How Did People Discovery Remedies for Ailments Before the Scientific Method?

[Crazyhorse]

Animal self-medication and ethno-medicine: exploration and exploitation of the medicinal properties of plants

Early in the co-evolution of plant-animal relationships, some arthropod species began to utilize the chemical defences of plants to protect themselves from their own predators and parasites. It is likely, therefore, that the origins of herbal medicine have their roots deep within the animal kingdom.

[Crazyhorse]

Animal Self-Medication

It was only after reading a recent post in a Primate News Group on the studies of Self Medicating Chimpanzees in Tanzania by a primatologist named Mike Huffman that I was inspired to write this short piece. I wanted to expose visitors to some of this primatologists remarkable discoveries.

In 1987, Mike Huffman observed Chimpanzee Behavior in a female chimp that caught his attention. It was obvious that this particular African Chimp was not feeling well. She lagged behind her group, was clearing in pain and eventually lay relatively motionless on her nest. She had no appetite with the exception of one particular plant, called Bitter Leaf known to science as Vernonia amygdalina. She was observed removing the bark and leaves of only the youngest stems, and then chewing on the Inner Pith.

To make a long story short, the very next day she was up and running around like nothing happened. The primatologists then documented other Sick Chimps repeating this Self Medicating Behavior utilizing Bitter Leaf.

It wasn’t until his assistant Mohemadi Seifu Kalunde, mentioned that the local Tongwe People used Bitter Leaf to treat Stomach Cramps, Malaria Fever and even Intestinal Parasites that Mike made the connection that these Tanzanian Chimpanzees may be dosing themselves to treat some type of Intestinal Problem. The main difference here was the fact that the local people utilized three components of the Bitter Leaf Plant and the chimps only one. The locals used Bitter Leaf Bark, Bitter Leaf Root and Bitter Leaf Leaves in their remedies and the Self Medicating Chimps only utilized the inner pith of the plant.

It turns out that Bitter Leaf has been studied by man for 40 years and it was not until they focused their attention to studying the part the Chimpanzees were eating (the Inner Pith) that they discovered 13 new Chemical Compounds. Numerous of these compounds were then discovered to have medicinal properties and therapeutic effects.

[Blake]

So we can take it from this that you can’t provide the requested evidence?

[Crazyhorse]

Self-medicating lemurs: Primates found popping prenatal drug

[FONT=verdana][SIZE=-1]A Madagascan lemur has been revealed as the first animal known to self-medicate when pregnant. Female sifaka eat plants rich in poisonous tannins in the weeks before giving birth, researchers have discovered. It is unclear why the sifaka does this. In other mammals, small doses of tannins kill parasites and stimulate milk production. And vets often use tannins to prevent miscarriage, raising the intriguing possibility that by eating the plants the sifaka is protecting its developing baby.

At first sight, a taste for tannins might seem odd whether you are pregnant or not. Plants use them as defensive chemicals to deter herbivores from munching their leaves, as the toxic tannins bind to proteins in the animals’ guts.

“The sifakas are doing something that goes against the grain,” says Michael Huffman, an expert in primate self-medication at Kyoto University in Japan and a member of the team. “But this probably means they have a good reason for doing it.”[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Crazyhorse]

The Finch self-medication website

Scientists do not question the phenomenon of animal self-medication. They have repeatedly seen birds, mammals and even insects use plants, soil, clay, insects and fungi as medicines. In fact scientists have set up a science called Zoopharmacognosy based on the apparent ability of animals to show a cognitive grasp of potential medicines in their environment.

[Blake]

So we can take it from this that you still can’t provide the requested evidence?

[Crazyhorse]

International Society for Analytical and Molecular Morphology

It is important to note that the scientific study of animal self-medication is not based on an assumption that animals possess an innate ‘wisdom’ by which they flawlessly know what is good for them. Self-medication strategies are survival skills honed by natural selection. In most cases self-medication could be motivated by a desire to immediately reduce unpleasant sensations. Some species, particularly great apes, show an intention of purpose in their medication and in these cases the term ‘zoopharmacognosy’ was coined to describe the process by which wild animals select and use specific plants with medicinal properties for the treatment and prevention of disease

[Blake]

So CrazyHorse still can’t provide the requested evidence, and is instead spamming the thread with irrelevant links

I think we can leave this thread right there and consider the question answered:People Didn’t Discovery Remedies for Ailments, It Was Just Random Chance That Some for Their Quack Remedies Happened To Work.

