Alright, here is the promised response to material cited by Richard
Schultz, in a thread devoted to the subject of potential allergic
response to medicinal herbs. If he wishes to comment on my response
without unfairly maligning me or the entirety of nutritional science in
the process, I am open to it. Either way, I am hopeful that readers
can see the relative benefit in choosing natural medicine over
pharmaceutical drugs. Even that is not the primary purpose of my post,
however. If you are wary of natural medicine (and pharmaceutical)
claims, that is a good thing. If you are wary of efforts to minimize
your right to choose how you manage your own health, and with what
tools, that is even better. Better still, though, is that you don't
take for granted what I say, or the words of anyone else. The "truth"
isn't "out there," it's in YOU.

At the bottom, you'll find all the citations that Schultz posted
earlier, most of which I am responding to here.

The first study shows that bee products from non-organic apiaries are
exposed to many chemicals used in their cultivation, particularly those
of a synthetic nature. Other contanimants from the environment may
also be present, which underscores the need to choose our dietary
supplements carefully, relying on organically farmed products whenever
possible. This is another reason I choose food-based supplements. In
today's world, eliminating every possible contaminant in our food and
supplements just isn't possible. We can, however, reduce our overall
exposure by choosing certified organic.

The next study abstract talks about the toxic potential of various
herbs consumed by mice, which, while interesting, is not representative
of Man because mice don't eat such plants in their natural habitat when
left to themselves. A force-fed animal model is a poor substitute for
clinical evaluation of physiological responses in humans. It's true we
don't rely on St. John's Wort for food, but our ancestors had a very
wide range of evolutionary exposure to many plant chemicals, otherwise
we would not have become experienced with their toxic and medicinal
properties. It also underscores why many pharmaceutical drugs, the
most effective ones, are derived from naturally-occuring chemical
analogues. The first drugs were alkaloid based. This is one of
nature's most prevalent phytochemicals. Culinary herbs, typically used
for flavoring, often support homeostasis due to their antioxidant,
vitamin, polysacharride, mineral, and fatty acid content. Medicinal
herbs are potentially toxic due to the presence of modulating agents,
which, despite producing a desired action, may also lead to troublesome
side effects. Foxglove, for instance, can be helpful in heart
function, but is potentially lethal due to its narrow range of
beneficial function. The synthetidc drug derived from this herb,
digoxin, may ultimately lead patients to experience the very symptoms
of disease the drug is designed to control. For these reasons, basic
nutritional support should be our first (or at least our underlying)
treatment option, while both herbal medicine *and* pharmaceutical drugs
(including those based on plant chemistry) should be limited to
short-term use whenever possible.

The analysis titled "Safety and Efficacy of Herbal Sedatives in Cancer
Care," notes that "...hypnotic drug use declined substantially in the
past decade [while] use of herbal sedatives appeared to increase." It
points to the "moderate evidence for both safety and efficacy for [use
of] valerian," and the fact that insufficient data exists to quantify
the therapeutic value of German chamomile, lavender, hops, lemon balm,
and passionflower. It also comments on the "disturbing toxicity
concerns for kava." So here's my take. All of the herbals mentioned in
the review are known soporifics, meaning they promote sleep. They have
been used widely by millions of people for decades, and their use is
apparently increasing. In my view, it's a good thing that we have
alternatives to prescription drugs. IOM has reported that prescription
drugs are a major cause of mortality and morbidity in the USA, even
when properly dispensed and prescribed. Toxicity concerns for kava are
ridiculously overblown, as I said earlier in 2006. Here it is again:

The Journal of Drug Safety reports that analysis of 19 reports of
suspected adverse reactions to Kava reveal just one patient where a
probable causal relationship could be established between kava
treatment and liver disease, making the herbal far less dangerous than
aspirin, which killed 52 Americans in year 2000. [Drug Safety 25:
251-61, 2002]. Despite this fact, a worldwide alert was issued and
Kava sales were dramatically impacted. [Phytomedicine 10:440-6, 2003]
Note that Kava has been one of the most popular herbals in history,
with millions of users worldwide, and has been consumed for hundreds of
years by South Pacific island cultures with no reports of hepatic
abnormality. Some research suggests that pipermethystine, an alkoloid
found primarily in Kava stem and leaves, may increase the risk of liver
stress, therefore it may be wise to choose Kava preparations using only
the root portion of the plant. I personally use Eclectic Institute's
Nakamal Kava product because it uses only the plant root. We shouldn't
overlook the complicit nature of media (as well as FDA) in supporting
the mutually beneficial relationships surrounding the use of dangerous
pharmaceutical drugs, and efforts to impugn the relative safety of
harbals that represent a competitive threat to the drug makers.
Aspirin represents a 5,200% greater mortality risk compared to Kava
(actually more, as this figure only represents US aspirin-related
deaths) yet aspirin sales continue to climb. Kava is an excellent
herbal alternative for stress and axiety, though persons with *known*
liver disease may be wise to avoid it.

