posted
I am a little leary at this point of taking herbs but my PA prescribed them to me... I am already on a lot of stuff and a little nervous about taking the herbs...
If Samento is meant to BOOST the immune system and you already have an out of control immune system.. Isnt that bad???
How safe are these herbs?
Does anyone have personal experience with these two herbs?
Input would be greatly appreciated!!!
-------------------- "You'll be surprised to know how far you can go from the point you thought it was the end" Posts: 946 | From Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "You'll be surprised to know how far you can go from the point you thought it was the end" Posts: 946 | From Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
-
Both are very safe. I don't know what form of artemesia you are taking. There are many forms. Have you been given artemesia - raw herb - or artemisinin - extract?
Although art. is safe, it's not always an easy treatment. Follow your doctor's instructions on everything.
--
There is also a lot of controversy about Samento vs. regular cat's claw.
One CANNOT take research about cat's claw and apply it to Samento. It is not the same thing. So, be careful when you read about cat's claw not to assume that is what you are taking.
I'll post a few articles about cat's claw below. Some do great with either one. I prefer the regular cat's claw and it's a fraction of the price.
I spent a small fortune on Samento when it first came out, but the results were disappointing for me and for several others I know who thought it would be a cure. As you know, alone, it's not enough.
You can ask you PA for literature or suggested reading. After you read the professional literature on Samento, you'll better understand the differences. Some lyme doctors prefer the regular cat's claw, but that would be a decision you can make after you read more.
Buhner, on p. 93 of his book, discusses the research on Samento and his reasons for suggesting regular cat's claw. Link to this book in a post below.
-
[ 10. August 2008, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Keebler ]
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
Lyme Disease and Modern Chinese Medicine (Paperback) by Dr. QingCai Zhang (Author), Yale Zhang (Author)
you can access his web site through www.hepapro.com or try www.sinomedresearch.org and use "clinic" and then "clinic" for the passwords or call Hepapro.
-======================================
This book has only one reference to lyme (in the historical use of sarsarparilla for another spirochetal infection). However, it is a vital first book to read - or a reference - for anyone interested in understanding nutritional methods.
Graciously, much of this book is on line. It can also be purchased from this site or through Amazon where you can look inside the book and see many customer reviews.
There have been numerous changes in cat's claw products (and their marketing ) in the last five years, and some of it has been rather confusing to many consumers and professional health care providers.
Heck, it was even confusing to me--so I had to spread out all the files and journal articles again and review them. I'd like to take some time to solidify the research and the facts as I see them.
I've also uploaded the complete technical data report on cat's claw (that usually sells for $20.00) in PDF format so that readers can review all this compiled research for themselves.
It is well documented that the chemical composition of cat's claw (so far) includes 17 different alkaloids, quinovic acid glycosides, tannins, flavonoids, sterol fractions, and other compounds.
Cat's claw contains a group of oxindole alkaloids with documented biological activities.
The vine bark and the root bark have been consistently, independently assayed to contain the following oxindole alkaloids:
- chart at link.
The first chemical analysis of Uncaria tomentosa was published in 1974.
The leaves and stems of U. tomentosa were found to contain the tetracyclic alkaloids rhynchophylline, isorhynchophylline, mitraphylline, isomitraphylline, dihydrocorynantheine, and the indole alkaloids hirsutine and hirsuteine (Hemingway and Phillipson, 1974; Phillipson et al., 1978).
The presence of the pentacyclic alkaloids pteropodine, isopteropodine, speciophylline, uncarine F, and isomitraphylline in the vine bark of u�a de gato (in both U. tomentosa and U. guianensis) was reported (Montenegro de Matta et al., 1976) early on as well.
Researchers working on the alkaloid fractions ever since have documented the TOA alkaloids rhynochophylline and its isomer, isorhynophylline, in the bark and the root.
They always have been part of cat's claw's naturally-occurring chemicals.
The four U.S. patents filed by Keplinger/Immodal from 1989-1998 indicate that all their samples contained these two TOA alkaloids . . . in fact, they cited the POA alkaloid mitraphylline as having no immune stimulating effect, but the TOA alkaloid isorhynchophylline did stimulate phagocytosis, (saying)
saying, "Phagocytosis was enhanced by pteropodine, isomitraphylline and isorhynchophylline. The strongest stimulation was observed with isopteropodine whereas mitraphylline and rhynchophylline had no effect."
In three of the Keplinger/Immodal patents on these alkaloids, it states:
"Tetra- and pentacyclic oxindole alkaloids, in particular the alloisopteropodine, isomer A, a pentacyclic oxindole alkaloid, are suitable for the unspecific stimulation of the immunologic system, which has been proved by a substantial percental phagocytosis increase in the granulocytic test. . . "
Nowhere in any of that research was it documented that rhynchophylline or the other TOA alkaloids actually lowered immune function; rather, they've been reported to be among the active alkaloids that stimulate the immune system.
Surely if they were testing these TOA alkaloids for their increase in phagocytosis they would have noticed and reported that they actually inhibited phagocytosis instead of raised it?
Instead, they tested these TOA alkaloids and stated that they had no effect on phagocytosis--with the exception of isorhynchophylline, a TOA, which actually stimulated it.
All of the independent research published in five countries that followed, with researchers testing vine and root decoctions and/or whole oxindole alkaloid extracts (all of which would have contained the naturally occurring TOA and POA alkaloids), continued to confirm an in vitro and in vivo immune stimulation effect within the same average percentages.
The average breakdown of the alkaloids as confirmed by independent laboratories testing cat's claw vine bark is represented in the table below.
It has never been proven scientifically that the root or the root bark contains more alkaloids than the vine bark.
