Kava research paper.

From: "jim mcdonald" multiflorum.hotmail.com>
To: herb.lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [herb] Re: article on Kava research
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:51:28 -0500

While I totally agree with the outcome of this study; that Kava kava is not inherently hepatotoxic, it does demonstrate a pertinent problem:

"A coalition of dietary supplements industry associations, including the American Herbal Products Association, National Nutritional Foods Association, American Botanical Council, Council for Responsible Nutrition and Utah Natural Products Alliance, commissioned Waller to evaluate26 kava-related AERs received by the FDA between May 1998 and September 2001, as well as 30 Swiss and German AERs gathered in the last 11 years."

He was ~commisioned~ by the herbal products industry, who make money - lots of it - from Kava products. Likely, pharmacuetical companies will feel compelled to ~commision~ their own stuy which says Kava is indeed dangerous, and the cycle will continue ad infinitum, as it has with St. John's Wort. We say this, they say that; we have our study, they have theirs. Pointless, a waset of time, money & energy.

I've pretty much attempted to refrain from using the results of studies to back up what I say an herb, formula or therapy does, because I feel they are nearly inevitably prone to reflect the will of the people who pay for them. ~Let the practice speak for itself~. When the Kava thing came up, I didn't feel like I needed to wait for a study about whether it was dangerous or not, I knew it wasn't. If we fall into relying on studies to prove things we give up the experiential nature of traditional herbalism and fall into psuedo-scientific-standardized-phyto-nonsense which, at its core, reduces the usefulness of using herbs because its trying to do it in a scientific framework that is alien to the ways herbs work best.

The most important thing an herbalist can do nowadays, i feel, is to teach. Teach the interested public how herbs work, and let the herbs speak for themselves. Doing this will clearly show their supriority over chemical medicine. Look what would happen if we let pharmacueticals speak for themselves....

end of tirade.

From: hkobayas hkobayas.students.uiuc.edu

>When the Kava thing came up, I didn't feel like I needed to wait for a study about whether it was dangerous or not, I knew it wasn't.

This does not mean it is not dangerous, does it? Just because you think?

>If we fall into relying on studies to prove things we give up the experiential nature of traditional herbalism and fall into psuedo-scientific-standardized-phyto-nonsense which, at its core, reduces the usefulness of using herbs because its trying to do it in a scientific framework that is alien to the ways herbs work best.

That's one type of misunderstanding a scientific study or a result. In science, we do NOT "prove". We find an evidence that supports (or we fail to reject) the hypothesis we tested. That's not same as "proving". I think you stated earlier herbal medicine is like an art if I remember correctly. That may be even worse than pseudoscience, or voodoo science I prefer to call.

Hideka

From: The Gardenthyme Lady gardenthymeherbs.yahoo.com

Yes, of course you are right Jim. The problem is so many people now have a closed mind about these herbs, and basically herbs in general. The program I work for helped sponsored a mini medical program for the public, one of the programs is on alternative/holistic medicine. They normally have a panel of 3 professionals. They could only come up with one, an accupunturist. When I suggested a herbalist participate I was shot down because the Dr. in charge wouldn't hear of it. I tried to explain the person I had suggested wasn't a "quack". She is the president of the local herb society, owns a herbal business, and has taught herbal classes at the college. But because she owns a herbal business he said she's in it for a profit and that was that. I had to bite my tougue not to retort "And Physicians and drug companies aren't?" I didn't want to get into an argument over it though. I've encountered this hostility and resistence repeatedly. So our alternative/holistic mini medical school will not address the use of herbs, and will only have an accupuncturist on the panel.

Dee "the gardenthyme Lady"

From: Henriette Kress hetta.spamcop.net

> That's one type of misunderstanding a scientific study or a result. In science, we do NOT "prove". We find an evidence that supports (or we fail to reject) the hypothesis we tested. That's not same as "proving".

But there are far too many dishonest scientists out there. I'm sure they didn't start out all unethical, but then they noticed that you don't get grant money if you don't deliver the desired results... and once you give in to that it's a very slippery slope, at the bottom of which you'll find a big heap of people who are more than willing to write that "ginger doesn't work for nausea" --- where an _honest_ scientist would have written "ginger doesn't use this mechanism in its anti-nauseous effects".

Personally, I've read far too many papers blatantly anti-herbal papers. The neutral or pro-herbal ones are few and far between. Because, let's face it, where do medical and pharmaceutical studies get their grant money from? The pharmacogiants. And what's the biggest threat to those? It's 1) people starting to do things for their own health, like exercise, diet, lifestyle -- and 2) herbs, which cannot be patented, which can be planted pretty much anywhere.

Funny thing though.

I'm a non-conformer on two fronts: 1) I'm a herbalist, and 2) I use linux.

The positions are pretty identical: a small challenger up against the big guys.

When Micro$oft says that linux (which is free) is in fact expensive to work with the linux folks shrug, say "FUD", and get on with their lives.

