Continued from page 1
Clinical experience and research studies have shown that herbs work better in groups (formulas) than alone. Just as certain drug combinations have positive or negative effects, certain combinations of herbs have special additive functions or may need to be avoided.
The first systematic herbal text was written in 200AD,
Shang Han Lun (Cold Damage Classic). For at least 1800 years, chinese herbs have been prescribed primarily in formulas - groups of 4-12 herbs.
New research on chinese herbs should verify, refine, and build on last 1800 years. The idea to research single herbs comes from pharmaceutical drug paradigm, not tradition to which chinese herbs belong. It makes sense that since most American researchers are biomedical that they would use a biomedical approach... but it's still wrong.
4. American researchers tend to ignore or discount research done outside U.S. I wasn't able to find anything to back this up, so I'll just say that it seems as if American researchers don't acknowledge research from other countries. Or perhaps they simply are more skeptical of it? In any case, I notice that many of topics I investigate (alternative and complementary treatments) are studied in Europe, but not in U.S. I admit I don't have all info on general level of quality of studies from different countries, or how much and why American researchers disregard such studies.
5. Researchers' own biases affect their conclusions. No study is perfect. Researchers can easily find a reasons to be skeptical about any study that opposes their own beliefs. This is backed up by a meta-study I found… psychology researchers found that those who reviewed studies were more likely to criticize its methodology if its conclusions disagreed with their bias, and more likely to approve of its methodology if its conclusions agreed with their bias.
There is no such thing as a perfect study. Good research tries to keep problems affecting results and interpretation at a minimum, but imperfections are unavoidable. That means that if someone doesn't like results of your study, they can find a reason to discredit study.
This reminds me of joke: "97% of all statistics are false." This implies, of course, that it could itself be false. Statistics, like anything else, can be deceiving. Inaccuracies of commission or omission (conscious or unconscious) can "spin" truth toward reader's bias.
Traditional Chinese Medicine (Herbs and Acupuncture) for Menopause The review of RCT's on herbs for menopause shows that many herbs still need to be investigated. However, RCT's are not only reliable proof that medicines are effective and safe.
At least 1000 years of tradition indicate that chinese herbal medicine helps balance women in menopause. Acupuncture has been used for somewhere between 2,000-30,000 years.
Acupuncture and herbs for menopause help alleviate many symptoms; most commonly responsive are hot flashes, depression, and vaginal dryness. Salivary hormone tests in clinical settings often show changes in testosterone and progesterone.
Another interesting point about November 2002 study is that neither black cohosh nor dang gui are used alone in chinese herbal remedies for menopause. Black Cohosh can cause headaches and dizziness, but might be safely used in an herbal formula for menopause. Dang gui is similar- it is a warming herb, so by itself it could even increase heat in hot flashes!
The moral of story: See a chinese medical practitioner and use formulas, not single herbs.
Acupuncturist, herbalist, and medical professor Brian B. Carter founded the alternative health megasite The Pulse of Oriental Medicine (http://www.PulseMed.org/). He is the author of the book "Powerful Body, Peaceful Mind: How to Heal Yourself with Foods, Herbs, and Acupressure" (November, 2004). Brian speaks on radio across the country, and has been quoted and interviewed by Real Simple, Glamour, and ESPN magazines.
