Clinical trial shows hypericum lotion improves wound healing and scar formation following cesarean.

St John's Wort (Hypericum perforatum) has been popularised by the press as a herb for treating depression - for which it is very effective - but this is just one the many uses we herbalists put it to, so it is nice to see a study confirming one of its other uses: promoting wound healing.

Applied externally to a wound, as a cream or oil, hypericum will promote rapid healing and minimise scarring. I often use it in conjunction with calendula which promotes skin growth.

In the trial in question, patients that had recently had cesarean section births were given hypericum lotion, a placebo lotion or nothing at all. The group using hypericum had significantly better wound healing, and reduced scarring. They also reported less pain and pruritis (itching). The placebo lotion was no better than the control group who had no lotion at all, clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of the hypericum.

The authors conclude: "Topical application of H. perforatum is safe and can facilitate cesarean wound healing and minimize formation of scar and its pain and pruritus." The study was carried out by Samadi S et al, at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran, and published in the Journal of Alternative and Complement Medicine, January 2010
[link to study abstract]

In practice I use hypericum cream and oil with excellent results on many kinds of wound, not just cesarean. I look forward to researchers extending their studies in the near future and trialling hypericum on other wounds!

A new study demonstrates what herbalists have known all along - that chamomile is clinically effective in treating anxiety.

In the study patients with mild to moderate generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) received either chamomile or placebo. Those that received the chamomile treatment were found to have a significant reduction in the severity of their GAD.

The reserchers conclude that chamomile extract is effective for treating mild to moderate GAD. The study was caried out by Amsterdam JD et al at the Depression Research Unit, University Science Center, Philadelphia and published in August 2009. [abstract]

Chamomile has, of course, long been prescribed by herbalists to help with anxiety, aid relaxation and soothe the stomach. Its benefits are immortalised in child folklore in The Tale of Peter Rabbit where Mrs. Rabbit gave her son, Peter chamomile tea after a close shave with Mr McGreggor. "One table-spoonful to be taken at bedtime."

As a herbalist I have to put up with considerable attack from 'authorities' that claim to be the holders of scientific truth. Herbal medicine is regularly rubbished by the medical establishment and dismissed as superstion, witchcraft or alchemy. They accuse us of not having the scientific studies to prove efficacy or safety, ignoring entirely the simple facts that (a) we do not have the funding to do extensive studies like the pharmaceutical companies and (b) there is not one documented case of a herbalist causing death or even injury, yet there are some 90000 patient deaths per year linked to hospital errors. Of course our detractors know this, and are trying to rubbish us by using their power and position and are not interested in real science at all.

So, I was pleased to find the following quotation from professor Henry Bauer Emeritus of Chemistry and Science, Virginia Polytech (2004), which sums up the position succinctly:

"Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies. Science is now altogether different from the traditional disinterested search, by self-motivated individuals, to understand the world."

The following recent articles are good examples of how the knowledge-cartels with the media's collaboration smuggly adopt the scientific high ground:

Herbalism Kill or Cure? - Independent 5 January 2010

This article clearly over-emphasises the 'dangers' of herbal medicine and questions the scientific basis for their benefits. A very good debate follows the article and makes worthwhile reading - at one point a herbal detractor (zeno001) gives an example of the dangers of herbal medicine, but the link leads to a government safety warning for a chinese herbal product contaminated with pharmaceutical drugs. Clearly it is the pharmaceuticals, not the herbs that are dangerous!

A spanner in the herbal works - Nigel Hawkes, freelance journalist, BMJ, 21 December 2009 (needs subscription to get the whole article)

In his article Nigel Hawkes seeks to undermine herbal medicine, comparing it to alchemy. However he does show that the Royal College of Surgeons has done a U-turn and no longer supports Herbalists becoming statutorily regulated. Originally they saw it as a way to reduce the chance of unqualified herbalists 'harming patients', but now they think that it would 'Confer a legitimacy that they do not have', ie threaten their position! At least one of the people commenting on this article was willing to try and put the record straight: link

The new climate change scandal - Express, 18 January 2010

OK, so this article is not herbal, but it still shows how financial interest and power can lead to compromised science at the highest level of one of the world's most respected scientific bodies. Like the climate-gate scandle last year you get the feeling that these people 'know' they're right, so don't apply the same rigor to their own practice that they demand of the rest of us.

This was meant to be the pandemic they had been waiting for.

The flu virus, science tells us, continually mutates and sooner or later will create a pandemic on the scale of the 1918 outbreak which killed 50 million. Around the world scientists have been waiting, preparing for the inevitable.

Then in May 2009 swine flu emerged and they thought it could be the big one. After all, unlike the bird flu scare that preceeded it, swine flu really existed as a human to human transmission, and had killed an estimated 176 in Mexico.

By 11 June 2009 swine flu was declared a level 6 pandemic by the WHO, with predicitions of thousands of deaths to come - in fact, Sir Liam Donaldson, "bandied about any figure that came into his head, settling on "65,000 could die", peaking at 350 corpses a day" (See Guardian article).

