Trademarked Science Trade-Offs
Monday, July 10, 2006
I have written before about my assertion that if you find someone saying that you cannot get all the nutrients you need through food, then you have also found someone selling food supplements. This is the basic scam behind so many nutritionists - they make the process of eating a healthy diet look so formidable and fraught that you had better hedge your bets and scoff a lot of pills - that they can provide for you for a small(ish) fee.
I wish I could automate this rule in the quackometer. It is proving to be a sure rule in identifying quackery. Let's look at a recent health story in the Daily Mail:
Later in the article, advice is given:
But surely, we have the names of the researchers, they are associated with a UK University (de Montfort) and they are publishing papers. Surely, there must be something in this?
Well, one doesn't need to dig a lot further to find a few worrying things.
Now 'salvestrol' turns up on the UK patents register as a registered trade mark. What would a chemical name be doing there? Well, the registrant is a company called Nature's Defence Investments Ltd and they are based in Leicester. Now isn't de Monotfort University based in Leicester?
Let's have a look at Nature's Defence. Searching reveals a lot of related web sites, all using the Nature's Defence, or a fruitforce name, but operating in different countries. All promote the health benefits of salvestrols. All the sites appear to extol the benefits of salvestrols, and may offer training for health care professionals, and offer to sell supplements containing this 'super-vitamin'. Funnily enough, all the sites appear to involve our Profs Burke and Potter and point back to an address in Leicester.
Now what is the harm in trying to raise money from research you are doing, even to make a lot of money and become rich? Nothing in principle. But in doing so, we the consumer then have the right to question if there is a likely conflict of interest. Scientists have a duty to present all their evidence, good and bad, to give their best unbiased opinions on the nature of their work and to be seen as being objective as possible.
My worry is now that Profs Burke and Potter, having done some interesting work on some unusual chemicals, are heading down the path to the dark side of quackery.
Worrying is the lack of evidence that Salvestrols have any effect on reduction of cancer in humans. Most of the work so far has been done in vitro. That is, some cancer cells have been squirted with the stuff in a dish and, lo and behold, the cells don't do too well afterwards. Lots of chemicals have this effect on cells, it does not mean that we are looking at the next big cancer cure. The work done in humans has been looking at how salvestrols may be absorbed by digestion and what the metabolism pathways may be like. Results to date suggest there are concerns over how much would actual end up usefully in the body. At this stage, the selling of food supplements as a way of reducing cancer risk looks like it could be overpromotion - quackery.
To be fair, the jury is out. We do not know enough to give clear answers. But as for Burke and Potter, they have acted as if the firing gun has gone and the marketing campaign to the public has begun in earnest. Expect to see SalvestrolsTM in your health food shop before too long.
For me the most worrying aspect is where the latest research on this has been published. We see the latest paper is published in the British Naturopathic Journal. Now naturopathy is something that really get's the black duck's quackometer going. Naturopathy appears to be a mish-mash of philosophies of alternative medicine and pseudo-religious beliefs. Not somewhere you would expect the latest best thing in cancer prevention to get serious attention - apart from the health food adicts, the gullible and the desperate.
The publishing of this paper looks more like marketing than science then. Has science lost out here?
I wish I could automate this rule in the quackometer. It is proving to be a sure rule in identifying quackery. Let's look at a recent health story in the Daily Mail:
You're eating the WRONG fruit and veg!
We've known for some time that eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day can help protect you against cancer, but now research suggests that if we're not eating the right sort, it could be a waste of time and money. British researchers believe that most of the produce we eat is low in important cancer-fighting compounds called salvestrols. A typical five-a-day diet would give you only 10 per cent of the beneficial compounds you need to keep cancer at bay.In research published in the British Naturopathic Journal, Gerry Potter, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry [de Montfort], and Dan Burke, Emeritus Professor of Pharmaceutical Metabolism, explain how salvestrols work.
Have a look to see what the Quakometer makes of this article.
