Guest guest Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I still use the guidelines given to me as a student for min and max weekly doses but generally start patients on min therapeutic dose for a herb and perhaps up it subsequently. These guidelines were for 1:5 so to get a 1:2 dose I divide by 5 and times by 2 (for 1:3 times by 3). So if it was 25ml per week for 1:5 then for a 1:2 I would use 10ml. Simplistic I know but it seems to work. Dore Re: weekly dosages Hi Robyn thanks for that, you are so right, there is no one size fits all and that is in some cases as it should be. I am going to have to put my thinking cap on for a while. Any one out there run the dispensaries in the training clinics?? what guidelines do you give the students these days. Its probably quite different from my day. regards Jacqui > > > > > > > Hello all > > > > I am in the process of re labelling my dispensary and that of my colleagues > > at her clinic. > > > > She likes to have an average weekly dose figure label on the bottle as she > > finds its useful in practice. > > > > Question: these dosages were labelled up from the old BHP 1983. Since then > > many of us now use specific 1:2 tinctures or 1:3 1:4 tinctures and the > > alcohol % has changed over the years to for some herbs. > > > > Have any herbalists got any info on guidelines for revised dosages. > > > > Does any one that belongs to PA's get updated info on this? Or is it > > something they are working on? > > > > It is an interesting area as many of us use different dosages that work for > > us, but updated guidelines would be good. > > > > As an average we use anyhting between say 10 ml to 50ml a week of any given > > herb depending on what it is (except schedule 3) are there any updates to > > that eiher?? > > > > Otherwise I will really have to put my thinking cap on. Perhaps we all use > > such a vast range now that it is impossible to generalise without going down > > the standardised pharma route! And as herbalists we certainly do not want > > that!! > > > > look forward to you comments > > > > best wishes > > > > Jacqui Apostolides > > > > > > > > > > -- > Robyn MNIMH > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Hello Sabine, I believe that an important proportion of most, if not all medicine, is that which pharmaceutical science deprecatingly calls 'placebo' and, within that proportion (which must surely vary from case to case), a practitioner's belief may indeed affect the needs of the patient. I wonder if you would agree that that is a skill of the practitioner that is complementary to the physiological effect of the medicine directly on the patients cells and thus indirectly on the systems in which those cells function? KR Sabine Hiller wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am following the dosage thread with interest, but am wondering > whether we all really think it is a good idea that dosages primarily > depend on the beliefs of the individual practitioner. Given an > individual patient, this would mean that s/he will receive drops at > one clinic and teaspoonsfull at another. Does the practitioner's > belief determine the needs of the patient? Do we expect all dosages to > work equally well, as long as the practitioner believes it's the right > one? > > Best wishes > Sabine > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Dear all I would advise herbalists to err on the side of attempting to apply a rational (i.e., evidence-based) approach to quantifying drug actions. After all, many of us have BSc degrees, and are therefore supposed to be scientists. The actions of plants like foxglove and belladonna can be explained purely on pharmacological grounds, with no need to invoke a placebo effect or any other little understood phenomenon. However, when talking about plants or other preparations with only weak or no demonstrable pharmacological actions at all (under controlled conditions), I agree that psychological factors should be considered. For those of us, including myself, who hold to the view that the actions of plant medicines all have an effect on the body at the molecular level, we cannot get away from considering dose-response relationships, and therefore, the idea that 'anything goes' is not acceptable. Best wishes Rodney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Hi and all, Clearly, placebo is an important part of any intervention, and yes, the fact that a practitioner has confidence in his/her modality will definitely enhance such effects, as will many other aspects of the therapeutic relationship - as you say, optimising placebo is a real skill and nothing to sneer at. However, I cannot agree that a practitioner's belief may affect the NEEDS of the patient. Surely patients' needs are determined by their physiology and their own beliefs! If I have the belief that drop doses work, does this mean that the Pt will - as a result of my belief - only need drop doses? If I believed that 5ml were needed, would the same Pt's needs change? We have to distinguish between the needs of the patient, and the outcome of the treatment - the practitioner's