602 replies to this topic

[mdlee19]

My apologies to the list. The 30 number was reported to me by someone in attendance at the conference who may have misunderstood. He also said that number came from one of the talks of the Sierra Science scientists, NOT Dr. Bill Andrews. Much may have been lost in the translation! My bad. However, I do believe this may be the strongest telomerase activator available based on statements made at the conference and by the anecdotal evidence given by a number of people who have already begun the regimen. My understanding is that they have initiated a study, taking 30 folks with the shortest telomeres out of a group of 50 to take product B and have their telomeres measured every three months. I have ordered product B for myself and should get it tomorrow. I will report back to the group any noticable results. Both my wife and I will begin this regimen tomorrow, 8/19/11. If you want more info I believe isagenix will be posting a link to the conference videos. Feel free to search my website for any updates: www.mdlee19.isagenix.com If you need to talk to me about any of this my email is mdlee19 at yahoo dot com.

[Methos000]

Anyone know the identity of the control?


Nevermind, it's a compound SS calls 'C0057684'; which is no doubt a synthetic chemical.

Perhaps cycloastragenol was tested early, before they had refined their assay to detect scores < 6. It would be useful from a marketing standpoint to refer to the negative results of the early test when comparing cycloastragenol to Product B (even if it's easily measured by their current process, and perhaps not very much different from the Product B score).

"On the Telomerase Induction Scale, C0057684 rates a 6. Our Brute Force assay was initially incapable of detecting any hits weaker than a 6. We have re-screened many of the chemicals that we originally screened in the Brute Force screen, and we have found several telomerase inducers with lower scores."

Edited by Methos000, 18 August 2011 - 09:25 PM.

[Methos000]

The SS home page states that "We are currently screening natural product extracts".

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?

[mdlee19]

[quote name='Methos000' timestamp='1313700866' post='474242']
The SS home page states that "We are currently screening natural product extracts".

Yes, that is what Mark Siena with isagenix told me as well. He says they will be constantly upgrading the formula as they discover more activators. So... today's product B may not be next month's product B. I have been impressed by their comittment to press ahead on this.

[mdlee19]

One more piece of information that may be of interest. All of the ingredients being screened are natural AND on the FDA GRAS list (generally recognized as safe). As well, Mark Siena tells me that isagenix has signed up for the surprise FDA inspections of their facilities. I have also requested documentation regarding their quality control standards. We all have heard of manufacturers who have marketed products that only had a small percentage of the actual product in the capsule. We shall see. I will post what I get.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hmmm.. not sure about all that.

And there is no 'sign up' for surprise FDA inspections. Anyone who is registered with the FDA is automatically 'signed up', heck they should sign up for NPA testing of their products.

The product they sell is a proprietary formulation, so they will probably never provide you the information on the amounts used.

A

[niner]

The product they sell is a proprietary formulation, so they will probably never provide you the information on the amounts used.

Of course, that wouldn't prevent an enterprising individual from having a cap of the stuff analyzed...

[mdlee19]

The product they sell is a proprietary formulation, so they will probably never provide you the information on the amounts used.

Of course, that wouldn't prevent an enterprising individual from having a cap of the stuff analyzed...

I was told that the label may have a bit of misdirection in it... that is, the product might just be 98% of the primary working ingredient(s)and 2% other ingredients to, in effect, hide what is the telomerase activator. Of course, this is done to prevent knock offs from easily coming in and copying the formulation. You probably noticed on the label there are about twenty different ingredients.

[niner]

The product they sell is a proprietary formulation, so they will probably never provide you the information on the amounts used.

Of course, that wouldn't prevent an enterprising individual from having a cap of the stuff analyzed...

I was told that the label may have a bit of misdirection in it... that is, the product might just be 98% of the primary working ingredient(s)and 2% other ingredients to, in effect, hide what is the telomerase activator. Of course, this is done to prevent knock offs from easily coming in and copying the formulation. You probably noticed on the label there are about twenty different ingredients.

