23 replies to this topic

[Anthony_Loera]

Folks, I decided to put this in it's own thread so as to not pollute the main Astragalus thread:

This morning, I just saw the following file:
http://www.hta98.com/ta65coa.pdf

I really don't like when others use RevGenetics property for their own purposes, and erase 'RevGenetics' information from it. This is a lab test we made at our own expense. The "Mackenzie Protocol" folks need to stop using it altogether, or give credit where credit is due, instead of falsely portraying it as their own.

Tony, I am calling you out. Take that down, you do not have my permission to use it.

For folks that want to compare, here is a link to the original lab test:
http://www.longecity...&attach_id=9536

Folks can see what has been taken out immediately when comparing both. This sort of clear violation of copyrighted material should send a red flag to everyone.

Seriously... are these folks trust worthy enough to provide a quality product, of any kind, if they find it a good practice to manipulate lab tests?

A

P.S. For those without a PDF Reader, you can see the attached image that shows the lab test manipulation. The one that says 'RevGenetics' is the original lab test.

Attached Files

•  COA-Manipulation.Png   68.15KB   30 downloads

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 17 November 2011 - 05:10 PM.

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

Dear Anthony Loera,

This is to exercise my right of reply in a public forum

I am sorry you have felt offended by this action which was done, unknown to me, by a website assistant a few days ago.

If you had contacted me privately first I would have been happy to imediately correct the matter and I am grateful that you have brought it to my attention, albeitl in a rather heavy handed fashion..

The fact is that this certificate is now firmly ensconced in the public domain and knowledge anyway and was further publicised when you contacted myself and other cycloastragenol supppliers recently with a link to the certificate together with an offer to buy the dotcom domain of cycloastragenol from you for $100,000.

I can confirm that the link to the amended pdf hostedon www.hta98.com has now been replaced with a link to the original domain on this forum showing the certificate with the revgentics name on it. This link is clearly in the public domain and is searchable via Google.

IAs it says on my website at www,mackenzieprotocol.com I went into this business from a genuine over-riding altruistic intention and believe that the consumer should have a choice in a free and democratic society.

We are doing our best to offer an economic alternative to consumers and practitioners alike.

As the first company over this side of the pond in Britain offering 98% cycloastragenol on worldwide distribution at an affordable price we seem to have ruffled a few feathers and vested interests have already been blocking our attempts to introduce a telomere measurement service.

It seems that there is something of a closed shop amongst people in this new cutting edge business and added to the opposition now apparent from Codex Alimentarius restricting the pubiic's access to natural herbal products and vitamins I wonder if I shouldn't be looking for an easier product to promote.

Like many people on this forum, and as a previous wholesale purchaser of your products, I am extremely, baffled as to why you have gone over to selling the more expensive TA65 products.which is licensed to the sellers from a pharmaceutical company.

My view of the politics of pharmaceutical companies and their links with Codex Alimentarius are supported by the links to the comprehensive information I have researched including the bravery of Dr Rath of the Rath Foundation in putting his head above the parapet in cellular medical research.

Whilst mentioning Dr Rath I should not omit to mention the exellent work of Scott Tips at the National Health Federation in the USA and Dr Verkerk at the Alliance for Natural Health in the UK.

Thank you Anthony for your previous efforts and I'm genuinely sorry if we did something wrong.

Regards

tony@globaltrade-eu.com
Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
Independent Anti Aging Researcher

"300 club" funding member of
The Methuselah Foundation

International member of
The National Health Federation (USA)

Rath Foundation Advanced Course
certificate - cellular medicine

Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd

Edit: links removed. -mod

Edited by niner, 17 November 2011 - 08:22 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Tony,

Thank you for changing the COA, to the original one that states 'RevGenetics' on it.

A few points:
1- The COA is copyrighted. No sale of it, was ever made, and no authorization of it's use was made to anyone, for any business purposes.

2- If you have been in business selling herbal supplements previously, it would seem you would know the rules and regulations in the UK. It appears you are new to the business, and have led with your heart (or your purse) into the endeavor.