belief may affect treatment outcome (e.g. by creating an expectation in the patient that drops will be effective), but surely not the given needs of the patient! Should whether I use 10 or 100ml a week be determined by the patient's presentation and by a knowledge of the pharmacology of the herb in question, or by my belief in a doctrine of drops or teaspoons? I thought that the 'no one size fits all' maxim is meant to apply to patients, not as a licence for herbalists to be under the impression that their chosen belief in a particular dosing regime will mould the patient's requirements. I dont know whether people think it matters that we have no clear dosing guidelines. However, if we claim that all doses work equally well, then I think we are under an obligation to investigate this, and if it can be shown that drop doses (in general) really work just as well as larger doses, then this dosing regime should (in general) replace the current 100ml/week custom - it would be far more sustainable. Best wishes Sabine Re: Re: weekly dosages > Hello Sabine, > > I believe that an important proportion of most, if not all medicine, is > that which pharmaceutical science deprecatingly calls 'placebo' and, > within that proportion (which must surely vary from case to case), a > practitioner's belief may indeed affect the needs of the patient. I > wonder if you would agree that that is a skill of the practitioner that > is complementary to the physiological effect of the medicine directly on > the patients cells and thus indirectly on the systems in which those > cells function? > > KR > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Hello again Sabine, Yes, I think you are right. A claim that all doses work equally might suggest that the medicine is just placebo. We do know that the concentrations at which herbs are used have measurable physiological effects as well. It seems likely that some symptoms in some patients respond better to placebo than others and, although placebo is relevant to all forms of medicine, what sets herbalits apart from others is not placebo, but the use of physiologically active plant extracts? I think we were using the word 'needs' rather too loosely. Kind regards, Chenery Sabine Hiller wrote: > Hi and all, > > Clearly, placebo is an important part of any intervention, and yes, the fact > that a practitioner has confidence in his/her modality will definitely > enhance such effects, as will many other aspects of the therapeutic > relationship - as you say, optimising placebo is a real skill and nothing to > sneer at. > > However, I cannot agree that a practitioner's belief may affect the NEEDS of > the patient. Surely patients' needs are determined by their physiology and > their own beliefs! If I have the belief that drop doses work, does this mean > that the Pt will - as a result of my belief - only need drop doses? If I > believed that 5ml were needed, would the same Pt's needs change? > > We have to distinguish between the needs of the patient, and the outcome of > the treatment - the practitioner's belief may affect treatment outcome (e.g. > by creating an expectation in the patient that drops will be effective), but > surely not the given needs of the patient! Should whether I use 10 or 100ml > a week be determined by the patient's presentation and by a knowledge of the > pharmacology of the herb in question, or by my belief in a doctrine of drops > or teaspoons? I thought that the 'no one size fits all' maxim is meant to > apply to patients, not as a licence for herbalists to be under the > impression that their chosen belief in a particular dosing regime will mould > the patient's requirements. > > I dont know whether people think it matters that we have no clear dosing > guidelines. However, if we claim that all doses work equally well, then I > think we are under an obligation to investigate this, and if it can be shown > that drop doses (in general) really work just as well as larger doses, then > this dosing regime should (in general) replace the current 100ml/week > custom - it would be far more sustainable. > > Best wishes > Sabine > > Re: Re: weekly dosages > > > >> Hello Sabine, >> >> I believe that an important proportion of most, if not all medicine, is >> that which pharmaceutical science deprecatingly calls 'placebo' and, >> within that proportion (which must surely vary from case to case), a >> practitioner's belief may indeed affect the needs of the patient. I >> wonder if you would agree that that is a skill of the practitioner that >> is complementary to the physiological effect of the medicine directly on >> the patients cells and thus indirectly on the systems in which those >> cells function? >> >> KR >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Hi - yes I agree, what defines our practice is the use of physiologically active plant extracts. But this means that we have to take dosage seriously, and, as Rodney says, the notion that 'anything goes' is just not acceptable. all the best Sabine Re: Re: weekly dosages >> >> >> >>> Hello Sabine, >>> >>> I believe that an important proportion of