602 replies to this topic

[mdlee19]

Some pretty exciting news here folks. Dr. Bill Andrews just finished a very long seminar at the Isagenix seminar. He has teamed up with John Anderson to offer a telomerase activator. He gave some background regarding the proprietary formulation of their Product B Telomerase Support supplement. He said that John Anderson, the formulator at Isagenix sent him numerous botanicals, and in the first fifteen they got a very strong hit on number 7. On the activation scale (100 being telomerase always on, or cell immortality) they had a score of 10. This is very powerful stuff considering cycloastragenol scored a 1.5. The next batch of botanicals had another hit. This time the score was a 30! WOW!!! That's TWENTY TIMES more activity than cycloastragenol produced!!! They have had several more strong hits on the various botanicals supplied by John Anderson to Sierra Sciences. This is what has gone into their Product B which is just today being offered to the general public. They are beginning their first controlled study of the in vivo effects. They will begin with 50 people. They will take the 30 people with the shortest telomeres and do measurements every three months. Very, very exciting stuff. If you are interested to to the Isagenix website and read about Product 50.

Edit: multi-level-marketing stuff removed.

Edited by niner, 16 August 2011 - 12:19 AM.

[niner]

That's TWENTY TIMES more activity than cycloastragenol produced!!!

I find this exceedingly difficult to believe. What's the evidence?

[Anthony_Loera]

I have emailed Bill Andrews and the folks at TA Sciences to seek some clarification and /or Comment...

Let's hope we can get some clarification about the muddy waters that 'MLM Members' usually create, when they get excited to sell a product.

Cheers
A

[Anthony_Loera]

Dean from TA Sciences has emailed me back stating the following:

I spoke with Bill last Sunday and he said he and his father still take TA-65 and will continue. If product B was so powerful why would he continue to take TA-65 .Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I hope Bill Andrews replies soon as well, to maybe help clear this up.


A

[Anthony_Loera]

While we wait on Bill Andrew comments...
I will state that I have just ordered Product B so that we can test it on human red blood cells.

Since we already have TA-65 on hand, I will see if our scientist can compare TA-65 Against Product B on human red blood cells.
Then we will make a few recommendations on the RevGenetics.com website as soon as we have enough information on any telomerase activity seen.

Please sign up for our newsletter, if you want to be the first to be notified:
http://eepurl.com/epAfQ

Cheers
A

[Moonlitnight]

Thanks Anthony. Very helpful.

[DeadMeat]

While we wait on Bill Andrew comments...
I will state that I have just ordered Product B so that we can test it on human red blood cells.

Since we already have TA-65 on hand, I will see if our scientist can compare TA-65 Against Product B on human red blood cells.
Then we will make a few recommendations on the RevGenetics.com website as soon as we have enough information on any telomerase activity seen.

Please sign up for our newsletter, if you want to be the first to be notified:
http://eepurl.com/epAfQ

Cheers
A

Red blood cells don't have a nucleus and stuff. Did you mean white blood cells?

And just in case your scientist is feeling bored, maybe it would be fun to also have some comparative data for purslane water extract and for example melatonin.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Deadmeat,

I'll see what I can do, however we are going through the list of things we could test and need to limit it because of the process we use to test it.

A

[Getm]

I don't know if it's legit, but found something like this:
(source http://superhealthyn...bout-product-b/)