3- As you know, we have tested Cycloastragenol (link) in 2009 for telomerase activity, we tested TA-65 last your (our COA), and then again this year for telomerase activity (The study is not yet available), as well as high extracts of Astragalus (that were just under Geron's patent). We are setting out to prove and test other telomerase activators as well. However, what I don't need are folks using our tests without giving clear knowledge of where they came from, and who performed them. Usually I don't have a problem with the information, unless you manipulate it to try and sell something with it.

My personal aim is to get this history straightened out properly.

If people use our findings, and find it easy to manipulate lab tests, then you open the door to the manipulation of your own COA's or lab tests for your own purposes. I understand that you have stated that it was your website assistant, and so...

My suggestion for your business and growth:
I suggest you fire that person and his 'report to' or manager outright, and take responsibility for his actions instead of making excuses. Remember, the buck stops with you, when you are starting up a business. Don't be tempted by the power of your tools to fib or lie, because it will certainly come back and haunt you. If you start from a position of honor and truth in your business communications, then you will never fear what any 'assistant' might do. He will take his cue from you automatically.

Why do we sell TA-65?
We retail to customers (and wholesale to businesses) TA-65, because it works very well and have always provided world class products to our customers. We also noted certain manufacturing/production characteristics that are impossible to accomplish using high herbal extracts of astragalus... which I personally believe, gives TA-65 an enormous leg up over other astragalus based products in this arena.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 17 November 2011 - 09:41 PM.

[chrono]

@Anthony: sorry if I'm missing something here, but the picture you posted does not show any manipulation of lab tests/results. All it shows is the deletion of your company details. Was there a manipulation of the actual data elsewhere in the file, or was the name deletion the only change?

If so, it might help to 'set the record straight' if you edited your posts and the thread title accordingly. I think your sensibilities are correct in that this was inappropriate, but 'Manipulates Lab Results' and 'Reposts lab test without permission/credit' imply very different things.


@Tony: thanks for the level-headed response

Edited by chrono, 17 November 2011 - 11:26 PM.

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

Hi Anthony,

I am not going to comment on all the personal and condescending remarks you have made about myself and my business other than two salient points:-

1. You have publicly delared that we "manipulated the test results" which is blatantly untrue. We simply omitted your name which was a bad move on our part and it was removed within days with an apology as soon as you pointed it out. As I said, you only had to point this out pivately to achieve the same result.NO TEST RESULTS WERE MANIPULATED AND WE QUOTED EXACTLY THE SAME TEST RESULTS AS YOUR VERSION.NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. The guy who did the copy was unaware of the legal requirement that the name of Revgebetics should not have been removed even though we made no claim to the report being ours as you claim plus thename of the laboratory was clearly shown. I have publicly and humbly apologised for this.

2. What you have publicly shouted out to the world regarding this untrue "manipulation of the test results" together with impuning our trustworthiness is legally libellous and I request a public apology for this libel on this forum to prevent discussion between myself and our company lawyers.

In summary, you have not adequately answered, to the satisfaction of most people on this forum, as to why you are now promotong a considerably more expensive product licensed from a pharmaceutical company that you yourself have already previously demonstrated and claimed on this website has little significant difference. You have also previously critiised the TA65 patent which you declared as "smoke and mirrors."

The certificate in question was carried out long before you were selling TA65 and at a time when you were promoting your own cycloastragenol and doing your best to show that TA65 was very little different than the basic upatented cycloastragenol product. I am sure there are other reasons why you have decided to market TA65 at his time and these real reasons are known only to you.

I, like many on this forum, have previously had the utmost respect for what you were doing but you will not maintain that respect if you attempt to malign honest competitors and their trustworthiness.

When I am on the receiving end of such unfounded libel I get most upset.

Maybe you have now "shot yourself in the foot!!!"

regards

Tony Mackenzie

[Anthony_Loera]

Tony,

My answers are adequate and after reading your last post, I personally believe that your apology is not sincere.
The lab results are copyrighted property of RevGenetics.

