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

Photo
* * * * * 17 votes

Astragalus, Astragaloside IV


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2189 replies to this topic

#1471 McQueen

  • Registered User
  • 36 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 30 September 2011 - 10:27 PM

Anthony, this would be a good time to know for sure if ta65 is cycloastragenol since you are selling it now. Is it the same?

#1472 missminni

  • Registered User
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 01 October 2011 - 01:45 AM

Anthony, this would be a good time to know for sure if ta65 is cycloastragenol since you are selling it now. Is it the same?


He already tested TA65 and posted the result on this forum a few months back. It was 5 mg of cyclastragenol.
I've attached the file.

[RevGenetics has released a new version of this lab analysis (with the same content); the file can be downloaded here, and the reader software here]

Edited by chrono, 23 November 2011 - 12:33 AM.

  • like x 2

#1473 johnross47

  • Registered User
  • 708 posts
  • 175
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 01 October 2011 - 07:49 PM

I seem to recall that the reported paper on TA65 mentioned "no statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancer" or words to that effect. ( somewhere further back on this topic) Those do seem like lawyer's words.....if their sample size had been bigger would the % incidence have been significant?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#1474 niner

  • Registered User
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 October 2011 - 12:31 AM

I seem to recall that the reported paper on TA65 mentioned "no statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancer" or words to that effect. ( somewhere further back on this topic) Those do seem like lawyer's words.....if their sample size had been bigger would the % incidence have been significant?

The term is scientific, not legal. It has a precise meaning regarding the probability of an observation being due to the therapy rather than random fluctuation. As the sample size gets larger, random fluctuations cancel each other out, and smaller effects can be distinguished from the statistical noise.

#1475 McQueen

  • Registered User
  • 36 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 02 October 2011 - 11:03 AM

Anthony, this would be a good time to know for sure if ta65 is cycloastragenol since you are selling it now. Is it the same?


He already tested TA65 and posted the result on this forum a few months back. It was 5 mg of cyclastragenol.
I've attached the file.

OK, I'm going to beat this horse again, for the last time. Everyone should be aware of the apparent
discrepancies floating around out there. One of the labs said that cyclo and ta65 were only, I believe it was, "related compounds". Again, in my book, that means different. Why stop selling Astral Fruit and start selling ta65 if they are basically the same thing? I can see the potential for profit being much greater but there hasn't been much clarity on any of this. Now, there have been accusations thrown around about both products causing cancer. This is serious stuff. I know, we are all supposed to just ignore all of this because these are just cranks with some sort of ax to grind but we don't really know, do we? Is TASciences trying to dry up the competition by getting them to sell their product? If you call TASciences they say cyclo and ta65 are not the same thing. Is that why Revgenetics is selling ta65 now?Why did Regenetics quit selling Astral Fruit? Again, no answers. This has gotten serious and we have no explanations as to what is going on and no testing, that we know of, as to what Astral Fruit did or didn't do. And by the way, I don't give a big rat's ass as to whether this offends the powers that be on this forum or not. These are questions that need to be answered and without any kind of slick evasion.










  • like x 1

#1476 missminni

  • Registered User
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 02 October 2011 - 12:16 PM

Anthony, this would be a good time to know for sure if ta65 is cycloastragenol since you are selling it now. Is it the same?


He already tested TA65 and posted the result on this forum a few months back. It was 5 mg of cyclastragenol.
I've attached the file.

OK, I'm going to beat this horse again, for the last time. Everyone should be aware of the apparent
discrepancies floating around out there. One of the labs said that cyclo and ta65 were only, I believe it was, "related compounds". Again, in my book, that means different. Why stop selling Astral Fruit and start selling ta65 if they are basically the same thing? I can see the potential for profit being much greater but there hasn't been much clarity on any of this. Now, there have been accusations thrown around about both products causing cancer. This is serious stuff. I know, we are all supposed to just ignore all of this because these are just cranks with some sort of ax to grind but we don't really know, do we? Is TASciences trying to dry up the competition by getting them to sell their product? If you call TASciences they say cyclo and ta65 are not the same thing. Is that why Revgenetics is selling ta65 now?Why did Regenetics quit selling Astral Fruit? Again, no answers. This has gotten serious and we have no explanations as to what is going on and no testing, that we know of, as to what Astral Fruit did or didn't do. And by the way, I don't give a big rat's ass as to whether this offends the powers that be on this forum or not. These are questions that need to be answered and without any kind of slick evasion.