The review titled "Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis after
consumption of chaparral tablets" is purely anecdotal. It is neither
the result of definitive study nor consistent with known use of the
herb by Native American Indians over a number of centuries. In fact,
millions of cancer patients have used Chaparral for many decades with
no suggestion of harm beyond these narrow and unproven associations.
Although this may not be the same study, there was one in which the FDA
attempted to make a link, in which the patient was a daily user of
various medications, several of which were known hepatoxins. Compared
to acetaminophen and various other drugs, chaparral is one of the
safest herbals known. I might also point out that Dr. Norman
Farnsworth¹s extensive studies on chaparral in the 1970s and 1980s
found no hepatotoxic effects whatsoever. Again, someone with
*existing* hepatic abormality might want to avoid it, that is their
choice. FDA's evidence for chaparral toxicity, however, appears quite
meaningless.

The review titled "Hepatitis induced by Kava (Piper methysticum
rhizoma)" ignores the fact that millions of people use kava safely,
thus three examples of liver failure is hardly conclusive proof of a
link. It may well point to a rare allergic response, which is why
herbals should be used on occasion, and not daily. The fact remains
that many thousands of deaths are associated with pharmaceutical drugs
annually, whereas dietary supplements are associated with fewer deaths
than those resulting from allergic response to bee sting (about 150.)

The study titled "Hepatitis observed during a treatment with a drug or
tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26 cases reported to the
Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance" echoes the long-standing ban on
this herb in France. While the study authors admit that a contaminant
in the germander tea could have been responsible for liver failure, it
underscores the potential for allergic response, however rare.

I believe I answered all the ones that did not require registration to
read the study abstract. I avoid signing up for things I don't need.
I have plenty of database access to medical studies without signing up
for anecdotal observations like these.

PeterB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogdanov, S. Contaminants of bee products. Apidologie (2005), Volume
Date
2006, 37(1), 1-18.

Woolf, A. D.; Watson, W. A.; Smolinske, S.; Litovitz, T. The severity
of
toxic reactions to ephedra: Comparisons to other botanical products and

national trends from 1993-2002. Clinical Toxicology (2005), 43(5),
347-355.

Gregoretti, B.; Stebel, M.; Candussio, L.; Crivellato, E.; Bartoli, F.;

Decorti, G. Toxicity of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort)
administered
during pregnancy and lactation in rats. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology
(2004), 200(3), 201-205.

Block, K. I.; Gyllenhaal, C.; Mead, M. N. Safety and efficacy of
herbal
sedatives in cancer care. Integrative Cancer Therapies (2004), 3(2),
128-148.

Clouatre, D. L. Kava kava: examining new reports of toxicity.
Toxicology
Letters (2004), 150(1), 85-96.

Kauma, H.; Koskela, R.; Makisalo, H.; Autio-Harmainen, H.; Lehtola, J.;

Hockerstedt, K. Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis after
consumption
of chaparral tablets. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology (2004),

39(11), 1168-71.

Hammerness, P.; Basch, E.; Ulbricht, C.; Barrette, E.-P.; Foppa, I.;
Basch, S.; Bent, S.; Boon, H.; Ernst, E. St. John's Wort: A systematic
review
of adverse effects and drug interactions for the consultation
psychiatrist.
Psychosomatics (2003), 44(4), 271-282.

Whitton, P. A.; Lau, A.; Salisbury, A.; Whitehouse, J.; Evans, C. S.
Kava lactones and the kava-kava controversy. Phytochemistry
(Elsevier)
(2003), 64(3), 673-679.

Stickel, F.; Baumuller, H.-M.; Seitz, K.; Vasilakis, D.; Seitz, G.;
Seitz,
H. K.; Schuppan, D. Hepatitis induced by Kava (Piper methysticum
rhizoma).
Journal of Hepatology (2003), 39(1), 62-67.

Castot, A.; Larrey, D. Hepatitis observed during a treatment with a
drug or
tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26 cases reported to the

Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance. Gastroenterologie clinique et
biologique (1992), 16(12), 916-22.

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

For your information, it is a violation of netiquette to put an
individual's name in the subject line of a post. I have changed the
Subject: line to remove my name and to give a more accurate description
of the content of the article. Because the concept of "editing" an
article is beyond PeterB, and because he doesn't seem to understand that
beyond a certain point, articles get too long to be easily readable, I
have placed the citation at the beginning of the discussion of each article
(instead of at the end, where he put them) so that it will be more clear
what the subject matter is, and so that, if necessary, it will be easier to
divide the posts into more easily digestible fragments.

By the way, I am still waiting for the apology that you promised.

: At the bottom, you'll find all the citations that Schultz posted
: earlier, most of which I am responding to here.

