2189 replies to this topic

[Robert89]

Anthony, do you still take cycloastragenol/ TA-65 yourself? I notice you stopped posting your telomere length changes, like you used to at the beginning of this thread, along with Greenpower. Is this because you are not taking cycloastragenol or you felt the results were not significant?

Faith is good, but needs to be backed up with hard numbers. Even if Anthony or other people in the thread made their results public and they showed increased telomere lengths for all cell types, I would still recommend you to take your own tests.

I agree 100%. The data shows the facts - so it's not all on faith. That's is why I commend you for posting your results, which show a strong improvement in telomere lengths - without taking TA-65/ cycloastragenol. You have helped many people understand that better results were had using astragalus, gingko biloba, melatonin, exercise, sleep and meditation.

However, Anthony stopped posting his data. So there was a loss of faith in what he was saying. He stopped taking cycloastragenol and doesn't take TA-65. In any case, his data most probably mirrored yours, in that AG4 or Cycloastragenol did not affect telomere lengths positively. These supplements are not helpful.

Thank you for advice about checking my own health results. I don't have the budget to get my telomere results done as you have, that is why your public publishing of these numbers has been so helpful to the whole community. Plus we all know that you are don't have any financial interest in selling TA-65/ cycloastragenol or any of the other telomerase activators that Anthony does. You are considerably more believable.

Edited by Michael, 25 May 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[Robert89]

Besides, there has been new research to indicate that extending telomeres this way, might not actually be good for a person. If that is the case, then again, be honest about it and don't endanger peoples health this way. We will all respect you more for being honest. This respect is good karma for you.

What research shows that taking a telomerase activator like Cyclo, A4, or TA-65 shows it might not be good for a person?
II have not seen it, please post the research regarding telomerae activators, that you say shows this.

As far as I am concerned transient telomerase activators have positive studies. I have not seen a negative study yet.

A

There was a post on this forum earlier (please go back and re-read if you didn't see it). About a couple of days ago. It linked telomerase activation with increased prostate health risk.

Anyway, I am leaving this thread. I've see enough.

[niner]

As far as I am concerned transient telomerase activators have positive studies. I have not seen a negative study yet.

There was a post on this forum earlier (please go back and re-read if you didn't see it). About a couple of days ago. It linked telomerase activation with increased prostate health risk.

To be fair, that paper involved some really weird circumstances. For one thing, the telomerase was turned on permanently via a genetic hack. It wasn't the mild transient activation that a small molecule would induce. For another, the mice were engineered to develop prostate cancer. If healthy mice given cycloastragenol got cancer at higher rates, THAT would worry me. To date, I'm not aware of any reports of increased cancer rates from cycloastragenol, and it's not like people haven't been looking for it.

[sciwalk]

In case anyone is interested, here is the "patent" assigned to Geron Corporation.
If you have the patience to read through it all, they have filed, it appears, 3 times and in this third time are combining all 3.
What did they patent? Well, in the patent they reference a lot of studies and research done by many people and organizations, (not Geron) and then they proceed to stipulate the patent in the most obscure, as incompassing way that they can. The patent tries to give specific ways of using basically any derivative or even underived use of Astragulus for the purpose of increasing telomerase activity. But in the difinition of use or process they consistantly specify the use of 0,1,2 or 3, more perferably zero or two glycosides. "0, what the...." Yes, the whole patent is built around the concept of glycosides being used for telomoerase activity and yet the patent specifically states the any of the 3 formulas can, may and is preffred to be produced without any glycosides.
Please if someone else gets a different take, I would love to hear it because I in no way pretend or claim to be an expert when it comes to picking apart such complicated wording. But, from what I can assertain, this patent could seriously be ripped apart by its very own supporting documentation not to mention that, after all is said and done, it very cleary is only for the "formulas" being used (sold) specifically for telomerase activation.
Again, correct me if I am wrong but I liken this patent to; lets say I find that adding a special ingredient to a cake makes the cake really delicious so I want to patent it. Then what I do is create a patent that not only covers the use of my new ingredient but I also patent making a cake, with or without my ingredient and done so in a gas, electric or wood oven specifically for the purpose of eating it. n Watch out Betty Crocker, here I come. LOL

[Anthony_Loera]

However, Anthony stopped posting his data. So there was a loss of faith in what he was saying. He stopped taking cycloastragenol and doesn't take TA-65. In any case, his data most probably mirrored yours, in that AG4 or Cycloastragenol did not affect telomere lengths positively. These supplements are not helpful.

