Talk:Chinese herbology

Pronunciation

If herbology is the study of herbs, why is it pronounced "HERB-ol-o-gy" when herb is pronounced "ERB"?? Unsigned comment by 24.176.65.31

Because in American English we affect a French accent for this word (silent "H") but in British English they say the "H."

Redirection

Why does this page redirect to Chinese herbology?

50 fundamental herbs

I added 28 of the 50 fundamental herbs (the other 22 can't be found online easily). Badagnani 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a student of Chinese Medicine and cannot recall any discussion of "50 Fundamental Herbs"...is there some classical source for this? All I could see was a link to a website with an entry about a single herb "Sheng Di Huang"... --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.39.156 (talk • contribs)

It's a list from the book of Wong Ming (Wong, Ming (1976). La Médecine chinoise par les plantes. Le Corps a Vivre series. Éditions Tchou). Maybe he came up with it on his own, or it's based on traditional concepts. Some of the more commonly used herbs aren't in the list, which is strange. The link I gave discusses that herb as one of the 50. Badagnani 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This list conveys a completely inaccurate picture of modern Chinese medical praxis. Indeed, it is almost bizarre, listing many herbs that are highly uncommon and only a few of the more commonly used ones. I can't imagine any modern Chinese practitioner coming up with such a list (indeed, they'd have to look up quite a few of these herbs). Even if it can be proven that there is a list of "50 fundamental herbs" in some classical source, that source text should be cited and a historical analysis added that places the list into context. If it's just an arbitrary list from some 30-year old source, then it should be scrapped altogether. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.219.100 (talk • contribs)

Can someone give the common names of these herbs? The scientific names aren't very helpful when briefly scanning the article. ~Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.214.85 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I think that this section could be greatly improved by turning the ordered list into a table---and one of the columns should be the common name of the plant in English (when applicable). Maybe I'll give it a try. J Crow (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wong, Ming (1976) book doesn't seem to be an authoritative and important reference. I talked to few people who have PhD in Chinese medicine and practice it and they never heard about "50 fundamental herbs". Also they are saying that some of the herbs listed are barely used now. I suggest we should replace this list with the list of the most commonly used herbs, or with the list of herbs from the textbook for students. Yurivict (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The section on 50 fundamental herbs has been changed as follows:

• 50 "fundamental" herbs
• In Chinese herbology, there are 50 "fundamental" herbs, as given in the reference text [2], although these herbs are not universally recognized as such in other texts. The herbs are:

IMHO, this change helps to resolve the dispute about whether there is really such a thing as 50 fundamental herbs, by specifying the non-universal nature of the concept, as shown above. Nonetheless, the concept that there is such a thing as 50 fundamental herbs appears to be very popular, and has been quoted in many articles in Wikipedia. i suppose 50 is a nice number, a number that sounds convincing to many people. It is also not too large to boggle the mind. Actually, herbs are almost always used in combinations, and the number of possible combinations from 50 herbs is pretty large, but that is another story altogether. Bsites (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

An astonishing number of these '50 fundamental herbs' don't give any reason, i.e. medicinal, nutrition etc., why they should be considered 'fundamental' so that negates your reasoning why this list is 'popular'. When one peruses the list, one has to consider the purpose of having such a list in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.102.246 (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I couln't get a hold of the book cited but it seems all across the internet they're just plainly copying this list. Alot of the plants on there I can't find either. Is there some clear source out there with clear 50 or so commonly used plants? I need to make an inventory of the most used that can be cultivated in a temperate (european) climate. All review papers I've read about the Wong book state it's dubious, but can't seem to trace why they're called "fundamental" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.151.59 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An anon asked Can someone give the common names of these herbs? The answer is yes, and the common names are already given — in Chinese, as these are plants native to China and do not have English common names. Presuming that the anon questioner is someone interested in herbs, my advice is to learn to use proper botanical names for all plants. "Common names" vary far too much, the same plant having different common names in different places (sometimes even the same place), and the same common name applying to different plants.

"Bluebell", for example, is used for a campanula, a lupin, and an endymion.

Floozybackloves (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with floozybackloves. First of all, many of these herbs are grown in many parts of the world, and do have English common names. Camellia sinesis is the tea plant, cannabis sativa is the hemp plant, and there are others. I went ahead and made the list of plants into a table with a column for english common names. I believe that this will be very helpful for readers who are first approaching this topic. By providing all three naming schemes (scientific, chinese, english commmon--when available) we address a wider audience. Many readers will find the scientific and chinese names opaque, while names like "kudzu" allow them to connect 'pueria lobata' to a plant which they may already know. J Crow (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical Evaluation

This discussion of Chinese Herbology is entirely uncritical. There needs to be an honest assessment of the efficacy of Chinese treatments compared to modern - ie "evidence-based" - medicine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.32.117.188 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

