Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

Rate this topic

Guest guest

By Guest guest
in Health, Medicine and Natural Healing 11

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Many thanks Schia & . The patient and her husband were keen to used

this protocol - whilst I'm aware of it, I've no direct experience of

utilising it.

Many thanks again.

Kind regards

Mandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I'm not the right person to answer this as I don't have any direct

experience, but from my recollection I thought you were supposed to

liquidise the cottage cheese with oil, which might make it easier to take?

Schia :)

Schia MNIMH MIMHO

Medical Herbalist

Cambridge

www.cambridgeherbalist.org.uk

>

> Dear List

>

> I hope someone can help a patient with a diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer.

> Amoung other interventions this lady is trying to follow the protocol

> developed by Dr Johanna Budwig by eating Flaxseed Oil & Cottage cheese.

>

> Unfortunately she is having problems eating solid food - hence she is

> finding the cottage cheese component difficult. Her husband has been

> trawling the internet for possible solutions and has found references

> to the substitution of cottage cheese by natural yogurt. He informs me

> that the recommendation is that the natural yogurt is finely sieved in

> order to drain off the whey.

>

> Has anyone had experience / heard of using natural yogurt for this

> purpose? Would you suggest using muslin to achieve this? If so - can

> you point me in the direction of a supplier?

>

> Many thanks

>

> Mandy Cutbill

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

The cottage cheese and flax helps the formation of butyrate in the intestines

which helps in colon cancer - I have not used it with ovarian. She could blend

the c.cheese and flax in a good blender and add some berries etc - make a

smoothie.

J Fidler, MCPP, (RH) AHG

Herbalist

________________________________

To: ukherbal-list

Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 9:55:15 AM

Subject: Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

I'm not the right person to answer this as I don't have any direct

experience, but from my recollection I thought you were supposed to

liquidise the cottage cheese with oil, which might make it easier to take?

Schia :)

Schia MNIMH MIMHO

Medical Herbalist

Cambridge

www.cambridgeherbalist.org.uk

>

> Dear List

>

> I hope someone can help a patient with a diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer.

> Amoung other interventions this lady is trying to follow the protocol

> developed by Dr Johanna Budwig by eating Flaxseed Oil & Cottage cheese.

>

> Unfortunately she is having problems eating solid food - hence she is

> finding the cottage cheese component difficult. Her husband has been

> trawling the internet for possible solutions and has found references

> to the substitution of cottage cheese by natural yogurt. He informs me

> that the recommendation is that the natural yogurt is finely sieved in

> order to drain off the whey.

>

> Has anyone had experience / heard of using natural yogurt for this

> purpose? Would you suggest using muslin to achieve this? If so - can

> you point me in the direction of a supplier?

>

> Many thanks

>

> Mandy Cutbill

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I've had a patient who used this protocol extensively. It is supposed

to be made into a blend like a smoothie so its in liquid form. From my

reading and understanding though, it is supposed to be of limited use

unless you follow the complete protocol 100%. (which is difficult).

Would be interested to hear how she gets on. My patient followed it

strictly for about nine months. I think from memory (it was about

three years ago) the diet is supposed to be strict for two to three

years then gradually relaxing. The downside was that Budwig said that

if you then came off the diet too early the cancer could return more

aggressively. I'm not sure about that and couldn't work out why that

would be.

Jean

Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

I'm not the right person to answer this as I don't have any direct

experience, but from my recollection I thought you were supposed to

liquidise the cottage cheese with oil, which might make it easier to

take?

Schia :)

Schia MNIMH MIMHO

Medical Herbalist

Cambridge

www.cambridgeherbalist.org.uk

>

> Dear List

>

> I hope someone can help a patient with a diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer.

> Amoung other interventions this lady is trying to follow the protocol

> developed by Dr Johanna Budwig by eating Flaxseed Oil & Cottage

cheese.

>

> Unfortunately she is having problems eating solid food - hence she is

> finding the cottage cheese component difficult. Her husband has been

> trawling the internet for possible solutions and has found references

> to the substitution of cottage cheese by natural yogurt. He informs

me

> that the recommendation is that the natural yogurt is finely sieved

in

> order to drain off the whey.

>

> Has anyone had experience / heard of using natural yogurt for this

> purpose? Would you suggest using muslin to achieve this? If so - can

> you point me in the direction of a supplier?

>

> Many thanks

>

> Mandy Cutbill

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Possibly b/c the lignans in the flax bind to oestrogen receptors?

J Fidler, MCPP, (RH) AHG

Herbalist

________________________________

To: ukherbal-list

Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 11:59:20 AM

Subject: Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

I've had a patient who used this protocol extensively. It is supposed

to be made into a blend like a smoothie so its in liquid form. From my

reading and understanding though, it is supposed to be of limited use

unless you follow the complete protocol 100%. (which is difficult).

Would be interested to hear how she gets on. My patient followed it

strictly for about nine months. I think from memory (it was about

three years ago) the diet is supposed to be strict for two to three

years then gradually relaxing. The downside was that Budwig said that

if you then came off the diet too early the cancer could return more

aggressively. I'm not sure about that and couldn't work out why that

would be.

Jean

Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

I'm not the right person to answer this as I don't have any direct

experience, but from my recollection I thought you were supposed to

liquidise the cottage cheese with oil, which might make it easier to

take?

Schia :)

Schia MNIMH MIMHO

Medical Herbalist

Cambridge

www.cambridgeherbalist.org.uk

>

> Dear List

>

> I hope someone can help a patient with a diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer.

> Amoung other interventions this lady is trying to follow the protocol

> developed by Dr Johanna Budwig by eating Flaxseed Oil & Cottage

cheese.

>

> Unfortunately she is having problems eating solid food - hence she is

> finding the cottage cheese component difficult. Her husband has been

> trawling the internet for possible solutions and has found references

> to the substitution of cottage cheese by natural yogurt. He informs

me

> that the recommendation is that the natural yogurt is finely sieved

in

> order to drain off the whey.

