Erythrina mulungu genotoxicity risk?

[deruyityn]

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...22012000200014&script=sci_arttext&prev=search

I read this article which implies genotoxicity of 'inflorescence' parts of that plant. This is peculiar since bark is the main thing used. Im wondering if this is an incorrect translation since it was translated by google from portuguese . Using google translate again apparently bark in portuguese is 'latido' so I dunno what the deal is

So given the conclusion that any amount of inflorescence causes genotoxicity that would mean its dangerous right for any kind of semi regular use it would be like smoking or drinking in terms of cancer risk? but then they contradict themselves in the next sentence saying that you should watch your dose since it may be dose dependant.

I dont know why there is no mention of bark in that whole thing they only talk about leaves and 'inflorescence'.

So people with more science knowledge please take a look and tell me what's up.

We know it has low acute toxicity but the long term effects we cannot say can we? I doubt the primitive tribes people would link their mulungu use to higher incidence of cancer later in life. They would probably blame it on some evil tree spirits.

I thought it might get more scholarly eyes looking over it in this section.

 

[sekio]

'inflorescence' means flowers

and this looks like a pretty half ass attempt to imply that it's genotoxic even though they don't observe any toxic effects....

Thus, it is noted that although the leaf and inflorescence present differential response with respect to DL 50, both showed no cytotoxicity in rodent bone marrow. However, leaf and inflorescence demonstrated, at the concentrations used, adjustability of the DNA, and this dose-dependent feature and independent of the dose, respectively, characterizing them as potentially genotoxic. Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of preparations of E. mulungu should be made ​​with caution and observed the doses used because it does not produce a toxic effect or acute cytotoxic, the risk of mutagenicity should not be discarded and such a situation may be more severe when the chronic use of this plant.

e.g. even though they observe compounds interacting with DNA they don't notice cytotoxic changes of any sort

 

[deruyityn]

So what led them to say its cytotoxic? I also read the lack of toxicity in the bone marrow of the rats, so where do they get their conclusion it could be toxic? what is their basis? just that it interacts with it? what does adjustability mean? but if they are talking about the flowers and not the bark then it doesnt necesarily apply to the bark anyway does it so probably not relevant. Like if someone studied the leaf matter of kava for instance would get different findings from the root.

Why do they use this other shit material as the testing material and not the bark :D. Seems weird since bark isnt even mentioned once i dont think and that is the main thing used in traditional preps afaik. I know they use seeds sometimes but bark is the main one isnt it.

Also, since its apparently been used safely for a long time, do you think if it was genotoxic they would have made a connection by now to cancer etc. Ie the old tribesfolk likely wouldnt draw the link and have some supernatural explanation for it, its whether its been examined in the more mainstream community, from this article, it appears to have exposure within the circle too.

For example smoking was seen as good for you up till the last century or so.

Im satified that there is adequate research done on the acute toxicity but its effects of chronic use I wonder about.

 

[deruyityn]

So Im still to closer to knowing if it is genotoxic or not and cant find any more information online on the subject.

So maybe it would kill you after semi regular use maybe it wouldnt.

 

[sekio]

Maybe I wasn't clear: the study says it is not cyctotoxic.

Sometimes chemical compounds can have affinity for DNA, like binding to a protien-based receptor. This doesn't mean that the compounds binding to DNA produces anything like an effect. All it means is the molecules have a similar shape and fit together.

The study says it's not genotoxic and that's all that matters.

This is like saying, eating well cooked meat could be bad for you, because there are compounds that could cause cancer, maybe, present in trace amounts. And even though it doesn't produce an obvious effect, you still need to be cautious. That's what the paper is saying.

There is no evidence showing mulungu is cancer causing or mutagenic or toxic to cells. So it's not mutagenic. And people have used it for many years so the effect would be visible.

 

[deruyityn]

Ok, thanks for clearing it up (and your patience )

Does this other paper I linked add anything new to the equation?

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/751362-mulungu-toxicity?p=13154701&viewfull=1#post13154701

 

[deruyityn]

And people have used it for many years so the effect would be visible.

Would long range side effects of chronic use such as canccer ever be traced back to the mulungu in that case regarding the visiblity of effects. For acute use sure, but how can people draw a causal link over the long haul unless it had been closely studied all that time?

For example smoking was considered good for you up until a few years ago wasnt it?

 

[sekio]

For example smoking was considered good for you up until a few years ago wasnt it?

no. cigarettes have been known to be a major causative factor in cancer and lung disease since the 1940s. and people had suspected they were harmful in excess long before the '40s anyway.

the thing is, something increasing genotoxicity/cancer risk is the kind of thing you notice in even fairly small population/sample sizes. and in the case of something like tobacco usage you can see obvious correlations:

to answer some of your questions from the other thread, just because a drug can be measured to interact with DNA temporarily, doesn't mean it will permanently change the DNA's structure or even bind strongly enough to change how enzymes 'read' the DNA.

and that other paper talks about mulungu being "genoprotective" (whatever that means).... in garlic/onion plants. I don't know how far that extends to humans.

The long and short of it is, we live in a time where detecting bad side effects of drugs is easier than it has ever been. If people on the net are using mulungu you would know if it was super toxic a la MPTP.

 

[deruyityn]

The long and short of it is, we live in a time where detecting bad side effects of drugs is easier than it has ever been. If people on the net are using mulungu you would know if it was super toxic a la MPTP.

Yes but in that case the grotesque effects are apparent immediately so easy to draw cause and effect rather than how one would spot the long range possible negatives of a substance which is what I was questioning.

Im not trying to beat a dead horse just want to know how the long term side effects would be discovered and what the likelihood would be that they were if there are any? I mean its simple when you start with a new substance from the beginning, you just document from the start but what about these natural things when it has to be restrospective? They would have to have an initial reason to look right or else there might be a certain health issue within a community but no1 drew the link back to the particular substance.

 

[deruyityn]

Do you think these long term things would be spotted in a 3rd world country like brazil though?

 

[sekio]

yes, it's not like there is zero research conducted in these countries at all...

 

[deruyityn]

ok .

Regarding using a bark material from the wilds of the amazon rainforest is there much risk of it having some poisonous creature's juices on it?

Like poison dart frogs spit or something?

Ie questions of sterility?

I guess boiling would be better but in the past when Ive been experimenting with a bark material in small quantities it wasnt practical to brew a couple mgs so I just chewed the bark and spat it after a while. Wondered if it was more risky to do it that way?

 

[deruyityn]

I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that it's been used for awhile with "no apparent" health problems.
There are tons of "ancient remedies" that are pretty bogus and sometimes harmful, and it isn't always obviously so.
Just because a lot of people haven't noticed a problem yet doesn't mean there isn't one. As the old saying goes, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"


...
Long term effects of anything are difficult to study and detect for various reasons. What you're talking about lacks studies on both short term effects on humans and long term effects. So it really just isn't possible to say with any sort of confidence what risks are present. The relative amount of risk of some side effect is really just unknown. With modern medicine, you can at least have some confidence of what the risks are and their likelihoods. That is not the case with the mostly unstudied herb in question.

What would you guys say to that? which was a response from an epidemiology thread on the subject.

It may seem like I am being obsessive it has just been extremely difficult to gain some proper data on the matter. If some studies indicate it may be genotoxic yet still inconclusive, aren't you betting your life on a best guess? I mean it isn't like something like neurotoxicity of stims for instance which you could shake off with a bit of good excercise, clean diet and healthy living, we are talking about terminal cancer here and if you got it your fucked, bye bye forever thanks for playing.