68 replies to this topic

[jroseland]

Later this week on the LongeCity Now podcast we will have LongeCity member Greg Macpherson - who operates a New Zealand-based supplement start-up - discussing the current state of the supplement industry. In the interview we'll touch on the topics of...

• Does marketing trump science in the supplement industry?.
• Getting antioxidants and other nutrients from supplements vs food sources.
• How to avoid illegitimate supplements.
• Interpretation of scientific studies in regards to consumer decisions.

This conversation will be also be chance to find out about the nuts-n-bolts of starting a business related to life extension products. Leave any other questions you would like asked below.

 2628.jpeg   30.02KB   2 downloads

Edited by caliban, 07 October 2015 - 09:23 PM.

[jroseland]

I got a few questions for Greg...

1)  When I buy supplements I always look for a 3rd party COA because I know there is zero policing of the supplement industry. It seems like a lot of the popular biohacking supplements lack COAs on their websites. In an industry that is supposedly good at marketing and concerned with building trust, why do so many popular supplement brands NOT conspicuously display COAs? Is this a bad sign?

2) It seems like everyone and their mom has a supplement or is launching a Nootropic stack... Does the supplement gold rush show any sign of subsiding? If someone is thinking about launching a product should they go for it?

[Mind]

File Name: LongecityNow_Greg_MacPherson_2015.mp3

File Submitter: Mind

File Submitted: 05 Oct 2015

File Category: Podcasts

Guest: Greg MaacPherson

In this interview we talk to Greg MacPherson, provider of a patented targeted anti-oxidant supplement, about supplements in general and the industry behind them.

Click here to download this file

[Mind]

I apologize for the lower audio quality in this one. Our editor was able to clean the "buzz/hum" quite a bit but you can still hear it. I believe it was due to some interference caused by too many items being plugged into my recording computer. Will make sure the quality is better going forward.

 

Interesting, Mr. MacPherson thinks there is quite a bit of opportunity yet for new entrants into the supplement business.

[Antonio2014]

Interesting, Mr. MacPherson thinks there is quite a bit of opportunity yet for new entrants into the supplement business.

Yeah, there is always a greater fool to whom sell supplements.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24370781

[niner]

 

Interesting, Mr. MacPherson thinks there is quite a bit of opportunity yet for new entrants into the supplement business.

Yeah, there is always a greater fool to whom sell supplements.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24370781

 

Spindler showed, at great expense to taxpayers, that when mice are fed a scientifically designed diet that has everything they need in it, the addition of human multivitamins doesn't make them live longer.  Why am I not surprised?   Of all the things they looked at, only a couple were worth the effort.  I wish they'd look at some things that might have a chance of actually working.  (c60oo, glycine, MitoQ, NR...) 

[aribadabar]

 

Yeah, there is always a greater fool to whom sell supplements.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24370781

 

 

I am genuinely interested in your supplement picks, if any?

 

Thanks!

[Antonio2014]

I don't take any supplements. I use my spare money to donate to SENS research.

[aribadabar]

I don't take any supplements. I use my spare money to donate to SENS research.

 

Not even D3 or some minerals (Mg) or herbs?

 

You must be having a killer diet - would you share some insight?

 

Muchas gracias!

[CuriousMonkey]

I couldn't agree more with Greg Macpherson that marketing trumps science every time.

 

For example, Greg's company MitoQ sponsored the October newsletter so he could market his MitoQ product to LongeCity members. Additionally, during his LongeCity interview he spent much of the time promoting his MitoQ product. He argues that unlike other companies that the claims he makes about his product are backed by science, but when I just did a deep dive (as Greg advocated consumers do) into the science behind the active ingredient in MitoQ (mitoquinol mesylate) I couldn't find a single randomized clinical trial testing mitoquinol mesylate in humans, let alone the multiple RCTs that are required prior to claiming that the science supports mitoquinol mesylate is effective in humans in specific endpoints (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cognitive, lifespan). I wonder if Greg would support the FDA changing its regulations to allow pharmaceutical companies to market their products after only conducting small in vitro and animal model studies. 

 

I'd like to finish my comment by noting that I would love for the natural products/supplement industry to be a major aspect of improving human health and extending lifespans, but I honestly don't see how such claims can be made at this time when I science just hasn't been done. 

[Mind]

LongeCity forum participants love to talk about supplements, so a podcast about the industry, from an insider, did not seem unwarranted. Some other members actually suggested this interview. I have interviewed plenty of people who are very skeptical of supplements.

 

I specifically did not mention the name of the company or the supplement in order to avoid the appearance of free-advertising. I hope people appreciate that.