[Crazyhorse]

@Blake

So CrazyHorse still can’t provide the requested evidence, and is instead spamming the thread with irrelevant links

I think we can leave this thread right there and consider the question answered:People Didn’t Discovery Remedies for Ailments, It Was Just Random Chance That Some for Their Quack Remedies Happened To Work.

Self-medication and homeostatic behavior in herbivores

From prehistoric times, man has looked to the presumed self-medicative behaviour of animals for clues about remedies for ailments (Huffman, 2003). Implications of selfmedication transcend animal species and range from providing
shortcuts for discovering new medicines (Clayton and Wolfe, 1993) to managing the well-being of wild and domestic animals (Lozano, 1998) and improving human
health (Engel, 2002).

The study of self-medication in animals has led to the emergence of a new field, often referred to as ‘zoopharmacognosy’ to describe the process by which animals select and use PSMs or other non-nutritional substances for treating and preventing disease (Rodriguez and Wrangham, 1993). While little is known about the abilities of animals to self-medicate, and many of the observations are anecdotal and equivocal (Clayton and Wolfe, 1993; Lozano, 1998; Houston et al., 2001), there is evidence animals self-medicate (Engel, 2002). Researchers who contend that animals
self-medicate under natural conditions do so based on
observations that sick animals seek substances – not part of their normal diet and with no nutritional benefit – that contain active ingredients capable of improving health (Ketch et al., 2001; Engel, 2002; Huffman, 2003).

[Crazyhorse]

@Blake

So we can take it from this that you still can’t provide the requested evidence?

I don’t hear any “we” repeatedly asking me for more and more evidence. Just 'You".

You can take it from this that I have provided more than enough cites to establish it is a legitimate question and your off-hand dismissal of it is unwarranted.

[thelabdude]

@Blake

Let’s start with the basics here.

Please provide evidence that this is “commonly known”.

If you go to the Yahoo Answers Dog Section almost every day you can find the factoid that dogs eat grass to purge their stomach. I have also read that in some books. Why dogs do anything is guess work. It can even be hard to prove why people do some things. I feel ‘‘commonly believed’’ better describes dogs eating grass for digestive problems than ‘‘commonly known’’. You can prove something is commonly believed by finding abundant statements of it. Before proving something is commonly known, it must be proven true.

Perhaps they do in some cases, but doing so is at odds with my observations. Yes dogs seem to be quite selective about what grass they eat. I think a better fit with my observations might be they are seeking out grass contaminated with something, perhaps feces, no longer visible to us. Many dogs eat grass a lot without throwing up. It is possible that it is there and they just enjoy it. Even when it does come up, usually it is just the grass, not the full stomach contents. It could be that either they don’t connect eating grass with throwing up, they don’ mind, or even they never learn.

[Mr.Excellent]

@jjimm

I’m always reminded of this wonderfully ironically-written passage from Usmah Ibn Munqidh, a Muslim Crusader, c1175:Note he does go on to praise some other techniques.

One of the techniques he praises is interesting:

The king of the Franks bad for treasurer a knight named Bernard, who (may Allah’s curse be upon him!) was one of the most accursed and wicked among the Franks. A horse kicked him in the leg, which was subsequently infected and which opened in fourteen different places. Every time one of these cuts would close in one place, another would open in ancther place. All this happened while I was praying for his perdition. Then came to him a Frankish physician and removed from the leg all the ointments which were on it and began to wasb it with very strong vinegar. By this treatment all the cuts were healed and the man became well again. He was up again like a devil.

My understanding is that vinegar actually is an antiseptic. Keeping an infected leg clean and washing it with antiseptic solution isn’t a bad idea at all. Shame it worked on such a regrettable fellow, though.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Blake

More telling is the use of non-botanicals, which don’t usually have beneficial bioctaive effects, and so have no chance of being useful by chance. And oddly enough we find out that rotten meat, dead frogs, fly dung and pus really don’t have any benefits.

Actually, pus or scabs from smallpox victims can be used to prevent smallpox through innoculation. Smallpox - Wikipedia . It’s far more dangerous than later vacines, because you’re using the actual smallpox virus - but it’s much less dangerous than conventional smallpox infection.

