Talk:St John's wort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St John's wort article.
Article policies
St John's wort is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Advice to contributors: if your comment fits neatly into one of the topics below, please do so, if not then you can start a new topic by clicking on the + sign above (between "edit this page" and "history"). Either way, please date your contribution by typing four tildes (~). Finally, please remember that Wikipedia is not a platform for opinions: you may only give verifiable facts. So please Cite your sources. --Red King 20:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Link correction

The link to http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/aboutcc/media_resources/news_features/wortfinal.html is dead; replacing with http://www.cc.nih.gov/about/news/press_room/2000/02_10_00_wortfinal.html [anon]

[edit] Interference with the (contraceptive) Pill? (and request for sources)

I have heard that StJ's can interfere with the Pill. Is there any source for this? Ideally, remarks in this article on side effects, effectiveness, etc., would be backed up with links to the original studies. I remember having trouble finding sources of information that unambiguously showed StJ's effectiveness. There is also, presumably a controversy about StJ's effectiveness.

i.e., I think people should consider putting in links when/if they find them. [anon]

I have found several sources, to include an artical by the BBC [1]. I am still researching medical jounals though. - Darkstar949 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of picture?

Hmm. The linked picture is marked with the copyright notice "(C) USDA, NRCS" which appears to state that USDA NRCS is the copyright holder. No photographer is credited. But surely NRCS is an agency of the U.S. Federal Government, and therefore unable to assert copyright, thus putting the image into the public domain? [anon]

The U.S. Federal Government is allowed to own and assert copyrights if they purchase the copyright from the owner and the originator of the work (author, photographer, etc.) is not an employee of the U.S. Federal Government. This typically happens if the originator is a contractor working for the government. Stephen C. Carlson

[edit] Explanation of edit

Before: St John's wort is a common name for a perennial herb, the botanical name of which is Hypericum perforatum.

After: St John's Wort is the common name for the herb Hypericum perforatum.

The structure of the old sentence is awkward, it can be read to imply that "St John's Wort" refers to any perennial herb. Compare with the handling of Basil, Rosemary, Digitalis, etc. [anon]

Sounds good. Still, it'd be nice to know that its a perennial herb. Please, don't call your edits "removed gayness." Its unneccessary and impolite, when it would be much better to quickly summarize changes. May I suggest you also choose a user name? Atorpen 22:39 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
Making sentances less awkward is a worthy goal-- but try not to cut out information while doing so (in this case, the fact that St. John's wort is perennial was lost). Also, 128.193.88.208, what do you mean by describing your edits as reducing "gayness"? As far as I can tell, they have had nothing to do with either homosexuality or excessive joy. Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation
I noticed that "perennial" has been dropped and I inserted it into the second sentence in my last edit.
St John's Wort is the common name for the herb Hypericum perforatum implies that the botanical name is the one true name, and that the common name is somehow less valid. If you are confused and/or overgayified by my original wording, we can always put the botanical name in parentheses. Also, why do you keep capitalizing "wort"? Mkweise 23:11 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
What is all this rubbish about 'removing gayness'? I haven't seen the slightest 'gayness' on this page, nor would I, as it is about St. John's Wort, which isn't exactly your average 'gay' topic. maybe whoever is ludicrously placing that nonsensical term explain what they mean? JTD 01:13 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Yes that was a rather offensive thing for the person to say. --mav
Actually it doesn't appear to be a once off. They used the same offensive term on all there changes here and on a slight change to Ring (1998 movie). No change had anything to do with 'gayness'. Obviously they have an 'issue' here. JTD 01:31 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)


Hi, Returning to the subject, (the readability / understnding of the definition of SJWort) I just read the definition of St John's wort and was confused by the distinction between St John's wort and Common St John's wort. It would greatly benefit from a clarifying amendment. I'm sure someone will feel involved in the subject and up to the job, and I thank him/Her in advance. --GeeeFlat 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drug interaction

I seem to recall some drug interaction problems with St. John's wort.

See http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/aboutcc/media_resources/news_features/wortfinal.html for an example.

