You may be familiar with the 2005 study on echinacea that found that it was not effective against the common cold. This study, published in the New England Journal Of Medicine, received a lot of publicity, and not only affected consumer confidence in echinacea, but also possibly the allocation of funds to further research echinacea in government studies.

The problem with this study, is that it just wasn’t good science. The biggest issue is that the dosage of echinacea used was in fact much lower than that recommended by some very reputable organizations - including the World Health Organization, and the Canadian Natural Health Products Directorate. They both recommend a dosage of echinacea that is at least 3 times greater than that used in the study.

And if you look at some of the best commercial preparations of echinacea, such as MediHerb’s Premium Echinacea, you’re actually looking at recommended dosages that are 12 to 16 times greater. The daily amount of echinacea used in the study was the equivalent of about half the MediHerb Premium tablet, whereas for acute infections, they recommend 6 to 8 of their tablets. Even for a preventative dose, they recommend 2 tablets a day.

Then, there is the question of quality. The type of echinacea used in the study was made by the authors themselves - who are certainly not experts in echinacea extraction. MediHerb have actually measured other commercial preparations from around the world and found that none of them had anywhere near the amount of alkylamides (an active constituent in echinacea), that their premium product had. And Consumer Labs, and independent testing organization, also found discrepancies in the quality of commercial products. So, there are wide variations in echinacea strength and quality even amongst professional extractors and supplement producers.

One of the author’s of the study even admitted that when he looked around now at some of the commercial preparations available, that the one they extracted, and the dosage they used, was only about one tenth what it should have been. (www.standardprocess.com/industrynews.asp)

The lesson here? Look closely at the results of studies. Just because something is published in a respected scientific journal, does not mean that it is necessarily valid.

For more information on this study, see these articles:

1. www.herbalgram.org/default.asp?c=echinacea072605
2. www.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=2868