Nonsense Robert,

Faith has nothing to do with my decisions. You should re-read my post. You have it wrong regarding what I take.
If you can't slow down to read my post properly, then you are working on assumptions... and you know what they say about assumptions.

My two cents:
Regarding the non-religious context you have provided in your last post. I consider faith and assumptions pretty dangerous to business. Mix in a little hope from Pandora's box along with the other two in a pot... and I personally believe it would completely destroy most businesses, as it hinders accurate information (because of assumptions) and ultimately action (because of hope).

I certainly tend to shy away from these three, and rely on professional opinions, specially our scientist Dr. Valenzuela.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 27 February 2012 - 02:47 PM.

[hav]

As far as I am concerned transient telomerase activators have positive studies. I have not seen a negative study yet.

There was a post on this forum earlier (please go back and re-read if you didn't see it). About a couple of days ago. It linked telomerase activation with increased prostate health risk.

To be fair, that paper involved some really weird circumstances. For one thing, the telomerase was turned on permanently via a genetic hack. It wasn't the mild transient activation that a small molecule would induce. For another, the mice were engineered to develop prostate cancer. If healthy mice given cycloastragenol got cancer at higher rates, THAT would worry me. To date, I'm not aware of any reports of increased cancer rates from cycloastragenol, and it's not like people haven't been looking for it.

Actually, the genetic hack was to knock out the the p53 and pten genes. This doesn't turn on telomerase activation permenantly, it turns off the ability to fight tumors and kind of guarantees the appearance of prostate cancer in the mice. Telomerase activation was accomplished in the studied group with astragalus extract. Although this scenario might sound removed from likely human experience, it is not considering the high rate of the appearance of prostate cancer cells in older male humans. And the fact that in a significant percentage of those human cases where prostate cancer cells appear, they initiate the destruction (deletion) of the pten gene right before cancer metastasis. The study showed astragalus dramatically increased the rate of metastasis in mice where prostate cancer cells appeared. The saving grace is in other studies that show that resveratrol counteracts pten deletion suggesting that older males taking astragalus would be well advised to cycle or co-supplement with resveratrol. And consider discontinuing astragalus if their regular exam tests positive for the presence of prostate cancer cells.

Howard

[Anthony_Loera]

Uhm...

Which study are we talking about? This is on page 9 of the knockout P53 Pten mouse study:

(http://www.sciencedi...092867412001444)
Generation of the LSL-mTERTloxP Allele
We knocked an LSL cassette into the first intron of the mouse Tert gene (Figure 1A). The presence of the LSL cassette produces a null mTert allele, and its removal by PB-Cre expression restores activity under the control of the native mTert promoter. This mouse model scheme allows for excellent specific control of telomerase reconstitution in prostate epithelia cells. Following introduction of the knockin construct into embryonic stem cells (ESCs), screening ESCs, confirming germline transmission, and NeoR cassette deletion via EIIa-Cre, the LSL-mTert allele was backcrossed four generations onto the C57Bl/6 background.


I don't see anything about astragalus being used. Did I miss something? I have the full study, and can't find a reference to Astragalus anywhere.

The study knocks out ALL P53 and pten in the mouse, right? Is that really comparable out in the real world?

