Recently, after I posted a blog that described which herbs decrease thyroid function and which increase it, a friend came to me upset because one of her favorite herbs was listed in the category of decreasing, and she was of the opinion that she did not want her thyroid function to decrease.
It took a while, but finally I was able to calm her fears and ease her agitation when I told her:
At least 80% of the time when a scientist wants to test a substance’s ability, or lack of, to exert a physiological change, they begin by artificially invoking or establishing the “problem” to be studied. For instance, to test the ability of an herb to support liver function they will often use acetaminophen as it is a very quick and certain way to prompt liver failure. Then, against that bias, the herb’s abilities are studied. Katuki, Turmeric, Bhumyamalaki and Neem fare well in tests like this.
In the case of studying an herb’s action as an anti-coagulant, they usually artificially thicken the blood by feeding a cocktail of coagulating substances to the animal being tested, for instance huge doses of thrombin itself, which is how the body forms a clot, or adenosine diphosphate.
As we know, Tulsi, by helping to maintain homeostasis, is uncannily capable of ameliorating dysfunctional biases all throughout the bodymind, in fact, that is exactly one of the etymologies of the word Tulsi. which would be “balancing the balance.”
So in this case of blood artificially thickened to dangerous levels the primary action of Tulsi is supporting the restoration of balance to the blood, and indeed it does. And as the artificial bias is toward thickening then the acting of balancing requires thinning, and so thinning is Tulsi’s secondary action in this case.
- Primary Action Innate to Tulsi = Balancing
- Secondary Action Innate to Experiment only = Lowering
However, these scientists are not sufficiently trained to see nor acknowledge it, and because their study is funded by BigPharma they increase the chances of further funding by shouting “anti-coagulant” from the rooftops of their ivory towers. Part of their myopia is driven by poor training and of course part is driven by money, which should impeach the results but only amplifies them.
I see this all the time with thyroid research as well as phytoestrogen research. It is so unfortunate and frustrating because the scientists are seen as authorities, so their skewed interpretations of the wrong tests tend to become vicious rumors about that herb, and of course, there are precedents of smear campaigns supported by BigPharma.
In the case of thyroid research, the adaptogens tend to bring balance to the thyroid, so one scientist may induce an extreme case of hypothyroidism and test Bacopa against it. When he sees the Bacopa establishing balance by mitigating the bias he reports that Bacopa is “hyperthyroidal” and thus should never be used in cases of an overly activated thyroid. Bacopa gets a big stamp on it and the lie is propagated.
But then the next “scientist” (a term whose use is a bit generous in this case) artificially causes extreme hyperthyroidism in an animal and tests Bacopa, and indeed, our glorious endocrine adaptogen maintans balance to the biased situation, and that scientist then brands Bacopa as a strong hypothyroidal substance. Yikes! They simply can’t report that the Bacopa brings balance to the thyroid as then there would be no need for drugs and the greed of BigPharma will have none of that.
I recently wrote a 27 page paper, almost a legal dissension, on this same mistake with regards to phytoestrogens, and all the abysmal science that now has given phytoestrogens such a bad rap when the truth is Shatavri is critically needed in the world to help combat xenoestrogenic endocrine disruption. Luckily I had help as several proper scientists have worked to impeach the earlier studies and have shown the remarkable ability of many phytoestrogens to act as phytoSERMS!
I hope this clarifies the situation.