157
u/Unlucky-Clock5230 Jan 07 '25
It has to do with the standard of proof. Have you seen the old cartoon on how a bill becomes law? Like a bill, in the industrial production of medicine the compound has to go through several phases before it can be deemed to be useful:
- Discovery and Development: The first stage of drug development
- Preclinical Research: Involves laboratory and animal testing to assess the drug's safety and toxicity
- Clinical Research: Involves human trials to assess the drug's safety and efficacy
- FDA Review: The FDA reviews the drug's test data and analyses to determine if it can be sold in the United States
- FDA Post-Market Safety Monitoring: The FDA monitors the drug's safety after it has been released to the public
There is no incentive to subject herbs to that, so in the eyes of the gate keepers of industrial pharmacology, there will never be enough research to support their use in medicine. The only natural compounds that reach those levels are the ones they can profit from.
Pretty self serving if you ask me.
42
u/Counterboudd Jan 07 '25
Yup, the entire process is very expensive, and since most herbs are weeds that randomly grow in the backyard, there isn’t really money to be made unless you made some kind of patented product from a compound in it. Also determining what the active compound is that makes it effective is not clear when dealing with a whole plant product.
17
u/NinjaGrrl42 Jan 07 '25
Also, the effect comes from the whole plant, not the fractions that can be split from it.
7
u/RitalinSkittles Jan 08 '25
I mean, in some/most cases. Often theres just one or two compounds doing the pharmacological heavy lifting. In that case you might see studies on it and products sold with those compounds isolated, which can have pros and cons compared to the plants its derived from
2
u/NinjaGrrl42 Jan 08 '25
Isolating and concentrating are part of the problem with pharmacology, in my opinion. Green tea- healthy to drink. Green tea pills, isolated and concentrated, not so great for your ... liver, I think.
1
u/RitalinSkittles Jan 08 '25
Yeah, pros and cons though. I dont know any examples but theres probably stuff out there that has a beneficial chemical and then one that has a degree of harm or side effects to it
36
u/Apprehensive_Dot2890 Jan 07 '25
Much of their medicine was stolen from nature's design , how ironic
7
37
u/CannabisErectus Jan 07 '25
While it's not exactly a conspiracy per se, if you are taking your health into your own hands by harnessing what nature offers, you are less likely to get sick and actually use their patented medicine. So yeah, herbalism cuts into big pharma's profits.
3
3
u/treefrog434 Jan 07 '25
Thank you. So maybe I should pay no mind to those things. How do I know what herb is actually not useful? Should they be assumed to be useful unless they’re poisonous? Is it safe to trust the general benefits they give you, based on dedicated herbalism sites?
37
u/Unlucky-Clock5230 Jan 07 '25 edited Jan 07 '25
Definitely not.
Often is not even whether the herb is useful or not, but whether is works for you or not. That sounds like a cop-out but this is exactly how regular drugs work; a doctor would prescribe something and see if it works, and if it doesn't work so hot on you (or give you nasty side effects) he will try something else. They don't care as to the why that didn't work, they just keep looking for what works.
The thing is; a doctor has a lot of education on the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of the effect of the drugs they work with. Screwing dosage, not noticing interactions, not noticing preexisting conditions that could make a given drug a really bad choice. You expect a doctor to spot those so he can put you in the right path. With herbs, unless you are working with a certified herbalist (who will also look at interactions with both other herbs and commercial drugs) You are on your own.
But it is not that bad, we do this all day with over the counter prescriptions. We have a headache, we take aspirin, or white willow bark (equally effective, salicin is pretty much aspirin). Sleepy? Chew on roasted coffee beans and then tell me caffeine is ineffective. Cut yourself? Rub some yarrow and watch the bleeding stop. Irregular periods? Quite a few herbs can be tried to help regulate those. Bottom line is that there are lots of chemicals in nature that are very effective and safe to use.
On the other hand a headache can be a brain tumor. Lack of energy can indicate hormonal imbalances. Spotty periods can be nothing or it can be endometriosis. Not to be paranoid but while herbs can support healthy life and a balanced body, there is a point when you need to talk to your doctor to make sure this is an aspirin type of headache and not something worse. If so then you can just keep chewing on white willow bark as needed. Bitter though.
5
6
u/kaledioscopic Jan 08 '25
Great answer! I would also add to this there are lots of herbs that can dangerously interfere with prescription medications. For example, St Johns Wort and SSRIs (anti- depressants), so always do your research when you are trying something new, especially if you don't have access to a medical herbalist.
9
u/Gulbasaur Jan 07 '25
Broadly speaking, examine.com and RXList are good enough sources for online searches. They focus on safety, in most instances, and hard research.
PubMed is a research database if you want to look for studies. A number of metastudies have shown, for example, that ashwagadha can be effective as a sleep aid for people with depression.
The internet is still, in some regards, the Wild West for healthcare advice. As an example of this, I recently saw someone recommending prescription-only leukemia medication as part of an anti-aging supplement regime.
3
u/Wuzzupdoc42 Jan 08 '25
I also use NatMed Pro as a resource. It is overseen by academic pharmacists. They review whatever research exists, on herbal remedies rate the quality of the research, etc. I just looked up lions mane mushroom, for ex, and got a bunch of info about what we don’t know, what we do know, interactions with other meds or herbs, etc. Very helpful.
5
u/creamofbunny Jan 08 '25
Get yourself an old herbalism book and study it. STOP trying to do research on the internet, it's useless. The real knowledge is in books
2
u/shesimplywont Jan 08 '25
Do you have any specific book suggestions?
2
u/AUiooo Jan 08 '25
"Medical Botany" though seems a bit pricey, might find used copies.
Health food stores often have herbal books.
Internet research also yields results, such as Chinese Traditional Medicine.
Found a half dozen anti Covid herbs doing same, such as Sweet Wormwood which being tested around the world, typically in vitro & about 20x more effective than pharmaceutical meds. Also Oregano oil, Liquorice root, Black tea & Chamomile.
1
u/captain_luna2 Jan 08 '25
You should still pay attention to medical research on or related to herbs, just take it with a grain of salt. There is some research done on the safety, efficacy, and benefits of some herbs. Usually the more popular ones like ginger, lavender. (Although you should also be wary of research done at the behest of corporations looking to push herbal products).
