326 replies to this topic

[MikeDC]

on that note anybody buying this:
https://www.amazon.c...customerReviews

would be interesting to hear some experiences.

I tried the Alivebynature NMN for 4 weeks. Personally, I couldn't tell much difference from Niagen myself. I see a lot more variation in health due to my exercise, sleep, and keto diet, so is often hard for me to point to changes as being from supplements.

Over the last month I have also used a jar of the revegenetics powder with no filler. I have had a significant improvement in prostate issues (BPH) after a few weeks taking this sublingual.

Probably a coincidence. I don't recall anyone else reporting prostate improvement from NR or NMN, but maybe decreased inflammation?

6 month NR fixed my prostate inflammation and pelvic pain. I think people with prostatitis can benefit from NR.

[bluemoon]

  I have had a significant improvement in prostate issues (BPH) after a few weeks taking this sublingual.

 

Probably a coincidence.  I don't recall anyone else reporting prostate improvement from NR or NMN, but maybe decreased inflammation?

 

 

This guy who posted here in 2014 did. But check out how much he was taking:

 

"7) I've had prostatitis for the last 15 years. It's been getting progressively worse. When I hit 2 grams per day of Niagen, my prostatitis was significantly better. I've been keeping a journal since beginning Niagen, and I keep track of how many times I urinate and what time of day. When I hit 4 grams a day of Niagen I have no urgency no tenderness, no symptoms. My trips to the bathroom has decreased significantly. No urgency at all. My prostate feels like it did when I was in my 40's."

 

The odd thing is that the Elysium study showed a big increase in NAD+ with 500 mg over 250 mg but then after a month returned to just a 55% boost versus a  steady 40% boost. He was taking 4000 mg  for week 4, 5 and 6 and then reported the above so maybe it eventually also went down as did the effect.

[MikeDC]

I have had a significant improvement in prostate issues (BPH) after a few weeks taking this sublingual.

Probably a coincidence. I don't recall anyone else reporting prostate improvement from NR or NMN, but maybe decreased inflammation?

This guy who posted here in 2014 did. But check out how much he was taking:

"7) I've had prostatitis for the last 15 years. It's been getting progressively worse. When I hit 2 grams per day of Niagen, my prostatitis was significantly better. I've been keeping a journal since beginning Niagen, and I keep track of how many times I urinate and what time of day. When I hit 4 grams a day of Niagen I have no urgency no tenderness, no symptoms. My trips to the bathroom has decreased significantly. No urgency at all. My prostate feels like it did when I was in my 40's."

The odd thing is that the Elysium study showed a big increase in NAD+ with 500 mg over 250 mg but then after a month returned to just a 55% boost versus a steady 40% boost. He was taking 4000 mg for week 4, 5 and 6 and then reported the above so maybe it eventually also went down as did the effect.

The high dose was probably unnecessary. It takes a long time to fix prostate problems, 6 month at least.

[able]

 

  I have had a significant improvement in prostate issues (BPH) after a few weeks taking this sublingual.

 

Probably a coincidence.  I don't recall anyone else reporting prostate improvement from NR or NMN, but maybe decreased inflammation?

 

 

This guy who posted here in 2014 did. But check out how much he was taking:

 

"7) I've had prostatitis for the last 15 years. It's been getting progressively worse. When I hit 2 grams per day of Niagen, my prostatitis was significantly better. I've been keeping a journal since beginning Niagen, and I keep track of how many times I urinate and what time of day. When I hit 4 grams a day of Niagen I have no urgency no tenderness, no symptoms. My trips to the bathroom has decreased significantly. No urgency at all. My prostate feels like it did when I was in my 40's."

 

The odd thing is that the Elysium study showed a big increase in NAD+ with 500 mg over 250 mg but then after a month returned to just a 55% boost versus a  steady 40% boost. He was taking 4000 mg  for week 4, 5 and 6 and then reported the above so maybe it eventually also went down as did the effect.

 

 

 

Thanks for that.  2-4 grams does sound like overkill.  He might have had the same results sticking with 1 gram for longer period of time.  

 

But  on the other hand - just because NAD+ measured in liver seems to peak out between 500-1,000 mg a day doesn't necessarily mean that is the most effective dose for all tissues/organs.

