This is a really good and valid question. The short answer, in my opinion, is no. Scientists cannot test the effectiveness of alternative medicine adequately. Why? Because western science works within a strict paradigm that is at best difficult to apply to a range of aspects in alternative medicine.
Let’s start with what should easily be verifiable by western science. The effect of a specific herb should be readily testable and should provide consistent results. Problem is, the tests often get very different results and do not agree about a specific herbs’ effectiveness. Why? This is where it gets a bit more complicated.
Firstly, in order to test a particular herb for it’s medicinal properties and effectiveness, the scientists must use the correct species of herbs. This is simple to achieve, however, there are major differences in the same species, depending on how and where it is grown, the time of day and year it is harvested and the condition of the soil the herb was grown in, not to mention the different processing methods that can be used.
Let’s look at an example that is very typical. Echinacea is a herb that most people have heard of and where science provides at best confusing information and results.
Now, Echinacea has 2 major species that are commonly used by medical herbalists. The first is Echinacea purpurea, the second is E. angustifolia. Now, these two species of Echinacea have different actions, and depending on the parts of the plant that are included in the herbal extract, these functions will vary again.
Let’s just stick to Echinacea purpurea and look at the many different extracts that are used in the market place.
The single best quality of this herbal extract comes from Switzerland and is made by a company called Bioforce AG. No, I’m not in anyway affiliated with this company, nor are they paying me for including their product or company name in this article or elsewhere.
As a herbalist, I’ve used many different preparations of Echinacea purpurea from different companies and have found that the best results come from the herbal extract of Echinacea purpurea produced by this company.
But why is that, what makes their Echinacea extract so much more effective? The first reason is the way they grow the herb. Firstly, they grow it in organically prepared fields, which are surrounded by buffer zones that keep any leaching into the primary fields from occurring.
Secondly, their crops are grown in rich mountain soil above 1800 meters. This appears to have a major influence on the properties and their concentrations in this herb. Thirdly, once the herb is ready to be harvested, the herbs are processed in their fresh, living state within 24 hours of being harvested. That means the plants are still alive and viable, with all their active and non-active constituents still intact.
The product is a green plant extract full of the goodies that make up this herb.
Alternatively, you can purchase Echinacea purpurea that has not been grown in organically prepared soil, that has not been grown above 1800 meters and is grown on much poorer, non-organically prepared soil. The plant is not processed within 24 hours of harvesting but instead is processed as a dried herb. Despite these major differences, they are of course still the same species and therefore treated as if they were the same. While preparations from such plants are generally standardised to meet minimum therapeutic quantities of the active ingredients as set by the British Pharmacopoeia, these preparations widely vary in other, so called non-active ingredients.
Even blind Freddy can tell you that the extract resulting from the two differently grown plants is going to be different and will have difference in their therapeutic effectiveness.
Herein lies the first problem for scientists. They are not really testing the same herb and therefore will get confusing results. They may be testing the same species, Echinacea purpurea, but not the same quality of the herbal extract. Unfortunately, they are probably not even aware of the fact that there are differences in plant constituents depending on where the plants have been grown and the methods used to make the extract.
This, just by the way, is also a problem for the herbalists that use Echinacea purpurea to treat their patients. While it’s easy to establish whether an extract is a green plant extract or not, it is often difficult to find out where the plants used to make the extract have been grown, etc. In our clinic we have often found one brand to work much better than another, despite the standardised active ingredients.
Now, if the scientists are looking for the chemicals that make up the extract (plant) to identify which of the chemicals are responsible for the range of therapeutic applications, they will find widely different concentrations and different ratios of ingredients depending on the origin of the plant/s. If they are not aware that this is (a) possible, and (b) provides different therapeutic results, then of course their results will not agree with other studies that have used plants from a different region.
The second problem scientists face (possibly unknowingly) is that the strict paradigm of science is not designed to accommodate the paradigms of alternative medicine. For example, what western medical science refers to as the Liver is totally different to that of traditional Chinese medicine. For example you would be very hard pressed to find an orthodox medical doctor that would consider the Eyes to be part of the Liver, however, a doctor of traditional Chinese medicine will very much consider the Eyes as part of the Liver.
These two differing paradigms are not easily merged. Let me give you an example. An individual that presents with consistently red eyes, a reddish face and short temper is highly likely to be diagnosed in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as having heat in the Liver (no, not the eyes, the liver). Now an orthodox medical practitioner may diagnose this as an allergy or a range of other problems, but is unlikely to diagnose a Liver disease.
I’m not saying either of the two approaches is right or wrong, what I’m trying to point out here is that the two paradigms are vastly different and are therefore difficult to unite under a single, testable paradigm that easily accommodates both philosophies.
This then makes it very difficult for western scientists to adequately validate alternative medicine and its therapeutic methods, if the paradigm under which they operate is vastly different.
In conclusion, unless we are testing the same thing in the same way, there is a very strong chance of obtaining different, non-conclusive, results. This is one of the major reasons that orthodox medical science is more often than not critical of alternative medicine, herbs, and other aspects.
Unless we can unite the paradigms so that every time a particular plant species is tested for its therapeutic actions and effects and the extracts are identical in all aspects, there will never be any agreement over the effectiveness of herbs.
Similarly, if we can’t find a suitable common denominator that can adequately unite differing paradigms, then any resulting tests are unlikely to be conclusive or shed insight into the effectiveness of alternative medicine.
Danny Siegenthaler is a doctor of traditional Chinese medicine and together with his wife Susan, a medical herbalist and Aromatherapist, they have created Natural Skin Care Products by Wildcrafted Herbal Products to share their 40 years of combined expertise with you.
Subscribe to their Natural Skin Care Newsletter and receive a free eBook providing hints & tips on how to look after your skin
© Wildcrafted Herbal Products 2009
