>> I will continue to challenge unproven claims and exaggerations about herbs or supplements that are based on testimonials or research in rats and cows. Sorry if that irks you. Are you irked by the fact that the National Institutes of Health (via the ADAM encyclopedia on their web page) says that there is good scientific evidence that elderberries may reduce the intensity or duration of influenza?? How did such an authoritative source come to that conclusion, which was very different from yours?? Answer: you are not just looking for scientific evidence, you demand an iron-clad body of evidence, a complete lack of any ambiguity, and your decision making is based on this binary 0-1 level of thinking. For you, either it is 100% sure and we call it proven, or it is unproven and cannot be spoken of positively. Other, less retentive types might say "there is some decent evidence elderberries might help with flu, there is no evidence it is any more dangerous than blueberries, so I can make a decision based on that 75% level of certainty that it might be helpful and worth trying." For me, the idea of a convergence of evidence is useful when there is incomplete information - and given the funding for herbal research, that is most areas of herbalism. You would rather stick to your binary theory of certainty, 100% proven, or unproven. Great if that works for you. Appropriate in some conditions where risks are high. But quite unnecessary or impossible in other cases. What is irksome is that you want to define the terms of discussion in this forum by your standards, which few of us share. Most herbalists place some value on the tradition of herbalism, the historical/clinical uses of herbs, and our personal experiences. And in my case, yes, lab and animal studies, or studies that may not have 10,000 subjects in them and therefore could be described as 'small.' I am quite aware that such evidence has limitations. But it is evidence, and it can often tell us something quite useful. Zum beispiel, when the traditional use of an herb like kudzu is for headache, and we combine that fact with lab studies showing that compounds unique to kudzu affect serotonin metabolism in a particular way known to be beneficial to some types of headahce, and then one (and then many) cluster headache patients I know who suffered with daily headaches for years suddenly became pain-free within a day or two after they start taking kudzu, I see a strong convergence of evidence that kudzu can help some with cluster headaches. And when my remission for cluster headaches ended recently, I used kudzu and experienced the mildest cycle I have ever had, which I see as more evidence that it is effective. In a previous discussion on this topic, you simply dismissed this type of understanding as a delusion or placebo effect. To me, your way of thinking might be appropriate science in the context of a regulatory committee that decides on applications for new drugs, less applicable for a committee that makes decisions on orphan drugs, and quite irrelevant to individuals interested in herbalism.

From a distinguished expert on herbalism and other forms of alternative medicine, Edzard Ernst: "Craniosacral therapy (CST), which, confusingly, is sometimes also called âÂÂcranial osteopathyâÂÂ, was invented less than half a century ago by an osteopath. He thought that the spinal fluid is pulsating, the cranial bones are sufficiently movable to enable a therapist feel this pulse from the outside, and that it is possible to influence this process with very gente manual manipulations which, in turn, would restore health in sick individuals. According to the inventor, the CST-practitioner uses his or her own hands to evaluate the craniosacral system by gently feeling various locations of the body to test for the ease of motion and rhythm of the fluid pulsing around the brain and spinal cord. Soft-touch techniques are then used to release restrictions in any tissues influencing the craniosacral system..." "To many desperate patients or distressed parents of ill children - CST is often advocated for children, particularly those suffering from cerebral palsy - this sort of lingo might sound impressive; to anyone understanding a bit of physiology, anatomy etc. it looks like pure nonsense. CST has therefore been considered by most independent experts to be on the lunatic fringe of alternative medicine."... Clinical trials have not been kind to craniosacral therapy. "The conditions treated in the trials were diverse: cerebral palsy, migraine, fibromyalgia and infant colic. All the badly-flawed studies reported positive results. The only rigorous trial was the one with children suffering from cerebral palsy - and here the findings were squarely negative. The conlusion of my review was blunt and straight forward: âÂÂthe notion that CST is associated with more than non-specific effects is not based on evidence from rigorous randomised clinical trialsâÂÂ. This is a polite and scientific way of saying that CST is bogus..." "In a nutshell: 1) ineffective therapies, such as CST, may seem harmless but, through their ineffectiveness, they constitute a serious threat to our health; 2) bogus treatments become bogus through the false claims which are being made for them; 3) seriously flawed studies can be worse than none at all: they generate false positive results and send us straight up the garden path." http://www.ebm-first.com/craniosacral-therapy.html Note that I could have just said "Craniosacral therapy is bogus" without any references and expected readers to believe me. But I think visitors to this forum deserve more than personal opinions.

To clear up some misconceptions: First, comfrey does not have proven efficacy against tooth decay, either as a preventative or to reverse decay that's already underway. Safety as a mouth rinse is probably not a major concern apart from possible local irritation, if one is careful not to swallow any. Many responsible herbalists recommend against any internal use of comfrey because of the risk of pyrrolizidine alkaloid toxicity, implicated in some cases of acute liver failure and a concern for possible carcinogenicity. Oral formulations are banned in most countries for this reason. Young children are especially susceptible to toxicity from comfrey (even a few days of taking comfrey internally can be fatal). Contrary to what's been stated, acute liver failure is not a significant consideration when it comes to use of NSAIDS (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Tylenol (acetominophen, which can be hepatotoxic) is not an NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) like aspirin or Motrin. Tylenol is not an anti-inflammatory agent - it works by a different mechanism than NSAIDS to reduce pain and fever. Used in proper dosage and not combined with other things that can damage the liver (i.e alcohol) it is a generally safe as well as effective drug. The real problem is when people take too much, which may happen when they combine or otherwise overdose on over-the-counter cold meds. The big difference between Tylenol and comfrey is that Tylenol is a proven effective drug. Comfrey may have limited value in topical pain control (when applied for limited periods on unbroken skin), but in general the claims made for it have not been backed by quality studies (something to consider when weighing a decision whether to ingest it). You cannot count on drying to significantly reduce the harmful alkaloids. Unfortunately, you also can't count on comfrey sellers to be knowledgeable and upfront about the composition of their products in our current, largely unregulated supplement market. I rarely take acetominophen, but feel a lot more confident about its safety than I do comfrey. And based on what we've seen already, if Americans began to ingest comfrey as commonly as they do acetominophen, it's extremely likely that comfrey would quickly pass acetominophen as the leading cause of acute liver failure in the U.S.

Oh, and its also very biased towards whoever their 'business' affiliates. Because they profit whenever you are referred to one of their affiliates, they really only recommend businesses and other herbalists they will profit from. If you are not affiliated financially in some way, you don't get the referral. Any of the herbalists that occasionally pop on, such as Kiva rose, Sean donahue, Jim McDonald, do so to promote themselvesw and their services, not to help out for the sheer joy of it. You can tell because they come on more regularly when they have a new course to promote. everything John does is very 'infommercially' BUY NOW BUY NOW BEFORE THIS OFFER IS GONE!!! By this I mean that any extra courses that he offers for an extra charge, he promotes the hell out of on HerbMentor. Thing is, he makes it seem like a now or never deal, but it is always available at a later date. Always. and usually as a free added bonus to another new course. He always states that he never knows whether or not a new course will be offered in the future, but then he turns around to say that he plans every little detail of his business out for the next 5 years. he tries to come across as your 'friend' but it is a business, and a very lucrative one at that. With over 500 members, he is pulling in some serious cash. An accurate estimate cannot be made since not everyone pays the same amount per month. It all depends on what deal you signed up for. Somne people may pay 1/3 what you pay. If you bring that up in a forum post, he deleted the topic so nobody knows.