 

I have been taking higher dosages lately, including combination of NR and NMN, along with the recent switch to sublingual NMN.  As usual, more questions than answers....

Edited by able, 12 February 2018 - 02:39 AM.

[stefan_001]

2-4 gram is really a lot. Forum member Hav in another thread is reporting using 2 gram a day for 2 years. We cana sk him as well or if he reads this please share your experience.

Edited by stefan_001, 12 February 2018 - 09:45 PM.

[NoodleHead]

Hi there, I've just picked up some Bucky Labs NMN 125mg (30 pills), I plan to take 250mg a day for 2 weeks as a initial test (Split morning and evening). I'm a 36 years old man, maybe a little young to see profound results, but the signs of aging have definitely started to appear! I'm testing with the plan of getting my father (aged 65) to start his own trial.

 

Following up on this:

After taking my 4th dose 125mg. The NMN aggravated my bowels. I have some kind of pre-existing IBS type illness with plenty of pain in my small bowel but none of the other symptoms of IBS. (That's the best diagnosis I've ever managed to get from the doctors).

 

In short, lots of pain experienced with headaches which probably are a side effect of the inflammation in my gut. I've now stopped taking the supplement completely, and I'm feeling slightly better but its probably going to take a few days to get back to baseline.

 

My girlfriend also recently started a trial on her own with 50mg NMN from amazon (gene formulas). After a week or so of being on 50mg twice a day she had to discontinue because she felt ill. Fuzzy/foggy head, itchy skin, very fatigued. She is also feeling better since stopping.

 

So there you go, make of that what you will. I am not completely convinced what is being sold commercially is the same as the stuff LawrenceW is taking in such large quantities. Commercial NMN and NR are a complete no go for me, at least until my gut situation improves, which it may never do.

Edited by Michael, 13 February 2018 - 01:29 PM.
Trim quote

[hav]

2-4 gram is really a lot. Forum member Hav in another thread is reporting using 2 gram a day for 2 years. We cana sk him as well or if he reads this please share your experience.

 

I think my original comment is off a bit due to the form I take. It's the bulk HPN dietary supplement that came in 150 gm jars intended for mixing in shakes.  I'm on the road for a while and have it repackaged for travel and just located the label online... the little scoop they include is listed as the single serving size of 2.5 gms.  I take a heaping teaspoon of that which I think I measured as 4 of those little scoops.  Much heavier stuff than gelatin powder which is 6 gms to a tablespoon. The rub is that a single scoop of this stuff is listed as containing 125 mg of pure Niagen.  So I'm probably taking more like 512 mgs a day of pure Niagen, not 2 gms.  Sorry for the confusion.

 

Howard

[MikeDC]

Finally found a paper that measures mice muscle NAD+ after NR administration.
400mg/kg dose of NR produced 90% increase in NAD+ in muscles. The NMN study I referenced earlier used 300mg/kg and produced about 17% increase of NAD+ in mice muscles. These data demonstrate NR is a far superior NaD+ precursor in both liver and muscles.

One interesting data is that in another mice study by a Greece researcher showed NR supplementation reduces exercise performance. But this study shows NR significantly increased exercise performance in 4 month old mice. The results from the Greece paper is questionable. Could be fabricated to draw attention.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...61/#!po=20.5000

Attached Files

•  63E5A427-0ECF-417A-964C-F0F3D0251498.png   769.03KB   0 downloads

Edited by MikeDC, 19 February 2018 - 09:51 PM.

[tunt01]

Finally found a paper that measures mice muscle NAD+ after NR administration.
400mg/kg dose of NR produced 90% increase in NAD+ in muscles. The NMN study I referenced earlier used 300mg/kg and produced about 17% increase of NAD+ in mice muscles. These data demonstrate NR is a far superior NaD+ precursor in both liver and muscles.

One interesting data is that in another mice study by a Greece researcher showed NR supplementation reduces exercise performance. But this study shows NR significantly increased exercise performance in 4 month old mice. The results from the Greece paper is questionable. Could be fabricated to draw attention.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...61/#!po=20.5000

 

Isn't this a model of duchenne muscle dystrophy?

[MikeDC]

Finally found a paper that measures mice muscle NAD+ after NR administration.
400mg/kg dose of NR produced 90% increase in NAD+ in muscles. The NMN study I referenced earlier used 300mg/kg and produced about 17% increase of NAD+ in mice muscles. These data demonstrate NR is a far superior NaD+ precursor in both liver and muscles.

