Talk:Herbalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dietary Supplements (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Herbalism is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Plants (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


CONDENSATION OF INFORMATION[edit]

ALL THIS INFO COULD BE CONDENSED DOWN TO MEDICINAL PLANTS AND HERBS ALSO ALTERATIVE NATURAL MEDICINAL PLANT THERAPIES EACH PLANT TYPE WOULD HAVE HEADINGS LIKE NAME EFFECTIVE INGREDIENT PREPARATION AND USAGE WARNINGS [LIKE RIDICULOUS FDA OPINIONS] SOURCES

MY INTEREST COMES FROM RESEARCHING THE <<Larrea tridentata is known as creosote bush >>

69.108.24.52 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This classification is called a monograph. But be aware that it works best for a scientific POV, and not for a traditional one. One could also condense down all the information about footballers into headings like: Name, total muscle bulk, speed turning a corner, team played for, brand of shoes worn. Do you really think it gives a proper picture of the person? Aniksker (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis[edit]

The wl for cannabis was recently changed to point to Cannabis (drug) instead of Cannabis and a comment, "given cannabis is being talked of as banned we should link to the drug and not the botany article, and the drug article doesn't make it a herb". Regardless of what article is linked to Cannabis is clearly a herb. Should the link be to Medical cannabis? I think so. Should the content be changed to reflect the legal status of Cannabis more clearly? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Err, of course cannabis is a herb. But... the article on cannabis the herb is not cannabis more than it is cannabis (drug) as I believe I pointed out in the edit summary. I think we should link to the drug article, shouldn't link to the botanical article and I have no objection to linking as well to the medical and/or legal status articles♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have now added material linking to the medical article, legal articles and even the botanical article again but I haven't sourced anything directly though all that I have added can be sourced in the articles I have linked to♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Extinction of medicinal plants[edit]

This section is such a mess that I am removing it. For example it suggests that a species of yew tree is endangered. In fact the ultimate source says only this about yew:

The compound paclitaxel (found in Taxus spp. and source of the anti-cancer drug, taxol) was described as the kind of molecule that no chemist would ever sit down and think of making - http://www.bgci.org/files/Worldwide/Publications/PDFs/medicinal.pdf

- and this (itself is uncited and dubious) has become garbled through press release, BBC's jobbing writers, and WP editors to become totally misleading. Other parts are almost as bad, Hoodia is no longer on the menu, the list of plants comes from "suggestions" rather than any CITES style research. Basically the report itself is a dubious source, the press release less so, and the BBC article, especially after 6 years, worthless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

Changes require discussion, must be supported by sources[edit]

Recent changes have been made and reverted that remove sourced content and other changes that don't reflect what is in the sources. Discussion here is required for substantial changes. Edits that don't reflect what is in the sources are not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Corroborated Efficacy[edit]

"and herbal medicines without established efficacy, may unknowingly be used to replace medicines that do have corroborated efficacy."

So if someone uses an herb and it's effective in treating something that a drug could otherwise treat then what's the problem? That a pharmaceutical corporation would lose some profits? Why should that person pay more money for an expensive drug when the herb is (knowingly or unknowingly) treating the problem well enough to prevent the person from seeking treatment? Or is the problem that they're not paying tons of money to get a prescription? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.88.189 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless the herb's effects are corroborated (in this we are referring to those "without established efficacy"), you can't know that the herb is effective. Even when there is a possibility of effect (since many herbs do have proven pharmacological effects), care must be taken because dosage is uncertain. That's why aspirin is better than willow bark. The dosage is precise and the parts causing nasty side effects have been removed and buffered so what's left is what you want. The old mantra "if it's natural it's good" is BS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No one is saying if it's natural it's good. The argument is "If it's good then what's the problem?" Being natural doesn't make it any less good. The foods you eat are natural and they cure the problem of hunger and various nutritional deficiencies. So the foods you eat have therapeutic effects. Food can sustain you yet medicine can't (you'll starve without food). Foods containing vitamins can cure their deficiencies. So what now, they're bad too? Just because it's natural also doesn't mean it's bad. Natural herbs absolutely can safely and effectively treat various aliments. Yes, this may not be popular with the pharmaceutical corporations and neither may it be popular with a government-industrial complex that absolutely insists you pay tons of money for prescriptions to everything. Doesn't mean if it's natural it's bad. As far as care needing to be taken because dosage is uncertain what's the dosage of H2O to cure dehydration? It's uncertain and may vary. When you need more you naturally take more. Too much is bad. Likewise the dosage of food is uncertain. Too little and you may lack an essential vitamin. Too much and you may have other problems. The right amount and it may cure my health problems by providing the right nourishment. How many apples do I need to get the right dosage of vitamin C? Too much or too little and I may have health problems. Do I need a prescription for apples too since they can cure or cause health problems? I don't need to pay a doctor or a prescription for every little thing. and I don't need you or an irresponsible government to micromanage my life or health. No thanks. It's not like the government can manage anything else correctly so why should I trust them anymore with my health? You are free to manage your own health but stay away from mine. That's my personal responsibility and is absolutely none of your business. It's also not like the government has a problem legalizing stuff that's bad for you. Cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, junk food. But that's OK because then tobacco companies make money. Heaven forbid a doctor or clinic or a pharmaceutical corporation loses money because I found a cheap and effective way to treat myself. If I take herb X and, through trial and error, I determine dose Y fixes my problems then you just have to accept that and leave me alone because it truly is none of your business. It's not the business of the FDA, the government, any doctor, or you. It's my own business. If you don't like it then you can take whatever pharmaceutical you like, no one is telling you what to take. and this is where my philosophy against over regulation stands. I don't care what you think is or is not good for me, it's absolutely none of your business what I take. Just like it's not my business to micro mange your health and what you take or to tell you that you can't smoke it's likewise not your business to manage my health. As far as the effects being corroborated if I take an herb and I determine that this herb cures my problems with the least amount of side effects then that's all that matters to me. I don't know or care if it doesn't cure your problems or my neighbors problems or the person across the street. All that matters to me is when I take this herb I get better. Let me be the judge of that. I don't need the herb to cure someone else I need it to cure me. but what I do know for certain is that I absolutely positively do not need the FDA or the government interfering with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.88.189 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just had to chime in here and say the above poster has hit the mark spot on, and unfortunately such wisdom is lost amongst those indoctrinated into pharma-funded medical education. The reality is, many natural plants can and do heal, and the reason there are limited published clinical trials is that the funding for these trials is non-existent, since there's no motive for profit to begin them in the first place. Unfortunately modern "science" isn't really science at all. It's the scientific method selectively applied when there may be profit involved, this wasn't always the case - but it is now. The end result is, with enough 1 in 20 chances to make a pharmaceutical drug look better than its natural derivative, the quantity of studies that have the correct confidence intervals and P values will inevitably outnumber the supposed efficacy of any natural plant in any journal due purely to the huge quantity of "hit or miss" studies that are published (no, the "miss" ones aren't). Compromised governments and their pharmaceutical lobbyists ensure this process continues without objection. The end result isn't real science (by any traditional sense), despite the intro to this article eluding to anything that doesn't follow this method to be "alternative" and not substantiated via the "scientific method", whatever that means these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.66.19 (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)