h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm personally interested to know, even if it doesn't make the article. My parents are Chiropractors and are not very fond of allopathic medicine, but they DO believe in science.

I'm not saying that Yerba Mate is harmful, only that the site you referred doesn't support what you'd like to say. Therefore, it looked like you were speaking from an illogical point of view. I couldn't find anything I considered reputable on the internet supporting what you wanted to say, and was hoping you'd come up with something, because Yerba Mate is potentially interesting.

Hi Sea Change,


I only just saw this post, and have just put a longer post in the PR thread that might have been better here.

>>I'm not saying that Yerba Mate is harmful, only that the site you referred doesn't support what you'd like to say. <<

I did say in that thread that the reason I posted that link was to give WB something to start with in researching the medicinal actions of mate. I haven't actually read all of that page yet, and as I also said I don't consider a single webpage to be a reliable source either (in terms of understanding a medicinal plant).


I've just offered to write a separate entry on the medicinal actions and use of mate. This is because I know it's going to take a bit of research, and that might not be possible on the internet, and I don't think WB is wanting to do that.


>>My parents are Chiropractors and are not very fond of allopathic medicine, but they DO believe in science.<<

I believe in science too. I like science, and I read alot of science in the context of alternative health. I just don't think that western science is the be all and end all of understanding reality. Partly because it's an evolving thing, and there are many things it hasn't gotten to studying yet (and that brings in all the politics of who funds research and why - there is little research money for something that can't be patented). But also because reductionist science is not a useful tool for studying things like how all the constituents of a plant work together in the human body.

In terms of mate, what I would write in an entry would be an overview of traditional use; a look at what science has been done; and how mate is being used contemporarily both in SA and in the west (where I can just about guarantee it's not being used traditionally).


>>I couldn't find anything I considered reputable on the internet supporting what you wanted to say, and was hoping you'd come up with something, because Yerba Mate is potentially interesting.<<

Part of the difficulty for me is that I am almost totally unfamiliar with mate. I've heard about it, but have no knowledge of it directly. So most of the arguments I am making are general ones that I would make about any herbs: look at the traditional use to see how effective it is; look at the western science, bearing in mind the limitations there; look at contemporary use. I think it's likely that mate is a useful medicine, but I don't think grabbing a few things off the internet is the way to determine that - it needs more research by whoever is writing the entry.

I thought I was being quite logical, so if that doesn't explain why I seemed illogical please let me know something more specific about that

I now feel I need to go and do the research on mate anyway, so will report back what I find.


Re the FDA, I'll maybe come back and explain that when I have more time.

Another way to explain the point I am making in PR is this:

Either the plant has medicinal actions or it doesn't. This can be researched for the entry. If there are no medicinal actions then using the term "is reputed to" is worse than useless IMO (especially for someone who is interested in herbal medicine). There *is alot of bollix on the internet about herbs (and alternative medicine in general) which is why I want to see the actions of mate researched properly for the EG.

As I have said, I think that long traditional use usually demonstrates an action, although there are limits to this knowledge base as well. This is why in the absence of someone who actually knows what mate does, the entry could write what mate has been traditionally used for - this leaves it ambiguous enough for people like me, interested in medcinal action, to make useful use of the information, and for the bbc legal department and science types to dismiss it as historical or something that >people do< (rather than what the plant does) that is simply being reported on.


I'd also add that I had a look at half a dozen western herbals last night and only one of them discusses mate (Grieve, her work is out of copyright and available on the internet too). This suggests to me that mate has relatively recent use in the west, and therefore I am more cautious about lists of actions off the internet (eg a list of the actions of something like garlic is likely to be reasonably accurate simply because there is such a huge use of it medicinally worldwide).

It's the 'has medicinal actions' that I am getting at. For every single supplement I've ever heard of, and I've had the opportunity to have heard of a *lot* of them, just about any claim can and does get made. It isn't particularly western herbs or oriental herbs or american herbs that get overclaimed, they all do. I'm not saying that mate can't do the things that are claimed for it. I am saying I would be very interested to see any study at all about mate that has any credibility.

There are many western herbs that have centuries of 'traditional use'. And yet, for most symptoms for most of these herbs were said to have cured, people stopped taking them. I am guessing you are supposing people gave up these perfectly useful herbs and took more expensive, nasty tasting drugs with deadly side effects simply because they were told to. I am guessing myself, perhaps because my family is chock full of health mavericks and early adopters, that they gave up the 'simpler' treatments because people don't like to be sick and actively seek to get better. I hate the side effects of my beta blocker for my heart, but everytime I get a sharp stab of angina in my chest when I forget to take my pill (and as a chiropractor's son I HATE pills) I get reminded toot de suite. Modern metoprolol works, traditional digitalis makes me ill.

My parents, for all that they dislike allopathic medicine are still alive and active at 86, but it isn't solely due to herbs, and all of my sibs and niece/nephews were born in a hospital. It's a common illogic to suppose that somehow people in the past were much smarter than people today, and equally that people today were much smarter than the past. It's possible to guess that this is where you were going from what you have written so far.