I find the evasive and secretive approach taken by both companies questionable. The same ambiguity is true of Finlandia Pharmacy.
When I spoke with Weimin Liu, VP Operations at TA Science, a lovely and charming woman, she denied that TA65 was cycloastragenol
yet when Anthony had it tested it was exactly that. Who are we to believe? The lab that tested it has nothing to lie about.

If they would misrepresent something as simple as what the product actually is....why wouldn't they misrepresent the incidence of cancer?
One thing all three companies seem to agree on is how expensive this "astragalus molecule" is. At least that can be verified. It is.
Perhaps therein lies the answer to your question.

btw when I spoke with Weimen Liu in June of 2011, I mentioned Anthony's product and she said she never heard of it or RevGenetics. I guess
she took note of my mention. In July, when I spoke with Harlan, the owner of Finlandia Pharmacy and LivLong, he also never heard of Rev Genetics
or their astralfruit product. I subsequently heard through the grapevine that TA Sciences contacted him in August asking him to be their official agent in Canada.
I'm guessing they contacted Anthony at the same time. Now they are all thick as thieves. This can be explained in many ways to seem innocent I suppose....but for me
it is one giant red flag.

Edited by missminni, 02 October 2011 - 12:36 PM.


#1477 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 699
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 02 October 2011 - 09:22 PM

When RevGenetics had the Astral Fruit being sold, we did not have any incidents.

However, any telomerase activator that does not produce cancerous biproducts (such as say nicotine) would not have any problems.

Telomerase is not an Oncogene. Do a seach on this phrase to see the past posts about it, and understand what the phrase means.

RevGenetics currently sells TA-65, however we verified that it activates telomerase to a significant degree, in human cells. Unlike immortal cells, however... cycloastragenol (tat2) and others activate telomeraze in a transient manner.

Once you stop taking the telomerase activator, the telomerase goes back to normal. If a person already has cancer, the activation of telomerase already has been turned on in immortal cells regardless of any additional 'activator' that has been consumed (although there are some rare cancer cells become immortal without the use of telomerase activation. These do not use telomerase at all to become immortal).

To sum up:
Normal human cells do not beome cancerous, when you activate telomerase, because telomerase does not cause cancer. If you fear telomerase activation because it may give you cancer, then you fear you will get cancer anytime your body gets a cold, as your body naturally activates telomerase to help fight off viruses. Because of this I suspect your immune system activtes it when you give yourself the flu shot.

I just got a flu shot yesterday at the local pharmacy, and have no fears because I know the real issue is misinformation. Don't fear the flu shot, and don't fear any other telomerase activators that RevGenetics sells.

Yes we are testing other products.

Cheers
A

#1478 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 699
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 02 October 2011 - 09:36 PM

Missmini,

I take issue with your statement 'as thick as thieves'. It suggests RevGenetics is doing something wrong.

We are not.

We are the only company who tests claims of telomerase. In fact we are testing Product B right now. If it actvates telomerase, we will sell the darn thing and certify it's telomerase activity was shown in human cells, if it doesn't ... we will let the world know.

Making RevGenetics out to be what it's not, it really gets under my skin. Specially because in the past you have asked for our help regarding other products. I fear that your words will haunt me or come up whenever others ask for help, and that they may make me decline help when others maybe in dire need of it. I have been told not to take your posts personally, so I will try my best not to, however I can't help to think the seed of your words may have already been planted.

Folks, I ask you to excuse my honesty today. I am on a flight to see my mother who has come out of surgery.

A

#1479 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 699
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:59 PM

McQueen, this post is for you:

Remember this quote?

Anthony, this would be a good time to know for sure if ta65 is cycloastragenol since you are selling it now. Is it the same?


He already tested TA65 and posted the result on this forum a few months back. It was 5 mg of cyclastragenol.
I've attached the file.


Ok, now that this has been refreshed in your mind.

You asked a few questions:

1- Is TA-65 Cycloastragenol?
First, you already know what I think about it, as I have answered this before in this thread. Now, TA Sciences will not say, and frankly It doesn't matter to RevGenetics if they do state what their product is anymore. Why? RevGenetics is now testing various products telomerase activity in cells regardless of the ingredient they use. Our aim is to verify claims and formulate a new product with the Astral Fruit name, which is verified to activate telomerase.

