Hmm...
So because echinacia was "proven" to not work should we throw it out? Or could it be that that study was also ineffective?

Could it be that the "studies" that prove a therapy should be void are just as malfunctioning as the "studies" that show the efficacy of the same therapy?

The article even mentions vaccines. How some parents go on a fringe and refuse vaccines when a large number of vaccinated children have benefited. That is such a pharma driven statement. Most parents that don't vaccinate their children do so because of the hours they have put into their own research on the subject. The parents that do vaccinate likely do so because of their lack of research on the subject. Simply put, once people know the pharma politics and the ingredients of each vaccine they usually decline all vaccines from that point on.

So instead of taking studies for granted, do your own studying and research. It is much more valuable, and true to the core. Plus, it is part of educating yourself instead of medicating.

Look at the source! Both meant to place doubt, to plant seeds of disruption , doesnt matter that these types of posts are undefensible they still accomplish their goal even if they throw off only a few uninformed people who could benefit by wholistic endeavors! That same vitamin E study has been thrown on the table before and its been debunked just as many times before, yet some still see fit to repost it! The echinecia thing about neck fat !!! what a fluke , who takes echinnecia for neck fat! Ludicrous and a waste of time! I wish I could no vote this post twice!

As usual herbal studies done by the bought and paid for medical journals are designed to fail leading to false news reports like the one above! The NEJM is nothing but a mouthpiece for the powers that be! The corrupt murderous pharmaceutical industry and thier drug pushers the AMA!


Herbal Science Group Says Dosage Too Low in New Echinacea Trial

(Austin, TX, July 27, 2005). The nonprofit American Botanical Council (ABC), an Austin, Texas-based research and education organization, has reviewed a new clinical trial on the popular herb echinacea for use in a specific kind of induced virus, being published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.1 The study concluded that the echinacea preparations did not prevent or help treat symptoms of a specific virus applied to the test subjects. ABC has found several aspects of the design of the study worthy of clarification, and comments on the potential misinterpretations of the significance of this study.

First, the extracts used were made in a university laboratory and do not correlate with commercial echinacea products currently available to consumers. Second, the dosages used in this trial were probably too low. The echinacea preparations used in the study might have shown activity at more frequent dosing intervals and/or higher dosage levels – as is often the case with contemporary echinacea use.

The new trial utilized extracts made from the roots of a species of echinacea called Echinacea angustifolia. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, seven-arm trial was conducted on 437 college students who had a particular type of rhinovirus inserted into their nostrils (the results were calculated on 399 subjects). In the trial, the echinacea preparations were tested to see if they had a preventive effect or if they could help treat the symptoms caused by the rhinovirus. The students who received the three different echinacea preparations and were sequestered in a hotel room did not experience fewer infections, fewer symptoms, or a reduction in the duration of symptoms, compared with those who received the placebo.

The trial utilized three doses of 1.5 milliliters each of the three laboratory-produced echinacea extracts, presumably equivalent to about 300 milligrams of the dried powdered root in each dose (equivalent to 900 mg per day of the dried root). This level was chosen for the trial because it is the dose recommended by the German government’s expert herb panel called the Commission E, which had conducted reviews of the research published on various types of echinacea in the scientific and medical literature in the early 1990s.2

According to ABC various international monographs have acknowledged the generally higher dose used for echinacea root products. The World Health Organization (WHO) monograph for Echinacea root (“Radix Echniaceae”) has a dosage for Echinacea angustifolia root at the equivalence of 3 gm per day of the dried root.3 This same dosage is also acknowledged in the more recently developed draft monographs on Echinacea from the Canadian Natural Health Products Directorate.4

This dosage level is about 330% higher than the dosage of the echinacea preparations given in the NEJM trial. This supports ABC’s contention that the preparations may have been under-dosed and that the trial might have shown a potentially positive trend if a higher dosage and/or increased frequency of administration had been followed.

“It would have been optimal if this trial had tested the echinacea preparations at more frequent and/or higher doses,” said Mark Blumenthal, Founder and Executive Director of ABC. “Dosage is one of the most important aspects in assessing any therapeutic agent. Many clinicians who recommend echinacea for treatment of upper respiratory tract infections related to colds and flu normally utilize a frequency of use and/or a total daily dose that is higher than the one used in this trial. This is also true for consumer self-medication with many commercial echinacea preparations according to some label dosage suggestions.”