most, if not all medicine, is >>> that which pharmaceutical science deprecatingly calls 'placebo' and, >>> within that proportion (which must surely vary from case to case), a >>> practitioner's belief may indeed affect the needs of the patient. I >>> wonder if you would agree that that is a skill of the practitioner that >>> is complementary to the physiological effect of the medicine directly on >>> the patients cells and thus indirectly on the systems in which those >>> cells function? >>> >>> KR >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Hi all, It sounds as if we are all in agreement that philosophy and dosage are inextricably linked. The discussion seems to me to have shifted to the question of whether an evidence-based philosophy is the only acceptable approach. My point is not to say that anything goes, but to say that you should really understand the roots of what you are doing and whether it fits with your own ideas of medicine. If we accept that an evidence-based approach is the only way to go, then there is nothing controversial at all in either Rodney or Sabine's comments. Robyn > Hi - yes I agree, what defines our practice is the use of > physiologically active plant extracts. But this means that we have to take > dosage seriously, and, as Rodney says, the notion that 'anything goes' is > just not acceptable. > > all the best > Sabine > > > Re: Re: weekly dosages >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello Sabine, >>>> >>>> I believe that an important proportion of most, if not all medicine, is >>>> that which pharmaceutical science deprecatingly calls 'placebo' and, >>>> within that proportion (which must surely vary from case to case), a >>>> practitioner's belief may indeed affect the needs of the patient. I >>>> wonder if you would agree that that is a skill of the practitioner that >>>> is complementary to the physiological effect of the medicine directly on >>>> the patients cells and thus indirectly on the systems in which those >>>> cells function? >>>> >>>> KR >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Dear hate to sound picky, but your guidelines aren't quite right. When you extract components from a herb in a liquid, the extraction process theoretically stops when equilibrium has been achieved between soluble components in the herb and in the liquid. So, for example, if you put 100g of herb in 500ml of liquid (your 1:5), one sixth of the components will remain in the herb, with one sixth in each 100ml of the liquid. Thus 100ml of the herb will contain one sixth of 100g (ie. 16.6g). For a 1:2, 66% of the components will theoretically diffuse into the liquid (with 33%remaining in the herb), meaning that each 100ml will contain 33% (ie. 33g), so a 1:2 is only twice as strong as a 1:5. In your example, a 25ml per week dose of a 1:5 would translate to 12.5 ml of a 1:2. It is actually quite useful to know this as you will see that a 1:1 is only twice as strong as a 1:3. If you are making your own tinctures from a limited supply of herb, you are going to get more bangs for your bucks by making a 1:3. nerdingly yours, Max Drake urbanfinge.co.uk ________________________________ To: ukherbal-list Sent: Thu, 4 March, 2010 13:46:29 Subject: Re: Re: weekly dosages  I still use the guidelines given to me as a student for min and max weekly doses but generally start patients on min therapeutic dose for a herb and perhaps up it subsequently. These guidelines were for 1:5 so to get a 1:2 dose I divide by 5 and times by 2 (for 1:3 times by 3). So if it was 25ml per week for 1:5 then for a 1:2 I would use 10ml. Simplistic I know but it seems to work. Dore Re: weekly dosages Hi Robyn thanks for that, you are so right, there is no one size fits all and that is in some cases as it should be. I am going to have to put my thinking cap on for a while. Any one out there run the dispensaries in the training clinics?? what guidelines do you give the students these days. Its probably quite different from my day. regards Jacqui > > > > > > > Hello all > > > > I am in the process of re labelling my dispensary and that of my colleagues > > at her clinic. > > > > She likes to have an average weekly dose figure label on the bottle as she > > finds its useful in practice. > > > > Question: these dosages were labelled up from the old BHP 1983. Since then > > many of us now use specific 1:2 tinctures or 1:3 1:4 tinctures and the > > alcohol % has changed over the years to for some herbs. > > > > Have any herbalists got any info on guidelines for revised dosages. > > > > Does any one that belongs to PA's get updated info on this? Or is it > > something they are working on? > > > > It is an interesting area as many of us use different dosages that work for > > us, but updated guidelines would be good. > > > > As an average we use anyhting between say 10 ml to 50ml a week of any given > > herb depending on what it is (except schedule 3) are there any updates to > > that eiher?? > > > > Otherwise I will really have to put my thinking cap on. Perhaps we all use > > such a vast range now that it is impossible to generalise