In fact, independent lab analysis over the years shows the vine bark contains an equal or greater percentage of alkaloids than the root and/or root bark.
- More charts at link.
. . . many long paragraphs omitted - see at link.
. . .
So let's assume that I'm buying into the new TOA/POA research (that 30% of POA effectiveness is lost in the presence of TOAs). Taking natural vine bark capsules, I'd need to take 30% more to get the same effect as theirs (since it has a very small percentage of naturally-occurring TOAs).
At a price of 4 cents per mg of alkaloids for natural vine bark (versus their $1.85 per mg of alkaloid cost) . . . I could take a lot more than the additional 30% "needed," and still come out way ahead, financially. In fact--based on their prices--I could take 350 times more for the same price. No wonder my eyebrows were in my hairline!
Now, enter the next proprietary, patented cat's claw extract product in the market. Their claim is that their extract is a proprietary, hot-water-extract process (which observes the indigenous use of decoction preparation) that is "100% water soluble, and therefore is 100% bioavailable for absorption while passing through the gastrointestinal tract."
They've filed three U.S. patents on their extraction process. Based on their patents, they basically take 150 grams of raw bark (with all its naturally-occurring POAs, TOAs, and other chemicals) and boil it for 24 hours down to 1000 ml of extract. T
hey then dialyze this extract to remove the high molecular weight fraction (mostly the tannins and solids) and are left with a low-molecular-weight, light-yellow liquid extract (mostly the alkaloids, lipids, glycosides, sterols, etc.).
This extract is then dried by frozen vacuum evaporation, and a powder is produced to make capsules yielding 7.933 � .3.249 mg/ml of the hot water, dialyzed extract.
Their process, as explained in the patents, would conceivably extract the majority of the alkaloids and sterols, leaving behind most of the tannins. However in their marketing of the product, they state that a "naturally occurring class of compounds known as carboxyl alkyl esters is the primary ingredient.
"Carboxyl alkyl esters" (CAEs) are the phospholipid-like compounds that can interact with the cholesterol/phospholipid ration in cell membranes and strongly influence the membrane integrity of cell." To be honest, I haven't taken the time to research these CAEs more thoroughly (yet).
Interestingly, they make no differentiation of TOA or POA alkaloids, or even mention the alkaloids in their marketing materials (however, they are cited in the patent documents).
This company has funded a great deal of clinical research on their product, including various human studies (something that has been lacking in the early cat's claw research, especially the TOA/POA research--which have all been in vitro studies).
Their published research documents the immune stimulating, DNA repair, antitumorous, and cytoprotective effects of their cat's claw product. While it isn't truly "independent" research (as it was funded by the company selling the product), personally, I found this research much more believable.
It validates, reconfirms, and restates much of the biologically-active properties of the early cat's claw research published by independent researchers (who weren't selling cat's claw).
In its own way (and without even trying), it casts more shadows on the controversial POA/TOA research.
Their labeled recommended dose is 175 mg (one capsule) twice daily.
The therapeutic dosages reported in the studies in animals were around 40 mg/kg and 80 mg/kg, and 250-350 mg daily in humans. [at the date article was written] Their product currently retails for $24.95 for 60 capsules (175 mg capsules--not just 20!)
As far as prices go, in my personal opinion, this seems to be much more reasonable if one is looking for a patented, clinically-backed concentrated extract of cat's claw in capsule form. (And no--there is no affiliation between me and this company selling this product!)
I'm just stating my opinion based on what I have seen in the available research and comparing the two new, patented cat's claw products on the ma rket.
Personally, I'll stick with the natural bark products (being an herbalist makes me a bit old-fashioned, I guess).
I've seen too many times where nature has provided us with a great beneficial and biologically-active medicinal plant--and a rich indigenous history of effective use--but some have a compelling need to alter its chemical composition.
The number of compounds present in such plants is staggering, and their interactions are subtle; science can only hope to understand most of them.
I don't believe that science can state, at this point, that cat's claw's "active constitutents" are its alkaloids (or just one group of alkaloids), extract them, and expect them to work as efficiently as the natural form.
We have no clue how the other 300-some-odd phytochemicals work synergistically and in complex chemical reactions with the alkaloids (or with any other single chemical we choose to say is "active").
As long as I know I am getting a good cat's claw vine bark (the correct species of plant, harvested sustainably, and processed without chemicals) with all the natural chemicals that nature put in it, and in the same ratios as are found in the plant, I'm satisfied.
And, I'm saving some money too. But, to borrow a line: "Of course, that's just my opinion--I could be wrong."
- a preliminary analysis by Subhuti Dharmananda, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Traditional Medicine 1994
excerpt:
The question that arises is this: is it worthwhile collecting a species that has a limited growing range for which the root bark may be the key ingredient, and which is quite expensive, (rather)
rather than using readily available plants that are less expensive and are already cultivated and which have far more supporting research for the intended application?
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by UnexpectedIlls: I am a little leary at this point of taking herbs but my PA prescribed them to me... I am already on a lot of stuff and a little nervous about taking the herbs...
If Samento is meant to BOOST the immune system and you already have an out of control immune system.. Isnt that bad???
QUOTE]
There is no one silver bullet. Everything in nature is synergistic (works together).
There is something I just ordered online [Susan's Lyme 100 day Protocol]that has Cumanda, Samento (TOA-free), and Carnivora (Venus Fly Trap Extract) in it, as well as Magnesium Malate, Flax Seed Oil capsules,
and a specific supplement that includes ginger, Artemisia, Maitake, NAC, L-Arginine, Quercetin, Milk Thistle,San Qi, (a few others) and Vitamin C.
Comparing chemicals to herbs: chemicals are like whipping a dead horse. Biological things in nature such as herbs is feeding the horse so he *wants* to move!
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic