I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were talking about some wholistic remedies to help stave off colds and viruses. They used the word "herbaceutical".

Anyone heard of it?

I don't think I have, CW, though it probably makes sense. I have heard them described as complementary therapies, but I have never liked that phrase. On the other hand, complemental therapies are probably more encompassing as they'd also cover modalities such as music therapy or massage.

It does get 808 citations on Google, though in the scheme of things, that's not so many.

They're called complementary therapies in the UK and some of them (acupuncture, osteopathy) are even available on the NHS.

Complemental I have never heard of but, according the Wordweb, it has much the same meaning as complementary.

I mostly just thought the word was interesting.

CW, I had the television on earlier in the week and heard "herbaceuticals" used in a commercial for some kind of hair product, though I can't remember whether it was shampoo, conditioner, or haircolor. I considered it for a topic at Wordcraft, then promptly forgot about it. I figured it was a made-up word, to tell you the truth. After reading your post, I Googled "herbaceuticals" and found that quite a few companies that sell beauty products use the word. (So ceu me!)

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I don't think I have, CW, though it probably makes sense. I have heard them described as complementary therapies,

A bit narrow-minded, methinks. Herbal therapies were around long before Western medicine, and many natural substances, such as quinine, derive directly from these so-called "alternative," or "complimentary" therapies. Thus do I conclude that Western medicine is the compliment.

quote:

I considered it for a topic at Wordcraft, then promptly forgot about it.

That happens to me so much!

Now, Asa...Down, Boy! I understand your stance, though, and I tend to agree with it. In fact, in a publication a colleague and I wrote on evidence-based treatment modalities for dyspnea, one of our categories was complemental therapies. On the other hand, I have seen patients in need of pharmaceuticals who have died because of their insistence that the "altenative" medicine works better. Had they taken their physcians' advice, they very well might be alive today. That argument has 2 sides.

quote:

Now, Asa...Down, Boy! I understand your stance, though, and I tend to agree with it.

I DO get a bit too riled up, don't I!?!?
I really mean that there are genuinely useful therapies that have a longer history than that which sprang from the Age of Reason or even from the Greek Golden Age.

When I think of "complementary theories" I think "I don't feel like it's complimented me much".

quote:

Had they taken their physcians' advice, they very well might be alive today. That argument has 2 sides.

Kalleh, how right you are. Some complimentary or alternative therapies have therapeutic properties; but the only way they should be made generally available is after they have been subjected to rigorous, scientifically controlled clinical trials to establish both efficacy and safety: just the same as for conventional pharmacological products. Gullible folk spend fortunes on inert or potentially toxic remedies, which serve only to line the pockets of manufacturers and retailers. Let's use them when their efficacy is soundly established

There's a current series on the Beeb about complementary therapies and their validity.

So far it seems to be Acupuncture 10; those who seek to denigrate it 0.

Other alternative therapies to come.

Might there be some question as to therapies that depend on the provider's skill, as in acupuncture, and other manipulative or touch-related practices?
A pill has no skill; manipulation does. Westerners are more inclined to trust the verifiable results of pills.

quote:

So far it seems to be Acupuncture 10; those who seek to denigrate it 0.

Well, it all depends on what they are using the acupuncture for; if used for pain, it very well might work better than other therapies. I reviewed research where it has been positively used for dyspnea, though so far there aren't enough studies to validate its use for that. However, sometimes uninformed people will recommend it for conditions it isn't meant for, such as cancer.

quote:

A pill has no skill; manipulation does. Westerners are more inclined to trust the verifiable results of pills.

Asa, there is much skill involved in both the research and development of effective drugs, as well as the medical knowledge of when and how to prescribe them. There are always extenuating circumstances with the patients medical history, signs, symptoms, etc. that need to be considered when prescribing drugs. While patients often don't realize it, it takes a lot of skill to prescribe effective pharmaceutical therapy.

quote:

Well, it all depends on what they are using the acupuncture for;

Indeed. Obviously I couldn't precis the whole programme but it was essentially its conclusion that pain relief was the main benefit.

They did some double-blind trials as well to eliminate the placebo effect and they seemed to validate the procedure. They also did (for the first time, I understand) a simultaneous brain-scan while administering acupuncture and discovered that there appeared to be a "negative" stimulation in some areas. In other words, normal stimulation increases neural activity whereas acupuncture decreases it.

Perhaps the most telling item was a recording of a young girl having open-heart surgery without an anaesthetic, simply acupuncture. She remained awake during the procedure and afterwards said that she could feel the incisions but there was no pain.