St. John's Wort may be effective in treating clinical depression though research into its effectiveness has not been wholely conclusive. Saint John's Wort can interact with other medications so doctors need to know if it is in your system. [anon]

[edit] Botanical classification

St John's wort is the name of a family of plants, some of which are perennials and some of which are annuals. Hypericum perforatum (Common St John's wort) is a perennial. Article gave the impression that all species of St John's wort are perennial. [anon]

Wort is an Old English(?) word for plant. It has been said that this plant flowers on Saint John's Day and that the red flowers (I think they're red) are related to Saint John's blood. The leaves of Saint John's Wort appear to be perferated when held up to light, hence the scientific name Hypericum perforatum.

[edit] POV

This article seems to be a bit one sided in its use of studies into the effectiveness of SJW for treating depression. I believe that there are many other which support it. G-Man 20:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've added a few supporting studies - hopefully fixed the POV problem Techelf 12:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yup that's better, Good work. G-Man 17:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

The cited reference (#11) is not the reference discussed in the text. At least when I went to the web site ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/8/1361 the abstract there had the right ID (date, journal, title, page #'s), but the study size was different and the conclusion was that the St John's Wort derivative was "found to be safe and more effective than placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate depression". This certainly is not the negative study results being discussed in the text. Can someone clear this up with the correct reference? Also, I think the current reference probably should be cited in the pro-section of the article. I hesitate to make changes myself, since this is definitely not my area of expertise. _____________________________

—Preceding unsigned comment added by R. E. Story (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 October 2006

The reference was in the wrong place, I've changed it. --apers0n 07:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"A major study funded by the NIH in the United States, found St John's wort to be ineffective in treating major depression of moderate severity. (Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group, 2002) This study involved 340 patients, diagnosed with severe depression based on DSM-IV criteria"

Major Depressive Disorder can be mild, moderate, or severe. Did these patients have "depression of moderate severity" or "severe depression"?

Vorpalbla 1/27/05

I think it's fairly self-explanatory... Major Depression of moderate severity... Techelf 16:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but the term "severe depression" should not have been used. Clinicians say "she has moderate depression" or "she has severe depression" synonymously with "she has depression of moderate severity" or "of high severity". Perhaps what was meant was "diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder based on..." Vorpalbla 1/30/05
Agreed, I've changed the wording. Techelf 02:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The herb was also used by Native Americans internally as an abortifacient"; but earlier we read "[...] herb indigenous to Europe, which has been introduced to the Americas [...]". I'm perplexed the herb was used by natives after it was introduced from Europe. Am I missing something? If so, it would be nice to see how and when the plant was introduced in North America. — Enigma55 (talk • email)18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sun sensitization & seasonal affective disorder

I've heard that it's more effective at treating SAD than other forms of depression. I know that folks have been treated for SAD by exposure to UV light. Is there any chance the active mechanism is related to its "side effect" of sun sensitization? A wild speculation, I know.--Polyparadigm 08:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone should add something about how the photosensitivity affects vision, as well. When I first took it I was very surprised by the sparkly sunspots I suddenly started seeing. I have read that this is a common effect. Maybe I'll try to add something... Aroundthewayboy 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing

It may be worth mentioning/an interesting bit of info that Hypericum/St. John's Wort is licensed as an antidepressant medication in some countries, e.g. Germany. The German "Kompendium der Psychiatrischen Pharmakotherapie" (="Compendium of psychiatric pharmacotherapy", comparable to the Maudsley guidelines in the UK) as well as the "Rote Liste" (German national formulary) list St. John's Wort as an antidepressant (http://www.fachinfo.de/viewFI?FINR=003939&RL=%3Cb%3EAristo%26reg%3B%20%3C/b%3EKapseln this is in German I'm afraid though). As I don't want to p.o. ppl by putting it in myself, I'll just leave this as a side-note on the Talk page. Ft. Jack Hackett 18:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can provide a translation, then it is a notable source. According to the UK press, the Germans were even more vociferous than the British about the possibility of deregulation. --Red King 20:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for coming back on this issue so late, but here is an article, which states that: "In Germany, St. John's wort is the most commonly prescribed antidepressant. In 1984, the German Commission E designated St. John's wort as an approved herb,1 and its safety and effectiveness are reevaluated periodically." (source: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20051201/2249.html). Unfortunately, the link I gave above requires a login (u/n:rote, p/w:liste). For some reason National Formularies in Germany and GB are not easily accessible to the public. Ft. Jack Hackett 13:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Availability in the marketplace?