You are now formally requested to cease and desist from using it further.
Please take down the COA from your website, you do not have permission to use it in any way shape or form.

A

P.S. Also, It is was not a false statement, that you edited the lab coa and took out our information from copyrighted material. The definition of 'Manipulate' meets the definition used, and the post further describes the exact nature of what happened. The initial post description of the issue is all fact based as well. Something only qualifies as libel if it is false. I think we have established that what you did meets the definitions below, was not false statement at all, and that the context supports it as well.

You admited that you did use software to edit the copyrighted lab analysis for your own purposes. In my opinion this meets the definitions by established dictionaries of the English language: "to change it in an artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose" (merriam-webster.com)," to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage" (Dictionary.com), "To tamper with or falsify for personal gain" (thefreedictionary.com). I see no libel issue because you did do this to our copyrighted lab tests for your personal gain / advantage, without our permission:


Definitions of "Manipulate":
http://dictionary.re...owse/manipulate
http://www.merriam-w...nary/manipulate
http://www.thefreedi....com/manipulate

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 18 November 2011 - 03:38 PM.

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

Hi Anthony,

Yesterday you said:- "Thank you for changing the COA, to the original one that states 'RevGenetics' on it."


I now have nothing on our website that is your copyright. We are merely pointing at something that you put into the public domain when it suited you and is also avaiable to the whole world from Google.

Now, it appears you have changed your mind, and this change of mind is not based on what we have done but on what I have said to you.

I think you are letting this issue get of hand. It's a big world and I think there is room for both of us, don't you?

All I want is to be fair and honest and to be treated fairly and honestly.

I think I have already demonstrated this in the content of my previous posts in this thread so the forum and any members interested in the issue can be the judge of this.

Here is a copy of the emails between us today.

from you to me:-

Tony after reading your last post,
I am formally requesting that you cease and desist using the RevGenetics copyrighted COA in any way shape or form.


I am copying legal council on this email.

Anthony Loera
President
RevGenetics

email from me to you:-


Hi Anthony,

I am disappointed in your unreasonable response which appears to me to be based on emotion rather than reason.

The facts are as follows:-

1. We are merely pointing to an item which is already widely in the public domain as well as on the Imminst forum. We have no control over that content. The same item is linked to from the Google search engine and available to the whole word to view.

2. You have not responded to my polite request to apologise for and to withdraw your libel of myself and my company where you are seriously impuning our trustworthiness.

I welcome any approach from your lawyers with whom we will be seeking damages unless you are prepared to change your haughty attitude and rescind your previous libel.

This is a very disappointing response from someone I previously had a high regard for.

Regards

tony@globaltrade-eu.com
Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
Independent Anti Aging Researcher

"300 club" funding member of
The Methuselah Foundation

International member of
The National Health Federation (USA)

Rath Foundation Advanced Course
certificate - cellular medicine

Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Anthony,
Yesterday you said:- "Thank you for changing the COA, to the original one that states 'RevGenetics' on it."

I now have nothing on our website that is your copyright. We are merely pointing at something that you put into the public domain when it suited you and is also avaiable to the whole world from Google. Now, it appears you have changed your mind, and this change of mind is not based on what we have done but on what I have said to you.

Tony,

The lab results are copyrighted property of RevGenetics and are not in the public domain because they are found on 'Google'. I cannot consider providing you permission of any kind, if you declare such statements.

I also hope you don't think that all the music found in Google is also in the public domain.
If you did...well I hate to break it to you, but that would be incorrect as well.

Per my email and my previous post, you do not have permission to use it in any way shape or form.

A

[Anthony_Loera]

To limit the accessibility of the copyrighted document, I am taking the CoA off of Imminst for now.
I suspect all the google links will be broken once we do this, since we control the document here.

A

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

Hi Anthony,

You are perfectly entitled to do that. I was merely pointing out that I believed I was correct in my legal interpretation.

The fact is that you keep changing your approach and your mind.
First you said it was OK for us to point to the forum showing the certificate with your name on it then you said it wasn't because you got angry over something I said.

