktober 2003 02:19

An:

Betreff: Re: Remedies used long-term with

unrecognized side effects

 

 

Yes,

But the situation where this was discovered was a non-traditional use

of fang ji, i.e. in a combination for weight loss with prescription

drugs.

 

The resulting nephrotoxicity may have been from: 1) high dosages of

the fang ji 2) interactions of fang ji with the other medications.

 

I assume the use of fang ji in this weight loss prescription had to

be from its ability to cause loss of water through urination.

 

While I agree that this extreme situation led to new knowledge about

potential toxicity of an herbal medicinal (and I have never opposed

pharmacological studies of herbal medicinals, rather I encourage them),

neither guang fang ji or han fang ji are major medicinals in the

Chinese materia medica. So the potential for traditional abuse was

probably smaller than with other substances.

 

What you describe are simply newer methods of determining toxicity.

There are countless descriptions of toxicity of medicinals in the

Chinese medical literature.

 

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 03:11 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> In issue #8, 2003 of Xin Zhong Yi (New ), there is an

> article on AA, nephrotoxicity, and Fang Ji (Han Fang Ji and Guang

> Fang Ji). The article discusses four methods for preventing toxicity

> from Fang Ji. It ends by stating that the safe use of herbal medicines

> should be based on a sceintific foundation. This article would never

> have been written and published based on traditional empirical

> experience alone. It essentially took outsiders to see that there were

> potential problems with Chinese meds containing AA.

>

> Bob

>