It's also a common illogic to both refer to scientific articles and they say things that show you don't care, know about or respect science, fundamentalist christians do this all the time. It wasn't clear what you meant on the Peer Review thread, but it surprised me that you referred us to the site as if it supported something you said, when it doesn't actually do that. Most people who would do that would be unaware of the irony because faith, and argument-from-authority is sufficient for them. AFA is a known fallacy, and so it is illogic.

If traditional knowledge were enough, then there's a long tradition of women being both property and too stupid to educate. If science isn't the way to tell it, there's gotta be another way. If it's just argument from Special People, who just happen to Know, I could go back to the PR thread and proclaim my own shamanistic experience seeing as to all the herbs I've been made to take over my life and the ones my parents also tell people NOT to take because they know they don't work. WB would be left just as confused.

It's the 'has medicinal actions' that I am getting at. For every single supplement I've ever heard of, and I've had the opportunity to have heard of a *lot* of them, just about any claim can and does get made. It isn't particularly western herbs or oriental herbs or american herbs that get overclaimed, they all do. I'm not saying that mate can't do the things that are claimed for it. I am saying I would be very interested to see any study at all about mate that has any credibility.

There are many western herbs that have centuries of 'traditional use'. And yet, for most symptoms for most of these herbs were said to have cured, people stopped taking them. I am guessing you are supposing people gave up these perfectly useful herbs and took more expensive, nasty tasting drugs with deadly side effects simply because they were told to. I am guessing myself, perhaps because my family is chock full of health mavericks and early adopters, that they gave up the 'simpler' treatments because people don't like to be sick and actively seek to get better. I hate the side effects of my beta blocker for my heart, but everytime I get a sharp stab of angina in my chest when I forget to take my pill (and as a chiropractor's son I HATE pills) I get reminded toot de suite. Modern metoprolol works, traditional digitalis makes me ill.

My parents, for all that they dislike allopathic medicine are still alive and active at 86, but it isn't solely due to herbs, and all of my sibs and niece/nephews were born in a hospital. It's a common illogic to suppose that somehow people in the past were much smarter than people today, and equally that people today were much smarter than the past. It's possible to guess that this is where you were going from what you have written so far.

It's also a common illogic to both refer to scientific articles and they say things that show you don't care, know about or respect science, fundamentalist christians do this all the time. It wasn't clear what you meant on the Peer Review thread, but it surprised me that you referred us to the site as if it supported something you said, when it doesn't actually do that. Most people who would do that would be unaware of the irony because faith, and argument-from-authority is sufficient for them. AFA is a known fallacy, and so it is illogic.

If traditional knowledge were enough, then there's a long tradition of women being both property and too stupid to educate. If science isn't the way to tell it, there's gotta be another way. If it's just argument from Special People, who just happen to Know, I could go back to the PR thread and proclaim my own shamanistic experience seeing as to all the herbs I've been made to take over my life and the ones my parents also tell people NOT to take because they know they don't work. Certainly all across the United States, there are people who claim to Know that condoms don't work against AIDS and using them is murder-their priest told them so. WB would be left just as confused.

I am interested in your commentary on the FDA, and stay subscribed with anticipation.

Hi Sea Change,

Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring your last post. I've been busy this week, and am waiting until I have time to reply properly.

kea.

Back now


>>I'm not saying that mate can't do the things that are claimed for it. I am saying I would be very interested to see any study at all about mate that has any credibility.<<

Part of the difficulty in getting the kind of 'proof' that you are after for mate is that much research seems to have been done in South America and isn't available on the internet in English.

But here's a starting point:

https://www.herbalgram.org/bodywise/expandedcommissione/he062.asp

The reasons I find that outline of mate to be reliable are that:

1. It's referencing the German Commission E monographs. These are mainstream healthcare standard recommendations of herbal medicine use. They are based on modern research and clinical practice and tend to present much narrower uses of an herb than traditional or contemporary use. You can read about the Comission E here:

https://www.herbalgram.org/bodywise/commissione/

2. The Amerian Botanical Council are a mainstream herbalist organisation, run by professionals, with a focus on modern research based phytotherapy.

The ABC monograph provides references. It's entirely reasonable that they do this instead of providing full articles of each piece of research they referred to. If you genuinely want to read about the efficacy of mate from a science perspective, then you can find the original research papers yourself.


>>
There are many western herbs that have centuries of 'traditional use'. And yet, for most symptoms for most of these herbs were said to have cured, people stopped taking them. I am guessing you are supposing people gave up these perfectly useful herbs and took more expensive, nasty tasting drugs with deadly side effects simply because they were told to.
<<

The reasons why cultures have switched from herbal and other traditional medicines to modern medicine are complex. Often there have been strong political reasons eg in the US there was direct action by the increasingly powerful medical lobby to suppress herbal medicine. It wasn't just a case of saying to people that these drugs are better than these herbs. There was alot of political action that the general public were probably unaware of.