[niner]

but when I just did a deep dive (as Greg advocated consumers do) into the science behind the active ingredient in MitoQ (mitoquinol mesylate) I couldn't find a single randomized clinical trial testing mitoquinol mesylate in humans, let alone the multiple RCTs that are required prior to claiming that the science supports mitoquinol mesylate is effective in humans in specific endpoints (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cognitive, lifespan).

 

I found three clinical trials registered in the US.  One was withdrawn because they couldn't recruit enough patients.  It's possible that they have other trials registered elsewhere.

 

There is more science behind MitoQ than a lot of supplements.  One thing that I can't figure out is why MitoQ qualifies as a "supplement", given that it's a novel synthetic molecule that doesn't exist in nature.  How is it that they can sell it here legally?

[CuriousMonkey]

 

but when I just did a deep dive (as Greg advocated consumers do) into the science behind the active ingredient in MitoQ (mitoquinol mesylate) I couldn't find a single randomized clinical trial testing mitoquinol mesylate in humans, let alone the multiple RCTs that are required prior to claiming that the science supports mitoquinol mesylate is effective in humans in specific endpoints (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cognitive, lifespan).

 

I found three clinical trials registered in the US.  One was withdrawn because they couldn't recruit enough patients.  It's possible that they have other trials registered elsewhere.

 

There is more science behind MitoQ than a lot of supplements.  One thing that I can't figure out is why MitoQ qualifies as a "supplement", given that it's a novel synthetic molecule that doesn't exist in nature.  How is it that they can sell it here legally?

 

niner,

 

Thanks for the CT reference. Do you have the results of those trials? So what can we gather from the CT subimissions, We have two small (n=30, n=128) clinical trials that were done on two sick populations (Chronic Hepatitis C and Parkinson's) with the outcomes measures being "Change in serum ALT concentration at Day 28 compared with baseline" and changes in the "Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score" and based on the results of these two UNPUBLISHED studies they are marketing MitoQ for "blood sugar", "heart" and "skin" health??!!

 

Look I'm not singling out Antipodean Pharmaceuticals as being any different from other companies, just questioning the scientific basis of their claims as they are coming on LongeCity saying they are different from the rest.

[CuriousMonkey]

 

but when I just did a deep dive (as Greg advocated consumers do) into the science behind the active ingredient in MitoQ (mitoquinol mesylate) I couldn't find a single randomized clinical trial testing mitoquinol mesylate in humans, let alone the multiple RCTs that are required prior to claiming that the science supports mitoquinol mesylate is effective in humans in specific endpoints (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cognitive, lifespan).

 

I found three clinical trials registered in the US.  One was withdrawn because they couldn't recruit enough patients.  It's possible that they have other trials registered elsewhere.

 

There is more science behind MitoQ than a lot of supplements.  One thing that I can't figure out is why MitoQ qualifies as a "supplement", given that it's a novel synthetic molecule that doesn't exist in nature.  How is it that they can sell it here legally?

 

niner,

 

That is good question regarding the legality of marketing a product containing mitoquinol mesylate as a supplement in the US. I will get in touch with the FDA to inquire about it,

[niner]

Thanks for the CT reference. Do you have the results of those trials? So what can we gather from the CT subimissions, We have two small (n=30, n=128) clinical trials that were done on two sick populations (Chronic Hepatitis C and Parkinson's) with the outcomes measures being "Change in serum ALT concentration at Day 28 compared with baseline" and changes in the "Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score" and based on the results of these two UNPUBLISHED studies they are marketing MitoQ for "blood sugar", "heart" and "skin" health??!!

 

Look I'm not singling out Antipodean Pharmaceuticals as being any different from other companies, just questioning the scientific basis of their claims as they are coming on LongeCity saying they are different from the rest.

 

 

The Parkinson's trial was published in 2010.  The Hep C trial was also published.  Considering that you can buy a drum of something off Alibaba, have it drop-shipped to a capping and bottling plant, not do any analytical work and call yourself a supplement vendor, Antipodean really is different.  There has been a ton of work done with MitoQ.  If we're going to ask them to do multiple gigantic phase 3 trials before they can market their compound, then we'll have to wait a decade longer to see it, we'll need a prescription to get it, and it will cost a fortune.  I don't think I've seen them making any health claims that aren't backed up by at least some human data.

 

[CuriousMonkey]

 

Thanks for the CT reference. Do you have the results of those trials? So what can we gather from the CT subimissions, We have two small (n=30, n=128) clinical trials that were done on two sick populations (Chronic Hepatitis C and Parkinson's) with the outcomes measures being "Change in serum ALT concentration at Day 28 compared with baseline" and changes in the "Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score" and based on the results of these two UNPUBLISHED studies they are marketing MitoQ for "blood sugar", "heart" and "skin" health??!!

