Ginkgo Biloba
-
Daily doses of ginkgo tree-leaf extract can prevent or reduce brain damage caused by a stroke, U.S. researchers said in a medical journal Friday. The Johns Hopkins University researchers said in the journal Stroke that their work supported other evidence that ginkgo biloba triggers a cascade of events that neutralizes free radicals known to cause cell death. Study: Ginkgo can prevent stroke damage [^] Before this study was released, Ginkgo was touted as showing promise as a circulatory aid, helping to increase blood flow to the brain which may be useful for memory loss, vertigo, tinnitus, disorientation, headaches, and depression, especially in the elderly and the elderly not responding to antidepressant drugs. It is also mentioned as a palliative for bad circulation in the legs.
A meta-analysis in 2006, "The use of Ginkgo biloba extract in acute ischemic stroke," concluded that there was no good evidence to support the notion that ginkgo reduces neurological damage in CVAs. Another study using mice is neither groundbreaking nor particularly useful for making clinical decisions. I think I'll stick with TPK. Not that it wouldn't be great to have a treatment that doesn't carry the same risk of bleeding out/for people who can't take it, etc. Modern herbal medicine is mostly pseudoscience, riding on the "it's natural" popularity circuit. Sure, there are useful compounds in plants, but purify and dose-control to mg/kg the active pharmacological ingredient, then we can talk. How can you trust any study that uses plant extracts, without knowing exactly what is in it and in what amount? Would you actually listen to a doctor who handed you a bottle and didn't quite know what was in it, but "it seems to work, sometimes?" Modern medicine is effective precisely because we don't prescribe anything without at least making an attempt to rule out the placebo effect through clinical trials and describing a reasonable physiological mechanism of effect. Naturopaths, etc will prescribe anything that "works" or has been "shown to work" or has been "used for 5000 years," which is fine for making personal medical choices (hey, it's your body, and none of this natural stuff is likely to kill you), but as an institution, it's profoundly unethical.
- F
-
A meta-analysis in 2006, "The use of Ginkgo biloba extract in acute ischemic stroke," concluded that there was no good evidence to support the notion that ginkgo reduces neurological damage in CVAs. Another study using mice is neither groundbreaking nor particularly useful for making clinical decisions. I think I'll stick with TPK. Not that it wouldn't be great to have a treatment that doesn't carry the same risk of bleeding out/for people who can't take it, etc. Modern herbal medicine is mostly pseudoscience, riding on the "it's natural" popularity circuit. Sure, there are useful compounds in plants, but purify and dose-control to mg/kg the active pharmacological ingredient, then we can talk. How can you trust any study that uses plant extracts, without knowing exactly what is in it and in what amount? Would you actually listen to a doctor who handed you a bottle and didn't quite know what was in it, but "it seems to work, sometimes?" Modern medicine is effective precisely because we don't prescribe anything without at least making an attempt to rule out the placebo effect through clinical trials and describing a reasonable physiological mechanism of effect. Naturopaths, etc will prescribe anything that "works" or has been "shown to work" or has been "used for 5000 years," which is fine for making personal medical choices (hey, it's your body, and none of this natural stuff is likely to kill you), but as an institution, it's profoundly unethical.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Modern medicine is effective precisely because we don't prescribe anything without at least making an attempt to rule out the placebo effect through clinical trials and describing a reasonable physiological mechanism of effect.
So you are saying that the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association published the results of a trial that had no validity? "Stroke's" Editorial Board, consisting over 100 well-respected doctors and researchers in the field of Neurology from around the world would be shocked to hear that their fraud had been so easily discovered. They might also be a little surprised to be called naturopaths. :laugh: Basically, you took a cheap shot at a serious study, conducted at Johns Hopkins University by their lead researcher who is a Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine associate professor to boot. You dismissed an article published Friday as "not new." And you revealed an inability or unwillingness to check your facts before spouting off. :|
-
A meta-analysis in 2006, "The use of Ginkgo biloba extract in acute ischemic stroke," concluded that there was no good evidence to support the notion that ginkgo reduces neurological damage in CVAs. Another study using mice is neither groundbreaking nor particularly useful for making clinical decisions. I think I'll stick with TPK. Not that it wouldn't be great to have a treatment that doesn't carry the same risk of bleeding out/for people who can't take it, etc. Modern herbal medicine is mostly pseudoscience, riding on the "it's natural" popularity circuit. Sure, there are useful compounds in plants, but purify and dose-control to mg/kg the active pharmacological ingredient, then we can talk. How can you trust any study that uses plant extracts, without knowing exactly what is in it and in what amount? Would you actually listen to a doctor who handed you a bottle and didn't quite know what was in it, but "it seems to work, sometimes?" Modern medicine is effective precisely because we don't prescribe anything without at least making an attempt to rule out the placebo effect through clinical trials and describing a reasonable physiological mechanism of effect. Naturopaths, etc will prescribe anything that "works" or has been "shown to work" or has been "used for 5000 years," which is fine for making personal medical choices (hey, it's your body, and none of this natural stuff is likely to kill you), but as an institution, it's profoundly unethical.
