602 replies to this topic

[Geijutsu]

So any news about the results from the phosphoimager?

[Anthony_Loera]

Those are pretty strong words, considering that his lab could not measure telomerase activity from Cycloastragenol... When Rita's lab at UCLA did...

Again, who's lab would you consider less biased?

A

[Geijutsu]

Those are pretty strong words, considering that his lab could not measure telomerase activity from Cycloastragenol... When Rita's lab at UCLA did...

Again, who's lab would you consider less biased?

A

That's what I thought too, too many red flags to be honest, although I'm still hoping that their product is what they claim.

[Anthony_Loera]

Me too,

that is why we are testing the product. I think it would help folks if the product does work. But at the same time, I don't want to reccomend something that does not show telomerase activity at all.

A

[Louis]

Those are pretty strong words, considering that his lab could not measure telomerase activity from Cycloastragenol... When Rita's lab at UCLA did...

Again, who's lab would you consider less biased?

A

Anthony,

It's really impossible for me to comment, because I can't find any public record of Bill Andrews actually stating that cycloastragenol/TAT2 does NOT activate telomerase. After days of searching, I still can't find a single publication, video, or website where he makes any such statement publicly. That's not to say that he didn't say it to you privately: But it's impossible for me to comment on private communication that you may or may not have had, because it's impossible for me to fact check and verify.

In contrast, when I quote a publicly available audio interview or transcript, it's very easy for others to fact check and verify.

I do find it strange that you post private conversations on public websites like this. I presume that you ask the other party permission first, as is the generally accepted ethical protocol?

I do not doubt the validity of the Rita Effros and Cal Harley paper that you're referring to. They are first-class scientists in this field, and their lab(s) certainly posess the capability to make these measurements accurately. I think it's unlikely that they would have made a mistake (not to say that it's impossible). Regarding your point on a "bias", Cal Harley was in fact very involved in the discovery of cycloastragenol/TAT2 at Geron. This compound is his baby. So there is an inherent bias in that paper that you are referring to as well. It's hard for a scientist or lab to be truly unbiased.

Harley and Andrews are both consumate professionals with stellar repuatations in the field. I think it's extremely unlikely that either would consciously let these types of unavoidable biases put a stain on the quality of their scientific work.

Louis

[Anthony_Loera]

Louis,

I expect that if I am incorrect or am outright lying about Bill Andrews and his Cycloastragenol statements... that Bill Andrews sue me himself for slander...period. (Don't you know his email address to ask him about this or will he not answer your emails?) You can always try this site if you don't have his email: http://www.sierrasci...tact/index.html

Otherwise, you need to take it as fact, since I have the emails to prove his statements. The last time he emailed me, he asked if I was working for Noel... since I was asking a multitude of questions about Product B... and the apparent telephone conversations he had with Isagenix folks. He knows I communicate with my customers and the folks that are interested in telomerase activators, it is no secret.

As for 'ethical protocol':
I don't know what world you live in, but for you to assume that there is a protocol somewhere that exists to allow for the continuation of people's inconsistencies in the science community

...and that this protocol is also to be considered ethical?

(Louis... Are you are serious?)

I see no such protocol that would achieve or allow such inconsistencies to be considered ethical in any way. It should be questioned, investigated, and brought up if the inconsistencies are not resolved. I consider this matter unresolved.

Having said that... our CSO verified Cycloastragenol in the lab a while ago... and it was consistent with Rita's findings. If you are in the field, you know what happens when peers cannot reproduce your findings... when they have been published in a science Journal. It's simply not pretty.

Bill Andrews appears to be a good guy, don't get me wrong... and I hope his "Product B" tests so well, that people give him a pass for any apparent inaccuracies that I personally have found, through the course of our emails.

I have a personal duty to let folks know what I have found about products in this field and the folks that produce them. If no one asks questions and takes what they say for granted... then we become lemmings, do we not?

Louis, I really hope that you can one day ask tough questions, from your own super science heroes, without being so darn star struck by their imagination about the future or awed by their past accomplishments.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 November 2011 - 03:54 AM.

[Methos000]

I don't mean to be pushy, but have we reached any conclusion about Bill Andrews and his Product B statements?

