• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

ConsumerLab.com Resv Review


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#31 browser

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 319 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 18 November 2007 - 06:33 PM

Agree. Hope springs eternal, but the reality that there ain't no free lunch (even no free no lunch, a la CR), seems to eventually supersede the initial hype accorded most supplements and other methods aimed towards life extension.

And there shouldn't be a free lunch. Since we appear to be the most sentient creatures on this planet, one might conclude that we're the most complex and have loads of feedback loops and mechanisms in place to fight of changes in our homeostasis. I've watched the fight for 160 year life spans (to start) by the year 2000 for a couple decades. There have been many Oops responses. What had been taken for granted, that vitamin supplementation is good for you is now under attack. We had kind of agreed that that had been settled ages ago. But t'ain't been yet.

#32 kenj

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Copenhagen.

Posted 18 November 2007 - 07:12 PM

And there shouldn't be a free lunch. Since we appear to be the most sentient creatures on this planet, one might conclude that we're the most complex and have loads of feedback loops and mechanisms in place to fight of changes in our homeostasis


But what do we expect? We will age, anyhoo. I'm curious of the possibility to slow the rate of aging down, and maintain almost full functionality through six, seven, and who knows how many decades (I'm thinking future medicine and therapy will expand on this).

Browser, if you've been following a program for many years (moderate CR, sensible supplementation, loved thy neighbor, exercise, etc.), surely you'd be in good shape by now -- it takes just 3 years of healthy habits to "program", and convince your body, that you're gonna be here for a long time, I read...

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:42 AM

If a product does not appear in the test results one can reasonably and, I believe, fairly presume that the manufacturer did not have confidence in the ability of their product to pass the relatively comprehensive testing standards applied by CL to the products tested.


At one time ConsumerLabs listed their testing fees for their voluntary testing on their web site, although I can't seem to find it any more. It's not cheap though - IIRC it's in the $3000-4000 range *per product*. If you are a small company with several products, getting them all tested just gets ridiculously expensive, for a dubious return on your investment.

Plus, by squelching results from companies that fail, they have created a huge conflict of interest, not to mention ethical issues. Who are they serving - the companies that buy the tests, or the consumers that buy the results? I don't think you can trustfully serve both.



I have posted this email from ConsumerLabs before, but here it is again below my post.

We received the email quite a while back when we were gathering pricing information from various labs to test our products every time we received a new shipment. We currently use AACL of Illinois to test all batches independently, as you can see the pricing in the email below is exorbitant in comparison to AACL and not acceptable for our current schedule of imports.

Below is the email from consumer labs regarding pricing. Hope this clears the voluntary submission of a products regarding consumer labs, and the other services they provide.

Anthony Loera

Dear Anthony,

Thank you for your e-mail and interest in ConsumerLab.com’s Voluntary Certification Program.  As the leading consumer-oriented testing service company, consumers, health practitioners, and retailers actively use our CL Approved Products Lists to select products.  Our website,www.consumerlab.com, received over 2.7 million visits in the last 12 months and 71,000+ people have joined our e-newsletter. In addition to our individual subscribers, our institutional subscribers include university libraries, public libraries, hospitals, healthcare centers, HMOs, medical practices and government agencies.

The media has embraced CL's work with extensive coverage in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, Health Magazine, Prevention Magazine, Money Magazine, Time Magazine, Better Homes & Gardens, O, The Oprah Magazine, Men’s Health, 20/20, CNN, Good Morning America, and many other consumer/health related periodicals, and newsletters, radio programs and Web sites.  Additionally in September 2003, CL released its first book, a Buyer's Guide, which includes a number of our Product Reviews.  The book has received rave reviews and a second edition is planned for release later this year. 