Maybe, just perhaps, you are really angry over some unknown circumstances that caused you to have to start selling TA65 instead of your own product and we got the brunt of it.

I really don't care one way or the other as there are plenty of other Google links that discuss what the main contents of TA65 are based on and we dont really need the certificate that you had placed in the public domain to demonstrate this fact.

What I do care about is the fact that you have publicly libelled us by impuning our trustworthiness in a public forum.

I don't expect you will be big enough to retract this libellous statement but, depending on how I view it's future knock-on effect, I will reserve my rights to take action over it.

I never had the intention of causing such offence and I am still genuinely sorry it came to this but I do actually think you have made yourself look rather foolish the way you have handled it.

regards

Tony Mackenzie
The Mackenzie Protocol
Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd
worldwide distributor of HTA98

[Anthony_Loera]

Tony,

This issue has always been about copyright violations, editing our document for your own purposes without our permission, and stating the document is in the public domain, when it isn't. I really can't believe you ask me for permission to use the document while continuing to argue that the document is in the "Public Domain". If you can't possibly register how those two conflict, then it is not up to me clear that up for you.

Since you appear not to care about US Copyright law, I reserve all legal rights to enforce our copyrights regarding this action at any time in the future. I am very happy that you admitted that your people edited the document without our permission on on this forum.

I personally find it unsettling that you still think this is about pricing between Cycloastragenol & TA-65.
In my honest personal opinion editing CoA's is the worst thing that any foreign manufacturer can do, and once it's shown that it happens in foreign production facilities, it needs to be addressed for the public well-being (we did something similar for resveratrol here). The public needs to make up their own minds about the facts.

Cheers
A

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

Dear Anthony,

Why do you stubbornly refuse to recognise that you accepted the amendment we made by thanking me and then changed your mind when you didn't like something I said in response to your haughty attitude about how I run my business.

This is when it got personal.

Our part-time web assistant originally thought he was doing the "right" thing by not including your name as he thought that to include your name would have been be using your name without permission. I have now explained the situation to him and done my best to rectify that issue.

It is quite clear to anyone reading the thread that we did not have any bad intent and the false claims you have made about us were unwarranted.

You may like to know that the certificate you have listed on the forum was still appearing when I tried it a few minutes ago.

However, although I still maintain that my legal interpretation was correct, I have now completely removed the link to the forum hosting of the certificate anyway as I really don't like bad feeling.

If you had contacted me privately in the first place this slanging match would not have ensued.

I'm quite a gentle soul at heart until I get bullied or have my integrity impugned and integrity is something I always endeavour to maintain high standards of.

I now feel that I don't really need to display a link to your certificate to sell my product and it is a pity you can't reciprocate the same goodwill.

Regards

tony@globaltrade-eu.com
Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
Independent Anti Aging Researcher

"300 club" funding member of
The Methuselah Foundation

International member of
The National Health Federation (USA)

Rath Foundation Advanced Course
certificate - cellular medicine

Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd

[times_are_changing]

Hello Tony,
did you get any laboratory telomere length measurements to bring a difference between telomere length with/without a daily intake of a telemerase booster like cycloastragenol / astragaloside ?
Do you have some tech documents related to a human cell culture like MRC-5 human strain showing up a difference between the telomere length when cells are fed/not fed with a telomerase booster like cycloastragenol / astragaloside ?
I didn't find out some scientific works asserting such a proof of concept...
Did I make the proper data mining ?
Thank you for bringing some light on this concern....

[Paul Stockmarketanxiety]

Folks, I decided to put this in it's own thread so as to not pollute the main Astragalus thread:

This morning, I just saw the following file:
http://www.hta98.com/ta65coa.pdf

I really don't like when others use RevGenetics property for their own purposes, and erase 'RevGenetics' information from it. This is a lab test we made at our own expense. The "Mackenzie Protocol" folks need to stop using it altogether, or give credit where credit is due, instead of falsely portraying it as their own.

Tony, I am calling you out. Take that down, you do not have my permission to use it.