[Louis]

In general, scientists tend to be very conservative about what they say in journal publications and in public interviews. Experimental results are double-checked for accuracy and repeatability before officially going on the record, where scientific reputations are at stake. But lots of preliminary stuff is said off the record in private conversations with other members of the research community. People do this to help one another out and in general to be collegial. The standard of rigor is much lower, because it's understood that the communication is preliminary and private and the results may not have been double-checked, repeated, and so forth.

Bottomline is that he's never gone on public record saying TAT2 does not activate telomerase. But he has gone on public record saying that Sierra has screened 1000's of botanical extracts and (as of June 2011) never found one that inhibits telomerase. I am therefore confident that there are no telomerase inhibitors in product B. There's nothing more cherished by a scientist than his or her reputation among their peers in the field. Once they go on public record, they put that scientific reputation on the line. My friends who work in his field tell me his repuation is as solid as it gets. That's the bottomline for me.

Edited by Louis, 01 November 2011 - 04:40 PM.

[Methos000]

...I am therefore confident that there are no telomerase inhibitors in product B...

I would be curious to know how many telomerase activators are actually in Product B. I'm aware of only one ingredient that has been previously associated with telomerase activity. Perhaps I would be surprised.

[Anthony_Loera]

My friends who work in his field tell me his repuation is as solid as it gets. That's the bottomline for me.

I cannot verify your claims, I don't know your friend, but I do have my emails from Bill.

That's the bottomline... for me.

A

[Louis]

Fair enough Anthony. We'll simply agree to disagree on this.

Louis

[Anthony_Loera]

I am sorry Louis,

Fact vs Fiction:

Fact (My emails) vs Fiction (Happy feeling of someone who may or may not exist and is your friend) does not make comfortable with your last post about agreeing to disagree with you on this.

However, I will let it go for now.

A

[Louis]

Bill Andrew's reputation is rock solid in the telomere biology field. You don't need to know my scientific friends to verify that.

It can be independently fact checked and verified on its own.

Edited by Louis, 03 November 2011 - 06:47 PM.

[Methos000]

So any news about the results from the phosphoimager?

I suspect that the phosphoimager is busted. We can only hope that the B. Andrews Phosphoimager Fix-it Service has been called. I'm told that they're always prompt and courteous, and they'll have it detecting telomerase again in no time. I gave them a BIG tip last time they came out to fix mine.

[Anthony_Loera]

Quick update...

So far my CSO says it's inconclusive.

This comment from him has me personally thinking that it may not be as good as other things that clearly had a marked telomerase increase the first time around in initial testing. HOWEVER, the tests done previously on TA-65 and Cycloastragenol went through a few iterations of the same test to verify (and re-verify) that telomerase was being activated. You can't rely on a single test, and the CSO will be performing the tests to gather more data.

Needles to say I cannot recommend Product B at this time, as more data needs to be collected to see if their is any statistical significance.
All I ask is to please be patient while we get more data.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 04 November 2011 - 04:29 PM.

[Methos000]

Fair enough, Anthony.

You know, if you had called the B. Andrews Phosphoimager Fix-it Service, I doubt that your results would have been inconclusive. You'd be measuring about 8x the activity of a HeLa cell right now...

[Anthony_Loera]

Hehehe...

I liked that one Methos



A

[Getm]

There's a movie here, Bill says Product B induces telomerase and is superior to TA-65:

[Louis]

Without scientific details on how these tests are performed (including the name of the anonymous "California Lab"), your claims once again cannot be fact checked or verified by others. Do you really expect any scientifically trained reader to believe any of this without the relevant scientific details behind the tests themselves?

In contrast, the Sierra Sciences website provides extensive scientific details on their testing methods, including links to publications and poster sessions. Others can easily fact check and verify their methods as state of the art. Your website gives absolutely no details at all.

[Anthony_Loera]

Louis,

First, can you link to the Sierra Sciences details on the testing methods please? I hope they provide details like the paper mentioned below. If not, then why is Bill not providing such details?

Second, We use the same testing procedures used by UCLA to determine that TAT2 activated telomerase for Geron. You can also check that our CSO is a Visiting Scholar at UCLA that was trained by Geron.

You can fact check his status on the UCLA website under "Valenzuela" here. He is sponsored by Rita Effros:
http://www.gdnet.ucl...dir/default.asp

Then search for Rita's paper if you want to know the details, on google scholar. I can't check google scholar for Bill Andrews specific method he used for Product B, so I am wondering if they are posted anywhere.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 06 November 2011 - 07:56 PM.

