I took the time to read the article (well, not the technical bits, I confess) and I thank you for the interesting link. I had heard the general consensus was that on the whole traditional medical treatments (n.b. – not the same thing as the use of plants in traditional medicine) were on the whole as likely to harm as help, and were on the whole no better than guesswork. I am unqualified to judge the import of the paper, but neither am I going to let some half-remembered headline colour my view of ethnobotanic medicine.

I’m inclined, then, to believe that traditional medicine is a good starting point for research, but when I’m not going to trust a claim about the world whose chief support is that it’s been around a long time when scientific study is available. (Scientists may as a class be remiss in studying the claims of ancient medicine, but that is a whole separate kettle of herbs.)

“ktrammel in reply to Skep

Dear Skep… I apologize I missed the rest of your critique. It would take a very long time to reply to it. It’s taken me years to gain what little understanding I do have about this subject. But, it’s quite clear you haven’t taken it upon yourself to study the topic seriously…. Our tradition of understanding things here in the US must expand itself and become more capable of recognizing holism and subtle causes that lead to unexpected effects.”

Do you see what is missing from your long response? Any proof of efficacy.

I don’t really care if you want to invoke decades-long training, or holism, or whatnot. Just cut to the chase. Prove in large scale studies that are properly designed to compensate for bias that your treatment works. Until then all of your other comments are moot.

Keep in mind what Rchard Feynman noted, “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” The extent to which you, ktrammel, reject the scientific method is the extent to which you leave yourself open to fooling yourself.

3. Does [Oregano Oil] actually work for the condition? There is no published evidence to demonstrate that that oil of oregano is effective for any medical condition or illness.

Actually, there is. It’s from 2004, published in FEMS Microbiology Letters (impact factor 2.199):

“Susceptibility of methicillin-resistant staphylococci to oregano essential oil, carvacrol and thymol”, Nostro et al (FEMS Microbiology Letters 230 (2004) 191-195)

The moral here is: go for the primary sources.

I’d like to be able to say more about it, to respond to Skep’s remarks more thoroughly, but I simply don’t have time. That’s why I’m attempting to suggest further study. There are two very good books on Chinese Herbology:

The Way of Chinese Herbs
Michael Tierra (Author)

The Complete Book of Chinese Health & Healing: Guarding the Three Treasures
Daniel Reid (Author)

Lobsang Dhondup, a Tibetan Physician, is doing research with UC Santa Barbara on herbs that exhibit the ability to restore damaged nerves. See http://www.tibetanacademy.org/lobstaff.html

The Institute for Functional Medicine is also doing good work: http://www.functionalmedicine.org/about/mission.asp

“Actually, there is. It’s from 2004, published in FEMS Microbiology Letters (impact factor 2.199):”

Actually, there isn’t. The moral here is that you should understand what you are citing before claiming it is proof of your thesis.

What you cited is an in vitro study, not a clinical study proving that oregano oil has any medical benefit in humans. This statement still stands: “There is no published evidence to demonstrate that that oil of oregano is effective for any medical condition or illness. “

a) that:

these kinds of ethnocentric, my-knowledge-is-science-yours-is-superstition type of people … destroyed the traditional system of knowing in colonized countries

b) and then that:

And now pharmas patent what was already recorded as traditional knowledge as their own discovery, limit the access to use and make millions.

To answer:

a) First of all, Oakeley has given no indication that he has any ethnocentric perspective on this, merely that early medical practitioners in the Western tradition were misguided, and that future medical practitioners are as likely to see our efforts as being equally laughable. Sounds pretty balanced to me.

b) No, not really. Salicylic acid? A derivative product from willowbark. Artemisinin? Again, the natural form is not the best – artemether has an IC50 which is more than 3 times better than artemisinin (0.1 vs 0.35 nM respectively – from here)

As I pointed out earlier, it’s not just a question of pharma execs skipping through the forest (or jungle) plucking leaves for their magic brews. There’s actually, usually, a good deal of work involved to turn a folk remedy into a viable potent drug.

Skep, you need to prove it for yourself. The “experts” can’t do your homework for you.

That’s why I’ll refuse to accept that Plutonium is a dangerous material to use for dental fillings until I personally develop acute radiation poisoning.

A little something I’ve learnt: Institutions hegemonize! Even schools! I know, it’s shocking. Foucault who?

Another something you might learn from: I’m from India. Born and brought up. Does that blow your mind?
Here’s another: I am not anti-western science! Yet another shock! I’m simply very aware of the relationship between power, knowledge and legitimacy.

And medication that IS derived from plants, such as Digitalis, Are? NOTHING in plant and pharmaceutical poisons is 100%!

Shill

As long as the pharmaceutical industry operates on the idea of isolating and synthesizing that one super-duper special compound and delivering it without its naturally-occurring ‘congeners’, they’re the ones who are employing magical thinking. The idea of a miracle drug is woo. It works in vitro and only the studies that support it working in vivo ever see the light of day.

I am so surprised that Indians and Chinese people who were educated in a system of educated founded by and based off of the British would believe that capitalism and western science are the only narrative.

Which is why Buddhism, yoga, acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, qi balancers, feng shui and the like are unheard of today, right?

“daen in reply to Skep

The main culprit in the MRSA story is the medical profession prescribing antibiotics as a panacea, not the pharmaceutical industry itself.”

Indeed, anti-biotics are over prescribed. That doesn’t excuse lobbying efforts in favor of indiscriminate use of antibiotics to make livestock grow faster.

Incidentally, Ciprofloxacin sales are lower than aspirin ($242mn vs $324mn, Q1-3 2008 figures), so, no, I really wouldn’t class it as ‘big business’.

What? Only 1/3 of a billion dollars? Why I guess that really is nothing. However, from the same link you provided:

“Ciprofloxacin has proven to be a blockbuster drug for Bayer A. G., generating billions of dollars in additional revenue. “In 1999, Cipro was the eleventh most prescribed drug in the United States based on new prescriptions, and ranked twentieth in total United States sales. In 1999, Bayer’s gross sales of Cipro in the United States were approximately $1.04 billion.”[9] “

I’d call that big business for sure. Cipro remains one of Bayer’s top sellers.

Look, I don’t have a dog in the fight here. I work in medchem and biotech, not herbalism, but I know that a lot of the eureka moments blindside you – never rule anything out if it’s supported by reliable literature.

How is it different that a pharma company attempted to secure exclusive rights to the process that would have made use of a plant’s medicinal properties? We are arguing about how pharmas control knowledge for the sake of profit, aren’t we?

No. The patent was overturned (quite rightly) because of prior art claims.

“Work” meaning process.

No. Work meaning intellectual pursuit with absolutely no guarantee of success.

2) You can say many negative things about the pharmaceutical industry, but the idea that they can get something on the market with only in vitro results is complete bollocks. Clinical trials in people are required before anything gets delivered. This is what stops university scientists from just turning their discoveries (typically in vitro, or maybe with a mouse model) into drugs without industrial help.