2- Why stop selling Astral Fruit and start selling ta65 if they are basically the same thing?
First, we are making our own formulation of Astral Fruit based on new information. It has been slow going, and we started from scratch and did not use all the ingredients in the original RGTA formula (which Astral Fruit-NF used). The new version, did not meet expectations and it has been delayed. Let me make it clear, Astral Fruit-NF used a formulation that is nothing like TA-65. So your statement in the form of a question, is incorrect.

3- Beating a dead horse with "related compounds" statement?
This was not really a question, however it is one of mine. Will you be beating this horse again? I suggest you read my previous answer and statements regarding the dead horse.. ad nauseam to yourself, as my answer to you will continue to be the same.

For the rest of you new to this thread... take a weekend and read through this thread, so that you can quickly know everything you ever wanted to know about telomerase activators. Some of the answers here may not make sense unless you have read certain ... chapters or posts on this thread.


Cheers
A

#1480 missminni

  • Registered User
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 02 October 2011 - 11:13 PM

Missmini,

I take issue with your statement 'as thick as thieves'. It suggests RevGenetics is doing something wrong.

We are not.

We are the only company who tests claims of telomerase. In fact we are testing Product B right now. If it actvates telomerase, we will sell the darn thing and certify it's telomerase activity was shown in human cells, if it doesn't ... we will let the world know.

Making RevGenetics out to be what it's not, it really gets under my skin. Specially because in the past you have asked for our help regarding other products. I fear that your words will haunt me or come up whenever others ask for help, and that they may make me decline help when others maybe in dire need of it. I have been told not to take your posts personally, so I will try my best not to, however I can't help to think the seed of your words may have already been planted.

Folks, I ask you to excuse my honesty today. I am on a flight to see my mother who has come out of surgery.

A


Anthony
Hope your mom is doing well after her surgery. Sorry for the expression thick as thieves....I went back to try and change it but I could no longer edit it. I also said
"I'm not saying RevGenetics or Finlandia are doing anything fishy, but TA Sciences might be" as well. The only reason I used the term thick as thieves was because I thought that
having gone from never hearing of you or Finlandia, to TA Sciences suddenly partnering with the both of you seemed a bit odd. Hence that unfortunate term popped up.

I'm not sure what help I've asked you for, but I do know that I have recommended your product to a zillion people and as recently as this Wed sent your website to the veterinarian
who used TA 65. Anytime anybody asks for resveratrol in pill form I recommend you. Many of my friends order from you.

Sorry you took offense but I think people need to know the risks when taking a product that hasn't been independently vetted in human clinical trials.
I was already the victim of such a mistake....that I take total responsibility for...but none the less still suffer because of it.
Hope you understand.

#1481 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 699
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 03 October 2011 - 12:05 AM

Hi Missminni,

Look, we tested TA-65 in human cells and frankly it did very very well. After testing, we decided to see if we could provide TA-65 to our customers while we worked out our own formulation. I believe it was a good thing, when we became one of the few licensed to sell it, as we continue to believe we want to offer our customers the best products in the world.

It so happens that at this time, TA-65 happens to meet our criteria for telomerase activators, while Vimmortal, Mastergene P16 and Nitro250 meet our criteria for other important areas of nutrition and gene activation.

From what I read here, the likely issues then are cancer and price.

Cancer? No I dont think so:
I already mentioned cancer and transient telomerase before. It is not an issue, otherwise a cold would likely give you cancer.

Price? Probably the main issue:
We make more selling Astral Fruit than TA-65, however I am not going to start selling something again that is not determined to be the best in the world. Maybe that is simply my mistake. I am kind of married to this notion that we need a product like the Nitro250, that becomes bar none... the best product in it's class. If we can't make it ourselves in a short period of time, we will see who does make a great product and approach them, like we did for TA-65. Since we don't manufacture TA-65, pricing is difficult to change at this time, since we don't control raw material costs and the like.

What has LivLong mentioned to you?

A

#1482 McQueen

  • Registered User
  • 36 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 03 October 2011 - 01:24 AM

Well, Anthony I'm glad we heard from you. As per your point number 1, that has been my point all along, we don't know what ta65 is, as you stated, even though it's been passed off as being cyclo for quite a long time now. Maybe it is, but there have been quite a few questions to the contrary from multiple members on this forum. I realize you have moved on from interest in cyclo, particularly with Sierra Sciences offering new products but it helps to know the rhyme and reason behind what we see going on. All we can do is wonder about motives with no information.
Cheers

#1483 missminni

  • Registered User
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 03 October 2011 - 01:46 AM

Hi Missminni,

Look, we tested TA-65 in human cells and frankly it did very very well. After testing, we decided to see if we could provide TA-65 to our customers while we worked out our own formulation. I believe it was a good thing, when we became one of the few licensed to sell it, as we continue to believe we want to offer our customers the best products in the world.