Amazing how after all this time you suddenly managed to find the list
that I originally posted. What happened, did your handlers finally
get back to you?

-----------------
[1] Bogdanov, S. Contaminants of bee products. Apidologie (2005), Volume
Date 2006, 37(1), 1-18.
-----------------

: The first study shows that bee products from non-organic apiaries are
: exposed to many chemicals used in their cultivation, particularly those
: of a synthetic nature. Other contanimants from the environment may
: also be present, which underscores the need to choose our dietary
: supplements carefully, relying on organically farmed products whenever
: possible.

This is a mischaracterization of the article. The article discusses
numerous sources of contamination of bee products. The source of heavy
metal contamination is from local sources that are outside of the control
of the beekeeper, and there is no way that the average consumer can know
what the levels of these contaminants are in the propolis that he buys.
I admit that at the time that I posted the bibliography, I was unaware
that you did not believe that heavy metals are toxic in low doses.

-----------------
[2] Woolf, A. D.; Watson, W. A.; Smolinske, S.; Litovitz, T. The severity
of toxic reactions to ephedra: Comparisons to other botanical products and
national trends from 1993-2002. Clinical Toxicology (2005), 43(5), 347-355.
-----------------

I notice that you did not discuss this article, which considers reports
of toxic reactions to ephedra (what you would call a "disease response")
and concludes that ephedra was significantly more toxic than other
common botanical products. This study was based on reports to
poison centers -- i.e., negative reactions in humans. It's not surprising
that you "forgot" to discuss that one.

-----------------
[3] Gregoretti, B.; Stebel, M.; Candussio, L.; Crivellato, E.; Bartoli, F.;
Decorti, G. Toxicity of Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort)
administered during pregnancy and lactation in rats. Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology (2004), 200(3), 201-205.
-----------------

: The next study abstract talks about the toxic potential of various
: herbs consumed by mice,

Actually, it talks about the effect of St. John's Wort (one herb) in rats,
but I wasn't expecting you to be able to read the titles of the articles
in question, let alone the text.

: which, while interesting, is not representative
: of Man because mice don't eat such plants in their natural habitat when
: left to themselves.

It is common to use animal models in initial stages of drug research. You
are fond of quoting a study that claimed that laetrile was an effective
anti-cancer medicine in rats. Why do you think that *that* study is of any
relevance?

: A force-fed animal model is a poor substitute for clinical evaluation of
: physiological responses in humans.

The animals were not "force-fed"; St. John's Wort was added to the diet
of the rats in a dose (100 mg/kg) similar to (actually, smaller than) that
taken by humans.

: It's true we don't rely on St. John's Wort for food, but our ancestors had
: a very wide range of evolutionary exposure to many plant chemicals, otherwise
: we would not have become experienced with their toxic and medicinal
: properties.

What evidence do you have that rodents have not had a "wide range of
evolutionary exposure to many plant chemicals"? Rats are famous for being
omnivorous. Furthermore, the possible "wide range of exposure to many
plant chemicals" does not seem to have provided humans with any means of
metabolizing, say, the toxin found in amanita mushrooms. Just because a
particular plant is believed anecdotally to be safe, that does not mean
that it is in fact safe.

-----------------
[4] Block, K. I.; Gyllenhaal, C.; Mead, M. N. Safety and efficacy of
herbal sedatives in cancer care. Integrative Cancer Therapies (2004),
3(2), 128-148.
-----------------

: The analysis titled "Safety and Efficacy of Herbal Sedatives in Cancer
: Care," notes that "...hypnotic drug use declined substantially in the
: past decade [while] use of herbal sedatives appeared to increase." It
: points to the "moderate evidence for both safety and efficacy for [use
: of] valerian," and the fact that insufficient data exists to quantify
: the therapeutic value of German chamomile, lavender, hops, lemon balm,
: and passionflower. It also comments on the "disturbing toxicity
: concerns for kava." So here's my take. All of the herbals mentioned in
: the review are known soporifics, meaning they promote sleep. They have
: been used widely by millions of people for decades, and their use is
: apparently increasing. In my view, it's a good thing that we have
: alternatives to prescription drugs. IOM has reported that prescription
: drugs are a major cause of mortality and morbidity in the USA, even
: when properly dispensed and prescribed. Toxicity concerns for kava are
: ridiculously overblown, as I said earlier in 2006.

Here's what the authors of the paper I cited stated:

More than 60 reports of liver toxicity in users of kava
preparations have surfaced since 1999. Some cases have
been sufficiently severe that liver transplants have
been required, and 3 deaths have resulted from
hepatotoxicity associated with kava.

It seems to me that no further demonstration is needed that an herbal
preparation can necessarily be assumed to be safe. If you are going to
point to the one-in-a-million chance of death from vaccination as a
reason that vaccination should be stopped, why do you not think that the
chance of liver damage from kava ingestion should be a matter of concern?

