:Please don't get burned out over what's looking like an ugly argument. I'm not inclined to argue for generally including primary/preliminary medical studies, but I really don't want to see traditional ethnomedicinal info lost (which appears to be a separate issue). I do think there are some cases where primary medical studies should be cited. For example, I can't find any medical secondary sources examining A. absinthium as a vermifuge, but there are several primary medical sources suggesting it may be effective. I'd hope a sentence like "Preliminary studies have suggested A. absinthium may be effective as a vermifuge" with multiple citations could pass the MEDRS standards.  

 :I added a couple statements to A. absinthium cited by (arguably) secondary medical sources. I'll see if the additions stands. I honestly don't see why the sources I provided (a preliminary document about the status of A. absinthium as an herbal medicine in the European Union, and an herbal medicine overview written by a for-profit company and hosted on a hospital website) should be considered any more reliable than Grieve's Modern Herbal. 

 :On a tangential note, I hope the lack of a citation to Charcot's 1869 original primary source description of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis#History is due lack of editor attention to that article rather than WP:MEDRS's deprecation of primary sources (the 1869 description is currently only cited by a 2001 secondary source); if MEDRS deprecates clearly relevant primary sources in medicine, there's no hope. We don't have a lot of plants citing original descriptions, nor do medical articles on diseases often cite the first description, but the primary sources in these situations have to be relevant and should be added.