Benefits of participating in CL’s Voluntary Certification Program include:

    * Online listing as “Approved Quality” on the popular ConsumerLab.com website
    * Listing in a future edition of ConsumerLab.com’s Guide to Buying Vitamins & Supplements
    * Potential mention of your product as Approved in free media coverage

·        Use of the CL Seal in:
                  Business-to-business marketing/sales materials
                                    Presentations
                                    Trade Show displays
                                    News releases
                                    Internal Reports, including Annual Reports

    * Other promotional opportunities through our licensing program -- including use of the CL Seal on labels, displays, and consumer-directed marketing materials

The fee to test a resveratrol product is $3,650.  Attached is information on ConsumerLab.com's Licensing Program.  Please note that a product's testing fee is credited towards its licensing fee.  Also, volume discounts are available for both programs.  If you would like to move forward with testing your resveratrol product, please provide me with the name of the product, your company’s corporate name and address and your phone and fax numbers.

CL's testing and Seal licensing programs would be invaluable, additional marketing tools for your brand.  In this competitive marketplace, independent, third-party testing makes a difference to consumers and helps a product standout on its quality claim.  I look forward to hearing from  you.

Sincerely,


Lisa K. Sabin
VP, Business Development
ConsumerLab.com
609-936-0770 (p)

609-936-1226 (f)
lisa.sabin@consumerlab.com
Web site:  www.consumerlab.com


Edited by Anthony_Loera, 19 November 2007 - 05:58 AM.


#34 bixbyte

  • Guest
  • 559 posts
  • 45
  • Location:End of the Galaxy
  • NO

Posted 21 November 2007 - 06:18 AM

ConsumerLab.com Study On Revatrol NOT Based on Current Formulation - the Revatrol Sample Used Was More Than Nine Months Out-Of-DateC says Renaissance

BOCA RATON, Fla., Nov. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- Revatrol''s manufacturer, Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC, is disappointed and confused as to why ConsumerLab.com''s recent study on red wine supplements analyzes an out-of-date formulation of Revatrol, and calls on the for-profit laboratory to remove the current information it portrays for Revatrol from its study and to retest Revatrol''s current product, which has been on the market for more than nine (9) months.
"I vehemently object to the ConsumerLab.com comparative study of Revatrol, as its analysis is based on an out-of-date formulation that has been off the market for more than 9 months," says James DiGeorgia, CEO of Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC. "While that out-of-date formulation was superb, and accurately represented in our advertising, Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC has demanded that ConsumerLab.com remove Revatrol from its November 13, 2007 comparative study because it does not in any way accurately represent the current formulation of Revatrol.

"We recognize the fact that ConsumerLab.com has added a note to the study that points out that the Revatrol formulation tested is discontinued, but that''s insufficient. The ConsumerLab.com study is still misleading and deceptive because they used a formulation of Revatrol that''s nine months old and not the current formulation."

The truth about Revatrol, which ConsumerLab.com would have determined had it exercised adequate due-diligence and tested the current formulation, is that Revatrol contains:

-- 100MG of Actual Resveratrol -- 100MG Alpha Lipoic Acid -- 100MG Acetyl-L-Carnitine -- 100MG Quercetin

In addition, based on the standards and measures used by ConsumerLab.com, Revatrol currently delivers 100MG of actual resveratrol for as little as 30 cents, plus contains a 95% OPC feature and an additional 100MG of each of three key antioxidants.

"We''re unaware of any formulation of the market that can compare to Revatrol. I and my entire firm are very proud of Revatrol," says DiGeorgia. "We''ve been unfairly attacked by competitors ever since we launched Revatrol. All I can assume is they just can''t measure up when consumers really compare Revatrol to the competition."

Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC implores ConsumerLab.com to re-examine its product procurement and testing policies, so when it makes representations about the products it tests, the representations apply to current formulations.

Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC asked ConsumerLab.com on November 13, 2007, to show its independence by recognizing its error in testing the retired formulation and retest Revatrol at its own expense. As of this release date, ConsumerLab.com -- which claims to be an "independent lab" -- has requested a $3,000 to $4,000 fee from Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC to evaluate the current formulation of Revatrol.

