Dr. Albert Y. Leung

The Chinese Herbal (Zhong Hua Ben Cao)¹

This work is by far the most extensive undertaking ever realized in the field of botanical medicine!  The field of Chinese materia medica (herbal, animal, and mineral drugs) is the most extensive in the world.  Its scope has expanded from a handful of drugs recorded around 1,000 BC to over 12,800 by the last decade.^1,2  Two of the best-known herbals are the Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing (Shennong Herbal) (circa 100BC-100AD) and the Ben Cao Gang Mu by Li Shi-Zhen (circa 1590-1596).  The former describes 365 drugs while the latter 1,892 drugs.  Among the 20^th-century herbals is the Zhong Yao Da Ci Dian (Encyclopedia of Chinese Materia Medica) compiled by the Jiangsu College of New Medicine and published in 1977.  This describes 5,767 drugs and covers the scientific (pharmacological, medical, and chemical) literature up to 1974.  This work was considered the most extensive documentation of Chinese traditional drugs up until September 1999, when The Chinese Herbal was published.¹  I had been keeping an eye out for it and finally located and bought a set last June in Hong Kong.  It consists of 10 volumes, totaling 9,282 pages, with 8,534 illustrations and 8,980 drug/food monographs.  To give you an idea of what these numbers mean, each page of this Chinese text, when translated into English, will yield 3 to 4 pages of printed English text.  Thus, if this work were published in English, it would consist of 30 to 40 volumes of 1,000 pages each.  The Chinese Herbal was compiled by the Chinese State Administration of TCM involving over 500 scholars/experts from at least 60 academic and research institutions, and took 10 years to complete.  This monumental work was published by the Shanghai Scientific and Technical Press.  It has a Forward by the Chinese Minister of Health, Zhang Wen-Kang, dated May 10, 1999, and a Preface by the Editorial Committee, Chinese State Administration of TCM, dated May 18, 1999, along with a commendation (calligraphy) by Li Peng, a Communist leader, which bears a date of December 28, 1998.  The official price in China is set at 2,560 RMB (~US$310).  But if you buy it in Hong Kong, it will cost you HK$4,096 (~US$530).  In either case, even including shipping, it would still be a fraction of what comparable works in English would cost – quite a bargain.  Furthermore, major bookstores in Hong Kong and China will ship the books for you and, at least from my experience, are totally trustworthy, because the many times I have bought from these bookstores I have not yet received damaged books or missed any due to their handling and shipping. 

          Volume 1 of The Chinese Herbal contains 633 pages of text plus 8 pages of 113 colored photographs of excerpts from historical herbals and mineral drugs, of which 258 pages are devoted to general topics, including: historical development of herbals, from 2 millennia before the famous Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing (circa 100 BC to 100 AD) to the present time (48 pages); geographical sources (4 pages); cultivation (8 pages); collection and preliminary processing (10 pages); storage (12 pages); classification according to traditional and modern criteria (6 pages); types, including synonyms, substitutions, adulteration, etc. (11 pages); identification and quality control, including organoleptic, macroscopic, microscopic, and physicochemical evaluation (19 pages); phytochemistry, including all major chemical classes (alkaloids, coumarins, lignans, quinones, flavonoids, terpenoids, steroids, lignins, saccharides, amino acids, peptides, glycosides, etc.) (49 pages); pharmacology (14 pages); curing/processing methods and rationale (10 pages); preparations, including traditional and modern dosage forms (10 pages); compounding and dispensing, including incompatibilities (10 pages); and traditional properties, including principles of combinations, dosage, toxicity, contraindications, etc. (42 pages).

          The rest of Volume 1 (370 pages text) deals with drugs derived from minerals, algae, fungi, and lichen.  There are 114 mineral and 205 plant drugs described here.

          Volumes 2 to 8 deal with traditional drugs derived from other plants, from moss and bracken to gymnosperms and angiosperms, arranged in what appears to be phylogenetic order, with the most advanced orchid family coming last.  Described therein are 7,610 traditional drugs. 

          In Volume 9, there are 1,051 animal-derived drugs described, including those from marine sponges, corals, crustaceans and fish, as well as land and celestial animals such as insects, reptiles, and mammals.  There are also the following addenda: (1) Close to 600 drugs described in classic herbals (including mineral, plant and animal), whose identities cannot be verified or whose uses are unclear.  They are provided here with documentation from major herbals.  (2) TCM theoretical considerations based on examples from classic references, including the topics of compound prescriptions, drug properties and preparations, treatment theories, incompatibilities, contraindications, and cautions.  (3) Description of 100 major herbals, from the classic Shennong Herbal to Li Shi-Zhen’s Ben Cao Gang Mu (circa 1590-1596), to the more recent Zhong Yao Da Ci Dian (Encyclopedia of Chinese Materia Medica) published in 1977, and the Xin Hua Ben Cao Gang Yao, published in 1988-1991.  (4) A listing of approximately 1,800 major publications on herbs and foods (with titles and authors) in chronological order by dynasty, starting with the Qin-Han era (221 BC – 220 AD), ending before the current government.  All but 4 of the above-mentioned 100 herbals (which were published after 1950) are included in this listing.

          Lastly, Volume 10 is an appendix that includes in order of appearance:  (1) A Chinese drug index (251 pages).  (2) An index of Latin binomials of plants (96 pages) and animals (10 pages), as well as English names of minerals used as drug sources.  (3) A Chinese index of phytochemicals with English translation (200 pages).  (4) An English index of phytochemicals with Chinese translation (196 pages).  (5) An index of chemical structures in English with Chinese names as well (754 pages).  (6) An index of pharmacological activities (based primarily on experimental findings) arranged in categories such as CNS, neural transmission, cardiovascular, hematological, digestive system, respiratory system, urogenital, hormonal, immunological, antimicrobial, antitumor, and others (12 pages).  (7) An index of traditional properties based on TCM practice (36 pages).  (8) A therapeutic index covering all major categories of diseases or conditions for which the drugs are used: internal medicine; pediatrics; obstetrics; gynecology; trauma; dermatology; ophthalmology; ear, nose and throat; dentistry; etc. (84 pages).  Most are TCM based. 

          This new Herbal is a tremendous resource for anyone interested in Chinese herbal medicines or foods for whatever reason.  There is something for everyone – the traditional practitioner who wants to see what has been used for certain conditions, the phytochemist looking for unique compounds, the pharmacologist looking for specific activities exhibited by certain herbs, the pharmaceutical chemist searching for leads to new drugs, or someone like me who is interested in broad aspects of Chinese natural medicines/foods.  The indexes are extremely useful tools, which allow you to zero in on what you want in no time.  The modern/scientific literature covered in The Chinese Herbal goes occasionally up to 1994, but most to 1991 or 1992, especially for non-Chinese references.  Depending on the particular drug, the literature cited for the best-known traditional ones is primarily Chinese, while more recently introduced or ‘discovered’ Chinese drugs contain mostly non-Chinese (English, Japanese, etc.) citations.

          As an illustration of the scope of this herbal, I have selected 2 common herbs that are familiar to most Americans, namely, Asian ginseng and ginkgo leaf.  The monographs start with the drug/herb names, e.g., renshen for ginseng and baiguoye for ginkgo leaf, along with citations from the classic herbals in which they were first clearly described.  For Asian ginseng, the herbal cited is the Shennong Herbal and for ginkgo leaf, it is the Ben Cao Pin Hui Jing Yao (circa 1505 AD).  Types of information presented include the following topics, in sequence:  (a) synonyms; (b) interpretations of classical records; (c) historical descriptions of the herb and its sources, etc.; (d) source of the drug; (e) botanical names (Latin binomials) and description of the plant(s) along with habitats and geographical distribution; (f) cultivation; (g) collection and processing; (h) areas of production and distribution; (i) identification, including organoleptic, macroscopic, microscopic, and physicochemical evaluation, and commercial grading; (j) chemical constituents; (k) pharmacologic activities; (l) processing or curing; (m) traditional nature (taste, channel affiliation, toxicity, etc.); (n) traditional properties or functions and indications; (o) applications and combination rationale and strategies; (p) methods of administration and dosages; (q) cautions; (r) selected classical prescriptions; (s) selected modern formulations or preparations; (t) modern clinical research and applications (not comparable to U.S. clinical trials involving single-chemical drugs); (u) theoretical considerations of properties and functions based on classical treatises; (v) additional comments from classic herbals on sources, physical appearance, collection, properties, and uses, etc.; and (w) references.