The fact is there are tons and tons of scientific articles on the effect of Chinese medicinals...the only problem is they are mostly written in Chinese and not many people are concerned with translating them. Though it is an anecdotal commonplace that Western biochemists are scouring the Chinese Materia Medica for drugs to patent. One famous example is Qing Hao (Artemisia Annua Herba) which had success as an anti-malarial agent...just look up Qing Hao Su on google. "Su" here indicates that it is a constituent or active principle that has been isolated from the original herb. Also, the herb Huang Qi (Astragalus Membranaceus) has been show to have If you are seriously interested in this, please refer to the book Chinese Herbology & Pharmacology [ISBN: 0-9740635-0-9] by John K. Chen who is both a Western trained Pharmacologist and Chinese Herbologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless there are no citations for the individual herbs under the "herbs in use" section. The validity of the statements made in this section are therefore without merit.

203.127.44.11 (talk) I agree with the more critical comments that this article lacks reliable sources and scientific studies. To protect wikipedia as well as any one who may see the page, kindly place a disclaimer in bold at the start of the page stating that there is little or no scientific evidence to back up any of the claims herein. 203.127.44.11 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)the doc203.127.44.11 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The whole "Herbs in use" section makes many bold statements that are unsourced, and, frankly, unsupported by legitimate studies. Some statements are even put in quotes to give them credibility. But who is being quoted.

This is far more serious than an article on a butterfly that gives wrong wingspan information. This article receives 500 visitors a day, some of whom might make decisions based on this article that will affect their health.

I am therefore going to take a hatchet to a lot of the "Herbs in use". I suggest restoring only information that can be properly sourced. I have also tagged the whole article with { { Disputed } }. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I zapped a fair bit of content, and salt and peppered parts with "believe that" and "thought to". Please feel free to go much further and remove that stuff altogether. If Jimbo saw this article, his hair would stand up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits reverted

Thanks for the contributions, but at 20:05, 24 April 2011 I reverted your edits because the claims need to be sourced upon entry into the article. One can't simply make such claims as "...This herb is used to drain dampness and heat from the body...", mainly because, well, there's no evidence that it is true, or even makes sense scientifically. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted again. Sorry again. If you want to add the species names, etc. please do. But again, the content you are adding about the effects on the body of these substances is not fact. Statements like "...increases urination because the herb goes to the bladder channel and it clears heat as a result of the cold quality..." just make no sense. Qualifying the statement with the disclaimer: "...traditional beliefs hold that..." two sentences earlier, just isn't good enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I reverted for the same reasons. I am now at 3RR and cannot revert again. Could another editor please look at what's going on and either allow or revert if this content is added back again. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Species mentioned in Chinese_herbology#Ginseng

Reads: "...Distinction should be made between Chinese ginseng (panax ginseng, ren shen), Siberian ginseng (eleutherococcus senticosus, ci wu jia) and American ginseng (panax quinquefolium, xi yang shen)..."

• panax ginseng = ? (Panax is just the genus)
• American ginseng = Panax quinquefolius not panax quinquefolium
• Siberian ginseng = Eleutherococcus senticosus

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the lot. Please add it again if you think it's worthwhile. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Content discussion - 24 April, 2011

"Thanks for the contributions, but at 20:05, 24 April 2011 I reverted your edits because the claims need to be sourced upon entry into the article. One can't simply make such claims as "...This herb is used to drain dampness and heat from the body...", mainly because, well, there's no evidence that it is true, or even makes sense scientifically. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)"

"is an underground stem that is one of the bitterest herbs used in Chinese medicine. while bitter taste is thought to dispel heat, purge the bowels and get rid of dampness by drying them out."

This herb being one of the most bitter herbs (as stated in the article) will logically drain heat and dampness just as the flavor portion of the article above explains. It's also a rhizome by the way.

I have been talking about the use of the herb from Chinese medical perspective. Being a doctor of Chinese medicine I am educated and qualified to provide this position, and there are many current and ancient materia medica to draw upon for understanding the traditional usage, the information on the usage of the herbs should include its actual usage rather than western medical scientific data, which doesn't really determine its usage today. however i have added the supposition 'is used to...blah blah' not 'is scientifically proven to'.

"I reverted again. Sorry again. If you want to add the species names, etc. please do. But again, the content you are adding about the effects on the body of these substances is not fact. Statements like "...increases urination because the herb goes to the bladder channel and it clears heat as a result of the cold quality..." just make no sense. Qualifying the statement with the disclaimer: "...traditional beliefs hold that..." two sentences earlier, just isn't good enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)"

Being that this is an article about chinese herbs and their usage, shouldn't information on how they are actually used by practitioners today be included? The actual 'how' of chinese herbs is rather poorly explained. Chinese herbology and the usage of the herbs as medicine through this medical system rely heavily on the 5 flavors, 4 natures and the interactions with the channels to explain the functions of the herbs. Also knowledge of basic theory (5 pathogens, internal and external causes of disease, channel and organ associations, organ functions) would help enable understanding of the how and why of chinese herbs.

Ginger has been proven through western medical research over and over to be a nausea treatment, but in china it was known for much longer because of the herbal information available. This is historical knowledge combined modern research to form what is almost common knowledge today, most women who go to an 'alternative' practitioner for morning sickness are given some form of ginger for treatment, ect. I find this article to be somewhat crude and i would dearly like to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In my materia medica its just panax ginseng for the asian variety. Also wikipedia's article on ginseng shows the asian variety to be under the heading 'panax ginseng'. its the Araliaceae family but its not used in the nomenclature that i can see anywhere.

here is a quote from the ginseng wiki page: "Panax ginseng Asian ginseng (root)

According to Traditional Chinese Medicine, Panax ginseng promotes yang energy, improves circulation, increases blood supply, revitalizes and aids recovery from weakness after illness, and stimulates the body. It is available in four forms:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Salvia can be taken alone or consumed with other herbs, teas or pills" this is absolutely irrelevent and not specific to salvia, pretty much all herbs can be taken in this fashion. Deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Meridians

The meridians refer to which organs the herb acts upon. For example, traditional beliefs hold that menthol is pungent, cool and is linked with the lungs and the liver, and since the lungs are the organ which protects the body from invasion from cold and influenza, menthol can help purge coldness in the lungs and invading heat toxins caused by hot "wind.""

The how the meridians are used in chinese herbal medicine is more than just the organs that they act upon. Meridians have skin pathways, internal pathways and specific organ mechanisms. Its not so cut and dry as so say that the meridian's involvement in directly related to the organ that the meridian coorsponds with.

Sorry there is no such thing as hot 'wind' in chinese medicine, its called a wind-heat invasion. Bad translation that someone must have refereed to. This is also a poor example, and actually incorrect. Menthol cannot purge coldness from the lungs because it is a cold herb, it will only make the lungs more cold with its cooling function. And the lungs protect the body from invasion of more than just cold, its wind, cold and heat, those are the 3 exterior conditions that the lung qi (wei gi) wards off. Better to say it wards of colds, because the invastions that the lung qi wards off are actually what we would see as the 'common cold' just different differentiations of it(All external invasions are considered instigated by wind, more feverish and sore throat = heat, more chills and achey= cold, runny nose = dampness). Changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to paste this over at Talk:Chinese herbology and continue the thread there. Many thanks for the thoughtful comments. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Source: User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#Chinese_herbology

Response from Anna Frodesiak

I very much appreciate what you are saying, however Wikipedia is really just a reporting encyclopedia. We represent information from reliable sources. With great respect, content cannot be added to this article, and considered true for any of these reasons:

• Your deductive reasoning. For example, you state that a substance "...will logically drain heat and dampness...". That needs to be scientifically proven, not via Western medicine per se, but by the scientific method.
• The fact that you are a practicing doctor and you say it is true. That would constitute original research.
• Historical knowledge, unless the sources are peer-reviewed and scientifically proven.
• The "herbal information available", unless the sources are peer-reviewed and scientifically proven.
• "Ancient materia medica"
• "basic theory (5 pathogens, internal and external causes of disease, channel and organ associations, organ functions) ", as that is not scientifically proven.
• What "...most women..." do.
• The meridians, as that is not scientifically proven.

What is rock solid, wonderful fact, is, say, a peer-reviewed, double-blind study involving 5,000 people or so, that conclusively shows that a certain herb does something. Show me that, and I will personally take that herb for what ails me.

But, if that herb is considered effective today simply because it was considered effective 400 years ago based upon anicdotal evidence or an ancient theory based conjecture, then I will personally not take that herb for what ails me.

As for the ginseng species matter, I will let others sort that out.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ginger

Here are some reputable sources linking studies or peer review of studies about ginger and nausea. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/ginger-000246.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10793599 http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090514/ginger-may-root-out-nausea http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-14-ginger-chemotherapy_N.htm Also wiki article on 'morning sickness' lists ginger as a common remedy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_sickness Wren19 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bencao Gangmu would be an example of Chinese ancient materia medica. "Li Shizhen completed the first draft of the text in 1578, after conducting readings of 800 other medical reference books and carrying out 30 years of field study." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bencao_Gangmu

"Arguably the most important of these was the Compendium of Materia Medica (Bencao Gangmu) compiled during the Ming dynasty by Li Shizhen, which is still used today for consultation and reference." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_herbology

Another example of ancient materia medica is The Shennong Ben Cao Jing. "The Shénnóng Běn Cǎo Jīng (simplified Chinese: 神农本草经; traditional Chinese: 神農本草經; Wade–Giles: Shennung Ben Ts'ao King) is a Chinese book on agriculture and medicinal plants. Its origin has been attributed to the mythical Chinese emperor Shennong, who was said to have lived around 2800 BC. Researchers hypothesize this is a compilation of oral traditions written between about 300 B.C. and 200 AD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shennong_Ben_Cao_Jing