 

Look I'm not singling out Antipodean Pharmaceuticals as being any different from other companies, just questioning the scientific basis of their claims as they are coming on LongeCity saying they are different from the rest.

 

 

The Parkinson's trial was published in 2010.  The Hep C trial was also published.  Considering that you can buy a drum of something off Alibaba, have it drop-shipped to a capping and bottling plant, not do any analytical work and call yourself a supplement vendor, Antipodean really is different.  There has been a ton of work done with MitoQ.  If we're going to ask them to do multiple gigantic phase 3 trials before they can market their compound, then we'll have to wait a decade longer to see it, we'll need a prescription to get it, and it will cost a fortune.  I don't think I've seen them making any health claims that aren't backed up by at least some human data.

 

Hi niner,

 

Thanks for linking to the studies. So both of them found no difference between the MitoQ group and the placebo group. What human data am I missing? Could you point me to human clinical trials that have been done that support these claims? I want to believe

 

Here are some of MitoQ claims from their website:

 

Improves energy levels

• Supports optimal organ health
• Slows free radical damage associated with Aging

[aribadabar]

 One thing that I can't figure out is why MitoQ qualifies as a "supplement", given that it's a novel synthetic molecule that doesn't exist in nature.  How is it that they can sell it here legally?

 

 

It appears that as long as you slap the FDA disclaimer on the bottle somewhere you can sell whatever you wish as a supplement.

 

You can see responses of the Antipodean founders when asked about this question for the MitoQ skin serum but applies to the pill as well.

[niner]

 

 

Thanks for the CT reference. Do you have the results of those trials? So what can we gather from the CT subimissions, We have two small (n=30, n=128) clinical trials that were done on two sick populations (Chronic Hepatitis C and Parkinson's) with the outcomes measures being "Change in serum ALT concentration at Day 28 compared with baseline" and changes in the "Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score" and based on the results of these two UNPUBLISHED studies they are marketing MitoQ for "blood sugar", "heart" and "skin" health??!!

 

Look I'm not singling out Antipodean Pharmaceuticals as being any different from other companies, just questioning the scientific basis of their claims as they are coming on LongeCity saying they are different from the rest.

 

The Parkinson's trial was published in 2010.  The Hep C trial was also published.  Considering that you can buy a drum of something off Alibaba, have it drop-shipped to a capping and bottling plant, not do any analytical work and call yourself a supplement vendor, Antipodean really is different.  There has been a ton of work done with MitoQ.  If we're going to ask them to do multiple gigantic phase 3 trials before they can market their compound, then we'll have to wait a decade longer to see it, we'll need a prescription to get it, and it will cost a fortune.  I don't think I've seen them making any health claims that aren't backed up by at least some human data.

 

Thanks for linking to the studies. So both of them found no difference between the MitoQ group and the placebo group. What human data am I missing? Could you point me to human clinical trials that have been done that support these claims? I want to believe

 

I can point you to pubmed; it's probably all there.  The two trials above didn't reach p < 0.05, but that's not the same as nothing.  MitoQ is a mitochondrial antioxidant.  As a class, these compounds have powerful effects that address a number of unmet medical needs.  If you want to use one that has been through rigorous FDA certification, keep your eye on Bendavia.  If you want to get the benefits of a mitochondrial antioxidant today, you can use MitoQ or c60oo.  SkQ1 is also floating around out there, and might be available.   The easiest position to take is that of a skeptic.  All you have to do is refuse to acknowledge that a compound is useful until it has been through multiple large RCTs.   The cost of this stance is waiting a very long time to get access to the drug, paying a large amount of money for it, and due to the large barriers to entry, losing access entirely to many drugs that no one is willing to take forward because of the cost and time required.  Since I have the training and experience needed to evaluate preclinical and early phase human research, I've been able to use compounds that have for me been life-changing.  I would not want to give that up.   I understand the danger of low-frequency adverse events.  In fact, I was seriously injured by one-- from a pair of FDA-approved drugs prescribed by my internist. 

[CuriousMonkey]

"The two trials above didn't reach p < 0.05, but that's not the same as nothing."
 
That is an interesting way to interpret the results. I often hear about people complaining about p fishing in science, but this takes it a big step forward. I'd like to learn more about how you think we can improve our ability to discern what is true and what is false through changes in study designs and data analysis. 
 