DiGeorgia asserts, "I''m simply astounded by what appears to me to be a total lack of intellectual honesty at work in this situation. If ConsumerLab.com is truly independent and unbiased why wouldn''t they immediately recognize the error in testing, and prominently disclose that they tested an old out-of-date formulation they purchased more than nine (9) months ago for their comparative study, and immediately take steps to test the current formula?

"We''d be thrilled with this study had it really examined the Revatrol formulation on the market all these months. We have no doubt a fair scientific analysis would have proved how wonderful Revatrol really is. For that to happen ConsumerLab.com will still have to test the right product, the current Revatrol formulation, at its own expense."

"Our own in house laboratory tests that we have 113% of the ingredients we claim in our Revatrol formulation. We''ve decided to use another outside lab to test our product. As it turns out the $3,000 to $4,000 fee requested by ConsumerLab.com for testing can be done for as little as $800," insists DiGeorgia. "We don''t get a fancy seal from ConsumerLab.com that we can put on our website and product boxes, but we do get an accurate analysis of our products'' current formulation."

For more information on Revatrol and its potent anti-aging benefits, please visit http://www.revatrol.com or call our knowledgeable representatives at 1-866-482-6678.

Source: Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC

#35

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 24 November 2007 - 06:03 PM

ConsumerLabs is about making money and little else.

#36 browser

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 319 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 25 November 2007 - 09:23 PM

ConsumerLabs is about making money and little else.

As is, incidently, the Better Business Bureau. There's one nootropic, supplement vendor who advertises that he is a member of the BBB. Big shit. BBB is a mutal cover each other's ass paid membership association. Now it just so happends that the particular vendor seems to suffer from bipolar disorder and accepted my order, then rejected my order under the guise that a former employee was posting for the company. Eventually he reinstated my order but he's such as ass I'm not going to deal with him. We have enough problem with tainted supplements. Last thing we need is a psycho selling us supplements.

#37 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2007 - 05:13 PM

I made a split for the RNA specific issues to here. Please stay on topic gals 'n guys. :thumb:

#38 rhc124

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 1

Posted 29 November 2007 - 03:41 AM

I have been a member of LEF for about 8 months and have spent some big bucks there. Before this report came out my scam alert had been starting to go off in my head but now it is screaming. I thought that since they were a not for profit organization that states that their products are " pharmaceutical grade" that is was worth the higher price for a better product. Man was I wrong. I am very very disapointed.

#39 browser

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 319 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 30 November 2007 - 01:41 AM

I have been a member of LEF for about 8 months and have spent some big bucks there. Before this report came out my scam alert had been starting to go off in my head but now it is screaming. I thought that since they were a not for profit organization that states that their products are " pharmaceutical grade" that is was worth the higher price for a better product. Man was I wrong. I am very very disapointed.

Not for profit does not mean that they don't have money left over at the end of the year. LEF was founded to fund Saul Kent's cryo work. LEF donates small sums of money for studies, many of which fail, and for research on things like tissue preservation. Except for the penis enlargment pill spam I get I can think of a more blatant way of turning a buck than LEF employs. I'm not convinced that LEF does not start off with pharmaceutical grade materials. According to LEF, they periodically test the resveratrol which failed ConsumerLabs. So LEF is lying (I think unlikely) or there's something else going on here. I haven't kept as healthy and vital as I have despite genetic odds downing empty promises from LEF for two decades.

#40 mirian

  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 November 2007 - 05:40 AM

I feel vindicated now from ConsumerLabs since I was first talking smack about Longevinex after Longevinex's own study showed that most competitor's (of course labeled Product A, B, C, etc)were close to the amount of resveratrol listed on the label.

Can anybody give more details on this ConsumerLab.com report since it runs at least $12 to view it on their site.

I know Biotivia Transmax makes a 500 mg resveratrol capsule. So, Transmax really has the 490mg of trans-Resveratrol it claims to have per capsule?