One interesting data is that in another mice study by a Greece researcher showed NR supplementation reduces exercise performance. But this study shows NR significantly increased exercise performance in 4 month old mice. The results from the Greece paper is questionable. Could be fabricated to draw attention.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...61/#!po=20.5000

Isn't this a model of duchenne muscle dystrophy?

Yes. Remember it is even harder to increase NAD+ in mdx mice because of more NAd+ consumption and less NAD+ recycling than a wild type mice.

[tunt01]

 

 

Finally found a paper that measures mice muscle NAD+ after NR administration.
400mg/kg dose of NR produced 90% increase in NAD+ in muscles. The NMN study I referenced earlier used 300mg/kg and produced about 17% increase of NAD+ in mice muscles. These data demonstrate NR is a far superior NaD+ precursor in both liver and muscles.

One interesting data is that in another mice study by a Greece researcher showed NR supplementation reduces exercise performance. But this study shows NR significantly increased exercise performance in 4 month old mice. The results from the Greece paper is questionable. Could be fabricated to draw attention.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...61/#!po=20.5000

Isn't this a model of duchenne muscle dystrophy?

Yes. Remember it is even harder to increase NAD+ in mdx mice because of more NAd+ consumption and less NAD+ recycling than a wild type mice.

 

 

OK.  I actually went through this paper on Dec 2016.  Mechanistically it was kind of interesting.  Just be mindful that there is no data here measuring NAD+ levels in controls under NR.  I would think the PARylation that is consuming all the NAD+ is surpassed by NR administration, such that the increase in NAD+ levels vs. mdx vehicle w/o NR is rather exaggerated.

[MikeDC]

Finally found a paper that measures mice muscle NAD+ after NR administration.
400mg/kg dose of NR produced 90% increase in NAD+ in muscles. The NMN study I referenced earlier used 300mg/kg and produced about 17% increase of NAD+ in mice muscles. These data demonstrate NR is a far superior NaD+ precursor in both liver and muscles.

One interesting data is that in another mice study by a Greece researcher showed NR supplementation reduces exercise performance. But this study shows NR significantly increased exercise performance in 4 month old mice. The results from the Greece paper is questionable. Could be fabricated to draw attention.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...61/#!po=20.5000

Isn't this a model of duchenne muscle dystrophy?

Yes. Remember it is even harder to increase NAD+ in mdx mice because of more NAd+ consumption and less NAD+ recycling than a wild type mice.

OK. I actually went through this paper on Dec 2016. Mechanistically it was kind of interesting. Just be mindful that there is no data here measuring NAD+ levels in controls under NR. I would think the PARylation that is consuming all the NAD+ is surpassed by NR administration, such that the increase in NAD+ levels vs. mdx vehicle w/o NR is rather exaggerated.

It is exaggerated percentage wise compared to wild type. But additional NAD+ are consumed by PARp1. So NR generated more NAD+ than the percentage indicates.

No matter what I don’t see anywhere that indicate NMN is better than NR. Not a single evidence.

[able]

 

It is exaggerated percentage wise compared to wild type. But additional NAD+ are consumed by PARp1. So NR generated more NAD+ than the percentage indicates.

No matter what I don’t see anywhere that indicate NMN is better than NR. Not a single evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

As you know, there are no head to head studies, so it definitely depends on how you want to interpret the data.

 

I have pointed out the two studies on Friedrichs Ataxia, where NMN restored heart function, while NR failed in nearly the same situation.

 

I don’t know if my assessment was accurate.  The 2-3 times I posted this looking for expert interpretation, no-one responded either way.

 

 

Nicotinamide mononucleotide requires SIRT3 to improve cardiac function and bioenergetics in a Friedreich’s ataxia cardiomyopathy model

 

“Remarkably, NMN administered to FXN-KO mice restores cardiac function to near-normal levels. “

 

 

NAD+ replacement therapy with nicotinamide riboside does not improve cardiac function in a model of mitochondrial heart disease

 

 

“In conclusion, NAD+ supplementation with NR in the FRDA model of mitochondrial heart disease does not alter SIRT3 activity or improve cardiac function.”

