I just read a study that had the percentage at only around 40-something (but to MD's that's huge), but they still considered it inconclusive as the studies were not necessarily carried out in ideal conditions. However, that's still a better result, flaws and all, than most other alternatives come in at.

Question: does anyone kow what the risk those people had Before they took ginkgo? What was known about them as test subjects? Did the scientists use Chinese criteria for administering ginkgo,or just decide on a dose and did nothing but that? And it would be interesting to see what other herbs they took when they were in the study if any. Or drugs. There could be interactions involved. And 118 people is not what anyone would call a large or inclusive study. I would like to see how it was done, over what period of time, and what patient criteria were involved. I have seen no small number of badly done studies in my time.

It's a small study, which is why the authors are calling for larger-scale testing to determine if there are substantial enough benefits to justify whatever risks there are.

It's interesting that when there are reports of toxicity and injury from Chinese medicinal supplements in the West, we hear people suggesting that it's the fault of those administering/taking the medication. A more likely explanation for the uncovering of hazards associated with "traditional" meds is that they're being studied more rigorously now than in the past.

>> t's interesting that when there are reports of toxicity and injury from Chinese medicinal supplements in the West, we hear people suggesting that it's the fault of those administering/taking the medication. A more likely explanation for the uncovering of hazards associated with "traditional" meds is that they're being studied more rigorously now than in the past.

While I understand what you are saying and agree somewhat, it is also clear that many traditional systems do have embedded counter indications that are generally ignored when using western diagnosis/prescribing. For instance, a TCM practitioner would consider the 'constitution' of the patient when prescribing ginseng or some other anti-fatigue herb; this constitution could result in a very different population for a study than some other definition of fatigue.

"a TCM practitioner would consider the 'constitution' of the patient when prescribing ginseng or some other anti-fatigue herb"

This is something considered by any properly trained practitioner when prescribing a drug/herb. I wonder, though, how evidence-based this process is in a TCM practitioner.

Regardless, the problem of blaming the patient/victim when something goes wrong is not unique to Chinese medicine, or to alternative medicine as a whole. Even among advocates there is sometimes a casual "let the buyer beware" attitude that I find alarming.

I have been struggleing with the same problem for years now I started taking Procera Memory and it has really helped me out you can look at it here
http://peerfly.com/x/0/2680/29693/

Here is a link that might be useful: Procera memory