For folks that want to compare, here is a link to the original lab test:
http://www.longecity...&attach_id=9536

Folks can see what has been taken out immediately when comparing both. This sort of clear violation of copyrighted material should send a red flag to everyone.

Seriously... are these folks trust worthy enough to provide a quality product, of any kind, if they find it a good practice to manipulate lab tests?

A

P.S. For those without a PDF Reader, you can see the attached image that shows the lab test manipulation. The one that says 'RevGenetics' is the original lab test.

I can't access this file, it says I don't have "permission"

Really, is this document a "holy Grail" because it seems impossible to view!

When you also try to view it on the Revgenics website it says an error:

Visit CycloAstragenol.com for a new copy of the lab results. This document has expired and can no longer be displayed.

It seems there is no way to view it!

Can someone email it to me ?

sjoh7729@dodo.com.au

[Logic]

TA-65 according to the COA is: (Unless I have it completely wrong?)

Astragaloside IV - .27mg / serving
Astragenol - .01mg / servin
Cycloastraganol - 5.44mg / serving

However I would strongly suggest looking at Jim Green's telomere tests after taking different astrogalus products as he obtained his best results, by far, after taking a combination of whole Astragalus Root and Astragalus Extract.
These results are superior to anything those published by TA Sciences.

He also has the most comprehensive body of information on many different Telomerase activators in one place, that I have seen.
(Why is everyone stuck on Astragalus-Astragalus-Astragalus, like blinkered zombies!??)
Info that sould be replicated here IMHO as his site's bandwidth is often exceeded.

If you dont have the time to read through all the information on all the different telomerase activators; consider the fact that not doing so will likely decreases your 'time' way more than doing so will.

I guess my reason for this rant is that all this Hoo-Haa about an unpatentable, natural substance is just plain getting on my nerves! Anyone else feel the same?

Edited by Logic, 22 August 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

The COA has been reset, and is working again.

Paul, this is the 3rd thread you ask this about, and you just signed up yesterday?!

You will need the secure pdf reader found here:
Interesting. http://images.artist...fePDFreader.exe

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 22 August 2012 - 11:44 PM.

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

FOR THE ATTENTION OF MR ANTHONY LOERA
REVGENETICS INC

Dear Sir,

LEGAL NOTICE

I am acting for Mr Tony Mackenzie of Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd who is a member of our buying group for whom I am the legal adviser and representative.

He has explained to me that around October last year his company inadvertently posted a copy of a certificate of analysis on his website at www.hta98.com for a product known as TA65 which you claimed was done without your permission and that this was a breach of your copyright even though the certificate had been placed by you into the public domain at that time.

You placed the certificate into the public domain yourself at that time in the context of criticising the product but this was before you subsequently took on the product yourself as a distributor.

Mr Mackenzie's "crime" was merely the fact that accreditation had not been given to your company as the purchaser of the lab test from the lab in question but no fraudulent purpose or intent had been intended by Mr Mackenzie nor false statement been made.

Mr Mackenzie apologised publicly in the Longecity forum where you seem to have a prolific input and he added the accreditation you requested. You then changed your mind and demanded the withdrawal of the certificate completely and Mr Mackenzie complied and withdrew the certificate copy from his web domain.

Since then various postings on the Internet by you have made false claims against Mr Mackenzie and his product HTA98 as well as other products that you compete against.

We understand that at no time did Mr Mackenzie make any representation that the certificate was a representation of his own product and his website clearly showed that it was placed on view only as a truthful comparison.

At this time you also posted a libellous statement on your website inferring that Mr Mackenzie had attempted to make out that this was a certificate of his own product or had "maniupulated" the data even though he had clearly shown it as a certificate for TA65 with correct data and did not represent it as a certficate for his own product. At that time you were not a distributor of TA65 and you had used the certificate on a forum and your own website to show it as a comparision for your own product Astral Fruit.

In addition to this libel you also posted a link within your statement pointing to the forum that clearly showed that you were referring to Mr Mackenzie and his company.

