Talk:Phytotherapy/Archive 1

Clinical trials placebo etc

The section on non-inert placebos was removed due to its highly misleading nature. This is what wikipedia says about the inertness of placebos "Although placebos are generally characterized as pharmacologically inert substances or formulations, sham treatments, or inactive procedures, they are only inert, sham, ineffective, or inactive in the particular sense that they have no known cause and effect relationship with any of the pre-designated, biochemical, physiological, behavioural, emotional and/or cognitive outcomes of the pharmacologically active and known-to-be-efficacious intervention that might have otherwise been applied" The inertness of placebo section in the placebo article covers everything on placebos more than adequately. There is no need to repeat here. Placing it here only works suggests that all controlled scientific trials on herbs are invalid.

Why is the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials section included under the heading of "Issues in clincial trials". It seems to imply that many trials don't meet these requirements. The section has such, been moved and retitled. The last section of this sentence was removed as it is a recommendation given by a group unaffiliated with CONSORT that appears to be one of their recommendations in that context. The "Issues in clincial trials" has also been removed as it would only cover one section. The last section of this sentence was removed as it is a recommendation given by a group unaffiliated with CONSORT that appears to be one of their recommendations in that context.JamesStewart7 —Preceding comment was added at 08:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

The Safety section talk asserts the safety of Pytotherapy by trying to establish that conventional medicine is unsafe. It fails to note that a "drug" that is not active will be safe by default either. Since there are questions as to whether some herbal treatments do anything, this really needs stating. The clincal trials section is about why Clincal trials are unreliable and reports nothing about negative efficacy results. This leaves the article highly POV, hence the tag.JamesStewart7 08:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Pharmacognosy or Herbalism?

On review of this article I've noticed the content of it is very similar to both the pharmacognosy and herbalism articles. I propose that unless these articles are differentiated in some way they, this article should be merged with pharmacognosy.JamesStewart7 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think pharmacognosy should be merged with either phytotherapy or herbalism. I really think they are different disciples, and the reason the articles are similar is because they need more work. Marilyn Barrett (Ph.D. in pharmacognosy) has a definition of pharmacognosy here: http://pharmacognosy.com/about.htm She says it includes botany, chemistry and pharmacology As I said on the pharmacognosy discussion page, I think pharmacognosy is more about research and basic science, rather than being a clinical science. I think phytotherapy is more focused on the clinical aspect of using herbs. I'm not sure if phytotherapy and herbalism are pretty much the same, or if herbalism is a very broad term that encompasses everything and anything relating to herbs. Anyway, I vote for keeping pharmacognosy separate, and refining and organizing the content of the three articles so the right information is in the right article. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge. They both involve a study of medicine derived from natural sources at the base level, but we would have to maintain all of the content in merging, which will be a heck of a task. Also, it would merit its own section possibly. Apothecia (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I also vote to merge with Herbalism KVDP (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I also vote against merging phytotherapy with herbalism or pharmacology or any other discipline that reduces food to teas, concoctions (herbalism), single chemicals or pills (medicine). I disagree with the article as written which is more pharmacological than phytotherapeutic. It overlooks the entire source field of phytonutrition, which uses whole fruits, vegetables and other plant products eaten for their additive and synergistic antioxidant properties (nutrition) (Liu, 2003, AJCN). Rather than merging the article with something it is not (herbs, chemicals, extracts, concoctions or pills), it should be expanded for what it is, namely eating fruits and vegetables (food), for their phytochemicals much as in Chinese Traditional Medicine. Phytochemicals . found in intact plant foods can be therapeutically consumed to help prevent and reduce chronic and inflammatory disease processes. Ayeletshacar (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Wow, I don't know where to start with this article, it is disorganized, full of unverifiable claims, and of limited relevance. Apothecia (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is pretty much complete bullpucky. To make your job easier you might go paragraph by paragraph and simply delete the most egregious content outright, fact check what's left in the main, and reference it, then discuss a basic outline. However, editing articles in certain areas of en.wiki can run you into confrontations with editors using the articles for alternative purposes. I'll support your trying to clean it up, but, be wary. --KP Botany (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple of examples of quick edits that led to much better and usable articles, albeit, articles that still have issues and need lots of work.[1][2][3] Particularly look at how much text was removed from the last one, and just how readable it is after versus useless before. --KP Botany (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and the links; I hope that the article will become readable and relevant soon. Apothecia (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Topic - phyto

This article says its about any natural source for extracts. I think the definition is only about plant extracts and not other natural sources. Phyto means plant doesn't it? If so can someone who knows fix this in the introductory paragraph. Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Valium-valerian connection?

I have heard that the valium name is derived from the herb name valerian
but I do not know whether this is true
or whether diazepam is chemically related to any active constituent of valerian
Laurel Bush (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of "Phytotherapy"

Etymologically the term "phytotherapy" breaks down into two words: Phyto, Greek for Plant, and therapy/ treatment, so "phytotherapy" is treatment with plants.

Since the word corresponding to "study of" is ology . Phytology would mean "study of the use of extracts of natural origin..." the word phytotherapy is not so much the "study of the use of extracts of natural origin" but more the use of extracts of natural origin...."

I would strike out "study of" in this definition since "ology" is missing in the term, and that is not what 'therapy' means.

References

Ayeletshacar (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You say:

Phytology would mean "study of the use of extracts of natural origin..." the word phytotherapy is not so much the "study of the use of extracts of natural origin" but more the use of extracts of natural origin...."

How so? What part of the word "phytology" indicates "extract", or even "natural"? I'd buy "study of plants", but of course we normally refer to that as "botany" in English usage. Golden rice isn't natural, but it certainly is a studied plant. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Distinct from Herbalism?

I've started a discussion at WP:FT/N#Pytotherapy about this. Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That was archived to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Phytotherapy. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)