 

 

 

Also, last week, I pointed out 2 studies on Alzheimers, where both NMN and NR showed positive results, but NMN decreased β-amyloid  buildup, while NR did not.

 

 

https://www.medicaln...cles/320879.php

 

 

"NR lessened pTau pathology in both 3xTgAD and 3xTgAD/Polβ^+/− mice but had no impact on amyloid β peptide (Aβ) accumulation"

 

The results of the NMN study:

 

"NMN decreased β-amyloid production, amyloid plaque burden, synaptic loss, and inflammatory responses in AD-Tg mice"

 

Again, I don’t know how significant that is, but when I posted the question, noone responded.

Edited by able, 20 February 2018 - 01:15 AM.

[LawrenceW]

Able, no one responded because we are in an NR echo chamber.

[MikeDC]

The nature paper published 2 months ago did show NR reduced amyloid plaque.

Attached Files

•  67BDA49B-B792-4E66-B410-1A9C0859C84E.jpeg   179.49KB   0 downloads

[MikeDC]

Show me where it says NR doesn’t improve mitochandria in the heart. Your link is not correct. There is a recently published paper that says NR helped with heart failure.

[Michael]

As you know, there are no head to head studies, so it definitely depends on how you want to interpret the data.
 
I have pointed out the two studies on Friedrichs Ataxia, where NMN restored heart function, while NR failed in nearly the same situation.
 
I don’t know if my assessment was accurate.  The 2-3 times I posted this looking for expert interpretation, no-one responded either way.

Sure they did: as was pointed out here and here, it's likely that the explanation is dose: the successful NMN study used 500 mg/kg NMN via intraperitoneal injection twice weekly from 6 weeks of age until 10–11 weeks of age, whereas in the NR study they used "10 ml/kg/day) from wean at day 30 for 5 weeks" — which (tho' we only have a meeting abstract) is very likely to be a typo 10 mg/kg/day, since 10 mL NR doesn't really make any sense (and if they meant10 mL of a solution of X molarity, they'd very likely have said so — and they'd really more likely have just reported the mg/kg for clarity's sake, just as was done in the NMN study solution). I did actually email Dr. Payne to confirm this, but never heard back. (OTOH, I was able to confirm, by finally getting the Supplementary Information and then following its reference #1 (PMID 11175786), that the mice in these studies are on a C57Bl/6J-dominant background (C57BL/6J males bred with C57BL/6J x 129/Sv-ter females).

 

Also, last week, I pointed out 2 studies on Alzheimers, where both NMN and NR showed positive results, but NMN decreased β-amyloid  buildup, while NR did not.
 
https://www.medicaln...cles/320879.php
 
"NR lessened pTau pathology in both 3xTgAD and 3xTgAD/Polβ^+/− mice but had no impact on amyloid β peptide (Aβ) accumulation"
 
The results of the NMN study:
 
"NMN decreased β-amyloid production, amyloid plaque burden, synaptic loss, and inflammatory responses in AD-Tg mice"
 
Again, I don’t know how significant that is, but when I posted the question, noone responded.

There have been other studies in which NR has reduced Abeta in mouse transgenic AD models, including  PMIDs 29211722 and 23312803. The authors of the new NR study in PNAS present a reasonable argument why plaques were not reduced in their specific model.

[able]

Show me where it says NR doesn’t improve mitochandria in the heart. Your link is not correct. There is a recently published paper that says NR helped with heart failure.

 

Its in the title of the study:

 

 

NAD+ replacement therapy with nicotinamide riboside does not improve cardiac function in a model of mitochondrial heart disease

 

 

 

As you know, there are no head to head studies, so it definitely depends on how you want to interpret the data.
 
I have pointed out the two studies on Friedrichs Ataxia, where NMN restored heart function, while NR failed in nearly the same situation.
 
I don’t know if my assessment was accurate.  The 2-3 times I posted this looking for expert interpretation, no-one responded either way.

