Max Ten Ma Huang

Ma Huang & Max Ten

Read the facts and controversy about Ma huang (ephedra herb) and naturally occurring ephedra.

A federal judge said the law requires the FDA to prove that a dietary supplement is harmful, rather than requiring the manufacturer to prove it is safe, as is required with drugs.
Read more about the federal judge’s ruling against the ban on ephedra…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53586-2005Apr14.html

The following information was compiled prior to the 2005 hearing were a federal judge in Utah ruled that the FDA could not ban ephedra supplements without further scientific proof.

After seeing all of the adverse news commentaries about the use of ephedrine in products, it’s understandable that consumers would be concerned when using products containing this ingredient. The trouble with these commentaries, as it is with most news reports, is that they paint the picture with as much negativity as possible, and in most cases, as it is with the ephedrine reports, only tell a portion of the story.

Since early in 1993, the media has bombarded the public with opinions and partial truths about the legitimate herb Ma huang. Many of these articles about Ma huang have been based on officially voiced "opinions" lacking substantiation, or on anecdotal reports of alleged adverse effects that have not been properly investigated to confirm their veracity. In some cases, reports of such alleged adverse effects can be traced back to earlier media articles. Yet more regrettably, media articles, and even FDA Press Releases, have implied that Ma huang and ephedrine are one and the same, a statement that is far from the truth. Consequently, legitimate stories about abuse of ephedrine, and about the use of ephedrine to manufacture illegal drugs, invariably carry the implication that Ma huang is equally to blame! The net results is that the several million Americans who use products containing Ma huang each year are concerned, and others who could benefit from using this herb in an appropriate fashion are reluctant to try it.

On February 28, 1995, the FDA issued a statement advising consumers not to purchase Nature’s Nutrition Formula One products labeled as containing Ma huang and Kola nut because these products could pose health risks. Both the original FDA statement and subsequent media releases reporting this contain misinformation. The following are further facts of importance:

• The FDA claims to have documentation of over 100 cases of adverse effects related to use of the Formula One product, but have released no details. An FOI request open since 1993 has resulted in no documents other than internal memoranda expressing opinions. The FDA data is informally said to be weak, but does refer exclusively to the Formula One product.
• The FDA statement inaccurately equates Ma huang as being the same thing as ephedrine, and refers to ephedrine as an "amphetamine-like" chemical.
• Though the FDA statement clearly confirms that their warning applies only to the Formula One products containing both Ma huang and Kola nut, they imply that the combination of ephedrine from Ma huang and caffeine from Kola nut could be hazardous.

On March 19, 1995, the Texas Board of Health (TBH) announced steps to restrict the sale and distribution of foods and drugs containing ephedrine since they have evidence that ephedrine is being used as a chemical intermediary in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and are noting the FDA concerns. Media coverage of this statement also refers to ephedrine as an amphetamine-like chemical that is the main component of the Chinese herb Ma huang.

The points noted are inaccurate, speculative and misleading! The public deserves to know the true facts, which are:

• Ma huang is not ephedrine! It is a natural herb (Ephedra sinica), which in the natural state after drying contains between 1/50^th and 1/80^th of its weight in a mixture of alkaloids, of which the main ones are ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. It is incorrect to refer to ephedrine as the main component of Ma huang; it is only a minor component.
• These alkaloids, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, are also constituents of popular OTC (over the counter) cough and cold remedies used without incident by many millions of Americans on a regular basis and in much higher doses than are normally found in dietary supplements containing Ma huang.
• Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are classified as indirect acting sympathicomimetic agents. They act by persuading the body’s own systems to greater activity. While amphetamines share this property, they also work directly and specifically on certain systems in the brain. It is incorrect to refer to ephedrine as amphetamine-like.
• While it is not disputed that ephedrine can be used for the illegal manufacture of stimulant drugs, namely methamphentamine and methcathinone, it is improbable that Ma huang or even the slightly more concentrated extracts that are available could be used in this fashion. Because of the small amounts of ephedrine that could be obtained in such a process, it would not only be impracticable, but also very cost prohibitive.
• The speculation about the dangers of combining ephedrine with caffeine ignores the large number of scientific publications by world-class researchers in reputable, peer-referred journals showing that precisely this combination has major health benefits, and far from increasing the risk of adverse effects, may actually reduce them! It further ignores the reality that users of cough and cold remedies ingesting large quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine may simultaneously be drinking tea, coffee or cola, yet no adverse effects have been reported from this sector to the public.

A basic tenet of good science is that it should be devoted to a search for the truth, and when the facts do not fit the hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that must be discarded, not the facts! Deciding in advance, with tunnel vision and contrary to the facts, which the combination of ephedrine and caffeine is the culprit, creates an insurmountable obstacle in the search for the truth! The reported incidents should be evaluated in depth. Those that are anecdotal or ill founded should be eliminated, and those remaining should be examined for the possible involvement of other factors.