Are appreciation posts welcome here? I was on the fence about Gotu Kola- and now I am just going to take the plunge; This is the best ad that I have ever seen. Jingle All the Way rules + it is a great movie... l.m.f.a.o.

I've talked about before.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NootropicsDepot/comments/fca6hf/doubts_about_gotu_kolas_potential_side_effects/

The two studies showing that are from Iran and Malaysia, and I have serious issues with them.

The Malaysian one showed no issues at reasonable doses, but curiously left the data out. This is a big issue with the arguments about the testicular toxicity issue. They are clearly hiding the data that does not fit the conclusion they wanted. If they make a quick statement that the 100mg/kg and 200mg/kg doses didn't show a reduction in spermatogenesis, but then leave the detailed data out and then only highlight the data from the 300mg/kg dose, how can we trust their conclusions? That's not objective science! Also, they literally say this in the study.

No toxic effect was observed in the animals during the experiment.

So how can we honestly say there is evidence of toxicity to human testicles using that study as evidence? That's the first study. The second has major issues as well. They measured the LD50 at 200mg/kg. That's a lethal dose for half the rats. So even the lowest dose that they saw decreases in testosterone in was 1/4 the LD50. That shows me this is not clinically relevant. If it takes 1/4 of a lethal dose to show the side effect, it's not relevant to normal doses in humans. Also, what cultivar was this? They got it wild from a wetland in Iran, then did the extraction themselves.

The fresh leaves of Centella asiatica were collected in May 2007 from a local wetland at Bandar-Anzali, Iran. The accuracy of plant selection was proved and authenticated by Dr. Abrahmi, a senior botanist of the Department of Botany, University of Tehran, and a voucher specimen was deposited accordingly at the herbarium of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Tehran.

So they just had a botanist look at it? No HP-TLC for ID? No content analysis or heavy metals analysis? How can we be sure of anything to do with this extract? Unlike US studies, where they use USP or Sigma reference materials, they went out into the wild and found the plants themselves, then just had a botanist tell them it was the proper species... That's not scientifically sound for a claim as serious as this! Then what extraction did they use?

The fresh leaves of the plant were air-dried at 40°C and ground to powder, which was then subjected to exhaustive extraction using ethanol in a Soxhlet apparatus. The dark green liquid extract was concentrated under vacuum and the resulting dried extract was lyophilized and preserved in a refrigerator at 4°C until use in the experiments.

So we have zero idea how concentrated this extract is. It was exhaustive, but that is all they say. The fact that they noted the LD50 was 200mg/kg in rats tells me this is a waaaaaay different extract than the one used in the first study. That dose was killing half the rats in this study, but was not even the high dose in the first one. These are serious claims being made, which require serious study design. If they can't even be assed to do proper ID and content analysis of the raw material and extract they are using, how can we trust their conclusions? Garbage in, garbage out. You can't trust data based on faulty study design. You certainly can't trust studies that conveniently leave out the data that proves their postulation incorrect. Those two studies are absolute garbage, and nobody should be using them as evidence of anything with gotu kola. This is TWO studies with poor study design in the face of TONS of others showing it is completely safe. We have human clinical studies that discuss not only efficacy, but also toxicity. It has been shown to be safe in human clinical studies, but one paper from Iran and one from Malaysia is enough to make everyone think it is toxic to the testicles? It's crazy to me.

Remember, science can be done improperly to show people what you want them to see. This is not limited to analytical chemistry, but also applies to clinical studies as well. You have to look at the details of a study, and really go in skeptical to try and see what they might be hiding. This is especially true for papers not peer-reviewed in the west, and ones that make very strong conclusions that fly in the face of the preponderance of the evidence from the bulk of the other studies on the topic. This is why the validity of the scientific methods used, and the soundness of the conclusions made based off that data, is crucial! Using bad science to mislead people not only screws with people's perception of that specific topic, it gets people to start distrusting science in general. That's the opposite direction we need to be going in.