without going down > > the standardised pharma route! And as herbalists we certainly do not want > > that!! > > > > look forward to you comments > > > > best wishes > > > > Jacqui Apostolides > > > > > > > > > > -- > Robyn MNIMH > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 Dear Max, May I point out the essential but basic factor, which seems to entirely escape herbalists and even their educators as well?. These factors require effort to appreciate but many people tend to overlook them. This is that herbal medicines, which are supposed to be whole plant extracts, almost always consist of many and widely differing types of components, and whereas some of these, such as simple sugars, may be extremely soluble in aqueous solution, others such as many of the so-called 'active' hydrocarbons (things like hyperiforin and hypericins) would be almost totally insoluble in water-alcohol. (This is all part of biological evolutionary necessity - the body generally has well developed defences against physiologically active compounds). This has led to habitual over-simplification and a tendency to over-simplify the issue. Solubilisation of many 'active' compounds depends on the presence at certain critical concentrations of the simpler 'co-factor' compounds, and the basic mechanism is explained at some length at: http://www.rutlandbio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/plants-colloids-tinctures.p\ df The fact that solubilisation can be decreased by both too much and also too little of co-factors is considered by plant physiologists to be a well-worn evolutionary driver. This is a major plank in the theoretical consideration of dosages that any in-depth discussion needs to appreciate. Therefore whether a 1:2 is, as you suggest " ...twice as strong as " as 1:5 will depend as much on the proportion of whole plant components in the starting material, as it does on the menstrum. > > > Dear > hate to sound picky, but your guidelines aren't quite right. When you > extract components from a herb in a liquid, the extraction process > theoretically stops when equilibrium has been achieved between > soluble components in the herb and in the liquid. So, for example, if > you put 100g of herb in 500ml of liquid (your 1:5), one sixth of the > components will remain in the herb, with one sixth in each 100ml of > the liquid. Thus 100ml of the herb will contain one sixth of 100g (ie. > 16.6g). For a 1:2, 66% of the components will theoretically diffuse > into the liquid (with 33%remaining in the herb), meaning that each > 100ml will contain 33% (ie. 33g), so a 1:2 is only twice as strong as > a 1:5. In your example, a 25ml per week dose of a 1:5 would translate > to 12.5 ml of a 1:2. > It is actually quite useful to know this as you will see that a 1:1 is > only twice as strong as a 1:3. If you are making your own tinctures > from a limited supply of herb, you are going to get more bangs for > your bucks by making a 1:3. > nerdingly yours, > Max Drake > urbanfinge.co.uk > > ________________________________ > > To: ukherbal-list > Sent: Thu, 4 March, 2010 13:46:29 > Subject: Re: Re: weekly dosages > > > I still use the guidelines given to me as a student for min and max > weekly doses but generally start patients on min therapeutic dose for > a herb and perhaps up it subsequently. > > These guidelines were for 1:5 so to get a 1:2 dose I divide by 5 and > times by 2 (for 1:3 times by 3). So if it was 25ml per week for 1:5 > then for a 1:2 I would use 10ml. Simplistic I know but it seems to > work. > > Dore > > Re: weekly dosages > > Hi Robyn > > thanks for that, you are so right, there is no one size fits all and > that is in some cases as it should be. I am going to have to put my > thinking cap on for a while. > > Any one out there run the dispensaries in the training clinics?? what > guidelines do you give the students these days. > > Its probably quite different from my day. > > regards > > Jacqui > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all > > > > > > I am in the process of re labelling my dispensary and that of my > colleagues > > > at her clinic. > > > > > > She likes to have an average weekly dose figure label on the > bottle as she > > > finds its useful in practice. > > > > > > Question: these dosages were labelled up from the old BHP 1983. > Since then > > > many of us now use specific 1:2 tinctures or 1:3 1:4 tinctures and > the > > > alcohol % has changed over the years to for some herbs. > > > > > > Have any herbalists got any info on guidelines for revised > dosages. > > > > > > Does any one that belongs to PA's get updated info on this? Or is > it > > > something they are working on? > > > > > > It is an interesting area as many of us use different dosages that > work for > > > us, but updated guidelines would be good. > > > > > > As an average we use anyhting between say 10 ml to 50ml a week of > any given > > > herb depending on what it is (except schedule 3) are there any > updates to > > > that eiher?? > > > > > > Otherwise I will really have to put my thinking cap on. Perhaps we > all use > > > such a vast range now that