Is there any factual scientific evidence regarding herbal Eastern

>>8987293
hUrr dUrr i went 2 my locael chinese shaman and me legg feals mucH better!!!!!

>>8987293
Some of the specific treatments have some useful effects.
As a whole though, no.

Any herb or eastern medicine product that actually works is being mass produced or is having its active compounds synthesized in labs because chemicals that actually have medicinal effects can be sold.

>>8987293
There are certain non-active medicinal things that work. I cant remember what its called but there's this stuff thats basically Chinese herbal quick-clot that works fairly well. Id assume that simple shit like diuretics and laxatives work, maybe even a fever suppressant, but beyond that western medicine has it beat. You're not curing cancer with acupuncture. Your're not curing AIDS with cupping. No amount of roots and leaves will fix your schizophrenia.

Yeah, whenever i rub ground rhino horn on my pecker it gives me long lasting erectiona

ayurveda in western medicine

google

Artemisinin is good for malaria

>>8987293
what is your question? are you asking if medicine can derived from plants in general or do you have a particular plant or plants in mind? did you look up the plants in question on Wikipedia? why did you make this thread?

>>8987442
this
>>8988202
also this, read some paper on that last semester

There's limited evidence for some of it, but studying these things isn't generally a high priority.

>>8987442
There's not really enough potential to make a significant profit off of herbal stuff, so the research is mostly done by universities.

At best you'll typically find a handful of studies that identify the active compounds, find in vitro effects that support the traditional uses, and then like one or two decent quality studies that suggest it actually does something useful compared to known drugs. But often it stops there and there isn't much significant research done on long term effectiveness, treating actual conditions, etc.

Lots of it does something, but determining whether it actually does something useful is more difficult. If you're looking for hard evidence that supports actually taking it, it's kind of a crapshoot.

>>8987771
>No amount of roots and leaves will fix your schizophrenia.
IIRC there are actually a couple that have significant antipsychotic effects.

That doesn't mean it's a suggested treatment. Usually it's a better shot to take the normal prescription shit just because it has a lot more hard data behind it and is overseen by someone competent. Herbal stuff doesn't necessarily not work, it's more that it's kind of a waste of time to make yourself the guinea pig when there's already something available that's known to work.

>>8987293
>herbs
Just chemistry anon, you can synthesize the chemicals in herbs to make medicine.

>>8988497
well, generally they're extracted rather than synthesized

>>8987293
There are certainly some "traditional" or "herbal" medicines that, upon being researched with SCIENCE!(tm) turned out to have therapeutic value. And, surprise, they are now part of the pharmacopeia of science based medicine.

Other techniques or medicines turned out to have no provable value -- sbm did not incorporate them.

The idea that there is some medical conspiracy not to use things that work is one of the more nonsensical memes out there. It is followed closely on the nonsense scale by the idea that, some herb or compound having been shown to be useful in treating some disease, all other claims made about other herbs and compounds must be taken seriously.

>>8988548
The thing that you're missing is that there's also a large gray area of things that seem to show significant promise but haven't been studied in depth. Science based medicine isn't omniscient and hasn't thoroughly investigated everything that's out there, mainly because there's not enough funding to do so.

>>8987790
I kek'd

File: laugh1.jpg (226KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x667px

>>8988548
yep, 'powerful people' getting together and planning things has never happened, have fun in that personal bubble
when hemp was banned it was cause they cared about your safety, trust them, not because you can't monopolize a plant

>>8988582
>The thing that you're missing is that there's also a large gray area of things that seem to show significant promise but haven't been studied in depth.
I'm not really sure why you think they're missing that. There are already a bunch of people tackling that pile, and until and each individual herb/treatment has been properly tested it's unreasonable to assume they're effective.

>>8988945
>There are already a bunch of people tackling that pile
Sort of, when they can get funding.

>and until and each individual herb/treatment has been properly tested it's unreasonable to assume they're effective.

It's not like anyone's really interested in methodically and intensively examining everything that's out there, all the way up to clinical trials. Lots of stuff gets a cursory look, and it gets to the point of "hey, this seems to possibly do something useful, more studies would be great" and then that's pretty much it. I think most of it ultimately ends up in the same "apparently does something, probably safe-ish, not sure if it's really useful compared to existing drugs" purgatory.

And that's not unique to herbal shit; most research chemicals developed by drug companies and universities never get thoroughly studied either.

>>8988902
this is not an argument