It so happens that at this time, TA-65 happens to meet our criteria for telomerase activators, while Vimmortal, Mastergene P16 and Nitro250 meet our criteria for other important areas of nutrition and gene activation.

From what I read here, the likely issues then are cancer and price.

Cancer? No I dont think so:
I already mentioned cancer and transient telomerase before. It is not an issue, otherwise a cold would likely give you cancer.

Price? Probably the main issue:
We make more selling Astral Fruit than TA-65, however I am not going to start selling something again that is not determined to be the best in the world. Maybe that is simply my mistake. I am kind of married to this notion that we need a product like the Nitro250, that becomes bar none... the best product in it's class. If we can't make it ourselves in a short period of time, we will see who does make a great product and approach them, like we did for TA-65. Since we don't manufacture TA-65, pricing is difficult to change at this time, since we don't control raw material costs and the like.

What has LivLong mentioned to you?

A

In vitro success does not always indicate in vivo success. Also, until further studies are done that focus on it, I am personally not convinced that cancer can be ruled out as a possible side effect.
After hearing this veterinarian's story of her experience with the TA 65 program I am also not convinced that TA Science is reporting all incidences of cancer. That's just the impression I got.
She was very upset with the way it was handled. Yes I understand that she might have been a candidate for cancer anyway, but who's to say that it wasn't exacerbated by it?
I just believe all information should be presented be it positive or negative.

Having said that, we all decide to take these new supplements at our own risk. Having been burned once, I am no longer the dare devil I used to be.

Liv Long didn't mention anything to me about it. I just overheard that TA Science approached them in Aug. to sell their product.
Are you saying that you approached TA Science to sell their product? I just assumed they approached you.

#1484 Fran Picard

  • Registered User
  • 3 posts
  • -2
  • Location:chicago

Posted 03 October 2011 - 11:25 AM

When RevGenetics had the Astral Fruit being sold, we did not have any incidents.

However, any telomerase activator that does not produce cancerous biproducts (such as say nicotine) would not have any problems.

Telomerase is not an Oncogene. Do a seach on this phrase to see the past posts about it, and understand what the phrase means.

RevGenetics currently sells TA-65, however we verified that it activates telomerase to a significant degree, in human cells. Unlike immortal cells, however... cycloastragenol (tat2) and others activate telomeraze in a transient manner.

Once you stop taking the telomerase activator, the telomerase goes back to normal. If a person already has cancer, the activation of telomerase already has been turned on in immortal cells regardless of any additional 'activator' that has been consumed (although there are some rare cancer cells become immortal without the use of telomerase activation. These do not use telomerase at all to become immortal).

To sum up:
Normal human cells do not beome cancerous, when you activate telomerase, because telomerase does not cause cancer. If you fear telomerase activation because it may give you cancer, then you fear you will get cancer anytime your body gets a cold, as your body naturally activates telomerase to help fight off viruses. Because of this I suspect your immune system activtes it when you give yourself the flu shot.

I just got a flu shot yesterday at the local pharmacy, and have no fears because I know the real issue is misinformation. Don't fear the flu shot, and don't fear any other telomerase activators that RevGenetics sells.

Yes we are testing other products.

Cheers
A




1.
Of course our body transiently activates telomerase when we get ill, like you say, catching cold.
However once cured, our body makes sure to immediately deactivate telomerase. Why?
Otherwise we get cancer! (The non-deactivated cells become cancerous.)

What I am saying here is that deactivating telomerase is as important as activating telomerase, if not more.
As a matter of fact, 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to a potential cancer cure by deactivating telomerase, based on a discovery that there exists a profound correlation between telomerase activation and cancer development.

So how on earth can you assure that telomerase activator supplementation will not mess up this intricate balance between telomerase activation and deactivation?

How can you guarantee that supplementing telomerase activator would not disrupt proper function of telomerase DEactivation? (Again, when telomerase does not get deactivated, cells become cancerous.)

2.
Are you taking TA-65 yourself or not? AND, have you been taking Astral Fruit or not? It's been years you had promised us to post your telomere length test results. Why it hasn't been done?