- F
-
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba". To read some of the other published research documents, many open access, visit here http://www.biomedcentral.com[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba".
Fisticuffs would have dismissed pennicillin as "mouldy bread" and anyone curious about its properties as "naturopaths." Apparently he doesn't know about (or care to learn that) some 120 prescription drugs sold worldwide today are derived directly from plants found in the rainforests. And according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, more than two-thirds of all medicines found to have cancer-fighting properties come from rainforest plants. Compounds found originally in plants are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba".
Fisticuffs would have dismissed pennicillin as "mouldy bread" and anyone curious about its properties as "naturopaths." Apparently he doesn't know about (or care to learn that) some 120 prescription drugs sold worldwide today are derived directly from plants found in the rainforests. And according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, more than two-thirds of all medicines found to have cancer-fighting properties come from rainforest plants. Compounds found originally in plants are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Modern medicine is effective precisely because we don't prescribe anything without at least making an attempt to rule out the placebo effect through clinical trials and describing a reasonable physiological mechanism of effect.
So you are saying that the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association published the results of a trial that had no validity? "Stroke's" Editorial Board, consisting over 100 well-respected doctors and researchers in the field of Neurology from around the world would be shocked to hear that their fraud had been so easily discovered. They might also be a little surprised to be called naturopaths. :laugh: Basically, you took a cheap shot at a serious study, conducted at Johns Hopkins University by their lead researcher who is a Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine associate professor to boot. You dismissed an article published Friday as "not new." And you revealed an inability or unwillingness to check your facts before spouting off. :|
Of mice. Reasonable study. Of mice. Extrapolating clinical practice guidelines from it is far beyond the scope of what the researchers should ethically be doing. Take a few classes in epidemiology and report back on the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Guess where animal studies are? Right.. at.. the.. bottom! :D
- F
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba".
Fisticuffs would have dismissed pennicillin as "mouldy bread" and anyone curious about its properties as "naturopaths." Apparently he doesn't know about (or care to learn that) some 120 prescription drugs sold worldwide today are derived directly from plants found in the rainforests. And according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, more than two-thirds of all medicines found to have cancer-fighting properties come from rainforest plants. Compounds found originally in plants are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Compounds found originally in plants now dosage controlled, pharmaceutically isolated, with reasonable evidence to support their use are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems.
This was a mouse study.
- F
-
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba". To read some of the other published research documents, many open access, visit here http://www.biomedcentral.com[^]
-
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba". To read some of the other published research documents, many open access, visit here http://www.biomedcentral.com[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba"
Most of it is poorly conducted or not particularly clinically applicable. Nobody should be recommending ginkgo biloba on the standard of evidence that exists for it, much less in uncontrolled preparations.
- F
-
A meta-analysis in 2006, "The use of Ginkgo biloba extract in acute ischemic stroke," concluded that there was no good evidence to support the notion that ginkgo reduces neurological damage in CVAs. Another study using mice is neither groundbreaking nor particularly useful for making clinical decisions. I think I'll stick with TPK. Not that it wouldn't be great to have a treatment that doesn't carry the same risk of bleeding out/for people who can't take it, etc. Modern herbal medicine is mostly pseudoscience, riding on the "it's natural" popularity circuit. Sure, there are useful compounds in plants, but purify and dose-control to mg/kg the active pharmacological ingredient, then we can talk. How can you trust any study that uses plant extracts, without knowing exactly what is in it and in what amount? Would you actually listen to a doctor who handed you a bottle and didn't quite know what was in it, but "it seems to work, sometimes?" Modern medicine is effective precisely because we don't prescribe anything without at least making an attempt to rule out the placebo effect through clinical trials and describing a reasonable physiological mechanism of effect. Naturopaths, etc will prescribe anything that "works" or has been "shown to work" or has been "used for 5000 years," which is fine for making personal medical choices (hey, it's your body, and none of this natural stuff is likely to kill you), but as an institution, it's profoundly unethical.
- F
And weed doesn't really make you hungry. :laugh:
Q: What is the difference between a pigeon and a merchant banker? A: A pigeon can still put a deposit on a Ferrari.
-
And weed doesn't really make you hungry. :laugh:
Q: What is the difference between a pigeon and a merchant banker? A: A pigeon can still put a deposit on a Ferrari.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
There is certainly a lot of research done on "ginkgo biloba"
Most of it is poorly conducted or not particularly clinically applicable. Nobody should be recommending ginkgo biloba on the standard of evidence that exists for it, much less in uncontrolled preparations.
- F
I am not qualified to comment on how good, bad, or indifferent the quality of research is irrespective of the published source.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Nobody should be recommending ginkgo biloba on the standard of evidence that exists for it, much less in uncontrolled preparations.