it is impossible to generalise without > going down > > > the standardised pharma route! And as herbalists we certainly do > not want > > > that!! > > > > > > look forward to you comments > > > > > > best wishes > > > > > > Jacqui Apostolides > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Robyn MNIMH > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 dear , does this mean that you see homeopathy as placebo effect? marilena. > To: ukherbal-list > From: herbalist@... > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 18:44:10 +0000 > Subject: Re: Re: weekly dosages > > Hello again Sabine, > > Yes, I think you are right. > > A claim that all doses work equally might suggest that the medicine is > just placebo. We do know that the concentrations at which herbs are used > have measurable physiological effects as well. > It seems likely that some symptoms in some patients respond better to > placebo than others and, although placebo is relevant to all forms of > medicine, what sets herbalits apart from others is not placebo, but the > use of physiologically active plant extracts? > > I think we were using the word 'needs' rather too loosely. > > Kind regards, > > > Chenery > > > > Sabine Hiller wrote: > > Hi and all, > > > > Clearly, placebo is an important part of any intervention, and yes, the fact > > that a practitioner has confidence in his/her modality will definitely > > enhance such effects, as will many other aspects of the therapeutic > > relationship - as you say, optimising placebo is a real skill and nothing to > > sneer at. > > > > However, I cannot agree that a practitioner's belief may affect the NEEDS of > > the patient. Surely patients' needs are determined by their physiology and > > their own beliefs! If I have the belief that drop doses work, does this mean > > that the Pt will - as a result of my belief - only need drop doses? If I > > believed that 5ml were needed, would the same Pt's needs change? > > > > We have to distinguish between the needs of the patient, and the outcome of > > the treatment - the practitioner's belief may affect treatment outcome (e.g. > > by creating an expectation in the patient that drops will be effective), but > > surely not the given needs of the patient! Should whether I use 10 or 100ml > > a week be determined by the patient's presentation and by a knowledge of the > > pharmacology of the herb in question, or by my belief in a doctrine of drops > > or teaspoons? I thought that the 'no one size fits all' maxim is meant to > > apply to patients, not as a licence for herbalists to be under the > > impression that their chosen belief in a particular dosing regime will mould > > the patient's requirements. > > > > I dont know whether people think it matters that we have no clear dosing > > guidelines. However, if we claim that all doses work equally well, then I > > think we are under an obligation to investigate this, and if it can be shown > > that drop doses (in general) really work just as well as larger doses, then > > this dosing regime should (in general) replace the current 100ml/week > > custom - it would be far more sustainable. > > > > Best wishes > > Sabine > > > > Re: Re: weekly dosages > > > > > > > >> Hello Sabine, > >> > >> I believe that an important proportion of most, if not all medicine, is > >> that which pharmaceutical science deprecatingly calls 'placebo' and, > >> within that proportion (which must surely vary from case to case), a > >> practitioner's belief may indeed affect the needs of the patient. I > >> wonder if you would agree that that is a skill of the practitioner that > >> is complementary to the physiological effect of the medicine directly on > >> the patients cells and thus indirectly on the systems in which those > >> cells function? > >> > >> KR > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Dear Marilena, I don't think that what I wrote means that I think homoeopathy is placebo effect. I wasn't thinking about homoeopathy at all, but about traditional herbal medicine, which is not all placebo effect. That said I would venture that there are homoeopathic effects in herbal medicine - and I am not at the moment talking about minuscule dosage, for which homoeopathy is most famous. I think that all homoeopathy is just treating 'like with like' in the sense that a defence is stimulated by those natural physiological mechanisms which every first year student learns in Pathology. In that sense, a great degree of the endobiogenic mechanisms well expounded by Durrafroud and Lapraz (and probably the only rational explanation of herbal medicine that I can think of) are indeed homoepathic mechanisms. So far as molecule-free medicines are concerned - I simply don't know. It's not my area. We do use very low dose biodynamic manures on our herbal crops and livestock grasslands and see improvements in quality stimulated where we use them regularly but these are more like 1:2000 or so and not in fact so dilute as many homoeopathic medicines (often 1 in many millions). There's hysteria abroad at the moment about homoeopathy. Let's hope we herbalists can