From: Arthur.Saus@p160.f72.n376.z1.fidonet.org (Arthur Saus)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Herbal vs Chemical
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:52:44 GMT
Reply-To: Arthur.Saus@p160.f72.n376.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:376/72.160 - Windows of the Worl, Columbia SC

Index Number: 20837

[This is from the Chronic Pain Conference]

> AS>This is overly simplistic and not at all true.  Let's face it, almost
> AS>all
> AS>drugs (or the chemicals in the herbs) function by poisoning a highly
> AS>specific
> AS>biochemical system in the body, to bring it back into balance.

> I don't agree. Can you supply your source of info?

Certainly, Physiology, Pharmacology, and Biochemistry courses I
took in college, graduate school, and Medical School to obtain my
M.D. degree.  Sorry you don't agree, but that's the facts as
understood by medical scientists who have devoted years to studying
these issues.

> AS>Administration of an antibiotic doesn't stop the body from
> AS>manufacturing
> AS>other chemicals (ie its own natural form) to help fight the infection.

> It may not occur with antibiotics, but with the use of pain killers it
> does.  Studies on the formation of endorphins have shown the lower levels
> in the presence of pain killers.  England has done a good deal of studies
> concerning drug addiction and this was found to be true with amphetamine
> abuse also.  The bodies natural levels were dampened, so the need for
> more of the drug was created, which in turn decreases the bodies natural
> levels even more, etc.

A discussion of mechanisms of regulation of endorphins in relation
to exogenous opiate administration is an entirely different subject
than a discussion about antibiotic administration.  Steroid
medications also have this "feedback regulation" effect on the body
just as opioid medications do, but this is not true for
antibiotics.

> AS>I wasn't "knocking herbals" as much as I was merely
> trying to point out the
> AS>truth about them.  Herbs do contain chemicals in varying
> amounts that
> AS>interact with various biochemical pathways.  Some of
> these interactions may
> AS>be beneficial and some may be harmful.  Within any given
> herb, the chemicals

> As is true with chemically synthesized drugs, only the
> reaction are often more violent than with herbals.

"violent" is a poor choice of wording unless you are trying to
arouse emotion in your reader (which I suspect may be your
intent).  I would agree that the action (note I said action, not
reaction) is more specific with a purified drug, than with herbal
preparations.

> AS>variety of biochemical pathways in the body.
> Furthermore, the concentreation
> AS>of even a beneficial chemical in a herb may vary
> tremendously from one
> AS>particular plant to the next, or from one lot to the
> next. If you accept the

> You are obviously not aware of the ability to utilize bioengineering to
> clone plants and maintain a very pure and consistent viable strain. This
> has been done commercially for over twenty years.

I'm probably much more aware of bioengineering than you may have
realized, but you cannot obtain the purity and consistancy from
plant to plant that you can from one batch of a purified drug to
the next.

> AS>pharmaceutical companies were then able to isolate and
> purify this chemical,

> It is that chemical purity that is often the problem. There have been
> instances of side effects (not apparent in the herbal form) that have to
> be compensated for with more drugs. (Here's one pill for your problem and
> three to take care of the problems that it will cause.)

You're suggesting that there are no side effects with herbal
preparations??!! Come on!!  You know this is not true unless the
dose of active ingredient is too small to have any effect on the
body!!

> AS>This is what you cannot do with herbals. They are not
> able to provide the
> AS>necessary chemical or "active ingredient" in an isolated
> and carefully
> AS>measured form.  This is one of the main problems with
> herbals that the use of
> AS>drugs overcomes.

> You fail to understand the main idea of herbal medicine. You want to
> use the lowest dosage possible to assist the body in healing itself.

This is not different than the main idea of prescribing
conventional medications.  All drugs should be used in the lowest
dose needed to get the job done.

> Too often, Western medicine thinks that to blast away with megadoses is
> the best way.

This may be your impression, but I would challenge you to support
that argument with any medical literature.  Medical students are
never taught that "to blast away with megadoses is the best way".
Your statement is just plainly not true. Instead, physicians are
taught how to select the proper drug for the patients particular
problem, and one in which the side effects are minimal or may be
used to the patient's advantage when possible. This basic
philosophy of using the lowest dose possible to accomplish the job
is not different from the philosophy of dosing you suggest for
herbal medicine.

> How many of those chemicals cause damage to the liver,
> the kidneys, or damage the stomach? How often does the antibiotics kill
> off the natural flora in the body causing severe diarrhea and sores in the
> mouth?  All too often.

Yes, and how often are the drugs used PRECISELY in the way that the
doctor has prescribed them, so that adverse side effects can be
avoided?  Sadly, all too rarely.  Fortunately, most drugs can be
somewhat abused by the patient by not specifically following the
doctor's advice, and still do minimum harm, even though they have
powerful effects on the body.

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!376!72.160!Arthur.Saus
Internet: Arthur.Saus@p160.f72.n376.z1.fidonet.org