[Louis]

Thank you for this information Anthony.

To be crystal clear: Are you saying that Hector Valenzuela physically performed these tests on Product B in Rita Effros laboratory at UCLA, using her equipment and procedures? If not, who physically performed the tests and at which laboratory were they physically performed?

Two poster presentations describing Sierra's high throughput screen can be found here:
http://www.sierrasci...arch/jesse.html
http://www.sierrasci...h/jennifer.html
More specific scientific details on their screening process can be found in their public issued and pending patent applications (viewable on google patents), including additional references in the patents themselves.

More related info can be found here:
http://www.sierrasci...arch/index.html

Edited by Louis, 06 November 2011 - 08:25 PM.

[Mind]

Egads. So much discussion about potential natural supplements to extend telomeres. While I understand the reasons, it seems to me we are spending to much time and effort on things that will probably only extend healthspan a very small percentage. Don't get me wrong, I have modified my diet to include things that have shown to improve human health and lower the odds of contracting major diseases, but I don't spend my life (and very valuable time) obsessing over supplements. Cutting a few calories while eating balanced nutritious meals and getting adequate exercise squeezes out the greatest percentage of healthspan gains. Supplements, while many are proven beneficial, and I take a couple (Vitamin D3, Fish Oil, Vimmortal, Melatonin), will likely only improve health by a little bit.

When I see discussions about super-duper new natural supplements/substances that are going revolutionize the world, I usually roll my eyes. If such a natural botanical existed, it would have been well known for centuries, everyone would be eating/drinking it, and we would all be living 100s of years. For crying out loud, the Chinese have been tinkering with medicinal extracts for centuries and their lifespans are the same as everyone else, maybe even shorter. The people who out-live everyone (in the Blue Zones), do not use supplements to get so healthy. Gogi, Noni, Acai, Pomegranate, Resveratrol, St Johns Wort, Ginseng, (insert your favorite foreign rare botanical from some remote mountain/rain forest here), etc... They are all fine nutrition, but they are not the miracles everyone spent their hard-earned cash on.

I consume some of these from time to time, I might start with resveratrol, to help me eke out another 1% longer healthspan, if I am lucky. I am glad there are companies like Sierra Sciences and Revgenetics that want to help people stay healthy. However, I don't pin my hopes on natural WONDER botanicals. You shouldn't either. Ending aging is going to take a lot of hard science work and some complicated bio-engineering. End Rant.

[Louis]

It's worth noting that the video a few posts above expresses exactly the opposite view.

In that interview, Andrews hints that Sierra may very well find non-xenobiotic compounds that induce telomerase at 100% of HeLa or above. Since most non-xenobiotics are classified by the FDA as GRAS, this means that we may see very strong telomerase inducing "supplements" on the market before the end of the decade.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that supplements that induce HeLa at only a few percent will have anything but a very minor effect on aging. Especially considering that most of these compounds likely have very poor bioavailability. The important point is that this is a significant first step. Supporting and purchasing this first product provides Sierra with the crucial funding that they need to survive this economic downturn. That's why I'm such a staunch supporter and why I purchase it myself. I am trying to do my part to support this research. If you don't believe in the product, just send a check directly to Sierra. That accomplishes the same thing.

The telomerase theory of aging may turn out to be completely wrong. But the world will never know until Sierra finds a compound strong enough to test it. It would be a great human tragedy for the company to run out of money when they're so incredibly close to finding just such a compound -- and finally testing the hypothesis. We all need to do everything in our power to help this company succeed in this goal.

[Mind]

I understand Louis. All good points. I am just cynical because I have seen so many "natural wonder botanicals" that have never amounted to anything. I hope Sierra (or Revgenetics, or whoever) is able to find something that has a positive effect on healthspan because I know they are advocates for extreme life extension. If they make money, we all win. I just don't hold out much hope that some natural plant extract is going to suddenly be found to dramatically extend human lifespan.

[Louis]

You're right Mind. And your cynacism is well justified, given the inglorious history of the anti-aging field.

But we shouldn't let cynacism contribute to the destruction of a company that could very well end up saving billions of lives one day. We must support them, even if it means taking the bad (multi-level marketing) with the good (the potential for a huge scientific breakthrough within the next decade).

