The Dose Makes the Poison
The phrase “healing herbs” as it’s generally used in advertising really bothers me. This is mostly because it’s got that central advertorial language problem: it could mean everything or nothing. But that’s a little more crucial than usual in this context.
Look, I write about herbal medicine and magic for (part of) a living. I make salves, I make soaps, I use tisanes instead of cough syrups. I wildcraft. I have a pretty multi-point view of the fact that healing comes from skill; the plants are tools. Overuse of the concept of “healing herbs” contributes to an over-simplified “plants good; chemicals bad” mindset that can and does hurt people.
Furthermore, this meaningless use of “healing” as a concept contributes to the idea of health as a monolithic thing that’s the same for everyone and has one definition – an idea that’s undiscerning, ableist, and laughably untrue.
Users of traditional medicine systems are looked to as an alternative to the industrialized, model-organism methods of “modern” medicine. Users of traditional medicine systems thus have a basic responsibility to understand that “healing” is different for different bodies – and to know that the virtue that lies in the plants is brought out by the minds and hands of the knowledgeable, not inherently present in any commercial product made from “six healing herbs!!!”
By the usual definition, foxglove is a “healing herb.” Digitalis will still kill you.
I’m not saying, “don’t use herbs or herbal supplements.” I’m saying, “be suspicious of anyone who overuses the concept of ‘healing herbs’ to make you buy and use things.” Ask what things do. Be aware that “healing” is not an answer to that question.
