"I can point you to pubmed; it's probably all there. "
 
I looked on PubMed prior to posting to the forum and I a search for "Mitoquinol" and "clinical trial" article type yielded ZERO results. [/size] What am I missing?
 

 

" The easiest position to take is that of a skeptic. "

 

I know critical thinking is the lazy man's refuge, but I can't seem to bring myself to blindly accept claims made by anyone, be they a priest,  a scienctist, or businessman. 

 

 

Again, I want what you believe to be true, I'm just not willing to act on faith alone and be a human guinea pig.

 

 

 

Thanks for the CT reference. Do you have the results of those trials? So what can we gather from the CT subimissions, We have two small (n=30, n=128) clinical trials that were done on two sick populations (Chronic Hepatitis C and Parkinson's) with the outcomes measures being "Change in serum ALT concentration at Day 28 compared with baseline" and changes in the "Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score" and based on the results of these two UNPUBLISHED studies they are marketing MitoQ for "blood sugar", "heart" and "skin" health??!!
 
Look I'm not singling out Antipodean Pharmaceuticals as being any different from other companies, just questioning the scientific basis of their claims as they are coming on LongeCity saying they are different from the rest.

 
The Parkinson's trial was published in 2010.  The Hep C trial was also published.  Considering that you can buy a drum of something off Alibaba, have it drop-shipped to a capping and bottling plant, not do any analytical work and call yourself a supplement vendor, Antipodean really is different.  There has been a ton of work done with MitoQ.  If we're going to ask them to do multiple gigantic phase 3 trials before they can market their compound, then we'll have to wait a decade longer to see it, we'll need a prescription to get it, and it will cost a fortune.  I don't think I've seen them making any health claims that aren't backed up by at least some human data.

 

 
Thanks for linking to the studies. So both of them found no difference between the MitoQ group and the placebo group. What human data am I missing? Could you point me to human clinical trials that have been done that support these claims? I want to believe

 

 
I can point you to pubmed; it's probably all there.  The two trials above didn't reach p < 0.05, but that's not the same as nothing.  MitoQ is a mitochondrial antioxidant.  As a class, these compounds have powerful effects that address a number of unmet medical needs.  If you want to use one that has been through rigorous FDA certification, keep your eye on Bendavia.  If you want to get the benefits of a mitochondrial antioxidant today, you can use MitoQ or c60oo.  SkQ1 is also floating around out there, and might be available.   The easiest position to take is that of a skeptic.  All you have to do is refuse to acknowledge that a compound is useful until it has been through multiple large RCTs.   The cost of this stance is waiting a very long time to get access to the drug, paying a large amount of money for it, and due to the large barriers to entry, losing access entirely to many drugs that no one is willing to take forward because of the cost and time required.  Since I have the training and experience needed to evaluate preclinical and early phase human research, I've been able to use compounds that have for me been life-changing.  I would not want to give that up.   I understand the danger of low-frequency adverse events.  In fact, I was seriously injured by one-- from a pair of FDA-approved drugs prescribed by my internist.

 

[sthira]

Since I have the training and experience needed to evaluate preclinical and early phase human research, I've been able to use compounds that have for me been life-changing. I would not want to give that up. I understand the danger of low-frequency adverse events. In fact, I was seriously injured by one-- from a pair of FDA-approved drugs prescribed by my internist.

Are you taking mitoq, Niner? I'd consider it if it wasn't so damned expensive. Or is c60oo an alternative? And what are your life-changing compounds, niner?

[Mind]

 

 

Again, I want what you believe to be true, I'm just not willing to act on faith alone and be a human guinea pig.

 

I celebrate risk-takers. Without them, we would still be living in caves.

[CuriousMonkey]

 

 

 

Again, I want what you believe to be true, I'm just not willing to act on faith alone and be a human guinea pig.

 

I celebrate risk-takers. Without them, we would still be living in caves.

 

Right on!

Edited by CuriousMonkey, 20 October 2015 - 07:05 PM.

[CuriousMonkey]

Just so that people don't think I am singling out mitoquinol (MitoQ), here is another company that leads the consumer to believe that its products are backed by numerous studies that prove or at least support its efficacy and safety.

 

http://www.elysiumhealth.com/team

 

Notice how many top-tier scientists they have on their team. They have SIX NOBEL LAUREATES! I bet no other dietary supplement can claim that. Yet, when I inquired with them about human RCTs that had been done by them or anyone else testing the product or at least the ingredients that make up the product they could no provide me a single one. I am frankly surprised that so many top-tier scientists would lend their names to a product that hasn't been shown to be safe and effective. 