"FUD" stands for "Fear Uncertainty Doubt".

And _THAT_ is what pharmacogiants and medical sciences throw at herbs, as fast and as devastatingly as they ever can.

Herbs aren't any more dangerous now than they were 20 years ago. But these days _any_ little thing that's negative about herbs makes headlines _immediately_. FUD. ... Shrug. Did you guys know in just how many ways a 30 minute walk a day is good?

> I think you stated earlier herbal medicine is like an art if I remember correctly. That may be even worse than pseudoscience, or voodoo science I prefer to call.

Of course you would say that - you're working in a scientific frame.

But who cares if it's science, voodoo, art, or pseudoscience? To me, it makes no difference _whatsoever_ what outsiders choose to call my craft, as long as my clients get better. And they do, so all of this is rather academic, no?

From: "jim mcdonald" multiflorum.hotmail.com

>>When the Kava thing came up, I didn't feel like I needed to wait for a >study about whether it was dangerous or not, I knew it wasn't.

>This does not mean it is not dangerous, does it? Just because you think?

Not ~at all~ because I think. Because its not. My opinions about it are based on literally thousands of years of indigenous use, and my interactions with hawaiians and other herbalists who've been using the herb for decades.

>That's one type of misunderstanding a scientific study or a result. In science, we do NOT "prove". We find an evidence that supports (or we fail to reject) the hypothesis we tested. That's not same as "proving". I think you stated earlier herbal medicine is like an art if I remember correctly. That may be even worse than pseudoscience, or voodoo science I prefer to call.

Respectfully, there's a difference in perspective. While some may really like the concrete "this is why" approach that science strives for, I don't, and I address my opinions as such. To each their own.

For my part, the "voodou science" of the past is what has supplied all the info modern science is trying to prove. The scope of herbal medicine has never, ~in the history of the world~, been as narrow as it is under the scientific model. This is alarming and distressing, particularly because goverments use this model to make laws that say what someone can and cannot do ("studies" claimed sassafras is carcinogenic, and so we can't drink sassafras root beer anymore. "Experience" says sassafras prevents cancer, and areas where Sassafras tea is regularly consumed have among the lowest Cancer rates in the country).

So information based on experience is empowering. What it does do, which offers the potentials for the dangers that you assert to it, is make people responsible for whose word they take. Thta's a very real danger, not to be taken lightly. My experience, though, is that much of the misinformation my students and clients have learned comes from "studies", whose accuracy was assumed because "science supported it". Often these studies toof place in a petri dish. I just can't let the people I work with accept that without considering other perspectives.

Takes all kind to make the world go round, eh?

From: hkobayas hkobayas.students.uiuc.edu

>But there are far too many dishonest scientists out there.

That may be true or not. Either way, it shouldn't be a reason that you don't trust scientific finding. There are many dubious herbal products (Essiac?) or herbalists out there as well.

>I'm sure they didn't start out all unethical, but then they noticed that you don't get grant money if you don't deliver the desired results... and once you give in to that it's a very slippery slope, at the bottom of which you'll find a big heap of people who are more than willing to write that "ginger doesn't work for nausea" --- where an _honest_ scientist would have written "ginger doesn't use this mechanism in its anti-nauseous effects".

People like you know enough about herbs and the subtlety of research results. But the majority does not. I tend to see more problem with media since their capability in uderstanding (any) issues is quite limited.

>The neutral or pro-herbal ones are few and far between.

Not so. There have been at least few articles that find efficacy in treatements for anxiety and perimenopausal symptoms for kava even after the recent kava scare. You won't see neutral or pro-herb ones in JAMA for the reasons you stated, that's for sure.

>Herbs aren't any more dangerous now than they were 20 years ago. But these days _any_ little thing that's negative about herbs makes headlines _immediately_. FUD. ... Shrug. Did you guys know in just how many ways a 30 minute walk a day is good?

Very true. But I do remember Comfrey scare. The situation could have been a little different in Japan, though.

>But who cares if it's science, voodoo, art, or pseudoscience? To me, it makes no difference _whatsoever_ what outsiders choose to call my craft, as long as my clients get better. And they do, so all of this is rather academic, no?

Affirmative. That's the reason I don't apply scientific reasonings/logics to homeopathy.

>My opinions about it are based on literally thousands of years of indigenous use, and my interactions with hawaiians and other herbalists who've been using the herb for decades.

So called anecdotal evidence?

>While some may really like the concrete "this is why" approach that science strives for, I don't, and I address my opinions as such. To each their own.

It isn't concrete as you wish to believe. In science, we all deal with probability. Nothing is concrete in science. Paradigm?

>The scope of herbal medicine has never, ~in the history of the world~, been as narrow as it is under the scientific model.

Or focused.

>("studies" claimed sassafras is carcinogenic, and so we can't drink sassafras root beer anymore.

Another not-so-accurate interpretation. Studies found safrole and isosafrole are potential carcinogenic, not sassafras itself.