          Not all monographs contain all above categories of information.  For example, Asian ginseng, being one of the most documented and well-known Chinese tonics, contains considerable amount of information in all above categories, citing 204 references, only 34 of which are non-Chinese.  Most of the information presented is appropriate and useful, which is based on clearly identified traditional materials (root powder, decoction, extracts, preparations, etc.) as well as chemical fractions and specific chemicals.  Dozens of classical herbals are quoted when detailed information in traditional properties, functions, cautions, contraindications, prescriptions, and other topics, is presented. 

In contrast, ginkgo leaf has never been a popular herb in traditional Chinese usage until its specific extracts (containing flavonoids and terpene lactones) became popular in the West.  Now the Chinese are one of the major suppliers of ginkgo leaf extracts to the American market.  The information in the ginkgo leaf monograph reflects the non-Chinese nature of this new information and new usage.  In this monograph, only two-thirds of the above information categories are supplied with data, some meagerly.  And only 2 classic herbals are cited, primarily for its internal use in diarrhea and leukorrhea and its external use in freckles, sores, and swellings.  Its uses in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions are supported only by post-1970 literature, including Chinese herbals and journals.  Among 113 references cited, only 20 are from Chinese journals, most are dated between 1980 and 1991.  Despite the extensive chemical and pharmacological information presented, it is not easy to ascertain what types of ginkgo leaf preparations or extracts were responsible in producing the reported pharmacologic effects.  There is a repeated reference to GbE which is described as a ‘ginkgo leaf preparation extracted with either water or alcohol as reported in the Chinese literature or extracted with unknown solvents as reported in the foreign literature.’  Apart from a few instances where ‘total flavonoids’ or ‘GbE flavonoids’ are specifically identified, GbE is reported throughout as the extract(s) that produced the reported cerebrovascular, CNS, cardiovascular, antioxidant, anti-platelet aggregation, bronchial muscle relaxation, and other effects, supported by most of the cited references.  There is no mention of the flavonoid/terpenoid (24%/6%) extract on which most of ginkgo leaf’s modern research is based which has led to the current applications of ginkgo leaf extracts. 

As I have repeatedly stressed in this Newsletter (Issues 19 & 27), it is extremely important to clearly identify what one uses in one’s research in natural medicines and in reporting or abstracting the herbal literature, otherwise the resulting information will be of little value to other researchers and misleading to the general public.  Which is, I believe, one of the major reasons why frequently, despite so much research having been performed on a particular herb or its derivatives, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn, such as with ‘aloe vera’ and ‘ginseng.’ 

(1) Zhonghua Bencao Editiorial Committee, Chinese State Administration of TCM, Eds.  Zhonghua Bencao (The Chinese Herbal), 10 Vols. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Press, Shanghai, 1999;  (2) Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of TCM, Eds.  Quanguo Zhongcaoyao Mingjian, 3 Vols.  People’s Health Publishers, Beijing.  1996.

Ultra-processed foods contain many synthetic additives (incl. colors, flavors, stimulants, sweeteners, binders, emulsifiers, and preservatives, among others)! 

I never paid much attention to them until Chris van Tulleken published his “Ultra-Processed People – The Science Behind Food That Isn’t Food (Norton, 2023)”.  He defines them as something you cannot find lying around in your kitchen.  A conservative guess of the number of additives used in the USA is around 10,000, government-approved or not, while the figure used in Europe or other countries may be one-tenth (or 1,000).

Now, California is the first state to start banning  ultra-processed foods, at least from being served to students in public schools.  This certainly is good news, and it is about time!  However, relying on governments’ actions or industries’ good will to deal with rapidly increasing toxic synthetic chemicals (drugs & additives) that keep accelerating year after year,  looks like a sure loser.  These synthetics by themselves are not going to abate, and in a few generations, we will be a nation of many more sick people with no unpolluted places to live.

I am not a widely read person because of a reading handicap resulting from a car incident about 10 years ago – involving the back of my head during a rear-ender by a dishonest young real estate agent and a bunch of crooked lawyers.   I bought Chris van Tulleken’s book months after it was published when I read about its theme that coincided with what I have been working on for decades.   My work has been mostly on natural herbs and chemicals, and I was trained in natural food, drug, and cosmetic ingredients.  My “Encyclopedia of Common Natural Ingredients Used in Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics” was published in 1980.  It is now in its 3rd edition (published in 2010) retitled “Leung’s Encyclopedia of Common…”.  It has been one of Wiley’s bestsellers.   

I have spent most of my career, especially the past 4 decades, on synthetic drugs vs. natural chemicals.  The former have existed for only around 150 years while the latter millennia or countless years.  Yet most of us don’t seem to be aware of the differences between the two.  Thus, in our pursuit of using synthetic chemicals in therapy, we ignore or are unaware of what we have done for millennia with natural materials.  Instead, we concentrate solely in trying to prove the new synthetic drugs made from toxic petroleum, coal tar, or other fossil fuels are not that toxic.  Hence, we experiment with animal tissues in vitro, in vivo and in small live animals, then in us humans (the last we call clinical trials) to show that they don’t kill them outright.   Then, after they are approved for patient use, we have found out they all have side effects that can end up as new diseases.   These new diseases then require more new toxic drugs to treat, ad infinitum, creating the vicious cycle (VC).  

This VC is not the one defined by health professionals, many of whom seem to be unaware of the inherently toxic characteristics of all synthetic chemicals (drug & additives) because of their brand-new existence on our planet which are derived from toxic inedible materials like fossil fuels.  They are there, longer than any of our lifespan; and it’s the weak will of some of us who are addicted to them.  Furthermore, many of us scientists are so involved in our work, especially specializations, that we may not even have thought about our experiences and wisdom as legitimate, gained over the centuries/millennia of testing natural materials (herbs, microbes, mushrooms, etc.) by trial and error.  Some prominent critics of traditional (herbal) medicines used to refer to them as voodoo derogatively, up to maybe 10 or 15 years ago.   They have probably died prematurely because of the accumulative toxicities from the drugs and additives they voluntarily take, and pollutants like microplastics from the drinking waters in our environment.   Some drug-oriented colleagues who are so involved in their specializations (deep holes in the ground) that they are oblivious to our body’s infinitely complex nature and only view ourselves as a single human unit, the way we see ourselves from a distance.  Perhaps that is how the confusion of synthetics and naturals came about.   However, when this is monetized by our VC of synthetic drug therapy, no one wants to rock the boat by disturbing our money tree, especially the people who work  in the food and drug industries.  Hence, they all have kept quiet.  Over the past many decades, few, if any, of us have brought up the issues of toxic side effects of synthetic drugs and additives.   They are real.   I have been vocal in these fields because I have survived by consulting in different fields after having been employed and fired by  2 companies during 5 years of my early career in the 1970s.

