Woman, 23, suffers liver failure after taking a $50 herbal supplement

I wonder what was in that supplement that caused her liver failure. I remember 30 years ago there was a problem with supplemented tryptophan. It turned out that it wasn't the tryptophan itself, (tryptophan is the amino acid that explains why we become sleepy after eating turkey), but the manufacturing process that produced contaminated capsules. Anyway it was banned for about 15 years before it could be sold OTC again.

the article said...
Her doctor believes the supplement she was taking was the cause of the critical illness...
Acute liver failure is loss of liver function that occurs rapidly — in days or weeks — usually in a person who has no pre-existing liver disease...
Figures suggest it affects one in 100,000 people.

Before anyone else gets sick they really need to find out whether the problem is caused by an active ingredient in the supplement, or like tryptophan, if the capsules were contaminated. Or even if ingesting that supplement was responsible for her liver failure in the first place. I would think this should be a priority to find out ASAP.

iPoop said...
Careful with those supplements!

Careful with those Big Gun Meds too! The rate of failure can be higher than one in 100,000 people:

www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=17&m=2612147
I had to stop taking Humira because it caused me to develop Drug- Induced Lupus

https://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=38&m=3753241
I started Remicade which got me under control. Now I have recently been diagnosed with lymphoma

www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=17&m=2970342
the pain lessened as the drug got out of my system

https://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=38&m=4113724
My daughter is still dealing with lupus like syndrome , probably from the remicade

Post Edited (IamCurious) : 1/4/2020 12:29:26 PM (GMT-7)

@IamCurious,
You hit the nail. A perfect comment

I know people think that 'natural supplements' are harmful because there is no oversight. We know all too well that prescription drugs are not safer by any standard but we take them blindly (or out of desperation) until we have a reaction. So one should avoid such sensationalistic news articles.

My mom has Pancolitis, not a single drug has worked for her for a longer-term. She gave up on the meds after getting frustrated. She is on some herbal supplements for a while and doing well without meds. But those supplements did not help me at all. So YMMV. I personally would not discourage anyone to try. You never know what may help you, but with caution (even with the meds, and that's why I am not on any biologic, yet).

I saw this dr's interview on our local news. I seriously doubt Methodist Hospital would allow a dr to give an interview that was a hoax, lol. I hope that in time we will get more information which supplement was the culprit.

iPoop said...
Whereas supplements aren't regulated or studied, so these risks are totally unknown and cannot easily be quantified.

Supplements may not be regulated but any company that markets a problematic supplement will not remain in business for long. I myself check out purity and potency of the supplements I take thru ConsumerLab.com

It isn't fair to say that supplements aren't studied. There are dozens of studies published in PubMed.gov proving the efficacy of supplements. Even Big Pharma admits that the meds available today cannot cure IBD, they can only manage symptoms and help dampen inflammation.

But as long as I can maintain remission thru diet and supplements with little or no side effects, then why should I look for expensive meds that may have toxic side effects?
A very small sample of effective supplements:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25830661
The most important clinical trials conducted so far refer to the use of mastic gum, tormentil extracts, wormwood herb, aloe vera, triticum aestivum, germinated barley foodstuff, and boswellia serrata.
In ulcerative colitis, aloe vera gel, triticum aestivum, andrographis paniculata extract and topical Xilei-san were superior to placebo in inducing remission or clinical response,

and curcumin was superior to placebo in maintaining remission; boswellia serrata gum resin and plantago ovata seeds were as effective as mesalazine.

In Crohn's disease, mastic gum, Artemisia absinthium, and Tripterygium wilfordii were superior to placebo in inducing remission and preventing clinical postoperative recurrence, respectively. Herbal therapies exert their therapeutic benefit by different mechanisms including immune regulation, antioxidant activity, inhibition of leukotriene B4 and nuclear factor-kappa B, and antiplatelet activity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1312317
CONCLUSIONS: Four months of diet supplementation with fish oil in patients with inflammatory bowel disease resulted in reductions in rectal dialysate leukotriene B4 levels, improvements in histologic findings, and weight gain

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25724700
Conclusions: Addition of curcumin to mesalamine therapy was superior to the combination of placebo and mesalamine in inducing clinical and endoscopic remission in patients with mild-to-moderate active UC, producing no apparent adverse effects.

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018707
Zinc deficiency is common in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), especially in those with skin lesions and growth retardation... Zinc deficiency may play a role in the formation and clinical course of fistulas.

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856764/
Zinc carnosine, a health food supplement that stabilises small bowel integrity and stimulates gut repair processes

So many words, so little said!

Fish oil, curcumin and zinc ..... wow, news flash. Yes, some things get tested quite thoroughly. However, most do not.
And even fish oil has a very dubious reputation, with some studies showing no benefit at all.

