Protandim for Parkinson's?

I'm in a Facebook PD group that was discussing Protandim, an herbal supplement.  A woman who sells the supplement quoted from the company website about "research" that showed this supplement is really amazing: According to the company website, " It's also been shown to reduce oxidative stress in humans by 40% in 30 days."  I looked and looked, but the only studies about Protandim that I could find were in test tubes, in mice, or showed that the supplement didn't do anything in humans. (Research on actual humans: Protein synthesis and runners and alcoholics.)

Finally, I found the abstract for the actual study that the company (LifeVantage) is referring to, from 2006.  (Here's the full paper.) There are just a few things wrong with this study. These include:

• It contains a sales pitch for why the supplement contains these particular herbs and explains that they must be safe because they've been used naturally for a long time.  Since when does a sales pitch belong in a scientific paper?  And safety?  I thought of digitalis, which has been used naturally for centuries, but it would kill many heart patients; "natural" does not mean safe.

• There's no placebo group in this study, so is the result from Protandim or is it just enthusiasm? There is often a placebo effect so it's wise to see if the supplement has a different effect from the placebo.

• The people in the study were ages 20 to 78.  Really?

• Some of the people, though we're not told which ones, are taking other "supplements."  We're not told what supplements they are taking, either.  Could this have influenced any of the results?

• The text says there are 19 males and 10 females.  Group 1, which got a full dose, had 20 people in it.  Group 2, which got a half dose, had 4 people in it.  Why is it that the researchers don't tell us the mix of ages for each group, which genders were in each group, or how people were chosen for either group?

• This is the best part: they had data on 29 people and refer to the 29 repeatedly in the text and illustrations.  But group 1 (N=20) + group 2 (N=4) = 24, not 29.  What happened to the other 5?  Their data didn't work out?  The researchers don't say.

• Out of 5 authors, 2 are associated with the manufacturer of Protandim.  In fact, one is just associated with the manufacturer, not with any research institution.  What is he doing here?

• One of the authors is also on the editorial board of the journal.  Possible conflict of interest?  Considering that elementary math was overlooked, this article doesn't look like anybody subjected it to even a basic review, never mind a rigorous peer review (which, frankly, should have caught all these issues).

Does all this mean Protandim is bad? No. Not at all.  What it means is that nobody can tell. 

So far, there are no studies of Protandim and Parkinson's, so we don't know if it's safe for pwp, never mind if it's effective.



Image from Pixabay.