[Crazyhorse]

And Maggotsand frogs are both still used in modern day treatments. Not sure about fly dung - but I wouldn’t rule it out.

[DrDeth]

@Crazyhorse

And Maggotsand frogs are both still used in modern day treatments. Not sure about fly dung - but I wouldn’t rule it out.

Maggots were actually considered the worst kind of filth, and yes, they were right- then. The very specific uses we now use specially bred and disease free maggots for was not even in their imaginations back then. Same with leeches. We now use leeches for some very specific types of surgery recover, not to rid the body of excess humours.

[Crazyhorse]

@DrDeth

Maggots were actually considered the worst kind of filth, and yes, they were right- then. The very specific uses we now use specially bred and disease free maggots for was not even in their imaginations back then. Same with leeches. We now use leeches for some very specific types of surgery recover, not to rid the body of excess humours.

Interesting… In the cite that I provided it says:

“Written records have documented that maggots have been used since antiquity as a wound treatment.[2] There are reports of the successful use of maggots for would healing by Mayan Indians and Aboriginal tribes in Australia. There also have been reports of the use of maggot treatment in Renaissance times. During warfare, many military physicians observed that soldiers whose wounds had become colonized with maggots experienced significantly less morbidity and mortality than soldiers whose wounds had not become colonized. These physicians included Napoleon’s general surgeon, Baron Dominique Larrey who reported during France’s Egyptian campaign in Syria, 1798–1801, that certain species of fly destroyed only dead tissue and had a positive effect on wound healing.[3] Dr. Joseph Jones, a ranking Confederate medical officer during the American Civil War, is quoted as follows, “I have frequently seen neglected wounds … filled with maggots … as far as my experience extends, these worms only destroy dead tissues, and do not injure specifically the well parts.” The first therapeutic use of maggots is credited to a second Confederate medical officer Dr. J.F. Zacharias, who reported during the American Civil War that, “Maggots … in a single day would clean a wound much better than any agents we had at our command … I am sure I saved many lives by their use.” He recorded a high survival rate in patients he treated with maggots.”

[DrDeth]

@Crazyhorse

The adaptive significance of self-medication (PDF document)

. “Kodiak bears chew the root of Ligusticum, spit the resulting mixture of saliva and juice onto their paws and rub it thoroughly into their fur. This behavior may serve a medicinal function as suggested by the fact that Ligusticum is routinely used by humans against viral and bacterial infections. In fact, Navajo Indians consider it to be among their most important medicinal plants and, according to Navajo legend, it was the bear that taught the Navajos to use the root and informed them of its medicinal powers.”

See again, a completely worthless cite. First the roots of that plant are very strong smelling (like licorice to which it is related), and animals are attracted to such smells. Next, we have no evidence that the bears use it for medicinal purposes. Finally- even tho yes, Native Americans did use that herb, that herb has no known real world medical uses. It does not appear to actualy have any use vs “viral and bacterial infections”. So, we have a factoid, then a assumption from that factoid which has no support, then another factoid which altho true, is meaningless. So, there is no evidence bears do use that root for medical purposes and there is no evidence that the root has any to start with. (It apparently has been investigated, due to native uses, but no drugs were developed from it, nor is it used much by modern western herbocolgists.)

So, a worthless cite that does nothing but weaken your point.

[Crazyhorse]

@DrDeth

. “Kodiak bears chew the root of Ligusticum, spit the resulting mixture of saliva and juice onto their paws and rub it thoroughly into their fur. This behavior may serve a medicinal function as suggested by the fact that Ligusticum is routinely used by humans against viral and bacterial infections. In fact, Navajo Indians consider it to be among their most important medicinal plants and, according to Navajo legend, it was the bear that taught the Navajos to use the root and informed them of its medicinal powers.”

See again, a completely worthless cite. First the roots of that plant are very strong smelling (like licorice to which it is related), and animals are attracted to such smells. Next, we have no evidence that the bears use it for medicinal purposes. Finally- even tho yes, Native Americans did use that herb, that herb has no known real world medical uses. It does not appear to actualy have any use vs “viral and bacterial infections”. So, we have a factoid, then a assumption from that factoid which has no support, then another factoid which altho true, is meaningless. So, there is no evidence bears do use that root for medical purposes and there is no evidence that the root has any to start with. (It apparently has been investigated, due to native uses, but no drugs were developed from it, nor is it used much by modern western herbocolgists.)