Again, I am not qualified to recommend or not ANY medical product/procedure. Are you qualified ????
-
Oakman wrote:
Compounds found originally in plants now dosage controlled, pharmaceutically isolated, with reasonable evidence to support their use are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems.
This was a mouse study.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Forum:The Oakman wrote: Compounds found originally in plants now dosage controlled, pharmaceutically isolated, with reasonable evidence to support their use are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems. This was a mouse study.
Every one of those compounds are available by prescription for humans. However, I do congratulate you on reading about the Gingko study - better later than never. Anyone who had followed the link before responding to the OP would have known that, of course.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Of mice. Reasonable study. Of mice. Extrapolating clinical practice guidelines from it is far beyond the scope of what the researchers should ethically be doing. Take a few classes in epidemiology and report back on the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Guess where animal studies are? Right.. at.. the.. bottom! :D
- F
First you dismiss the study without reading the data. Now, having discovered that the study reports the results of animal trials - a necessary step towards use in humans, you know, you suddenly announce that the study is no good because it is a careful, step-by-step study.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Guess where animal studies are? Right.. at.. the.. bottom!
The next step after successful animal trials is clinical studies on humans. Publishing the successful results of those animal trials is the precursor to beginning to test the drug on human. I hope you understood those words - hell I hope you read them before deciding they're wrong - given your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
Fisticuffs wrote:
the researchers should ethically be doing
Why don't you write to Johns Hopkins and tell them their chief researcher doesn't meet up to your ethical standards - which, apparently, don't require you to read article before reviewing them.
-
I am not qualified to comment on how good, bad, or indifferent the quality of research is irrespective of the published source.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Nobody should be recommending ginkgo biloba on the standard of evidence that exists for it, much less in uncontrolled preparations.
Again, I am not qualified to recommend or not ANY medical product/procedure. Are you qualified ????
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Forum:The Oakman wrote: Compounds found originally in plants now dosage controlled, pharmaceutically isolated, with reasonable evidence to support their use are also used to treat malaria, heart disease, bronchitis, hypertension, rheumatism, diabetes, muscle tension, arthritis, glaucoma, dysentery and tuberculosis, among other health problems. This was a mouse study.
Every one of those compounds are available by prescription for humans. However, I do congratulate you on reading about the Gingko study - better later than never. Anyone who had followed the link before responding to the OP would have known that, of course.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Are you qualified ????
Anyone who criticizes the report on a study without, at least glancing at it, is not qualified.
-
I am not qualified to comment on how good, bad, or indifferent the quality of research is irrespective of the published source.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Nobody should be recommending ginkgo biloba on the standard of evidence that exists for it, much less in uncontrolled preparations.
Again, I am not qualified to recommend or not ANY medical product/procedure. Are you qualified ????
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Are you qualified ????
Yes I am, when in an appropriate professional setting and under the proper supervision for my level of training. If you want to know what information I used to reach my opinion, it's my education, clinical resources like uptodate/medline, the meta-analyses related to ginkgo that I'm familiar with, the cochrane reviews on similar uses for ginkgo, and my own personal standards of evidence for pharmacological therapies, herbal or otherwise. Nevertheless, nobody should be particularly inclined to act on unsolicited medical advice they find on the internet. That's not the purpose of this forum.
- F
-
First you dismiss the study without reading the data. Now, having discovered that the study reports the results of animal trials - a necessary step towards use in humans, you know, you suddenly announce that the study is no good because it is a careful, step-by-step study.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Guess where animal studies are? Right.. at.. the.. bottom!
The next step after successful animal trials is clinical studies on humans. Publishing the successful results of those animal trials is the precursor to beginning to test the drug on human. I hope you understood those words - hell I hope you read them before deciding they're wrong - given your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
Fisticuffs wrote:
the researchers should ethically be doing
Why don't you write to Johns Hopkins and tell them their chief researcher doesn't meet up to your ethical standards - which, apparently, don't require you to read article before reviewing them.
Shepman wrote:
First you dismiss the study without reading the data.
I dismiss the clinical relevance of the study, which is all I'm really interested in, and which appeared to be the primary point of your discussion.
Shepman wrote:
The next step after successful animal trials is clinical studies on humans. Publishing the successful results of those animal trials is the precursor to beginning to test the drug on human
The recent meta-analysis I posted suggests there have already been several studies on humans with ginkgo extracts in treating acute CVAs and that the evidence is against efficacy. A mouse study doesn't particularly influence that finding. I'm perfectly willing to take their findings at face value - I have no reason to doubt the study. Mice studies are often well constructed because they're easier to do than human. But that doesn't magically mean that we can or should treat/prevent a stroke with some oral off-the-shelf ginkgo extract; in fact, the other existing evidence strongly suggests that right now it's a waste of resources. :rolleyes:
- F