-----------------
[5] Clouatre, D. L. Kava kava: examining new reports of toxicity. Toxicology
Letters (2004), 150(1), 85-96.
-----------------

Another one that PeterB "accidentally" forgot to respond to, which is ironic
considering that the authors conclude that despite the potential of
liver damage from consumption of kava, the risk-to-benefit ratio remains
good. The authors state that the exact mechanism of kava toxicity is still
unknown, but that it apparently has the ability to increase the toxicity of
other substances. The point is, of course, that once again, we can see that
a "natural" medicine cannot automatically be assumed to be safe, despite
the claims of PeterB.

-----------------
[6] Kauma, H.; Koskela, R.; Makisalo, H.; Autio-Harmainen, H.; Lehtola, J.;
Hockerstedt, K. Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis after
consumption of chaparral tablets. Scandinavian journal of
gastroenterology (2004), 39(11), 1168-71.
-----------------

: The review titled "Toxic acute hepatitis and hepatic fibrosis after
: consumption of chaparral tablets" is purely anecdotal.

Every one of your reports of positive reactions in humans to laetrile
is purely anecdotal.

: It is neither the result of definitive study nor consistent with known
: use of the herb by Native American Indians over a number of centuries.

I wasn't aware that the Native Americans of centuries ago had the facilities
for measuring hepatic fibrosis.

: In fact, millions of cancer patients have used Chaparral for many decades
: with no suggestion of harm beyond these narrow and unproven associations.

Millions of people have been vaccinated for polio with no suggestion of
harm. The article in question does not make "narrow and unproven
associations." They report a patient who suffered hepatitis after ingesting
chaparral, and for whom there was a very strong likelihood of a causal
relation between the chaparral ingestion and the hepatitis, i.e. when
the patient stopped taking the chaparral, she got better, and then when
she started taking it again, the hepatitis returned. The article
refers to several other studies that made similar observations about
a possible link between chaparral intake and liver damage, e.g.

Batchelor, W.B.; Heathcote, J.; Wanless, I. R. "Chaparral-Induced
Hepatic-Injury." Am. J. Gastroenterology (1995), 90(5), 831-833.

Alderman, S.; Kailas, S.; Goldfarb, S.; Singaram, C.; Malone, D. G.
"Cholestatic Hepatitis after Ingestion of Chaparral Leaf -- Confirmation
by Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Liver Biopsy."
J. Clin. Gastroenterology, (1994), 19(3), 242-247.

Again, the point is that we have *clinical* evidence that in at least
*some* people, ingestion of chaparral leads to liver damage. This belies
your claim that an herbal medicine is necessarily safe. Absent a large-scale
clinical trial in which the safety and effectiveness (or perhaps I should
say "risk-adjusted benefit") of chaparral are proven, it seems to me that
the clear evidence that it can cause liver damage should be enough to
discourage people from taking it.

: I might also point out that Dr. Norman
: Farnsworth's extensive studies on chaparral in the 1970s and 1980s
: found no hepatotoxic effects whatsoever.

I would appreciate a specific reference. The only papers by Norman Farnsworth
that I could find relating to chaparral were ones in which he identified
natural products extracted from chaparral and made some tests of their
anti-cancer activity. None of those papers seem to have any mention of
hepatotoxicity -- not even that he looked for it. Actually, I could only
find one paper in which in vivo testing was even mentioned in the abstract.
In other words, I suspect that you are once again failing to tell the
truth about your sources. But I could be wrong, and I eagerly await
the reference to his "extensive studies" of the safety and effectiveness
of chaparral.

: Again, someone with
: *existing* hepatic abormality might want to avoid it, that is their
: choice. FDA's evidence for chaparral toxicity, however, appears quite
: meaningless.

None of the evidence in this paper comes from the FDA. And there was
no evidence that the patients had any existing liver conditions, as
evidenced by their response to cessation of chaparral ingestion.

-----------------
[7] Hammerness, P.; Basch, E.; Ulbricht, C.; Barrette, E.-P.; Foppa, I.;
Basch, S.; Bent, S.; Boon, H.; Ernst, E. St. John's Wort: A systematic
review of adverse effects and drug interactions for the consultation
psychiatrist. Psychosomatics (2003), 44(4), 271-282.
-----------------

Another paper that PeterB conveniently "forgot" to discuss. I guess the
words "adverse effects" in the title scared him off.

-----------------
[8] Whitton, P. A.; Lau, A.; Salisbury, A.; Whitehouse, J.; Evans, C. S.
Kava lactones and the kava-kava controversy. Phytochemistry
(Elsevier) (2003), 64(3), 673-679.
-----------------

Too bad that PeterB didn't read that one -- in the end, the authors suggest
a mechanism for kava toxicity and a method for remediating that toxicity.