The ‘Conference Call with Dr Bill Andrews’ contains an amazing amount of information from the man who
actually discovered and identified the Telomerase enzyme in 1993, Dr Bill Andrews.
It should be remembered Bill is NOT a medical doctor and cannot offer medical advice. All comments he
makes are his personal opinion.
In the recorded call below which you can listen to Dr Bill Andrews makes the following comments :
“People should start taking a Telomerase inducer the day we are born....we have been aging since
conception.”
“It does appear that very low doses of a Telomerase activator will lengthen the critically short
telomeres and so it does reverse aging.”
“When I first started taking TA-65 I was really shocked that I had some affects that I shouldn’t have
seen.....running got better.....vision got better......age-spots on hands completely
disappeared.....Didn’t make sense because TA-65 is very, very weak, barely detectable as a
Telomerase inducer.”
“I can’t discuss the relative potencies of TA-65 and Product B, but I can tell you our goal is to find
something much stronger than TA-65.”
“I am expecting to see people experience shocking benefits within 3 months. People are going to be
really glad at what they see and then it is going to maintain at those levels.”
“I can’t tell you how much better it is going to work than TA-65 due to my confidentiality
agreements but I think it is going to be a very exciting product.”
“I believe a Telomerase inducer will cure many cancers.”
“I believe the number one cause of cancer is a weakened immune system.”
“We supposedly get cancer 7 times per day but our immune system is always fighting it.”
“As our immune system gets weak its ability to fight cancer decreases and that is why old people
develop more cancers than young people. Probably due to the fact that the Telomeres in the
immune system get short.”
“Taking Product B will enable the shorter Telomeres to get lengthened in the immune cells making
the immune system stronger and fight the cancer.”
“Product B will also decrease the risk of getting cancer because when Telomeres get critically short,
it causes chromosome damage and rearrangements which cause the cancer. It will decrease the
rate at which cells become cancerous to start with.”
“When Isagenix comes out with this product this is going to be the biggest thing that ever hit the
planet. This is going to make many distributors multi, multi-millionaires.”
“I am looking forward to seeing just exactly what sort of impact it is going to have because nothing
has really come out that has affected aging accept TA-65 and that is very, very weak, and I just
think, plus Isagenix has expressed a strong commitment to continue, they don’t want to stop at just
Product B, they want to get something stronger and stronger.”

[sunshinefrost]

Anthony good stuff ! let us know

product B seems exactly what was missing and at the correct price. But why would they price it lower than TA-65??? doesn't make sens

[niner]

But why would they price it lower than TA-65??? doesn't make sens

Because it's a fraud? That's my working assumption until I see some evidence. So far we've heard a bunch of breathless MLM pimps telling us how great it is. That's kind of a red flag in itself.

[mrkosh1]

We need to find out immediately if Andrews really did say that an ingrediant in product B is really a 30, or 30% of what a hela cell produces. If this is true, it is potentially HUGE news.

I'm tempted to call up Sierra Sciences myself.

This needs to be verified, and FAST.

If this is true and the substance is non-toxic, this could be the biggest anti aging breakthrough in history.

By the way, I have a question. My understanding is that Hela cells can replicate an unlimited number of times. However, human cells don't have to reproduce as rapidly. Could it be that a substance that induces less telomerase than a Hela cell could make a normal human cell in the human body immortal?

[mrkosh1]

But why would they price it lower than TA-65??? doesn't make sens

Because it's a fraud? That's my working assumption until I see some evidence. So far we've heard a bunch of breathless MLM pimps telling us how great it is. That's kind of a red flag in itself.

I don't think Andrews would participate in a fraud. He is too serious about producing a way to reverse aging. I agree we need to verify that the ingrediant produced a hit of 30, and induces 30% the telomerase of a Hela Cell.

[Moonlitnight]

But why would they price it lower than TA-65??? doesn't make sens

Because it's a fraud? That's my working assumption until I see some evidence. So far we've heard a bunch of breathless MLM pimps telling us how great it is. That's kind of a red flag in itself.

I like this: “When Isagenix comes out with this product this is going to be the biggest thing that ever hit the
planet. This is going to make many distributors multi, multi-millionaires.”

Puhleez. Agree completely with Niner...a lot of puffery here and no evidence. ETA and I believe that there is a missing link here as Bill Andrews has my respect.

Edited by Anisor, 17 August 2011 - 05:19 PM.

[mrkosh1]

The fact is that some get rich quick schemes do work, but only .01% of them.

What if they really do have a telomerase inducer that is a 30, and they have put it into this product?

It really could turn out to be a huge breakthrough.

