Talk:Herbal medicine

The Introduction is biased
Just adding my 2 cents to what many are already saying. As a practicing general herbalist in the US, I also find this article to be at best full of negative tone and statements, and at worst full of poor sourcing and gross inaccuracy. Really a slap to the face to all of my time studying medicinal plants at Cornell. Seems that there are lots of folks here that are better word smiths than I, so I'm looking forward to revisiting to see the edits and corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.255.213 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that the article from Nature ("Hard to swallow") that's largely used as a source for the introduction is an opinion piece, not actually a scientific article. It doesn't use sources itself, there is no meta study done on the efficacy of herbal medicine. 2A02:A467:355A:1:54C9:80A4:51C2:53E8 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What is herbal medicine ?? The introduction does not describe what herbal medicine is, it only describes what it is not. Very Funny


 * I received a warning for making the comment above? Well, It is still my opinion that this article is biased, not to mention outdated and poorly researched information.  In addition almost every single sentence written here is NEGATIVE or blatantly derogatory about the subject matter.  If you don't believe this just count the unbelievable number of sentences that have negative comments.  It's nasty, and this is not funny!64.180.192.216 (talk)


 * The first sentence of the article – "Herbal medicine (also herbalism) is the study of pharmacognosy and the use of medicinal plants, which are a basis of traditional medicine" – is concise, accurate, linked, and sourced. Nothing further is needed for a definition, imo. Zefr (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to say something very similar - the first sentence defines the subject, as is required by the MOS; the rest of the lead is there to summarise the rest of the article. I'm sure it could be improved, but I don't think this criticism is accurate or constructive. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the poster does have a point. While the lead does provide a nominal definition of herbalism, it leaves the reader with several unanswered questions. Most significantly:


 * What is the relationship between herbalism and traditional medicine? Is one considered part of the other or are they distinct?
 * What is the relationship between herbalism and alternative medicine? Are all forms of herbalism considered alternative medicine or just paraherbalism? Or just herbalism outside of traditional contexts?
 * What is the relationship between herbalism and pharmacognosy? I took a stab at clarifying this myself since we have a source that clearly states the relationship.


 * It is still my opinion that this article is biased, outdated and poorly researched information. In addition almost every single sentence written here is NEGATIVE or blatantly derogatory about the subject matter.  If you don't believe this just count the unbelievable number of sentences that have negative comments.

I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions. Nosferattus (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I made this edit to the lede because the Nosferattus version gave the impression that herbalism a) is a topic of scientific study, and b) is part of the science of pharmacognosy. Herbalism is part of traditional medicine, which is the practice of quackery, making herbal medicine a practice of quackery – there is no scientific basis in the use of herbal medicine. And there is no WP:MEDRS-quality review to indicate that herbal medicine practices have any use in science-based medicine. Zefr (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "herbal medicine" is a very fuzzy concept and means different things in different parts of the world. In the U.S., herbal medicine basically equals unregulated dietary supplements and has little relation to science-based medicine. In some European countries, such as Germany and France, doctors actually prescribe regulated phytotherapeutic products which are required to have some evidence of medical efficacy (and are covered by medical insurance). A common example is the prescription of preparations of St. John's wort for depression (see Hypericum perforatum). In both France and Germany, there is a long history of treating herbal medicine with some degree of scientific rigor (although that may be coming to an end due to EU regulatory harmonization). In the U.S. there is virtually no financial incentive to clinically study or standardize herbal medicines since they are largely unregulated (although even in the U.S. some standardized herbal treatments do get prescribed as medicine, e.g. Honey). I'm wondering if there is some way that we can convey this complexity in the article, as the current article doesn't give a good explanation of what the scope of "herbal medicine" actually encompasses globally. I also think the newest version of the lead sentence is a bit U.S.-POV-centric. Nosferattus (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Prior to 2017, we had a referenced article on Phytotherapy which covered herbal medicine supported by scientific research - see []. Zefr redirected that page here. If we have sufficient references, it may be time to restore that article.Dialectric (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think "herbal medicine" and "phytotherapy" are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles. We just need to explain in the lead that "herbal medicine" can have a wide variety of meanings, including everything from paraherbalism and "quackery" to science-based medicine (e.g. prescribing licensed standardized preparations of herbs that have WP:MEDRS-quality evidence). Right now, the article makes it sound like all herbal medicine throughout the world is pure quackery, which is misleading. Nosferattus (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph proposal
Here is my proposal for a new version of the first paragraph that addresses some of the problems mentioned above: Herbal medicine or herbalism is the practice and use of plants as a basis of medicine. Herbalism covers a wide variety of practices – from phytomedicine or phytotherapy to pseudoscientific (paraherbalism). The practice of herbalism dates back over centuries and is a major component of traditional medicine.