-----------------
[9] Stickel, F.; Baumuller, H.-M.; Seitz, K.; Vasilakis, D.; Seitz, G.;
Seitz, H. K.; Schuppan, D. Hepatitis induced by Kava (Piper methysticum
rhizoma). Journal of Hepatology (2003), 39(1), 62-67.
-----------------

: The review titled "Hepatitis induced by Kava (Piper methysticum
: rhizoma)" ignores the fact that millions of people use kava safely,
: thus three examples of liver failure is hardly conclusive proof of a link.

Too bad that you didn't take the trouble to read the article. They pointed
out that in the patients who did not die, when the kave was stopped, so
did the hepatitis. That is strong evidence of a link.

: It may well point to a rare allergic response, which is why
: herbals should be used on occasion, and not daily.

Tell that to the person who died because people like you told him that
"natural" medicines were ipso facto safe.

: The fact remains
: that many thousands of deaths are associated with pharmaceutical drugs
: annually, whereas dietary supplements are associated with fewer deaths
: than those resulting from allergic response to bee sting (about 150.)

That does not mean that "dietary supplements" cannot cause what you call
a "disease response," and the papers that I mentioned showed that such
a response is possible.

-----------------
[10] Castot, A.; Larrey, D. Hepatitis observed during a treatment with a
drug or tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26 cases reported
to the Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance. Gastroenterologie clinique
et biologique (1992), 16(12), 916-22.
-----------------

: The study titled "Hepatitis observed during a treatment with a drug or
: tea containing Wild Germander. Evaluation of 26 cases reported to the
: Regional Centers of Pharmacovigilance" echoes the long-standing ban on
: this herb in France. While the study authors admit that a contaminant
: in the germander tea could have been responsible for liver failure, it
: underscores the potential for allergic response, however rare.

In other words, you admit that herbal medicines can produce "disease
responses." If there have been no controlled clinical studies of the
*effectiveness* of such medicines, or as you call them for legal reasons,
"dietary supplements," on what basis can you conclude that the benefits
of taking them outweigh the risks?

: I believe I answered all the ones that did not require registration to
: read the study abstract. I avoid signing up for things I don't need.
: I have plenty of database access to medical studies without signing up
: for anecdotal observations like these.

Too bad that you refused my offer to send you copies of the articles.
You might have found out that your description of the ones that you did
not read is not correct.


-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_

In message <eokhck$3cu$1@news.iucc.ac.il>, Richard Schultz wrote:

Because kava-kava is an All Natural Dietary Supplement, and the
rules are:

1) All "drugs" are dangerous and ineffective unless proven otherwise.
2) All "dietary supplements" are safe and effective unless proven
otherwise.
3) Proof is impossible.
4) PeterB is the sole authority on what is a "dietary supplement"
and what is a "drug"

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In misc.health.alternative Richard Schultz <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:

: It seems to me that no further demonstration is needed that an herbal
: preparation can necessarily be assumed to be safe.

Before PeterB makes too much of it, as is clear from the rest of the post,
this sentence should of course read ". . . can NOT necessarily be
assumed to be safe."

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

Richard Schultz wrote:
Not only that, it is a method used to intimidate people.

I have changed the

In misc.health.alternative Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:

:> For your information, it is a violation of netiquette to put an
:> individual's name in the subject line of a post.
:
: Not only that, it is a method used to intimidate people.

While it's true that as far as I can tell, no one died and made me
net.cop, it is (or at least was in my day) considered to be a breach of
netiquette to quote 295 lines of text in order to add one more line.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

In message <eolk4p$kcq$1@news.iucc.ac.il>, Richard Schultz wrote:

I've pointed that out to Mark and others from time to time, but
in his defense there are MHA participants who go ballistic if
you snip even a line of their deathless requotations.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

This thread is not about PeterB.

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:eolat5$fu0$2@news.iucc.ac.il...

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:HHrrh.3922$Ld.3157@trndny08...

Richard Schultz wrote:
Since you aren't the thread's creator, I have restated the subject
header, without reference to you, but consistent with my review of the
facts.

I apologize for Schultzie, who is such a pompous ass. He made this as
time consuming a process as possible, however I'm happy to apologize
for him, since he was kind enough to ask.

The reason for my response is that you finally provided a set of links,
however it seems there is a discrepancy between the list of titles you
posted originally and the list of links you posted later, despite
stating they were a match. If you have links to the other articles,
I'll be happy to address them. Or, if I have time later, I may bother
to search for them.

No, it isn't. Environmental contaminants, both man-made and naturally
occuring, exist. Choosing organically farmed bee products, however,
reduces our *overall* exposure. That you fail to grasp this, or rather
choose not to, is typical of pharmonkeys operating daily in the
newsgroups.