Sierra Sciences does not even have a 30 in a pharmaceutical yet!

[hav]

The more I think of this Product B, the more questions come to mind.

Doesn't combining telomerase activators like terminalia chebula with telomerase inhibitors like resveratrol cancel them out?

Does adding N-acetlyl-L-cysteine, as indicated in their supplement facts panel neutralize the telomerase inhibiting effect of their laundry list without also neutralizing their anti-oxidant, SIRT1 activator, and other qualities? A hint of an answer was reported in a study mentioned in this post

Is terminalia chebula really 20 to 30x more potent telomerase inhibitor than cycloastragenol? That would be big news since its so much cheaper. Revgenetics has in the past combined both of these along with purslane in their Astral Fruit C product but only touted the cycloastragenol ingredient because it was the only one supported by a study... so is there a new study we should know about?

Is the resistance often reported in other telomerase activators a general one or is it a resistance that might be avoided by cycling between different telomerase activators? In particular, if you cycle between TA65 and terminalia chebula weekly, will you become completely resistant to both of them (and any other telomerase activator)?

Seems like we need a number of studies.

Howard

[Anthony_Loera]

Getm,

That video is interesting. However until a study is done, or we compare it against TA-65 ourdelves, i will simply state that it is just marketing, and nothing more.

A

[Anthony_Loera]

While I was considering everyone's posts here, some of you will probably wonder...
"Why does Anthony think it's just marketing at this point? Bill Andrews is top notch!"


My simple concern stems from two emails from Sierra Sciences:
First, we know Geron and UCLA tested Cycloastragenol (TAT2) for telomerase activity, and it tested positive. We have the Rita Effros lab providing a study that shows Cycloastragenol activates telomerase, and Geron getting a patent, etc.

However...
I have an email from Bill Andrews from 12/10/2010 stating the following:

Cycloastragenol (also called TAT002) tests negative in our hTERT RT-PCR screen. - Bill Andrews

Later, on 12/13/2010 Sierra Sciences asks RevGenetics for information regarding testing done from our CSO regarding Cycloastragenol, even though Rita's information was available.


A question that lingers in my head:
These two items give me cause for concern, as any cynic that would read both emails would state that maybe the screening process that Sierra Sciences uses is not accurate, and that it may need some work. I personally don't have proof either way except for the emails and the data regarding UCLA's telomerase study, but just like everyone here I respectfully would like to get the full story, since in my personal opinion it would be pretty bad if Sierra Sciences screening process was not as accurate as we all thought it was.

I do hope we get the full story soon. As for now, I have to state that unless tests are done to verify any telomerase claims... I can only assume the Video is purely for marketing at this point until the product is verified.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 17 August 2011 - 11:41 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Here is the reply from Bill Andrews we were waiting for regarding the initial marketing text:

It's all rumors. The closest thing I can come up with is that we said that Product B contained the strongest natural ingredients that we've ever tested right after we said that we have never tested TA-65. Where the 1.5 and 30 numbers came from is beyond me. I never reported any numbers at all during my presentation or at anytime during the conference. In fact, those numbers are very wrong. So, Anthony, are you now working with TA Sciences? That's good news if you are!!!

Thanks,

Bill William H. Andrews, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Sierra Sciences, LLC

and...to remain transparent, here is my response to Bill just a short minute or two ago, to his helpful email:

Thanks Bill,
No I can't say that I am working for TA Sciences, however I have asked our CSO to start testing Product B and a few other things and comparing it to TA-65. Our plans are to use the information to later make suggestions to the folks we represent, since we do not currently sell a telomerase activator ourselves at this time.

Thanks for your reply, it helps clear things up.

Anthony Loera
President
RevGenetics

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 18 August 2011 - 01:17 AM.

[niner]

Hoo-boy. This just gets weirder and weirder. That was an interesting conference call. Bill mentioned that his wealthy backers had gotten whacked in the financial crisis and pulled out, which makes me wonder if he isn't making a deal with the devil, in the service of his ultimate goal of finding something that really works. That is a pure speculation, so don't make too much of it, but wow, what a mess.