Likewise in New Zealand, the government introduced legislation (The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907) specifically to prevent Maori healers from practicing (this was as much about undermining the political and social power of tohunga as it was about suppressing indigenous healing practice). The result though was that much knowledge was lost. Today, when presented with a choice, many Maori will choose to use modern medicine *alongside* traditional practices. It's only the mainstream that has attempted to make it an either or choice.

Another reason that drugs have been so socially successful is that most people are relatively unware of the side effects or long term effects of pharmaceuticals. This is changing but for decades the norm has been for patients to not be informed of such things. I'm always asking people about the potential side effects of their meds and it's surprising the number of people who don't even get the drug company fact sheet that is meant to be with their prescription.


Pharmaceutical drugs work in very obvious ways. Herbs work much more subtlely. For sure people will have a tendancy to take the thing that works most obviously and is the least amount of work. However we also know that more and more people are seriously disappointed with western medicine especially for treating things like chronic illness, and HUGE numbers of people are looking to alternative medicines.

I won't comment on your situation. But I have a family member with a heart condition who has been on a cocktail of meds for a decade. Much of his ill health is a result of those meds (and in older people that cascading effect of increasing multiple drug use and increasingly ill health is common). If one thinks that meds are the only way for him to stay alive then that is a reasonable outcome.

But he has never been offered the choice of having holistic integrated healthcare. I know people who have managed the same kind of heart problems without using meds, and others who use both meds and herbs etc. The fact that medical science isn't reasearching such strategies is a disgrace.


>>
My parents, for all that they dislike allopathic medicine are still alive and active at 86, but it isn't solely due to herbs, and all of my sibs and niece/nephews were born in a hospital. It's a common illogic to suppose that somehow people in the past were much smarter than people today, and equally that people today were much smarter than the past. It's possible to guess that this is where you were going from what you have written so far.
<<

I'm not sure what you are saying there - that I was being illogical like that?



>>
It's also a common illogic to both refer to scientific articles and they say things that show you don't care, know about or respect science, fundamentalist christians do this all the time. It wasn't clear what you meant on the Peer Review thread, but it surprised me that you referred us to the site as if it supported something you said, when it doesn't actually do that. Most people who would do that would be unaware of the irony because faith, and argument-from-authority is sufficient for them. AFA is a known fallacy, and so it is illogic.
<<

You're not really listening to what I am saying are you?

I've already told you that I gave that link as a starting point for the researcher to look at the medicinal actions of mate. And that I don't consider single sources to be reliable in terms of determining efficacy. My expectation was that the researcher would do their own research (overly optimistic I know). I didn't expect them to simply paraphrase what was on that page. Hence my use of the term "starting point".

If you are comparing me to fundamental Christians then you need to give examples of where I am making claims for herbal medicine based on faith. I have a pretty good critique of the scientific method and how it gets applied to herbal medicine research. This has nothing to do with faith.

It seems to me that you are objecting to my strong critique of western medicine per se. I'm happy to debate that point by point, but please don't make crass generalisations based on your misunderstanding of my own knowledge base and experience and analyses.

There *are* many herbal medicines that have, in addition to traditional use, strong researched support of efficacy and safety. Do you want a list?

And there is *alot* of really crap research being done as well. eg do a search in pubmed on ginkgo and gingko. How many articles do you get on each? Which is the correct spelling? How many articles would make it into peer reviewed journals if they mispelled the drug they were trialling or writing about? The intellectual rigour of western medicine's approach to herbal medicine is often very poor.

I could also give you more concrete examples of the problems with studying herbal medicines, but best if I wait for you to get more specific I think.



>>
If traditional knowledge were enough, then there's a long tradition of women being both property and too stupid to educate. If science isn't the way to tell it, there's gotta be another way.
>>

Yes, there are other ways. There are actually other vaild ways of understanding reality in addition to western science. How do you think cultures managed their healthcare before western science got so dominant? Or still manage for that matter. The WHO estimates that by far the most of the healthcare on the planet is provided traditionally, not by western medicine. Yes, yes, you can bring up all sorts of examples of people dying now. But people are dying for polical, social and economic reasons as much as anything. The WHO now encourages traditional healthcare *beacuse it is so effective*.

Western science is an incredibly useful tool. But there are things that it simply cannot do.


<<
If it's just argument from Special People, who just happen to Know, I could go back to the PR thread and proclaim my own shamanistic experience seeing as to all the herbs I've been made to take over my life and the ones my parents also tell people NOT to take because they know they don't work.
<<

Sure. And I come across such people all the time. I don't trust them. You seem to think that the only way to validly build a knowledge base is via the reductionist scientific method. What is wrong with other mehtods of empiricism alongside development of theory? Which is what traditional healthcare does.

Do you believe there's such a thing as objective truth?

Can you be more specific?