Talk:Rauvolfia

Firstly there is no such thing as the 'Modern Western Medical system'. The level of grammar in the same sentence also leads to suspicion and doubt as to the scientific validity of the satement. Homoeopathy is not medicine, in any case it may be harmful. Doctors study hard and are examed intensely and so are trusted to communicate scientific research to the population. Seeing this kind of information circulate not only reminds one of the mass of ignorance that pervades this field, but of the uneducated and therefore harmful nature of this kind of information.

Actually, there is a significant difference between homeopathy (where a substance is diluted to the point where no active agents are present) and herbal medicine (where one or more plants are ingested, usually as an extract).

Digoxin, for example, is used in conventional medicine, and is extracted from digitalis aka foxglove. This is an excellent example of well-documented herbal medicine.

Obviously, not all herbal medicine is well-documented, and not all of it works as advertised.

But this article is about Rauwolfia, which contains several active agents, the most interesting of which is reserpine, which is an antipsychotic agent that works by depleting monoamine stores, which in turn has well-known, well-documented effects.

Obviously, the exact quantity of reserpine for a given weight of the Rauwolfia plant will vary, which is why serious manufacturers will use standardized extracts instead, where the amount of the active ingredient will be sampled, and the batch is then diluted to a known strength. Of course, not all suppliers are concerned with consistent quality, and back in the days when herbal medicine was more of an art than a science, one would have no way to determine the quality, leading to variable efficacy.

I agree that the phrasing 'Modern Western Medical system' is inappropriate, and I will change it to 'conventional western medicine' instead, which is a more accurate term to describe what the author probably intended.

Hope this clarifies the matter. Zuiram 06:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did this confuse anyone else?[edit]

"Others: Dangers outweigh any benefits. Don't use." Yes Dangers outweigh benefits that would be the case with any substances taken in the body. But there are very well researched and traditional herb mixes that work in balance. Carditone was not mention but it also is a herb using the plant Rauwolfia Serpentina and it also has been effective in treatment. Wouldn't it be better to take something from Nature instead of a Chemical generated pills. If it's out in Nature God must have wanted it to do something. Better to Lower Blood pressure naturally and other ailments if you can. What?

I didn't take it down because I'm not absolutely sure.... but I think this section is basically telling me that quinine (tonic water) is unsafe. It says something funny about amino acids as well. --Haikon 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

The spelling of the subject of this article ("rauvolifa") is not correct according to leading dictionaries (including both British and American dictionaries).

These all consider "rauwolfia" to be the usual spelling, and "rauvolfia" to be a variant. (And only a few mention this variant at all.)

Wikipedia has a responsibility to be accurate. Can someone please tell me what the procedure is for trying to get the name of an article changed so as to reflect its correct spelling? Many thanks.Daqu (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionaries are wrong. Botanical names are governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, articles 60 and 61, particularly article 60.1. Linnaeus created the original spelling, which can be seen here. Ruiz and Pavon decided to change the spelling to Rauwolfia in 1799, but the rules of nomenclature ignore that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information! OK, that's fine with me. But it might be a good idea to explain this in the article, since many other people will probably have the same question.

In fact, it often happens that the technical word for something — the word that experts like to use — is not the same as the word that non-experts like to use. In this case, Wikipedia should simply explain the situation to the reader.Daqu (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]