manage to stay above all those destructive vibes which the very self same detractors of homoeopathy have in store for us herbalists also. On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:33 +0000, marilena hettema wrote: > > > > dear , does this mean that you see homeopathy as placebo effect? > marilena. > > > To: ukherbal-list > > From: herbalist@... > > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 18:44:10 +0000 > > Subject: Re: Re: weekly dosages > > > > Hello again Sabine, > > > > Yes, I think you are right. > > > > A claim that all doses work equally might suggest that the medicine > is > > just placebo. We do know that the concentrations at which herbs are > used > > have measurable physiological effects as well. > > It seems likely that some symptoms in some patients respond better > to > > placebo than others and, although placebo is relevant to all forms > of > > medicine, what sets herbalits apart from others is not placebo, but > the > > use of physiologically active plant extracts? > > > > I think we were using the word 'needs' rather too loosely. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Chenery > > > > > > > > Sabine Hiller wrote: > > > Hi and all, > > > > > > Clearly, placebo is an important part of any intervention, and > yes, the fact > > > that a practitioner has confidence in his/her modality will > definitely > > > enhance such effects, as will many other aspects of the > therapeutic > > > relationship - as you say, optimising placebo is a real skill and > nothing to > > > sneer at. > > > > > > However, I cannot agree that a practitioner's belief may affect > the NEEDS of > > > the patient. Surely patients' needs are determined by their > physiology and > > > their own beliefs! If I have the belief that drop doses work, does > this mean > > > that the Pt will - as a result of my belief - only need drop > doses? If I > > > believed that 5ml were needed, would the same Pt's needs change? > > > > > > We have to distinguish between the needs of the patient, and the > outcome of > > > the treatment - the practitioner's belief may affect treatment > outcome (e.g. > > > by creating an expectation in the patient that drops will be > effective), but > > > surely not the given needs of the patient! Should whether I use 10 > or 100ml > > > a week be determined by the patient's presentation and by a > knowledge of the > > > pharmacology of the herb in question, or by my belief in a > doctrine of drops > > > or teaspoons? I thought that the 'no one size fits all' maxim is > meant to > > > apply to patients, not as a licence for herbalists to be under > the > > > impression that their chosen belief in a particular dosing regime > will mould > > > the patient's requirements. > > > > > > I dont know whether people think it matters that we have no clear > dosing > > > guidelines. However, if we claim that all doses work equally well, > then I > > > think we are under an obligation to investigate this, and if it > can be shown > > > that drop doses (in general) really work just as well as larger > doses, then > > > this dosing regime should (in general) replace the current > 100ml/week > > > custom - it would be far more sustainable. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > Sabine > > > > > > Re: Re: weekly dosages > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hello Sabine, > > >> > > >> I believe that an important proportion of most, if not all > medicine, is > > >> that which pharmaceutical science deprecatingly calls 'placebo' > and, > > >> within that proportion (which must surely vary from case to > case), a > > >> practitioner's belief may indeed affect the needs of the patient. > I > > >> wonder if you would agree that that is a skill of the > practitioner that > > >> is complementary to the physiological effect of the medicine > directly on > > >> the patients cells and thus indirectly on the systems in which > those > > >> cells function? > > >> > > >> KR > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2010 Report Share Posted March 15, 2010 Dear Thanks for that - I enjoyed reading your paper on colloids, and am pleased to have provided you with the opportunity to publicise it as I, certainly, hadn't come across it before. With regard to the relative strengths of tinctures I think my maths is still pertinent to the discussion on dosage, and the importance of co-factors, alcohol concentration etc. hadn't actually escaped me, I just rather took it for granted that it would be understood. Incidentally, I've been making my own tinctures for some years now (since well before I even started training as a herbalist!) and am not so completely sold on fresh plant tinctures. The issue of efficacy is, as you know, fantastically complex and all we really have to go on is our own and other's clinical experience. I've found, for example, that the Hypericum I grow on my allotment seems to be much more effective as a nervine if I dry it first- similarly, Hawthorn flowers. On the other hand and Tanacetum parth. as dried plant tinctures don't seem to do anything. I was intrigued to see that your Hypericum