Hello Mr. Russell: SAFS GBC-590
I thought GBC-590 was described as pectin, which is a high molecular weight complex sugar (starch?). No protein in that (peptides). I am taking the misidentification as an indication of baloney supreme, and a first winnowing of those who will throw money at nonsense accompanied by mumbo jumbo, rather than track the substance of the claim.
Polypeptides that bind to specific sites can be had for a dime a dozen, actually several thousand dollars for a screening. What is more important is the binding strength (affinity), the specificity, the activity (and whether neutralizing or simply binding), and the stability, particularly of therapeutic polypeptides, which the body sees as food and are subject to enzymatic digestion. There would also be the issue of allergic responses, but for small peptides in the food molecular weight range, that is unlikely. Without hard data on these characteristics or clear and undeniable clinical effect, this would be a poorly characterized substance.
Because of the tremendous number of substances, and the fact that virtually all substances bind to other substances to some degree in biological systems, a claim of binding means very little unless backed by credible data. To be useful, binding needs to be selective and strong enough to out compete the milieu of substances in any biological or physiological system.
I don't see any merit in SAFS so far.
Best regards,
m |