I am looking forward to the rest of the series.

quote:

essentially its conclusion that pain relief was the main benefit

I'm a big fan of 21st century western medicine -- without it I'd be dead, my wife would be dead and my son would be dead, for starters -- but I find it interesting that the most common and effective treatments for pain are still opiates, which were originally herbal medicines.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
There's a current series on the Beeb about complementary therapies and their validity.

So far it seems to be Acupuncture 10; those who seek to denigrate it 0.

Other alternative therapies to come.

RE., as someone who has been involved in clinical trials and the scientific problems of acceptable design and analysis, I have to say this is an appallingly uncritical BBC series. The delightful and attractive presenter is a graduate in polymer physics, with, as far as I can ascertain, no experience of medicine or therapeutic trials. Some of her throw away comments are frankly misleading—to put it blandly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pearce,

Sadly too many presenters seem to be chosen for the fame and/or decorative abilities.

I am not qualified to comment critically on the science of the programme but I found it interesting and revealing. I would be interested to learn what parts you consider to be particularly misleading.

quote:

I am not qualified to comment critically

When has that ever stopped any of us? How boring the world would be if everyone only talked about what he or she knows, and never floated trial balloon views!

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:

quote:

I am not qualified to comment critically

When has that ever stopped any of us? How boring the world would be if everyone only talked about what he or she knows, and never floated trial balloon views!

If you want your personal health issues decided from a 'floated balloon view' I wish you the best of luck. Luftmensch or what?

quote:

Perhaps the most telling item was a recording of a young girl having open-heart surgery without an anaesthetic, simply acupuncture. She remained awake during the procedure and afterwards said that she could feel the incisions but there was no pain.

I find this very hard to believe, having gone through this kind of surgery myself. Did they use acupuncture for pain management after surgery, too? She'd have had to have those pins in for weeks.

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:

quote:

Perhaps the most telling item was a recording of a young girl having open-heart surgery without an anaesthetic, simply acupuncture. She remained awake during the procedure and afterwards said that she could feel the incisions but there was no pain.

I find this very hard to believe, having gone through this kind of surgery myself. Did they use acupuncture for pain management after surgery, too? She'd have had to have those pins in for weeks.

And there you have both the problem with journalism in general and the reason that I didn't watch the program after the first episode. Veracity. Starting with me as the viewer I first have to trust the integrity of the program maker and the presenter. Maybe I do, maybe I don't but there is always the question of whether I am watching something truly independent or something with an agenda to push, be it covert or open.

Then, assuming the program makers are trustworthy I have to ask about the trustworthiness of the source material. Do the people being interviewed have their own hidden motivations? They told the journalist that the operation was performed solely under accupuncture but was it? Were they either intentionally lying or unwittingly misleading or was it all true?
I can't tell, and neither can anyone else, especially at this distance.

I'll accept that the program makers did their best in the design of the scientific experiment but if David Copperfield can make the Statue of Liberty disappear I'm perfectly sure that you can make a test look honest when in fact it isn't.

The bottom line is that all the way down the line their are people who have reasons for making the program or appearing on it. I'm not privy to what those reasons are and I have no way at all of judging the truth or falsehood of it.

forthright: Words I hate #5#5 - HERBACEUTICAL Now, don't get me wrong - I love a good portmanteau (blended word). ... But this excrescence, 'herbaceutical' - damn. ...
forthright.livejournal.com/119773.html

One of the reasons that this neologism probably won't survive is that there are so many of them, eg, eg, ABSOLUDICROUS, AMN’T, BABELICIOUS, BANALYSIS, CHATTERFUGE, DREADLINE, DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION, EGOTESTICLE, FISHABILITY, INCENTIVIZE, MOONSCAPE, REPURPOSE, TINSELITIS...WUNCH OF BANKERS

Since there are about 50,000 common words in the Mother Tongue, the possible number of such expressions, barring triads, is at least 50,000!

That's 50,000 x 49,999 x 49,998....etc

A pretty big number

Yes, it's hard to predict which new words will actually stick.

As far as the acupuncture for open heart surgery, I'd need more evidence, too, especially for no anesthetic during the actual surgical procedure. I surely have never heard of that.

[QUOTE]
Then, assuming the program makers are trustworthy I have to ask about the trustworthiness of the source material.

BobHale, I totally agree. The more you know about a subject the more do you realise the bias, deliberate or otherwise, in many so called objective documentary programmes.
One of the BBC's leading lights was Sir John Reith. Like Faith, Hope and Charity, his binding ethic, was that all programmes should have a theme which was, "To ‘educate, entertain and inform’ : still declared as "the focus of the BBC since it was formed in 1927."
The real problem is that the greatest of these is to entertain , and that is not always commensurate with being accurate, objective, unbiased, and reliably trustworthy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pearce,