I believe Blasco's study is more accurate to conditions in the real world regarding transient telomerase.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 27 February 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[hav]

I was referring to the Science Daily article cited in Hebbeh's post. But I think that article refers to this study and it looks like Niner's right... the mice not only had turmor suppressing genes knocked out, they were also genetically engineered for modified telomerase response:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22341455

Telomerase Reactivation following Telomere Dysfunction Yields Murine Prostate Tumors with Bone Metastases.
Ding Z, Wu CJ, Jaskelioff M, Ivanova E, Kost-Alimova M, Protopopov A, Chu GC, Wang G, Lu X, Labrot ES, Hu J, Wang W, Xiao Y, Zhang H, Zhang J, Zhang J, Gan B, Perry SR, Jiang S, Li L, Horner JW, Wang YA, Chin L, Depinho RA.

Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

To determine the role of telomere dysfunction and telomerase reactivation in generating pro-oncogenic genomic events and in carcinoma progression, an inducible telomerase reverse transcriptase (mTert) allele was crossed onto a prostate cancer-prone mouse model null for Pten and p53 tumor suppressors. Constitutive telomerase deficiency and associated telomere dysfunction constrained cancer progression. In contrast, telomerase reactivation in the setting of telomere dysfunction alleviated intratumoral DNA-damage signaling and generated aggressive cancers with rearranged genomes and new tumor biological properties (bone metastases). Comparative oncogenomic analysis revealed numerous recurrent amplifications and deletions of relevance to human prostate cancer. Murine tumors show enrichment of the TGF-β/SMAD4 network, and genetic validation studies confirmed the cooperative roles of Pten, p53, and Smad4 deficiencies in prostate cancer progression, including skeletal metastases. Thus, telomerase reactivation in tumor cells experiencing telomere dysfunction enables full malignant progression and provides a mechanism for acquisition of cancer-relevant genomic events endowing new tumor biological capabilities.

So I guess one might question how much relevance the mTere allele mod has to taking a telomerase activator. But it's still something to think about.

Btw, in trying to wrap my head around the mTert mod, I found this article which lays it out pretty well:
http://www.nature.co...l/1208413a.html

Howard

Edited by hav, 27 February 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[smithx]

I've previously posted about studies which indicate that our telomeres are usually long enough to prevent chromosome damage until the age of about 55. After that age, chromosomes are likely already damaged and the use of astragalus or cycloastragenol may be questionable for the reasons discussed in relation to the recent mouse study.

Before age 55 it would seem to be a good thing to use telomerase activators, to keep the chromosomes long enough that the damage won't happen.

Of course telomeres shorten at different rates in different cells, depending on how much replication was required in each part of the body and probably also depending on local stresses such as inflammation. So it's possible that taking a telomerase activator could be a bad idea,at least for some people, at an even earlier age.

But personally based on current evidence, I am taking astragalus extract at least til I'm 55, and will then have a telomere length test done and will use the information gathered to help me decide whether to continue.

Edited by smithx, 27 February 2012 - 11:07 PM.

[Robert89]

However, Anthony stopped posting his data. So there was a loss of faith in what he was saying. He stopped taking cycloastragenol and doesn't take TA-65. In any case, his data most probably mirrored yours, in that AG4 or Cycloastragenol did not affect telomere lengths positively. These supplements are not helpful.

Nonsense Robert,

Faith has nothing to do with my decisions. You should re-read my post. You have it wrong regarding what I take.
If you can't slow down to read my post properly, then you are working on assumptions... and you know what they say about assumptions.

My two cents:
Regarding the non-religious context you have provided in your last post. I consider faith and assumptions pretty dangerous to business. Mix in a little hope from Pandora's box along with the other two in a pot... and I personally believe it would completely destroy most businesses, as it hinders accurate information (because of assumptions) and ultimately action (because of hope).

I certainly tend to shy away from these three, and rely on professional opinions, specially our scientist Dr. Valenzuela.

Cheers
A

Yes, but it's difficult to have faith in telomere extension, if the person selling products to do so, can't even do it to himself, and even more so, if he is a well educated and well spoken, well read expert in the field. The products you sold before were not able to change your own telomere lengths. What's Dr. V's take on your predicament? It is a problem with your products, your body, the dosages, or something else?

[Anthony_Loera]

It is fortunate that this thread has the full story regarding my 2008 challenge not only to slow the attrition of telomere's, but my dissatisfaction at Astragaloside 4 for not producing the results I truly wanted.