>

> Has anyone had experience / heard of using natural yogurt for this

> purpose? Would you suggest using muslin to achieve this? If so - can

> you point me in the direction of a supplier?

>

> Many thanks

>

> Mandy Cutbill

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Bear in mind there is a wealth of research linking ovarian cancer with dairy

products. I discourage my bowel and ovarian cancer patients from using it,

as I have seen the Budwig diet make things worse in a few cases with tumour

markers and cancer growth increasing very rapidly.

Best wishes,

Chris

From: ukherbal-list [mailto:ukherbal-list ]

On Behalf Of Cutbillm@...

Sent: 17 March 2011 14:35

To: ukherbal-list

Subject: Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

Many thanks Schia & . The patient and her husband were keen to used

this protocol - whilst I'm aware of it, I've no direct experience of

utilising it.

Many thanks again.

Kind regards

Mandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Most ovarian cancers do not over-express oestrogen receptors.

Chris

From: ukherbal-list [mailto:ukherbal-list ] On

Behalf Of susan fidler

Sent: 17 March 2011 17:31

To: ukherbal-list

Subject: Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

Possibly b/c the lignans in the flax bind to oestrogen receptors?

J Fidler, MCPP, (RH) AHG

Herbalist

________________________________

From: " jeanrdow@... <mailto:jeanrdow%40aol.com> " <jeanrdow@...

<mailto:jeanrdow%40aol.com> >

To: ukherbal-list <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 11:59:20 AM

Subject: Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

I've had a patient who used this protocol extensively. It is supposed

to be made into a blend like a smoothie so its in liquid form. From my

reading and understanding though, it is supposed to be of limited use

unless you follow the complete protocol 100%. (which is difficult).

Would be interested to hear how she gets on. My patient followed it

strictly for about nine months. I think from memory (it was about

three years ago) the diet is supposed to be strict for two to three

years then gradually relaxing. The downside was that Budwig said that

if you then came off the diet too early the cancer could return more

aggressively. I'm not sure about that and couldn't work out why that

would be.

Jean

Re: Johanna Budwig Protocol

I'm not the right person to answer this as I don't have any direct

experience, but from my recollection I thought you were supposed to

liquidise the cottage cheese with oil, which might make it easier to

take?

Schia :)

Schia MNIMH MIMHO

Medical Herbalist

Cambridge

www.cambridgeherbalist.org.uk

>

> Dear List

>

> I hope someone can help a patient with a diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer.

> Amoung other interventions this lady is trying to follow the protocol

> developed by Dr Johanna Budwig by eating Flaxseed Oil & Cottage

cheese.

>

> Unfortunately she is having problems eating solid food - hence she is

> finding the cottage cheese component difficult. Her husband has been

> trawling the internet for possible solutions and has found references

> to the substitution of cottage cheese by natural yogurt. He informs

me

> that the recommendation is that the natural yogurt is finely sieved

in

> order to drain off the whey.

>

> Has anyone had experience / heard of using natural yogurt for this

> purpose? Would you suggest using muslin to achieve this? If so - can

> you point me in the direction of a supplier?

>

> Many thanks

>

> Mandy Cutbill

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Mandy

How sad for this patient and her husband. I agree with and would

discourage patients from using quack diets.

The Budwig Protocol (or whatever title is used to lend it legitimacy) is

dangerous quackery. It offers hope to desperate patients and their relatives,

when there is no supporting scientific evidence behind it. If I did some

research, in reputable journals, I may find that altering lipids in one's diet

affects one's physiology.....but to leap from that to curing cancer.....is

preposterous. Try looking up 'Flaxseed' on MedlinePlus (can't recall if I can

use links in this forum). No evidence for curing with flaxseed.

Alternative medicine to cure cancer is an emotive issue but warning patients

that the internet is crammed with bogus claims and anecdotes is essential. I

would see my role as a health professional to give advice based on evidence and

not hearsay.

Should patients try Budwig or any of the other quack unproven diets? Well, that

is up to them, but for a health professional to promote it, or condone it -

well, that is where one goes into dangerous territory and towards illegality.

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

All I can say in response to this deeply depressing thread is long live magical

thinking :-/

>

> Hi Sonja

>

> I am a scientist (BSc) and therefore a trained skeptic :)

> Qualified herbalist (another BSc)

> Qualified nurse

>

> Mel

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Mel and all,

as somebody who is keen to pursue an evidence-based approach to herbal medicine,

I know that facing this list can be quite intimidating. It is simply not seen as

cool to be criticising aspects of alternative medicine, never mind herbal

medicine itself. As a result you may well have your credibility as a herbalist

questioned ( " Are you really a herbalist? " ) or face remarks like " Your attitude.

How depressing " , which contribute nothing to the discussion.

Because I know that it can be a very lonely station, and although I haven't time

at the moment to get involved in the debate as such, I thought I'd at least make

a little wave to show Mel, she's not here on her own.

" What is the point of standing firm in what you believe in, if it is

demonstrably untrue or ineffective? I agree herbal medicine needs to review the

underlying evidence-base, not because of SR, but because it is offering medical

services to the public. "

I couldn't agree more, Mel. Thanks for your contributions.

Best regards,

Sabine

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

" All I can say in response to this deeply depressing thread is long live magical

thinking "

Hi Alison

I do hope you are joking. Where do I start with 'long live magical thinking'? I

am interpreting this that you actually want more magical thinking, rather than

you being ironic?

Wanting more magical thinking implies a desire for the retreat of rational

thought and reason, whilst the world is dragged backwards, and it is backwards,

into a new Dark Age? Well, I am sorry to say that you may get your wish, if

things carry on the way they are.

