Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Rory, I'd second your notions about David Eisenberg (Harvard Med School). There are many researchers at the Ivy League Universities and at places like MIT who are paid lackeys for the drug companies - they are constantly scheming at coming up with reasons to control and absorb alternative medicines into the medical system. See the following, which I'll be including in a future newsletter for rs to our website: ----------------------------- MIT scientists promote FDA agenda to regulate herbs Two scientists at MIT, Shiladitya Sengupta and Ram Sasisekharan, have discovered that there are chemical constituents of ginseng that have opposing effects on blood vessel growth. One isolated constituent promoted blood vessel growth, which is beneficial wound healing, but which they suggest may be problematic in cases of cancer. Another isolated constituent inhibited blood vessel growth - an antiangiogenesis factor that might be useful in cases of cancer. Moreover, the relative ratios of these two constituents varied, depending upon the preparation methods used to process the ginseng before sale. They admit that the problem is more complex, as the action of each of these compounds may be modulated by the presence of sugar groups attached as side chains to these molecules, and the specific modulatory effect depends upon the location of attachment. Based on these discoveries, the two MIT researchers have concluded that the FDA should regulate ginseng as a drug, because many herb businesses are selling ginseng to the public with various health claims. Moreover, they have developed what they claim is a rigorous method for standardizing herbal supplements and intend to convince the FDA to mandate their process as a means of quality control in the manufacturing of herbal supplements. Commentary: While Sengupta and Sasisekharan should be congratulated for their discoveries regarding ginseng, their conclusion that ginseng should be regulated by the FDA requires a gigantic leap of logic that goes far beyond considerations of biochemistry. Traditional Chinese herbalists have long recognized that ginseng is indicated in a wide range of debilitated conditions, as long a specific criteria are met - a significant number of the following symptoms must be present: fatigue; dehydration; weak pulse; pale complexion and tongue; withdrawn, quiet behavior; poor resistance to infections; low stamina and stress tolerance. Moreover, ginseng is specifically contraindicated in such conditions as high blood pressure, irritability and agitation, and abdominal bloating. Ginseng is classified as an adaptogenic herb by most herbalists. Adaptogens typically have complex chemical constituents with multiple effects, many of them regulatory in nature or of a dual nature. The effects on blood vessel growth that Sengupta and Sasikharan have discovered is typical of such a dual effect. Adaptogens may often manifest paradoxical effects in different individuals - for example, lowering blood sugar in individuals with high levels, but increasing levels if they are too low. Attachment of sugar side chains to complex biomolecules is a common means for the body to alter their cell wall permeability. A chemical without such a side chain may not be able to penetrate the cell wall, but with the sugar group attached, it may pass through easily. Without the ability to penetrate cell walls, many chemicals will show much reduced physiologic activity. The human body is capable to a great degree of accepting, rejecting, or altering the chemical constituents of foods and herbs for its own needs. Alteration, breakdown, and reconstitution of ingested molecules are routine aspects of digestive and cellular metabolism. To suggest that merely because the effects of ginseng are variable with respect to blood vessel growth, it must be regulated by the FDA is a non sequitur unworthy of scientists supposedly guided by logic and reason. Let's examine this chain of logic to see where it leads. According to an article in Biochemistry (Moscow), " The dietary constituents selenium, N-acetylcysteine, vitamin D3, curcumin, flavonoids, and several fatty acids (i.e., eicosapentaenoic acid) have all been shown to inhibit angiogenesis in vitro and/or in vivo. " These constituents are found in a wide range of common foods - vegetables, spices (turmeric), fish oils, flax seed, etc. Copper, arginine, and glycine are pro-angiogenic dietary constituents and play an important role in normal tissue repair. Simply because something has an anti-angiogenic effect does not mean that it will be healthy - thalidomide is a potent anti-angiogenic drug, and it had truly horrible effects on developing fetuses. The body requires angiogenic factors to promote normal tissue growth and repair, yet anti-angiogenic factors are also beneficial in the diet to keep this necessary process under control. For almost every biochemical process in the body, there are complementary or opposing processes