Remember, it is certainly possible that Astragaloside 4 works to slow telomere loss as it was shown only that the difference in my results fell within the margin of error. However limiting telomere loss was not my personal goal, and I suspect it isn't yours.

If you understand that telomerase activators generally work best on short, and critically short telomeres, it is certainly understandable that a person without many critically short telomeres may not react to an activator, as much as a person with a large amount of short telomeres. In my personal non-scientific opinion... It's interesting to see that the greater the age of the blood donor, for telomerase experiments, the more powerful the activation from telomerase activators. That is why it is important (if you are using donors) to make sure you use the same donor blood when comparing ... products.

Cheers
A

[Robert89]

It is fortunate that this thread has the full story regarding my 2008 challenge not only to slow the attrition of telomere's, but my dissatisfaction at Astragaloside 4 for not producing the results I truly wanted.

Remember, it is certainly possible that Astragaloside 4 works to slow telomere loss as it was shown only that the difference in my results fell within the margin of error. However limiting telomere loss was not my personal goal, and I suspect it isn't yours.

If you understand that telomerase activators generally work best on short, and critically short telomeres, it is certainly understandable that a person without many critically short telomeres may not react to an activator, as much as a person with a large amount of short telomeres. In my personal non-scientific opinion... It's interesting to see that the greater the age of the blood donor, for telomerase experiments, the more powerful the activation from telomerase activators. That is why it is important (if you are using donors) to make sure you use the same donor blood when comparing ... products.

Cheers
A

Fair enough. Good luck to you in your endeavors.

[Robert89]

As far as I am concerned transient telomerase activators have positive studies. I have not seen a negative study yet.

There was a post on this forum earlier (please go back and re-read if you didn't see it). About a couple of days ago. It linked telomerase activation with increased prostate health risk.

To be fair, that paper involved some really weird circumstances. For one thing, the telomerase was turned on permanently via a genetic hack. It wasn't the mild transient activation that a small molecule would induce. For another, the mice were engineered to develop prostate cancer. If healthy mice given cycloastragenol got cancer at higher rates, THAT would worry me. To date, I'm not aware of any reports of increased cancer rates from cycloastragenol, and it's not like people haven't been looking for it.

Actually, there was a lady on this thread earlier who did raise an incidence of new cancer growth after starting telomerase activators - using cycloastragenol, which is basically a very distilled version of astragalus.

Also you will note over half the people on the TA Sciences clinical trial dropped out before the 3 year period was completed - either they got sick/ or the product didn't work. The alarming point is that if they did have increased or new cancer, it wouldn't be reported because they would be classed as 'dropping out of the trial' and so the data could be dropped.

(BTW my graduate study covers Clinical Trial Ethics, so I am fairly clued-up on how these trial data points can be 'massaged' and cherry picked, especially when the trial administrators have a financial interest in doing so - which the TA Sciences people obviously did)

You will note that TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) practitioners will NOT prescribe astragalus for long periods of time - and warn of dangers of long term use - abdominal pains for example.

[niner]

Actually, there was a lady on this thread earlier who did raise an incidence of new cancer growth after starting telomerase activators - using cycloastragenol, which is basically a very distilled version of astragalus.

Also you will note over half the people on the TA Sciences clinical trial dropped out before the 3 year period was completed - either they got sick/ or the product didn't work. The alarming point is that if they did have increased or new cancer, it wouldn't be reported because they would be classed as 'dropping out of the trial' and so the data could be dropped.

(BTW my graduate study covers Clinical Trial Ethics, so I am fairly clued-up on how these trial data points can be 'massaged' and cherry picked, especially when the trial administrators have a financial interest in doing so - which the TA Sciences people obviously did)

You will note that TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) practitioners will NOT prescribe astragalus for long periods of time - and warn of dangers of long term use - abdominal pains for example.

Well, that cancer case was a friend of a friend anecdote, if I recall. I've known a lot of people who got cancer, and I'm sure some of them did something unusual in the few months prior to their diagnosis, but it probably wasn't causal, even if they think it was.