Have you ever read Francis Wheen (How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World)? Not a

book that I would expect to find on a magical thinker's reading list, but

blimey, if you want a mind enema (and if you do find you are indulging in

magical thinking you really do need one), Wheen will give you one. It is a

rattling roller-coaster of a good read. He eviscerates the mumbo-jumbo which is

polluting and undermining rational thought. He sluices the sludge from one's

mind like a good old fashioned medieval purge. And while we are on the subject

of purges, remember that purges, blood-letting, humoral theory, all that

ineffective pre-scientific belief, was washed away by the thinkers of the

Enlightenment (viz. those who said `Non!' to magic and superstition).

I have lent my copy of Wheen to a friend so cannot find the quote I wanted, so I

have taken this from a Grauniad review of the book. " The values of the

Enlightenment – `an insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of

tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for

bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that (in Francis

Bacon's words) knowledge is indeed power' are daily being betrayed " .

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/07/highereducation.news1)

" a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth "

Hmm. I recall saying that " I suspect we will need [-] to consolidate our

protocols for the review of evidence and stand firm in what we believe in

(particularly the value of traditional sources) " .

Herbal medicine is taught as a BSc in the UK, so many herbalists display BSc

after their names. It would be disingenuous to display post-nominals which imply

scientific credibility, and advertise for clients, if one indulged in magical

medicine, rather than scientific medicine. By which I mean practice based on

reason compared to that based on a largely superstitious tradition (in which we

are exhorted by to `stand firm'). This `tradition' must be subject to

critique, by science, if it is to have any chance of professional recognition.

Herbal medicine really can't have its cake and eat it.

I might ask what we mean by `tradition', as it encompasses a huge plethora of

practice and advice, repeated and copied by various authors, over the centuries,

mostly before we had even basic understanding of anatomy and physiology, or the

causative agents of disease. I have an electronic library of old herbals. How do

I decide what is `tradition'? Or perhaps I should ask 'who' decides?

I need coffee and a biscuit.

Very best regards

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Dear Mel, many of us believe there is more to life, nature, the planet & the

cosmos than can be explained by so-called rational scientific means.

Simply because it cannot be measured by the current scientific standards does

not mean it is not real, true or relevant. Empirical medicine means the direct

observation of things which work and that is very often how herbal medicine is

handed down, the transmission of empirical knowledge.

The direct observation of herbs & strategies which work. That does not imply a

return to the dark ages, & it's quite annoying that any opposition to the

imposition of science upon herbal medicine is treated as the wish to return to

cave dwelling. Not so (i'd miss my washing machine).

Forgive me but i tend to put more store in empiricism than in scientific studies

which strip out active principles & 'prove' they work.

And i am a BSc because that was the only way i could study herbal medicine, i am

capable of scientific thought, i can dissect badly wirtten papers, evaluate

'scientific claims' but find it cold way to approach the practice of herbal

medicine and prefer to work more organically. And i enjoy magical thinking!!!

(Remember Einstein daydreamed his theory of relativity)

Hope you enjoyed your tea & biscuits!

Nathalie

>

> " All I can say in response to this deeply depressing thread is long live

magical thinking "

>

> Hi Alison

>

> I do hope you are joking. Where do I start with 'long live magical thinking'?

I am interpreting this that you actually want more magical thinking, rather than

you being ironic?

>

> Wanting more magical thinking implies a desire for the retreat of rational

thought and reason, whilst the world is dragged backwards, and it is backwards,

into a new Dark Age? Well, I am sorry to say that you may get your wish, if

things carry on the way they are.

>

> Have you ever read Francis Wheen (How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World)? Not a

book that I would expect to find on a magical thinker's reading list, but

blimey, if you want a mind enema (and if you do find you are indulging in

magical thinking you really do need one), Wheen will give you one. It is a

rattling roller-coaster of a good read. He eviscerates the mumbo-jumbo which is

polluting and undermining rational thought. He sluices the sludge from one's

mind like a good old fashioned medieval purge. And while we are on the subject

of purges, remember that purges, blood-letting, humoral theory, all that

ineffective pre-scientific belief, was washed away by the thinkers of the

Enlightenment (viz. those who said `Non!' to magic and superstition).

>

> I have lent my copy of Wheen to a friend so cannot find the quote I wanted, so

I have taken this from a Grauniad review of the book. " The values of the

Enlightenment – `an insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of

tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for

bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that (in Francis

Bacon's words) knowledge is indeed power' are daily being betrayed " .

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/07/highereducation.news1)

>

> " a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth "

>

> Hmm. I recall saying that " I suspect we will need [-] to consolidate

our protocols for the review of evidence and stand firm in what we believe in

(particularly the value of traditional sources) " .

>

> Herbal medicine is taught as a BSc in the UK, so many herbalists display BSc

after their names. It would be disingenuous to display post-nominals which imply

scientific credibility, and advertise for clients, if one indulged in magical

medicine, rather than scientific medicine. By which I mean practice based on

reason compared to that based on a largely superstitious tradition (in which we

are exhorted by to `stand firm'). This `tradition' must be subject to

critique, by science, if it is to have any chance of professional recognition.

Herbal medicine really can't have its cake and eat it.

>

> I might ask what we mean by `tradition', as it encompasses a huge plethora of

practice and advice, repeated and copied by various authors, over the centuries,

mostly before we had even basic understanding of anatomy and physiology, or the

causative agents of disease. I have an electronic library of old herbals. How do

I decide what is `tradition'? Or perhaps I should ask 'who' decides?

>

> I need coffee and a biscuit.

>

> Very best regards

>

> Mel

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Mel

Thanks for your response! I will make a point of avoiding the 'mind enema'

awaiting me in Francis Wheen's book. No joke or irony intended in my previous

comment. I have a BsC too :-) but I believe that there is more to all life on

this planet than can be measured by any means currently available to us, which

means my practice involves quite a few things unmeasurable! Should SR actually

happen next year and it looks anything like the picture you are painting, I will

simply have to opt out and call myself a witch.....