I would appreciate your sincere reply.

Edited by Fran Picard, 03 October 2011 - 11:27 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#1485 Getm

  • Registered User
  • 26 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Poland

Posted 03 October 2011 - 03:04 PM

What I am saying here is that deactivating telomerase is as important as activating telomerase, if not more.


As far as I know our reproductive cells do have telomerase activated parmanently and they don't become cancerous ever. I think telomerase activation without deactivation isn't enough reason for cancer.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#1486 Fran Picard

  • Registered User
  • 3 posts
  • -2
  • Location:chicago

Posted 03 October 2011 - 04:36 PM

If you opt to get really technical, Telomerase is active during embryogenesis (formation and development of an embryo) until embryonic differentiation; in male germ cells (sexual reproductive cells, but not female's), activated lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell) and some stem cells (unspecialized cells that can produce specific specialized cells); and in over 90% of cancer cells.

It goes without saying that what we are talking about here is not these peculiar cells but the overwhelming majority of adult cells.
And there is no question that the overwhelming majority of adult cells do become cancerous when their Telomerase are left activated in prolonged fashion.

Again, since the very definition of over 90% of cancer is - the cells whose Telomerase are activated in unusually prolonged fashion, your statement, "I think telomerase activation without deactivation isn't enough reason for cancer." is a clueless one.

For the overwhelming majority of adult cells, deactivation of telomerase is absolutely crucial to curb the development of runaway cancer cells, so is the crux of the issue here - that telomerase-activating supplement intake will most likely disrupt the endogenous (within the body) balance between activation and deactivation of telomerase and end up forcing some cells to "ignore" to turn off(deactivate) their telomerase thus turning them cancerous.

Edited by Fran Picard, 03 October 2011 - 04:42 PM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#1487 GreenPower

  • Registered User
  • 198 posts
  • 62
  • Location:Europe

Posted 03 October 2011 - 05:07 PM

Anthony, since you became a reseller of TA-65, have you received
a) any statistical information regarding the increase/decrease of telomere lengths of the customers of TA Sciences? I gather they must have collected statistics on thousands of customers by now.
b) information on any positive or negative side effects of TA-65 for these customers?

Edited by GreenPower, 03 October 2011 - 05:09 PM.


#1488 niner

  • Registered User
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 October 2011 - 05:42 PM

It goes without saying that what we are talking about here is not these peculiar cells but the overwhelming majority of adult cells.
And there is no question that the overwhelming majority of adult cells do become cancerous when their Telomerase are left activated in prolonged fashion.

No, that's not the case. It's wrong on several levels. First, for a cell to become cancerous, it needs to be altered so that it ignores normal controls on growth and apoptosis. Without that, the status of telomerase makes essentially no difference. Second, in most cancer cells, telomerase needs to be 'stuck' on. It needs to constantly lengthen the telomeres due to rapid cell division. All of the methods discussed in this thread involve mild, transient activation of telomerase. That activation is not very large in the first place, but also goes away when the drug is withdrawn.

Again, since the very definition of over 90% of cancer is - the cells whose Telomerase are activated in unusually prolonged fashion, your statement, "I think telomerase activation without deactivation isn't enough reason for cancer." is a clueless one.

That's not the definition of cancer. Getm's statement wasn't clueless, it was correct.

For the overwhelming majority of adult cells, deactivation of telomerase is absolutely crucial to curb the development of runaway cancer cells, so is the crux of the issue here - that telomerase-activating supplement intake will most likely disrupt the endogenous (within the body) balance between activation and deactivation of telomerase and end up forcing some cells to "ignore" to turn off(deactivate) their telomerase thus turning them cancerous.

No, the overwhelming majority of adult cells don't have a significant level of telomerase activity. You are concerned about the majority of cancer cells, in which telomerase is in a "runaway" state. It's these cells where it is important to shut off the telomerase.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#1489 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,880 posts
  • 1,560
  • Location:New York

Posted 03 October 2011 - 05:52 PM

My concern with TA65 and telomerase activators is less that they might cause cancer, and more that they might be an expensive but useless nostrum. Lab results and anecdotal reports aside, there is little to convince me. Perhaps if the price comes down even more....
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#1490 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 699
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 04 October 2011 - 02:00 AM

Anthony, since you became a reseller of TA-65, have you received
a) any statistical information regarding the increase/decrease of telomere lengths of the customers of TA Sciences? I gather they must have collected statistics on thousands of customers by now.
b) information on any positive or negative side effects of TA-65 for these customers?


