• 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

#871 happyhammet

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • -23
  • Location:TX

Posted 02 September 2010 - 07:33 PM

The long of it:
Originally we contracted an american company to do this. However, after quite a bit of money, and what I personally will call 'failures' which interestingly enough Capsugel QA folks brought to our attention... we decided to drop them. We then went outside of the country to have this material extracted to our specifications. It takes many Tons of raw astragalus to begin to acquire an extraction and standardization that we are looking for. It is not cheap.

The short of it:
Unless you are the FDA, consider our sources a trade secret.
Please don't ask me where we get our material.

Since you just joined today...according to your profile, I will ask you to read this whole thread from the beginning and come up to speed on the subject. I think I might have mentioned the US company before...

Cheers
A




Actually I did read the whole thing and I thought you once mentioned that your source was China. I apologize if I was wrong.
I'm no FDA. And messing with your business is the furthest thing from my mind, it's just that in my recent visit to Hong Kong, I saw cycloastragenol being sold cheap there. Their cycloastragenol came with a detailed, credible looking chemical analysis sheet, done by a prestigious university in Hong Kong, but the sheet clearly stated that refining was done in China, which scared me away.

Thanks.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#872 bobman

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • 5

Posted 04 September 2010 - 08:01 AM

Hi Bobmann,

I don't understand your post.

It sounds like you are saying all astragalus suppliers provide cycloastragenol... if that is the case, can you provide any lab test that shows how much cycloastrgenol is available in regular astragalus or maybe a lab test regarding products that are currently in stores? How much is assumed to be in regular astragalus, do you know this at all?

I bet it would sure help folks on this thread out to compare what is out there, and avoid these kinds of arguments. Even trace amounts of cycloastragenol in a lab test would also help folks understand how much they would need to take daily.

At this point in time, I do believe we are the only company that guarantees cycloastragenol in our product to the public, is there anyone else?

A


Let's not play semantics games. You stated that you were the only company that provides cycloastragenol. That's not true. Cycloastragenol is extracted from astragalus membranaceus, and is as far as I know it is the acid-base byproduct of Astragoloside IV. Regarding your claims of "guarantee", taking an extract standardized to Astragoloside IV obviates those claims. If the attack was meant against raw Astragalus Membranaceus, ingesting a "non-guaranteed" product will obviously provide varying levels of cycloastragenol, but as long as it's produced in the same way the range will be limited, and as long as the average level of active compounds is therapeutic, it will be effective. That obviously precludes honest production, so buying from highly reputable sources is a good idea. The same situation holds true for ginseng, famous for the criticisms about efficacy due to fluctuating levels of ginsenosides. Yet several long term studies (at least one >5 years) show that whole root ginseng, as long as its of the same type, aka panax, is reliably effective (in that particular case for breast cancer load/survivability), and actually more effective than standardized extracts over a lifetime. Which brings up questions about efficacy of arbitrarily standardized products, since the only human & most rodent evidence is for raw or naturally standardized product (in vitro studies for telomer lengthening are obviously so flawed as should never be considered for efficacy claims). Considering this your product becomes just a convenience, in that it provides the necessary amount of cycloastragenol, relieving the consumer of the need to calculate amount from Astragolosides consumed or source reliable natural producers. By itself that seems a worthy reason for production, as long as that amount really does what you say it may do. Btw, do you actually know how cycloastragenol is metabolized? What happens when you apply a strong acid to it? What amount is relevant to humans after taking into account how it is metabolized in rodents?

However the discussion on guaranteed levels isn't the point. You claimed that your product is the only one that contains cycloastragenol, an obvious white lie, and that is what I took issue with. Your product may be fantastic, and life saving, and if it really is I wish you all the money and every type of exalted fame existent in the world, but for all that it still won't be the only one, as of September 4th 2010 which provides cycloastragenol to the consumer.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#873 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 04 September 2010 - 04:00 PM

Bobmann,

In my personal opinion, your semantics argument surely sounds like the "Pot is calling the kettle black". You first start by stating not to play semantics games, then proceed to explain what you believe the significance of the words and the obvious problems of understanding them when it comes to word selections and injecting your opinions and assumptions about my words instead of asking questions for clarification... in essence another 'semantics' argument or 'game' as you put it.