All the best

Alison

>

> " All I can say in response to this deeply depressing thread is long live

magical thinking "

>

> Hi Alison

>

> I do hope you are joking. Where do I start with 'long live magical thinking'?

I am interpreting this that you actually want more magical thinking, rather than

you being ironic?

>

> Wanting more magical thinking implies a desire for the retreat of rational

thought and reason, whilst the world is dragged backwards, and it is backwards,

into a new Dark Age? Well, I am sorry to say that you may get your wish, if

things carry on the way they are.

>

> Have you ever read Francis Wheen (How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World)? Not a

book that I would expect to find on a magical thinker's reading list, but

blimey, if you want a mind enema (and if you do find you are indulging in

magical thinking you really do need one), Wheen will give you one. It is a

rattling roller-coaster of a good read. He eviscerates the mumbo-jumbo which is

polluting and undermining rational thought. He sluices the sludge from one's

mind like a good old fashioned medieval purge. And while we are on the subject

of purges, remember that purges, blood-letting, humoral theory, all that

ineffective pre-scientific belief, was washed away by the thinkers of the

Enlightenment (viz. those who said `Non!' to magic and superstition).

>

> I have lent my copy of Wheen to a friend so cannot find the quote I wanted, so

I have taken this from a Grauniad review of the book. " The values of the

Enlightenment – `an insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of

tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for

bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that (in Francis

Bacon's words) knowledge is indeed power' are daily being betrayed " .

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/07/highereducation.news1)

>

> " a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth "

>

> Hmm. I recall saying that " I suspect we will need [-] to consolidate

our protocols for the review of evidence and stand firm in what we believe in

(particularly the value of traditional sources) " .

>

> Herbal medicine is taught as a BSc in the UK, so many herbalists display BSc

after their names. It would be disingenuous to display post-nominals which imply

scientific credibility, and advertise for clients, if one indulged in magical

medicine, rather than scientific medicine. By which I mean practice based on

reason compared to that based on a largely superstitious tradition (in which we

are exhorted by to `stand firm'). This `tradition' must be subject to

critique, by science, if it is to have any chance of professional recognition.

Herbal medicine really can't have its cake and eat it.

>

> I might ask what we mean by `tradition', as it encompasses a huge plethora of

practice and advice, repeated and copied by various authors, over the centuries,

mostly before we had even basic understanding of anatomy and physiology, or the

causative agents of disease. I have an electronic library of old herbals. How do

I decide what is `tradition'? Or perhaps I should ask 'who' decides?

>

> I need coffee and a biscuit.

>

> Very best regards

>

> Mel

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Fiona

what a great message, encompasses all that i personally feel about our

uniqueness as herbalists, our wonderful diversity.

I would attend a meeting if I can get there. Time and money !!

It is important to maintain our diversity and not become a pastuerised version

of ourselves. I'm certainly not being herded into a pen !

Happy spring everyone

Much love

Jacqui

-- In ukherbal-list , Fiona Shakeela Burns wrote:

>

> Hi All

>

> What a great thread!

> Sabine, criticising other people¹s posts whilst also saying that you do not

> have time to really contribute to the discussion, I find unhelpful.

>

> Mel is indeed playing a useful role here in this discussion and I would like

> to thank her for her point of view even though I do not agree with a lot of

> her expressed viewpoint. Without her though this discussion would not have

> been possible ­ thanks Mel!

>

> brought up an important point and in return I would like to say that

> even though we are very helpful people in general (as herbalists) - in this

> case I think we should not assist in the Œputting herbalists in to boxes

> process!¹ Ie all agreeing on the best protocols approach.

>

> I have massive warning bells going on here ­ we only need to look at out

> dear NHS in order to see how effective medical professionals are when they

> exist within an evidence-based protocol-obsessed fearful system. My recent

> brush with this system was in-fact the hardest aspect of having cancer! I

> experienced first hand the immense fear that exists which even prevents them

> from being compassionate human beings.

>

> I am not against the NHS per-se as I love the idea of a helpful free service

> which is full of intelligent professional caring people who are all working

> cohesively in order to create a wonderful healing system.

>

> Is this what we have got?

>

> NO IT IS NOT!!! ­ then PLEASE lets stand up for our right to be

> free-thinking, intelligent, intuitive, professional, caring people.

>

> I feel that the best way forward for us is to agree to certain principles as

> we did when we took our oath.

>

> Ie: we agree to the Œhow¹ rather that the Œwhat¹ This is enough! In other

> words we agree on values rather than actual protocols.

>

> If we agree to being put in boxes we will have a very hard time getting out

> again! And where does it end?

>

> We will end up with a situation where we will be scared to try new things

> and the evolution of our profession will grind to an almighty halt! The

> practice of herbal medicine will lose the aliveness that it currently holds

> due to the natural diversity and mutual respect amongst us.

>

> I do not want to become part of an EU-managed GM crop!

>

> I know that Mel is presenting the argument for the standardised approach,

> but I am sure that she would not have become a herbalist if she were not

> interested in providing healthcare that really works for people.

>

> We are currently being sold the idea that in order to really be accepted as

> professionals in our field that we must meet with certain Œsafety criteria¹

> - that we are somehow dangerous otherwise! And yet where is this coming

> from?

>

> Believe me, if there were any actual cases of injury or harm caused by

> herbalist¹s application of herbal medicine ­ now is the time that they would

> be plastered all over the papers as part of the convincing process ­ ie

> convincing the public for the need for protection against herbalists.

>

> The truth is that we as herbalists have an amazingly safe track record and I

> personally have loved being a member of NIMH for the last 20 years because

> this is a group of people who are intelligent, free-thinking, warm and

> eccentric!! I am proud to be a herbalist, I am proud of the service that I

> offer, I am proud to be part of an ethical group of people where the people

> who need help have the freedom to find the herbalist who they want to work

> with.

