Lei gong teng and the rectification of names

[Guest guest]

Eric and All:

 

My comments about the Lei Gong Teng article were not intended as a commentary

regarding its toxicity or use.  I was trying to point out some weaknesses in

this particular study, that's all.  Not a weakness with respect to evaluating it

as an herb for use in Chinese herbology, but a weakness for evaluating its use

in western medicine, or for anything at all really.  Some studies are better

than others, and this one was weak.

 

That being said, Eric introduces some interesting issues in his comments I would

like to respond to.

 

I agree that the more toxic, alkaloid-containing herbs are more comparable to

drugs in their action, than the herbs of lesser toxicity.

 

I do not agree with his implication that the distinction between the actions of

drug and herb, natural vs. synthetic is superfluous. 

 

I also do not agree that there is no room for dogma  in medicine.  I think

medicine is full of dogma/doctrine.  That's what it is.  I think we need to look

at these precepts carefully, and evaluate which doctrine serves best in which

situation, as well as to what extent and how they might be combined successfully

vs. unsuccessfuly.

 

Of course I agree that our ultimate objective is about helping people. 

 

I do not believe any medicine has the answers for every illness or ever will. 

That is why I am supportive of a pluralistic medical community.  I have great

respect for western medicine.  It is not TCM that is trying to claim a hegemony

on medical truth and practice.

 

While diversified disciplines can be practiced in a complementary fashion in an

integrative fashion, this describes an event or a delivery system; it is not

a system of medicine rooted in guiding precepts.

 

TCM is a system of medicine.  Ayurveda is a system of medicine.  Homeopathy is a

system of medicine.

CAM is not a system of medicine.   " Integrative medicine " is not a system of

medicine.  These are newly created, artificial constructs that erase not only

the validity, but the very existence, of the  identifying precepts and essential

concepts of discrete medical systems.

 

It begins with the " rectification of names " .

 

best,

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

smilinglotus <smilinglotus

 

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 5:12:05 PM

Re: Lei gong teng

 

 

, <moringa123@ ...>

wrote:

> This is a drug-type, not crude extract, of Lei Gong Teng being used, but the

details of its preparation are conspicuously missing from the monograph.

 

Lei Gong Teng is, by all accounts, a highly effective medicinal for the

treatment of RA. However, as others have mentioned, it poses a risk of severe

side-effects and potential toxicity. It suppresses the immune system and

requires monitoring of liver and kidney function, so it is only suitable for use

in integrative settings and it should only be used in extracts that have

precise, known levels of constituents.

 

I agree that it is important for studies to state the details of preparations.

Is it a full-spectrum, water-based extract, a fractional isolate, an ethanol

extract? What species of plant was used and how was it authenticated

(traditional quality discernment by a qualified expert, TLC, HPLC, etc)? What

growing region did the herbs used in the study come from? All of these factors

are extremely important for a rigorous study of herbal medicine products.

 

That said, Lei Gong Teng is exactly the type of herb that may be more useful as

a " drug " product, because it requires relatively precise dosing, consistent and

transparently stated levels of active constituents, and lab testing of the

patient to monitor toxicity. Think about something like datura (yang jin hua).

Datura is one of the oldest medicines in the world, it has well-characterized

pharmacological effects, but its active constituents are toxic and highly

variable in the plant itself. Its constituents, such as atropine and

scopolamine, have been used extensively in medicine and they are much safer than

the whole herb because their dosage can be precisely determined. The whole herb

should still be available for use, of course, but very few educated

practitioners would prefer to use the crude herb instead of an extract with

consistent constituent levels.

 

I'm not trying to say that Lei Gong Teng should be made into a drug and denied

access to herbalists. But I think that highly toxic items like Lei Gong Teng and

Yang Jin Hua may offer significant benefit to humanity as drugs. Plants and

drugs are intimately related. There are many examples where a pure drug fails to

perform as well as the whole herb (ginseng is a good example). But other times,

the pure drug may be more useful than the whole herb (as in the case of datura).

Extreme feelings about natural vs. synthetic or " herb vs. drug " (whatever that

means) don't really serve us well in the field of medicine. Medicine is about

helping people, it is not about dogma.

 

And let's face it, our suppliers rarely tell us the concentration ratio of

simple things like mint (bo he) in the products that we use, how can we use

dose-dependent, highly toxic substances like Lei Gong Teng or Yang Jin Hua

without knowing the potency of the extracts on the market? Yes, I'd like to see

more transparency in the herbal authentication and extraction information in

studies, but I'd also like to see more transparency in the products we use in

TCM.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, wrote:

> I do not agree with his implication that the distinction between the actions

of drug and herb, natural vs. synthetic is superfluous. 

 

I don't think that the distinction between drugs and herbs, or natural vs.

synthetic products is superfluous. There are important differences between

natural products and pure drugs, and like many people on this list, I deeply

value the complexity of natural products. For example, substances like ginseng

cannot be duplicated by synthetic alternatives or fractional isolates.

Different ginsenosides have distinct pharmacological properties, but only whole

ginseng has exceptionally balanced and complex effects. None of the fractional

isolates offer the benefits of the whole herb.

 

I am personally inclined towards whole plant products. In many instances, the

complex chemistry found in nature is superior to pure drugs. Nonetheless, many

people in the alternative medicine community think that pure drugs are poison

and organic substances are benign, and I think this viewpoint is overly

simplistic. For example, strychnine is a completely natural substance (found in

ma qian zi) but it is highly poisonous. By contrast, a drug like piracetam is

remarkably benign even though it has no natural source.

 

Furthermore, our knowledge of what is " natural " vs. " synthetic " is constantly

changing. For example, amphetamine was thought to be a purely synthetic

substance for decades, but then it was discovered as a natural constituent of a

tree from Texas. The fact that amphetamine is a natural product that occurs in

a whole plant does not make it benign.

 

I'm an herbalist, I truly value whole plant products. I would never suggest

that the distinction between herbs and drugs is superfluous. But I would also

not make the assumption that everything that is man-made or isolated is bad and

everything that is natural or full-spectrum is good. That is all I am trying to

say.

 

Eric