Your libellous statement further went on to falsely claim that Mr Mackenzie and his company were untrustworthy and a "table top capsule filler business" which was using "corn starch" to fill the capsules with.

All these claims are blatantly untrue

When Mr Mackenzie approached you about this libel and sent you a "Cease and Desist" notice by email you subsequently agreed to remove this statement but today 27th August 2012 some 10 months or so later we have discovered that this statement is still displayed by you at your website www.cycloastragenol.com You have also, it would appear, publicly claimed that you sold this domain for 20,000 US dollars even though it still appears to be under your control and is headed with the name and logo of "Revgenetics."


We are horrified that this situation exists and we are assessing what damage may have been done to the good reputation of Mr Mackenzie and his company over this prolonged period. His good reputation as an established and honest independent anti aging researcher operating at www.21stcenturyalternatives.com for a number of years has been publicly tarnished as a result of your flagrantly false accusations.

As I am his insurance based legal representative it is now my duty to recover financial compensation from you for this damage caused by your action and omission ove the last 10 months.

If you wish to make an offer fror an out of court settlement I will be glad to pass it on to Mr Mackenzie for his consideration.

I look forward to receiving your reply within 14 days.

regards

Mr David Wo
legal@globaltrade-eu.com

[Anthony_Loera]

The issue that appears to have prompted this email was taken care of previously.

I didn't expect to hear about this again. However it appears that when the COA was reset, an old backup of the website was saved with the old text.

I didn't expect such an old backup to be restored. What i do know is that I do not agree with the libel claim at all, and i believe the claim simply has no merit.

So why did i change the text previously? At the time, Tony and I spoke on the phone and had a good heart to heart conversation. I believed he was being honest.

I pulled the text in question after that conversation.

Now, months later having his secretary email me and demanding money, was not the way to approach me.

I will have the correct backup restored, but i am not happy Tony.

You should have called me on the phone.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 28 August 2012 - 11:10 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

The site text has been taken out. However, i suggest folks that haven't seen the COA, go to our website and pull it down again.

The COA is a bit dated now, and RevGenetics has done some new testing that we talk about, and added to the COA.

The document is copyrighted, and cannot be distributed without permission. The usual course of conduct for copyright infringer's trying to use our lab tests, is to profit at the expense of RevGenetics. It is not innocent when a company uses it for the purposes of profit.

Mackenzie still has not tested any TA-65 product as far as i know. It is not expensive to test, so why hasn't he tested it himself if we assume he or his company can afford it?

Here at RevGenetics we continue doing research, testing materials, and looking at the newer studies that show materials like C60 and Olive Oil to practically double the lifespan of rats. Something no other supplement or medication has been able to do.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 29 August 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

Anthony,

You seem to have no consideration or respect for any competitors and you have a cavalier and arrogant attitude towards what you say about them. This is amost unprofessional and reprehensible way to promote your own product or company. I have no argument with the professional nature of your comany and priodcuts but it;s a shame you cant reciprocate.

For many months now your remarks have appeared across the Internet and your website has been actively stating that we were untrustworthy and filling our capsules with corn starch. This has been live for many many months despite your agreement to remove it a long time ago.

How did you expect me to react?

Your website link to this forum clearly associated your false accusations against myself and my company and we have website records to show this even though yesterday you sent me a rude reply personally to me via my legal agent. It is strange that you have now, today, removed the offending accusations from your website and the rudeness you displayed to us personally is extremely toned down in your public offering on this forum.

Are you aware of how much damage you have done to us and our good reputation?

We have had potential clients informing us of this for months now and have lost a potential investor for our newly planned UK public company who pulled out because of it.

BTW our website will shortly be showing an indepndent certificate of our own product but it is strange that there seems to be no public offering of a CoA of the current product of TA65 for potential buyer to view BEFORE they buy it even though you criticise competitors for the same omission.

I suggest you be very careful what claims you make against competitors in the future. We are waiting for our USA defamation lawyer to get back to us at the moment.

I used to have respect for what you were doing but it seems to me that you think you should have a total monopoly over all others in this fledgeling industry and you act as if you own this forum. (Perhaps you do?).