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. I'd probably do the same thing. It would become apparent quickly upon analysis, of course, but it does stop people from doing it in their garage, and probably more importantly, it prevents consumers from buying the active ingredient for a lot less money from an alternative source. I'm pretty sure you could find any of those ingredients on the consumer market. I've been taking some of them for a long time.

[Getm]

I've been taking some of them for a long time.

Could You tell/display these for us/me ?

[Synchro]

Thanks, Howard, and et al, for your skepticism...

...when it comes to MLM's, even if one has managed to sucker in someone with credentials, all I can say is "eek, ack!!!"

Frankly, I have seen so many, many, MANY MLM scams come down the pike, come and go, make a few people rich, make a whole bunch of desperate people poorer than they were to start with, deplete a whole bunch of dying people - especially cancer victims (remember Coral Calcium??? Noni??? The list just goes on and on and on... - of what little they had left in the world before they died in misery...

...and I have NEVER seen an MLM that delivered anything much better than coconut-oil soap (although I do admit that was some GREAT SOAP!!!!

...that I wouldn't believe one damned claim from these weasels, cretins, liars, frauds, charlatans, and in general egomaniacs.

Tell you what: I have a lab, I need to get into testing telomerase activators anyway, but I've been so busy with other projects I haven't had a chance to really dig into it yet, even though...from a personal standpoint...I SHOULD make this my number one priority (but, still, the bills have to be paid, the payroll met...);

Some pointers on what assay would really be solid-gold for measuring telomerase activation would be appreciated, and I will repay it by posting here my results on anything GRAS (I'll reserve the right to with-hold information on any new substance not already granted GRAS status until I have a patent in place, but I am a big believer in making antiaging breakthroughs available to the less-than-rich, including providing DIY instructions for the scientifically capable). Yeah, you heard that right; I'm in several businesses where I don't have to score a big fortune on some proprietary formula for a telomerase activator - and it's very much in my interest to build a network of highly intelligent and informed people so I can move far faster ahead. That's why I joined this forum. I'm much more interested in living longer than getting richer; to live longer I need all the help and information-resources I can get.

Perhaps I should start a new thread? Or if someone who is already well-informed on this subject were to wish to start a new thread, about how to best assay for telomerase-activation? I presume the very best assay would be to actually measure the length of the telomere's before and after, no?

[Synchro]

I think I got it, although it's a bit expensive:

The Roche TeloTAGGG Telomore Length Assay Kit.

Almost $800 for 50 reactions; not so bad, but a good chunk of change nonetheless. I'm going to consider finding cheaper, or the relative cost of doing it from scratch in the lab. The kit undoubtedly saves a lot of time, though.

You know, it's so simple for the MLM: publish independently-verified results showing telomere lengthening.

I won't hold my breath LOL

[ymc]

I think I got it, although it's a bit expensive:

The Roche TeloTAGGG Telomore Length Assay Kit.

Almost $800 for 50 reactions; not so bad, but a good chunk of change nonetheless. I'm going to consider finding cheaper, or the relative cost of doing it from scratch in the lab. The kit undoubtedly saves a lot of time, though.

You know, it's so simple for the MLM: publish independently-verified results showing telomere lengthening.

I won't hold my breath LOL

How accurate is this Roche kit?

[Methos000]

I think we're missing some posts since the new version of the forums came back online...

[chmstar]

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

Wait, so Dr. Andrews is claiming his lab never tested TA-65? Well in his A4M speech given on Sept. 11, 2009 he claims that he has in fact tested it.

[niner]

Wait, so Dr. Andrews is claiming his lab never tested TA-65? Well in his A4M speech given on Sept. 11, 2009 he claims that he has in fact tested it.

Yet more weirdness. This might all be true if he's speaking about a specific assay, as in "we never tested it in that assay"....

[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

Wait, so Dr. Andrews is claiming his lab never tested TA-65? Well in his A4M speech given on Sept. 11, 2009 he claims that he has in fact tested it.

Aren't those speeches recorded, and provided later online or something?

