Safety issue of ‘traditional’ and ‘complementary’ medicines

By CHANDRE DHARMAWARDANA

Every country has a lore of “traditional medicine” in addition to the mainstream medical system, which today is based on a rigorous system of institutionalized medical education based on science. Even the WHO has recently recognized and attempted to give formal structure to such Traditional and Complementary (T&C) systems of medicine (see: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/312342;jsessionid=4ADD7EEB300760DC10D0C42745ABDC31).

Thus, the WHO defines “traditional medicine” as:

“The sum total of knowledge and practices, whether explicable or not, used in diagnosing, preventing or eliminating physical, mental and social diseases. This knowledge or practice may rely exclusively on past experience and observation handed down orally or in writing from generation to generation. These practices are native to the country in which they are practiced. The majority of indigenous traditional medicine has been practised at the primary healthcare level”.

Traditional medicine, and other so-called complementary systems of medicines, tend to be far less institutionalized, with the methods of treatment traditionally handed down from a teacher to a student, who becomes part of the teacher’s “family”. This is the “guru-kula” system, where the teaching is retained as a family secret and handed down. Nevertheless, as these systems progressed and received state patronage, institutionalization and open publication of medical practices began to appear. The Mahavansa alludes to hospitals even for animals in ancient Lanka. In India, too, Sanskrit texts like the Charaka Samhitha and the Sushrutha Samhitha of Ayurveda, record the level of surgery as well as methods of treatment available to the ancients.

Nevertheless, every physician was supposed to keep his/her “Guru-mushti” (what the teacher holds in his fist), i.e. secret knowledge that the teacher revealed to the pupil, only at his deathbed. They claim that such medical practices have been confirmed by use “down the ages”, and the epithets “prathyaksha” in Sanskrit, and “ath-dutu” in Sinhala are often used to indicate safe and “well tested” medications.

No record keeping of the treatment and their outcomes, adverse effects, etc., were practised until the rise of modern medicine. Hence the claim that these preparations are “ath-dutu”, or “prathyaksha” is unjustified. Case histories that can be scrutinized by independent investigators are lacking.

Even today, when individuals propose “new” treatments for Covid-19, they make claims that the treatment is based on “ath-dutu” ancient herbal lists ,etc., as if that is all there is to it. Others, e.g., the “Hela Suvaya” team, claim that their herbal prescriptions are guided by God Natha. When a person from Hettimulla, Kegalle claimed to have created a Covid-19 treatment, to be given “free”, it attracted massive crowds! Supporters even question the need for double-blind clinical tests or chemical analysis of the new product. Politicians rush to swallow the medicine in public, while the educated public can only groan in silence.

The traditional medicine that existed in Europe in medieval times, prior to the rise of modern scientific medicine, included traditional medicine from Indian, Greek and Arab sources, together with alchemy, which was the search for a means of transforming lead into gold. Many alchemists were also medical physicians who kept their medical as well as alchemical knowledge secret.

The rise of modern scientific medicine can be attributed to the recognition, during the renaissance, that secrecy must be replaced by openness and sharing of experience to ensure objectivity. It was recognized that one’s own observations or once own experiences can be highly unreliable. How one feels, or what one sees, depends on many factors besides the level of alcohol in the blood!

Learned societies like the Royal Society (November,1660) were created for open discussion and public proof. A claimant of a “new discovery” has to reveal all details in public, at a meeting of the learned society. The tradition of holding onto “secret knowledge” or “Guru-Mushti” was thrown out. Record keeping, use of quantitative data, and repeating the experiment or test in front of everybody were key features of the methods of empirical science put into practice by the Royal Society.

So, all claimants of “new” Ayurvedic or Traditional cures for Covid (or Dengue) must release carefully recorded case histories that the claimant can use to prove that there is a preliminary case for what is claimed. It is not enough to make claims of “paran-paraa-gatha vattoruvak” (herbal list handed down from generation to generation). The quality of the herbs used must be recorded, and weighed ingredients must be indicated in grams rather than in terms of some traditional ambiguous unit. A medical body should examine the case histories and decide if there is a case for undertaking further confirmatory studies. That is, bogus claims must be eliminated at the outset. In the scientific method, any claim has to be independently verified by repeating the process, using the same prescribed medications.