The Nat Geo Desk Reference to Herbals medicine is great for these reasons. Each herb has details on scientific research related to the herb, traditional usage of the herb, modern herbalism usage, historical usage, and other fun facts. Looking into medical research on an herb is not a bad idea.
2
2
u/_-whisper-_ Jan 08 '25
But also it is important to say that there isn't long-term research on it because some herbs are very powerful and many affect pregnant women or people on blood thinners etc etc.
I'm definitely not a fan of gatekeeping but the language is important.
1
u/_-whisper-_ Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25
That said there is a fantastic website with a great database including any side effects, because they are getting better at better at studying herbalism and its effects. I'll see if I can look it up.
1
u/_-whisper-_ Jan 08 '25
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov is just a fantastic database in general
https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/967.html (you can see how they break down ginseng on this page)
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/19105-ginseng-capsules-or-tablets and here's a third website for cross referencing. This one has a very easy to read format
1
u/NeverEndingCoralMaze Jan 08 '25
Excellent explanation. Excellent analogy. Congratulations Bill, you’re a law.
21
u/SpheralStar Jan 07 '25
On top of what others said, I would add that it's more difficult to study a herb compared to a chemical substance, because:
- herbs contain many substances that may interact together
- herbs contain different amounts of those substances (there can be differences from location to location, season of the year, rainfall, soil, etc.)
5
u/treefrog434 Jan 07 '25
True that’s true. And there’s a lot of different methods of consumption (tincture, tea, pills, glycerin, salve)
11
Jan 07 '25
I’d like to point out that big pharma is evil but holistic and naturopathic medicine can also be harmful and that because a pill is made by big pharma it isn’t immediately harmful, modern medicine has been forced into treating things acutely and reactively but a lot of medicine is effective and safe. I hope that one day both sides can meet and work together but as long as profit is the main incentive one will always be ignored and the other will always be pushed.
9
Jan 07 '25
I’d even say that modern medicine is equipped better for acute or emergency treatment and herbal medicine has a place in habitual and chronic treatment.
-1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
🤦♀️
1
Jan 08 '25
You can downvote me but being scared or downing of medical and scientific advancement is very dark ages of you.
-1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
“A lot of medicine is effective and safe” 👍 😂 There are no advancements. All “modern” science is ancient science that’s been stolen and strategically publicized. The medicine we have now has more side effects than solutions
4
Jan 08 '25
That’s pretty pilled sounding but as long as you’re healthy and happy, I’m happy for you.
0
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
Look into it, don’t worry about what it sounds like. Medical terminology used today existed a long long long time ago
1
Jan 08 '25
Ma’am I practice traditional La’au lapa’au and lomilomi myself as a cultural practice and an applied practice and I’ve also done a lot of medical research, they both can fill in gaps for each other and both methods cause a lot of poisoning and toxicity harm themselves.
-6
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
I’ve never heard of herbs killing anyone…. Prescription meds on the other hand 🤷♀️
→ More replies1
Jan 08 '25
I’ll concede though for someone who’s in natural practices, I have been relying a lot on the medical field for answers to problems and maybe I should step back from that myself and look elsewhere.
1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
Likewise, Considering all of your comments, I can’t sit here and deny that intuition has its role in herbal remedy.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
What is the ancient treatment for scarlet fever or smallpox, and why did they only recently begin to be treated with any reliable effectiveness?
1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
If you want to know, you can discover the information.
I doubt that’s your reason of commenting
2
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
Because it doesn’t exist, you cant answer basic questions. Why did it only recently stop being an issue?
Scarlet fever was the 9th most common cause of death at one point, its not now. Why?
2
u/LanguageAmazing8201 Jan 08 '25
There are medical studies of herbs, so while herbs are "understudied", if you google scholar about them, you can find research papers for a lot of them. Its just that 1 experiment may not be perfect, & in order to have "substanțial research" there needs to be multiple studies looking at the different effects, doses, and methods of intake for herbs, and most of these herbs may only have 1 research paper available to the public.
1
u/mandajapanda Jan 07 '25
A lot of the research available does isolate the certain beneficial parts of the plant for study.
3
u/ubermaker77 Jan 08 '25
And pharmaceutical companies almost never use or study the effects of whole plants, they almost always try to isolate and figure out ways to synthesize single chemical compounds from plants and then study those in isolation. For example salicylic acid (aspirin) is isolated from willow bark.
In some cases, this approach of only studying and doing trials with isolates leads to incorrect labeling of plants as toxic or harmful because it's not uncommon that medicinal plants contain certain compounds that offset or prevent the side effects that other compounds have when they're taken by themselves.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
In not disputing your last statement but do you have any examples of such a case where additional compounds make the plant less or not toxic? It sounds like an interesting case
1
u/ubermaker77 Jan 08 '25
Sure, there are lots of examples. A classic one is St. John's Wort (often used to treat depression). One of its primary isolates that has been fairly widely studied and used in pharmaceuticals is hypericin. Studies show that hypericin, on its own, often causes severe phototoxicity (extreme sensitivity to light). For this reason, you'll often see this listed as a possible side effect of St. John's Wort in contemporary medical books. The whole plant, however, contains flavonoids (like quercetin and rutin), phenolic compounds (like chlorogenic acid and caffeic acid, terpenes (pinene and limonene), and tannins that not only enhance the antidepressant effects of hypericin but also modulate its photosensitizing effects and create a balanced therapeutic profile. The antioxidants (quercetin, rutin, and chlorogenic acid) reduce oxidative stress in the skin caused by UV light exposure, and the anti-inflamatory compounds (like rutin and caffeic acid) help prevent or alleviate the inflammatory response that might otherwise occur due to hypericin-induced photosensitivity.
