Time for Another Look at Resveratrol (Scandal)

Never be the first to prescribe a medication but neither be the last.  Couple that philosophy with "if it sounds too good to be true, it's probably too good to be true" and you could have the story of resveratrol.  In case you're not familiar with this compound that has the potential to act as "an antidepressant, an anti-inflammatory, an anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-viral, anti-cancer, cholesterol-lowering, liver-cleansing, brain enhancing molecule" according to Bill Sardi, whose company manufactures resveratrol, it is found in many plants, but most famously in grapes, especially their skins.  However, while benefit has been noted in animal studies, there haven't been any high quality human studies demonstrating any benefit to supplementation aside form consuming a traditionally healthy diet, as summarized & promulgated last June.  

So perhaps I shouldn't be all that surprised to stumble upon recent news that a renown researcher of resveratrol allegedly doctored results from 145 projects in more than 26 peer-reviewed papers published over 7 years.  Does this mean that resveratrol doesn't work?  Far from it.  Hopefully, other published data demonstrating benefit hasn't been falsified.  But if these allegations are proven correct, then it certainly goes to demonstrate the pressures of staying relevant in the harsh academic environment of "publish or perish".  

And let's not forget the economic pressure to put out positive results to support & enhance sales.  Unfortunately, when it comes to nutritional supplements (as opposed to prescription medications), there is no third party oversight to insist upon quality manufacturing while the manufacturers themselves have no requirement to prove either benefit or safety as long as they include the familiar disclaimer, "This product is not intended to treat, diagnose, cure, or prevent any disease".  Caveat emptor.

Follow @alvinblin
Tweet