Hi GreenPower,

At this point the relationship is limited and dont have much info for you, and I believe it is to the benefit of our customers to have RevGenetics find any and all telomerase information of different the product claims...independently.

I am trying hard to avoid any relationship that may compromise any RevGenetics research.

A

#1491 GreenPower

  • Registered User
  • 198 posts
  • 62
  • Location:Europe

Posted 04 October 2011 - 07:25 PM

Anthony, since you became a reseller of TA-65, have you received
a) any statistical information regarding the increase/decrease of telomere lengths of the customers of TA Sciences? I gather they must have collected statistics on thousands of customers by now.
b) information on any positive or negative side effects of TA-65 for these customers?


Hi GreenPower,

At this point the relationship is limited and dont have much info for you, and I believe it is to the benefit of our customers to have RevGenetics find any and all telomerase information of different the product claims...independently.

I am trying hard to avoid any relationship that may compromise any RevGenetics research.

A


I thought so and think it's a good thing you try to keep it that way.

In a month or so I will conclude my latest round on "standardized astragalus extract" (around 11 months) and then I might do another attempt on Cycloastragenol. I have lot's of unused bottles left. Because I had some side effects during my last attempt I would appreciate all new information there are on the subject.

#1492 Ampa-omega

  • Registered User
  • 335 posts
  • 62
  • Location:united states

Posted 05 October 2011 - 04:20 AM

My concern with TA65 and telomerase activators is less that they might cause cancer, and more that they might be an expensive but useless nostrum. Lab results and anecdotal reports aside, there is little to convince me. Perhaps if the price comes down even more....


i agree, i am all for telomerase research, but it has to be the real deal, if it seems fishy I wont buy it.

#1493 Robert89

  • Registered User
  • 30 posts
  • 4
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 October 2011 - 04:38 PM


My bottom line : I do see one undeniable fact : using telomerase activators will, regardless how weakly or how strongly, only act as a contributing or triggering factor for tipping the balance toward developing cancer.

Intaking telomerase activators is not something to take lightly.


I don't see how you can make this 'undeniable fact'. If there was any chance of TA65 or any telomerase activator would act as a trigger to causing cancer, it would have been pulled off the market by Geron/TA Sciences in an instant. Do you think for one moment that they would continue with such a product, increasing the doses considerably, if they felt that they could be flooded with law suits?

This is just simple business equation. No CEO would do that. Patton is a decent guy, and he's a smart business person - why would he put himself out of business and be sued the hell out of.

Besides, Harley showed in a clinical trial activating telomerase didn't cause cancer. This was a medical trial in strict lab conditions.

On top of that, you have no data that proves your point. It's just speculation.

Edited by Robert89, 08 October 2011 - 04:40 PM.

  • like x 1

#1494 johnross47

  • Registered User
  • 708 posts
  • 175
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:24 PM

On balance I will continue to use astragalus extract......I would prefer to use cycloastragenol but the current price is too high for my pension. I don't think it will necessarily prolong my life but it might keep me functional until something better comes along. I don't want to be a vegetable in a wheelchair the day they announce something that really works. I hope you come up with another good product soon Anthony....at a reasonable price....remember.....those of us who really need some hope are living on pensions.....those 20-30 year olds who make so many bombastic comments should think about how they might feel 20 or 30 years from now if there hasn't been any progress.
  • like x 2

#1495 Louis

  • Registered User
  • 143 posts
  • 8
  • Location:Boston MA

Posted 09 October 2011 - 05:51 PM

The notion that there are certain commonly available dietary supplements that interfere with telomerase expression has been highly promoted on this site, e.g. curcumin, resveratrol, green tea, etc.

I'd like everyone to know that this is nonsense.

Bill Andrews has stated publicly that Sierra Sciences has tested every supplement in the literature purported to inhibit telomerase, and in each case has found no such effect.

I've attached a copy of the transcript of this interview.
Attached File  Breakthrough Reverse Aging Tele-Conference Transcript1.pdf   807.05KB   103 downloads
You can also hear the audio of Bill addressing the question directly at http://100isnew50.com/ (you must enter a name and email to hear it, unfortunately).

Bill Andrews states in the interview (page 10 of 28 in the transcript):
"There's been a few publications suggesting that there are supplements that can interfere with telomerase activity. We have checked every one of them in our labs here, and we have not been able to find that any of them have any significant effect on telomerase activity."

