Archive for the ‘whole plants’ Category

Baby quit crying

Tuesday, February 13th, 2007

We have all heard of colicky babies but I had no idea how much those babies can cry. It turns out that 15-30% of infants in the Western world have colic which means that they cry for more than 3 hours a day and more than 3 days a week for more than 3 weeks. To be defined as severely colicky, these babies have a history of persistant, full-force crying for no apparent reason several times a day for a duration of more than 4 hours a day for more than 4 days a week. That is a lot of crying. And the solution is so simple:

In a study of healthy, breast fed babies, an herbal tea consisting of chamomile (Matriacaria recutita), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and lemon balm (Melissa officinalis) did the trick. They were given small doses of tea (so as not to interfere with their desire to breast feed) twice a day. For the first three days, placebo and herbal tea worked about equally as well. But then: The herbal babies began by crying about 201.2 min/day [The parents must have been counting every second, praying for peace and quiet]. By day 7, the herbal babies were crying about 76.9 min/day. The placebo babies cried 198.7 min/day initially and were crying 169.9 min/day on day 7. Moreover, a reduction in crying was seen in 85.4% of the herbal babies.

The babies were given 2 ml/kg/day of tea in two doses. One at 5 PM and another at 8 PM shortly before feeding. Each dose contained 164 mg fennel, 177 mg chamomile, and 96 mg lemon balm. The effect of the tea lasted for 15 days after treatment.

Of course, you do not need to run out and buy a gram scale to make up the tea but the point made that the babies should not be given a large volume of tea makes good sense. Nor can I see any reason to stop giving the baby a tea that makes them stop crying. Imagine: Those old midwives and wise women were right when they suggested soothing herbal teas for fussy kids.

Savino F, Cresi F, Castagno E, et al. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a standardized extract of Matricariae recutita, Foeniculum vulgare and Melissa officinalis (ColiMil) in the treatment of breastfed colicky infants. Phytotherapy Research 2005; 19(4):335-340.

Posted in colic, whole plants | 3 Comments »

Birds are now drinking Tamiflu

Saturday, January 13th, 2007

Robyn Klein sent me a fascinating article Tamiflu® (oseltamivir phosphate) resistance and suggested that it would make an interesting blog. It was indeed an interesting article. The active antiviral metabolite of Tamiflu passes through us unchanged, is not altered by our water treatments, and ultimately will be picked up by the bird population in their drinking water. This will give avian viruses an excellent opportunity to build resistance to Tamiflu.

Frankly, the influenza virus does not seem to need this latest advantage. Even in the relatively small population of human avian flu victims treated with Tamiflu, one has already had a resistant strain. And resistance was seen early on in the test tube and test animals. When the next epidemic/pandemic influenza rages across the world, there is no doubt that resistance will build rapidly. This means that the drug would be virtually ineffective. Although, I do not think it was all that effective to begin with. Certainly, avian flu victims are not surviving very well, even though they get Tamiflu. This is blamed on the length of time that often passes between the onset of symptoms and treatment. Still.

Worst of all, though, is that there is virtually no discussion of the side effects of Tamiflu. Its ability to cause psychosis and suicide received a flurry of attention and led to some additional warning labels on the drug. But a deafening silence reigns when it comes to its potential ability to cause birth defects. In the approval process, Tamiflu in pregnancy did cause birth defects. “There were a variety of defects detected in developing [rabbit] fetuses. Most of the observations were an increased incidence of minor skeletal abnormalities and variants. The sponsor has argued that most of the incidence values were within normal range and were not considered real. However,… coupled with the ossification problem in rats and mortalities associated with bone problem in marmosets it is suggested that [Tamiflu] may have effects on bone.” This dilemma was fixed by language on the label saying that pregnant women should not take Tamiflu – unless the benefits outweigh the risks. Whatever that means.

I have not found any additional research on Tamiflu and birth defects. I did read, however, that the drug was being dispensed to pregnant women in South East Asia, so perhaps we will learn more eventually.

There are indications that Tamiflu may cause bone problems in adult animals but, in testing, these were attributed to genetic defects in the lab animals. The government did not require additional testing. And Tamiflu is much more toxic to newborns and is passed through breast milk. Again that problem was solved by labeling: The drug should not be taken by women who are nursing children – unless the benefits outweigh the risks. Whatever that means.

My advice: Forget Tamiflu and stockpile the herbal remedies the Eclectic physicians used in the 1918 pandemic instead.

About the spread of Tamiflu into our water ways: http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/docs/2007/115-1/ss.html

Documents submitted in support of FDA approval of Tamiflu

http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/nda99/21087_Tamiflu-pharmr.P1.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/nda99/21087_Tamiflu-pharmr.P2.pdf

Posted in Tamiflu, prescription medicines, whole plants | 1 Comment »

Even Latin names can confuse

Tuesday, December 26th, 2006

In general, most of us use Latin plant names to minimize confusion as to which plant we are talking about. This, however, does not always work.