A

[zorba990]

Why is there so little interest in Epithalon/Epithalamin?
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12937682

[sunshinefrost]

test, do you receive this in your mailbox ?

[Anthony_Loera]

Sunshinefrost... are ya planning to spam everyone?

[hav]

Why is there so little interest in Epithalon/Epithalamin?
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12937682

There's an interesting article that discusses their synthetic versions along with related melatonin. I know I'm confused. I've heard melatonin described here as a telomerase inhibitor. I'm getting the idea that might be wrong for non-cancer cells.

Howard

[sunshinefrost]

no spam planned... i'm just not receiving the posts on my iphone anymore....

[Louis]

A key question here is whether the telomerase inducers in Product B are whole botanical extracts, or whether the extracts are highly purified and fractionated to isolate a particular compound as in TA-65?

I suppose we have no way of knowing this for sure, short of third-party analysis, but there are numerous circumstantial hints in the various isagenix recordings/videos available on the internet that these are more or less whole botanical extracts.

I am concerned for obvious safety reasons:
If these ingredients are in fact whole herbal extracts (excluding well-known exceptions like resveratrol, NAC, ALA, quercetin, etc), each of the ingredients has a very long history of safe use in humans, unlike the purified/fractionated compund(s) in TA-65 (whether that be cycloastagenol, or not).

In addition to the long history of safe use, I am also quite impressed that the majority of ingredients in Product B exert some degree of antineoplastic (anti-cancer) activity in vitro or in animal models, which I've spent the last several days verifying on pubmed. In some cases, there is also very positive data from phase2 trials in humans (e.g. turmeric and pancreatic cancer at MD Anderson, or green tea and CLL at the Mayo Clinic) In my mind, this significantly eases my own anxiety about product B, given the enormous uncertainty about whether telomerase activation actually decreases or increases the risk for cancer.

I take almost 30% of the ingredients in product B as separate products anyway (as I imagine many others here do as well), specifically to prevent cancer! Could I have been activating telomerase this whole time and not know it? A fascinating question.

[niner]

Why is there so little interest in Epithalon/Epithalamin?
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12937682

Probably because peptides have a generally horrible bioavailability profile. You'd probably need to inject it.

[Methos000]

Why is there so little interest in Epithalon/Epithalamin?
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12937682

Probably because peptides have a generally horrible bioavailability profile. You'd probably need to inject it.

...or apply it topically? Is the molecule small enough to be absorbed?

Edited by Methos000, 02 September 2011 - 03:08 AM.

[niner]

Methos000 wrote:
>niner wrote:
>>zorba990 wrote:
>>>Why is there so little interest in Epithalon/Epithalamin?
>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12937682
>>Probably because peptides have a generally horrible bioavailability profile. You'd probably need to inject it.
>...or apply it topically? Is the molecule small enough to be absorbed?
No, it would be particularly bad that way. There would be almost no absorption at all. Skin evolved over millions of years to keep xenobiotic molecules out, not let them in. It's really effective at that, particularly for the kinds of molecules that exist naturally. There are some synthetic molecules that get in, but only if they meat certain criteria of size and hydrophobicity. Even at that, the only time transdermal routes are really practical is for very potent molecules where the dose is measured in small numbers of milligrams, if not micrograms.

Edit: Welcome to USENET, 1985! Text attributions are broken in the latest software update. Do they even test this stuff?

Edited by niner, 02 September 2011 - 12:40 PM.

[sunshinefrost]

just received product B. I was surprised to see that there is no astragalus extract of any kind in there....

[sunshinefrost]

anybody know if i should take this with food ?

[sunshinefrost]

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

Hi anthony !
I just signed-up to be notified. Any luck yet ? i know that This must be an amazingly long process but i can't wait to see your results !

cheers !

[Anthony_Loera]

It's a bit long, specially as Dr. V is wrapping up an experiment he is submitting for publication.

After that I am sure he will be working in the lab for a few different projects we are looking at, one of them is the Product B testing.

Cheers
A