AMERICAN NATUROPATHIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE
NATUROPATHIC ONCOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
1250 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 205
Tempe, AZ 85283
JOINT MEETING OF THE
AMERICAN NATUROPATHIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ANRI)
NATUROPATHIC ONCOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (NORI)
INTERNATIONAL NATUROPATHIC CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
February 13, 2015
MINUTES AND MEETING NOTES
In accordance with the requirements of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 56, the twenty-first regular quarterly meeting of the American Naturopathic Research Institute (ANRI) and the Naturopathic Oncology Research Institute (NORI) and the International Naturopathic Clinical Research Institute (INCRI) and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was called to order at 12:00 p.m., February 13, 2015 at 1250 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 205, meeting in Suite 203, Tempe, AZ 85283.
MEMBERS AND GUESTS
18 members and guests were in attendance. This included 13 physicians and 5 non-physicians.
PRODUCT COMPOUNDING AND REGULATORY MATTERS
Recent moves by the FDA were discussed, and various responses to those maneuvers.
OUR IRB’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NATUROPATHIC PROFESSION
First agenda question: Does it behoove us to reach out to the rest of the profession, to mentor and coach them in bringing their work under an IRB?
We originally viewed this as a regional community of physicians sharing discussions about the research. This provides a means for accountability when somebody is doing some sort of an experimental process. That is, if there is a standard of care established by the community, say in an IRB where we can look at each other’s research, and say to each other that we think that’s a good way to proceed, then we have a better basis to practice and continue practicing.
There are people who want to experience the full breadth of what naturopathic medicine can offer, and we don’t need other naturopaths attacking us or each other for wanting to respond to that need. Just being a part of long-term success of our patients – When I meet with a former cancer patient who is alive and well 15 years later from our treatments, or an autistic kid in my practice who couldn’t speak 12 years ago, and now is doing so well, he just got a scholarship, that is the best part of my job. I absolutely love that! We have the best job in the entire world.
So when it comes to our relationship with the rest of the profession, we wanted to offer a boilerplate / template – these are the requirements that others have found to be helpful, so why don’t you see if you want to do something like that yourselves in your local area.
The thing is no one owns anything. We can share our knowledge freely without a problem.
What we do is practice medicine with people to whom we are able to address a lot more of the particular needs of the individual, and that is something that conventional medicine does not have the capacity to provide. And we have to keep compounding in our offices because we have to respond to patient needs with agility and resourcefulness. As the times keep changing, we have to be able to incorporate all of the tools of an ever-expanding toolbox, and still face the new regulatory climate.
If we leave it to the naturopathic organizations, our practice will be ever further limited. We are told that in the interest of public safety, the most conservative, limited approach must be adopted. What that eventually does is water down what is available to people, which is a detriment to their greatest potential wellbeing. We end up taking decisions down to the lowest common denominator, and that is stultifying to our profession and its patients.
The value of knowledge passing through our profession is – here’s what we found works in this situation and in these circumstances. And that information could have massive, life-changing consequences for the patients of the naturopath who uses it. It is easy for people to say you have to stay within this little box in order to practice. But that is not in the best interest of anyone long-term. So the dilemma is: How do we reinforce the inclusive nature of our medicine, without having to give up any of it?
DR. ROGALLA’S RESEARCH
Dr. Proefrock then turned to Dr. Rogalla, who was next on the agenda, to present her research.
Dr. Rogalla is preparing to begin a brain center, a naturopathic neurological practice. Dr. Rogalla fielded questions from the group regarding protocols for interviewing patients, what type of patients she would see, what pathologies, and whether she would diagnose, or take already diagnosed patients. Dr. Rogalla also answered questions regarding imaging, labs and criteria for reassessment during and after treatment.
Dr. Rogalla also mentioned that she would like her patients to also work with a PCP, neurologist and other team members. Dr. Rogalla said: Ideally, I would want that rapport with all of the other doctors; I want to do something that is compatible with their medication and all the other treatments the patient is getting.
A motion was made and seconded to accept Dr. Rogalla’s research for review by the IRB. The vote to accept passed unanimously.
We moved on to a case history, a 48 yo female w metastatic breast cancer. Questions were asked and answered, and a treatment plan was proposed.
The same doctor presented a 60 yo prostate cancer case. Questions were asked and answered, and a treatment plan was proposed.
A FOLLOW-UP CASE
A follow-up case was presented to a previously presented case.
We agreed to meet again next time on Friday, May 15, 2015 – usual time and place.
Meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.