The literature on telomerase induction/inhibition is very unreliable. It's extremely hard to make these measurements, and very few labs posess the capability to do it correctly. There are many papers with incorrect results that should never have been accepted for publication in the first place. Moreover, it's very unclear in many cases whether results on cancer cell lines pertain to healthy somatic cells.

This obviously explains why Sierra Sciences is very confident in including these purported inhibitors in Product B.

These purported inhibitors generally have strong anti-cancer properties. It's foolish to experiment with telomerase activators and not take these compounds at the same time, as the activator could potentially be increasing your risk for cancer. I've seen all kinds of crazy ideas promoted on this site, e.g. restricting dietary polyphenols because they supposedly inhibit telomerase. This is ridiculous and dangerous -- polyphenols DO NOT inhibit telomerase but very likely DO prevent cancer and many other diseases.

I suggest taking your health advice directly from internationally recognized experts like Bill Andrews, not from random postings on this site.

#1496 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 699
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 11 October 2011 - 03:12 PM

Hi John,

My intentions are to provide a lower priced product for the reach of most folks. I am diligently working on that task in various ways, not just research. I believe Bill Andrews from Sierra Sciences has different aims for his company than what the new research arm of RevGenetics will be shooting for, even though we are both be testing natural and non-natural chemical entities for telomerase and other types of activation or up-regulation.

A

#1497 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 699
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 11 October 2011 - 03:13 PM

An Astragaloside IV study that is not related to telomerase:


Protective effect of astragaloside IV against matrix metalloproteinase-1 expression in ultraviolet-irradiated human dermal fibroblasts.


Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation induces skin photoaging associated with up-regulated matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) expression. Inhibition of MMP expression is suggested to alleviate photoaging induced by UV irradiation. Astragaloside IV (As-IV), one of the main active ingredients of Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch) Bge, has been reported to have various biological activities. However, its anti-photoaging effect has not been examined to date. In the present study, we observed the effect of As-IV on matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) expression in UV-irradiated human dermal fibroblasts (HDFs). We found that treatment with As-IV significantly decreased UV-induced MMP-1 expression at the messenger RNA and protein levels. In addition, western blotting analysis revealed that As-IV concentration-dependently suppressed UV-induced phosphorylation of extracellular-regulated protein kinase, Jun-N-terminal kinase and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK). Furthermore, treatment with As-IV markedly inhibited UV-induced nuclear factor kappaB (NF-κB) activity. These results suggest that As-IV down-regulates UV-induced MMP-1 expression, perhaps through suppression of MAPK and NF-κB activation in HDFs. As-IV is thus a potential agent for the management of skin photoaging.



#1498 Chopperboy

  • Registered User
  • 29 posts
  • 16
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 13 October 2011 - 09:09 AM

Revgenetics marketing is a bit like Apple changing its name to Atari & putting Windows 7 on the next i-Pad.
To be direct Anthony your ideas seem to be all over the place!

You had a perfectly good, affordable product with Astral Fruit, then you increased price by 2.5 times, then canceled it, then told everyone to wait for a non-existing new formula, then started selling the arch rivals product - i'm speechless ???

Don't get hung up on the perfect product it doesn't exist. Just the OK product which works and is affordable. i.e. 5-15mg of Cycloastraganol in a capsule - will do for now.

At this point in time its easier and cheaper to buy Cyclo direct from the Chinese.
  • like x 1

#1499 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,880 posts
  • 1,560
  • Location:New York

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:44 PM

How often do you see a company discontinue a product that is selling?
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#1500 mikeinnaples

  • Registered User
  • 1,836 posts
  • 277
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 October 2011 - 01:07 PM

Revgenetics marketing is a bit like Apple changing its name to Atari & putting Windows 7 on the next i-Pad.
To be direct Anthony your ideas seem to be all over the place!

You had a perfectly good, affordable product with Astral Fruit, then you increased price by 2.5 times, then canceled it, then told everyone to wait for a non-existing new formula, then started selling the arch rivals product - i'm speechless ???

Don't get hung up on the perfect product it doesn't exist. Just the OK product which works and is affordable. i.e. 5-15mg of Cycloastraganol in a capsule - will do for now.

At this point in time its easier and cheaper to buy Cyclo direct from the Chinese.


This. I have been wondering the same thing and commenting on it for a long time.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users