> Not all herbalists are meant to be the same!

> Not all human beings are meant to be the same!

>

> We are meant to be different ­ all of us as different as the wild flowers.

>

> If we do in fact agree to start abiding by certain protocols, then we have

> lost our freedom and we leave ourselves wide open for being sued and I

> actually got sent a link recently from a group that has been set up with the

> specific aim of suing alternative health-care providers who are not abiding

> by ³THE RULES² called the Nightingale group. And guess who will be funding

> this friendly little project? (I will forward this link on to the list).

>

> I feel like we are a group of sheep that is being herded in to a pen ­ we

> are being told that once we get in the pen we will have recognition, status,

> credibility......

>

> That is B*******S!!!!

>

> The recognition and self-worth that we seek needs to come from within.

>

> Please people we need to wake up now ­ PLEASE LETS WAKE UP!

>

> Lets embrace our individuality and keep it!

>

> I feel so passionately about this that I feel the need for a group meeting ­

> please let me know if you would like to attend and if there is enough

> interest, I will organise it and invite everyone who has an interest in

> preserving the aliveness that currently hallmarks our profession ­ and Mel I

> think we need you in that meeting too!

>

> We need to stick together!

>

> One match can be broken ­ put a bunch of matches together and they cannot be

> broken. If we simply refuse (as a group) to be herded in to the

> afore-mentioned pen (despite what ever our professional bodies say) then

> there is nothing that can happen to us. If we speak our truth ­ the public

> will recognise that truth. We need to have a meeting, then as individuals

> contact papers, TV, radio and SHOUT the truth!

>

> OMG ­ bring on the REVOLUTION!

>

> Love

>

> Shakeela

> --

>

>

>

> Fiona Shakeela Burns

>

> Medical Herbalist, Advanced PSYCH-K, Matrix Reimprinting and EFT facilitator

>

> http://www.natureworx.com

> http://www.cancerucan.co.uk

>

> You're never going to get to any final place. And so, we want to remind you

> to relax and start having fun on the way.

> --- Abraham

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Hi Mel and all,

> >

> > as somebody who is keen to pursue an evidence-based approach to herbal

> > medicine, I know that facing this list can be quite intimidating. It is

simply

> > not seen as cool to be criticising aspects of alternative medicine, never

mind

> > herbal medicine itself. As a result you may well have your credibility as a

> > herbalist questioned ( " Are you really a herbalist? " ) or face remarks like

> > " Your attitude. How depressing " , which contribute nothing to the discussion.

> >

> > Because I know that it can be a very lonely station, and although I haven't

> > time at the moment to get involved in the debate as such, I thought I'd at

> > least make a little wave to show Mel, she's not here on her own.

> >

> > " What is the point of standing firm in what you believe in, if it is

> > demonstrably untrue or ineffective? I agree herbal medicine needs to review

> > the underlying evidence-base, not because of SR, but because it is offering

> > medical services to the public. "

> >

> > I couldn't agree more, Mel. Thanks for your contributions.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Sabine

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Alison

A witch eh? ;-)

I agree that it is difficult to envisage how a statutorily regulated herbal

profession under the HPC, can hope to practice without robust evidence of

effectiveness. That would mean the profession (I mean herbal medicine) would be

relying on (or largely on) the placebo effect. Yikes! The Government Science &

Technology Committee recently said;

" Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship,

prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and

unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS "

(http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technol\

ogy/s-t-homeopathy-inquiry/)

OK, HM is not on the NHS, but it is offering `medicine' to the public.

On the BSc issue: Perhaps herbalists should study for diplomas in herbal

medicine, rather than degrees in science? That would go some way to addressing

the ongoing dissonance between having a BSc, and being taught a lot of

pseudoscience and magic on the course. It is a ridiculous situation. My first

BSc was pure science. My second BSc was distinctly lacking in critical analysis

in some areas and sometimes was just plain insane (dowsing in the corridors was

a low point). No wonder scientists attack herbal medicine, we hand them the guns

and then supply the ammo.

Yes, practice does involve things which are uncontrolled, and of course patients

go home and take goodness knows what else on top of any herbal mix, so how on

earth can you measure any effect of any treatment? DBRCTs reduce noise from

biases and confounding variables (some of those `unmeasurable' things). I do not

think that just saying " I believe that there is more to all life on this planet

than can be measured by any means currently available to us, which means my

practice involves quite a few things unmeasurable " is enough. One can measure

aspects of practice, and reduce bias and other variables (well, I can't but

people way better at statistics can). You can unpick the effects of individual

herbs and see if they are having an effect above placebo. I think that is

really important, especially in the light of the ethical issues around deceiving

patients. Surely anyone practising medicine wants to know if their treatments

are having a real physiological effect?

And yes, there is more to life than science, but it is crucial, and it underpins

our understanding of the world around us.

Good wishes

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Mel - I'm sorry you were not happy with your course - dowsing sounds like a

lot of fun though - not on our curriculum unfortunately.

As for knowing what is working - I am of course interested in the various

constituents of any herb which may have this or that effect, essentially when it

comes to considering potential interactions with prescribed orthodox medication,

but I have no desire to 'unpick' the effects of individual herbs, particularly

as I know the whole herb is greater than the sum of its parts so unpicking is

reductionist and pointless. The best evidence I (personally speaking)can have

for effectiveness is observing a patient's improvement and hearing that they

feel better.

I don't think we can rely on science to be the bedrock you describe. Scientists

notoriously disagree constantly. Look at Global warming! Plenty of 'evidence' on

both sides in that debate.

I congratulate you on the clarity of your view by the way but please don't

assume that it is necessarily shared, or even that it will prevail in the long

run.

