RUSCUS
RUSCUS
RUSCUS
Aperient, Aperitif, Bitter, Deobstruent, Diaphoretic, Diuretic, Emmenagogue, Expectorant, Laxative, Tonic,
Vasoconstrictor.
Indications (Butchers Broom) Anorexia, Arthrosis, Atherosclerosis, Cancer, prostate, Capillary Fragility, Catarrh,
Chilblain, Constipation, Cramp, Dropsy, Dyspnea, Dysuria, Fever, Fracture, Hemorrhoid; Hypertriglyceridemia,
Inammation, Itch, Jaundice, Nephrosis, Pain, Phlebitis, Pulmonosis, Prostatosis, Respirosis, Retinosis, Rheumatism,
Scrofula, Swelling, Thrombosis, Ulcus cruris, Uterosis, Varicosis, Water Retention.
Water Retention (2; Duke (1983), Blumenthal et al. (1998) (Commission E, Pedersen (1998), Gruenwald et al. (2000)
Dosages (Butchers Broom)
300-mg tablets (Peirce (1999)
711 mg ruscogenin (or neoruscogenin + ruscogenin)/day or equivalent in raw extract (KOM; PH2); KOM Blumenthal et
al. (1998) (Commission E, PH2 Gruenwald et al. (2000)
12 tbsp fresh root (PED); PED Pedersen (1998)
*tbsp tablespoon
1.53 g dry root (Pedersen (1998)
2 g dry root :10 ml alcohol/10 ml water (Pedersen (1998)
1 g extract 3 /day (Lininger et al. (1998)
StX (50100mg ruscogenin)/day) (Lininger et al. (1998)
Contraindications, Interactions, and Side Effects (Butchers Broom)
Class 1 (Class 1: Can be safely consumed if used appropriately). (McGufn et al. (1997), Lininger et al. (1998).).
Hazards and/or side effects not known for proper therapeutic dosages(Gruenwald et al. (2000).).
Commission E Handbook of reports rhizome permitted for oral use. No contraindications or interactions.
Adverse effects: rarely gastric complaints, nausea, queasiness (DeSmet et al. (1993, 1997), Blumenthal et al. (1998)
(Commission E, PDR for Herbal Medicine, 1st ed., Fleming, et al. (1998), Gruenwald et al. (2000).)
Ruscogenins and neoruscogenins, similar to diosgenin, are responsible for decreasing inammation and vascular
permeability ( Lininger et al. (1998).)
Saponins are antiaggregant, antiinammatory, capillariforticant, and diuretic (Pedersen (1998).).
THE APA RATINGS
A warning: my highest ratings are my best ratings. With the American Pharmaceutical Association (APA) and the
American Herbal Products Association (AHP), the converse is true: the higher the number, the lower the rating. APAs
best, (1), is veried by large clinical, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, human trials.
That too would have gotten approval, we assume, in Commission E. That would get a (2) in my HDR, if the study were of
an extract of the plant, but a (3) for example if the study were of the natural whole herb, such as garlic or onion.
The APA (1) and the HDR (3) scores are rare indeed.
Their number (1) means Years of use and extensive, high-quality studies indicate that this substance is very effective
and safe when used in recommended amounts for the indication(s) noted in the Will It Work For You? section.
Unfortunately, they often mention unapproved, unstudied folklore in this section, even clearly noting that it was
unapproved.
With APA, (2) is a large, clinical human trial, but not necessarily double blind and placebo controlled. That would also get
a (2) in my HDR, if the study were of an extract of the plant, but a (3) if the study were of the whole herb, rather than
the extract.
And the third one is hard for me to believe, but here is the quote, large, placebo-controlled animal experiment.
That would get a (1) in my HDR.
The APA (4) is for in vitro studies, which I suppose includes studies, e.g., of isolated phytochemicals.
Those score (1) in HDR. The APA (5) is for decades or centuries of well-known folk use, but no supporting studies.
That would get an (f) for folkloric in the HDR.
APA (6) is a large collection of case histories, which would also get an (f) in HDR.
At the bottom of the APA ladder is the personal anecdote, which of course, also gets an (f), even though it has not yet
evolved into folklore.