[DeadMeat]

Some thoughtful piece of MLM scum put 2 vids on youtube of some presentation that includes a couple of voicemail messages from Andrews. Keep your mouse on the volume slider against the wooing.




From what I understand of it, sample 11 of the first set had 1/4 of the activity of their control(which has 6% of HeLa). So I assume that's where the 1.5 comes from?

Later he mentions a hit with 3.28 which he says is more than twice as potent as product B or something like that?

[Methos000]

If Sierra Sciences has never tested TA-65 for telomerase activity, how can they attempt to "find
something much stronger than TA-65"?

Perhaps they're accepting the report posted by Anthony that TA-65 is mostly cycloastragenol. If so, they might conclude that anything with any activity is "much stronger", as Bill Andrews claims that cycloastragenol "tests negative in our hTERT RT-PCR screen".

I must say, at this point I lack confidence in Sierra's screening process.

Here is the reply from Bill Andrews we were waiting for regarding the initial marketing text:

It's all rumors. The closest thing I can come up with is that we said that Product B contained the strongest natural ingredients that we've ever tested right after we said that we have never tested TA-65. Where the 1.5 and 30 numbers came from is beyond me. I never reported any numbers at all during my presentation or at anytime during the conference. In fact, those numbers are very wrong. So, Anthony, are you now working with TA Sciences? That's good news if you are!!!

Thanks,

Bill William H. Andrews, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Sierra Sciences, LLC

and...to remain transparent, here is my response to Bill just a short minute or two ago, to his helpful email:

Thanks Bill,
No I can't say that I am working for TA Sciences, however I have asked our CSO to start testing Product B and a few other things and comparing it to TA-65. Our plans are to use the information to later make suggestions to the folks we represent, since we do not currently sell a telomerase activator ourselves at this time.

Thanks for your reply, it helps clear things up.

Anthony Loera
President
RevGenetics

I don't know if it's legit, but found something like this:
(source http://superhealthyn...bout-product-b/)

The ‘Conference Call with Dr Bill Andrews’ contains an amazing amount of information from the man who
actually discovered and identified the Telomerase enzyme in 1993, Dr Bill Andrews.
It should be remembered Bill is NOT a medical doctor and cannot offer medical advice. All comments he
makes are his personal opinion.
In the recorded call below which you can listen to Dr Bill Andrews makes the following comments :
“People should start taking a Telomerase inducer the day we are born....we have been aging since
conception.”
“It does appear that very low doses of a Telomerase activator will lengthen the critically short
telomeres and so it does reverse aging.”
“When I first started taking TA-65 I was really shocked that I had some affects that I shouldn’t have
seen.....running got better.....vision got better......age-spots on hands completely
disappeared.....Didn’t make sense because TA-65 is very, very weak, barely detectable as a
Telomerase inducer.”
“I can’t discuss the relative potencies of TA-65 and Product B, but I can tell you our goal is to find
something much stronger than TA-65.”
“I am expecting to see people experience shocking benefits within 3 months. People are going to be
really glad at what they see and then it is going to maintain at those levels.”
“I can’t tell you how much better it is going to work than TA-65 due to my confidentiality
agreements but I think it is going to be a very exciting product.”
“I believe a Telomerase inducer will cure many cancers.”
“I believe the number one cause of cancer is a weakened immune system.”
“We supposedly get cancer 7 times per day but our immune system is always fighting it.”
“As our immune system gets weak its ability to fight cancer decreases and that is why old people
develop more cancers than young people. Probably due to the fact that the Telomeres in the
immune system get short.”
“Taking Product B will enable the shorter Telomeres to get lengthened in the immune cells making
the immune system stronger and fight the cancer.”
“Product B will also decrease the risk of getting cancer because when Telomeres get critically short,
it causes chromosome damage and rearrangements which cause the cancer. It will decrease the
rate at which cells become cancerous to start with.”
“When Isagenix comes out with this product this is going to be the biggest thing that ever hit the
planet. This is going to make many distributors multi, multi-millionaires.”
“I am looking forward to seeing just exactly what sort of impact it is going to have because nothing
has really come out that has affected aging accept TA-65 and that is very, very weak, and I just
think, plus Isagenix has expressed a strong commitment to continue, they don’t want to stop at just
Product B, they want to get something stronger and stronger.”