We are exposed to contaminants every day. Choosing organic foods is a
way to reduce our overall exposure to unwanted substances. Likewise, a
well-chosen supplement, despite having imperfections, represents a net
gain in terms of individual health. A smoker who takes supplemental
vitamin C to compensate for the reduction of his ascorbate levels will
not lose that benefit simply because his supplement isn't 100%
contaminant free. Every day, whether we know it or not, our health is
challenged by environmental toxins in what we eat, drink, or breathe.

Having talked about ephedra on mha at length, I would have no reason to
do that. You, of course, would have no reason to do search for
relevant material discussed on mha by me or anyone else. I used the
links you provided, but didn't take time to cross reference these to
your earlier list.

The prevalence of synthetically produced ephedrine alkaloids, a product
of the drug industry, is not a factor in discussions about the toxicity
potential of the naturally-occuring herb, Ephedra. Every report I've
seen on ephedrine-related mortality has either directly, or indirectly,
implicated pharmaceutical-grade ephedrine alkaloids, which have much
higher pharmacology. I suppose there may be non-synthetic ephedrine
products out their marketed for weight loss, but I doubt they work very
well, and I would discourage people taking it for that reason.

http://tinyurl.com/ylcynu
http://tinyurl.com/v5qn3
http://tinyurl.com/ycljs7
http://tinyurl.com/y46jag (third article listed)
http://tinyurl.com/w3qp2
http://tinyurl.com/yz44m7
http://tinyurl.com/y3sl7s (second article listed)
http://tinyurl.com/ylau3n
http://tinyurl.com/y2aj6z
http://tinyurl.com/yf7d7d

At least I can read without making false attributions.

Laetrile's anti-tumor effects relate to the same substance found widely
in the animal food chain, whereas acute toxicity in mice exposed to St.
John's Wort is evidence they would never have eaten them to begin with.

For a mouse, that distinction doesn't exist.

The question is whether mice have an acute toxicity response to St
John's Wort that would be as likely in human beings. With millions of
people using the herb, there is evidence to suggest that your mouse
study just isn't relevant.

No one said human beings cannot be harmed by poisonous plants, or that
all plants are safe to eat. In fact, I've said repeatedly that basic
nutrition is a separate issue from herbal medicine. That culinary
herbs are often nutritious does not mean that all herbs should be eaten
as food.

Can you tell us how many of these 60 people were also users of alcohol,
potentially hepatotoxic medications, or anything about their disease
history? Of course you can't, because these observations are anecdotal
and speculative. Tell us how millions of users of Kava products there
have been over the past few decades. If memory serves, it was the 9th
most popular herbal supplement in the world at one time. It continues
to be marketed with only a handful of potentially associated adverse
events after many, many years of use. By contrast, even with
litigation ongoing for thousands of deaths attributed to use of Vioxx
after just a short time in the marketplace, FDA has permitted the
continued sale of this dangerous medication.

I see that you have now dispensed with even *telling* readers that you
have deleted portions of text you and your sponsors prefer they not
read. You didn't think I would catch it, did you? So let's restore
the rest of my earlier discussion (lifted from a post of mine early
last year) regarding Kava.

The Journal of Drug Safety reports that analysis of 19 reports of
suspected adverse reactions to Kava reveal just one patient where a
probable causal relationship could be established between kava
treatment and liver disease, making the herbal far less dangerous than
aspirin, which killed 52 Americans in year 2000. [Drug Safety
25:251-61, 2002]. Despite this fact, a worldwide alert was issued and
Kava sales were dramatically impacted. [Phytomedicine 10:440-6, 2003]
Note that Kava has been one of the most popular herbals in history,
with millions of users worldwide, and has been consumed for hundreds of
years by South Pacific island cultures with no reports of hepatic
abnormality. Some research suggests that pipermethystine, an alkoloid
found primarily in Kava stem and leaves, may increase the risk of liver
stress, therefore it may be wise to choose Kava preparations using only
the root portion of the plant. I personally use Eclectic Institute's
Nakamal Kava product because it uses only the plant root. We shouldn't
overlook the complicit nature of media (as well as FDA) in supporting
the mutually beneficial relationships surrounding the use of dangerous
pharmaceutical drugs, and efforts to impugn the relative safety of
harbals that represent a competitive threat to the drug makers. Aspirin
represents a 5,200% greater mortality risk compared to Kava (actually
more, as this figure only represents US aspirin-related deaths) yet
aspirin sales continue to climb. Kava is an excellent herbal
alternative for stress and axiety, though persons with *known* liver
disease may be wise to avoid it.

