Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia Medica



Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia Medica (CHMMM) is a popular and encyclopedic reference book on materials used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). As of 2020, it is in its 3rd edition. The title is a bit of a misnomer because while the book mainly includes herbal substances, it also includes animal, mineral and fungal substances.

Entries have sections on: • 2 Notably lacking are references giving any evidence of claims. The only bibliographic entries are those used for translation. A significant failing of the 3rd edition is that it removed the "Pharmacological & Clinical Research" section from each entry that previously appeared in the 2nd edition. The authors' explanation for removing these sections is that: This is a field that has exploded in recent years and deserves a multi-volume work of its own. Given our own disposition — that the practice of Chinese herbal medicine must be grounded on traditional approaches — and our limited expertise, we felt that we simply could not do justice here to the vast amount of new research that has been published. While the authors do cite other other publications that cover these areas of knowledge (The Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs, Pharmacology and Applications of Chinese Materia Medica, and Chinese Materia Medica: Chemistry, Pharmacology and Applications ), the absence indicates that CHMMM is not evidence-based medicine. While safety issues are generally covered, efficacy is not — rather, the alleged efficacy of a given substance is based on largely pre-scientific Chinese herbal texts (appeal to ancient wisdom and argument from authority).

With regard to Actions & Indications sections, the authors consulted three primary sources (Chinese Herbal Medicine, Clinical Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine, and Chinese Herbal Medicine ), stating: There is a high level of agreement on the basic actions of the herbs in modern materia medica texts, and these books were consulted for their relatively comprehensive treatment of the subject. What the authors did not explain is the reason for this consistency was due to the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) doctrine on Western and Chinese medicine during the mid-1950s to mid-1960s, in which Chinese medicine became standardized, resolving or glossing over the contradictory elements of the four ancient texts. The authors likely did not know this because a history of TCM in communist China was not published until a year after the 3rd edition of CHMMM.

The authors' wholesale acceptance of "basic actions of the herbs in modern materia medica texts" is not a trivial issue because:
 * 1) It completely disregards evidence-based medicine ("Western medicine" in TCM parlance) with regard to efficacy.
 * 2) It is an arbitrary agreement imposed by CCP doctrine, which does not comport with with either the contradictions of ancient Chinese medicine or the current practice of Chinese medicine in non-CCP influenced areas, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
 * 3) The authors have been forced to recognize in some cases and sometimes inconsistently (see below) that the "traditional contraindications" sections are at least at times inadequate in the face of modern science.

"Obsolete" substances
A significant change to the 3rd edition was the inclusion of an "Obsolete Substances" chapter, which segregated two types of substances from the main body of the book, those substances with unacceptable toxicity, and those that are derived from endangered species (based on CITES Appendices I and II). CITES Appendix I lists the most endangered species, banned from international trade, and CITES Appendix II lists species that are less threatened and still allowed in trade. is Unfortunately, the alleged actions and indications are still described for each substance as well as methods of preparation; this could be tempting for the unscrupulous or inattentive practitioner. Also unfortunate is that because of the authors' admitted lack of expertise in pharmacology, and the removal of the pharmacology and clinical research sections, one is left wondering whether the authors had insufficient knowledge to judge whether more substances should have been added to this chapter. The unacceptably toxic substances listed in the 3rd edition are: • 2 The products from endangered species are: • 2 Rhinoceros horn is listed separately as a substance that should no longer be used due to its endangered status. Also, several substances were under consideration for listing in CITES Appendix II at the time of publication of the 3rd edition: • 2

For some listings in the substances with unacceptable toxicity, substances are not treated uniformly. The authors clearly state that some should not be used, e.g., by stating "…should be regarded as an obsolete drug" or "…it is the editors' view that it should no longer be used" (Aristolochia manshuriensis, calomel,  lithargyrum,  and borax ), though preparation information is still given in some cases.