I'm a little concerned/confused by the sentence "Following safety concerns, it has been withdrawn from sale" in the "Uses of the Herb Section". I purchased a quantity of commercially packaged 'tablets' from a supermarket here in Sydney, Australia today, and I had two or three different brands to choose from. The sentence might mean that st johns wort has been removed from sale in Germany, but if so, perhaps it needs to be better qualified? Thanks. GB 220.253.73.131 07:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of its OTC withdrawal in Germany. I've changed that paragraph to reflect what I understand to be the status quo. -Techelf 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

There's a serious problem with Image:Hypericum perforatum.jpg--its image description page doesn't match the image itself (the description page actually matches Image:Hypericum perforatum thumbnail.jpg). The problem is that a different image was uploaded over the current image, by a user who has been blocked for three years. If someone who watches this page knows where it's from and can provide a source and copyright status for the image, that would be great. Otherwise, it needs to be delted. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Johns Wort & Blood Coagulation

I have heard from various doctors that St Johns Wort can cause blood coagulation problems in some people (such as Von Willebrand's disease. Has anyone seen mention of this in medical journals, and if so is this something that should be included in the adverse affects section? - Darkstar949 14:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q & A

Which portion(s) of the St. John's Wort plant are used? Leaves? Whole flower or just the petal? Maybe the stem? Or just the root?

Can it be eaten out right or must it be boiled, dried or baked?

The aerial parts are used in teas, which tastes kind of like grass. I don't believe there is a large quantity of the active ingredient in the leaves though. The beneficial element is in the small dots that cover the flowers -- what looks like little black dots that are easily smudged showing a true red colour. When you slide your finger over a flower petal, you spread out the little balls of oil (hypericin) which makes it look like your bruising the petal. The laws of similarity in herbal medicine inspired the ancients to put this "flower blood" into open wounds, where its properties as an antiseptic and numbing of nerves was discovered. Macantas 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Most people (including a practising homeopath at a recent talk I attended) seem to mispronounce it as it's spelt, especially on early acquaintance. If no-one objects, I'll add '(pronounced '...wurt') to the intro. Etaonsh 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation guide has now twice been altered, without prior discussion, to an 'IPA' rendering which comes out on some PCs as '[-wɝt, -wɔt]).' Therefore reverting Etaonsh 07:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this required discussion – the Wikipedia: Manual of Style states that IPA should be used for pronunciations. If you have a good reason for not following WP:MOS, feel free to discuss it here instead of reverting legitimate edits. Also, "wɔt" is the correct pronunciation in Australia, which is why I provided it as an alternative second pronunication. -Techelf 13:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how it comes across on other people's PCs, but on mine I just get a square between the w and the t. Is this an IPA character? I don't think so. Etaonsh 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Same problem still persisting. Can someone please explain what I need to download into my PC to stop getting IPA vowel renderings coming out as silly little squares? --Etaonsh 19:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Have now downloaded what appears to be the relevant file [[2]], but am still getting little squares. --Etaonsh 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, recent intelligence from a Firefox user seems to suggest that the current IPA rendering isn't correct. --Etaonsh 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am now seeing it all from a public computer which shows the IPA characters on the article page, but not, for some reason, on this Talk page, which still says, rather oddly, '"wɔt" is the correct pronunciation in Australia.' At least I know what you're trying to say, now. I still feel inclined to argue, because my feeling is that 'wort' is correctly pronounced 'wurt' throughout the English-speaking world, subject to regional accents, and was only ever spelt 'wort' to distinguish it from the archaic verb 'wert.' --Etaonsh 13:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have now managed to download the Lucida Sans Unicode font to my PC, after lengthy advice from David Barrow of the Saundspel forum [[3]].
This page [[4]] shows, I think, why the characters aren't coming out right on this page. --Etaonsh 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St John's Wort and 5-HTP?