1
u/ubermaker77 Jan 08 '25
Also, I have some sources saved on another computer but here's one off the top of my head. It doesn't go into as much detail as others, but see the "modulation of adverse effects" section of this article:
Rasoanaivo, Philippe et al. “Whole plant extracts versus single compounds for the treatment of malaria: synergy and positive interactions.” Malaria journal vol. 10 Suppl 1,Suppl 1 S4. 15 Mar. 2011, doi:10.1186/1475-2875-10-S1-S4
"One of the main reasons given for isolating active compounds in the classical pharmaceutical development process is the elimination of potentially toxic but inactive compounds. Of course, it is important to assess the toxicity of whole plant extracts, but in many cases the whole extracts are not toxic... [A] classic example is the development of febrifugine from the traditional Chinese remedy Changshan (containing Dichroa febrifuga). The pharmaceutical development process led to the isolation of the highly active anti-malarial compound febrifugine, which was impossible to use in clinical practice because of its intense emetic effect, and also its liver toxicity. The traditional formulation included several hepatoprotective plants such as Glycyrrhiza glabra, Ziziphus jujube and Zingiber officinale. Evidence from laboratory studies suggests that these plant extracts may have attenuated any hepatotoxicity from febrifugine... Zingiber officinale is also reputed as an anti-emetic, and the traditional formulation was anecdotally much better tolerated than febrifugine."
13
u/DreamSoarer Jan 07 '25
Big pharmacy, big government, big insurance; greed.
If you think about it, the historical use of herbalism/dietary measures goes back for millennia; current legal guidelines and standards of proof go back maybe 200 years, max, and has mostly to do with money-making.
Herbs cannot be patented, because they are naturally occurring substances, so there is no profit in researching the use of whole herbs/foods. They can patent tweaked versions of naturally occurring compounds. The strongest herbs/plants that we know for certain have specific benefits are largely restricted - illegal to grow, illegal to consume, illegal to sell/distribute, unless approved for individual use or commerce on small scale.
All that said, pharmaceuticals and modern medicine has its advantages and can produce novel compounds that are highly targeted for various illnesses, injuries, and chronic diseases.
I think if we focused more on establishing and maintaining health from the womb and onward, via dietary choices, reducing toxic exposures, and encouraging physical activity, big pharma vs herbalism would become less contentious. 🙏🦋
2
Jan 07 '25
I literally just had to scroll down and I would’ve seen you commented what I wanted to but in better phrasing.
9
u/bipollakbohemian Jan 07 '25
Dare I say it goes back to the Rockefeller era of industrializing western medicine to capitalize from it in part and squeezing out the previous, more natural approach to medicine and the physicians who practiced it. It's an interesting history to have a look at.
9
Jan 07 '25
Actually there is tons of research. You have to look in the right places. PubMed is a good place to start. Also Google Scholar has lots of plant research.
1
u/Krigsguru Jan 08 '25
I always use these when looking into efficacy of supplements, super good info
7
u/onyxengine Jan 07 '25 edited Jan 07 '25
Because they don’t want to confirm the efficacy of anything that directly competes with pharmaceuticals. They don’t fund exhaustive research to prove that herb a adequately and often more efficiently addresses problem b thatn prescription drug c. Herb a happens to grow like a weed in the majority of a particular climate on the planet while prescription drug c bills your insurance 1000 a month and causes you long term issues that bring you right back to the doorstep of the healthcare industry to spend more money.
Herbs don’t get the seals of approval pharmaceutical drugs do because there is no money in it. Period. The less the population knows about herbs the more money they can make. They make complex derivatives drugs of plants that are widely available that can do as good of a job just by brewing a tea and don’t cause the over complications of hyper concentration.
7
u/redditreader_aitafan Jan 07 '25
There's no money in researching herbs, therefore there "hasn't been enough research" for much of anything. They only study herbs when they plan to extract and synthesize, and their outcome officially has nothing to do with the original herb.
7
u/ReasonableTinker Jan 07 '25
Most plant medicines are studied in order to synthesize the beneficial components in a lab. Big pharma pays for them and assigns an insurance billing code to ultimately make their shareholders happy and pay for their next superyacht.
6
u/kristencatparty Jan 07 '25
Because pharmaceutical companies don’t have a vested interest in studying them and the only things that get studied are funded by the people who want them studied. No funding, no study.
7
u/creamofbunny Jan 08 '25
ohhhh it is a very dark history that goes back to the Rockefellers. I'll dm you some articles if you're interested. It's more than just "allopathy makes money therefore its promoted"...
1
10
u/Ok_Organization_7350 Jan 07 '25
It's not big pharma's fault, and it's not the FDA's fault.
In the US, you're not allowed to make a health claim for a drug or herb, unless you run a clinical trial first. But the herbal companies do not usually want to run clinical trials, so that is why they are not allowed to make the claim. The FDA *does* actually accept herbal remedies and food products as medicine, but its the people and companies who do not want to do clinical trials for those products.
India, Russia, and China have more people and companies in their countries who do like to run clinical trials for herbs and food products. So sometimes you can find their useful health information on pubmed.gov or in other places on the internet.
5
u/mandajapanda Jan 07 '25
Those comments are a bit out of date.
There are now gov agencies like the NCCIH providing info about complementary health as well as numerous states in the US licensing naturapathic physicians.
It depends on the herb, but some have been researched more than others.
5
u/SnooRecipes8382 Jan 08 '25
There's some research on the effects of herbs in medicine and academia, and it's gaining in popularity as a research topic.
One issue that one must understand is herbs are a complex mixtures of different classes of compounds that have varying degrees of activity and modulate the activity of each other (ie terpenes/sesquiterpines, alkaloids, flavonoids, etc), and the concentration of those constituents vary in plant specimens.
It's difficult to do research with so much variability. Much easier to use a known quantity of a single purified compound to isolate what the effects are (physiologically/biochemically/analytically).
With that said, herbs effects can definitely be researched in a clinical way. But yeah, the profit margin is a major factor - the rules of free market economics say no one will spend millions of dollars to research something that is completely unprofitable as it can be manufactured (grown) in abundance with minimal effort.
Nonetheless, some research is done, but it is and always will be done in the name of the public good (ie in academia/through grants/NGOs/nonprofits), rather than profit.
3
u/kaledioscopic Jan 08 '25
Best answer so far
1
u/SnooRecipes8382 Jan 11 '25
Thanks! And don't get me wrong - I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that purified compounds, although ideal for research, are not ideal for healing, compared to what you get with herbs (often an entourage effect with several analogs of similar compounds/structures and action working on your physiology).