No one has said that herbal medicine is completely without risk. We
can never eliminate the risk of an allergic reaction entirely, not even
to foods we have eaten safely since childhood. But the risk goes up
when you don't understand how something works, how you are likely to
respond to it, or something about its history, because that predisposes
you to making an unwise choice. The idea that drug marketing is
founded on the principles of good science is unfortunately a
fabrication of your industry. Most drugs are submitted for approval
after research that includes a 3 month toxicology profile, just enough
to avoid the *real* evidence that drugs are going to cause far more
problems than they could ever resolve. For that matter, treating
markers for disease is not meaningful without solid evidence that the
drug saves more lives than it takes. While taking Kava every day is
not a good idea, the risks associated with its use are very, very
small. Despite evidence cited by various expert bodies that ADEs
resulting from properly prescribed drugs are killing thousands of
people each week (possibly every day), you expressi "concern" about an
herb that *may* have caused the death of a few people out of millions
of users. That is why I challenged you to provide the risk-adjusted
outcomes for a list of 35 popular drugs, which you were unable to do.
I knew you could not, of course, because the data doesn't exist.

The assumptions are all yours, Schultzie. Applications in "natural
medicine" (which includes but is not exclusive to herbal medicine), can
fail to resolve human disease for many reasons. The first is
misdiagnosis. The second is mis-application of an otherwise useful
therapy. Third is genetic abnormality, preventing the condition from
responding fully, or perhaps at all. Fourth is the presence of
overwhelming, but unidentified environmental stressors, negating the
efficacy of treatment. The fifth is the use of pharmaceutical drugs,
which interfere with nutrient function in human beings. A good
naturopath, however, through careful consultation with his patient, can
eliminate the noise and make good progress by addressing the
individual's underlying cause of illness.

Which is why I said the FDA should permit further study. The fact that
many US doctors are using laetrile successfully in their patients,
despite the risk to their careers and families, should tell you
something.

Animal populations have been remarkably adept at avoiding poisonous
plants without the use of clinical trials. I don't think mice and
antelope even know how to chew gum. Native Americans were known to
outsmart buffalo at one time, and today they are known to derive
sustenance from the casino.

A "possible" link is not a "proven" link. I thought you were a
scientist. We are talking about a very, very small group of people
whose allergic response to this herb may or may not define the etiology
of their illness. Even the study authors said that unidentified
contaminants, rather than the herb in question, may have been
responsible for adverse events, according to one of the articles you
cited. The point is that relative to use, the potential for an
allergic reaction to herbals is incredibly small. Th fact that some
people react anaphylactically after eating peanuts does not mean no one
else should eat them. I can hear you making that very argument for
Vioxx, simply because 60,000 deaths (if that figure is ultimately
confirmed) is only a "small" percentage of the total population. I
don't agree that such a problematic association can be glossed over
like that, but then I'm not a pharmonkey.

You lie repeatedly when making this false attribution. I never said
anything was "necessarily safe." Factors of disease history, genetic
disposition, nutritional status, environment, lifestyle, and medication
use, must all be considered. The relative safety of a particular
treatment, the degree of knowledge one has before applying it, and the
history of its use, are all crucial in the effective treatment of
disease. I encourage everyone to become educated on the risks of all
medical options, including prescription drugs and herbal medicine. By
contrast, you are here promoting the idea that people should not take
herbals despite their safe use by millions, while remaining silent on
the extraordinary risks posed by prescription drugs. How telling.

That was my point. If the risk potential of the herb was high,
research demonstrating the hepatotoxic chemistry of chaparral would
surely have been uncovered by now, by Farnsworth or someone else. That
hasn't happened.

I surmise you are inviting proof of a negative. I have never asked
anyone to prove that drugs are never harmful. No one can prove
logically that any chemical agent is *never* hepatotoxic. In fact,
many drugs are idiosyncratic in liver pathology. Variations in
susceptibility related to age, sex, underlying disease, medication use,
and genetics, are all reasons for random incidence of toxic hepatitis.
Some individuals included in studies of Kava side effects, for example,
may have been affected by consumption of alcohol. There is simply no
evidence that such illnesses are widely associated with use of herbals.
Of course, since you "accidentally stumbled" onto mha, we must
overlook the fact that you would not understand this minor point, or is
that you ignore the same risks widely associated with use of
pharmaceutical drugs? Do a search on liver function in relation to the
following: tetracycline, isoniazid, methyldopa, amiodarone,
bromobenzene, and halothane. Though I doubt it, maybe you'll learn
something.

FDA, however, is inclined to rely on such a small body of evidence with
regard to warnings on use of herbals. Which isn't surprising, since
the majority of its budget is funded by the drug makers, whose angst
over the popularization of natural options has become pathological.

Again, I used your list of links, which you said were appropriately
cross referenced. If I overlooked something, feel free to repost the
link. I know you won't, as your agenda is best served by personal
attacks and distraction.

I addressed that issue in the other Kava study. By the way, the herb
Silybum Marianum (Milk or Lady Thistle) is an excellent choice for
natural detoxification of the liver, especially in combination with
N-acetylcysteine. Anyone concerned with toxic exposure from any source
would be wise to keep both on hand. Both are dietary supplements
available at a quality health food store.

