Medieval herbal remedy

[Welsh Wench]

In researching some things for school, I came across something interesting.

Archeologists have found the remains of a 700 yr old 'chemist' or herb garden in 14th century Soutra Hospital outside of Edinburgh, Scotland.
Two hundred medicinal plants have been found which the monks used to make remedies.

The monks used to crush the roots and tubers of the bitter vetch to make a potion that they gave to suppress hunger pangs when the crops failed.
It was supposed to make people not want to eat and not miss eating food for weeks or months.

It is found in poor grazing and heath land, taking 2-3 years to mature. It has a leathery licorice taste. The plant seemed to become obsolete when potato cultivation came in.

Charles II used to give it to his mistresses to keep them slim.

Now they are thinking it can be used to make a modern slimming pill to fight the national crisis of obesity. 

Which shows that sometimes nature knows best.

[Marietta Graziella]

Isn't it amazing how they always seemed to find a way centuries ago? 

I love that kind of info.  Thanks for sharing your research!! 

The ancient egyptians used dried crocodile urine as the main ingredient in birth control powder.  Uh, yea.  Who discovered that one?!?

[Anna Iram]

Many diet pills today contain Hoodia gordonii. It's a crop originally cultivated in Africa and used for the same purpose: to controll hunger on long hunts or during periods when food may not be available. Or in modern America to get in shape for bikini season.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodia_gordonii

[Welsh Wench]

What I found interesting is that Charles II gave it to the mistresses to slim them down when plumpness was a characteristic of a 'healthy woman'.

I guess plumpness back then was in the eye of the beholder.
Plumpness being a relative term.

[Anna Iram]

Maybe he just figured it made them a cheap date. Don't have to buy them dinner first.

[Anna Iram]

W.W. This really was meant to be just a friendly conversation. I hope you saw it as such.

[DonaCatalina]

Many diet pills today contain Hoodia gordonii. It's a crop originally cultivated in Africa and used for the same purpose: to controll hunger on long hunts or during periods when food may not be available. Or in modern America to get in shape for bikini season.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodia_gordonii

Hoodia should be used with caution. Some health care providers warn that since hoodia suppresses thirst, dehydration is a possibility.

[Welsh Wench]

Thank you, Dona Catalina!

I've been learning alot about drug interactions with herbs and even food.
People think because it is 'natural' they don't have to mention it to their doctors when dealing with legend drugs.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-16-2006-105644.asp

[Element of Air]

Wow, all of that is really interesting. i always wonder why we don't go back completely (as much as we can) to herbs and such for health issues.

[Tygrkat]

Because pharmaceutical companies can't patent nature 

[Welsh Wench]

And that is so true.
I'm studying pharmacology and the other day we tracked a 'pretend' drug from idea to marketing.
You would be surprised how many hands it has to pass through before it gets to the pharmacy.

For instance--we had a 160 million research budget. The 'drug manufacturer' was a bit reluctant to spend the money in wining and dining the various paths. But the instructor pointed out she had to spend millions to make billions.

In the very end, we 'marketed' the drug under a name I came up with--
BRYBITOL.

Pronounced Bribe-it-all.

But the bottom line is---the pharmaceuticals won't stand for it. And the FDA gets involved too.

[Tygrkat]

And that is so true.
I'm studying pharmacology and the other day we tracked a 'pretend' drug from idea to marketing.
You would be surprised how many hands it has to pass through before it gets to the pharmacy.

For instance--we had a 160 million research budget. The 'drug manufacturer' was a bit reluctant to spend the money in wining and dining the various paths. But the instructor pointed out she had to spend millions to make billions.

In the very end, we 'marketed' the drug under a name I came up with--
BRYBITOL.

Pronounced Bribe-it-all.

But the bottom line is---the pharmaceuticals won't stand for it. And the FDA gets involved too.

That name is funny - and the exercise your instructor had you class doing sounds like it really put the process into perspective - especially for those who may not be aware of how "the healthcare indusrty" doesn't really care about your health - just the health of their profit margin...