I respect your right to exist in this industry and all I am asking is for us to excercise the same right without anyone trying to bully us out of existence.

Tony Mackenzie
www.21stcenturyalternatives.com

[Anthony_Loera]

This stems from copyright infringement, which you clearly violated for the purposes of profit.

It is nothing more.

A

[thelongevityrevolution.tv]

It has nothing to do with it.

This issue was clearly settled last year and all the previous forum postings have clearly confirmed to the members of the forum what took place.

This new issue is about your prolonged defamation against me and my company which claimed to the whole world that we were untrustworthy and were filling our capsules with corn starch.

You seem to have a mental blockage against seeing the truth and logic of what you have done and seem to have no remorse for having done your best to destroy a newcomer in the market place although we were in this business long before you dropped your own product Astral Fruit , which we previously bought wholesale from you, only for you to replace it with TA65.

You are the head of what we previosly perceived as a respected company and it is very disappointing that you are not doing yourself or your comany any service on this forum by this foolish approach.

All I have attempted to do is protect an honest image of myself and my company that has been a long hard effort to build up.

You have made no effort to remove the offending defamation since you first posted it last year yet you removed it today when we stated our intentions to sue for damages.

Your rude attitude in your personal email yesterday stated that you didnt want to hear from myself or my legal agent ever again. I will comply with your request as I don't wish to pursue this rather unedifying slanging match.

I will not respond to any further comments from you on this forum and you will, in due course, hear from a defamation lawyer we have instructed.

[Anthony_Loera]

Mackenzie,
just to understand, because I don't have something clear... and only you can clear it up for me.

You state that HTA98 Cycloastragenol is an Herbal Telomerase Activator, and that you can only sell to people for research and analysis (Here Is That Quote from your website):
"HTA98 IS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE to Internet buyers who confirm they want the product for "research and analysis" when they place an order."

Here in the USA, stores and pharmacies as well as supermarkets (7-eleven, wholefoods, Save-On, etc) will NOT consider a product that is purely made for research purposes. They can't sell it, it's a liability issue, and they cannot ask there customers to sign a waiver at the checkout counter that states they are going to be using a product purely for "research and analysis". In short, it is impossible to sell a "research only" product to the general public through you average stores.

Since UK and European laws are even stricter regarding dietary supplements, medications, and research materials, wouldn't it be more difficult to consider selling your "research only" HTA98 product?

The first thing investors ask if they are considering research is:
Do you own the IP or have you been licensed the technology used in your "research only product" called HTA98 (that you say activates telomerase on your website)?

Now... If you don't own or have licensed the technology or intellectual property used in your "research only" product, wouldn't that turn off most mature and financially experienced investors and leave you with those folks who are not experienced investors, and may be less likely to ask the pertinent questions to assess the risk of the startup?

Just asking for your opinion.

Cheers
A

[Anthony_Loera]

The statement where you said that your admission of copyright violation was 'clearly settled' last year is not correct. There was no 'settlement' and in fact i told you that i reserved all legal rights to pursue you in the future for copyright's violation made. This was posted on 11/18/2011:

You can read it below if you happen to have forgotten:

Tony,

This issue has always been about copyright violations, editing our document for your own purposes without our permission, and stating the document is in the public domain, when it isn't. I really can't believe you ask me for permission to use the document while continuing to argue that the document is in the "Public Domain". If you can't possibly register how those two conflict, then it is not up to me clear that up for you.

Since you appear not to care about US Copyright law, I reserve all legal rights to enforce our copyrights regarding this action at any time in the future. I am very happy that you admitted that your people edited the document without our permission on on this forum.

I personally find it unsettling that you still think this is about pricing between Cycloastragenol & TA-65.
In my honest personal opinion editing CoA's is the worst thing that any foreign manufacturer can do, and once it's shown that it happens in foreign production facilities, it needs to be addressed for the public well-being (we did something similar for resveratrol here). The public needs to make up their own minds about the facts.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 30 August 2012 - 11:57 AM.