Here, I am bringing back ‘broken record’ again.  The VC is not possible when dealing with natural chemicals (substances from nature) because they have been  with us for many (or countless) generations.  Whatever present as impurities in our edibles (foods or herbs) has also been with us since our ancestors started trying potential foods or medicines countless years ago.     They survived to pass their experience and wisdom on to us.   The impurities in these natural ingestible chemicals are not toxic because countless generations since our ancient ancestors’ first trials, followed by later ones, have already proven their safety and effectiveness.  Our modern generations have tried our modern synthetic drugs and additives for less than 2 centuries tops, we have already encountered unsurmountable problems and difficulties as evidenced by the VC firmly established during this short period.   Our scientific endeavors in this field only help us continue to cope with the ‘monster’ we have created.  Hence, we have to deal with side effects, new diseases, and continue to suffer all their consequences. 

Is this all our current ‘sciences’ can do?  Or are there better alternatives? Please seriously ponder them, my scientific colleagues!   The solutions are around us.  We just need to be more sensible and practical.  Forget about sticking to precision in our scientific principle.  If there is indeed such a principle when we have a flawed scientific system?

As I have said many times before, our health sciences dealing with our drug therapy process is not really scientific, despite all the different maneuvers (in vitro & in vivo studies followed by clinical trials in humans), we simply still end up following the same trial-and-error process on humans ‘invented’ by our ancestors eons ago.   Contrary to our belief or science, the way we approach the drug-therapy process is not scientific, especially when we demand precision.  How precise can it be if our key involved element is our body – an extremely complex living organism consisting of millions and billions of chemicals and cells each has its own agenda and function therein.  No two people’s bodies are alike, and we cannot control most of their contents because we don’t build our bodies as we do robots.  The fact is that we may think our health science is precise and reproducible, we have a big flaw in this thinking.  Unless you can control every cell and chemical in our body, we cannot be sure of our science involving our complex body with countless living chemicals and cells.

I have no experience with robots.  But I think if a robot is out of order, we can fix or replace a malfunctioning part.  Not so with our ill body as we can’t order a healing chemical or cell to go to a certain part in our body and right its illness.  We are not yet there until we know how to use cosmic elements to move chemicals and cells around in our body to the location where our ill health started and resolve the problem.

In the meantime, we have the experiences and wisdom from our traditional medicines, especially the well-documented Chinese medicines (CM) and Ayurveda, among others.  With CM, it is not based on scientific precision (an illusion) but on tried-and-true experiences and wisdom gained over a long, long time!  Hence, it is now practical, and it works.  I have grown up with it, and I still used some of the formulas for my family and friends, especially for colds, flus, sore throat, cough, canker sores, pimples, and joint pain, among others.  Unlike modern drugs (e.g., OTC drugs), the CM therapies are also less rigid, and one or more herbal ingredients in a formula can be replaced by comparable herbs.   Millennia of try-and-true experiences have shown many CM formulas to work.  I have used a few dozen over my lifetime and they have not only benefited me, but also my family and some close friends.

Since many of the CM formulas are sold as supplements, most of which of unknown identity and quality, the fastest way to show their authenticity is by fingerprinting commercial  products with HPTLC to show fake ones so that consumers can skip buying them.  This is a sure way to start improving the poor quality of herbal supplements as I have so often described.

Whenever my PBN Naturals Worldwide Consortium is launched, the first action I take will be using HPTLC fingerprinting on commercial psychedelic products, since no public agencies are doing anything about them (not FDA or USP/NF).   We will pick the best-known brands, analyze them and simply let people see the differences.  They will make their own decisions as to which one to buy.  Only with the participation of educated and experienced fellow humans can we eventually solve our major health problems caused by synthetic chemicals drugs and additives.   We can’t afford to take another 5 or 6 generations because at the current  rate of progression we and/or our environment would no longer be there!

Around 5 years ago, while actively trying to promote my newest book, #My #Life & #Rollercoaster #Career (#Memoir + #Newsletter), on #LinkedIn, I picked up leads to my newly revived interest – #psilocybin, #baeocystin, and #norbaeocystin (#PBN), and reconnected with the #psychedelics movement.   I promptly forgot about my new book, as befitting my character of undiagnosed ADHD.    

Then, I returned from retirement after over 50 years of a successful career in #natural #products (esp. cosmetics, drug chemicals & Chinese herbs) having isolated PBN from the liquid culture of an Oregon magic mushroom  decades earlier in  the mid-1960s.   During all these decades, no one has succeeded in isolating these important new chemicals (BN).  Important because  they are the closest #twin/ #sister compounds simultaneously to #serotonin (S, a hormone present throughout our body responsible for many functions such as mood and happiness, possibly also our thought/creative process and generating new nerve cells, or #neuroplasticity).  These important issues have never been seriously investigated.  Instead, #synthetic #drug-#therapy’s #vicious #cycle (#VC) has dominated in recent decades as the key reason in our search for new drugs.   If a drug does not kill us, the more side effects and new diseases it generates, the more new drugs (synthetic and inherently toxic) are needed to perpetuate the VC. 

My #PBN #Naturals #Worldwide #Consortium will break this VC at least for some of the #toxic #synthetics (both #drugs & #additives).  My experience during the past several years has convinced me to keep on trying.   However, the revival of psychedelics over the past decade also reactivated greed in many of my colleagues, making the movement a present-day #gold #rush.  Hence, for example, one new company led the charge changing from #nonprofit #to #for-#profit after its owner-couple made use of free advice  from honest experts to build the company into a financially attractive entity, when they quietly switched from nonprofit to for-profit and quickly received tens of millions of dollars from unknowing investors or those with questionable ethics.  So far, only this company, the biggest that I know, has started with deceit in the present gold-rush.  So, my friends and colleagues, beware of the big ones, especially of their ads and promotions, mostly lies!     

Because of my work with PBN in graduate school, the founder of a psychedelic company approached me at the time to be one of its cofounders, I agreed when I found out Countess Amanda Feilding was one of them.  Then, the company got a couple of $million and we were on our way.  What I didn’t count on was its business partner, who promptly took charge of its technical team and started online conferences without notifying me, its technical director.   After missing 2 such teleconferences within months, I handed in my resignation.  Then, the company went under after it ran out of funds. 

That was not the first time some businessmen #misjudged my #character and #capabilities.   A  few more such instances followed as described in my memoir (see MLRC).    Invariably, it was the business manager in the second or third level of company hierarchy wanting to show the boss/owner how much money he could save for the company if they switched suppliers, due to the general #ignorance in the industry (among both technical & lay) regarding #identity and #quality of herbal products.  Most of them have no clue what is in the complex herbal materials.  I ended up losing $million yearly incomes.    When you look at the #HPTLC #fingerprint posted on #LinkedIn about a month ago, you can see my client’s new (fake) product  has only at most 5% of the herbal ingredients compared to the real product that I used to supply.   It’s sad for the consumers!  No one is looking after their interests.   Because he/she does not know how and where to start.  Neither our government nor our highly technical institutions.                            

Now, even though our organization is not nonprofit because government regulations require its engaging lawyers, accountants and having to pay for expenses that I cannot afford because I am no millionaire.  I just want our Consortium to make a minimum amount of profit to keep the organization operational and perpetual.  None of the 1,000X- or even 100X-over-cost profits most big companies make to support their exaggerations/promotions and their owners’ mansions and yachts.   I have grown up in a family that didn’t con people or lie and cheat, as most of current drug companies and their interdependent associates (insurers, advertisers, crooked politicians) do and exploit our most vulnerable fellow Americans. 

