The University of Colorado in Boulder, Colo. recently reported on its study results about a new, innovative, antioxidant. The report was entitled, “Novel antioxidant makes old blood vessels seem young again”, which certainly grabs the reader’s attention. Who wouldn’t want to have blood vessels that seem younger?
The work demonstrates that pharmaceutical-grade nutritional supplements (nutraceuticals), could play an important role in (possibly?) preventing heart disease. Passive language is all the rage in medical literature and one must presume that it’s based on a fear of actually making claims that may not be true. The report and the study both look more like a trial balloon than documenting a scientific breakthrough in health. If the stories generate interest, the authors will want to continue their work and take it to a final marketable product. The published reports substantiate claims about who is first to discover the new approach.
That’s enough back story. The more important part of this whole story is a few lines that appear toward the end of the report from CU Boulder;
“Exercise and eating a healthy diet are the most well-established approaches for maintaining cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Douglas R. Seals, a professor of integrative physiology. “But the reality is, at the public health level, not enough people are willing to do that. We’re looking for complementary, evidence-based options to prevent the age-related changes that drive disease. These supplements may be among them.”
One must wonder if the authors meant that their findings are great news for everyone who wants younger blood vessels, or that which seem younger. Furthermore, there’s a powerful indictment in that short quote. The fact remains that a healthy diet is the best approach to good heart health. Sadly, few are willing to do that. Therefore, according to these reporters and many others, we need research to discover extracts and laboratory chemicals that will make us seem healthy, regardless of how poorly we eat.
It is important to note another veiled proclamation, that they are promoting a pharmaceutical grade substance, which means it is likely to be patented and sold as a drug, most certainly called a nutraceutical to further mask the fact that it is made in a chemistry laboratory in a country outside the United States. Image is vital and using neutra presents a healthier image than drug or chemical. It seems natural.
So, is there something inherently wrong with medical patents? Of course not, particularly when the patent is the legitimate method for protecting the interests of the inventor. Although isn’t it possible to obtain a patent for a natural substance, no patented dried foods or vitamins, big drug companies, and their cohorts in the education world, are skilled at devising unique ways to extract or manipulate natural substances into products they can find patents. That means they will control manufacturing, distribution, and prices for the life of their patent protection, in the neighborhood of 20 years.
Too few will eat well, according to this study and report, and we’ve all witnessed the same thing, and are probably just as guilty as the next person that means that huge numbers of us likely will buy the next prescribed innovation because it’s easier to pop a pill than to buy and prepare good food. In addition, somebody else, the government or the insurance company, usually will help pay for prescription drug (nutraceuticals). What many people refuse to acknowledge is that nothing is free and that insurance, private or government, doesn’t pay for anything. Instead, the citizens and/or subscribers put in their money that the third party system uses to pay for their prescriptions. It’s the system. It’s popular. It’s unlikely to go away anytime soon.
Larry Frieders is a pharmacist in Aurora who had a book published, The Undruggist: Book One, A Tale of Modern Apothecary and Wellness. He can be reached at
thecompounder.com/ask-larry or www.facebook.com/thecompounder.
