>I don't think we're disagreeing here... I want to emphasize that the
>individuality of reactions
>is exquisite, and anything is possible.

I also think we're probably in general agreement, but we are making two
different points, covering two different sensitive areas.  My warning was
about the loosely arrived-at conclusion.  I don't have the original post
anymore, but my reading of it indicated that it was a one-time experiment
(the total number of tea bags with mixed herbs given to our correspondent
was four--it was not stated that all four were used, however) and that the
general edema seemed to have occurred later in the season.  In terms of
probability, the facts as stated did not support even a high probability,
much less a certain conclusion.

Not everything is possible (I cannot leap over tall buildings in a single
bound, for example), but many things are possible.  Of these, not all are
probable.  We have to be careful to distinguish between likely causal
relationships, mere associations, and random occurences, so our information
is good.

I have no particular interest in promoting dong quai, and I would be
perfectly happy with a reported reaction in which the variable was
isolated, the results were reproduced, and the conclusion presented with
the caveat that it might be a reaction limited to certain individuals
(possibly identified as having certain other variables/conditions).

That people will have adverse reactions in this world, I do believe.  But
many are idiosyncratic, and reports of those types are not meant to be
globally prescriptive (otherwise, there'd be nothing left to eat).  Even
so, the knowledge they give us may come in handy someday in a similar
situation.

Using scientific method will keep us from drawing the type of erroneous
conclusions which were common in the past, such as believing that the color
of a wet-nurse's hair will determine the nursling's personality :-)  or
that women "cannot" eat _________ [fill in any food here], because
someone's sister did, and her baby got cranky.  I'm know I'm preaching to
the choir here, but since it's a public discussion and we Lactnetters
represent all different types of backgrounds, I wanted to make sure to be
clear about why methodology is important.  At the outset of every
investigation, we have to be open to every reasonable possibility, not only
that any herb/food/method has caused harm but also that the implicated
herb/food/method is harmless and unrelated in any given situation.

Arly                [log in to unmask]
MS, CLE, IBCLC