JAMA Bashes Herbs for Surgical Patients- Rebuttal

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

JAMA bashes herbs for surgical patients, & rebuttal

 

http://www.herbs.org/current/jama.htm

 

Herb Research Foundation News

HRF OPINION PIECE

by Rob McCaleb

 

JAMA bashes herbs for surgical patients

 

No one has ever accused the Journal of the American

Medical Association (JAMA) of being overly objective about the topic

of " alternative medicine. " The article " Herbal Medicines and

Perioperative Care, " which appeared in the July 11 issue of JAMA,

offers further proof that the Journal is willing to compromise its

editorial integrity to attack herbs. The article speculates on

potential problems that could arise for surgical patients using

common herbal dietary supplements, including ginkgo, St. John's

wort, garlic, ginseng, echinacea, kava, and others. However, the

authors discredit themselves by making sweeping generalizations and

warnings based on minimal evidence and outright speculation.

It's unlikely that the editors of JAMA would accept such a flimsy

article if it were about pharmaceuticals instead of herbs.

 

For example, the authors make warnings about the use of

garlic supplements for surgery patients based on a single case that

did not even involve the use of a garlic supplement, but rather

extreme consumption of a food. One elderly man ate 15 grams of raw

garlic-or about five medium-sized cloves-per day for an extended

period of time, and subsequently experienced bleeding problems

during surgery, possibly but not necessarily connected with the

garlic. This one incident, more than a decade old, is the only case

on record that supports the authors' argument against garlic. The

JAMA article warns against using ginseng before surgery because of

its blood sugar lowering effects based on a flawed study that failed

to account for the sugar content of ginseng itself. The authors also

advise patients not to use echinacea around the time of surgery, but

offer no evidence whatsoever to support the

recommendation.

 

In short, it is hard to understand how an article that

runs from single case report to flawed study to no evidence at all

was accepted for publication in a widely read, peer-reviewed medical

journal.

 

- Misty--> Or is it?