Although, I'm very skeptical of Biotivia's claim that they made their Resveratrol have a longer half life!

Edited by mirian, 30 November 2007 - 05:41 AM.


#41 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 30 November 2007 - 02:45 PM

I feel vindicated now from ConsumerLabs since I was first talking smack about Longevinex after Longevinex's own study showed that most competitor's (of course labeled Product A, B, C, etc)were close to the amount of resveratrol listed on the label.

Can anybody give more details on this ConsumerLab.com report since it runs at least $12 to view it on their site.

I know Biotivia Transmax makes a 500 mg resveratrol capsule. So, Transmax really has the 490mg of trans-Resveratrol it claims to have per capsule?

Although, I'm very skeptical of Biotivia's claim that they made their Resveratrol have a longer half life!


I just want to know if they tested at all for trans-resveratrol content. Did they lump everyone under the "Resveratrol" label regardless of the isomer?

A

#42 rhc124

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 1

Posted 01 December 2007 - 02:58 AM

I just want to know if they tested at all for trans-resveratrol content. Did they lump everyone under the "Resveratrol" label regardless of the isomer?

A
[/quote]

They did not note the different isomers.

#43 tintinet

  • Guest
  • 1,972 posts
  • 503
  • Location:ME

Posted 03 December 2007 - 01:00 AM

I feel vindicated now from ConsumerLabs since I was first talking smack about Longevinex after Longevinex's own study showed that most competitor's (of course labeled Product A, B, C, etc)were close to the amount of resveratrol listed on the label.

Can anybody give more details on this ConsumerLab.com report since it runs at least $12 to view it on their site.

I know Biotivia Transmax makes a 500 mg resveratrol capsule. So, Transmax really has the 490mg of trans-Resveratrol it claims to have per capsule?

Although, I'm very skeptical of Biotivia's claim that they made their Resveratrol have a longer half life!


I just want to know if they tested at all for trans-resveratrol content. Did they lump everyone under the "Resveratrol" label regardless of the isomer?

A



Ya. I asked ConsumerLab.com about this when the report first came out. In the report:

"Very few of the products specified or guaranteed the percentage of resveratrol to be in the trans- or cis- forms. Nevertheless, ConsumerLab.com found that in every product, the vast majority (98% or greater) of resveratrol was in the trans- form, which is the natural occurring form. None of the products were contaminated with heavy metals (lead and cadmium). "

#44 browser

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 319 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 03 December 2007 - 02:55 AM

Got the bulletin from LEF. They said they were disturbed that they failed the ConsumerLab test so they sent all of their resveratrol products out to four independent labs. All products showed more "total resveratrol" than what was on the lalbel except for Dual Acttion Cruciferous Vegatables with Resveratrol, which showed an amount on the label of 20 mg but lab D showed 16.30 mg and Whole Grape Seed Extract which stated 25 mg on the label and Lab showed 21.49 mg. No mention of trans or cis. The results from the different labs reminded of what Harry Truman said about economists: if you lined them up they'd all point in different directions. Now whom do you believe, especially certain labs test 100% more resveratrol in a single product than a different lab. A quick eyeball of the results doesn't show a pattern except that if you can believe certain labs, some products contain as much as 100%+ more resveratrol than is stated on the label. LEF says that if you take the average for all four labs on each product you see that you're getting more resveratrol than is on the label. This is hard to refute because there is no mention of which labs were used. Why couldn't they publish the lab names?

I'll let this be and let others do the hacking on this one.

#45 rhc124

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 1

Posted 05 December 2007 - 12:42 AM

Well, I am now at the show me state with LEF. I think it will be a very long time before I puchase another supplement from them. I know this it at least the second or third time a LEF "pharmaceutical grade" product has failed the CosumerLab test. I think I am going to stick with good ole Puritans Pride for now. I have never see a test that they have failed and their cheep.