It is good evidence that in those individuals, Kava was a problem. It
is not good evidence that Kava is a particular risk to the vast
majority of users. Kava has been shown to engender modulation of liver
enzymes, and this can be problematic for a tiny percentage of
individuals. It is the reason one should restrict its use to several
days at a time, or avoid it altogether if if one consumes alcohol or is
aware of existing liver disease. By contrast, drugs known to induce a
hepatotoxic response are far more prevalent, and may be be taken for
long periods despite the risks. The idea that FDA approval indicates a
higher degree of "safety" for drugs as compared to herbal products may
be warm and fuzzy, but it isn't based on science.

All the ipso factos have been yours. Suggesting that herbals are
*unsafe* simply because a tiny percentage of people react allergically
to them is like saying people should never drive a car. One is more
likely to die in a car crash than be harmed by Kava.

No one has ever said that dietary supplements are completely risk free.
But looking at data from Washington DC from Poison Control, they come
pretty darn close compared to most anything else.

On the basis of individual experience. The body-mind lab has final
authority in drug interactions, as well. Most herbal products include
a label warning that if unusual symptoms occur, one should discontinue
their use. Have you never read the same caveat on a drug insert,
Schultzie?

Just upload the ones you say I overlooked to a post on mha. Place the
copyright notice at the bottom of your post and try not to distort the
text to say something it doesn't. That way, every reader gets to see
the quality of your "work" here. Cue Schultzie to come up with an
excuse why he can't do that.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
WOW! WHAT A POWER TRIP!

Richard Schultz wrote:
I see your handlers are there to help you pick yourself up, which only
proves your heart isn't in it, Schultzie. You let fly another of your
Freudian confessions, then had to retract it. Combined with your
earlier admission to having a "diseased mind," this can only be seen as
a cry for help. I would suggest some remedial English before posting
further to the newsgroups, but it wouldn't help much. The lack of a
rational argument on your part, combined with the absence of critical
thinking beyond that of most 8 year olds, is probably a permanent
liability for you and your sponsors. At least we can say it's going to
be a fun year! ))

PeterB

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> In misc.health.alternative Richard Schultz <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:

:> : It seems to me that no further demonstration is needed that an herbal
:> : preparation can necessarily be assumed to be safe.

:> Before PeterB makes too much of it, as is clear from the rest of the post,
:> this sentence should of course read ". . . can NOT necessarily be
:> assumed to be safe."

: I see your handlers are there to help you pick yourself up, which only
: proves your heart isn't in it, Schultzie. You let fly another of your
: Freudian confessions, then had to retract it.

Since when is a typographical error a "Freudian confession"?

: I would suggest some remedial English before posting
: further to the newsgroups, but it wouldn't help much.

Coming from someone who does not know the difference between "its" and
"it's," that's a bit rich.


-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_

Richard Schultz wrote:
Apparently always for you, since every time you make a "typographical
error," it's confessional.

*It's* clear that your writing and your brain are disjointed,
Schultzie, proving your brain is *its* own worst enemy, a trait one can
only describe as "a diseased mind" (your words, not mine.)

PeterB

On 17 Jan 2007 13:29:34 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Which mice? Field mice in a field of St John's Wort?

jack

On 17 Jan 2007 13:29:34 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Well of course, it has more active ingredient, (and a known level as
well) BTW, what is "higher pharmacology"?

jack

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
The mice in the experiment. BTW, The above sentence should have read
"...evidence the mice would never have eaten this particular herb to
begin with."

spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
You just said it. Synthetic ephedrine alkaloids yield higher potency
per gram of dosage than naturally-occuring ephedra herb. People forget
that the US Coast Guard used to give sailors an ephedrine-promethazine
cocktail to reduce their seasickness. I would venture a guess that
almost every mortality associated with ephedrine weight-loss products
resulted when athletes over-dosed on pharmaceutical-grade ephedrine.
I've seen no evidence that such reactions had anything to do with
ephedra in its natural state. Comparing synthetically manufactured
herbal derivitatives to their whole herb counterparts is simply
misleading. Interestingly, the US Federal District Court ruled that
FDA didn't have proper evidence to show low dosages of ephedrine
alkaloids to be unsafe, but a year later, in 2006, the US Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver upheld FDA's ruling, declaring
all dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids to be
adulterated and therefore illegal for marketing in the USA. The fact
that ephedrine products continue to be sold legally in every
application other than those classified under dietary supplement law
(DSHEA) proves that FDA engages in market-busting activities on behalf
of the drug makers, and that regulation of drugs by FDA has nothing to
do with protecting public health.

PeterB

In message <1169212702.539805.153690@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, PeterB wrote:

Freudian slip, eh?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+