tincture in your research was made with 96.5% ethanol, and that you then diluted the tincture after you had pressed it out. What was the purpose? Surely you would then be missing most of the hydrophillic compounds? Also, thinking about your paper, how on earth do you find the time? I am very impressed that you can knock something like that out and run a farm, herb company, etc. Well done. Regards Max ________________________________ To: ukherbal-list Sent: Mon, 8 March, 2010 9:44:43 Subject: Re: Re: weekly dosages  Dear Max, May I point out the essential but basic factor, which seems to entirely escape herbalists and even their educators as well?. These factors require effort to appreciate but many people tend to overlook them. This is that herbal medicines, which are supposed to be whole plant extracts, almost always consist of many and widely differing types of components, and whereas some of these, such as simple sugars, may be extremely soluble in aqueous solution, others such as many of the so-called 'active' hydrocarbons (things like hyperiforin and hypericins) would be almost totally insoluble in water-alcohol. (This is all part of biological evolutionary necessity - the body generally has well developed defences against physiologically active compounds). This has led to habitual over-simplification and a tendency to over-simplify the issue. Solubilisation of many 'active' compounds depends on the presence at certain critical concentrations of the simpler 'co-factor' compounds, and the basic mechanism is explained at some length at: http://www.rutlandb io.com/wp- content/uploads/ 2009/04/plants- colloids- tinctures. pdf The fact that solubilisation can be decreased by both too much and also too little of co-factors is considered by plant physiologists to be a well-worn evolutionary driver. This is a major plank in the theoretical consideration of dosages that any in-depth discussion needs to appreciate. Therefore whether a 1:2 is, as you suggest " ...twice as strong as " as 1:5 will depend as much on the proportion of whole plant components in the starting material, as it does on the menstrum. > > > Dear > hate to sound picky, but your guidelines aren't quite right. When you > extract components from a herb in a liquid, the extraction process > theoretically stops when equilibrium has been achieved between > soluble components in the herb and in the liquid. So, for example, if > you put 100g of herb in 500ml of liquid (your 1:5), one sixth of the > components will remain in the herb, with one sixth in each 100ml of > the liquid. Thus 100ml of the herb will contain one sixth of 100g (ie. > 16.6g). For a 1:2, 66% of the components will theoretically diffuse > into the liquid (with 33%remaining in the herb), meaning that each > 100ml will contain 33% (ie. 33g), so a 1:2 is only twice as strong as > a 1:5. In your example, a 25ml per week dose of a 1:5 would translate > to 12.5 ml of a 1:2. > It is actually quite useful to know this as you will see that a 1:1 is > only twice as strong as a 1:3. If you are making your own tinctures > from a limited supply of herb, you are going to get more bangs for > your bucks by making a 1:3. > nerdingly yours, > Max Drake > urbanfinge.co. uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 Dear Max, Good to know that at least someone has read the paper at (if I may plug it again) http://www.rutlandbio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/plants-colloids-tinctures.p\ df I chose to use pure ethanol and fresh Hypericum in the experimental project, because after extracting the fresh plant juice, the resultant mixture was approx. 45%, which is the strength of one of our biggest selling tinctures of all. However, observation of the diffusion of laser light through tinctures of more than 100 different plants demonstrated colloids in every single one, although to notably differing degrees. What struck us however, was that fresh plants extracts, generally, showed noticeably greater colligative effects on light. (But one of the big frustrations I had during this piece of work was lack of access to equipment which can measure colligative properties at Preston University, even after the the introduction of their Pharmacy course - not to mention the hostile reception the work met at same esteemed place - so these effects have not yet been quantified). In brief, the theoretical correlation is that the ecological evolutionary forces driving xeno-biological activity (activity of the tissue of one species upon the physiology of another) , which is generally (if perhaps not exclusively) a requirement of living (i.e. fresh in our usage) rather than of dead (or dried) material. This theory does not deny the presence of physiologically active molecules in dried plant material - that is where the pharmaceutical industry first get them from - but it suggests itself as a prime example of the difference between herbal and pharmaceutical medicine, which is how whole plant tissues have evolved to act upon other organisms, rather than the evolutionary accident that gives us pharmaceutical medicine. In this