May
particularly the positive effects of herbal supplements such as St. Johns Wart and royal jelly.
Answer:
That really does depend on what you are looking for in the research and whether or not you consider the research to be acceptable.
People who claim to be scientists often refute altmed studies caliming they’re unscientific and biased. Many of the studies that they approve also have bias and I seriously have to question whether they’re scientific.
Research is often refuted because the testing model is so flawed.
Holistic therapy doesn't try and look for 1 single thing affecting everything so it is difficult to produce research which fits the reductionist medical model which tries to prove 1 single factor affects the changes you are looking for.
There currently isn't a multifactorial research model which would be superior put at testing holistic therapies so unfortunately we’re stuck with a flawed model.
On the Subject of St. Johns wart and royal jelly, yes there are lots of studies tested via the reductionist model.
As well as pub med, look at science direct and scholar google.
If you are a Uni student you should have access to Athens to do more searches.
Answer:
St. Johns Wart has a big body of scientific evidence supporting its efficacy (and potential toxicity). Just go to Pubmed to access the world's biomedical research. A search of St. Johns Wart returned 1,234 scientific papers. Royal Jelly has 294 entries.