Take the supplement used by the liver failure patient in the article: "Alani nu Balance".
Here are some of the outrageous claims made by the advertiser: "...designed to support hormonal balance, weight management, complexion, and fertility. Enjoy restorative sleep, improved energy levels, and more...."

This sort of nonsense is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to claims made in most supplement advertising.

It is well known that private companies tend to exaggerate the success of their new drugs. But it is nothing compared to the ludicrous claims made my supplement companies!

IAC, you are in remission and have been most of the time. If antibiotics hadn't worked for you (got you into remission) you would be singing a different tune - knowing full well that supplements and diet mods did not work when your illness really flared - by your own words.
It seems very misleading for you to completely ignore the fact that it wasn't diet or supplements that got you into remission, though they may help you maintain low levels of symptoms.

You're lucky! Antibiotics work for around twenty percent. The rest are not lucky. They mostly have to try meds.
Nothing works for me, so I have no foot in any camp. But I dislike seeing misleading rhetoric.

IPoop said...
It does not pass the level of scrutiny necessary to really and thoroughly vet the effectiveness and side effects possible (as a double-blind, peer-verified, large scale series of studies would). 

Didn’t you read the thread before responding? Meds don’t really pass scrutiny either.

Iamcurious said...

I don't think so. Drug trials may not be as reliable as most people assume.
According to Forbes Magazine:
“about 85% of clinical trials are now funded by the drug industry. They own that data. The docs don’t understand that they are getting a selected, filtered version of what the information is.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/196846
Most clinical trials are funded by pharmaceutical companies with enormous financial stakes in the products being evaluated. Furthermore, the scientists who design, conduct, analyze, and report clinical trials often receive monetary compensation from drug companies, in the form of either salaries or consulting fees.

Industry also provides individual physicians or entire academic departments with unrestricted funds that can be applied toward personal or institutional research initiatives. These forms of compensation may undermine investigators' objectivity by rewarding those who produce results most favorable to the sponsor's interests.

Industry-funded clinical trials and cost-effectiveness analyses, for instance, yield positive results far more often than studies that are funded or conducted by other entities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc156458/
An increasing number of clinical trials at all stages in a product’s life cycle are funded by the pharmaceutical industry,

Results that are unfavourable to the sponsor—thatis, trials that find a drug is less clinically effective or costeffective or less safe than other drugs used to treat thesame condition—can pose considerable financial risk sto companies. Pressure to show that the drug causes a favourable outcome may result in biases in design, out-come, and reporting of industry sponsored research
Conclusion: Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2872821/
In recent years, a number of studies have shown that clinical drug trials financed by pharmaceutical companies yield favorable results for company products more often than independent trials do.
Conclusion:
Financial support from a pharmaceutical company influences multiple aspects of the performance of drug trials and often leads to a favorable result for the corporate sponsor of the trial.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/can-the-source-of-funding-for-medical-research-affect-the-results/
One such study was conducted by Paul Ridker and Jose Torres and published in 2006 in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). Ridker and Torres analyzed randomized cardiovascular trials published in leading, peer-reviewed medical journals (JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine) during the five year period of 2000-2005 in which one treatment strategy was directly compared to a competing treatment.

This contrast was even more pronounced for pharmaceutical drugs, where 65.5% of the industry sponsored studies showed benefits of the newer treatment, while only 39.5% of non-profit funded studies favored the new treatment.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3781-research-funded-by-drug-companies-is-biased/
Studies backed by the pharmaceutical industry are four times more likely to show favourable results than other studies, reveals a new analysis.

Post Edited (Coffeemate) : 1/9/2020 5:04:15 PM (GMT-7)

Sara14 said...
Yeah, I can understand that with older people for sure. I feel the same about anti-vaxxers, too.

But the original article was about a 23 year old so age isn't always a factor is decision making when it comes to healthcare/supplements in the internet age.

My mother is 70 and doesn't need any medication; she's trying to avoid it if at all possible. She modified her diet so her cholesterol is better, she exercises every day and goes for all of her health screenings. She really likes the fact that she doesn't need any medication at her age and trying to keep it that way but it does make her a little vulnerable to supplements health benefit claims.

You might have UC if... you take more pills than your grandma

Sad to see that this forum supports threads that trash wholesale on alternative medicine.

I would be dead without the different supplements out there.

Think about how many people die every year from taking prescription drugs. Hundreds of thousands of people. We don't bat an eyelash at that. We just call them side effects.

One young woman has a bad reaction to a herbal supplement and everyone is up in arms.

The world is a screwed up place.

What do you mean I've been here before?

I'm not trashing. I'm replying to other people's trashing.