Natural substances enjoying wide margins of safety, similar to those of foods, provided they are prepared according to common sense traditional methods do not, usually, need finding out the effective dose (ED50), the ratio with the toxic dose (TD50) and lethal dose (LD50), since possible side effects are comparable to those of foods, generally milder than drugs.
For example, extra virgin olive oil with its reputed cardiovascular benefits might have a toxic or lethal dose of about half litre, a quantity which traditional experience prevent us from drinking as one dosage!
Similarly, studies on medicinal mushrooms have been superfluous: the LD50 of Coriolus versicolor has been demonstrated to be of 18gr/Kg mice, almost 1,8% of body weight after 90 days of administration of acqueous concentrated extract, which is a higher dose than the generally recommended one of 3grams, 3 times daily of picked fresh mushroom (Barros et al 2016).
Another review on Grifola fondosa (Maitake) has been found to be toxic at dosages between 5-20% of body weight in animal models, an impossible proportion of the daily human diet (Chu et al 2002, Mayell 2001).
The race for Western innovative scientific discoveries has often been lacking solid empirical and historical foundations and been directed to isolating new chemicals, albeit copied from chemical structures of plants, which have caused serious side effects. The doctor, in order to compensate for the latter is turning to polypharmacy, rarely supported by adequate scientific evidence (Langan e Shajahan 2010, Stoller et al 2008, Br Med J 1980, Shorvon & Reynolds 1979).
The pharmaceutical industry needs to produce a single reproducible pharmacological substance after much research in vitro, in vivo and,eventually, with double-blind randomised trials on wide populations, in order to standardise a single pharmacological activity for the average person. The tested substance is then patented and sold to the masses, despite the fact that any patient’s individual requirements might be considerably above or below average.
The study of traditional medicine has been considered phenomenological, qualitative research and expert opinion of level V, at the base of the pyramid of current scientific evidence (Morshed e Bhandari 2008).
The debate is with quantitative methods, the importance of which is determined by measures of mass epidemiology (Bagnato 2009). This is why studies of groups in double-blind randomised trials are considered the top of the pyramid of scientific evidence.
Historical holistic visions of each system of traditional medicine overturn the modern pyramid of scientific evidence. Saint Thomas D’Aquino regarded that the unity of mind, body and spirit, the phenomenological and the physical, as one reality of top priority (De Robertis & Brookdale 2011). This vision is shared in most holistic traditions and is bound to the role of ethics and spirituality.
Practical examples of modern methods that are qualitative include collecting data from clinical cases as well as individual patients’ interviews (Wardle et al 2010; Wolf 2008). The doctor may benefit from a balanced combination of information from clinical cases and postal or electronic surveys, a mix of intimate and less complex data that can be quantified as well.
Besides blood tests and medical investigations, there are various measures within differential diagnosis that can account for complex and dynamic clinical manifestations and routines and can be realistically integrated with both Eastern and Western traditional analytical methodologies.
In conclusion, clinical needs demand a shift in ethics from evidence-based medicine (EBM), which is based on experimental epidemiology and quantative data (which is restricted to molecular medicine), to evidence-based practice (EBP), which should rely on clinical evidence based both on molecular and on physical science, the latter being suitable for measuring energetic aspects affecting human health, such as, for example, electrical and electromagnetic vibrations that are generated by human thought and heart functions (Dawes, M. 2004).
References
Bagnato, G. (2009). Metodologia della ricerca epidemiologica e metodi quantitativi [Methodology of epidemiological research and quantitative methods]. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Barros, A. B., Ferrão, J., & Fernandes, T. (2016). A safety assessment of Coriolus versicolor biomass as a food supplement. Food & Nutrition Research, 60(1), 29953.
Chu, K. K. W et al. (2002). Coriolus versicolor: A medicinal mushroom with promising immunotherapeutic values. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 42(9), 976–984.
Dawes, M. (2004). Evidence-Based Practice: A primer for health care professionals (2nd ed.). Churchill Livingstone.
De Robertis, E. M. (2011). Deriving a humanistic–existential approach to child development from the work of Carl Rogers and Thomas Aquinas. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 51(3), 320–336.
Langan, J & Shajahan, P. (2010). Antipsychotic polypharmacy: Review of mechanisms, mortality and management. The Psychiatrist, 34(2), 58–62.
Mayell, M. (2001). Abstract. Maitake extracts and their therapeutic potential. Alternative Medicine Review, 6(1), 48–60.
Morshed, S., & Bhandari, M. (2008). Clinical trial design in fracture-healing research: Meeting the challenge. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 90 (Suppl 4), 58–67.
Stoller, E. P. et al. (2008). Alcohol use and polypharmacy among older adults: Risks and associations with adverse drug events. Alcohol, 42(4), 261–267.
Wardle et al. (2010). A qualitative study of naturopathy in rural practice: A focus upon naturopaths’ experiences and perceptions of rural patients and demands for their services. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 185.
Wolf, Z. R. (2008). Nursing practice and qualitative research: Understanding the focus on human experience. International Journal of Human Caring, 12(3), 44–51.