[Welsh Wench]

It took us an hour and a half to role-play through the whole process. I was the investigative doctor who supplied the test patients.
We gave them 'drug' vs 'placebo' and had to run through 50 doses (10 doses x 5 test people)
We had to analyze the results, then 'convince' the FDA that it was marketable. We did alot of 'incentives'. 

The first day of class we learned one thing.
The pharmaceuticals are in it for the profit, not the caring.

And the reason some drugs are so expensive is this--
A drug company has a patent on a drug for 15-20 years. That means only that drug company can manufacture that drug.
Once the patent runs out, the 'brand' becomes 'generic' and other drug companies can manufacture the drug at a more economical cost.

[Tygrkat]

It took us an hour and a half to role-play through the whole process. I was the investigative doctor who supplied the test patients.
We gave them 'drug' vs 'placebo' and had to run through 50 doses (10 doses x 5 test people)
We had to analyze the results, then 'convince' the FDA that it was marketable. We did alot of 'incentives'. 

It's interesting that the FDA needs to be 'convinced' that a drug is marketable, not necessarily effective or safe....

The first day of class we learned one thing.
The pharmaceuticals are in it for the profit, not the caring.

Hence the FDA doing as much as possible to discredit the use of natural and holistic medicines...if the pharmaceutical companies can't profit, the FDA doesn't get their cut...when individuals are healthy, they don't need to spend moeny on prescriptions...

And the reason some drugs are so expensive is this--
A drug company has a patent on a drug for 15-20 years. That means only that drug company can manufacture that drug.
Once the patent runs out, the 'brand' becomes 'generic' and other drug companies can manufacture the drug at a more economical cost.

Because the length of the patent is so long and technology advances at an exponentially faster and faster rate, by the time a 'generic' version of a drug is 'allowed', it would seem that it would most likely have been replaced (at least in the market, if not in efficacy) by a 'new' drug with a shiny new patent and a very healthy pricetag

...and all one would have to do would be to change, add, or subtract an ingredient or two (and not necessarily an 'active' ingredient, either) to warrant issuing a new patent...








Not a cynic at all...no way....not me....

[Welsh Wench]

Exactly! The drug manufacturers 'tweak' the drug and can get their patent extended a few more years.

I may not have worded it right as 'marketable'.
But we convinced our 'FDA agent' that it was safe, effective in 10 out of 50 doses (we presented it like, 'hey, if it weren't for that drug, those 10 cases would still be in pain!') and we also offered that since it was replacing morphine, it was not a controlled substance and therefore the DEA is not involved resulting in far less paperwork for the doctors.

Never mind the fact we told our 'FDA agent' that we saw him with a redhead and his wife is a brunette and we had pictures....

As I said, we had a lot of fun with it.

[Lady Renee Buchanan]

My anti-rejection drugs for my kidney transplant cost over $15,500 every year (I do pay less because of my insurance).  Why?  One is a "brand name" drug, which means there is no generic.  Since it is the only drug there is, they can charge what they like, because there is no alternate.

The other drug is a generic, which is somewhat less expensive, but still a lot more than a lot of current drugs for cholesterol, acid reflux, etc.

We have a friend that had a liver transplant (no drinking problem, just rotten genetics) whose wife is Canadian.  They had to move from Illinois back to Canada, because even with insurance, he couldn't afford the drugs, and Canada has universal health care, so they provide him with drugs.

And my insurance company is making me buy the drugs through their mail order.  The brand name prescription comes from India.  It's still about $2,000 out of my pocket every year, of course not as bad as $1,000+ every month without insurance (and there is still the other drug to buy, too).

It's not about health, is it?  It's about money.  And the insurance company and drug companies are taking an awful lot of mine.

[Angelhood]

It's frightening how much control the pharmaceutical companies have over our lives just because it's all about their profit. Don't even get me started on the FDA! That's probably why I'm so interested in alternatives like herbs and essential oils.