National vaccination campaigns were being planned in many countries and governments raced to stockpile limited supplies of the vaccines. At the height of the frenzy there was tentative talk of 'mandatory vaccination' and even the more sinister question of whether 'the rights of the child to receive the benefits of the vaccine are greater than the rights of the parent to refuse' - an extreme, anti-parent, anti-liberal view that arose worryingly fast as public fear was being raised.

With fewer than expected cases and deaths in the summer people started questioning the rhetoric. We were told to prepare for a flare up as the winter took hold, but then it all went quiet. Right in the middle of the 'flu season', when it should have been at its worst the disease did not escalate as expected. The latest figures on swine flu show a “relatively stable picture” across Scotland, Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon has said. The same is true across the UK as a whole. Yesterday the BBC reports that "Weekly government briefings about swine flu have been abandoned, a signal that the crisis is considered to be easing."

Not that swine flu has not gone away, it is still killing, 13,554 across the world have died to date (the Independent) but this is not what we were led to fear, and well below annual seasonal flu deaths and nothing like the figures bandied about in the early days.

So was the over-reaction mearly a sensible precaution on the part of the health authorities? Or was there some deliberate manipulation going on?

This week, New Scientist reports that 14 governments of the Council of Europe are complaining that hey have been duped, charging that:

"Pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies... to alarm governments" in order to "promote their patented drugs and vaccines". Countries ... are now trying to limit orders and sell or give away vaccine, as demand is low.

Meanwhile, the manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank, with British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline posting sales of its swine flu vaccine products totalling £835 million. in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Whenever a vaccination campaign is launched there seems to be an increase in the number of false positive cases being reported. H1N1 was no different. At the height of the panic in early autumn 2009 a CBS News investigation discovered that of the many reported cases of swine flu in the USA fewer than 2% were actually H1N1 swine flu when tested, and that 83% of reported cases were not flu at all! The idea that reported cases were deliberately allowed to appear high is strengthened by the fact that most countries, including the USA and UK, stopped routine testing for swine flu and relied instead on verbal reporting.

We may never know whether the pharmaceutical companies deliberately over-egged the pudding, or how much their influence informed the WHO or Government decisions but the moral of this affair should be that we all emerge not with a dose of flu, or a shot of vaccine, but with a dose of healthy scepticism whenever there is a health scare with big money at stake. The House of Commons Health Committee report 'The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry' Fourth Report of Session 2004–05 makes sobering reading. In its summary it states

The interests of pharmaceutical companies and those of the public, patients and the NHS often overlap but they are not identical. For the industry, medical need must be combined with the likelihood of a reasonable return on investment. An effective regulatory regime to ensure that the industry works in the public interest is essential. Unfortunately, the present regulatory system is failing to provide this.

We herbalists often come in for attack by people that have not seen our work first hand. The accusations is that our medicines offer no more than a 'placebo' effect. By this they mean that our medicines only work because the patient believes in them, and that they would receive the same benefit even if the medicine contained only sugar water! A similar accusation is that any apparent benefit is due to the time and sympathy we give during the consultation, not to the herbs employed.

The case below is an excellent example of the weakness of the placebo accusation, and shows that it cannot be the explanation.

A mother contacted me as her five month old baby had recently developed eczema out of the blue. He is soley on breast milk and has just started teething. His mother eats well and neither parent is atopic (prone to eczema, hayfever or asthma). Furthermore, the baby had not been vaccinated (which can cause/coincide with the advent of eczema).

I gave her three pots of cream (Chickweed, Comfrey and Chamomile), and asked her to try each one, because I have found from experience that some eczema cases respond better to one or other of these creams: Chickweed is cooling and softening, Comfrey has skin mending properties and Chamomile is distinctly anti-inflammatory.

The mum reported back today, after a week long trial of the creams. Neither the Comfrey nor the Chamomile made any difference, but the Chickweed resolved the eczema. The inflammation, redness, itchyness, change in skin quality and the dryness have now gone and the baby is back to his happy self. She now has a bigger pot to be used when needed.

So what does this case tell us about the placebo accusation? Firstly, I did not spend more than ten minutes on the case, so it wasn't the 'consultation' effect. Secondly, I had not influenced the mother towards one cream over the other, she saw with her own eyes which one worked. Finally, and most importantly, the patient was a baby, who could not be affected by any of the placebo mechanisms, could he?

The fact is: herbal medicine works in many, many cases. I'm sure I have far more success than any local GP with the kinds of cases I treat. My patients know it. In the meantime I hope I've given you a bit of mental resiliance next time you hear a 'rationalist' dismiss herbal medicine as mere placebo.

My site manager, Keir, has spent the days running up to Christmas setting up this blog on the Clinic website, which just gives me time to wish all of my patients and site visitors a

VERY HAPPY CHRISTMAS AND A MERRY NEW YEAR

The clinic is now closed. We re-open on January 4th. In the meantime I will try to answer any urgent medical calls promptly.

Best wishes for 2010, Afifah