Unlike its synthetic counterpart, #natural #levodopa is not inherently toxic because whatever impurities in it have already been experienced by humans for millions of years or at least millennia. This issue, existent for at least several decades now, has not been resolved, making our ‘modern scientific’ drug therapy using mostly synthetics NOT scientific. The main reason is that after we have subjected our synthetic chemical to extensive scientific testing (in vitro, in vivo, small animals, & clinical trials in humans, etc.) supposedly to make sure the new drug is proven ‘safe and effective’, we then approve it and release it for general use in patients. However, from this point onward, it is nothing but going through the same process used by our ancestors in developing traditional (herbal) medicines – trial and error! All the new scientific testing is for naught. Yet few of us scientists realize it up to this day. The modus operandi (M.O.) of our scientific research seems to simply keep digging deeper and more holes (i.e., producing specializations), often losing ourselves in our highly specialized fields and forgetting our original purpose to make our body and soul (mind) healthy again. With an entity like our extremely complex body as the key part that contains millions (even billions) of unique chemicals and cells, how do we bring our research in all the parts together and normalize to make our body function well as a whole again, as our Creator has intended? I believe our future being able to do this peacefully will lie in our ability to somehow make use of cosmic elements like light, magnetic waves, and others. In Chinese medicine, we have been talking about chi/qi for millennia even though we don’t know what it exactly is. But there are signs of its being used, as in #qi gong. I am sure other cultures, like ayurveda, also have this qi counterpart. Yet advanced science is like a newborn baby in a grownup world. Why? Because most of us modern drug scientists do not think outside the box but rather hold onto some narrow-minded biase or are ignorant.

Here are my thoughts on the issue of synthetics vs. naturals. #Professionals of #modern medicine and #traditional #medicine need to be #less #critical #of #one #another, because each group is not what it seems. While modern-medicine researchers continue to demand #precision, there is no such thing when our #extremely #complex #body (containing countless chemicals, cells, and other living entities) #is #involved. I have repeatedly brought this up over recent years. Thus, with traditional medicine, it is mainly mumbo jumbo as #understood and #described #by #drug #consultants, at least during the previous 3 decades. Most of them must have #died or prematurely turned #illucid, because I don’t hear this kind of denigrative talk anymore about herbal/traditional medicine during the past 10-20 years.

I believe it’s now time to rethink our opinions against those of the other group, #ignoring their #uncorrectable #elements and start bringing the #best #of #both #therapeutic #systems to benefit our fellow humans. If not, just ingestible synthetic chemicals (e.g., drugs & additives, excluding non-ingestibles) will ruin our environment and health in no time. Without good health and a decent environment, life is not worth living. Please ponder these for the sake of your grandchildren and theirs, especially if you are in the 1% of our world population that holds the world’s money and hence power.

Briefly, the weak point in our modern drug therapy should help motivate the introduction of appropriate traditional medicines that lack modern ‘scientific’ evidence but have plenty of human trial-and-true experience and wisdom. For those few who have had the pleasure/experience of using some #traditional #Chinese #formulas for #colds and #flus or other #common #ailments (e.g., #facial #eruptions & #canker #sores), there are some safe and effective formulas commonly used in Hong Kong and nearby Asian countries that can be immediately introduced here. Some may already be here as #herbal #supplements. Unfortunately, after the DSHEA was passed in 1994, we have never handled the herbal products properly, because right from the start the industry members have been treating them as if they were drug products. Consequently, no 2 herbal supplements with the exact same labeled herbs are the same, unless they are produced by the same manufacturer. Because the technical experts in charge only see some of the chemicals in herbal or traditional medicines.

I am still confident that I will find a #computer #savvy #partner to write a program to tie the partners (producers, analyzers, researchers, users & others) in our #PBN #Naturals #Consortium together, so that we can begin #inviting #investors. Under my guidance, our #Worldwide #Consortium will be able to #greatly #improve the #mess of #current #herbal #supplements, starting with PNB naturals (#psilocybin, #baeocystin, #norbaeocystin, & others).

#Vicious #cycle of #synthetic #drug #therapy
#Patents #on #biological #sciences – impact of #synthetics vs. #naturals
#Human #greed

#Vicious #cycle(#VC) of #synthetic #drug #therapy.
This exists only when using #synthetic #chemicals as I have often explained. Being produced mainly from #toxic #petrochemicals, they are #brand-#new #to #our #planet. Our human species have no more than #150 #years of #experience with them, a mere #grain #of #sand #on #a #sandy #beach if we want to compare #our #experience #with #synthetics #to #that #with #natural #therapeutic #remedies (#herbs & other #natural #materials). Hence, they are #inherently #toxic, not just the chemicals themselves, but their #impurities. The latter often escape our attention, as the #drug-#identity-#and-#quality ‘bibles’ (aka #Pharmacopoeias) do not deal with these impurities. They simply allow a small percentage (like 1%, 2%, or more) in the drugs and consider them pure. Even after we have made major advances during the past several decades in analyzing and detecting minute chemical materials (nano, pico, & smaller), the standards of purity among scientists (esp. analytical chemists) still go by these #pharmacopoeial #standards. And the general #axiom still holds – a #synthetic #chemical #is #the #same #as a #natural #one if they both have the #same #chemical #structure and are #pure. But how pure? No one seems to know or care.

Here is an example I have thought about for years and already described elsewhere. #Lysergic #acid #diethylamide (#LSD) is up to 200x stronger acting than #psilocybin. What if someone just mixes 1mg (1,000mcg) LSD with 99mg (99,000mcg) synthetic psilocybin. A person taking 20mg of this mixture believing it to be pure psilocybin would experience double the effects of psilocybin. Or worse, if he puts 1mg of LSD in 99mg of #corn #starch and labels it ‘psilocybin’ and some person taking a dose of 20mg of this ‘psilocybin’ would basically take in #200mcg of #LSD, a #regular #psychedelic #dose. Has this ever happened during the past 25-30 years #in #research or #practice? If so, what kind of science is that? Just the thought of this scenario happening should warn us that something is not right with our #life #sciences using #synthetic #psychedelics in therapy. This also casts doubt on the quality of our synthetic therapeutics (e.g., psilocybin) on the market, no matter how much money is spent by some companies promoting them with fancy rhetoric. So, beware of these companies; their greed accelerates the decline of our health!

There are obvious #problems in #modern #drug #therapy using #synthetic #chemicals. No one seems to notice the #innately #toxic #impurities present in these #brand-#new #chemicals that are mostly made from toxic petroleum. Our #pharmacopoeias allow some impurities (1%-2% or higher) to be present, assuming them to be nontoxic. Among tens or more thousands of synthetic chemicals now ingested daily by us after modern #scientific #testing (in vitro, in vivo, in small animals, then in humans via #clinical #trials) followed by approval and release for human use. This last step is the same #trial-#and-#error process used by our ancestors in developing our medicines. Isn’t it ironic we have spent over a century after our synthetic era began, trying to develop a #modern #scientific #process, but end up with the #same #one #our #ancestors #used?
During the past decades, we have developed a huge industry that recently came up with a #self-#generating and #self-#perpetuating #income-#producing #process, that #benefits #only #drug #makers and their #interdependent #associates (#promoters, #advertisers, #crooked #politicians, and others), which I call #vicious #cycle (#VC). Thus, the more toxic a chemical the more #side #effects and #new #diseases it causes that #require #more #new #drugs to treat, hence the VC ad infinitum.

In contrast, our #herbal and #traditional #medicines were developed by the #trial-#and-#error process eons ago. Some of these are #well #documented, e.g., #Chinese #herbs/ #traditional #medicines and #Ayurvedic #medicines (at least before the latter were polluted by the British Empire’s rule of India for two centuries). These medicines have thousands of years of #human #experience and #wisdom. I can only speak for #Chinese #herbs and #formulas widely used in #China and in #southeast #Asia. I have grown up with them, along with my #training and #experience #in #modern #chemical #drugs and #additives. The following is my opinion and plan for making the most of the two systems, with whatever the best of the two that is readily available.

The #major #differences #between the #two #healing #systems (#synthetic vs. #natural) are: #modern #drug #therapy tries to bring the #unknown #inherently #toxic #elements of #brand-#new #synthetics up to at most past the present. The rest will be #for #our #posterity #to #experience and #judge.

