THE THERAPIST PSYCHOLOGIST BOOK STORE

  Good herbal advice, but sketchy science ( page-o-rama )

The discovery of the COX-2 inhibitors is a major breakthrough, but there isn't much research to connect it with other than some phenomenology about the effects of certain herb components on these enzymes.

Part of the problem with pharmacological research on herbals is that the research requires the isolation of one component of the herb and studying its effects on physiological and biochemical reactions in a controlled manner. This is science. Herb preparations, however, as the author points out, are complex mixtures of compounds. Traditional Chinese Medicine, in fact, requires a mixture of herbals to balance their effects.

Having said all that, is this book worthwhile? I think the advice here, on using certain herbs, and some in oil applied to the skin can have a good effect for a number of ailments. I use some of these myself (ginger and rosemary, for example.) But to assure oneself that these herbs will prevent Alzheimer's and other diseases? It's impossible to know. However, the herbs are pleasant and this book lists some excellent herbal treatments. Just be sure to mention them to your doctor, as some herbs have counteractive effects on prescription drugs.

  Unfortunately, saying it's so doesn't make it so. ( wally235 )

After reading this book, the bottom line for me is that, while I find it conceivable that many of the authors' assertions in this book may one day be proven to have been 100% correct, I find it impossible to substantiate today that they are correct on the basis of the data they provide in the book to support their positions.

The authors assert that it is now established that "COX-2 inflammation" causes rheumatoid arthritis, cancer and Alzheimer's disease and recommend that herbal remedies, which incorporate constituents that inhibit the production of the COX-2 enzyme, be taken for prevention and treatment of these diseases.

I have two problems with accepting these assertions:

(1) After checking the websites of accepted medical authorities, including those of the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, I can find no independent corroboration for the assertion that recognized medical experts today know the cause of these diseases, nor can I find any mention of the term, "COX-2 inflammation".

(2) In Beyond Arthritis, the authors never seem to me to substantiate their assertions with verifiable data. Instead, the "support" they offer seems to fall exclusively into one of the following three categories of "proof":

· More assertions ("It is known that . .", etc.) without data

· References to "studies" which purport to support the authors' claims, but without attribution, leaving me unable to validate or invalidate the claim

· Occasional references to studies that I was able to find and examine but which, once I carefully studied the original document, failed to support the authors' assertions.

In the following example, a speculation by the scientists who conducted the study was taken out of context and presented as a "conclusion" in order to support the central premise of Beyond Aspirin.

Page 50 Beyond Aspirin: "A recent study, published in the U.S. government's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, identifies some of green tea's prominent constituents called polyphenols (GTP) as causing a "marked reduction" in COX-2 induced arthritis. The scientists from Case Western Reserve University concluded in this study that a "polyphenic fraction from green tea that is rich in antioxidants may be useful in the prevention of onset and severity of arthritis."

That sounded pretty convincing to me at first glance. Had I been reading superficially and uncritically, my tendency might have been to conclude that such a prestigious research institution recommends that we should drink green tea to prevent and treat arthritis. However, that's not actually what it says. Also, the phrase "COX-2 induced arthritis" is from Newmark and Schulick, not the study. It is not a term used anywhere in the study they cite.

When I found the actual report itself on the website of the National Academy of Sciences, I discovered that the scientists from Case Western who conducted this study:

(a) Used the following "green tea polyphenic fraction": ". . dried green tea leaves were extracted twice with hot water and three times with 80% ethanol under nitrogen. The combined extract was concentrated and then extracted with an equal volume of chloroform. The aqueous layer was extracted three times with ethyl acetate under nitrogen, and the total organic soluble fraction was concentrated under vacuum, dissolved in water, and freeze-dried . ." (N.B. That is not "green tea" and may well have properties that differ from those of "green tea".)

(b) Administered this "herbal extract" to 18 mice in a scientifically accepted, but artificial, chemically-induced, experimental model of arthritis. That is, the scientists speculated that this "polyphenic fraction", not "green tea", might conceivably have salutary effects in human beings based upon the results of a small mouse study, not on results in actual people with arthritis.

While it is certainly customary in the conclusions of scientific papers reporting on animal studies for the authors to speculate about possible effects in human beings, I feel that the authors of Beyond Arthritis could have better served their readers by fully describing the basis of the scientists' speculation -- and by making it clear that it was only a speculation and an extrapolation to a totally different species, not a "conclusion" based upon observed effects in human beings.

This is not to say that green tea isn't good for patients with arthritis (it may very well be), but I don't think one can intelligently reach that conclusion on the basis of this kind of "data".

I also found myself puzzled by the inclusion of the impressive list of references at the end of the book (which added 53 pages to its length). Because they're not referenced to specific statements in the book (as is normally done for the purpose of enabling the reader to verify sources), I don't understand the intended function of this long list for the reader.

In conclusion, while I found Beyond Aspirin to be entertainingly written, I was unable to independently verify any of the authors' major assertions and thus I remain skeptical of the authors' proposal that it is sensible to use herbal remedies to prevent and/or treat diseases such as arthritis, cancer and Alzheimer's Disease.