You raise a good point about the trial administrators having a financial stake in the outcome. I suspect that most of the dropouts were along the lines of "I don't feel any different, and this stuff is too expensive- I'm outta here" rather than people who dropped out because they got cancer. It would certainly strike me as unethical (severely!) if there was an unusual rate of cancer during the trial and they tried to cover it up.

Really hard to say what the TCM strictures mean. Crude astragalus is pretty different from cycloastragenol, and abdominal pains could be a lot of things, one of which is cancer.

[Robert89]

Actually, there was a lady on this thread earlier who did raise an incidence of new cancer growth after starting telomerase activators - using cycloastragenol, which is basically a very distilled version of astragalus.

Also you will note over half the people on the TA Sciences clinical trial dropped out before the 3 year period was completed - either they got sick/ or the product didn't work. The alarming point is that if they did have increased or new cancer, it wouldn't be reported because they would be classed as 'dropping out of the trial' and so the data could be dropped.

Well, that cancer case was a friend of a friend anecdote, if I recall. I've known a lot of people who got cancer, and I'm sure some of them did something unusual in the few months prior to their diagnosis, but it probably wasn't causal, even if they think it was.

Yes - you are right - not all the dropouts could be attributed to cancer - we don't have any data on why so many people dropped out, so can't make that conclusion. But the price of TA-65 dropped drastically during the time of the trial, so I presume they didn't drop out because it suddenly got cheaper, but rather, it didn't affect them in the way they were told to believe.

In terms of ethics during clinical trials --- well, you don't have to dig very far to find plenty of evidence of how $$$ skew a persons judgment ...

The TCM herbalist I talked to said the pains would be due to 'too much Chi energy' - which is hard to translate into our way of describing things. But he strongly advised against taking it for long UNLESS a person had a Chi deficiency. He didn't in any way connect astragalus with cancer. People over say 55, might have this Chi deficiency.

Edited by Michael, 25 May 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[smithx]

While we're talking about cancer and astragalus extracts, I feel I ought to mention an email which was sent to me last year by a distraught person whom I had not been in contact with before. I received it here exactly 1 year ago but have not mentioned it til now.

In the email, the person claims that he got cancer after 11 months of supplementing a particular astragalus extract. He also claimed that he knew of at least 4 other international users who also supplemented the same product and got cancer. He further stated that he and others had posted with hospital records and other information and that their posts were deleted and they were banned. He said that he was emailing me to warn me, since I had posted in this thread and was at risk. I have no other information about him, not his age, what kind of cancer, or anything else. And I have no way to get in touch with him since his account has been deleted.

At the time, I discounted the email, and I still do, mostly. People get cancer, and the fact that someone gets cancer while taking some particular supplement is not enough evidence to indict the supplement.

I still believe, as I stated earlier, that for most people under the age of 55, inducing telomerase is probably a good idea. But in the context of the current discussion, I thought that email worth mentioning.

Edited by smithx, 29 February 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[smithx]

By the way, I'd like to see some reference indicating that in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) astragalus is not given for long periods. I was under the impression that it was one of only a few herbs in TCM which were considered to be safe to use continuously in as large a quantity as desired. It's also used in certain chinese dishes.

Some references state that it's used to TREAT cancers. For example:
http://tcm.health-in...-properties.htm
or
http://www.umm.edu/a...alus-000223.htm :

In the United States, researchers have looked at astragalus as a possible treatment for people whose immune systems have been weakened by chemotherapy or radiation. In these studies, astragalus supplements seem to help people recover faster and live longer.

Also studies like:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22345875

The results of the present study suggest that Astragalus has significant anti-tumor effect in vivo in inducing apoptosis of H22 tumor cells by promoting protein expression of Bax, decreasing protein expression of Bcl-2 gene, and markedly increasing the Bax/Bcl-2 ratio.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22172162
Astragalus membranaceus lectin (AML) induces caspase-dependent apoptosis in human leukemia cells.

etc.