Others do not state this — though they should because no clear evidence of efficacy and no risk-benefit analysis is given — and even give conditions for use: cinnabar, opium,  nux-vomica,  T. wilfordii,  Aristolochia debilis,  A. fangchi, A. mollissimae,  and arsenic sulfide.

Aristolochia species
The authors treat several species of Aristolochia differently with regard to toxicity even though the primary issue of toxicity for all species of Aristolochia is that it causes acute kidney cancer and rapid-onset cancer. This was reported conclusively by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2002, two years before the 3rd edition of CHMMM was published, with the first report of toxicity in 1994.

For mǎ dōu líng (A. debilis or A. contorta), the authors did not state that these plants contains aristolochic acid (AA) or that the plants are carcinogenic.

For guān mù tōng (A. manshuriensis), the authors did not state that the plant is carcinogenic.

For guǎng fáng jí (A. fangchi), the authors adequately described the nature of its toxicity, but as noted above, did not definitively say that the plant should not be used.

For xún gǚ fēng (A. mollissima), the authors state, "This substance is toxic, due in part to its AA content, which is nephrotoxic and possibly carcinogenic." The authors should have instead stated that the plant is a carcinogen, not that it is possibly a carcinogen.

Aristolochia substituents
Due to the the nature of TCM, plants with similar Chinese names are allowed to be substituted for each other. Thus all plants with mù tōng, mù xiāng fáng jí in their name may be substituted for each other, whether or not they are Aristolochia species. It is therefore rather risky to consume such plants without there having been a chemical analysis on them to test for AA. These plants are: Stephania tetandra, Cocculus trilobus, C. orbiculatus, Clematis armandii, C. montana, Akebia quinata, A. trifoliata, Aucklandia lappa, Inula helenium, I. racemosa, and Vladimiria souliei.

For Akebia, Stephania tetandra, Cocculus, the authors warn of the substitution issue, but understate the danger of ''Aristolochia. Clematis is listed as an addendum to Akebia and has no separate mention of toxicity. For Aucklandia lappa, Inula, and Vladimiria souliei, no mention of the substitution Aristolochia issue is given.

The authors do discuss the substituent problem, both specifically with regard to Aristolochia and more generally: The pharmacological approach, with its goal of 'one name, one substance' (一名一药 yī míng yī yào) is more stringent than the traditional approach followed in clinical Chinese medicine. There the issue has been one of usage, not identification. What we refer to as 'adulterants' in this text are herbs that are commonly used interchangeably with the standard substance. For example, while Isatidis Radix (bei bun lan gen) is the standard herb for 板蓝根 bǎn lán gēn, it is interchangeable (for the most part) with Baphicacanthis cusiae Rhizoma et Radix (nán bǎn lán gēn), which is more commonly used in southern China. And because many of the herbs exported exported from China come from teh southern part of the country, and some of the less well-informed pharmacies in the West import their materials from Hong Kong without regard to product standards, Baphicanthis cusiae Rhizoma et Radix (běi bǎn lán gēn) is not infrequently dispensed instead of Isatidis Radix (bei ban lan gen) in the West. While this issue remains unresolved, we believe the pharmacological approach is the safest one. The two problems with this statement:
 * 1) Evidence for herbal safety is poor because most herbs have not been adequately tested for safety or efficacy. How does one know that the pharmacologically 'correct' herb is safe or whether the substituent is?
 * 2) The author's approach to substituents is incongruous with their own statement regarding their approach to Chinese herbal medicine ("…that the practice of Chinese herbal medicine must be grounded on traditional approaches…" ).

Xì xīn
Asarum heterotropoides and A. sieboldii (xì xīn) are in the Aristolochiaceae family, as is the Aristolochia genus. Asarum species only contain trace levels of AA, but cases of aristolochic acid nephropathy due to Asarum consumption have been reported in a few incidences. The authors did not report on AA, and the report on AA nephropathy was published after the 3rd edition of CHMMM.

Bīng láng
The authors did not give any toxicity information for betelnut (bīng láng). Betelnut causes a variety of toxic effects and is a human carcinogen.