When the government grades effectiveness of herbal supplements, prepare to be shocked at the results
Instead of warning us about the next Enron or what’s going on at JP Morgan — or even what to do if Greece does actually come off the euro, The Wall St. Journal is wasting ink printing fiction about herbal supplements.
The article claims that scientific evidence to support health benefits of herbal supplements is “scant.”
Then the article blunders. It directs readers to medlineplus.gov for details about herbal supplement research. But you have to wonder if the author of the article actually visited that site. Because when you get there, “scant” is not the word that comes to mind.
More like “abundant.”
Did you hear that Echinacea is useless in fighting colds?
Very likely, you did. That’s one of the favorite lines parroted by lazy reporters.
But when you go to Medline Plus, a chart titled “Uses based on scientific evidence” tells a different story.
Echinacea scores a grade of B — which indicates “Good scientific evidence for this use” — in these two categories…
How about St. John’s wort? “No better than placebo,” is the phrase you’ll see repeatedly. And yet, Medline Plus gives St. John’s wort a grade of A — “Strong scientific evidence for this use” — for treating “mild-to-moderate depressive disorder.”
To be fair, the WSJ article does mention these successes…
But ginkgo biloba, we’re told, “does not prevent heart attack, stroke, or cancer, or stem memory loss.”
Okay. But before you ditch your ginkgo supplement, check these ginkgo grades…
Want more? The abundance continues!
Red yeast rice gets an A for lowering LDL and triglycerides.
Pcynogenol gets two B grades in these categories…
Ginseng gets three B grades in these categories…
I could go on and on, because Medline Plus goes on and on. And not just for herbs. Vitamins and minerals are included in the grading system too.
Admit it, WSJ. The “scant” days are over.
“Herbs and supplements” Medline Plus, Medlineplus.govBACK to margotbworldnews.com