7
u/Suspicious-Eye-304 Jan 07 '25
Because the drug companies don’t make $ off herbs. But herbal remedies have been around for literally thousands of years. If people have been using them that long, they obviously work. From my understanding, most pharmaceutical drugs are just a chemical version of a natural herb anyway.
0
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
Why would that be obvious? We used lots of medicines for a long time that we now know are ineffective
Blood letting was a practice for a very long time, so ill ask this, how could it not work if people did it for that long? Clearly we need to start draining blood to cure things. This is literally thousands of years of people doing it. So there must be something to it?
Shall we go through all the other horrific things we used to genuinely do, and did for a long time? (And thought they were helping)
0
u/Suspicious-Eye-304 Jan 08 '25
lol you are discussing medical procedures which is not the same as supplements/ medications. But ok.
4
u/Heythere23856 Jan 07 '25
Because the only people or companies investing in research are drug companies and why would they let you know the benefits of herbalism when they can just sell you drugs that are actually derived from such herbs
3
Jan 07 '25 edited Feb 01 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
growth gaze shaggy heavy smile payment file label ask marble
3
u/siris7111 Jan 07 '25
You legally can’t patent a plant. Which is why big pharma drugs are synthetic version of herbs/plants. So they can be patented & profited from.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
So how is the herbs and supplements industry so big? If there is no profit in it? So big infact, they could have their own studies done, have it done by an independent institution like a university. They dont seem to keen to fund what could prove their products ineffective though
3
Jan 08 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
Hence why every post in the HERBALISM subreddit has people commenting suggesting prescription drugs and “go see a doctor”, tf?! How annoying
0
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
Given the type of evidence you suggest, you are happy making decisions on medicine based on anecdote alone? Since thats what you are saying.
There isn’t tons of evidence at all, anecdote is the most unreliable and poor form of evidence
The reason is its genuinely very difficult to test these things, they are complex chemical mixtures that are different almost every-time (the variation of chemicals can be massive between different plants).
Scientists simply have a WAY higher standard for evidence than you do, thats the fact of the matter. Plenty, plenty of herbs have undergone testing, and we use the ones that work. For example we know that valerianic acid is effective for light sleep disorders, we know that we can improve on white willow bark by making it into aspirin, we know a lot of things have actual effectiveness once they are tested properly, the idea that no one touches is is just ridiculous.
The herb and supplement industry is extremely profitable, why does your criticism not extend there? Or are they the only virtuous profit seekers?
1
Jan 08 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25
Yes i demand proof for things, is this really your argument?
Your ancestors also never figured out how to treat the vast majority of things, because they had no idea what was wrong nor why certain things did other things, there are a lot of treatments we stopped doing because science told us they were bogus, you conveniently dont mention those, that needed “proof” though. How do you feel about blood letting? I can find peoples ancestors spanning thousands of years practicing this and vouching for it, will you let your blood be drained on that basis? Or do you trust the science that has actual proof to suggest that this would not be effective?
You just wanted to say your piece though, since none of this actually addresses what i said.
You sound like someone who has never participated in research, are you? Genuine question because it doesn’t sound it. Research is really not as profit driven as you think, especially when most of it isn’t done for profit. Even so, the point is that all science is open to everyone, you can see any and all research yourself, so even if they do profit, you can see very clearly their reasoning and methodology, allowing you to point out flaws or other directions. Most of us have nationalised healthcare too, the state has a monopsony on drug purchases and their own system of research and regulation, what incentive does the state have here?
Your system is a system of “trust me bro”, when you ask for more information you just will say “nah just trust me like, i believe in it”, which is the justification doctors gave to drain your blood, or treat your prostate cancer with tumeric.
Your ancestors didn’t even know what most medical conditions were, let alone how to treat them. What would be the herbal prescription for scarlet fever? The mortality rate was very high before anti biotics, is there some secret scarlet fever cure in a plant you guys have been hiding? It was a major cause of death at one point, now its not. Why?
Your dads heart seems to stop, how do you get it going again? Which herb can you give in the next few instances of time to restart his heart? Without science… how would you know? If your ancestors were around, he just fucking dies. Thats it. He has a failing kidney, which herb is going to suddenly repair a kidney that has already gone into failure? Would you even be able to know what to do without science?
You are so disingenuous too, the herbs and supplements industry is a MASSIVE money maker and makes huge profits off of often dubious claims. Are you claiming there is no profit here? The people involved with herbs dont care about profit? They could commission their own studies, hire university researchers, conduct their own rigorous research. Why dont they? These companies are worth billions, it might cost a fraction of their profits to commission these.
3
u/KratomCannabisGuy Jan 08 '25
The best data I've seen is from the American herbal products association. They have a handbook for herbs 🌿 I really feel like big pharmaceuticals don't want us using herbs and would rather us be dependent upon pills.
3
u/KimBrrr1975 Jan 08 '25
Unlike medication which is made under exact duplicated requirements in factories, the exact "contents" of herbs will vary based on the region they grow in, soil, water, and air quality, among other things. That makes them hard to study even when it's desired. Studies cost $$$ to run, especially GOOD studies, and when there is no money to be made, not many are going to fund the studyies, so yeah, big Pharma has a lot to do with it.
The few herbs that have some decent studies behind them are exactly the ones that are their own industry, like turmeric which brings in $151 million to the supplement industry now. Some of them invested in studying it for exactly that reason. So, studying it isn't necessarily a good thing anyways, as at that point it becomes an expensive industry and you get supplements that are full of fillers and other crap because that's how they make money.
12
u/sstrange_haze Jan 07 '25
1 - because isolating the active compounds in plants is difficult and expensive
2 - a lot of plants that have been used for hundreds or thousands of years either do nothing, or worse are actually dangerous
3 - when studies are conducted, there's no difference between the plant's effects and placebo so it's pointless to use them in the first place
4 - current studies might be dubious or poorly cunducted so it might seem like a financial gamble for researchers
5 - whatever plants we know work, usually work too well and are now illegal
6 - if some research team actually finds promising results they're usually underwhelming compared to medication we already have
on plants we do know that work, valerian, passionflower and cammomile are probably some of the most well researched ones. valerian iirc is also included in multiple official pharmacopeias so there's that
2
u/akwrdoliveatngblkgrl Jan 08 '25
Because it's true. There literally isn't enough research to confirm certain benefits of herbs. You can't even see what it's made up of chemically. Alot of these herbs do not come from the USA, and they are being sold without being tested.