regard, the use of alcohol to improve emulsification of solubilised components becomes a whole lot more rational. I am sure your maths is pertinent and physiological activity depends on the combination of co-factors, some additive (for example synergistic) and some indeed inhibitory, many, if not actually most, of which are subject to physical control over their activity by concentration criticality, possibly at complete orders more or less than the concentrations ( " strengths " ) which we traditionally use. Kind regards to all, Chenery www.rutlandbio.com > > > > > Dear > Thanks for that - I enjoyed reading your paper on colloids, and am > pleased to have provided you with the opportunity to publicise it as > I, certainly, hadn't come across it before. With regard to the > relative strengths of tinctures I think my maths is still pertinent to > the discussion on dosage, and the importance of co-factors, alcohol > concentration etc. hadn't actually escaped me, I just rather took it > for granted that it would be understood. > Incidentally, I've been making my own tinctures for some years now > (since well before I even started training as a herbalist!) and am not > so completely sold on fresh plant tinctures. The issue of efficacy is, > as you know, fantastically complex and all we really have to go on is > our own and other's clinical experience. I've found, for example, that > the Hypericum I grow on my allotment seems to be much more effective > as a nervine if I dry it first- similarly, Hawthorn flowers. On the > other hand and Tanacetum parth. as dried plant tinctures don't > seem to do anything. I was intrigued to see that your Hypericum > tincture in your research was made with 96.5% ethanol, and that you > then diluted the tincture after you had pressed it out. What was the > purpose? Surely you would then be missing most of the hydrophillic > compounds? > Also, thinking about your paper, how on earth do you find the time? I > am very impressed that you can knock something like that out and run a > farm, herb company, etc. Well done. > Regards > Max > > ________________________________ > > To: ukherbal-list > Sent: Mon, 8 March, 2010 9:44:43 > Subject: Re: Re: weekly dosages > > > Dear Max, > > May I point out the essential but basic factor, which seems to > entirely > escape herbalists and even their educators as well?. These factors > require effort to appreciate but many people tend to overlook them. > > This is that herbal medicines, which are supposed to be whole plant > extracts, almost always consist of many and widely differing types of > components, and whereas some of these, such as simple sugars, may be > extremely soluble in aqueous solution, others such as many of the > so-called 'active' hydrocarbons (things like hyperiforin and > hypericins) > would be almost totally insoluble in water-alcohol. (This is all part > of > biological evolutionary necessity - the body generally has well > developed defences against physiologically active compounds). > > This has led to habitual over-simplification and a tendency to > over-simplify the issue. > > Solubilisation of many 'active' compounds depends on the presence at > certain critical concentrations of the simpler 'co-factor' compounds, > and the basic mechanism is explained at some length at: > http://www.rutlandb io.com/wp- content/uploads/ 2009/04/plants- > colloids- tinctures. pdf > > The fact that solubilisation can be decreased by both too much and > also > too little of co-factors is considered by plant physiologists to be a > well-worn evolutionary driver. > > This is a major plank in the theoretical consideration of dosages that > any in-depth discussion needs to appreciate. > > Therefore whether a 1:2 is, as you suggest " ...twice as strong as " as > 1:5 will depend as much on the proportion of whole plant components in > the starting material, as it does on the menstrum. > > > > > > > > > > > Dear > > hate to sound picky, but your guidelines aren't quite right. When > you > > extract components from a herb in a liquid, the extraction process > > theoretically stops when equilibrium has been achieved between > > soluble components in the herb and in the liquid. So, for example, > if > > you put 100g of herb in 500ml of liquid (your 1:5), one sixth of the > > components will remain in the herb, with one sixth in each 100ml of > > the liquid. Thus 100ml of the herb will contain one sixth of 100g > (ie. > > 16.6g). For a 1:2, 66% of the components will theoretically diffuse > > into the liquid (with 33%remaining in the herb), meaning that each > > 100ml will contain 33% (ie. 33g), so a 1:2 is only twice as strong > as > > a 1:5. In your example, a 25ml per week dose of a 1:5 would > translate > > to 12.5 ml of a 1:2. > > It is actually quite useful to know this as you will see that a 1:1 > is > > only twice as strong as a 1:3. If you are making your own tinctures > > from a limited supply of herb, you are going to get more bangs for > > your bucks by making a 1:3. > > nerdingly yours, > > Max Drake > > urbanfinge.co. uk > > 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.