One of my favorite articles begins by noting that there is a fair amount of research on the use of Sanguinaria canadensis as a treatment for gingivitis. It then explains that there is “a high gingival index” in Mexico as well as a Mexican plant known as sanguinaria (Polygonum aviculare). Given this information, the logical next step was to sign on 60 male dental students with gingivitis to test a Mexican sanguinaria mouthwash.

These students agreed not to brush their teeth for two weeks and instead rinse their mouths twice daily with a Mexican sanguinaria extract. [I found it amazing that they could find 60 dental students who would offer to go without brushing their teeth for 2 weeks. In fact, 9 did not complete the study]

The mouthwash was made of triturated (dried & ground) Mexican sanguinaria (aka Polygonum aviculare) roots, stems or leaves & flowers dissolved in ethanol and diluted in water. In the end, it actually significantly reduced gingivitis. The dental students suffered an increase in plaque [need that mechanical brushing to fight plaque] but its composition did not seem to aggravate the gums and was easily removed.

The study explained that Mexican sanguinaria is astringent and has flavonoid components that may decrease capillary fragility but also merrily noted that their results agree “with those reported elsewhere in which a decrease in gingivitis with the utilization of Sanguinaria canadensis alone was demonstrated”. They also note that sanguinarine (an alkaloid from Sanguinaria) appears to prevent plaque and gingivitis.

I am tickled by this study because it shows that confusion can lead to insight. I suspect that the Mexican sanguinaria may be a better long term treatment for the gums than its harsher, completely unrelated friend, Sanguinaria canadensis.

Gonzalez Begne M, Yslas N, Reyes E, et al. Clinical effect of Mexican sanguinaria extract (Polygonum aviculare L.) on gingivitis. J Ethnopharmacol 2001; 74(1):45-51

Posted in Latin plant names, gingivitis, whole plants | 1 Comment »

Grapefruit seed extract explained

Friday, December 22nd, 2006

A lot of people use grapefruit seed extract thinking it is a “natural” product. While it may be effective, it is not a natural product in the sense that it is something a plant produced on its own.

This is how it is made:

1. Grapefruit pulp and seed is dried and ground to a powder. I imagine this is an inexpensive by-product of the juice industry. No problem so far.

2. The powder is dissolved in purified water and distilled to remove the fiber and pectin. Fine so far; it is not used as a source of fiber.

3. The distilled slurry is spray died at low temperatures forming a concentrated flavonoid powder. This is good, we need flavonoids and grapefruit is a fine place to get them.

4. This concentrated powder is dissolved in vegetable glycerine and heated. Fine, glycerin is benign.

5. Food grade ammonium chloride and ascorbic acid are added, this mixture is heated under pressure. The amount of ammonium chloride remaining in finished Citricidal(r) (a commonly used grapefruit seed extract) is 15-19%; the amount of ascorbic acid is 2.5-3%. Ascorbic acid is vitamin C, a fine additive. Ammonium chloride?? It is a synthetic chemical that is harmful if swallowed in larger amounts. It is a skin irritant.

6. The ammoniated mixture undergoes catalytic conversion using “natural” catalysts, including hydrochloric acid and natural enzymes. There is no residue of hydrochloric acid after the reaction. Thank goodness. Hydrochloric acid has its place in the stomach but is not something to be taken lightly.

7. The slurry is cooled, filtered, and treated with UV light. Ok.

The result: The main active components in the finished product are a group of quarternary ammonium chlorides including benzethonium chloride that make up 8-17% of the product.

Benzethonium chloride is not a substance that occurs naturally in grapefruit seeds. It is a manufactured chemical that is lacking in safety data but may be an endocrine and skin toxicant. Endocrine toxicants are chemicals that have the ability to disrupt our hormones. Commonly encountered endocrine toxicants include PCBs and DDT. “Not to worry,” assures the manufacturer of Citricidal: “Benzethonium chloride is a well-known synthetic antiseptic agent; it is not added to the grapefruit extract, but if formed from the orginal grapefruit flavonoids during the ammoniation process.”

Using grapefruit seed extract is about the same as going to a pharmacy and buying triclosan or any other synthetic antimicrobial chemical. They may work. They may be safe. Or they may not be safe.

My advice: Use whole plants the way they have been used traditionally. Do not adopt new uses for them based on what chemical manufacturers are able to do in their labs. And avoid grapefruit seed extract.

Posted in Grapefruit seed extract, Uncategorized, manipulated plants, whole plants | No Comments »