Sure they did: as was pointed out here and here, it's likely that the explanation is dose: the successful NMN study used 500 mg/kg NMN via intraperitoneal injection twice weekly from 6 weeks of age until 10–11 weeks of age, whereas in the NR study they used "10 ml/kg/day) from wean at day 30 for 5 weeks" — which (tho' we only have a meeting abstract) is very likely to be a typo 10 mg/kg/day, since 10 mL NR doesn't really make any sense (and if they meant10 mL of a solution of X molarity, they'd very likely have said so — and they'd really more likely have just reported the mg/kg for clarity's sake, just as was done in the NMN study solution). I did actually email Dr. Payne to confirm this, but never heard back. (OTOH, I was able to confirm, by finally getting the Supplementary Information and then following its reference #1 (PMID 11175786), that the mice in these studies are on a C57Bl/6J-dominant background (C57BL/6J males bred with C57BL/6J x 129/Sv-ter females).

 

 

 

So NMN was more effective in this case because the dosage of NR used in the study was maybe too low -  but there was a typo in the study, so we don't really know.

[MikeDC]

Show me where it says NR doesn’t improve mitochandria in the heart. Your link is not correct. There is a recently published paper that says NR helped with heart failure.

Its in the title of the study:


NAD+ replacement therapy with nicotinamide riboside does not improve cardiac function in a model of mitochondrial heart disease

As you know, there are no head to head studies, so it definitely depends on how you want to interpret the data.

I have pointed out the two studies on Friedrichs Ataxia, where NMN restored heart function, while NR failed in nearly the same situation.

I don’t know if my assessment was accurate. The 2-3 times I posted this looking for expert interpretation, no-one responded either way.

Sure they did: as was pointed out here and here, it's likely that the explanation is dose: the successful NMN study used 500 mg/kg NMN via intraperitoneal injection twice weekly from 6 weeks of age until 10–11 weeks of age, whereas in the NR study they used "10 ml/kg/day) from wean at day 30 for 5 weeks" — which (tho' we only have a meeting abstract) is very likely to be a typo 10 mg/kg/day, since 10 mL NR doesn't really make any sense (and if they meant10 mL of a solution of X molarity, they'd very likely have said so — and they'd really more likely have just reported the mg/kg for clarity's sake, just as was done in the NMN study solution). I did actually email Dr. Payne to confirm this, but never heard back. (OTOH, I was able to confirm, by finally getting the Supplementary Information and then following its reference #1 (PMID 11175786), that the mice in these studies are on a C57Bl/6J-dominant background (C57BL/6J males bred with C57BL/6J x 129/Sv-ter females).

So NMN was more effective in this case because the dosage of NR used in the study was maybe too low - but there was a typo in the study, so we don't really know.

10mg/kg is definitely too low. This is also good information too. Since it gives reason for higher doses such as 300mg/kg.

[MikeDC]

I think both Sinclair and Brenner knows NR is a better NAD+ precursors. Sinclair won’t say it because he is pushing for NMN. Brenner won’t say it fearing offending Sinclair. Brenner needs to publish a comparison study to quell the enthusiasm for NMN. The NR team doesn’t have what it takes to win. Sinclair and Elysium will lie and cheat to win.

[tunt01]

I think both Sinclair and Brenner knows NR is a better NAD+ precursors. Sinclair won’t say it because he is pushing for NMN. Brenner won’t say it fearing offending Sinclair. Brenner needs to publish a comparison study to quell the enthusiasm for NMN. The NR team doesn’t have what it takes to win. Sinclair and Elysium will lie and cheat to win.

 

There is no evidence to support these statements. 

 

Sinclair has been taking NMN personally.  Historically, he has eaten his own cooking (resveratrol, etc.) and puts his mouth where his research is.  He would be taking NR, if he thought NR was better (for whatever reason). 

 

It's impossible to say on Brenner, but it could certainly be that he has done some analysis of NMN vs. NR internally and choose to hold back to the research and not publish it because it might show that NR is inferior and might hurt any funding relationships he has with Chromadex or related parties.

[MikeDC]

I think both Sinclair and Brenner knows NR is a better NAD+ precursors. Sinclair won’t say it because he is pushing for NMN. Brenner won’t say it fearing offending Sinclair. Brenner needs to publish a comparison study to quell the enthusiasm for NMN. The NR team doesn’t have what it takes to win. Sinclair and Elysium will lie and cheat to win.

There is no evidence to support these statements.

Sinclair has been taking NMN personally. Historically, he has eaten his own cooking (resveratrol, etc.) and puts his mouth where his research is. He would be taking NR, if he thought NR was better (for whatever reason).