Herbalism is also related to pharmacognosy – the study of plants or other natural sources as a possible source of drugs. The scope of herbal medicine may include fungal and bee products, as well as minerals, shells, and certain animal parts.

Nosferattus (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I copyedited the proposed text. I question calling the topic a subject of "study", as this implies something rigorous and - if "medicine" - well-designed clinical research, which doesn't occur much or at all. I doubt there would be much editor consensus here on WP:MEDRS-supported evidence for "phytomedicine" or "phytotherapy" as actual sciences applied to the practice of medicine. The few semi-scientific uses of herbs ("botanicals") mainly are those in Europe where traditional practices are acknowledged by governing organizations as still in the mainstream of mostly rural communities, in ways that overlap with practices of Ayurveda and traditional Chinese medicine, which are quackery. EFSA and EMA have this and this framework, as examples. Pharmacognosy is a fuzzy academic discipline not commonly used in the 21st century, as it has been superseded by modern pharmacology and diverse computer-based methods in drug discovery. I don't think we should give it much space here. Zefr (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with removing mention of pharmacognosy entirely if you don't think it's warranted. As for the situation in Europe, the current regulatory regime basically classifies botanicals into two categories: traditional use registration (which requires only demonstration of safety, not efficacy) and marketing authorisation (which requires both evidence of safety and efficacy). For some countries, such as the U.K. this was a tightening of regulation, and for other countries such as France and Germany it was a loosening of regulation. I imagine you're correct that it would be hard to build consensus here for "phytomedicine" being an actual science, as the term has little to no distinction from "herbalism" in the U.S. Regardless, I think it's worth clarifying in our article that scientific herbalism/phytomedicine does exist, even if it isn't the dominant paradigm. There are now dozens of medical journals devoted to phytomedicine. Yes, some of them are trash, but others are just as scientific as respected medical journals. For example, Elsevier's Phytomedicine is full of randomized, double-blind controlled studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Recently, some of the most respected mainstream medical journals like The New England Journal of Medicine and Annals of Internal Medicine have even published studies on herbal treatments. While this doesn't mean that they endorse the idea of herbalism, it does show that it has progressed enough as a science to be taken seriously (even if the field itself is dominated by pseudoscience). Any suggestions for how we can present this fairly in the article, while still respecting WP:WEIGHT and not endorsing herbalism as a whole? Nosferattus (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could say something like "Of the thousands of medicinal plants used worldwide, only a small fraction have been rigorously tested in randomized, controlled trials." And we could cite https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMra020398 for that. Nosferattus (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Two observations: 1) RCT results published in the journal, Phytomedicine, are evidence of research activity, but the findings are still primary research until reviewed and published in a MEDRS source. There is no good example of rigorous MEDRS reviews (or even well-designed RCTs) appearing in Phytomedicine, as this would be a low-ranking destination for good clinical research; 2) the NEJM and Ann Int Med examples provided are two decades out of date, WP:MEDDATE, and not useable in my opinion. Two decades without refreshed reviews imply to me that the topic is not of sufficient scientific interest, or not worthy of the expense, to pursue for updates. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook", WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed my point. I'm not suggesting using any of these sources in the article. I'm just using them as examples to show that scientific herbalism does exist and to argue that we shouldn't paint all of herbal medicine with the same broad brush (especially if it is meant to include phytomedicine within its scope, which, at least in Europe, is generally treated as a science). Does that make sense? For comparison, I think the Encyclopedia Britannica article on phytotherapy does a pretty good job of explaining the mess of varying terminology and regulation, while our article doesn't. At the same time, I don't want our article to water-down the assertion that much of herbalism is pseudoscientific, especially in places where it is unregulated. Nosferattus (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful for further perspective to review the two merge proposal discussions via links at the top of this page where several experienced editors chimed in. The merge proposal and consensus were for phytotherapy and phytomedicine to be merged into herbal medicine. For balance,, mention that herbal medicine is a) practiced in some parts of the world, b) under limited preliminary research, and c) facilitates marketing of herbal supplements, would be accurate and fair, but to indicate it has withstood scientific scrutiny, is based in scientific consensus, or has WP:MEDRS-quality sourcing would depart from fact. Note that the EB article on phytotherapy is written by Michael Heinrich of the Centre for Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy, School of Pharmacy, University College London - I don't think that's a useable peer-reviewed, unbiased, MEDRS-quality source. 16:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS is only necessary for medical claims, not for general information within a medical article. See Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Regarding the science claim, I feel like we are talking past each other. I do not want to say that herbal medicine as a whole is based on science. What I want is for there to be information somewhere on Wikipedia (it doesn't have to be in this article) about the aspects of herbal medicine that are scientific. In order for us to work towards some kind of consensus, I think we need to figure out what our shared understanding is.
 * Does this article include phytotherapy and phytomedicine within its scope?
 * Do you agree that phytotherapy and phytomedicine sometimes (but not always) refer to science-based practices?
 * Nosferattus (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mushrooms and other fungi in herbalism
Appropriately, plants are mentioned repeatedly on this page, but mushrooms and other fungi are not. I hope this can be appropriately remedied. 2603:7080:7B06:2A00:90C:2B7B:1A8:8551 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Creating talk page to discuss adding my recent edits which include safety, market criticism and Paraherbalism
-safety and efficacy The second sentence on safety and efficacy is entirely editorialized and does not reflect the source, as well as falsely labeling the criticism of the herbal market as the criticism of herbalism itself, I would like to use my wording instead as it accurately represents the source and provides both better wording and more information on the criticism of herbalism and the herbal market