My plan is to hold off some #synthetics for now, whenever possible, and start bringing the natural therapeutics to complement those that have #natural #counterparts available. Since there are not yet any feasible ways to bring the right naturals to market because there are no #meaningful #identity and #quality #standards available yet. The simplest way is to test (by #TLC/ #HPTLC) the #suspicious #products on the market #alongside the #decent/ #genuine ones #already #present for #generations. If found obviously deficient, those #imitations would be #eliminated.
The

In his newest book, “Psilocybin Mushrooms in Their Natural Habitats”, Paul Stamets honors A.H. Smith and his book titled “Mushrooms in Their Natural Habitats” published in 1973. Here is a section from a Chapter of my book, “My Psilocybin Trip with PBN” (still not officially published), to show Dr. Smith had mentored Paul and me at different times:

#A #tribute #to #my #magic #mushroom #colleagues.
After I received my PhD degree in 1967, my Michigan work on PBN went to the back of my mind. That was until around the end of 2019, when my PBN work was reconnected with the psilocybin work in mental health done by colleagues at #Johns #Hopkins like #Roland #Griffiths and #Bob #Jesse, among others in other #universities and #institutes. Also, I began to be aware of the important work done by #Paul #Stamets, literally in the trenches. He is the one who achieved his #current #unparalleled #status by collecting mushrooms and tripping on their psychedelics from around 1970 to 2000 when university scientists started work on magic mushrooms again, this time in earnest. He and I had one mutual connection. Both of us were at one time mentored by #Alexander (#Alex) #H. #Smith. I am much older than Paul. So, a year after I arrived at Ann Arbor, Michigan, I started working with Alex on testing potential North American magic mushrooms. He collected them and I analyzed them. As he was the curator of the #University #of #Michigan’s #Herbarium, he had access to old collections of magic mushrooms as well. That was after I had worked out the TLC analytical protocol and knew where the appropriate #tryptamines (to which PBN belong) fell on the #TLC #plate (we call it #chromatogram or #fingerprint). Since I had come from a mycophobic Cantonese culture, I had never picked a single wild mushroom and eaten it before I got to Michigan and met Alex. Even after working with him, my training in mushroom picking is still limited. I don’t know much about wild edible mushrooms, though he might have taught me to pick my first morel or chanterelle. Nor, by any means, am I an expert in recognizing psychedelic species. Out of the dozens of potential psychedelic mushrooms Alex collected in Ann Arbor and elsewhere in the United States, only one species had #psilocybin and #psilocin plus some closely related unknown compounds. That mushroom is #Psilocybe #baeocystis Singer & Smith (a new species from Oregon he and his collaborator, Rolf Singer, named). And that is the species I concentrated on for my PhD research. My first paper, published in 1965, had Alex as our co-author, “#Production of #Psilocybin in #Psilocybe #baeocystis #Saprophytic #Culture” by Albert Y. Leung, A. H. Smith, and A. G. Paul, published in J. Pharm. Sci., 54 (11): 1576-1579 (1965).
Regardless, when Alex was my mycology mentor, Paul Stamets was only a teenager. From what I have gathered, Alex must have mentored Paul when Paul was a young man at the University of Washington where Alex was probably on sabbatical or on an extended stay to investigate American Northwestern fungal species. Maybe Paul can clarify that, some day. It’s because of Paul’s continuous involvement, along with a few other psychonauts in the North American magic-mushroom scene from the early 1970s through the present, the legend of psychedelic mushrooms has been kept alive. This is especially true after their serious scientific research has been picked up by Johns Hopkins scientists and has since been continuing. For all this, I want to pay tribute to Paul Stamets, Roland Griffiths, and Robert Jesse, among other colleagues. Without their work, I would never have a chance to introduce baeocystin and norbaeocystin to the world of natural therapeutics for potential treatment of mental health problems, as they would have been buried as so many findings of obscure or suppressed research, never to be found, or are rediscovered too late to be of any timely benefits to anyone.
As long as I am alive, I’ll continue to try to make this happen – to help start a new safer industry of natural PBN for mental healthcare by bypassing the current synthetic drug therapy with its toxic vicious cycle. Even if I don’t personally have a chance to work on natural PBN mycelium now, sooner or later when the field of psychedelics, especially natural psilocybin, is more widely recognized, PBN mycelia will become legitimate and be sought after by researchers in the mental healthcare field. Scientists would then proceed to produce these mycelia without having to worry about their being banned after having spent time and money in producing them.

They are all poisons, meaning innately having side effects some of which become new diseases, generating the vicious cycle (VC).  The presence of this VC begets new diseases that require more new drugs to treat.  That perpetuates the VC.  

This VC is only possible when synthetic drugs are used in therapy because they are brand-new to our planet, made mostly from toxic petroleum.   We intentionally ingest these soluble chemicals (drugs and additives) into our body, not being aware of what they may have been doing to our body while helping us in solving some short-term problems.  Unlike traditional medicines (e.g., herbs) that have been tested and used by our forebears for millennia and more, our modern medicines (synthetic drugs) have no more than around 100 years of serious use history tops, and most only a few decades. 

Not  just the ingestibles, non-ingestibles are even much worse, though their effects don’t appear until decades later.  Take plastics.  They first pollute our environment, then as they decay over  numerous decades, eventually into micro and nano particles, to enter our body via our food and water.  These are only one group of many inedible synthetics for our living comfort and convenience.  After many decades, we are now beginning to know about them as microplastics.  So, again, our born free will lets us do what we like but we have had so much fun and made so much money that we don’t think about our other fellow humans.  Even though our conscience hits us now, it may be too late.  Regardless, we must do something and NOT accept defeat.  I hope my friends and colleagues will wake up!

1. Problems with our viewing Modern Health  Sciences based on Single Chemicals by Themselves or within Complex Media like Herbs and Living Organisms.

As scientists and/or innovators, many of us are dense and most simply follow the crowd.  Each of us keep digging our hole (a specialty or  chemical) deeper and deeper, never surface aboveground to observe what our digging has done to our scenery (health & environment). 

Since our synthetic era began 200 plus years ago, we have increasingly been making countless brand-new inherently toxic chemicals from mostly toxic petroleum.  These ingestible and non-ingestible chemicals steadily and quietly damage our environment and health, especially in recent decades.   There is no abatement but endless destruction, worsening day by day.   Furthermore, many of us who are from Europe, enticed and encouraged by capitalism, have been  invading and exploiting natives around the world for centuries now.  They continue to produce entitled descendants who seriously believe they own the world, hence filthy gazillionaires like Elon Musk, who have no shame or morals, only with a me, me, me mentality, behaving like a spoiled 9-year-old brat, recently stolen his rich parents’ treasure trough with help from his 10-year-old buddy

We cannot analyze this phenomenon without looking at the broad picture that includes the following topics that I have already published throughout my writings, otherwise we may simply continue to dig deeper holes: 

—Vicious cycle of synthetic drug therapy – synthetic vs natural – drugs vs additives & their impurities

—The modern evidence-based science vs traditional experience & wisdom (drugs & herbs), the time factor (esp. weeks/months for computer-made vaccines vs years/decades for traditional ones)

—Declining capitalism vs a form of socialism – DeepSeek vs US gazillionaires in new open-source superior AI developed in a tiny fraction of time and cost (months vs years/$6M vs >$300B)

—Should utilize more of our planet’s intangible cosmic elements (light, microwave, electromagnetic, Chinese Chi/Qi, etc.)

—Be more aware of human limits (ignorance, arrogance, etc.) often manifested as self-grandeur or narcissistic and  psychotic fantasy, playing God or the Invincible /Infallible.

2. Drug Therapy with Synthetic Chemicals is Bad for our Environmental and Health!

Drug therapy using synthetic chemicals always produces side effects and/or new diseases, no matter how scientific we always claim it to be.  It has been over 200 years now.   Because of this, we continue to have ill health and an increasingly polluted environment.  Some major corrections have to be made regarding the increasing number of synthetic chemicals (drugs & additives) being continuously churned out by the synthetic process, especially during recent decades, which few people notice. 