Oh by the way, I had purchased two bottles of LEF's Grape seed EXtract with Resveratrol that failed the test. Anyone want to take odds on my chances of getting a refund. I think the starting line is 0.

Browser, where did you get the bulletin? I have not seen anything from them? Thanks

#46 ilanso

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 December 2007 - 09:01 AM

Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC Asks Key Credibility Questions of ConsumerLab.com
Posted on : 2007-12-04 | Author : Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC
News Category : PressRelease

BOCA RATON, Fla., Dec. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- ConsumerLab.com, LLC claims to be a leading provider of independent test results and information to help consumers and healthcare professionals evaluate health, wellness, and nutrition products. But Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC -- the makers of Revatrol, a red-wine 100MG resveratrol supplement -- is confused and disappointed as to why a recent study by ConsumerLab.com on red wine supplements analyzed a formulation of Revatrol that has been out-of-date for months.

"Not only did they test an obsolete formulation, but Dr. Tod Cooperman of ConsumerLab.com publicly disparaged our product. He insisted our product name implied that it contained resveratrol, but that according to their analysis it contains very little. Dr. Cooperman's statement was an outright misrepresentation," says James DiGeorgia CEO of Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC.

The truth about Revatrol, which ConsumerLab.com would have determined had it exercised adequate due-diligence and tested the current formulation, is that Revatrol contains:

-- 100MG of Actual Resveratrol -- 100MG Alpha Lipoic Acid -- 100MG Acetyl-L-Carnitine -- 100MG Quercetin

According to Renaissance Health, two weeks ago they called on the for- profit laboratory to remove the information ConsumerLab.com currently portrays for Revatrol from its study, and to retest Revatrol's current product, which has been on the market for more than nine (9) months. ConsumerLab.com instead added a notation saying the formulation tested was discontinued.

In the course of Renaissance Health's investigation into this matter and into ConsumerLab.com, they have posed questions that Dr. Tod Cooperman, M.D., president of ConsumerLab.com, LLC, has simply ignored.

"We believe that any organization claiming or implying to be an independent consumer advocate should have no problem answering the basic and simple questions we have asked," says DiGeorgia.

"Our questions go right to the heart of the matter at hand-credibility," explained DiGeorgia. DiGeorgia says the questions that ConsumerLab.com has ignored are:

***Question 1: Is ConsumerLab.com actually a lab or does the company contract outside labs to conduct product testing?

"How can ConsumerLab.com claim to be independent if it accepts fees, accepts advertising and charges $3,000 to $4,000 for laboratory analysis that can be obtained for $400 to $800 from other reputable testing labs?" asks DiGeorgia. "The very name of the ConsumerLab.com implies that this is a lab, yet when we asked whether ConsumerLab.com is actually a laboratory we have gone ignored for many days."

***Question 2: Will ConsumerLab.com please make public all monies received from all companies and persons connected with any and all products they have tested?

"Shouldn't a company that claims independence be willing to voluntarily open its records and reveal what money it's received and from who?" asks DiGeorgia.

***Question 3: Why is ConsumerLab.com a for-profit company instead of a non-for-profit?

"ConsumerLab.com has subscription sales that should be able to support their business model. Why accept any monies from companies that have products which have been or are going to be tested?" wonders DiGeorgia.

"I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim independence, but still accept monies from the companies whose products they test. Moreover, the media has been accepting ConsumerLab.com's testing results without asking these key questions. It's crazy," concludes DiGeorgia.

For more information on Revatrol and its potent anti-aging benefits, please visit http://www.revatrol.com/ or call our knowledgeable representatives at 1-866-482-6678.
Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC

#47 cesium

  • Guest
  • 138 posts
  • 28

Posted 07 December 2007 - 11:16 PM

Got the bulletin from LEF. They said they were disturbed that they failed the ConsumerLab test so they sent all of their resveratrol products out to four independent labs. All products showed more "total resveratrol" than what was on the lalbel except for...
~snip~ LEF says that if you take the average for all four labs on each product you see that you're getting more resveratrol than is on the label. This is hard to refute because there is no mention of which labs were used. Why couldn't they publish the lab names?