It's impossible to say on Brenner, but it could certainly be that he has done some analysis of NMN vs. NR internally and choose to hold back to the research and not publish it because it might show that NR is inferior and might hurt any funding relationships he has with Chromadex or related parties.

Are you his spokesman? Didn’t he cheated $700 million from Glaxo by selling his Sirt1 activators that doesn’t work? NMN study showed NMN at 300mg/kg is not effective at raising NAD+ levels in liver and muscles.

Edited by MikeDC, 20 February 2018 - 12:04 PM.

[tunt01]

Are you his spokesman? Didn’t he cheated $700 million from Glaxo by selling his Sirt1 activators that doesn’t work? NMN study showed NMN at 300mg/kg is not effective at raising NAD+ levels in liver and muscles.

 

 

He cheated no one.  It's GSK's job to do their own due diligence.  They have scientists.  They have experts in small molecule development.  It's not his job to promise anything other than to successfully complete the deal and fulfill his contractual obligations of employment.  GSK made several deals that were terrible and that is their own foolishness.

 

 

[MikeDC]

Are you his spokesman? Didn’t he cheated $700 million from Glaxo by selling his Sirt1 activators that doesn’t work? NMN study showed NMN at 300mg/kg is not effective at raising NAD+ levels in liver and muscles.

He cheated no one. It's GSK's job to do their own due diligence. They have scientists. They have experts in small molecule development. It's not his job to promise anything other than to successfully complete the deal and fulfill his contractual obligations of employment. GSK made several deals that were terrible and that is their own foolishness.

GSK scientists were against the deal because they cannot reproduce the results. The GSK executive overruled the scientists. Did Sinclair intentionally produce false results?
It is amazing that many papers are still being published showing Resveratrol is Sirt1 activator. Tons of junk research are being published everyday. People should base their supplements purchase on clinical trials and personal experience.
http://blogs.science...orthless_really

Edited by MikeDC, 20 February 2018 - 02:50 PM.

[tunt01]

GSK scientists were against the deal because they cannot reproduce the results. The GSK executive overruled the scientists. Did Sinclair intentionally produce false results?

 

 

IDK why this is even being discussed in an NMN thread.  Enough with this drivel and character assassinations of Sinclair. 

 

I had typed out a long response, but it is pointless talking to you.

[MikeDC]

GSK scientists were against the deal because they cannot reproduce the results. The GSK executive overruled the scientists. Did Sinclair intentionally produce false results?

IDK why this is even being discussed in an NMN thread. Enough with this drivel and character assassinations of Sinclair.

I had typed out a long response, but it is pointless talking to you.

It is relevant because Sinclair is pumping NMN now. There has not been a single human clinical trial published on NMN.

[LawrenceW]

Dr. Sinclair is not pumping NMN now.  He is beginning his program of human clinical trials.  If those trials support the benefits that us NMN users have been experiencing, then you will see Dr. Sinclair begin pumping his version of NMN.  The one that is pumping something now is you MikeDC.

[MikeDC]

Dr. Sinclair is not pumping NMN now. He is beginning his program of human clinical trials. If those trials support the benefits that us NMN users have been experiencing, then you will see Dr. Sinclair begin pumping his version of NMN. The one that is pumping something now is you MikeDC.

An article on Time magazine quoting Sinclair saying fountain of youth is not pumping? This is not the first time he is pumping NMN.

[able]

 

Enough with this drivel and character assassinations of Sinclair.

I had typed out a long response, but it is pointless talking to you.

It is relevant because Sinclair is pumping NMN now. There has not been a single human clinical trial published on NMN.

 
And yet, you were preaching about how great NR is for many months before there was a human clinical trial for NR.

Edited by Michael, 20 February 2018 - 11:17 PM.
trim quotes

[MikeDC]

 

 

IDK why this is even being discussed in an NMN thread. Enough with this drivel and character assassinations of Sinclair.

I had typed out a long response, but it is pointless talking to you.

It is relevant because Sinclair is pumping NMN now. There has not been a single human clinical trial published on NMN.

And yet, you were preaching about how great NR is for many months before there was a human clinical trial for NR.

I had 100% confidence in NR and I had no doubt clinical trials will prove it. The science and personal experiences of people on this forum and my own experience totally predicted the outcome from clinical trials. I knew the Colorado trial will be positive. It has to be.

Edited by Michael, 20 February 2018 - 11:21 PM.