Comments on: Gingko Study Proves Nothing

By: elfman

elfman — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:08:55 +0000

“The absence of a relationship cannot be observed”

The author of this nonsense is seriously confused. Of course the absence of a relationship can be observed. It’s the foundation of the scientific method. Make an assertion and dare the world to disprove it. Claim that pressing a horn causes a honk, and let the world try to disprove it. Then, if several good studies like this one show no relationship, “the absence of a relationship” is presumed.

By: Jacob Keum

Jacob Keum — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:46:40 +0000

I see lots of patients MCI and other cognitive impairments..
and, Gingko is one of few agents i recommend….
One of my staff physicians brought this article to my attention and initially I was reading it incorrectly.
Dr Dekosky study is aimed in preventing dementia…more specifically Alzheimer’s
But there are thousands of articles published in the efficacy in cognitive improvement of Gingko which is rather different proponent than the actual preventing progression…Actually they are totally different topics.

So I have not thrown Gingko out of my recommended herbs among many other agents with neuroprotective effect.. Aricept and other medications can claim to have neuroprotective effect….
They are more of enzyme blockers.

I do thank your valuable thoughts on your opinion…
Plus, I am not sure the type of other financial interests driving research in general specially if
Pharmaceutical market share is concerned…

By: Ian Kemmish

Ian Kemmish — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:00:54 +0000

“The synergistic effect of a group of herbs taken together can be expected to produce a greater effect than the benefit of each herb taken by itself. ”

“Expected”? By whom? Certainly not by anyone with pretensions to either call themselves a scientist or to criticise other scientists. Can you even cogently propose a mechanism by which such a counterintuitive result might arise?

By: Michael McCarthy

Michael McCarthy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:02:07 +0000

You are quite correct to say that science cannot prove a negative. All the JAMA study showed was that when a particular preparation of Gingko biloba was given to this group of men and women for this period of time it was no better than a placebo in preventing or delaying the onset of dementia.

The trial appeared to be well designed. Certainly as well — or better — designed as many of the studies you cite in support of the use of such herbal products.

Finally, the study does not “falsely suggest that herbal treatments for Alzheimer’s and dementia do not work.”

This is what the study authors said:

“In summary, in this randomized clinical trial in 3069 older adults with normal cognitive function or mild deficits, G biloba showed no benefit for reducing all-cause dementia or dementia of the Alzheimer type. A central issue in testing of complementary and alternative medications is the formulation of the compounds. This study used a requisite standardized formulation of G biloba extract with specified amounts of the active ingredients in a dosage based on the highest doses used and reported in the literature. The extract we tested is among the best characterized and is the one for which the most efficacy data are available. Thus, we believe that the results are applicable to other G biloba extracts. Based on the results of this trial, G biloba cannot be recommended for the purpose of preventing dementia.”