A couple of alarm bells ring here, such as the statement that you are unable to get enough of this through a normal diet, but also the words "naturopathic" and "emeritus". (More of that later.)Later in the article, advice is given:
... and then goes on to give a long list of foods that are hard to remember. But the seed has now been planted. Salvestrols, cancer-fighting, you are never going to get enough, supplements available.To boost your salvestrol intake you could take a supplement (available from health food stores). Or, simply increase your intake of the following foods...
But surely, we have the names of the researchers, they are associated with a UK University (de Montfort) and they are publishing papers. Surely, there must be something in this?
Well, one doesn't need to dig a lot further to find a few worrying things.
Now 'salvestrol' turns up on the UK patents register as a registered trade mark. What would a chemical name be doing there? Well, the registrant is a company called Nature's Defence Investments Ltd and they are based in Leicester. Now isn't de Monotfort University based in Leicester?
Let's have a look at Nature's Defence. Searching reveals a lot of related web sites, all using the Nature's Defence, or a fruitforce name, but operating in different countries. All promote the health benefits of salvestrols. All the sites appear to extol the benefits of salvestrols, and may offer training for health care professionals, and offer to sell supplements containing this 'super-vitamin'. Funnily enough, all the sites appear to involve our Profs Burke and Potter and point back to an address in Leicester.
Now what is the harm in trying to raise money from research you are doing, even to make a lot of money and become rich? Nothing in principle. But in doing so, we the consumer then have the right to question if there is a likely conflict of interest. Scientists have a duty to present all their evidence, good and bad, to give their best unbiased opinions on the nature of their work and to be seen as being objective as possible.
My worry is now that Profs Burke and Potter, having done some interesting work on some unusual chemicals, are heading down the path to the dark side of quackery.
Worrying is the lack of evidence that Salvestrols have any effect on reduction of cancer in humans. Most of the work so far has been done in vitro. That is, some cancer cells have been squirted with the stuff in a dish and, lo and behold, the cells don't do too well afterwards. Lots of chemicals have this effect on cells, it does not mean that we are looking at the next big cancer cure. The work done in humans has been looking at how salvestrols may be absorbed by digestion and what the metabolism pathways may be like. Results to date suggest there are concerns over how much would actual end up usefully in the body. At this stage, the selling of food supplements as a way of reducing cancer risk looks like it could be overpromotion - quackery.
To be fair, the jury is out. We do not know enough to give clear answers. But as for Burke and Potter, they have acted as if the firing gun has gone and the marketing campaign to the public has begun in earnest. Expect to see SalvestrolsTM in your health food shop before too long.
For me the most worrying aspect is where the latest research on this has been published. We see the latest paper is published in the British Naturopathic Journal. Now naturopathy is something that really get's the black duck's quackometer going. Naturopathy appears to be a mish-mash of philosophies of alternative medicine and pseudo-religious beliefs. Not somewhere you would expect the latest best thing in cancer prevention to get serious attention - apart from the health food adicts, the gullible and the desperate.
The publishing of this paper looks more like marketing than science then. Has science lost out here?
Labels: daily mail, salvestrols, vitamins
posted by Le Canard Noir at
1:25 PM
13 Comments:
Take a look at www.sohumone.com A Canadian who has tried and benefited from Salvestrols. He does not appear to be connected to the organisations selling the remedy.
Thanks for the link on the Canadian who has 'benefited' from Salvestrols. Yep, he clearly makes it very clear (Why?) on his web site that he has no connection with 'Salvestrol or its distributors'. Unfortunaltly, there is also no connection with reality. This is just a straightforward anecdote typical of quackery - and any scientist such as Prof Gerry Potter would have little to do with it as a piece of so-called evidence of efficacy. It is typical of the way quack medicine works - rely on authentic sounding and believable anecdotes. And sure enough, a quick Google reveals the writer of this piece is a 'reiki master, and Qigong teacher' (http://www.earthfuture.com/econews/back_issues/06-05.asp). About as quacky as it gets.
So basically what you are saying is that anyone who tries a product and says it works is an anecdote and can be dismissed!
I guess the kind of people who will be willing to try a route like this are going to be the 'open minded' ones. (In your terms empty headed). No surprise then that Ken Shannon is in to reiki.
