>>13892131: All modern medicine is based on herbal medicine and many modern medicines are still made from herbal medicine or is synthesized and based the original extracts
2: Like all resourced for anything under the sun, it is best to have multiple resources for the same information then cross reference them for your own needs. This is mostly to ensure the information is correct and complete. Though the latter is more difficult to ascertain since that requires lots of research.
3: The, "Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine," that the anon in
>>1389209 provides isn't too bad. It is still merely blog-worthy, in that you should always get at least a second source of information on something, and you should only use it as a means for beginning research into areas of interest you find within it.
As for the citations, I can't find any to speak of. The credentials of the author, Andrew Chevallier..., "FNIMH," stands for, "Fellow of the National Institute of Medical Herbalists," which is a UK-based fraternity,
https://www.nimh.org.uk/ "MCPP," stands for "Member of College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy,"
https://thecpp.uk/ Both, "FNIMH," and, "MCPP," are titles for licensed herbalists in the UK. Evidently the author has a "BA" in something, though googling doesn't help me identify what it is specifically if that means "Bachelor of the Arts" that is. Regardless, this seems to be a better source than most things. The lack of citations in this instance seems to be because of the author's credentials on the subject. Meaning this is a source citation that other people will be pointing to. Personally, I prefer a more wiki-esque approach, where everything stated points to a peer reviewed scientific study.
This isn't a defence of the book or author. It is merely to show you that other than posting lists of peer reviewed scientific studies this is one of the best resources of info you can get that isn't merely a blog repeating another blog repeating another blog ad infinitum.