Since toxic drug therapy needs something else besides its synthetic chemicals to ameliorate their toxic effects to better its current  status, the most logical and safe way is to bypass synthetics with natural chemicals or traditional medicines (like herbs) that have been time-tested by our ancestors over millennia and handed down to us.  This chapter is based on the concept of complementing or bypassing modern drug therapy with natural traditional medicines (herbs) that have been time-tested to be safe and effective by our  ancestors. 

3. Synthetics (Drugs/Additives) vs Naturals (Traditional Medicines/Herbs) and the Vicious Cycle (VC). 

First, let’s take drug therapy using synthetics vs traditional medicines.  The biggest difference lies in their length of time of experience and their resulting accumulated wisdom.  The pre-therapy testing (in vitro & in vivo) is scientific; so is testing in animals to some extent.  Testing in humans, such as clinical trials in extended periods of time, is not necessarily scientific, because synthetics are innately toxic, and contain impurities whose toxicities are seldom, if ever, tested.  Hence, our modern synthetic drugs always have side effects, and we are not sure where they come from, making them carry an important unknown due to their impurities.  Thus, with such a big uncertainty, is modern drug therapy still scientific?   Furthermore, synthetics, brand-new to our planet and with unknown toxicities, are the only chemicals that create the VC – the fountain of gold for Big Pharma & Co. but doom for modern-drug consumers.

In contrast, traditional medicines, like herbs, have been tested and then used by humans since ancient times.  We know which herbs are safe to take and which ones are toxic to avoid.  Some civilizations keep detailed written records and have tens, or hundreds, of thousands of herbal formulas, like in Chinese medicines.   Many of them are still being used up to this day, despite ignorance, self-interest and/or greed had prompted some drug experts to try unsuccessfully to remove traditional medicines from modern healthcare during past decades.  They claimed these medicines were not scientific, not being aware that most modern drugs, after clinical trials and approval, are subjected to the same process of trial-and-error that our ancestors used eons ago to develop our traditional Chinese medicines that are still widely used today!  Though many of these (now as ‘supplements’), are being promoted with American exaggeration (lies) as ‘modern’ and being sold at double or several times the prices of their Chinese counterparts.  Since there are still no identity and quality standards for such commercial products after my openly advocating them for 30 plus years, any 2 such products with their labels containing the exact same herbal ingredients can be different as night and day on TLC/HPTLC fingerprinting.  This is through my personal experience with my products vs those typical on the market.  For years I have owned my production facilities, lab, and library of Chinese medicines/herbs. I have never openly advertised for clients, large and small.  They just came by word of mouth.  A few are well-known.  The products I formulated and produced for them contain Chinese tonic herbs (that double as food and medicine) and used daily over centuries/millennia by the Chinese population.  My family and I still use them, especially for cold and flu and minor aches and pains. 

While Pharmacopoeias like the UPS/NF, AHP, BP, and ChP all have detailed identity and quality standards for raw materials/herbs, they do not have them for the finished, commercial products.  I have never understood why, especially we are in an American marketing world that is prone to exaggerations and lies.   Hence, with drug chemicals that meet the raw chemicals’ standards of identity and quality, you can test them in the finished products.  Not so with complex herbal products, as there are no identity and quality standards for them in the finished products!  Because of this, I have lost most of my products and their trademarks.  Except for one of my multimillion-dollar clients, I don’t believe the founder of a billion-dollar client of mine was involved in switching to cheaper imitations/adulterations.   Some second- or third-level managers were responsible.  Later, when we analyzed their fake products along with our original products by HPTLC fingerprinting, they were so obviously inferior that it was like a joke.  If I were one of those who cared only about the profits (though I’ll never be one), I could have sold them fake products with token herbs and made 5 to 10 times more money.  Regardless, these former clients of mine continue to make additional millions of dollars on my name and trademarks.  Hence, I am back from retirement to form my PBN Naturals Worldwide Consortium [PBN = Psilocybin, Baeocystin, Norbaeocystin] to first afford natural PBN mycelia to interested colleagues (researchers & practitioners) by bypassing the synthetic psychedelics that have so many innately toxic unknowns, especially their impurities.  Then, I will deal with synthetics in general (drugs & additives) that may have the right raw materials but widely different finished commercial products.  Since Pharmacopoeias like the USP/NF and AHP or government agencies (FDA, ODS, etc.) don’t deal with commercial products, they all trust manufacturers to be honest to put in the correct ingredients.   Lots of luck!  I don’t have another 100 years to see that happen, if ever!  So, I want to speed up the process for the sake of our posterity.  Hence, my PBN Naturals Consortium to start.  But before doing so, I need a  coding/programming expert to write a program to tie my members/partners and their financial and technical contributions together.

Now, as to my products, the only genuine one I still have on the market is the PhytoChi, produced according to my formula and sold by a Czech company, Phyto.CZ.  Any other companies selling PhytoChi anywhere in the world don’t have the genuine product unless it is from Phyto.CZ.  So, buyers of PhytoChi beware!

4. Synthetics vs Naturals and the Time Element that can be Shortened with Innovative Thinking but not by the Usual Passage of Time.

 The recent Chinese company, DeepSeek, may be a wake-up call for America.  Our capitalism protects only rich companies top down and tend to exploit the workers and the poor, keeping them at the bottom.  These companies will do anything to maintain their monopolistic advantage, with our government’s sanction.  We have been taught to avoid or dismiss a socialistic approach, because  we are a democracy (at least trying to be) for only 250 years, 50 years after we had synthesized our first drug, chloral hydrate.  Our democracy sounded good, but our capitalism probably had started to kill it during the past 2 decades.  The few gazillionaires (can be counted on our fingers) are holding the vast majority of America’s wealth and are exploiting the majority with financial and political help from our government.  Their primary goal is profits for themselves.  Despite getting support from our taxes, they rarely pay any income taxes with an exception, Warren Buffet. 

I think DeepSeek is going to disrupt the status quo in the new artificial intelligence (AI) space, causing a new world order.  Since DeepSeek has made its product(s) open source after having developed them only in months with less than $6 million, as opposed to American tech giants having spent hundreds of $billions (ChatGPT alone >$300B?) over years.  I totally understand how this can happen because in my own fields (drugs, cosmetics, herbs & microbiology), being self-employed except for 5/6 years in industry, I have personally experienced cronyism and the lack of innovation among academic and government agencies, while consulting for, or interacting with, them. 

Despite these, I’ve endured and emerged successful in different fields.  See my story in “My Life & Rollercoaster Career (CreateSpace, 2018)”, in which there is a chapter featuring my beating a world-famous group in a database contract in natural products with the National Caner Institute (NCI) in the 1980s.  My one-person company, along with a small new computer startup as my subcontractor, won the contract but was not awarded the $1million because NCI said it did not have the money.  Sure!  Cronyism!

Regardless, the vicious cycle (VC) has been the most important element in our health and environment in recent human history.  Since the synthetic era began around 200 years ago, we have been synthesizing countless chemicals, both ingestible and non-ingestible.  This process, accompanied by the VC, continues, and is already non-stoppable, causing the deterioration of our environment and health.   If we (esp. Americans) continue to pursue just profits and leave our ill health and ruined environment to our grandchildren and theirs, there is no future for them.  The only option is to follow some narcissistic idiots to go into outer space, leaving behind a ruined earth!  Hence, lack of innovative thinking and compassion in our health scientists is dangerous to human health, especially if they are corrupted by greed and/or ignorance!

Posted 2/15/2025

An Appeal to Fellow Scientists and Colleagues – True Alternatives to Conventional Drugs are Needed!

