Category: Uncategorized

Digging deeper and deeper holes (i.e., specializations) again triumphs!?  Two Japanese scientists recently received the Nobel Prizes in medicine/physiology/chemistry for doing just that – to ‘scientifically’ show that our body has self-healing power and right itself when it is down.  What else is new?  The next would be Nobels to scientists engaged in slash-and-burn of microbiome practice – lo kill all microbes around us when we don’t know which is good or bad and develop a specialization that justifies our sanitizing everything around  us without knowing what bad microbes to kill?    Then, the one who finds the excuse or reason, after the act, is the hero?!  Is it all our ‘precise’ science all about?  The ones who don’t get the Nobel receive the never-ending perpetual fountain of gold that I have called the vicious cycle (VC) of synthetic drug therapy?  They may even end up receiving the Nobel and keep the VC goldmine too!

1. Synthetic chemicals are brand-new chemicals made from toxic fossil fuels.  Hence, they are inherently toxic and have no history of interaction with humans as natural medicines (herbs) have.  We have experience and wisdom since our ancestors first tried them eons ago, then passing them on to us.  We know what these natural medicines can do, irrespective of what they contain.  Whatever impurities a natural chemical isolated from nature contains, be it the usual 2% allowed in a synthetic chemical or even 10% in a natural one, is immaterial, because whatever present in a natural chemical has been there with us since time immemorial and we have experience with them. 
2. We have at most around 150 years of experience with the toxic effects of synthetic chemicals (drugs, additives & supplements) which, compared with millennia or millions of years of our experience with natural herbal medicines, is like a grain of sand on a sandy beach.  Yet we don’t seem to know the difference between toxic synthetic medicines and natural traditional herbs, confusing and treating them as equals.
3. When you don’t know the differences between toxic synthetic chemicals and our experience with traditional natural medicines, how can you recognize the science in these medicines when they interact with our extremely complex body?
4. Or is the ‘science’ we have been talking about just a hoax, what I refer to as faux science?

1. Synthetic chemicals are brand-new chemicals made from toxic fossil fuels.  Hence, they are inherently toxic and have no history of interaction with humans as natural medicines (herbs) have.  We have experience and wisdom since our ancestors first tried them eons ago, then passing them on to us.  We know what these natural medicines can do, irrespective of what they contain.  Whatever impurities a natural chemical isolated from nature contains, be it the usual 2% allowed in a synthetic chemical or even 10% in a natural one, is immaterial, because whatever present in a natural chemical has been there with us since time immemorial and we have experience with them. 
2. We have at most around 150 years of experience with the toxic effects of synthetic chemicals (drugs, additives & supplements) which, compared with millennia or millions of years of our experience with natural herbal medicines, is like a grain of sand on a sandy beach.  Yet we don’t seem to know the difference between toxic synthetic medicines and natural traditional herbs, confusing and treating them as equals.
3. When you don’t know the differences between toxic synthetic chemicals and our experience with traditional natural medicines, how can you recognize the science in these medicines when they interact with our extremely complex body?
4. Or is the ‘science’ we have been talking about just a hoax, what I refer to as faux science?

                                                                                                                                                                            

Why do few of my health science colleagues seem to worry about the countless side effects and new diseases these synthetics have caused?

The same is with #addiction defined by Big Pharma and its interdependent healthcare professionals as due to our weak will power and prone to take drugs. Which is not the drugs’ fault, as they are always there, despite their being highly promoted and easily available.  For 150 years since the synthetic era started, these drugs (incl. #additives & #chemical #supplements) have been rapidly increasing, practically out of control.  This VC has become a huge industry that includes drug addiction to narcotics that requires #rehabilitation, itself a big industry.

Regardless, there is a major group of technical people, my colleagues (some friends), who prop up this VC.  They are the #scientists at government and regulatory agencies such as the #pharmacopoeias (#USP/#NF, #BP, #ChP, #AHP, etc.) and the #FDA.  All of them seem to close one eye as if the evil is not there.  We have tons of #regulations and #standards of #identity and #quality for our drugs and other ingestible chemicals that we routinely take into our body, but they somehow have not been applied to #commercial #herbal #supplements.       One main reason I can think of is the difficulty of #distinguishing #synthetic #chemicals #from #natural #traditional #medicines or #herbs.  Most of my scientist colleagues/friends in government and industry seem totally confused, and I believe they truly don’t know what to do.

If you are in this business as I for so long, you can easily see 2 or more herbal supplements on the market containing the same herbal ingredients on their labels are seldom alike, if ever.  In fact, sometimes they are totally different!  Can this be the reason that surgeons who have made their name on TV by whatever means become peddlers of herbal supplements because it is  more lucrative than practicing surgery? 

I am tired of being the only one pointing this out for so many years or decades.  But I am not giving up because I still believe in the good of most people and in my life-long luck as well.  I am not an admirer of the despicable politicians who only chase after money, power, or fame without morals.  They constitute most of the current politicians in power led by the most ignorant narcissist with the lowest IQ.  Hence, I don’t want anything to do with the likes of them.  Though I am still trying to figure out why some human beings can routinely lie and cheat for themselves and their boss with no conscience.  https://www.linkedin.com/in/albert-leung-9b933913www.ayslcorp.com/blog

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