Question:
Recently I had the opportunity to attend the American Association ofNaturopathic Physicians National Meeting (AANP) which was held at therather unfortunate location of Palm Springs in August. (You couldliterally not leave the convention center because of the oppressiveheat outside--my car thermometer read 134 degrees). I had plenty oftime over three days to view the products offered to these doctors byexhibitors from all over the world.

I am a strong supporter of holistic medicine. I wouldn't take myfamily to any other type of doctor, whether it is a holistic MD,Naturopath, or Chiropractor. But my belief in this holistic approachis somewhat shaken after seeing how little regard the exhibitors havefor presenting factual data to support the science behind theirproducts.

The exhibitors (there were about 130 or so as I recall) seemed to bedivided into "science based" and "tradition based" companies. In otherwords, a certain percentage of companies sell products that are backedby clinical trials and very solid science. The remainder sell productsthat have traditionally been used in some part of the world for acertain condition, or for overall healthy lifestyle benefits. I'm OKwith both of those, although I far prefer to see the science behindsomething. Most importantly, whether it is science-based or not, Ineed it to work for me. That's the ultimate buying decision.

However, it wasn't these "traditional" remedies that I had a problemwith, it was a few of the "science-based" companies which reallyangered me. I found they employ a practice I call "stolen science" andthey use that stolen material to sell their products as if there wastruly some value in doing this.

There were dozens of examples of companies selling products by usingthe clinical trials or research data of OTHER COMPANIES to sell theirgoods. For example, BioGenesis was pitching a Rhodiola rosea product,and the first three clinical trials they list were for an extractcalled SHR-5 Rhodiola, which is a totally different type ofbiochemical, one that is produced via a special process by SwedishHerbal Institute for their product called Arctic Root. How is it thatthis extract somehow supports the BioGenesis product, which isentirely different? It doesn't, but it is there to hopefully sell someproduct.

Other companies with larger names were doing the same thing. Thispractice hurts the smaller companies who are dedicated to doing theirjob with integrity, to selling products that have been tested inhumans. If the marketplace -- in this case the naturopath, but itmeans consumers as well -- doesn't support the original productstested in these trials, or allows suppliers to trick them in this way,those small companies who spend money and time doing research will goaway.

Is this something we want to see happen? Is this good for the holisticpractitioner? Is it good for the public?

Answer: Just got an email from BioGenesis, the company I mentioned in my rantabove. I am very happy to report that they are changing their policy,and that they are deleting scientific references that are product-specific to other companies' products. Congratulations BioGenesis, andthank you. Now, SHAME on those other companies that continue thispractice . . .