You receive this document because of one or more of the following:

1. You hold a key position in government, industry or academia who can make a difference if you want to;
2. You are an authority on matters relating to herbs and science;
3. You subscribed to, or received, my newsletter (Leung’s Chinese Herb News; ISSN# 1523-5017) while it was being published between 1996 and 2004; or
4. You are my colleague, associate, or friend whom I respect.

The next page consists of my comments on a New York Times article on ‘gingko biloba’ research. I have decided to send them to you because I believe there is a better chance you can help rectify the issues regarding herbal product identity and quality than others. These comments also apply to most other herbs in the ‘alternative’ field. 

Also attached is an article I had been invited to write, slated to be published in February by one of those new online journals by the OMICS group, but has not yet been published.  Instead, it has been giving me one excuse or another, because I refused to pay a $900 publication fee that it had promised to waive when it solicited my manuscript.  I have given the publisher the date of withdrawal of my paper as May 1, 2013.  So, here it is.  I believe my article is relevant to what I have been saying during the past 10 plus years about our failure to provide consumers with a true alternative to conventional modern drugs in the form of herbal supplements/medicines.  Instead, what we are providing them are not true herbal products as traditionally used and documented.  These so-called ‘alternative’ supplements or medicines are mostly chemical entities that are not much different than conventional pharmaceuticals or nutritional chemicals (e.g., vitamins & amino acids) except that they also contain unknown chemicals with no long-term safe-use tradition as the herbs from which they are derived.   Their only connection to true alternative herbal medicines is that these herbs are used as raw materials for their isolation.  Once these chemicals are identified or isolated, they are afforded the full treatment of modern drug protocol.  Thus, without any historical connection to the traditional herbs from which these ‘alternative’ supplements/medicines are derived, how alternative can they be?

The problem is not just research on ginkgo biloba, ginseng, or a common item like coffee.  It is a fundamental flaw in our research approach to natural products.  So far, there is only one basic approach that applies to conventional drugs (single-chemical entities) without problems.  But it has failed miserably when applied to complex multicomponent botanicals (especially traditional herbs), unless you only use the latter as raw materials from which to extract pure chemicals and develop them into drugs.  Then the vicious cycle repeats and none of the alternative options is utilized.  This is exactly what has been happening over the past several decades, with the alternative options being increasing pushed aside.  

Despite many of you are aware of the issues, not much has been done on the R&D end, except that NCCAM several years back started to restrict funding of herb research projects to those that had sufficiently clear definition of their proposed test materials to meet the criteria and approval of expert reviewers who had the training and knowledge to make such decisions. [I don’t remember the exact wording.] Yet most of these experts are trained in pharmaceutical research technology as many of us, not paying attention to the fact that herbal materials cannot be treated as pure chemicals by simply assigning specific chemical(s) to a complex material and analyzing for them.  Such a selected chemical often does not have the effects traditionally known and documented for its parent herb.  For example, “caffeine” or “chlorogenic acid” is not coffee the bean, nor are ginsenosides equivalent to American ginseng or Asian ginseng with the latter’s effects.

On the commercial product end, my compliments to colleagues at the FDA for finally moving in the right direction to enforce clearer and more meaningful identification and definition of herbal materials, using an approach suitable for multicomponent materials, especially requiring companies to show more than the usual marker compounds with more practical and comprehensive techniques such as HPTLC.  This technique can readily detect adulterants (both drugs & phytochemicals) or missing components as long as at least 2 solvent systems are used to separate nonpolar to polar compounds.  After all, with current GMP regulations being promulgated, how good are they if the multicomponent herbal material is not at least defined to the point that it can reasonably be reproduced with consistency.

Al

Albert Y. Leung, Ph.D.                                                                                                                                        

05152013

“New Doubts about Ginkgo Biloba” by Roni Caryn Rabin (NYTimes 4/29/2013)

Comments by Albert Y. Leung, Ph.D.

Most of my esteemed fellow scientists and colleagues seem to have missed the point.  The issue here (as with all other herbal supplements) is not humans versus animals or the dosage but rather, the fundamental basics of good scientific practice.  It is a basic issue of single-chemical drugs versus multicomponent natural products.  If we are using the wrong (or ambiguous) test material, nothing else matters, because the results generated cannot be reproduced anyway.  Drs. Varro (Tip) Tyler and Christine Swanson as well as I had written about these 10 to 12 years ago. 

For the identification and quality control of single-chemical drugs, there are already well established analytical protocols.  Not so for herbal supplements!  Yet so far we still have barely started to deal with it, largely due to complacency, inertia and/or marketing pressure.   Without clearly identifying a test material such as ginkgo extract (e.g., 1, 2, 3, or more of the ginkgolides, flavonoids & ginkgolic acids along with numerous others also potentially present but not analyzed), how can we expect to get any meaningful or reproducible results? 

“Ginkgo Biloba” is not a single-chemical entity.  We cannot apply current analytical protocols meant for pharmaceuticals to multi-component herbal products and expect to get consistent results.  At present, the only appropriate and practical means to reasonably define a multi-component herbal supplement is to use multiple techniques that can give us a better picture of the material other than some arbitrary or irrelevant marker compound(s), disregarding other components (good or bad) that may also be present.  These combination techniques (Phyto-True™ that includes TLC/HPTLC) are now available, which are practical, relatively inexpensive, and have the capability and versatility of showing better profiles (fingerprints) of broader spectra of phytochemicals than any other more expensive and advanced techniques; and they have already been routinely used for over 10 years.  They not only can show what is claimed to be present in commercial herbal supplements but also other components that are (and should also be) naturally present or absent (adulterations), encompassing a broad profile of compounds (nonpolar to polar), including the ones not currently being routinely analyzed in the quality control of herbal supplements whether or not specified by official compendia.   

This issue is not unique to ginkgo biloba because its identity is not clearly defined to the point of reasonable reproducibility.  For example, its active chemicals responsible for its total effects (good or bad) are not clearly known, as it contains different groups of chemicals, some of which contribute to its alleged effects.  These groups include flavonoids and terpenoids, in roughly 24% and 6%, respectively.  At present, there is no legal requirements for producers and manufacturers to identify (or at least show most of) the flavonoids and terpenoids present in the 24% and 6%, or what else is present in the remaining 70% of the extract(s) used in ginkgo products.  Nor has there been any published comparison between these extracts and the original one on which early studies in Europe showed the desired pharmacologic effects that led to ginkgo biloba’s commercialization.  In short, the ‘gingko biloba’ supplements on the market can differ widely, not just in strength, but also in identity as opposed tosingle-chemical drugs like aspirin that can be easily identified and quantified, as aspirin is aspirin in aspirin products – same identity, only different strengths.  And since there is no one uniform extraction process used by all producers, the commercial ginkgo extracts used can be very different indeed in their chemical composition with numerous (to many) active chemicals not routinely being analyzed in their quality control, leaving a big gap in our knowledge of the identity, quality, efficacy and safety of these products. 

Unless there is a basic change in the understanding and research approach among experts in industry, government and academia relating to multicomponent herbs/supplements (ginkgo biloba, ginseng or coffee) versus single-chemical drugs (quercetin, gingkolides, ginsenosides, or caffeine), these inconsistent, erratic results and hence controversy will continue, needlessly continuing to waste much of our country’s human and financial resources.  Other comments and critiques of research results on ginkgo are premature without first more clearly and reasonably defining what constitutes the entity ‘ginkgo biloba’ extract – not just as currently specified (24%/6%), but what else is also present in the remaining 70%.

05/10/2013

by Albert Y. Leung, PhD

For 150 years since the synthetic era began, we have been making countless chemicals from toxic petroleum, most of which are useless or unused and discarded to pollute our environment.  Some of them eventually find their way into our body to do additional harm besides that from the drugs, additives, and supplements we have been brainwashed to routinely take indiscriminately.  Over measly decades, these toxic chemicals have been ruining our environment and causing us our current state of poor health that not even millennia, or millions of years, of human existence and interaction with our surroundings have been able to do.  Yet few of us have sounded the alarm!  