It's easy to be cynical when your life is not threatened, but if you do a bit of digging on the background of the two Profs I think you will find that neither of them is remotley interested in making money. They are academics trying to get recognition for a great discovery. A Nobel prize would be worth more to them than any financial reward.
Anonymous said...
"So basically what you are saying is that anyone who tries a product and says it works is an anecdote and can be dismissed!"
Absolutely. Anecdotes are near worthless.
See- things- for- what- they- are said,
The day these fellas produce some scientifially sound research to show that they have found a preventative for cancer, they should indeed receive a Nobel Prize.
However, what we have is are two fellas pedalling their unproven supplement and assuring people that the cancer cells will be obliterated. Now that's not fair, because it has no scientific basis behind it (e.g. If I poured bleach over some cancer cells , I dare say I'd kill them, but one cannot then assume that we should all be drinking a glass of bleach a day to ward off cancer.That would be stupid, right?).
They published a paper in 2002 which looked promising IN THE LAB. Now it's 2006, we all look forward to hearing that it is successful in humans. And I promise I will applaud them if they were right all along. It's just I don't think they should be selling their product NOW, becasue that is quackery.
GET REAL said,
these guys last published a paper in 2002 which gave some promising results IN THE LAB. i.e not on human beings. It's the fact that this cure for cancer is being pedalled without any scientific research in humans that definately earns it a "Quack" label. For example, if I was to take a petri dish of cancer cells and pour bleach on them, I dare say they would all die. Now, do I have the right to suggest to you that you drink a glass of bleach every day to cure/prevent cancer. No, that would be stupid, right?
It is a long leap between the petri dish to the human body and alot of good research should come in between.
If they do manage to show that it works in humans, I promise, I will salute them. But right now, they should not be selling "supplements" that will supposedly kill your pre cancer cells. They have no proof as yet.
I would encourage people to have some patience here. I understand the value of a Quackometer, but I don’t think there’s evidence to include salvestrols.
I have met Gerry Potter twice. He is Professor of Medicinal Medicine and Director of the Cancer Drug Discovery Group at the School of Pharmacy at De Montford University, in Leicester. He is genuine, sincere, and a solid scientist. See http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/hls/staff/pharmacy/res_gpotter.jsp.
The science behind salvestrols starts with Gerry’s work on resveratrol (found in red grapes), which triggers an enzyme that is present in every cancer cell to produce a compound called piceatannol, which then attacks the cancer cell, and the cancer cell alone.
He developed a drug to mimic the role of resveratrol in fighting cancer, which is going through clinical trials. He then asked the question, “Since nature did not need a drug to trigger the enzymes, the enzyme must exist in nature. So where is it?”
After analyzing every kind of food, his team found it in abundance in organic food, and named the family of compounds salvestrols. When ripe fruits and vegetables are attacked by fungus, which happens all the time, they develop the salvestrols as a natural defence. When we eat the plants, the salvestrols in the food trigger the enzymes in any cancer cell to produce piceatannol, which then attacks the cancer.
Having discovered this, his team searched for plants that had the highest level of salvestrols, and stared testing to see if the compound would fight an active cancer if eaten as a supplement. When they discovered that it seemed that they did, he helped create the Nature’s Defence to sell the food supplements as Fruitforce; these are simply concentrated salvestrols, taken from fruit.
The salvestrols are currently undergoing clinical trials in London, Dublin and Malaysia, and it will be several years until these are complete. Until then, all evidence of their effectiveness is rightly considered “anecdotal”. That word covers everything from “I heard it at the bus stop” to (in the case of salvestrols) evidence from doctors supervising cancer patients who are using the salvestrols. It is not true that all anecdotes are nearly worthless. Some are; some are not. It depends on the source of the evidence.
As to the company being formed, this was the best way to get the salvestrols distributed so that people with cancer could benefit from them, and so that a body of informal evidence could be gathered. The income goes back into further research.
Cancer is such an insidious disease that I really welcome a development such as this. It is completely right that we should cast a skeptical eye on new developments, since the world is full of scams and quackeries, but this one deserves to be given patience while the clinical trials are proceeding.