According to the page _serotonin syndrome_, taking the dietary supplement 5-HTP (a precursor to serotonin) in combination with MAOIs or SSRIs could lead to a dangerous build-up of serotonin levels. St John's Wort seemes to work like a SSRI - so should you avoid combining it with 5-HTP? There are commercially available products that contain both St John's Wort and 5-HTP. Does anyone know if the combination of St John's Wort + 5-HTP has been researched?

Sorry that I haven't worked out how to link to the _serotonin syndrome_ and _5-HTP_ pages yet.

Many thanks to anyone who can shed light on this. 84.64.13.194 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compliments to the Contributors

I just finished reading this article and just wanted to extend my compliments to the contributors. It has been rare, in my experience, to find a Wikipedia article that so effectively and conciesely presents the relevant facts along with simple, clear statistics. Good job guys! Wikipedia needs more contributors like yourselves! --Jadorno 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

"Additionally, a 2006 study involving 150 patients with minor depressive symptoms or dysthymia found that St. John's Wort has a clinical significant effect in minor depressed patients that are not suffering with dysthymia."

Is this sentence supposed to say "that are suffering" (without the "not")? Orvis is supposed to mean it helped those without (long-term) dysthymia, but did help those with (shorter-term) minor depressive symptoms? It needs to be rewritten to make sense. Aleta 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence, and provided a link to the study abstract. Hopefully it's clearer now. Fvasconcellos 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It is, and having the link to the abstract is good! Thanks for doing that. Aleta 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is "mild to moderate depression" distinct from "major depression"?

The terms "mild," "moderate," "major" and "severe" seem rather unclear in the Clinical Evidence section. Clinical depression is also known as "major depressive disorder," and then there are other distinct disorders such as dysthymia listed in the clinical depression article. So what does this article mean by "mild to moderate depression," and "mild to moderately severe depressive disorders"? Does this mean "major depression of mild to moderate severity"? Mtford 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling?

I am a member of the League of Copyeditors and thought I'd take on the copyedit for this article. However, before I begin, I have a fundamental question. I have seen numerous spellings of this herb, and would like to get a consensus here before making changes to the article text AND the title.

  • Merriam-Webster lists "Saint-John's-wort" as the correct spelling (I tend to go with Webster when in doubt)
  • Dictionary.com lists "St.-John's-wort"
  • American Heritage dictionary lists "Saint John's wort"
  • The Chicago Manual of Style says a period always follows St.

So, it would appear that, at a minimum, a period should be included after "St" and the word should be hypenated OR you can spell out all three elements and choose whether to hypenate. What should it be? Galena11 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All of these sources are reputable, so you have a choice. I favour "St. John's wort". If you agree, we have a consensus.
I tagged the section in question, by the way. Brainmuncher 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've copyedited the tagged section. I suggest that you go through the entire article and standardize the spelling, including the article's title. (be sure to change the title in linked pages, as well, or you'll get an ugly re-direct page). Galena11 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in February 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Galena11 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Otheus 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See edit history for questions (in hidden comments). (Again.) Notably in St John's wort#Botanical description.

[edit] Clarifications Requested

In the "Clinical evidence", the article states "Several studies and meta-analyses have found it to be effective in the treatment of mild to moderate depression, with fewer side effects than many conventional antidepressants. Other studies, including a major NIH study that focused on moderate to severe depression, have shown no improvements."

Did the NIH study conclude that St John's wort preparations were not even mildly effective for moderate to severe depression, with "no improvements" at all? Or did the study recognize some effectiveness even in more severe cases of depression, but concluded that conventional antidepressants were more effective treatment for moderate to sever depression? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.74.28.2 (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