Blumenthal added. “The researchers have previous experience in researching echinacea and have done an admirable job in testing a species of echinacea (i.e., E. angustifolia) that has not been adequately researched.” But he hastened to add, “The most accurate statement that can be said about this trial is this: These specific laboratory-produced echinacea extracts, at the dose given in the trial, under the specific design of this trial, did not produce any measurable effect.”

He emphasized, “This is not a definitive trial on the efficacy of echinacea, nor should the results be generalized to echinacea preparations widely available. Unfortunately, the conclusion that may be drawn by some media who report this study may state that ‘echinacea is ineffective,’ but this would be an incorrect conclusion based on the design of this study and the evidence in the existing literature.”

“Dosing people for rhinovirus in a hotel does not necessarily mimic real life,” said Bruce Barrett, MD, PhD, an Assistant Professor of Family Medicine University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and an author of several previous critical reviews on echinacea clinical trials. He noted that the patients were possibly relatively resistant to the echinacea treatment. “College kids are immunocompetent,” he stated, referring to the relative health of the test subjects in the trial. “It may have been better to test older people to see how they might have faired.”

However, Dr. Barrett was generally complimentary about the trial in general. “This is a very valuable study and quite helpful, although it has some significant limitations, including product, sample, and population,” he stated. “In general, you may want to have about 100 people per treatment group for more statistical significance rather than only about 50 per group used in this trial.”

In general, products marketed as “Echinacea” are extremely popular in the United States. Echinacea ranked second in sales in mainstream market retail stores in 2004, according to an article in ABC’s journal HerbalGram.5 Total sales of echinacea products in all channels of trade in the United States in 2004 was estimated at about $155 million, according to data compiled by Nutrition Business Journal.

Blumenthal also added that although it was formerly quite popular, there has been a trend away from using Echinacea angustifolia root in commercial herbal products based on increased concerns by many responsible members of the herb community regarding conservation and sustainability of wild medicinal plants. Echinacea angustifolia is generally more difficult to cultivate commercially than the other two more popular species of echinacea (E. pallida and E. purpurea), and so more material from these species are found in products on the North American market.

Blumenthal points to a body of clinical evidence that supports the use of various echinacea preparations for treating symptoms associated with colds and flus. A therapeutic monograph on Echinacea is available in The ABC Clinical Guide to Herbs, ABC’s reference book and continuing medical education module.6 The monograph summarizes 21 clinical trials on various echinacea preparations for colds, flus, upper respiratory tract infections, and other uses. ABC has posted the complete echinacea chapter including this monograph on its website (http://www.herbalgram.org/) as an educational service to the public.

The study has generated significant media attention. ABC and Blumenthal have been contacted by a variety of news sources, including: the Associated Press, Bloomberg Business News, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, the New York Times and USA Today.

(Source: http://www.herbalgram.org/default.asp?c=echinacea072605)

References

The unsuspecting reader might think that taking a SINGLE ITEM like echinacea, vitamin E, carrots or a red wine and using that ALONE in a test proves it doesn't work. Ha.

When a practitioner of Alternative Medicine provides a remedy for some problem, he usually has a short list of several things that need to be done of which the echinacea (for example)IS ONLY ONE ITEM on that list.

The same thing is true for vitamin E.

The same thing is true for any vegetable you might pick. Pick one.

The same thing is true for any fruit you might eat. If you are told by someone experienced using natural type remedies, or you read it yourself, that blueberries have an anti-oxidant effect (which means they protect against cancer) does that mean if you eat only blueberries you won't get cancer? Eating only blueberries all day long is something a kindergardner would do. Not a person with cancer. Blueberries are included in a very long list of things that must be done in order to overcome cancer. (So what sense does it make to test only blueberries in these so called scientific studies?)