Is it because most of us have to work so hard to make a living and have no time to protect ourselves or our environment, letting a handful of sociopaths grab most of our resources, hence wealth, ending up exploiting/enslaving the vast majority of our world population?  Or can it be that we have learned to be nice to others and are too reluctant or complicit to disturb the status quo?

These exploiters of our less fortunate are driven by greed and have no compassion or conscience.  They specialize in twisting the truth to suit their agenda, in politics and in science.  Yet, because of their wealth, there is no lack of fortune seekers and businessmen who adore them, waiting for a chance to follow their path.

Here, I am only concentrating on the science of drug-therapy and the accompanying vicious cycle it has created.   The latter has allowed our current confused state of faux science to exist, flourish, and perpetuate, ending up in the rapid deterioration of our environment and health, causing our fellow world citizens much pain and suffering.   I’m going to try to summarize what I have written often on healthcare issues with drugs, herbs, and additives over the past 50 years.  Unfortunately, most of the deleterious effects of these toxic chemicals are not readily visible (except obesity, puffy face, & unsteady gait, to name a few), making it more difficult to explain these effects to the general public.

1.     The confusion of science in health care and its resultant vicious cycle.  Health science does not have a uniform meaning.  It all depends on the therapeutics used.  The differences between using synthetic chemicals and natural ones in our health care vary greatly, from toxic to beneficial.  The former, being largely made from toxic chemicals derived from petroleum, are brand-new to this planet and innately toxic.  Because of this, when used in treating illnesses, they cause side effects and generate new diseases that require more new drugs to treat, in a vicious cycle.    461

Once in the vicious cycle, these synthetic chemicals overwhelmingly benefit the exploiters of human health, who are the ones with the resources and money, hence power, to steer the world to wherever they so desire.  All the drug testing in vitro, in vivo, in animals, followed by clinical trials in humans are a sham, the reason being, after clinical trials (gold standards of modern drug therapy), the approved drugs still have to undergo the real trial-and-error process our ancestors started umpteen years ago to test our foods and  traditional (herbal) medicines,  and then passed their knowledge on to us.  This is the ultimate process (human-testing) to prove our medicines are truly effective and safe in humans after centuries or millennia of use, not just safe in some cells (in vitro & in vivo) and animals for measly decades, tops.   [See my paper, Manmade Evolution in Reverse – Where Drug Therapy Using Synthetic Psychedelics is Heading (www.ayslcorp.com/blog)]. 

Furthermore, in our healthcare sciences, we routinely mix up synthetic drugs, additives, and chemical supplements with natural healing herbs and foods.  However, we concentrate instead mainly on the chemicals that are promptly synthesized, thus introducing the brand-new unknown and inherently toxic element not present in natural therapeutics.   The impurities (usually 2%-5% approved by official Pharmacopoeias like the USP, BP & ChP) vary greatly among synthetics vs naturals.  Those in the former, like approved drugs, are brand-new to us and require centuries or millennia before they can be proven safe, while naturals have been here with us since our human species first appeared on our planet eons ago.  This simple fact has been ignored by my science colleagues since modern drug therapy, based on synthetics, began around 150 years ago.  Because of this vicious cycle, created by greed, we have chosen to ignore its scourge in human health and continuously allow it to be a fountain of gold for makers of drugs or chemicals and their associates.  At the same time, the toxicities of new drugs, along with their toxic impurities, are conveniently ignored.

2.   Importance of purity or impurities in synthetic chemicals.  If we neglect or ignore it, I don’t see how we can resolve any problems arising from our use of synthetics, including their side effects, new diseases, and pain and suffering endured by most people who ingest these chemicals, often unknowingly in their foods and drinks.  Regardless, once we no longer confuse synthetics with naturals, we still have to heed the purity (or impurities) of the synthetics.  Hence, a 1% of a highly toxic chemical present in the impurities of an approved synthetic drug, can definitely pose not just a health problem, but also raise a scientific/technical dilemma, especially even many of my well-known colleagues still insist health sciences meet standards of precision.  Yet, for decades, I have observed this dilemma in our scientific endeavors whenever they involve our complex body and sometimes complex traditional medicines (herbs).  Synthetic drugs are rarely absolutely pure (say, 100.000,000%), but usually around 98%.  Hence, all synthetic chemicals by nature have an unknown or fuzzy element in them, which by nature is toxic or most likely so.  How can we have precision in our science of drug therapy with this fuzzy test material (aka drug) that we have only encountered at most 150 years out of our human existence and experience of millions of years?  Really?  Don’t we want some of our top scientists to do some explaining?    Statistics will not resolve this, nor measly weeks, months, or decades enough time to show our new synthetic drugs safe for us.  The only solution is to add traditional medicines (herbs) embedded with millennia of human experience and wisdom to our new therapeutics (aka synthetic drugs).  However, these cannot be added casually or nonchalantly.  They have to be done with serious consideration and timing, not just continuing to misapply some human ingenuity that lacks common sense, as we have been doing for many decades!

      I know I am right on this, because I have been on both sides of the synthetics/naturals (herbs) divide all my career and have experienced the good and the bad of both fields for at least 50 years and am still writing about them.  I am very proud of this, because unlike some of my fellow herbalists or scientists (incl. surgeons turned herbal-supplement peddlers on TV), I have not sold out to either party, or compromised by sleazy financial interests to lie to promote my own products.  Nevertheless, I feel sorry for them, especially their ignorance or innocence of being bamboozled by ‘herbs’ or ‘science’ that they don’t understand, ending up making well-known fools of themselves in the eyes of their peers.

      Regardless, we can avoid or bypass synthetics, as we are now trying to do with our PBN Naturals (aka PBN Pearls) Worldwide Consortium.  [https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ayleung852].  I can’t do this myself.  So, please join us if you are a true herbalist, scientist, or simply agree with what I am doing.  

3.  Why impurities in synthetic chemicals can pose major health problems?  Closely associated with the use of synthetic chemicals is the assumption that they are pure, with nothing else besides the titled or named chemical to account for its activities.  However, a strong synthetic psychedelic like LSD (up to 200X stronger than psilocybin) may be present in any psychedelic to skew research and clinical results.  How about other equally strong but highly toxic chemical(s)?  Have there been any uniform standards for any synthetic psychedelics used in all recent research or clinical practice, as those reported in “Psychedelic Spotlight’s Week of October 23^rd Roundup” for depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or others?  I strongly suspect that in supplement research and clinical practice of synthetic psychedelics, there are no uniform standards for these synthetics, nor for mushrooms, apart from guessing.   [See my article on my blog, www.ayslcorp.com/blog :  Some Basic Requirements for the Identity and Quality of 3 Types of Psilocybin Products]. In the same week’s news highlight, DEA calls for the dramatic increases of psilocybin, psilocin, and ibogaine.  Regardless, does DEA itself produce these chemicals or farm them out to the greed-based industry?  But what are the uniform standards for these synthetic chemicals, the usual 98% pure, or 100.000% and higher?  In the former, does anyone routinely analyze the 2% impurities for highly toxic chemicals?  If not, don’t bring up the word “precision” or “precise” whenever we deal with health sciences!  Also remember, we know a lot about our human body.  But we still don’t know enough to keep acting as if we were the Creator, making decisions for our body as if it were a robot that we had built and could correct anything that went wrong with it.   

The above are just a couple of my questions.  Now that the goldrush for psychedelics is on, we can’t continue to go the way of synthetics, especially if our tax dollars are going to support such ‘fuzzy’ or faux research that is based on pseudoscience!  Wake up, my young friends and colleagues!  You are the ones inheriting this mess from us.  But few of you seem to care.   I do.  Hence, I will continue to speak out!