Plant Research - Erroneous Conclusions

“Dominique Richard is quite outspoken when it comes to plant research.  He has been studying phytotherapy for over 38 years.   We spoke with Richard to find out his view on plant research studies and conclusions.  – Lynnrae Fors”

Lynnrae Fors: “Can you give us more detail about the researchers you are going to speak about?”

Dominique Richard: “Yes, of course. In order to confirm the pharmacological validation of the uses reports, the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (ESCOP), German Commission E, World Health Organization (WHO), European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) and the Farmacopea Española (RFE) monographs have been revised. A literature review has been carried out with the plants without monograph and high-frequency citations. This also included the FDA. Does this seem impressive at first glance?”

Lynnrae Fors: “Yes, it does sound impressive.”

Dominique Richard: “However, none of these entities ever do research studies of their own. They mainly base their review from other’s studies, which are only referenced in their monograph. Almost all conclusions derived from most of these studies are erroneous because all of the cited research studies never detail and lists the entire chemical composition of any one given plant.“

Lynnrae Fors: “How do you know?”

Dominique Richard: “Well, for over 38 years, I have been researching both in a laboratory qualitative and quantitative analysis and by clinical research. After exhausting almost all of the so-called scientific literature, I have come to disingenuous conclusions.”

Lynnrae Fors: “Tell us more about what you concluded.”

Dominique Richard: “First is that very few, if any, research studies on plants ever study an entire plant composition. I have never once seen a book or a study listing an entire plant’s composition however small the amounts may be of its entire chemical constituents. Second is that an isolated synthetic analog works very differently than how it works when obtained from a natural unadulterated source. Third is that synthetic analogs are given in much higher amounts than what is found in nature. They also contain other chemicals in their fabrication, which are never found in nature, such as DMSO an unsafe solvent well known to disrupt estrogen receptors in humans being used in the extraction of plants for research, and other chemicals used in the isolation of synthetic analogs. So now, you have an isolated synthetic analog accompanied by other synthetic chemicals, which clearly will give you very different results.”

Lynnrae Fors: “Those reasons seem sound.” 

Dominique Richard: “I’m not finished; there are actually 7 reasons that support my statement of erroneous conclusions.”

Lynnrae Fors: “Please go on.”

Dominique Richard: “Fourth is that synthetic chemicals are never considered as being the contributing factors for negative adverse side effects. Truly, it is more often the culprit cause for negative conclusions. Fifth is that interactions are rarely, if ever studied. This is because no money making can be derived from them as they are not patentable.  Sixth is that these research studies are all incomplete, when only one or two selected phytochemicals are studied. This is not the way they occur in nature. Rather it is the total sum of a plant’s composition that is responsible for any one given biological activity and not that of only one phytochemical. And how else would you know unless you study an entire plant’s composition that you cannot arrive at any conclusion. To state that you are studying nature and plants are also inaccurate; this is merely the study of synthetic analogs at best. To reach any conclusions based on partial chemical studies is not one within the same as to what is observed from nature.Seventh is the study of plant phytochemicals done in vitro or in vivo animal studies. These studies do not always translate to be the same as what is observed in vivo human studies.”

Lynnrae Fors: “It seems you have a solid foundation.“

Dominique Richard: “By now, I have spent countless hours reading hundreds of thousands of these types of studies and tested many of their conclusions.  My findings are extremely different than what is being reported. These isolated studies have fueled more rumors than scientific evidence and now have the burden of proof. Most of these studies have shown to be more erroneous than they are credible. The study of phytochemistry is an enormous undertaking, especially when you have no existing phytochemicals classification consensus. Establishing such a classification has caused the delay for the publication of the book I’ve been working on - The Medicinal Embryonic Phytotherapy Encyclopedia.”

Lynnrae Fors: “Dominique, what do you see for the future of phytochemistry?”

Dominique Richard: “The future of academic phytochemistry and pharmacological indications study is in dire straits. It is in need of revamping the approach for how plants need to be studied to arrive at precise and accurate conclusions. Those agencies claiming authority over the subject matter of plant pharmacological uses cannot and should not solely rely on other researcher’s studies; especially isolated, incomplete studies.  Thus, analyzing a data set with only one method could yield method-dependent results, potentially leading to erroneous conclusions.”

Lynnrae Fors: “Thank you Dominique, you are nature’s most devout representative and able to defend your position!”

Contact Information

Lynnrae Fors

Marketing Director

PSC Distribution LLC

Contact via E-mail