Blueberries are also included in a very long list of things that must be done in order to prevent cancer. Blueberries are very helpfull in a certain context of things. Things that have to be eaten, or things that have to be done (along with the blueberries). They need certain other things around them, to react with, in the body.
Is the body such a simple instrument that it needs only blueberries to set it straight when something goes wrong? Here again, someone in kindergarten would say, "yes" that's all you need :) .......but scientists who run tests on blueberries aren't in kindergarten. So why do serious people run tests by letting the person eat what they want and only add blueberries (to thier meals)? Like they'd tell you in a high school Science class, it DEPENDS on what you are tying to prove.

I'm going to make up an example. If you have to eat 10 things on a list for preventing cancer and you only eat one, blueberries, out of that list, then you get tested, what does that prove? What would that prove about blueberries? What if the group that ate meals and blueberries had about the same amount of cancer as the group of people who ate meals without blueberries? Let's pretend you conclude blueberries don't work. You could then do a similar test on each of the other 9 items on that list to see if any of them work.

You could run 9 more tests, each like the first one. One group uses (eats) a item from the list of 10, and the other group does not eat that item. At the conclusion of each test you find both groups have the same amount of cancer. Let's pretend you conclude that there isn't one item on that list of 10 that has any effect against cancer.

You would be wrong. What you have done is what Julius Caesar belived in and that is "divide and conquer." You isolate each item in the list and test it by itself. Since each one does not work by itself, you conclude that nothing on that list of 10 will do anything against cancer, so if you have cancer, taking blueberries won't help. If you want to prevent cancer, blueberries won't help either. This is the kind of argument someone in kindergarden would believe, and is actually taught. As well as through the primary grades and on T.V. But I won't believe it.

If a scientist only uses part of a remedy to test (only tests effects of blueberries) can he really conclude blueberries don't have any part in it (healing/preventing)? Can he really imply that there is nothing you can do to prevent cancer, slow it down, or stop it? If he is testing only part of the remedy but making conclusions about the whole remedy, he has taken the results out of context. (This bears repeating.)

Just because a scientist can't see any difference using only blueberries (or only echinacea, or only 1 vegetable) does not mean there isn't any difference if he used all 10 items from the list TOGETHER RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALLY. To conclude they don't work together (to prevent cancer) is taking the results of the test OUT OF CONTEXT.

When Julius Ceasar fought, he sent his whole army against the enemy. He did not climb to the top of a hill and then send out only 1 foot soldier to conquer the enemy. And then wait to see how many of the enemy's soldiers that one man killed. Maybe 5 or 6, how many could he possibly kill before being found and killed himself?
Just because 1 foot soldier can't wipe out an enemy army by himself, does not mean that all the indivdual soldiers working together as Ceasar's army won't be able to conquer the enemy.

Likewise, why depend on a few blueberries to kill off an army of cancer cells or an army of free-radicals floating around in your bloodstream? Does it make sense to conclude blueberries can't help prevent cancer? Not to me. You cannot depend on only blueberries or only echinacea or only one type of help (or one foot soldier) to overcome your problem. If you have a cold and take echinacea then go ice skating in street clothes, are you going to complain afterwards echinacea didn't work because you still have your cold, and would you still think you sound logical?

There are going to continue to be endless studies like the ones reviewed in the article on every vegetable, from A to Z, showing how the individual vegetables aren't any good in preventing cancer or slowing it down or stopping it.

What would motivate a scientist to test an individual vegetable? Because it is much, much easier this way to show/misrepresent that vegetables won't help you in your fight against cancer. Why is this important? It does not contradict what the scientist's theory is.

What would motivate a reviewer to review a whole series of such articles?
They are not in direct contradiction to what the reviewer already believes.

If you think that Science and all scientists are completely objective, and so if you brought a study before a panel of 12 scientists to peer-review and expected them to be fair when your novel study is in direct contradiction to their theory(s), you are dreaming.


definitions for those who find them usefull:
bias..........a disposition or predisposition that sways the mind
..............prejudice (pre-judging)

credible......worthy of belief

credentials...testimonials showing that a person is entitled to belief or credit

objective.....it is seen to relate to something which is external to the mind
..............it exists outside the mind (can be seen)
..............unbiased
..............in grammar-a relationship to or pertaining to the subject