So, a worthless cite that does nothing but weaken your point.

The ‘factoid’ that you are second guessing is from a paper written by a professor of biology at the University of Utah. He believes that the behavior could be for medicinal reasons. His credentials, taken from his bio at the same website as my cite, are below.

What are your credentials exactly on the subject, DrDeth? And do you have any cites for any of the assertions you are making in argument of his findings? **Professor Dale H. Clayton **(study author)[INDENT] NSF-NATO Postdoc, Oxford University (England), 1990-91
Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago, 1989
M.S. in Entomology, University of Minnesota, 1983
B.A. in Biology (Psychology minor), Hartwick College, NY, 1979
Tropical Ecology (O.T.S.), Universidad de Costa Rica, 1984
General and Med-Vet Acarology, Ohio State University, 1985
[/INDENT] Professor, Department of Biology, University of Utah (since ‘04)

        Director,                 Center for Alternate Strategies of Parasite Removal (since '04)
       Adjunct                 Curator, Utah Museum of Natural History (since '97)
       Research                 Associate, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas (since                 '01) 
       Research                 Associate, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago (since '90)

[DrDeth]

@Crazyhorse

The ‘factoid’ that you are second guessing is from a paper written by a professor of biology at the University of Utah. He believes that the behavior could be for medicinal reasons.

From your cite: “Examples of topical application include the kodiak bear behavior already mentioned, although the *evidence for medication in this case is purely circumstantial” * (italics mine). In other word, he doesn’t claim the bears are using the substance for medical reasons (but they could be) nor does he claim the herb actually HAS medical properties, just that Native Americans have used it for those purposes.

And the line just after your quote is "Most of the literature on self-medication is similarly anecdotal." Do you know what “anecdotal” means in a scientific paper? It means “unsupported by actual scientific evidence but possibly worth a actual study to find out if there’s anything really there”

So, your cite is worthless. His credentials don’t mean much in this case as his actual words do not say what you think they say. Basically his paper is saying there’s some interesting anecdotes in this area, so we need to get some real scientific studies going on this, as it could be of high value. I agree.

Now, I do only have a Master’s degree in Bio and it’s pretty damn old. But I still know how to read a scientific paper. His paper does not mean what you think it means, it’s not the credentials of the author that’s the issue. And, Blake is a practicing scientist in this field.

[Crazyhorse]

@DrDeth

From your cite: “Examples of topical application include the kodiak bear behavior already mentioned, although the *evidence for medication in this case is purely circumstantial” * (italics mine). In other word, he doesn’t claim the bears are using the substance for medical reasons (but they could be) nor does he claim the herb actually HAS medical properties, just that Native Americans have used it for those purposes.

And the line just after your quote is "Most of the literature on self-medication is similarly anecdotal." Do you know what “anecdotal” means in a scientific paper? It means “unsupported by actual scientific evidence but possibly worth a actual study to find out if there’s anything really there”

So, your cite is worthless. His credentials don’t mean much in this case as his actual words do not say what you think they say. Basically his paper is saying there’s some interesting anecdotes in this area, so we need to get some real scientific studies going on this, as it could be of high value. I agree.

Now, I do only have a Master’s degree in Bio and it’s pretty damn old. But I still know how to read a scientific paper. His paper does not mean what you think it means, it’s not the credentials of the author that’s the issue. And, Blake is a practicing scientist in this field.

It’s clear that you didn’t read the paper, or don’t understand it, and are just throwing out an opinion based on your reading of the one paragraph I quoted in my cite.

You don’t have any cites of your own. Everything you are saying is simply because you believe it to be true.

But the point that was being argued, and has been settled, is well-proven far beyond just this one cite. I gave about 6 cites for genuine, current, scientific research that is going on in the area of animal self-medication. That is enough basis to demonstrate it is a legitimate point to add to the discussion started by the OP.

This offhanded mocking dismissal of people’s legitimate questions by you and others when it is about anything you don’t already believe to be true is, in fact, sometimes the ignorance that needs fighting in these threads.

This is GQ and you aren’t providing any cites or basis for your arguments. We could go on all night with “Is too”, “Is not”, “Is too” but generally on this board we like to see something to back up your claims, other than that ‘your friend is a scientist’. If you don’t have any cites I will take it that your opinion on this is as valuable as your opinion on maggots in medical history was to this thread.