Best wishes

Alison

>

> Hi Alison

>

> A witch eh? ;-)

>

> I agree that it is difficult to envisage how a statutorily regulated herbal

profession under the HPC, can hope to practice without robust evidence of

effectiveness. That would mean the profession (I mean herbal medicine) would be

relying on (or largely on) the placebo effect. Yikes! The Government Science &

Technology Committee recently said;

>

> " Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship,

prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and

unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS "

>

>

(http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technol\

ogy/s-t-homeopathy-inquiry/)

>

> OK, HM is not on the NHS, but it is offering `medicine' to the public.

> On the BSc issue: Perhaps herbalists should study for diplomas in herbal

medicine, rather than degrees in science? That would go some way to addressing

the ongoing dissonance between having a BSc, and being taught a lot of

pseudoscience and magic on the course. It is a ridiculous situation. My first

BSc was pure science. My second BSc was distinctly lacking in critical analysis

in some areas and sometimes was just plain insane (dowsing in the corridors was

a low point). No wonder scientists attack herbal medicine, we hand them the guns

and then supply the ammo.

>

> Yes, practice does involve things which are uncontrolled, and of course

patients go home and take goodness knows what else on top of any herbal mix, so

how on earth can you measure any effect of any treatment? DBRCTs reduce noise

from biases and confounding variables (some of those `unmeasurable' things). I

do not think that just saying " I believe that there is more to all life on this

planet than can be measured by any means currently available to us, which means

my practice involves quite a few things unmeasurable " is enough. One can measure

aspects of practice, and reduce bias and other variables (well, I can't but

people way better at statistics can). You can unpick the effects of individual

herbs and see if they are having an effect above placebo. I think that is

really important, especially in the light of the ethical issues around deceiving

patients. Surely anyone practising medicine wants to know if their treatments

are having a real physiological effect?

>

> And yes, there is more to life than science, but it is crucial, and it

underpins our understanding of the world around us.

>

> Good wishes

>

> Mel

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Good evening Shakeela

" We are very helpful people in general (as herbalists) "

Good to hear that. If this means we are helpful to patients in that the herbs we

prescribe are effective, rather than relying on placebo, then I might agree (a

bit anyway). Of course one can't generalise and there might be herbalists who

are not helpful, even though they may believe they are helpful. They may just be

standing firm in their belief that traditional herbal medicine is helpful even

though they are not willing to open themselves up to critical appraisal. Or,

they may say they are open up to critical appraisal (so they look more helpful)

and they say `Yes, by all means come and see what we are doing, but (BIG BUT)

don't use the scientific paradigm or DBRCTs, `cos that doesn't work on herbs,

`cos there are more things in heaven and earth than can be seen by science'.

Well, then that is not helpful and is in fact dis-benefiting patients.

" I think we should not assist in the putting herbalists in to boxes "

I agree. Putting all herbalists into a one big box would be a bad thing: Like

cats in a bag.

" I have massive warning bells going on here… "

Me too

" …an evidence-based protocol-obsessed fearful system "

Agree, the NHS ain't perfect and I (anecdote alert) have also had negative

experiences in the NHS. The protocols are there (and yes there are many) to

protect patients and staff.

" …the immense fear that exists which even prevents them from being compassionate

human beings " .

Yes, the lack of compassion is a charge that could be levelled at some NHS

staff. It is monstrously busy though and one can only do so much. Not sure what

fear you mean.

" My recent brush with this system was in-fact the hardest aspect of having

cancer! "

I cannot imagine what having that diagnosis is like. Glad you are still here.

" NHS [-] helpful free service which is full of intelligent professional caring

people who are all working cohesively in order to create a wonderful healing

system " .

Not free. Costs billions. Is there to provide acute medical care. Will never

be this dream NHS you describe above. Can't happen (except in Star Trek).

" Lets (sic) stand up for our right to be free-thinking, intelligent, intuitive,

professional, caring people "

I can go with this (a bit) except the intuitive. I feel that is a value-laden

word in this context (I mean it is a euphemism for magical thinking). And except

intelligent. I don't think we can demand intelligence either. It is your right

to demand to be intelligent but if you are not then that is tough (unless we go

for some GM or cloning). Actually I don't agree with any of this at all. It is

our responsibility to be professional, caring people. It is the patient's right

to expect professional caring treatment.

" We agree on values rather than actual protocols "

Is this a democracy? Who is this `we'? Anyway, is democracy the best way

forward? What values do we agree on? I don't agree, for instance that herbal

medicine should be an `anything goes' postmodernist nirvana zone.

" If we agree to being put in boxes we will have a very hard time getting out

again! "

Well, I am not sure what boxes you refer to. If you mean science, then I

disagree. Applying a critical scientific approach would allow the profession to

move forward and develop. I think the fear is amongst some herbalists not NHS

staff.

" We will end up with a situation where we will be scared to try new things and

the evolution of our profession will grind to an almighty halt! "

Herbal medicine has, IMO, in some ways, ground to an almighty halt, and one

could make a good case for it even moving backwards. By rejecting the scientific

'paradigm' some herbalists even want to turn back the clock. We were taught

constitutional diagnosis (yes, the humoral system) on a BSc. And, no I didn't

sit my degree in 1765. I do not see the profession evolving, I see it, in some

cases, being insular and strenuously avoiding evolving. I find that very sad.

" The practice of herbal medicine will lose the aliveness that it currently holds

due to the natural diversity and mutual respect amongst us. "

At the moment it seems you are arguing for a rather nebulous set of values, viz.

all views are equally valid and perhaps that we should respect everyone else's

beliefs. I disagree. Some people believe fantastically weird things (like

iridology). That is just more ammo for the quack-busters.

" I know that Mel is presenting the argument for the standardised approach "

I am? I thought I was arguing for an evidence-based approach, which means taking

on board the evidence, even when negative, and adapting practice accordingly.