While I was considering everyone's posts here, some of you will probably wonder...
"Why does Anthony think it's just marketing at this point? Bill Andrews is top notch!"


My simple concern stems from two emails from Sierra Sciences:
First, we know Geron and UCLA tested Cycloastragenol (TAT2) for telomerase activity, and it tested positive. We have the Rita Effros lab providing a study that shows Cycloastragenol activates telomerase, and Geron getting a patent, etc.

However...
I have an email from Bill Andrews from 12/10/2010 stating the following:

Cycloastragenol (also called TAT002) tests negative in our hTERT RT-PCR screen. - Bill Andrews

Later, on 12/13/2010 Sierra Sciences asks RevGenetics for information regarding testing done from our CSO regarding Cycloastragenol, even though Rita's information was available.


A question that lingers in my head:
These two items give me cause for concern, as any cynic that would read both emails would state that maybe the screening process that Sierra Sciences uses is not accurate, and that it may need some work. I personally don't have proof either way except for the emails and the data regarding UCLA's telomerase study, but just like everyone here I respectfully would like to get the full story, since in my personal opinion it would be pretty bad if Sierra Sciences screening process was not as accurate as we all thought it was.

I do hope we get the full story soon. As for now, I have to state that unless tests are done to verify any telomerase claims... I can only assume the Video is purely for marketing at this point until the product is verified.

Cheers
A

[Methos000]

If he has an extract "twice as potent as product B", I would hope he's planning to reformulate Product B rather quickly.

Some thoughtful piece of MLM scum put 2 vids on youtube of some presentation that includes a couple of voicemail messages from Andrews. Keep your mouse on the volume slider against the wooing.


From what I understand of it, sample 11 of the first set had 1/4 of the activity of their control(which has 6% of HeLa). So I assume that's where the 1.5 comes from?

Later he mentions a hit with 3.28 which he says is more than twice as potent as product B or something like that?

Edited by Methos000, 18 August 2011 - 05:05 PM.

[niner]

It sounds like they're getting hits in an in-vitro screening assay, but that isn't at all a slam dunk. Assuming that they're looking for mRNA for the protein part of hTERT, that should be a pretty robust assay, at least it shouldn't be real easy to fool it. However, hits aren't useful unless they have decent bioavailability, something that natural products are famous for lacking. Listening to the various people from Sierra Sciences in these two videos, I'm struck that they seem to be saying things designed to get the MLMsters excited without actually saying anything concrete. This is making me think of David Sinclair (remember him?) who, after rolling GSK, hooked up with Shaklee, another MLM outfit. I don't know what to make of Bill Andrews telling the Isagenix guy that he had a hit that was stronger than Product B... Slip of the tongue, or is he screening more compounds?

[Anthony_Loera]

However, hits aren't useful unless they have decent bioavailability, something that natural products are famous for lacking.

Hi Niner,

so it is possible that Cycloastragenol (and maybe other compounds) that they tested probably did not do well because of bioavailability in their particular test, even though these same compounds could actually increase telomerase in vitro using live cells, such as the study provided by UCLA?

So to sum up, the test may not be that accurate because of the compounds bioavailability?

A

[niner]

However, hits aren't useful unless they have decent bioavailability, something that natural products are famous for lacking.

so it is possible that Cycloastragenol (and maybe other compounds) that they tested probably did not do well because of bioavailability in their particular test, even though these same compounds could actually increase telomerase in vitro using live cells, such as the study provided by UCLA?

So to sum up, the test may not be that accurate because of the compounds bioavailability?

