There is a long history of using herbs or medicinal plants to cure illness. For instance, herbal therapy has a more than 2000-year recorded history in traditional Chinese medicine, and herbalists in the West have utilized "weeds" to cure human ailments for just as long. Garlic, chamomile, peppermint, lavender, and other common herbs are known for their health benefits.
The pharmaceutical industry, which is always hunting for "new pharmaceuticals" and more effective chemicals to treat ailments for which there may be no or very few treatments available, is the main source of the resurging interest in medicinal plants.
Why are we not generally encouraged to use traditional herbal medicine instead of synthetic, incomplete copies of herbs, called drugs, considering the millions of dollars being spent looking for these supposedly elusive substances, given the extremely long traditional use of herbal medicines and the substantial body of evidence of their effectiveness?
Ancient societies and herbalists regarded herbs as jewels, and many so-called weeds are worth their weight in gold. Several plants, including dandelion, comfrey, digitalis (foxglove), poppies, milk thistles, stinging nettles, and others, have proven medical properties that have little to no competition in the pharmaceutical sector. In actuality, many of them serve as the foundation for pharmaceutical medications.
Scientists are actively researching the medical benefits of plants like the common dandelion because they think it might be the source of a life-saving medicine for cancer patients.
Early research indicates that it could be the solution to preventing cancer, which claims the lives of tens of thousands of people annually.
Their investigation into the dandelion's anti-cancer properties—which have also historically been used to cure warts—is a small element of a much wider study to look into the herbal remedies found in a variety of British plants and flowers.
We are not randomly screening plants for their potential therapeutic capabilities; rather, we are looking at species that we are aware have a long history of being used to treat certain medical issues, according to Professor Monique Simmonds, leader of the Sustainable Uses of Plants Group at Kew.
"We will examine them to see what active ingredients they have that can treat the disease."
However, as is so frequently the case, it looks that this team of researchers is searching for active components that may subsequently be manufactured and turned into pharmaceuticals. Herbs are not typically utilized in this manner, and when the active components are taken alone, their roles eventually alter. That's like arguing that the engine is the sole component of an automobile that has to be there.
Why is it necessary to isolate the "active components" then?
As a scientist, I can see the necessity for the scientific method in proving that a certain herb works against a specific illness, infection, or whatever, as well as the need to understand why and how it does so. But, and this is a BIG but, I also understand the process of selecting and prescribing COMBINATIONS of herbs, which have a synergistic effect to treat not only the disease, but any underlying condition as well as the person with the disease. That is a big difference and not one that is easily tested using standard scientific methodologies.
My distinguished colleagues appear to completely overlook the value of using anecdotal evidence, which has a long history dating back thousands of years. Why not test these herbs on patients in vivo, using the expertise of professional herbalists, and using the variety of technology available to researchers and medical diagnosticians, rather than trying to isolate the active ingredient(s), to see how and why these herbs work in living, breathing patients, as opposed to in a test tube or on laboratory rats and mice (which, by the way, are not humans and have a different, though somewhat similar, physiology to us).
I assume that one of the reasons why the aforementioned approach is not being followed is because pharmaceutical corporations are more interested in isolating a therapeutic ingredient that can then be made inexpensively and marketed as a new medicine – and of course, that's where the money is.
The issue with this strategy is that many of the chemical compounds that interact inside medicinal plants like comfrey, dandelion, and other herbs typically comprise hundreds or even thousands of them, many of which are still poorly understood and cannot be synthesized. Because of this, manufactured medications based on purportedly active components frequently fail to work or have unwanted side effects.
The classic example is aspirin. The active component of aspirin pills, salicylic acid, was initially extracted from the White Willow tree's bark. Although aspirin is a very easy substance to synthesize, it is infamous for its potential to irritate the stomach and, in rare occasions, lead to stomach ulcers.
Due to additional, so-called "non-active components" that serve to preserve the stomach lining and prevent ulceration of the stomach wall, the herbal extract from the White Willow tree's bark often does not irritate the stomach.
Which option would you prefer: side effects or no site effects? – There is a pretty easy solution. Is it not?
Why then do we have pharmaceutical impostors shoved down our throats and why are natural treatments not utilized more frequently? The pharmaceutical industry doesn't make much money, if any, from herbs, is the explanation. The herbs have already been created; they grow quickly, reproduce rapidly, and are generally freely accessible.
Also, properly recommended and produced herbal compounds typically treat the patient's health issue over time, necessitating no further use of the preparation, which implies no need for repeat sales. no continuing problems or medicines.
Which do you believe is a more lucrative prospect, as pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, primarily try to treat symptoms? This implies continual consultations, continued sales, and ongoing health issues.
Don't misunderstand me; this is not to suggest that all medications are fakes or that none of the pharmaceutical pharmaceuticals treat illnesses; some do; some are preparations that save life, and they are unquestionably priceless. Herbal extracts, however, have a similar potential for effectiveness but are both underutilized and not often marketed..
The daily news is rife with "discoveries" of plants that may be used to treat various ailments, such as the potential anti-cancer qualities of dandelion. The key is that these plants need to be properly explored. They go beyond being merely "an active element." The majority of them contain hundreds of components, and using one or two of them alone is not what makes medicinal herbs effective. Moreover, herbalists seldom recommend single herbal preparations (a preparation which utilizes only one herb). Often, herbalists blend a number of therapeutic herbs to create a concoction that treats more than just the main symptoms.
medicine, for instance, there is a rigorous hierarchy to every herbal prescription, necessitating a doctor's extensive depth of training and expertise. The presence of active substances in the primary or fundamental herb, which has a particular physiological impact, does not negate the need for the other herbs in the combination. In its quest to create new treatments that can manage disease, the pharmaceutical industry appears to be oblivious to this truth.
Why is herbal medicine still not at the forefront of medical treatments and is viewed by many orthodox medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies as hocus-pocus when we know that medicinal plants are so effective, that these plants may hold the key to many diseases, are cheap, and have proven their worth time and time again over millennia?
.jpg)
.png)