" I do not want to become part of an EU-managed GM crop! "

No-one is suggesting you should be. But a thread on GM herbs would be most

interesting. What about GM Petasites with no PAs?

" We are currently being sold the idea that in order to really be accepted as

professionals in our field that we must meet with certain safety criteria - that

we are somehow dangerous otherwise! And yet where is this coming from? "

Herbalists requested SR. Safety is good in medicine. It is dangerous to think

one can practice without safety criteria.

" The truth is that we as herbalists have an amazingly safe track record "

Evidence please. Linkies to published data. Big claim need big proof. Why might

herbalists appear to be safe? Perhaps because they are dealing with

non-life-threatening illness, that their medicines have little actual

physiological effect, that most of the illnesses they treat are relapsing

remitting conditions or perhaps their patients just get better anyway. Just

offering suggestions that might be offered to rebut your assertion.

" We are meant to be different "

Not sure I would apply intent to evolution. I think people often strive to

conform culturally, i.e. not be different.

" If we do in fact agree to start abiding by certain protocols, then we have lost

our freedom and we leave ourselves wide open for being sued "

If you are practicing in a safe and effective manner, then there is nothing to

be sued for. Yes, as a medical professional one must conform to codes of

practice. Breaking the code means disciplinary action. This is integral to

becoming a profession. It sounds scary but it actually protects you as well as

the patient.

" We need to stick together! "

But I don't agree with you. How can we stick together? :-)

" If we speak our truth ¬the public will recognise that truth "

OK. Now I agree with you here. I think 'the public' have a very high tolerance

for `truths' (in the very widest possible nebulous definition of the word, viz.

anything goes) and they may well recognise a truth, even though it is a wrong

truth. I don't think that the public are good judges of what is true and what is

not. And the media don't help.

" OMG - bring on the REVOLUTION! "

It happened. It was called The Enlightenment.

Best wishes and good night

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Iduna

Glad you are enjoying your course. And interesting to know that students have

access to this forum.

But I have to ask, if these peers of yours want more magic, why are they doing a

BSc? OK, maybe there is no choice as all HM degrees are currently BScs, but it

does seem to me, a little disingenuous of herbal medicine (as a profession) to

train people using the paraphernalia of science (BScs and sciency sounding

words) and then just ignore it when it suits to accommodate traditional

practice.

My experience of a HM BSc was that what was in the tin didn't match the label.

I guess the training of herbalists will be externally audited, in future, as

part of SR. Maybe things will change then.

Best regards and good luck with the course.

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Sally

Pardon not getting round to answering your previous post. Life and other posts

intervened. I feel somewhat like Eliza facing Lady de Bourgh

in a `prettyish kind of a little wilderness'. But let's see how I do in your

quiz ;-)

" First - regarding your insistence on pure science, in my time at medical school

I was firmly instructed not to forget that medicine is unique in being both an

art and a science "

Medicine is hardly unique in it's being an art and a science (meaning it is an

art grounded in science, not just art). Many complex (and especially young)

fields demand intuition (sane use of word), innovation, inspiration (`art'), as

well as a grounding in scientific theory. Feynman take a bow. Of

course, in medicine, intuition such as, cutting patients up to see if something

works on a hunch, is not good (people die). Intuition in say, diagnosis might

be good but it doesn't mean 'try this and assume it works because intuition is

magical', it means test it and see if the idea is valid. Intuition isn't always

right (i.e. it can delude us) and without validation (against what we know, the

corpus of scientific knowledge) is outright dangerous, especially in medicine

where mistakes costs lives.

" Second, could you please answer my 2 questions, which I will re-iterate "

Thanks for that. I needed a poke ;-)

" 1) Doesn't the lack of use of Carduus in Britain suggest that your (and Ben

Goldacre's) argument that a treatment with good clinical evidence will either

already be known about, or will be accepted, is seriously flawed. "

Link please to what Ben said.

Not every treatment with good evidence is taken up, of course people miss things

and funding is not infinite (unless you are a hedge fund manager or the US

military). If you are saying that medical practitioners (Drs and herbalists)

should take up all treatments which have good evidence (of effectiveness and

safety), yes, that would be very nice. The corollary of that is that medical

practitioners (Drs and herbalists) should not use treatments that do not have

good evidence (of effectiveness and safety)? Do you agree? Elementary logic, but

I thought worth saying.

" 2) If Ernst's work is good evidence, and the conclusion of his systematic

review on individualised herbal medicine was that over the counter herbal

medicine is superior to individualised treatment, why have you not ceased

practice and applied for a job with one of his funders, Boots the chemist? "

Non sequitur, but thanks for employment advice. I'll take it under advisement.

(Is this the same Boots `the chemist' that told the Science and Technology

Committee last year that they sell stuff to the public, with no evidence to

suggest efficacy, but it's Ok `cos there is (lots of) consumer demand (read

MONEY)? Yeah, I can see I'd fit right in there.)

I agree that it would be nice if science was funded publically, rather than

having to rely on corporate funding. Did Boots fund this paper you are talking

about?

" I incidentally found several serious flaws in that review, as I suspect you

would too "

Linkie please. And also provide breakdown of the serious flaws you found.

" I think you should remember the number of drugs that have had to be withdrawn

due to side effects that did not show up in these "

Yes, scientific method is like that, so medicine tends to learn from it's

mistakes and changes practice. The pharmaceutical industry ain't perfect, I'll

give you that, but I ain't wanting to chuck it all out and go back to just

chewing roots and shoots (or drinking oil and fat smoothies).

" …rather than attacking their belief systems. "

If a herbalist believes that iridology can diagnose disease and is using that in

a herbal consultation, despite the fact that it is based on fantasy, and has no

evidence to back it up, then yes, I think that is worthy of debate as I consider

it brings the profession into disrepute by way of it being not only dangerous

but risible. Is that an attack or just trying to rid herbal medicine of

mumbo-jumbo(read magical thinking)?