Well, no, bioavailability wouldn't apply to the test itself, which I expect is essentially some cells in a test tube. It does apply in a way, in that if the compound can't get into the cell, then it won't light up in the assay, but then it presumably wouldn't work in vivo, either. The usual problem is that you do get a hit in the high-throughput assay or other in vitro test, but it fails in vivo because it either doesn't get absorbed by the organism or it gets metabolized too rapidly. Cycloastragenol has pretty good bioavailability, so maybe that is "rescuing" it. Even if it was too weak to trigger their assay, it might be good enough in vivo.

In one of those videos, there was mention of running an assay at "100 mcg/ml". For a typical small molecule, that's ~300 micromolar. To hit that concentration in vivo with resveratrol would take a dose of about a half a kilo. So let's just hope that whatever it is, it has better bioavailability than resveratrol.

[mrkosh1]

We need some specific clarification.

I listened to the first video. There were three calls in the video.

In the first call about the first batch of substances tested, I am absolutely certain the following was stated about the compound.

"This is the scale... if our control sample is about 6% percent of hela, this is more than 11% percent of hela."

In the second call about the second batch of substances tested (specifically number 38), the following is stated. It does not make sense, unless it is of greater potency than the first.

"This is the first time we have ever seen a strong hit from a natural product."

In the third call, he is very excited, and wants to tell the following results to Popular Science. I am not sure if he states 3.28 percent, or 30.28 percent.

"The new hit actually got a score of (3.28 or 30.28) which is more than twice as potent as product B......"

Ok.

This is my analysis.

In the first call, the hit was an 11. He was not too excited about it.

The second hit was the "first time we have ever seen a strong hit from a natural product." If the second hit was first time they had ever seen a strong hit from a natural product, it had to be stronger than the first hit, which was 11% of Hela.

In the final call, he is more excited than ever, and mentions that the last hit was actually 3.28 or 30.28. I could not tell which one he stated. However, I doubt he would be very excited about this if he had already found a hit of greater than 11%. Also, we know from the second call, that compound 38 was the first strong hit they had found in a natural product.

I think they have found a compound that has 30% of Hela.

We need to email Andrews again, and ask for some clarification.

At a minimum, we need to know what was the numbers he reported in this call.

I'm thinking he did report that the final one was 30%.

[mrkosh1]

Send him the link to the video and ask him what he stated in those phone calls!

We need to know what the numbers were for those compounds!

I think he did indeed say 11% and 30.28%

I know for a fact he stated that the first compound was 11%.

Edited by mrkosh1, 18 August 2011 - 07:26 PM.

[niner]

We need some specific clarification.
I listened to the first video. There were three calls in the video.
In the first call about the first batch of substances tested, I am absolutely certain the following was stated about the compound.

"This is the scale... if our control sample is about 6% percent of hela, this is more than 11% percent of hela."

That's not what I heard at all. In the first call, he said he got a hit with compound number 11 of the 15 compounds they sent him to test, and that it was about 4-fold less than control. The control is 6% of HeLa, so the compound is ~1.5% of HeLa.

On the second call, he said he got two strong hits, and that this was the first time they had a strong hit from a natural product. John Anderson later mentioned that Bill Andrews had done High Throughput Screening on 300,000 compounds. These would have been organic chemicals and typical drug-like molecules, if it's the usual HTS collection. It would not likely have had many natural products. They probably had a lot of hits out of that collection of 300K, probably even including some strong ones, but you can't just feed molecules like that to people. The beauty of a natural product (like cycloastragenol) is that it has a history of being used in people, so you can slip it in under the supplement rules.

Finally, in the third phone call, I heard it as a score of 3.28, whatever that means, and that being twice as potent as Product B, whatever that means. I take it from this series of calls that there were three different sets of compounds that they tested, and that they also ran a sample of "Product B" through their assay. So far, I've not heard of any attempt to put Product B into an animal.

[mrkosh1]

I was wrong.

Edited by mrkosh1, 18 August 2011 - 08:33 PM.