[Anthony_Loera]

To be crystal clear: Are you saying that Hector Valenzuela physically performed these tests on Product B in Rita Effros laboratory at UCLA, using her equipment and procedures? If not, who physically performed the tests and at which laboratory were they physically performed?

More specific scientific details on their screening process can be found in their public issued and pending patent applications (viewable on google patents), including additional references in the patents themselves.

Louis,

About the Product B testing:
1- Who is doing it?: Hector Valenzuela, Ph.D. is physically performing the tests.
2- How is it being done:? He is using Rita's published procedures, as he has done this procedure accurately a multitude of times.
3- Where is it being done?: Dr. Valenzuela has access to multiple labs for his research. That is one of the reasons he is such a valuable asset to RevGenetics. He decides what resources are used in this regard. If he doesn't have the resources or materials, we supply them.

About Sierra Sciences Screening:
Sierra Sciences may have applied for a patent for a new form of screening, but it doesn't mean it is as accurate as what is currently available. Hence my issues with Bill stating that Cycloastragenol and I quote from the email sent to me and his assistant Jon back on 12/13/2010:

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

He knew about TAT002...back then (Remember Ritas Study was released in 2008). Yet his patent pending screening process did not detect anything? Do you understand why his impressive new patent pending screening, is not very impressive to me?

Louis, he simply might have screwed up... heck we all do. So don't be afraid to consider that. I don't know why his investors jumped ship back in 2010, heck It's possible his investors jumped ship because of an issue we will never know of. Do you think it could have been an issue with the screening?

About Sierra Sciences Funding:
I do see that he spoke about Isagenix helping Sierra Sciences for revenue in minute 1:48 in the video. It seems that at that time, his long time backers had left for some unknown reason... and he simply had to find new funding with Isagenix, or close his doors for good.

I know this not because of rumors, but because I wanted to talk to him about having RevGenetics help Sierra Sciences regarding a new venture when I heard the rumors. We spoke a bit, but in the end I have an email from Bill stating the following back in December of 2010:

"but since the type of funding (i.e. from profits) that you and I have been discussing will not come in in time to save Sierra Sciences, I will need to focus on opportunities for more immediate funding. Therefore, I wouldn't be able to meet with you for more than an hour if you were to visit in December. I hope things look better in January."

My Conclusion:
Like I said, you don't know the whole story Louis and probably never will. I personally believe Bill is a good guy but he is human after-all isn't he? Who knows, he might of made a mistake like the rest of us humans do once in a while. I truly am hoping that his screening worked well when it came to Product B, but because of so many things I have personally noticed, I simply will not give my approval of Product B until it is verified using a standard that has been used by many scientists previously and is not a 'new method' that I don't have confidence in.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 07 November 2011 - 01:10 AM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Mind,

I think the conversation is not about telomerase activators anymore, but more of the credibility of Bill Andrews. I think that is why this thread has gotten out of hand a bit. Instead of letting us simply finish our testing of Product B, someone here is trying to convince people that Product B works because Bill Andrews says so.

Well, personally that is not good enough for me... because of the items I have already mentioned.

I am not a blind fanatic of Bill Andrews like some people are, however I will give Bill kudos in a big press release if telomerase activation for Product B is proven in a lab by Dr. Valenzuela.

At that time I would also provide it on our website for our customers. Because in the end, it's our customers that will benefit from these tests. We don't do this sort of testing for Bill Andrews or for Noel Patton... we do it exclusively for our customers benefit.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 07 November 2011 - 01:21 AM.

[Louis]

Mind,

I think the conversation is not about telomerase activators anymore, but more of the credibility of Bill Andrews. I think that is why this thread has gotten out of hand a bit. Instead of letting us simply finish our testing of Product B, someone here is trying to convince people that Product B works because Bill Andrews says so.

I believe it's more accurate to state that someone here is trying to convince people that there are potential problems with Product B because Anthony Loera says so.

The questions I've asked are all reasonable and scientifically justified, given the assertions you've been making. I do give you credit for providing partial answers to them.

You started this by making a categorical assertion that there are telomerase inhibitors in product B, as if that were a scientific fact. I simply pointed out that this is hardly a fact at all, and that your statement directly contradicts earlier statements made by Andrews.

