Still you resort to insults, and still you haven't answered my questions. It now seems you're also given to making assumptions.
How do you know what I do or don't suffer from? Or what my qualifications are? Or what my occupation is? Or where my interests lay?
As for the honourable Dr Briffa from the newspaper, your comment indicates that he said it "MAY" be beneficial. Different slant to the 'fact' you gave previously.
It's quite common practice when enough firm data isn't available to confirm one way or the other, is purely an opinion, or proper investigations into the aetiology have not been completed
Do you really consider that to be evidence for you to support the product?
From which it appears you extrapolated to state the substance "... improves the blood circulation...". You also said this improvement is "...thought to improve the condition." All well & good, but where is your data to justify your assertions?
It is you, and not I, that have made claims. At no point have I said that it doesn't work - only that your claims are just that, claims. It may well be that this substance has some anatomical &/or physiological effect.
Unless it's just a figment in the mind of the recipient.