that regulate it and keep it in balance. In summary, the mere fact that two MIT scientists have discovered both anti-angiogenesism and pro-angiogenesis factors in ginseng is no earth-shattering discovery. Such compounds have been found in a wide variety of foods. This should not be surprising; foods are foods because they contain the fuel and building blocks of life. If ginseng is such a danger to the public that it needs to be regulated, then fish, wine, vegetables, flax seed, liver, and shellfish are equally dangerous. Must we have corrupt FDA officials invade our food shops and kitchens too? The FDA has a hypocritical double standard with respect to safety. Deaths from prescription medications barely merit an eye blink in the media, even though non-error, adverse effects of medications are the fourth leading cause of death (106,000 deaths/year). Yet a single death or negative effect from an herbal product often results in shrill demands by the FDA for increased regulation. In summary, I suggest that researchers Sengupta and Sasisekharan stick to herbal research and refrain from comments on herbal politics and regulation until they have properly informed themselves on how the American system of drug and food regulation really works. For starters, how about reading the following? http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html Orwellian schemes for maximizing health-care industry profits - How these endanger the practice of herbal medicine Note especially the section in the preceding article on the various types of official mischief that can result from mandatory biochemical standardization of herbal products, in contrast to voluntary certification, which may help to increase herbal product quality: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html#t-bioc Promote adoption of regulatory standardization of biochemical profiles for herbal products. Sengupta and Sasisekharan may hope to patent their method, and their profits may be huge if the FDA mandates their scheme to regulate herbal products. The public should be aware of the biases in scientific research arising from such obvious self-interest. Now that herbal products have become a multi-billion dollar industry, corporate sharks and their corrupt FDA cronies are being assisted by scientists hoping to share some of the profits, at the expense of the public's freedom of choice. ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > Rory Kerr <rorykerr >Re: Herbs contraindicated with Coumadin > >At 4:48 PM +0000 1/14/05, Bob Flaws wrote: >>There are a number of competitors in the health care marketplace who >>want to put the kibbosh on alternative medicine. These people have the >>ear of governmental regulators. There are also a lot of nervous >>Nellies out there, within and without our profession. Our competitors >>are using this issue to press for more control over our products and >>practices, and I think it is extremely important that we not buy into >>all of this. >-- >Bob, > >It seems to me that David Eisenberg is one of these people. He >appears to be working hard to subsume our practices into a medical >monopoly. Having important Chinese medicinals made unavailable to us, >our practices lose their flexibility and power, and therefore become >more marginal. The more marginal we are, the more we are separated >from our resources, the more the case can be made that our products >and practices can be cherry picked and used outside a Chinese medical >context. > >You are right that this is a dangerous trend that appears to be >gathering pace, and that we need to respond to it forcefully. > >Rory >-- ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 WHOA, " Sengupta and Sasisekharan should be congratulated for their discoveries regarding ginseng " IMHO, they should be tarred and feathered. So these guys do something like taking two common weeds (herbs) that have a long history of safe use and a nice reputation for treating common ailments. They then isolate one ingredient (wrongfully so in one case) and standardize them into a neat package able form. Actually creating a drug. People then die or suffer terribly. Instead of blaming the idiots that created these drugs they blame the common weeds !!! [Ma Huang and St John's Wort]. Now " they " want to do the same thing to Ginseng. Guess what. Isolated standardized extract will produce serious side affects and do very little to help people. Where are the herbalist watching out for the public safety ? (present company excepted, of course) But it is not just limited to these two 's. Where's our outrage over the promoting and distribution of all those little bottles of Ginsengs and Raw Honey sold at gas stations across the U.S. Yeah, just fill up the tank, pick up a six-pack, big bottle of all natural Red Bull and a box of red ginseng as I head down the road... Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist Santa Cruz, CA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 People within our profession are afraid to stand up and speak their mind to the public, this forum excepted. Our voice should be dissention to this type of poor science and we should be seeking to make it known thru the media (newspapers, journals, etc). I learned long ago that one cannot make an educated assumption from only one study when there are multiple variables and theories at play. This is pseudo science at its best and the public believes that it must be true as no one is protesting it. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Ed Kasper LAc " <eddy > > > RE: medical control of herbs >Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:24:54 -0800 > >WHOA, " Sengupta and Sasisekharan should be congratulated for their >discoveries regarding ginseng " IMHO, they should be tarred and feathered. > >So these guys do something like taking two common weeds (herbs) that have a >long history of safe use and a nice reputation for treating common >ailments. >They then isolate one ingredient (wrongfully so in one case) and >standardize >them into a neat package able form. Actually creating a drug. People then >die or suffer terribly. Instead of blaming the idiots that created these >drugs they blame the common weeds !!! [Ma Huang and St John's Wort]. Now > " they " want to do the same thing to Ginseng. Guess what. Isolated >standardized extract will produce serious side affects and do very little >to >help people. > > >Where are the herbalist watching out for the public safety ? >(present company excepted, of course) >But it is not just limited to these two 's. Where's our outrage over >the promoting and distribution of all those little bottles of Ginsengs and >Raw Honey sold at gas stations across the U.S. Yeah, just fill up the tank, >pick up a six-pack, big bottle of all natural Red Bull and a box of red >ginseng as I head down the road... > >Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist Santa Cruz, CA. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Ed, I agree with you. But I prepared the article for mass distribution, including rebuttal in Technology Review, where understated and backhanded critique is considered a harsher form of punishment. If you read my full comments: " While Sengupta and Sasisekharan should be congratulated for their discoveries regarding ginseng, their conclusion that ginseng should be regulated by the FDA requires a gigantic leap of logic that goes far beyond considerations of biochemistry... The mere fact that two MIT scientists have discovered both anti-angiogenesis and pro-angiogenesis factors in ginseng is no earth-shattering discovery. Such compounds have been found in a wide variety of foods... I suggest that researchers Sengupta and Sasisekharan stick to herbal research and refrain from comments on herbal politics and regulation until they have properly informed themselves on how the American system of drug and food regulation really works. " I graduated from MIT many years ago, and the worst insult you can give to these types is to call their discoveries trivial. In this case, that is really what it amounts to. On the other hand, threaten to " tar and feather " , and they will only dismiss it as the ravings of us s out in the hinterland. Roger > " Ed Kasper LAc " <eddy >RE: medical control of herbs > >WHOA, " Sengupta and Sasisekharan should be congratulated for their >discoveries regarding ginseng " IMHO, they should be tarred and feathered. > >So these guys do something like taking two common weeds (herbs) that have a >long history of safe use and a nice reputation for treating common ailments. >They then isolate one ingredient (wrongfully so in one case) and standardize >them into a neat package able form. Actually creating a drug. People then >die or suffer terribly. Instead of blaming the idiots that created these >drugs they blame the common weeds !!! [Ma Huang and St John's Wort]. Now > " they " want to do the same thing to Ginseng. Guess what. Isolated >standardized extract will produce serious side affects and do very little to >help people. > > >Where are the herbalist watching out for the public safety ? >(present company excepted, of course) >But it is not just limited to these two 's. Where's our outrage over >the promoting and distribution of all those little bottles of Ginsengs and >Raw Honey sold at gas stations across the U.S. Yeah, just fill up the tank, >pick up a six-pack, big bottle of all natural Red Bull and a box of red >ginseng as I head down the road... > >Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist Santa Cruz, CA. > > ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Dear Roger Wick, I wanted to apologize for any inference that may have been connected with you and my " tar and feather " statement I made earlier. (I've just had a computer glitch and lost the email with the specific post.) I appreciate all your efforts and good works. sincerely, Ed Kasper LAc. Licensed Acupuncturist & Herbalist Santa Cruz, CA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.