It's no secret that you derive a significant portion of your revenues from users of this website, and that you have a vested financial interest in all of this. In contrast, I sell nothing and have no financial interest. I buy product B only for my own personal use and for that of my family. I support it because of the results I've had and because it provides funds for further research at Sierra Sciences, a very worthy cause.

I am in no way preventing you from running your tests. I simply asked for details so we all have a context in which to interpret the results.

[niner]

Sometimes it pays to be cynical. In the supplement world, that probably goes double. HOWEVER, I don't think this is a time where blanket cynicism is justified. We just saw a very impressive paper last week that showed what a disaster senescent cells are. They pump out compounds that injure the viable cells around them, and when they are marked for destruction and removed, via some clever drug-responsive transgene inserts, the animals become remarkably healthier. This demonstrates the sort of damage that is done by senescent cells; it would clearly be good to get rid of them. How do cells get senescent? One sure-fire way is when their telomeres are shortened excessively. Short telomeres also increase the likelihood of cancer. Extension of telomeres through the de-repression of telomerase is therefore a very big deal. It's not "just another supplement"; this is incipient regenerative medicine. Lengthening of telomeres isn't by itself going to be sufficient to cure aging, but it will be necessary.

This thread has devolved a bit, and I hope we can pull it back to the subjects of interest to most of us. It sounds like we will soon have Dr. Valenzuela's results from testing Product B, and a lot of us are waiting for that. At some point it would be interesting to put some numbers on the inhibitory potential of the various botanicals in Product B. It might be the case that there isn't enough inhibition to be concerned about. Perhaps the initial experiments will provide an answer to that: If product B induces telomerase, and that telomerase is active, then the inhibition question is somewhat moot. I don't know if the current tests will measure hTERT expression, activity, or both, so these experiments may or may not answer all our questions.

[Anthony_Loera]

You started this by making a categorical assertion that there are telomerase inhibitors in product B, as if that were a scientific fact. I simply pointed out that this is hardly a fact at all, and that your statement directly contradicts earlier statements made by Andrews.

Resveratrol inhibits telomerase:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16465368
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16918129

Curcumin inhibits telomerase:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16820928
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17096185
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16445949
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19191010

Boswelia inhibits telomerase:
http://en.cnki.com.c...ZX200003010.htm

EGCG (In Green tea extract) inhibits telomerase:
http://www.sciencedi...006291X98990751
http://onlinelibrary.../jcb.21417/full
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/a...DF16284638B6D38
http://www.sciencedi...304383501005717

Ok... Louis, I am not going to go through all the ingredients just because you don't know how to do your research. But I have started it for you... so now use your big super pride powers for good instead of arguing so much about Bill's words, and go to google scholar and research all of the ingredients for yourself. Remember, Bill was not looking for inhibitors to begin with. That has never been the purpose of Sierra Sciences activities.

Now, since you have made some comments here and taking Bill's statements in your own way, without digging in yourself, I cannot hold you as a credible person to discuss issues with anymore. From the 16 posts you have made in this forum... I don't think you have provided so much as a link to a substantial paper regarding Bill's Product B that we can look at. At this point, I can only guess that you are simply a Bill Andrews super fan that will take his word over all the folks who published the papers I have linked to.

If that's the case, then those are pretty large blinds you seem to be strapping on to yourself my friend.

Regarding our revenues:
I have been posting on this board since early 2007, and I am proud to believe in capitalism, since it allows me and others to support and invest in science and new technologies regarding health and longevity. I would never say that a significant portion of our income comes from folks in this forum. No, that's not why I am here, or why I post here along with lots of folks that never use their real name. I am here because I believe that the folks running this non-profit site are doing more than most, in providing an education and supporting various projects that can change how folks look at the world today regarding health and longevity.

So let's get something straight, RevGenetics does not receive a significant portion of revenue from the folks on this site, that's just stuff you are making up on your own.

As for Product B, I have already stated we will be selling the product if it actually activates telomerase to a statistical significant degree. So it makes no difference for me if the results come back positive or negative. From a financial standpoint there is no issue for RevGenetics.

We get a new product to suggest to our customers, or not. It's that simple. You being a 'Fanboy' for Bill Andrews or Sierra Sciences does not interest me... what interests me are the results of the tests. At this point, unless you have some great information that you can link to or a great study, I will probably not reply to you anymore.

Cheers

A