There is a problem with titling posts: "Ephedra".  It gives the FALSE
feeling that someone here is supporting the use of ephedra in ferrets
and that could cause biases about the discussion for people who have not
followed it closely.  In reality NO ONE in the discussion has supported
the use of ephedra.  Every single poster so far, no matter what the
person's viewpoint is one any other herbs, is has spoken AGAINST the use
of ephedra.  The reason that one herb even got mentioned was because of
a private post Bob got from someone asking him about this dangerous
approach.  Those who are strongly pro-herb have spoken against ephedra
here, those who are strongly anti-herb have spoken against ephedra here,
those who use herbs that are supported by standard physiological research
have spoken against the use of ephedra here.  It would be more productive
as well as giving a better appearance of fairness to avoid mentioning one
herb which everyone agrees is dangerous in the subject lines because that
can be incorrectly read to mean that an opponent on other points has
supported the use of it, even if it was the topic of the original post
which began the more wide discussion.  Everyone agrees that ephedra is
dangerous, and that long ago stopped being a point of discussion.
 
I think that Bob will be more interested in refs that are based on physio
like the German Monographs, the _PDR_s, the Tyler references, etc. than
those which aren't.  I know that for me those sorts I use (though I can't
afford the German Monographs).  Although somewhat expensive (not terribly
so for professional texts), the Physician's Desk References are
absolutely marvelous resources.  As well as giving risks these texts list
unsupported uses and tell about the actual uses which have been supported
by established scientific research methods.  Actually, to be honest,
until I got a copy of the _PDR for Herbal Medicines_ I had NO idea that
so many DO have corroborating research studies.  Of course, a number have
also not panned out, and some are dangerous, but that is what goo
references are for -- to get the information needed instead of deciding
one way or another with unnecessarily partial data.  For any dangerous
herb as per research, a different useful herb as per research can be
mentioned.
 
Unless I am projecting, I suspect that most folks fall into the middle
ground in which the use of herbs is fine with them if they locate the
info they need on risks as well as used supported by research, and if
the construct on which those claims are made are based on physiology.
(I really have not been interested personally in the discussion of
constructs, but am interested in the practical applications that bear out
with standard research practises.)
 
I do NOT think that for most of us what is being discussed is a dire
either-or situation in relation to use itself.  ie: If many of us find
the science of the established scientific researchers to support the use
without bad risks and if the vets agree to try that in conjunction with
standard meds then we go with it, same as for other approaches, rather
than discounting either herbals or standard meds.  That is the practical
upshot of use vs.  construct.
 
>In 1978, the German Ministry of Health established an expert committee
>(Commission E) to study herbal medicines.  The findings were published
>as monographs over a series of years, and many herbal publishers have
>selectively translated and published many of them.  That SAME commission
>lists more than 120 herbal remedies that have NO value, but are still
>widely used by American herbalists.  Beware of using a reference I own
>and have critically reviewed.
 
While you were off the FML, Bob, Mary used that same reference to
multiple times list herbs that should be avoided!  You seem to assume
that she is going to just think that ANY herbs are good in your statement
above, but she has very responsibly carried warnings about multiple
herbs, multiple times here on the FML.  Either you missed the that, or
that paragraph reads differently than intended (at least to me).  She
speaks repeatedly of BOTH risks and uses, as a responsible person must
for any type of medication.  I realize that you were away and that far
too many past folks who have talked about herbs have behaved differently
than Mary does in that regard, but it is not right to assume that she
fits a mold which she has not fit.
 
>I want to emphasize my original post NEVER suggested herbal remedies
>lacked value...
>I myself use herbal remedies!
 
Good point to have clarified.  For me, that aspect was not clear in your
earlier comments, but I don't know if that was just poor reading with
asthma.
 
I personally certainly want discussions of specific herbs to continue and
I want all to feel free to lend her experience and references to those,
rather than be left gun-shy from past list experiences.
[Posted in FML issue 3934]