Here's one for you...did you know that cloven fruit game that gets past around a lot at SCA events and sometimes smaller ren faires has a more practical use than flirtation and breath freshening? Yes, clove is good for fresh breath, but it also can help with digestion as well as helping to beef up your immune system. Although the flirting probably adds some sort of health benefits too *wink*.

[jcbanner]

I'm not touching the profit margin thing at all, thats not my concern here, the science is.  Old remidies vs new drugs, its not a black and white issue such as "it works" and "it doesn't work"

Many old remedies were based off of observation; they noticed that someone who was sick got better after eating something unique, or that person over there always eats this type of fruit and never gets sick, that fruit must prevent disease.  In some cases it works, in others it doesn't.

vitamin C for example, everyone says it will prevent catching the cold. yet in scientific studies, it was impossible to determine if it had any effects, mostly because its about preventing, and not curing.  natural immune defense among indeviduals is not the same, so there is no base number to compair each group against to see if the Vitamin C group did infact suffer fewer colds as a result of taking vitamin C. (though it was noted that there wasn't much of a diffrence. but because of allready stated reason, it's inconclusive.

Scurvy on the other hand, that is a symptom of a Vitamin C deficiency, there, it was an accurate assumption that Vitamin C prevents Scurvy.

but lets go older. Many medical treatments were often times more detrimental then they were beneficial. Leeches anyone? for decency sake, I won't even start of the horrors of womens health treatment, its not much better for men.  There seemed to be some odd fascination though with shoving things where they do not belong.


there are some things that work, and others that don't,  if I'm just a bit under the weather or having issues sleeping, I'll make some herbal tea, but if theres a big issue, be sure I want medications that I can be sure are both safe and will work.  I'm a fan of the scientific method.

I have a tiger repellent rock for sell. I can assure you it works because I've never seen a tiger around here.
   

[Angelhood]

Not trying to pick a fight here or anything but I would like to point out that Science is based on observation as well. Truely, fault can be found with both methods....those of old and those of "Scientific Western Medicine" of today...hence so many drugs taken off the market as quickly as they come, often times with pricey law suits following closely behind.

Methinks they didn't do enough observation.

[jcbanner]

Yes, but in science, you make an observation, then a hypothesis trying to explain it then test it to determine its accuracy.  Nothing is ever truly "proven" in science. The goal of testing to to see if something can be disproved.

[Angelhood]

Thank you, I couldn't say it better myself....you just proved why I put little faith in modern pharamceutical medicine! I much prefer prevention instead of treating a problem. The drugs of today treat the symptoms, not the problem oft times, and come with a long list of unwanted side-effects which can sometimes be more dangerous than what you are trying to treat. Granted there are things like the organ rejection drugs, and insulin etc that a person may need to stay alive, but there are entirely too many prescriptions being made for petty issues that cause greater problems than they fix. Case in point would be the overuse of antibiotics which have resulted in the creation of superbugs.

Don't put too much faith in an industry that is in it for the money and doesn't care one iota for your wellbeing other than to insure you continue to give them more money. Do your own homework, so you can make an informed decision. Don't just take their word for it just because they are supposedly the experts. Get a second opinion. It's just common sense.

[Welsh Wench]

I have to agree with Angelhood.
I'm studying pharmacology. There are 50 cardiological drugs on this list alone, 14 of them are anti-hypertensive therapeutics.

And I've seen this before.
Doctor: So..the atenolol 50 mg seems to be working.
Patient: Yes, it is, doctor. Except I am dizzy.
Doctor: Wonderful! Let's take it up to 75 mg now.

Like with estrogen--do you want to die of cancer or a heart attack?
Tough choice. Do I want to go quick or painful?
My mom's doctor was pushing her to get on estrogen. What happened? Her ankles swelled. What was the recommendation? Let's take a diuretic.
She told him to forget the whole thing.

I'm not slamming the medical profession.
Just do your research.