Purity and consumer protection are very important and unfortunately lacking in many T&C medications (See https://dh-web.org/place.names/bot2sinhala.html#herbal). Chemical analyses of commercial Ayurvedic preparations have revealed toxic ingredients like Lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), harmful alcohols like methanol, propanols, and other ingredients, as well as extreme variation in amounts of active ingredients. Some contain admixture of potent western drugs although this is illegal. So chemical analysis of proposed T&C drugs is necessary for consumer protection.

An attractive but dangerous feature of T&C medical systems is that they can become “personal health prescriptions” (PHP) that an individual may administer without going to a physician. Modern mega-Vitamin therapies are also PHPs from “complementary” or “alternative” medicine. They become “home remedies” that people swear on, although they may not have kept records of how the PHP worked for them. Patients lack the equipment and laboratory facilities to monitor their condition. In effect, a PHP is a herbal prescription, or the use of some exotic root, fruit or “Vitamin”, without a proper case record, evolved by oneself, or “given” by a “trusted Vaidya” or medical savant. The PHP may have been adopted from some old book or an “ola-leaf” record.

St. Jerome who lived to a very ripe age in the 4th century had his own PHP for good health.

“From his 31st to 35th year he had for food six ounces of barley bread, and vegetables slightly cooked without oil. But finding that his eyes were growing dim, and that his whole body was shriveled with an eruption and a sort of stony roughness he added oil to his former food, and up to the 63 rd year of his life followed this temperate course, tasting neither fruit nor pulse, nor anything whatsoever besides”.

Today, no one would recommend such a diet free of fruits and pulses, and yet, for many centuries, many Christian monks followed St Jerome’s diet claiming it to be a “proven” healthy diet.

In India, Vagabhatta and Nagarjuna were two great teachers who prescribed the use of “Rasaindur”, which turns out to be mercury sulfide. Although these authors prescribed many such metals in their “Rasha-shasthra”, today we recognize them to be toxic and dangerous to health if ingested even at a few parts per million. The Sanskrit text “Rasatarangani” prescribes preparations containing lead, mercury, gold, silver and many other metals which are cooked with lime and herbal juices (e..g, from Nuga, the banyan tree). Well known Ayurvedic texts like the Charaka Samhitha and the Sushrutha Samhitha recommend preparations containing substances now recognized to be toxic. So the “Rishis” failed to notice the toxic effects, probably because there was no recording of case histories and studying them objectively.

Unfortunately many T&C medications are taken over by individuals who transform them into personal health prescriptions (PHPs), without the knowledge to adequately control the quantities used. For instance, “polpala” (Aerva lanata) may be taken as a herbal tea but frequent use may have serious adverse effects on the urinary tract. Similarly, individuals may use “Thebu” (Costus igneus) to control blood sugar, but end up with hypoglycemia and other side effects.

In an earlier epoch, people used to relieve their bowls in their own backyards, near paddy fields (or on the beach!). Hook worm and other intestinal-parasite infections became common as people also walked barefoot in the same land area, or in the fields. Thus there was also a tradition of taking a purge, containing mainly Aralu (Terminalia chebula) at least every six months. This was “a good health practice” recommended by T&C medicine. However, as this was administered as a home remedy, the amount of “aralu” was never properly controlled, leading to dangerous purging in some cases, and no effect in other cases. Furthermore, the purge has little effect on hookworms and such parasites, but it dangerously disturbs the gut microbiome of the person taking the purge.

So, in conclusion, at least the following steps are needed to make T&C medicine safe:

1. Every new claim must be supported by well recorded certified case histories and clinical records that are needed to justify further trials.

2. The prescription must quantitatively specify the full formulation and be subject to a chemical analysis to ensure that no known toxins are contained in the product.

3. Marketing of the product must be done ensuring product-uniformity and product standards to ensure consumer protection.

4. T&C medications must NOT be adopted as home remedies as self-medication is always dangerous.