A person dismissing an herbal cure categorically is thus wrong.

A chemical in a plant *could* cure cancer, cure indigestion, whatever.

The suggestion that certain plants DO cue cancer and this information is suppressed somehow, despite being widely available, and despite the fact that anyone with an actual cancer cure could book trillions in profits by putting in a patented time-release version or adding caffiene is, however, properly met with skepticism.

Skepticism is not dogmatic rejection.

Skepticism is asking for reliable and extraordinary PROOF of such an extraordinary assertion.

I urge caution and knowledge before taking them, as with all medications. Simply relying on claims from people who sell such things is not enough. With information so widely available on the Internet, finding an unbiased source of such information is not difficult. Oddly enough, when it comes to herbal medications, Wikipedia does an excellent job of presenting useful, factual information. The editors who work on those articles are excellent.

the problem is less that people using herbal medications don't do their research - many of us do, and many of us also have enough scientific background to do it well. The problem is that "woo" fighters assume we don't, label all CAM "woo" and run around pissing in our Cheerios and dismissing us as imbeciles rather than engaging in

Even though your post supports some use of herbal medications, the substance of it is predicated on the assumption that people using herbal medications need to be told to research.

for the natural route HAVE actually studied this at length which includes learning from numerous sources, many considered ancient at this point in time, and from indigenous peoples around the world. Some knowledge is still passed along in non-written form in many cultures.

And you mention China as a source of much of the present day information, I would add Europe to that and England, in particular, where many an apothecary still operate and where much information can be obtained. I have two excellent reference books that originated in England that I (and my mentors) use today and one is not very old. And the Native Americans (including those from central and south America) have quite a few medicinal practices that are commonly employed and very effective.

I do not sell any of my medicines nor do I practice on anyone else. I do have friends who are willing to try some of the topicals I make when they ask me for information and later tell me how well they worked for them but I limit the sharing and write any warnings they need to heed and give literature references for them as well. Other than that, I suggest they look into certain possibilities for themselves so that I will not be burdened with prescribing or administering without a license.

Edited to add: I make these remedies for my own personal use and sometimes share with others when it appears that the remedy may be helpful for what ails them. One of these includes a lotion I make for my skin moisturizer that also heals cuts and burns rapidly, like overnight.

I, personally, have been treated for a number of serious conditions with alternatives and have fared far better with those than with any synthetics I have ever had the misfortune of being exposed to.

in fact, a study reported in Science some years back showed that placebos are getting better!

An M.D. suggested I try arnica (A. montana) for a foot problem. And you know, it worked! Or at least the foot problem got better, possibly because of the anti-inflammatory properties of the arnica salve, or maybe because of the massage effect when I was applying it, or maybe because I did the recommended exercises, or maybe because that type of injury typically heals on its own eventually. The one sure thing was that my feet smelled better after the herbal rub!

study. And I find it interesting and you are correct about the placebo effect of arnica (A. Montana) because that's not what it is generally used for, as an anti-inflammatory, because its medicinal properties actually assist in reabsorption of blood back into the system and is generally used for clearing up bruised tissue/hematoma conditions and is caustic. If the guy had a clue about what he was offering, he wold have given you a comfrey salve instead, and both are caustics and should only be used for a few days at a time. And neither should be used near glands, especially around the neck and head.

Whatever you want to believe is your business, and just because you're a skeptic doesn't mean you are right because someone did a "study" that someone, probably a big pharma operation, paid to look into that concern. If you don't have more than one study to "test" the results of a single study... you, too, are advocating what many of you are calling "woo".

Were they scientific papers? Or were they papers/blogs/books of other woo backers who make grandiose health benefit claims but have no proof to back it up?

of literature and immersion with practitioners from indigenous peoples as well as books written by scientists with credentials. But I'm pretty sure that whatever I might provide as citation will not be adequate in your reckoning.

Like I said somewhere else, what you choose to believe is your business and what I choose to understand is mine. I don't have to qualify what I have learned to someone who condescends to me for how I understand the natural world and its workings.

Aside from the evidence you are proposing that unless I can provide YOU with citations that YOU approve of I have nothing to say that could be valuable to anyone, you are intimating that I can't possibly have learned anything that is anything more than hpw to invoke placebo effect... you can take your criticism and your own personal woo and keep it to yourself. Who made YOU an authority on what is and isn't of value with regard to natural vs synthetic forms of remedy? And just who ARE YOU anyway? Hmmm?

You mean witch doctors?



Goodbye credibility.

succinctly proven what I just said above.

Welcome to ignore.

They really do the trick nicely and safely.