-market criticism I was never told why this is removed but I’d like to add it as its informative criticism of the herbal market which used the sources in the above sentence, I don’t know what to counterpoint as I was never told why it was removed

-Paraherbalism Again I was never told why this was removed, I used the source which uses Varro Eugene Tyler who coined the term for the addition of the pharmaceutical conspiracy, I don’t know what to counterpoint as I was never told why this was removed, I find it more informative and accurately representing the source Bobisland (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Page bias
I think this article article has a pretty poor bias for herbal medicine, it just completly shames the entire use of it and ignores that reliable sources don't necasarily condone it. https://medlineplus.gov/herbalmedicine.html https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/herbal-medicine This gov source states how you should "Talk to your doctor first before using it" and that it and isn't exactly bad. They state that many herbal medicines come with it's bunch of side effects, but saying that it's a false or psudeoscientific thing is quite bias. While some scientists or doctors don't like it's usage, it's still debated upon if effective or not. And from the John Hopkins source, they even state that you again, Should talk to your doctor and check labels before using it. It never says that it's completey ineffective. Even if we don't use these sources, they are still very reliable and give useful information. If I'm taking info on using herbal medicine of any kind, I'm not using this page. I see it needa a little updating. The sources that we present aren't bad ones, just need to list the other side to show that it isn't complete phony "Psudeoscience". Aalji (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit new so there is some page policies I might be unaware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalji (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

“Paraherbalism”
Why is an obscure neologism coined by a deceased expert in postage stamps being used as a terms to describe a topic relevant to medicine? 2600:1700:448D:BC10:2021:E3E7:D72E:8B79 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)