>So information based on experience is empowering. What it does do, which offers the potentials for the dangers that you assert to it, is make people responsible for whose word they take. Thta's a very real danger, not to be taken lightly. My experience, though, is that much of the misinformation my students and clients have learned comes from "studies", whose accuracy was assumed because "science supported it".

But the same thing can be said information based on anecdotal evidence. Many people assume information they learned from *teachers* is accurate because of the "source". The process of refining "art" is empirical, and that's what science does to get something to work.

>Often these studies took place in a petri dish. I just can't let the people I work with accept that without considering other perspectives.

I am not aware of any studies that took place in petri dishes. Anyway, isn't the above statement opposite of what you have done in the past?

From: texasbluebonnets.comcast.net

Regarding the use of Kava, I use to use it everyday for anxiety and just to all around help keep me calmed down. I get pa nic attacks. and it worked wo nders for me. I discovered kava in one of those SObe Drinks, I cant remember what the drink name is now. but they stopped selling that one. I took the kava capsules for over a year and they worked really good. but now all this talk about how harmful it is for you just scares me. I am curious to know has anyone ever had a bad experience ith Kava?

cindy

From: "Darcey Blue" darcyblue.hotmail.com

I'm not a professional here yet, but i'd be wary of taking just about anything, herb, pill or otherwise every single day. JMHO

From: Henriette Kress hetta.spamcop.net

> I'm not a professional here yet, but i'd be wary of taking just about anything, herb, pill or otherwise every single day.

Ah, but Darcey, you haven't met panic attacks. If you've seen (or got them) them you'll know that anything is better than that.

Also, there _are_ herbs that are safe for everyday use for years. The trick is to know which herbs -- and for which people.

>> but now all this talk about how harmful it is for you just scares me. I am curious to know has anyone ever had a bad experience with Kava?

You might get strange scaly spots on the palms of your hands... a sign that the liver is under pressure. If you do, take some silybum along with your kava. Daily.

From: "jim mcdonald" multiflorum.hotmail.com

>Regarding the use of Kava, I use to use it everyday for anxiety [snip] I am curious to know has anyone ever had a bad experience ith Kava?

Personally, I've always associated proper Kava use as being event related: you work a long day with lots of hassle, have a dreadful 4 mile, 2 hour ride home, realize you were supposed to stop and drop something off and didn't, and feel physically tense and emotionally wired. Tension is settled into the musculature of yor body, your not necessarily in a bad mood, but rattled and just can't seem to shake it. That's when I find Kava is unequalled.

I've taken Kava in capsules (don't ~personnally~ recommend that), in tea, prepared as a traditional cold infusion, as a tincture and even chewed up and spit out large quantities of the fresh root, added water and drank that (the REAL traditional method of preparation, minus that I'm not a bare chested virgin girl, and I used muslin, and not banana leaves to strain the drink). Never had, nor seen any problems with any of these preparations. John Fowler, a Kava grower in Hawaii where I get my Kava from, says he lived for years on Vanuatu where the Natives could drink more Kava than we could dream of, and there was never any "liver damage" in those populations.

Longterm, excessive use can cause the dry, scaly skin Henriette refered to (natives call it alligator skin), but refraining from use for a short time resolves the problem. Remember Kava is in the pepper family, its hot & drying. The "drier" a person is, the more of a concern this might be. Still, its relatively uncommon.

Dale Pendell notes that on some islands, among the natives only men drank kava (and LOTS), and there was no discernable health problems they had that women didn't.

MY thoughts on the issue of Kava safety is that you should avoid standardized Kava extract. A preparation with 80% kavalactones is no longer Kava Kava.

Otherwise, I see little problems with longterm use, though, again, that's not what I use it for:

Anxiety/panic attacks get Calamus root to chew on during an episode, and tonic nervines like Wood Betony & Skullcap to lessen occurance.

AND Breath exercises AND an outlet to talk about what might be stressing them

From: "Michelle Morton-niyama" lakshmi.kingcon.com

What I find interesting is, according to the AHG journal articles on Kava, most of the hepatotoxic occurrences were from using the acetone extract. Now I know that solvents supposedly do not remain in the final product- but one must wonder...

From: "Phosphor" phosphor.hotkey.net.au

>Tension is settled into the musculature of yor body, your not necessarily in a bad mood, but rattled and just can't seem to shake it. That's when I find Kava is unequalled.

what about beer or cider? more readily available, and within our culture.

andrew

From: "jim mcdonald" multiflorum.hotmail.com

>what about beer or cider? more readily available, and within our culture.

ah... hard cider is another favorite of mine after such a day. Kava, though, really acts much more pronounced upon the tight muscles; it helps you body let go in a way that a hopped beer or fermented cider just doesn't touch (though you can get a lot closer by adding a squirt or two of Chamomile tincture to a bottle of hard cider...)

From: HerbalSW.aol.com

beer and cider (if it is herd) are addictive and potentially dangerous for someone with anxiety

Catherine M. Wood, LCSW, CADC, ADS