Why not indeed? Maybe they just expect us to take their word for it instead of providing references like any normal company would do? Seems like they are taking on more the characteristics of a cult than a business enterprise, maybe that's why they registered as a non-profit.

#48 rhc124

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 1

Posted 09 December 2007 - 05:24 AM

Got the bulletin from LEF. They said they were disturbed that they failed the ConsumerLab test so they sent all of their resveratrol products out to four independent labs. All products showed more "total resveratrol" than what was on the lalbel except for...
~snip~ LEF says that if you take the average for all four labs on each product you see that you're getting more resveratrol than is on the label. This is hard to refute because there is no mention of which labs were used. Why couldn't they publish the lab names?


Why not indeed? Maybe they just expect us to take their word for it instead of providing references like any normal company would do? Seems like they are taking on more the characteristics of a cult than a business enterprise, maybe that's why they registered as a non-profit.


Amen to that. Oh by the way, I posted my concerns about the comsumerlab test on their forum and guess what, they never posted my responces. I ensourage everyone that is a member to post to their forums their concerns about this. From what I am seeing, I bet none will make it past the forum monitor.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#49 ilanso

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 January 2008 - 05:32 AM

Got the bulletin from LEF. They said they were disturbed that they failed the ConsumerLab test so they sent all of their resveratrol products out to four independent labs. All products showed more "total resveratrol" than what was on the lalbel except for...
~snip~ LEF says that if you take the average for all four labs on each product you see that you're getting more resveratrol than is on the label. This is hard to refute because there is no mention of which labs were used. Why couldn't they publish the lab names?


Why not indeed? Maybe they just expect us to take their word for it instead of providing references like any normal company would do? Seems like they are taking on more the characteristics of a cult than a business enterprise, maybe that's why they registered as a non-profit.


Amen to that. Oh by the way, I posted my concerns about the comsumerlab test on their forum and guess what, they never posted my responces. I ensourage everyone that is a member to post to their forums their concerns about this. From what I am seeing, I bet none will make it past the forum monitor.


The latest:

http://sev.prnewswir...24012008-1.html

Partial quote:

Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC Warns the Public that ConsumerLab.com is Not Independent and Labels the 'CL Seal of Approval' a Worthless, Paid-For Advertising Gimmick

Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC Warns the Public that ConsumerLab.com is Not Independent and Labels the 'CL Seal of Approval' a Worthless, Paid-For Advertising Gimmick

BOCA RATON, Fla., Jan. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC is publicly disputing ConsumerLab.com, LLC's (CL) claims that they are a "leading provider of independent test results and information to help consumers and healthcare professionals evaluate health, wellness, and nutrition products," chiefly objecting to ConsumerLab.com's self-portrayal of being independent, and is warning consumers that it believes that the "CL Seal of Approval" is nothing more than an advertising gimmick.

"I simply don't believe the repeated advertising and editorial assertions of ConsumerLab.com that it is independent," says James DiGeorgia, CEO of Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC. "In my opinion, ConsumerLab.com's representation that it is an independent consumer advocate is a fraudulent, deceptive and unfair practice constructed specifically to mislead consumers."

Renaissance Health believes that consumers are being duped by ConsumerLab.com in a number of ways:

-- The very name ConsumerLab.com is misleading, as they are not a lab
-- ConsumerLab.com refuses to open their records of who has paid for (and
passed and failed) testing for the "CL Seal of Approval"
-- ConsumerLab.com issues sensationalized "name and shame" releases,
without checking for current formulations and without clearly
disclosing associations with companies that have paid for advertising
and their services
-- ConsumerLab.com is not independent, as they charge consumers for their
"impartial" reports, while at the same time accepting advertising
revenue from companies they test
.....






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users