My reading of the study is that it was completely inconclusive, as the the St. John's wort, the conventional antidepressant, and the placebo all did exactly as well. So I don't even know why that study is listed there. Does anyone disagree? TV4Fun 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would we not list a study which says it is ineffective against moderate to major depression? Sethie 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The results of the study were inconclusive. It's primary measurement, the HAM-D, showed no statistically significant difference in performance over placebo from either St. John's Wort or sertraline, something which is accepted as being affective in the treatment of moderate to major depression. In fact, if you read the study, the placebo actually did a little bit better than St. John's Wort or sertraline, indicating that the placebo was probably the most effective medication. However, the lack of a significantly significant difference between placebo and a proven effective antidepressant indicates that the study was not set up effectively to test the efficacy of a drug as an antidepressant. In other words, it was completely inconclusive. The only conclusion you should reach from this study is that better research needs to be done into Hypericum's effectiveness in the treatment of moderate to major depression. TV4Fun 17:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SJW an SSRI?

pls discuss here. Doldrums 12:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Words

"discovered that hyperforin, (found in the plant), appears to be the reason why". It was discovered? Jdc325 (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've adapted the text somewhat. JoJan (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Study

Levine2112 alledges that a study here states that " diluted Hypericum is also used for the treatment of depression." The study itself actually is a review of studies of Homeopathy, and finds that said studies have metholodical deficiencies. Could someone review? Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you take a look at the other non-homeopathic studies done on St. Johns Wort that suggest hypericum is the proven anti-depressant. The non-homeopathic studies identified Hypericum as the active ingredient in St Johns Wort for the anti-depressive effects. St. Johns Wort is the plant that has Hypricum/Hypricin just like Coffee Beans carry Caffeine or Marijuana carries THC, it is pointless starting an argument on whether diluted or any other form of Hypericum is effective for depression or not. The ingredient responsible for the anti-depressant effects of St. Johns Worth is hypericum/hypericin, whether diluted, undiluted, tablet, liquid, tea or just dried St. Johns Wort, they would all carry some degree of anti-depressive effects due to Hypericum/Hypericin. And yes, you can buy diluted Hypericum. The strength of any St. Johns Wort preparation is based on the mg of Hypericum/cin, in liquid form it would be mg per 10 or 100ml. There is no need for that study as a citation, nor a need to review it. Its like asking whether Coffee Beans, Instant Coffee, or Filtered Coffee have the effects of caffeine. You should also note that St. Johns Wort in the form of Hypericum/Hypericin is now a recognized anti-depressant on the NHS (National Health Service) in the UK and is prescribed by professional doctors, likewise in Germany, Holland and many other countries. How the Hypericum is prepared does not affect its anti-depressive properties. So in short, diluted Hypericum can be used to treat depression as it is Hypericum, whether its better than other preparations is another question. You are right the study is not directly about Hypericum, but since it uses Hypericum as one of the methods for treament of depression itself suggests that Hypericum in the diluted form is used for depression. E.g. if there was a study about glasses and how well you could see, and a paper was used to write something on for testing the glasses, you would assume from the study that a paper can be used for writing even though the study was not about paper, but about glasses. You can easily google for other studies, findings and the types of St. Johns Wort preparations to back up with diluted Hypericum, but I wouldn't worry so much, its common sense that Hypericum, in whatever form can be used for the treatment of depression, even if diluted. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Johns Wort and Cataracts

I have come across few medical journals (BMJ), BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/400135.stm), netdoctor.co.uk and a Cambridge University Journal (http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPHN%2FPHN3_4a%2FS1368980000000562a.pdf&code=0a17d466bddfa9c8b1a15cd526574854) that suggest someone who is taking St. Johns Wort when exposed to prolonged sun exposure, may form Cataracts. Many people are taking St. Johns Wort and it is worth mentioning the link between St. Johns Wort and Cataracts in this article, as it could help someone avoid cataracts and it will also make this article more accurate and more informative. Any objections or approvals? --78.86.159.199 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good sources. Please do include it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done it since nobody else has. --Red King (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's always good to read someone on these articles who finds the problems that arise when you overuse these bogus remedies. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I wouldn't call it a bogus remedy although many herbal remedies are probably unfounded, St. Johns Wort is an exception which is already a recognized treatment for mild depression in the UK and Germany prescribed by medical doctors. Never the less, you are right for pointing out the overuse. Overuse of such remedies has implications and people need to be addressed on them.--78.86.159.199 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It shuold be added scientifically proved fact of helping in OCD

--Čikić Dragan (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Partly done. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)