This paper lists numerous benefits of astragalus, although the sources of the information are probably not equally good: http://www.altmedrev...ons/3/5/338.pdf

So I am reluctant to say that astragalus is dangerous, particularly for those under 55. Does anyone have any concrete information or even references to traditional texts which say otherwise?

[mikeinnaples]

While we're talking about cancer and astragalus extracts, I feel I ought to mention an email which was sent to me last year by a distraught person whom I had not been in contact with before. I received it here exactly 1 year ago but have not mentioned it til now.

There was a guy trolling the forums and constantly changing identities that was targeting Anothony's product trying to discredit him by sending bogus pm's (and emails when he could get them from people) around a year ago. I wouldn't take that too serious. He completely ignored any and all requests for evidence to back up his stories.

[AdamI]

I think that troll also claimed to live in Luxemburg and that those friends of he's that got cancer lived there as well. There were someone that then said he could visit him(in luxemburg), visit the troll. And the troll declined. Luxemburg is a small small conutry/region, soo if someone lived there it wouldn't be much of an effort to meet the person.

A4 and TA-65 is something to conteract cancer, doesn't induce cancer.
Dr Ed Park gives rehab cancer patient TA-65.

[boylan]

While we're talking about cancer and astragalus extracts, I feel I ought to mention an email which was sent to me last year by a distraught person whom I had not been in contact with before. I received it here exactly 1 year ago but have not mentioned it til now.

In the email, the person claims that he got cancer after 11 months of supplementing a particular astragalus extract. He also claimed that he knew of at least 4 other international users who also supplemented the same product and got cancer. He further stated that he and others had posted with hospital records and other information and that their posts were deleted and they were banned. He said that he was emailing me to warn me, since I had posted in this thread and was at risk. I have no other information about him, not his age, what kind of cancer, or anything else. And I have no way to get in touch with him since his account has been deleted.

At the time, I discounted the email, and I still do, mostly. People get cancer, and the fact that someone gets cancer while taking some particular supplement is not enough evidence to indict the supplement.

I still believe, as I stated earlier, that for most people under the age of 55, inducing telomerase is probably a good idea. But in the context of the current discussion, I thought that email worth mentioning.

This was just a crazy spammer with a grudge....

[niner]

While we're talking about cancer and astragalus extracts, I feel I ought to mention an email which was sent to me last year by a distraught person whom I had not been in contact with before. I received it here exactly 1 year ago but have not mentioned it til now.

As others have mentioned, this sounds like the exact M.O. of the guy we called "the resveratroll". He was a student at U. Virginia, claimed to be a Japanese national, and was at least not a native English speaker, though his English was pretty good. He was prone to manic episodes and would be awake for long periods of time. That was probably related to his Messiah Complex-like behavior; he was driven to "save" people from supplements that he decided were toxic. He campaigned against resveratrol, cycloastragenol, RevGenetics, and (of all things) K2-MK7. If you still have that email, I could probably tell you if it was him or not. I got pretty good at recognizing his writing. There are probably thirty accounts here that he created as part of his crusade. He thinks maxwatt and I are on Anthony's payroll, which would be awesome, were it true.

[hav]

...
Some references state that it's used to TREAT cancers. For example:
http://tcm.health-in...-properties.htm
or
http://www.umm.edu/a...alus-000223.htm :

In the United States, researchers have looked at astragalus as a possible treatment for people whose immune systems have been weakened by chemotherapy or radiation. In these studies, astragalus supplements seem to help people recover faster and live longer.

Also studies like:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22345875

The results of the present study suggest that Astragalus has significant anti-tumor effect in vivo in inducing apoptosis of H22 tumor cells by promoting protein expression of Bax, decreasing protein expression of Bcl-2 gene, and markedly increasing the Bax/Bcl-2 ratio.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22172162
Astragalus membranaceus lectin (AML) induces caspase-dependent apoptosis in human leukemia cells.
etc.
...