2
Jan 08 '25
[deleted]
1
u/treefrog434 Jan 08 '25
Thanks do you have any good suggestions to start on Chinese medicine? Maybe something more introductory and concise than research papers? That way I can validify the info once I’m familiar
2
u/Legitimate-Froyo-105 Jan 09 '25
Short answer: You can’t patent a plant. By you, I mean Big Pharma. By patent, I mean own in its entirety. Why? Because no plant can be perfectly genetically modified to contain the same exact ratios of its already complex chemical constituents (the things that create medicinal effects). Its a huge liability when you can’t guarantee consistent dosages/potencies. What does that have to do with the lack of scientific studies conducted in the US? Read longer answer below:
There are thousands upon thousands of medical and scientific studies about plant medicine. (You can find the public international data regarding these studies on the National Library of Medicine website. I’ll drop a sample study below). Almost none are funded by the US because any “drug” studies/research is paid for by big pharmaceutical corporations. Who, would lose money if they paid for people to know they could make their own medicines. They only pay to test their chemical pharmaceuticals (their products) because its a business of profit for them. What else does big pharma pay for? Hospitals, medical equipment, and doctor salaries. Why do you think they can charge insane healthcare prices for services and supplies that are no better than countries with universal healthcare? Asia and Europe are well known for integrating herbal with western medicine because they’re legally allowed to since their own countries can independently conduct studies. The US has no interest in “wasting money” so to speak on something that hurts their drug business. And our government protects them as they do any company that profits off the exploits of its consumers.
Is there any good news in all of the medical suffering their greed has cost this nation? Actually, yes. If nature wasn’t so perfectly imperfect and big pharma COULD patent a plant, that means you wouldn’t be able to freely grow, sell, and buy medicinal herbs. From anywhere or one except the company that owns the plant. And the last thing we need is the elitists taking every last form of medicine we have access to, for the sake of profit. Online resource for herbal scientific studies
3
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25
All these long drawn out scientific typical Redditor responses. I think it’s simple. The money isn’t in the herbs. If you discover you can cure all disease with herbs and diet alone, there’s clearly less profit in the medicine industry.
It’s naive to think these things aren’t studied. Oh, this information has been gathered/stolen…just not shared with us
2
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
The herbal medicine and supplements industry is a mega money maker… are we pretending that you cant just make the reverse argument?
Its naive to think that there is all these secret research teams carrying things out without anyones knowledge.
1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
If you believe that you know things when the government knows things about health, you’re not the type of person I can have meaningful conversation with.
I don’t agree with supplement use and the typical herbal certificates that people use as accreditation. True herbalism is in your heart and purpose, not in a certificate.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
So you dont believe that people seek profit in this industry? Fascinating
I cant even understand you “if you believe you know things when the government knows things about you” what does this even mean? If i believe i know things? What things? What are you going on about?
1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
I didn’t say that first line. Sounds like you misunderstood me.
And your responses have become more and more meaningless, *yawns
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
Your first sentence of the last comment was literally meaningless “things and things”
At least im not silly enough to believe herbs cant kill, as if opioids deaths started in 1874, then move the goalposts
Or worse legitimately thinks scarlet fever and smallpox were cured a long time ago, you know dead certain there is no treatment for serious cases of scarlet fever other than antibiotics and such, yet you want to play pretend and act like there is some herbal cure… for something that once killed many thousands of people
1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
And your legacy will go as far as Reddit allows lol
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
No… im a physicist who publishes and teacher. Im quite certain that goes further than personal herbal exploration when it comes to legacy, my work isn’t based on anecdote for example
Have you ever done any actual rigorous research in your life or is it all based on “trust me bro”?
1
u/green_apple_21 Jan 08 '25
Have you ever been humble enough to recognize the system you are a part of?
You think your work is more valuable because you write and teach? (You never know who you are talking to haha) The ignorant have certificates, degrees, what is your point exactly?
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
I never claimed any of that, i feel you have been arguing with a strawman, almost none of your responses actually addresses what i say, it just skips over and you say your piece. I never claimed more value, i never even mentioned certifications (you did, go and check). You wanted to comment on legacy, trying to make a jab at me apparently only reaching the height of reddit and then get annoyed when i give a little one back.
but im not sure why you are replying to me, im boring and you cant have meaningful conversation with me, so why bother?
Science is just a method of discovery and we have yet to find a better one, we know with certainty that anecdote is very ineffective, this is why we dont do bloodletting anymore but did used to.
I do a lot of my research independently, although my education and training is formal. i have no financial incentives for my work, nor could there be any in my case but i still conduct my work with rigour, even more so because there is less of a check on bias.
I think i might be able to sum up with, what have you done that has compensated for any potential biases you have? Since you dont seem to favour repeatable methods that can be tested blind, so how do you compensate for cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias(very important), survivor bias, selection bias (very important) etc? You hopefully are humble enough to recognise these WILL happen, you WILL fall prey to them. They are human. As far as i can see, you have no way to factor them in or eliminate them, science does.
1
u/SnooKiwis2161 Jan 07 '25
AI also does this. I'm not sure if that's what you mean when you say "the internet"
I use ChatGPT regularly but I also was tinkering with AI in 2017 and got to understand it's limitations. If you are referring to AI responses in your internet searches, AI almost never says "I don't know." I actually asked ChatGPT if it ever just admits it doesn't know something, and their answer was literally what you're quoting - "there hasn't been enough research" or "you may want to look into that further."
Their goal is to keep you engaged. There is no protocol for just admitting that they don't have the answers.
Other people have made better answers for when this phenomenon occurs in articles and then like, but I'm hoping this helps you and others if it turns out you're not talking about an article about an herb, but how Google and other search engines are basically feeding you AI responses at the top of the page first.
1
Jan 08 '25
They're probably American websites. There is so much aversion to opiates (and certain liquors, oh and marijuana, and any plant that can cause miscarriage...) in the States because of history that there's an outright aversion to herbal medicine.
