Salvestrol
Am I being cynical?Let me introduce you to salvestrol.
Covered here: http://www.salvestrols.ca/resveratrolstory.asp
Big article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=393956&in_page_id=1798&in_a_source=
Apparently it's only certain veg that help.
All based on work by this guy
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/hls/staff/pharmacy/res_gpotter.jsp
who wrote about it FOUR YEARS AGO in the Lancet
Oh yes, the Professor has a company that....sells Salvestrol (now trademarked) as a supplement and the company says:
"So without the expertise now developed by our scientists it is virtually impossible to guarantee an adequate intake of Salvestrols from the diet which is why taking a supplement is so important"
So - modern marketing:
a. do research
b. maybe find something useful
c. trademark the name
d. develop supplements
e. get a national daily to run this 'new' news
f. say that veg are not enough
g. then you sell your supplements!
BINGO
posted by Duncan Williamson @ 3:08 AM
4 Comments:
This is a bit like modern politics:
THINK that Blair MIGHT have done something wrong or supported something that SEEMS iffy. Find someone with something that sounds like a name that might carry even just a fraction more weight than one's own. Contact a tabloid newspaper with your STORY.
Sit back and wait.
Peter Mandelson, David Kelly, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and many more have all suffered from this approach. John Prescott is in the middle of this kind of approach affecting his political life. Now there is the cash for honours debacle.
There may be something in some or all of these stories but along the way they become witch hunts, distasteful and a plain waste of time.
I imply no support or otherwise for the above "victims": I am only concerned with the process by which each of these events was treated in the media.
Duncan
sorry to undermine your cynicism, but I believe the prof is onto something. The dietary changes since (for example) the mid-Victorian period have dramatically rduced out intake of a whole range of phytonutrients, of which the salvestrols are just one sub-group. This shift is very strongly indeed lnked to the massive increase in cancers that has occurred since the mid-19th century, and has accelerated since the mid020th century. While salvestrols are not the only phytonutrients which confer chemo-protection, the mechanisms of action are convincing enough to make them prime candidates as natural chemo-preventive and -therapeutic agents.
ps I have no involvement with the prof or his company!
Then again and along the lines of who argues what, there was a bit on the You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4 the other day about a book written with the specific aim of encouraging people to take greater control of their Omega 3 intake.
The book was written by an enthusiast, not a dietician or doctor. He was backed up by Prof someone who was introduced as being a highly respected researcher.
However, the presenter of the programme said after trying to make rubbish out of the Omega 3 idea, "This is the kind of debate that can never end".
I was absolutely horrified at such arrogance.
Why invite the man on to pour scorn? Why invite a highly respected researcher on only to dismiss him too?
They also had a cook on, by the way, who understood the need for Omega 3 and balance in the diet but then also said something rubbishy about the chap's book. This cook is about 100 years old and about as modern as a Model T Ford.
Duncan
The company recently sent out a letter to customers claiming to have invested £10 million in research over 20 years. Good going for a company that is net yet four years old and with shareholder money invested of around £50,000.
Strong smell of bull**** about.
Add to that one of the directors was involved in a natural products company that went bust shortly after he left it and it all looks a bit iffy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home