[ceridwen]

They're all ancient

[niner]

Are you taking mitoq, Niner? I'd consider it if it wasn't so damned expensive. Or is c60oo an alternative? And what are your life-changing compounds, niner?

 

No, I don't use it, mainly because of the cost.  I think c60oo can be thought of as an alternative, and I do use c60oo.  They aren't the same thing, and there are people who have used both and prefer MitoQ.  I'd certainly consider giving it a try at some point.  If I didn't have c60oo, I'd probably bite the bullet and use MitoQ.

 

Two compounds that made a huge difference in my life are c60oo and NSI-189.

[sthira]

Just so that people don't think I am singling out mitoquinol (MitoQ), here is another company that leads the consumer to believe that its products are backed by numerous studies that prove or at least support its efficacy and safety.

http://www.elysiumhealth.com/team

Notice how many top-tier scientists they have on their team. They have SIX NOBEL LAUREATES! I bet no other dietary supplement can claim that. Yet, when I inquired with them about human RCTs that had been done by them or anyone else testing the product or at least the ingredients that make up the product they could no provide me a single one. I am frankly surprised that so many top-tier scientists would lend their names to a product that hasn't been shown to be safe and effective.

Yeah NR & pterostilbene... There's a long list of promises. We seem to be going from one useless promise to the next. Hopes ride high! Then hopes fall after a few months :-(

[ceridwen]

What's wrong with pterostilbene?

[CuriousMonkey]

Where is the evidence?

 

What's wrong with pterostilbene?

 

[niner]

"The two trials above didn't reach p < 0.05, but that's not the same as nothing."
 
That is an interesting way to interpret the results. I often hear about people complaining about p fishing in science, but this takes it a big step forward. I'd like to learn more about how you think we can improve our ability to discern what is true and what is false through changes in study designs and data analysis.

 
It's not a matter of changing study design or data analysis, although both are flawed often enough; it's just that I think it's silly to treat the result of a trial as binary, where if there is  a 5% chance that the results were due to random fluctuation, we consider it to be "real", and if there's a six percent chance, then we consider it meaningless.  It's a gradient, albeit one that slides into meaninglessness pretty quickly.
 

"I can point you to pubmed; it's probably all there. "
 
I looked on PubMed prior to posting to the forum and I a search for "Mitoquinol" and "clinical trial" article type yielded ZERO results.  What am I missing?

No one calls it Mitoquinol.  If you search for "mitoq", you should get 164 hits as of today.  "mitoq" "clinical trial" gave me 7 hits.  They are mostly not human RCTs, though. 

 

"The easiest position to take is that of a skeptic. "

I know critical thinking is the lazy man's refuge, but I can't seem to bring myself to blindly accept claims made by anyone, be they a priest,  a scienctist, or businessman. 
 
Again, I want what you believe to be true, I'm just not willing to act on faith alone and be a human guinea pig.

Well, I'm with you on not taking anything on faith.  I'm particularly wary of  businessmen.  I'm somewhat less wary of scientists, but not a lot less.  Frequently they are businessmen in disguise.  I'm not trying to talk you into accepting anyone's claims.  I am saying that there is a lot of data on MitoQ and various other compounds that does not rise to the level of a gigantic multi-center RCT costing millions of dollars, but does tell us a lot.  We have two pharmacopoeias at our disposal.  One is FDA approved, both prescription and OTC.  The other is the large number of compounds in the "supplement" category.  The second pharmacopoeia forces you to do some digging if you want to see the evidence of utility, and you have to trust the manufacturer to provide a quality product.  I admit that is asking a lot, but I'm not willing to forego the value I find there.  Forums like longecity are very helpful sources of information and user experiences; for some compounds (e.g. c60oo) we are the only game in town.  For most supplements, examine.com is a great reference.

[motorcitykid]

 

Are you taking mitoq, Niner? I'd consider it if it wasn't so damned expensive. Or is c60oo an alternative? And what are your life-changing compounds, niner?

 

No, I don't use it, mainly because of the cost.  I think c60oo can be thought of as an alternative, and I do use c60oo.  They aren't the same thing, and there are people who have used both and prefer MitoQ.  I'd certainly consider giving it a try at some point.  If I didn't have c60oo, I'd probably bite the bullet and use MitoQ.

 

Two compounds that made a huge difference in my life are c60oo and NSI-189.

 

 

 

 Niner could you elaborate on your experience with NSI-189 about why you consider it a life-changing compound? I check the  NSI-189 thread now and don't remember seeing you weigh in heavy on the plus side of this compound.  

Edited by motorcitykid, 21 October 2015 - 06:24 AM.