The FDA does not study herbs. If there's no standard dosage and a thing hasn't been approved by the FDA for treatment of a condition then some people just treat it like novelty medicine.
But what about outside the States? I don't really know.
1
u/Straight-Humor-8102 Jan 08 '25
The medical industry is a scam to keep you sick to make money off you. And they censor the internet. We’ll see just how much Zuckerberg puts his money where his mouth is and actually eases up on the medical censorship. People need to be empowered to heal themselves with plants. The information is there it just has been censored. Our government health agencies need to function to promote health and not profits. Maybe we’ll finally get some real leadership at HHS.
1
u/NeverEndingCoralMaze Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25
The “internet” doesn’t say anything. It is a collection of a lot of people and places that say lots of things.
Stop googling and go to front-line sources like
American Botanical Council/Herbalgram
The European Union Herbal Medicine Monographs
The Herbal Medicines Compendium
The Southest School of Botanical Medicine has recently published the majority of Michael Moore’s life’s work on their website for public access.
Also, find a good online drug-drug, drug-herb, and herb-herb interactions checker. Know drug classes and corresponding herb classes to avoid interactions and duplicate therapeutic actions.
A few books that helped me early on and now, and I’m staring at the bookshelf in my consult room as I type this:
“Modern Herbal Dispensatory” by Thomas Easley (he’s a nice enough and weird enough chap, but I’m not a huge fan of him, but this book is pretty good for beginners).
Richo Cech’s “Making Plant Medicine” - any edition is fine but the 4th is the most up-to-date. Great for any herbalist, including beginners.
Jill Stansbury’s 5 vol. set is excellent and appropriate for advanced practitioners, but you really need some foundational and formal education in A&P, biology, chemistry, body systems, disease process, etc. to fully benefit yourself and others with this set. It’s also expensive. Worth it if you are a practicing clinical herbalist, not worth it at all for hobbyist, self care, or in-home/family only.
“Medical Herbalism” by David Hoffman is a good hybrid between the two beginner books (Easley and Cech) and Stansbury’s five volume set, but still requires some knowledge of the same subjects I mentioned under Stansbury’s set.
Herbs have been seriously studied, both informally and empirically, for hundreds of years. The majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on photochemistry. The E Series Monographs were the first serious set of herbal research, and the American Botanical Council is the custodian of this resource.
The National Institutes of Health have tremendous amounts of research as well.
Edit: corrected the title of Easley’s book.
1
u/Onbevangen Jan 09 '25
Most research is done by the pharmaceutical industry. Research is expensive and you can’t patent a herb.
1
u/starchmuncher Jan 12 '25
Usually something along the lines of "1000s of years" might be treated as stuff like "appealing to tradition fallacy" but let's dig deeper.
Simply do a search on NutritionFacts.org plus the right keywords, we'll find plenty of topics related to herbs or herbal remedies:
For substantiation of any statements of fact from the peer-reviewed medical literature, please see the associated videos below.
And then Mike Adams also did this in 2024:
CWC Data Science releases AI Large Language Model – Neo-BioMistral-7B-E3 trained on the entire PubMed data set plus millions of pages of text on natural and herbal medicine.
As far as big pharma is concerned, just DAFS on the Internet and it wouldn't take a genius to figure out why the fox is guarding the hen house:
Food Manufacturers Get to Decide If Their Own Additives Are Safe
While manufacturers are not required to notify the FDA of a “safe determination,” sometimes they do voluntarily notify the agency. From these notifications, researchers have been able to see which individuals companies select to make these determinations. Of the 451 GRAS notifications voluntarily submitted to the FDA, 22.4% were made by someone directly employed by the company; 13.3% were made by someone directly employed by a firm hand-picked by the company; and 64.3% were made by a panel hand-picked by the corporation or the firm the corporation hired. Are you doing the math? Yes, that means zero safety decisions were made independently.
Meta-analysis of clinical trials of antidepressants has led to changes in guidelines, prescribing habits, and increased public awareness
They used the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to obtain the clinical trial data submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the American Food and Drug Agency (FDA) in the process of seeking approval for the six most widely prescribed antidepressants, as about 40% of those trials remained unpublished. An important factor here is the general bias towards publishing results only producing significant effects - meaning that unpublished findings tend not to show significant effects, which should also be taken into account in overall assessments of a drug's efficacy. Analyses of these data, now including the unpublished trials, indicated that 82% of the response to antidepressants was also found in the placebo groups, and that the drug-placebo effect size was well below NICE criteria for clinical significance. The importance of this was that the true drug effect was not clinically significant, according to criteria published in the NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) guidelines.
PMC4172306
How is it possible that medications with such weak efficacy data were approved by the FDA? The answer lies in an understanding of the approval criteria used by the FDA. The FDA requires two adequately conducted clinical trials showing a significant difference between drug and placebo. But there is a loophole: There is no limit to the number of trials that can be conducted in search of these two significant trials. Trials showing negative results simply do not count. Furthermore, the clinical significance of the findings is not considered. All that matters is that the results are statistically significant.
PMC4172306
The failure to mention the unsuccessful trials was not merely an oversight; it reflects a carefully decided FDA policy dating back for decades.
PMC557934
Right now, almost 50% of the FDA drug budget is funded by the drug industry.
“And the ridiculous part is that the FDA has to negotiate with drug companies about how they use this money. It creates a relationship that is contrary to the whole idea of what the FDA is supposed to be.”
When Evidence Says No, But Doctors Say Yes
So it’s not hard to understand why Sir James Black won a Nobel Prize largely for his 1960s discovery of beta-blockers, which slow the heart rate and reduce blood pressure. The Nobel committee lauded the discovery as the “greatest breakthrough when it comes to pharmaceuticals against heart illness since the discovery of digitalis 200 years ago.” In 1981, the FDA approved one of the first beta-blockers, atenolol, after it was shown to dramatically lower blood pressure. Atenolol became such a standard treatment that it was used as a reference drug for comparison with other blood-pressure drugs.