Sincerely,
Guy Dauncey
Canada
PS I have no personal stake in the company, and nobody asked me to write this. I am co-chair of the Canadian non-profit society Prevent Cancer Now (www.preventcancernow.ca), and co-author of the book Cancer: 101 Solutions to a Preventable Epidemic, which is being published in May 2007.
I am also the Editor of the monthly newsletter EcoNews, which has printed stories about organic food, cancer, and salvestrols. (www.earthfuture.com/econews)
These Salvestrol people are even trying to get sneaky free adverts on the British Government petitions website. Check out http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cancer-Act/
Doesn't this underhand behaviour betray an unethical and deceptive approach to "medicine"? My mother died from cancer in 2001, and in my opinion the marketing and money-making efforts of these fraudsters are sickening. I wish I could get one of them toe-to-toe!
I can understand your concern in regard to claims being made by some that this is some proven cure but I don't think there is any doubt at all about quackery. There is none in regard to those who are actually pushing ahead with clinical trials.
the scientific work done on resveratrol is sound and does not originate from supplement pushers. Logic and the present science indicates this has a higher than usual probability of actually having a meaningful effect on the treatment of cancer.
Is their any clinical trial to yet point to to say it will? No. Does the science we have indicate that it has a serious possibility (not certainty)of being effective? Yes
Then why shouldn't a cancer patient now take a few pills or change their diets if they don't have time to wait for a clinical trial?
Sorry but this cannot be lumped into a quack file.
Where is the evidence that there is a high probability that salvestrols 'will work'? Lot's of pill pushers make the samee claims - all unfounded. To repeat - I have nothing against the science, but dislike the haste to sell food supplements as miracle cures. The history of food supplements is not good. Just look up the latest on antioxidents - touted as the must take pills - no seen as potentially harmful.
Dear Black Duck,
I understand your difficulties with the idea, widely touted, that people cannot get all the vitamins, minerals etc they need from a well-balanced diet; and it is indeed often used as a way of selling supplements. You take the orthodox position on this issue. But, there is more than a grain of truth in the dysnutrition story ... .... and several well-understood and structural reasons why it is so common.
1. We are astonishingly physically inactive. The available data suggest our daily calorific expenditure rates have fallen by about 30% since 1950, and by nearly 100% since 1900. This is for reasons such as the availability of inexpensive energy, labour-saving technology, and the huge social shift from blue to white collar occupations. As a result our food intakes have been dramatically reduced, although they have started to rise again (due in part to the marketing efforts of the fast food franchises).
2. Poor food choices - thanks in no small measure to our need for convenience foods, and the rush by food manufacturers to supply that need.
This has lead to a situation where even the UN Standing Committee on Huma Nutrition issued a statement last year to the effect that dysnutrition was rife. I know you are a sceptic (and share that tendency), so check out the USDA survey of nutrient intakes, and our very own Gregory et al 2000, National Diet & Nutrition Surveys, HMSO.
You surely would not want your own prejudices to cloud your own judgment?
PS. I advise a number of companies in this area, including NutriShield.
Paul Clayton
Nature's Defence recently sent out letters to customers claiming that 10 million pounds had been spent on research into salvestrols over twnety years.
Now the company was only formed in 2005, and from the accounts at Companies House it looks like less than £50,000 could have been invested. Add to that the trademark is only a few years old and the whole thing looks questionable.
A bit of homework on one of the directors reveals that he was a director of a company that went bust a few months after he left it. That appears to have been a natural products company too called The Herbal Apothecary Ltd.
Nature's Defence seems to punch well above it's weight. It has very few employees, but in it's letter to customers it appears to be involved in all sorts of world beating projects. If there was a prize for bull**** they would be leading contenders.
I will not comment further on whether the release of the supplement is for the benefit of the user or that of the pocket of the supplier - I know where I place my trust. However if the haste of this is disliked then follow the timeline for Aspartame (splenda) if haste is a factor of quackary then this product is top of the list.
I know which product I would take a risk and it isn't the one that has all so called scientific research. As in so many things "you pays your money and you makes your choice" - just leave people with a choice, at least in the case of supplements they have one - not so sure about some of these other items that don't seem to appear on the quack list.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home