I agree. In following up on the Science Daily article on the study that equated the mTert gene to telomerase activation I too did a PubMed search on studies relating tumor growth and/or cancer to astragalus and epitalon. I could only locate studies like these that demonstrated that these telomerase activating supplements suppress tumors and cancer. Which is the opposite of what the mTert gene does in mice with that genetic modification. I could find no study of astragalus or epitalon to the contrary. So I'm now completely convinced that the study of mTert crossbred mice has no relevance to cancer or tumor risk from taking astragalus or epitalon. The characterization of the Dana-Farber study seems somewhat unfounded and misleading. The mTert gene obviously does allot more than telomerase activation.

Howard

[Louis]

If you're a male in the US, your odds of getting cancer in your lifetime are 1 in 2. If you're a female, 1 in 3.

So statistically speaking, it's expected that a very large percentage of people in the US taking TA-65 or another activator will eventually get cancer in their lifetime.
(That's assuming that these activators have NO appreciable effect on cancer rates, which may or may not be the case.)

What's surprising to me is how few cancers have actually been reported to date in people taking TA-65.
I'm particularly surprised by this fact because cancer rates go up exponentially with age, and the average TA-65 user is well over age 50.

This may imply that these activators are in fact protecting against cancer. Statistically speaking, we should be seeing far more cases of people taking TA-65 getting cancer. That just doesn't seem to be happening so far.

Edited by Louis, 29 February 2012 - 04:33 PM.

[hav]

The numbers are scary. Here's a good summary and breakdown:

http://www.cancer.or...ing-from-cancer

Howard

[Anthony_Loera]

Things like Cancer and longevity rely quite a bit on Genes.

As such, informed people like myself really like to stay on top of it through things like 23andme, telomere length tests and maybe the Biophysical250.

For example... I found out, my genes (without much else) may take me to live to 100.
So if I push it, and rev up my genetics using additional methods, I can be looking at increasing the likelyhood of hitting my personal goal of 125 or more.

At the very least... consider 23andMe if you are serious about longevity.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 29 February 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[johnross47]

A recent comparison in UK (I don't remember the source right now) found that results provided for the same individual by different genome reading companies varied markedly in their findings. If I had more confidence in the quality of the results I would be very interested in having a look at my own possibilities. Using more traditional markers such as family history of longevity ( or lack of it) I probably have a good chance of making 100. My mother is still going at 93 and has had long term health issues I don't. Her mother made it to 96. The question is what to do to maximize these possibilities. At the current rate of research and development it seems likely that significant interventions in the aging process will become available in the the next ten to twenty years. I want to be around to benefit. I just hope that they are not limited to stopping any further aging rather than reversing the process.

[Louis]

The numbers are scary. Here's a good summary and breakdown:

http://www.cancer.or...ing-from-cancer

Howard

Yes, so in my opinion, a few anecdotal accounts of people on TA-65 later developing cancer is nothing to worry about at this point.
Far more is to be expected statistically from the national averages.

[romtm]

The numbers are scary. Here's a good summary and breakdown:

http://www.cancer.or...ing-from-cancer

Howard

Yes, so in my opinion, a few anecdotal accounts of people on TA-65 later developing cancer is nothing to worry about at this point.
Far more is to be expected statistically from the national averages.

As member of Life Extension,I contacted them asking if I can take TA-65 (or cyloastragenol,astragalus,astragaloside) for activate telomerase.

They gave me to read this

http://www.lef.org/m...&key=telomerase

and this;

http://www.lef.org/m...ical-Age_01.htm

and they sent me an answer telling about the benefits of carnosine,vitamin D and fish oil to prevent loss of telomeres.

This is because LEF are not selling TA-65 or any products based on astragalus extract?

Or they are still not convinced about danger of cancer and are waiting for more tests?

[Anthony_Loera]

The first article was published in August 2009.
The Blasco study was published in 2011, and trumps LEF's 2009 Article.

The second Article from LEF was published in April 2011, where it appears they are coming around to catching up as they state that "Age reversal can no longer be ridiculed" ...
however, it appears it was still sent to print before before Blasco's study. (Blasco's Study)

It appears LEF's articles are not up to date on the science... but they are getting there.

A

[romtm]

Yes...but Blasco's study was on mice.