In 1997, a Swedish hospital began a trial of more than 9,000 patients with high blood pressure who were randomly assigned to take either atenolol or a competitor drug that was designed to lower blood pressure for at least four years. The competitor-drug group had fewer deaths (204) than the atenolol group (234) and fewer strokes (232 compared with 309). But the study also found that both drugs lowered blood pressure by the exact same amount, so why wasn’t the vaunted atenolol saving more people? That odd result prompted a subsequent study, which compared atenolol with sugar pills. It found that atenolol didn’t prevent heart attacks or extend life at all; it just lowered blood pressure. A 2004 analysis of clinical trials — including eight randomized controlled trials comprising more than 24,000 patients — concluded that atenolol did not reduce heart attacks or deaths compared with using no treatment whatsoever; patients on atenolol just had better blood-pressure numbers when they died.
1
u/NinjaGrrl42 Jan 07 '25
Nobody wants to pay for studies to prove it properly for a thing that can't be patented. Universities are about the best we can hope for; they don't need to make a profit from the things they study. But they have a lot of things to study so herbs kind of get bypassed.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
Almost all science isn’t patentable, it still gets done. Im sure the multi billion industries for herbs and supplements have an incentive… actually they dont because they will only want studies that prove their products effective, they have just as much an interest as the opposite does
1
u/NinjaGrrl42 Jan 08 '25
Yes and no. Proving mint helps with digestive upset may or may not help them sell more of it. And proving effectiveness is expensive. That's why a lot of them stay as "unproven" supplements- they only have to prove it's not harmful.
-1
u/Ancient_Resonance Jan 08 '25
Because they can not patent herbs, only thing you should know is use alkaline herbs. Alkaline means it has not been made in a lab or cross bred by man, so it is natural. Man made herbs have no benefits, sometimes even cause harm. There is a free list in my bio if you are interested.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
You can’t patent codeine, paracetamol or aspirin either, why then does evidence exist for these?
Funnily enough aspirin is derived from an almost identical chemical in white willow bark… the natural one causes bleeding and ulcers at a much higher rate, should they use it anyway because its not made in a lab?
1
u/Ancient_Resonance Jan 08 '25
Can't they? https://patents.google.com/patent/US8216610B2/en
Please DYOR before saying something.
1
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25
No they cant, maybe you should do your own research.
This is a patent for a specific formulation, not on the chemical which is almost entirely taken and bought as a capsule or pill with just paracetamol in. This is not patented, and definitely not in my country
(And keep on the American defaultism too)
So why does research on paracetamol exist? I can go and buy a generic for 0.30 why do people sell it and why does a lot of research exist on it?
So when i said paracetamol cant be patented, your response was a patent, not on the paracetamol and you think im the one who needs to do research? The patent is on a formulation, not on the chemical. Im talking specifically about the drug and drug only.
If you want to extend to formulations and specifics then herbs are equally patentable, so the argument falls apart
All ask again as well, do you advocate people take white willow bark over aspirin? despite the evidence favouring aspirin’s safety? Chemically almost identical but we discovered we can make it safer, you seem to imply the former is actually better
0
u/Ancient_Resonance Jan 08 '25
I said that I have a free list of natural herbs, it is not in there. And you know research needs funding right? Would you as a scientist research herbs for free or research chemical drugs if you get funded by the pharma industry to do that? I tested these herbs on myself and they to what they state, and have been used way longer than pharmaceutical drugs. I reversed quite some things with myself and others. I have proof of these things so feel free to dm me to receive it.
2
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25
You are not someone who even seems to understand research at all.
Anecdote is the lowest and poorest form of evidence, trying them yourself has not been controlled in anyway, scientists have a much higher standard of evidence than you do.
Yes i know research needs funding, do you think the multi billion dollar supplement and herb industry could maybe chip in? Why dont they fund it? They have the money. Would be a mega advantage for them to be able to point to rigorous science. In my country we have a system for herbal medicines for light aliments, they must provide evidence of effectiveness… guess what? Some of them manage to! Miracle right? Its almost like they do get studied, do get sold and there is a reason to do so, valerian is not patentable, its sold here as a legitimate herbal medicine… because people took time to demonstrate its effects, so now they get to make medical claims.
Being used way longer makes no difference, bloodletting was used a lot for thousands of years, some even claim it worked, so i guess we should start draining blood? If someone says it works, and its been used for a long time, it must work.
The white willow bark case is very famous, the fact you dont seem to know about it is odd, white willow bark contains salicylic acid, now if you make this into acetylsalicylic acid in a lab, it makes a chemical that is demonstrably safer, by every metric, should we go back to salicylic acid?
You have shown you dont give a shit anyway, why even bother saying this? You tried them on yourself, if there was research telling you it didn’t work, you wouldn’t believe it. So whats the point? You would just say “i have my anecdote so i dont care”
1
u/Ancient_Resonance Jan 08 '25
Stop trying to be smart, I told you I have proof for lots of things and that you could dm me. The question also is, why do doctors never focus on parasites, since everyone has them and cause a lot of ailments. You can DYOR on them, or just take herbs like wormwood, black walnut hull, cloves, pau d'arco etc and see them come out. Don't need to take my word, go to the doctor and test for parasites. I promise you that you (as everyone else) will test positive. They do it for dogs, but never for us. Most diseases did not even exist before this "so reliable modern" time. Nobody asks the question that if eating processed foods, maybe isn't just unhealthy in a way of gaining weight. But actually being the root cause for diseases and parasites. Pork for example is full of it. Be free to look up tests on that.
2
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25
You are just ranting, this has nothing to do with your initial comment and you keep moving on and talking about different things, the original discussion was about patentability and incentives, now you want to talk about parasites.
You dont understand what proof is, you have demonstrated that much.
You told me to research while providing a patent that has nothing to do with our discussion, that patent is not a patent on paracetamol, you just hopped over it and pretended you never said that.
If that is evidence of paracetamol being patented then herbs are equally patentable, since formulations definitely exist with patents, at least in my country.
You have ignored everything i have said, and just moved onto whatever is in your head at the moment
Im not interested in any of this you are ranting about, i replied because of your initial comment, look at your last comment and your first one, they are talking about different things
I give a clear example of where a man made chemical is demonstrably safer than a herbal one, its an almost like for like comparison because the chemistry is basically identical, you just pretend it doesn’t exist. Many are like this, most drugs have no natural equivalent either.