" You suggest your colleagues may be ineffective, however without data, this is

merely a belief of your own " .

Errr, you want me to provide you with data on the absence of data?

I tend to think the onus is on herbalists to publish data to substantiate any

claims to effectiveness (and let's be frank, SR has not exactly been sprung on

the profession). Of course, herbalists charge for their services, so someone

(Ernst perhaps?) might query whether they have any vested interest in the

results ;-)

Nullius in verba

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Nathalie

I have just read Sabine's post and I think she covers most of your points in

that.

" ….so-called rational scientific means "

How `so called'? Are you suggesting an alternative? There may be more to life,

but we are talking about medical practice. I don't tend to need in the

room when I see a patient (unfortunately).

" Simply because it cannot be measured by the current scientific standards does

not mean it is not real, true or relevant "

What is it you are measuring then? Are you relying on guesswork to diagnose

patients and chose medicines? How do you decide whether you are right or wrong

about a diagnosis? How do you test or attempt to falsify your hypotheses?

" Empirical medicine means the direct observation of things which work "

I thought it meant gathering data which you can observe. And not just the data

of what works (there can be negative consequences as well). So you want to pick

one element from science and just use that? Is that because you fear applying

science to your practice as that might require you to accept you may be deluding

yourself? Or are you using the word philosophically, meaning just observing your

own practice and using this as evidence you are right? And remember humans are

apt to self-deceive.

" ..very often how herbal medicine is handed down, the transmission of empirical

knowledge "

Handed down from who? Nullius in verba please.

" The direct observation of herbs & strategies which work "

And? Who is observing these things? How are they minimising bias and their own

proclivity to self-delusion? How are you addressing regression to the mean,

natural history of illness, following-up on patients who did not return,

reducing the influence of confounding variables (the patient just got a new

girlfriend and is really happy), etc.. Sally wanted to refute Ernst's finding (I

paraphrase her post as waiting for link) that OTC herbs are more effective than

1:1 consultation. Is our answer, ` We know it works `cos we have observed it'.

I am guessing he would say, where is the data, not the anecdata.

" scientific studies which strip out active principles & 'prove' they work "

I take this as a rejection of the reductionist approach. Please suggest your

`alternative. And that does not include you observing your own practice (`cos we

know we can all self-delude).

Science actually looks at degrees of certainty.

Einstein was theoretical physicist (not my area of expertise). He may well have

`day-dreamed' his ideas, but he set out ways to test if they were true, i.e. he

designed methods to falsify his day-dreams. I don't see many herbalists doing

that. They just close the door, and talk about `alternative paradigms' and

`alternative research methodologies'. That, to me, seems like a reluctance to

falsify their hypotheses.

Time for 2nd breakfast

Very best regards

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Hi Sally

Your first 2 paragraphs are hardly exemplars of how to be less patronising. I

might even think you are employing delaying tactics ;-) No problemo and no

offence taken. :-)

However, asking for links is perfectly normal common courtesy on any internet

forum discussing science. You gave the example, the onus is on you to provide

the links (as you said you did when chatting with Ben). I have scoured Google &

Ben's Grauniad site for that discussion you mention about milk thistle, but

can't find it. Maybe my Google-fu is a bit off today.

Yes, cutting patients up is something herbalists (thank goodness) do not do. Can

you imagine intuitive surgery? You criticise me for using the above example to

make a point and then you hammer home your Carduus example as evidence that

Ben's (and I assume therefore any scientist who says the same) entire argument

about treatments needing good clinical evidence of effectiveness as " seriously

flawed " - based on ONE EXAMPLE? So, Ben is human and therefore not perfect. The

argument that any medicine should be demonstrably effective and safe stands

firm.

I have also been knocked back by online discussions. People do jump to

conclusions (I certainly do) and it can get pretty bitchy. I used to suffer

from 386 all the time (http://xkcd.com/386/). So, I agree with you that some

internet fora can be jolly unpleasant places. And there is certainly no pity for

anyone tainted by CAM. I also like discussing science, and in particular how to

practice herbal medicine within a rational medical science-based model.

" His response was that if it worked they would already know about it. "

So why don't you think Drs listen to herbalists? Maybe because the profession

is tolerant of magical thinking and hangs onto ancient `traditional' beliefs

like constitutional diagnosis, uses dowsing over herbs and pendulum diagnosis,

and seems reluctant to even challenge such implausible therapies as homeopathy.

I have sat in a herbal consultation where the practitioner, to my bitter dismay

and frankly gob-smacked amazement, asked the patient to list their homeopathic

remedies, incase any of them might interact with the herbs we were going to

prescribe. Perhaps those might be some reasons why herbalists find it hard to

get taken seriously, on internet fora, let alone trying to get Drs to use herbs

in practice.

" I found that they have a huge blind spot on alternative medicine, they do not

attempt to understand it, simply lump everything together and dismiss it "

You could have written `the herbal medicine profession has a huge tolerance of

alternative medicine, they just accept it even though, in many case, it is

scientifically implausible'. Perhaps we need to cast the beams out of our own

eyes (including iridology) before tackling the medical profession.

I am a bit surprised that you infer that Drs should use treatments, even when

they know there is no evidence of effectiveness or safety. You go on to imply

that herbal medicine would grind to halt if we were honest about efficacy and

safety? Someone at Uni said that to me too. Why are we paying to do BScs then?

Seems a bit crazy to study something that has no scientific evidence (I don't

think that is true, BTW, that there is no evidence for herbal medicine).

Good evidence comes from rigorously undertaken studies; stating the outcome

measures and statistical tests (the right ones) to be used at the start,

controlling for variables, reducing sources of bias, collecting data assiduously

and carefully, blah, blah, blah. I think we agree on this.

I really don't see the problem with well-designed DBPCRCTs for HM.

Best regards

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...