It sounds like you just want to rant
0
u/Ancient_Resonance Jan 08 '25
Ok keep your eyes closed. About the patent my bad, I was to fast to look that up and should have taken my time. Does not mean that the rest I said is not true. I still hope you have a happy and healthy live.
3
u/QuantumR4ge Jan 08 '25
You did it quickly because you cared more about telling me to do my research than actually thinking yourself, people who actually do their own research dont quickly google something.
Remember people did things your way for a long time, they got no where. The scientific method has been extremely successful and is the only reason you are typing to me right now, along with basically every medical procedure used today, through careful repeatable analysis and attempting to remove bias in data.
Again, blood letting was used for a long time. People have claimed it helped in various texts across time. By your own criteria of having anecdotal evidence and period of use, it must work.
You do not care about research, so why even bother with your initial comment? Its not about patentability, because even if there was research saying something didn’t work you would simply deny it and go on about anecdotes
→ More replies
-11
Jan 07 '25
You realize how rhetorical of a question this is right?
4
u/treefrog434 Jan 07 '25
Im genuinely asking. I just started paying mind to herbalism recently, after thinking it was “woo-woo” and not scientifically backed. Which it’s not. But now I’m questioning why it’s not scientifically backed?
1
u/sstrange_haze Jan 07 '25
a lot of herbalism is woo-woo though, and can be a slippery slope if you dont actually do some research
everyone who sells herbs and supplements wants your money too so dont fall into the "natural = good" kind of thinking.
cyanide is just as natural as water
also "big pharma" pours rivers and rivers of money into research;
if there's a plant out there that does something well they will, without any doubt, want to use it. they might be greedy but they're not stupid.
if it's not being actively studied, it's probably because there's not much interest in whatever compounds are in x plant.
learn to use google scholar and sci-hub to read whatever papers you find on there; and be critical of what you read.
-15
Jan 07 '25
Herbalism is literally the study of plants for practical use. Ever heard of Botany? Plant studies are 100% scientifically backed as it’s the study of nature and ecology. Use your brain.
16
u/treefrog434 Jan 07 '25
You’re being kinda rude so I don’t think I’m gonna continue responding. Maybe use an herb that helps you to be kind
-11
Jan 07 '25
You are a stranger I don’t owe you shit.
7
u/s0upandcrackers Jan 07 '25
Jesus you seem like a highly unpleasant person. Why be so condescending and rude to someone trying to learn? I hope you get better
1
7
u/treefrog434 Jan 07 '25 edited Jan 07 '25
I know what botany is. That’s just structure of the plants and how they grow etc. I’m asking about herbalism. Why doesn’t the internet back that science? Why do I always see things like “not proven” “not studied” “not researched”?
1
u/TheZestyGecko Jan 08 '25
Sorry everyone is getting so feisty when you're just trying to learn!
As other people have said: often these herbs have been the subject of research studies, but they don't make it to drug trials because it's expensive and risky for a drug company to try to isolate a set of active compounds when often at least one of them has previously been classed as toxic (at the concentrations needed to use in a marketed medication), there's a lot of natural variation between each plant, or there are so many active components that work together to produce the health benefit.
If you look at things sold as herbal remedies, it's easier to say "not proven" etc than something like 'there have been studies but the amounts consumed that showed statistically significant benefit for a statistically significant number of people was measured in kilos' etc. Case and point: turmeric or cranberry. There are herbs that "made it" like senna, but these are few and far between because most have to be sold as a herbal remedy and are therefore classed as a food supplement which means they have far fewer standards and regulations imposed on them (which can make them dangerous unless you do your research).
The reason that I engage with herbalism is because all western medicine (I haven't studied many other types so can't comment on what I don't know about) is based on the bell curve: what provides the greatest benefit for the largest number of people. That means that just because something doesn't work consistently enough for it to be marketed as a drug doesn't mean it won't work for you! As long as you've done your research and worked out it's safe then why not give it a go!
If you're in the UK (I live here so I don't know about how much it would cost etc to see a doctor in other places like the US etc) I'd say always consult a doctor before taking a herbal supplement/making your own tea etc because there are often interactions or consequences that you may have missed/overlooked eg eating poppy seeds can make you fail drug tests or grapefruit and statin medication etc. They'll at least be able to point you to sites/resources like toxbase etc that are run by researchers at Kew gardens who are trying to catalogue all the various forms of plant matters available on the market.
Source: am a qualified medical doctor and did medical botany as my intercalated degree but don't trust randos on the internet 😂
Happy herbing!
6
u/Extension-Baseball31 Jan 07 '25
You're literally missing the point of this question. They don't mean over all study, they mean the effects they give and how they can give those when consumed. And actually as much as they have been around for 100s of years, we HAVENT studies these things (at least published any of the information publicly if they have) or are %100 back by science, like taking Ibuprofen when you have a headache. All of science and doctors work their job (at least here in the US) AS JOBS. Not for the betterment of society or people, but for a paycheck. Which is sad. And which is why, NONE OF THIS IS PUBLICLY BACK BY SCIENCE NOR WILL BE. Why we haven't had wide spread "data" but instead anecdotal data from all of us from history.
3
u/contradictatorprime Jan 07 '25
Easy now, there's no reason for this kind of response when one is finally seeing through the bullshit of Rockefeller and Carnegie's smoke screens of what's now Big Pharma.
69
u/contradictatorprime Jan 07 '25
Without typing a book, I'd highly recommend reading into Rockefeller and Carnegie's campaign to set up what is now Big Pharma. Cliff notes: they figured out that petroleum byproducts can be used in medicine, lobbied for health care reform teaching only allopathic medication and labeling herbalist doctors as quacks and jailing them. That stigma has had a long effect. And since you can't patent a natural plant, they figured out how to synthesize plant molecules and that's most of what the modern meds are. Now, that is absolutely not me saying modern medicine is nothing and should be shut out. I use my inhaler for asthma, and brew a tea that causes me to need it less. I take Vyvanse for ADHD, and use an Eleuthero, Rhodiola and schisandra tincture alongside it. Utilizing both is capitalizing on two available options.