Let's end this and be practical to help folks on this board, instead of continuing an argument that serves no practical purpose on this thread. If you want to be helpful please provide answers to my previous questions:

1- Please provide any lab test that shows how much cycloastrgenol is available in regular astragalus. This information would be most important if you claim all reliable natural producers have the same amount.
2- Provide any test of another product on the market that has cycloastragenol.
3- Can you provide the amount of
cycloastragenol assumed to be in regular astragalus?


If you cannot do any of the above to help folks compare astragalus, or bring any new information to the table then surely you are simply being argumentative and I will have to ignore you. In my opinion, making that kind of Gensing/Astragalus comparison and stating globally that all standardized extracts will fail over a lifetime is incorrect. Also, whenever you state "this study, or that study"... can you provide a reference? I tend to ignore posts that do not provide references.

At this point in time, I do believe we are the only company that guarantees cycloastragenol in our product to the public, is there anyone else? If you state that all astragalus extracts have cycloastragenol, then you need to state how much.

Peanuts have resveratrol, but you would not be able to eat enough peanuts in a day to equal what is found in 1 capsule of resveratrol, that many supplement companies are offering. The same goes for Cycloastragenol. To make an accurate assessment, folk would need to know how much cycloastragenol is available in regular astragalus.

Is 5 mg of Cycloastrgenol found in 20 grams, 40 gram or 100 grams or more of astragalus? Nail the amount to the board, and let folks easily compare any regular astragalus extract instead of assuming there is a lot of it in Astragalus. I know for a fact, there is not a lot at all.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 04 September 2010 - 04:32 PM.

  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#874 sweet.pete

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • -5
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:20 PM

Just search google. A couple of cycloastragenol web sellers show up. Anthony refuses to reveal his source, and its legality aside, I am positive he's getting it from China, since my understanding is, for the time being, China is the only country from which you may get wholesale cycloastragenol. So naturally I am not buying, unless Anthony's cycloastragenol gets tested for at least two dozen poisons.

As to whether cycloastragenol truly extends human life span, God knows. However one has to keep in mind, firstly, the whole cycloastragenol business is basically a viral marketing, its host being Geron and/or TA Sciences, and its slogan, Poorman's Elixir has arrived, nevertheless Revgenetics' price may not appeal to the poor.
Second, All drugs and supplements induce tolerance, and as we are all aware, tolerance develops because our body tries to adjust to the alien introduction of certain substances and to their unnatural effect. This means, when telomerase activator is introduced to your system, there is a good possiblity that your body may actually try to deactivate telomerase to ensure the balance of the system, that is of course, if cycloastragenol activates telomerase in vivo at all. (In vitro, it certainly does.) And if this is the case, what is the long term remifications? No one knows.
And the third, the dreaded cancer-induction dispute, of course.

Supplementing cycloastragenol under no medical supervision is, in my opinion, no safer than Russian Roulette.

Cheers
P
  • dislike x 3
  • like x 2

#875 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:45 AM

Welcome to Imminst.org Sweet Pea.

Looks to me like you just joined today, without reading through this whole thread. Your comment on tolerance, cancer, etc... have been discussed before.

Re-read the thread please, from the beginning. Cycling is important for various reasons.

Thanks for your opinion on the matter. I agree, that safety of the material is important regardless of what part of the world it comes from. If you really feel we should test the material for particular things, PM me with the list.

We have been known to go far beyond what the FDA requires, regarding safety testing that no other company performs (such as our resveratrol solvent and PAH tests) . I usually have no problem with some extra tests regarding a product.
Cheers
A

#876 bobman

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • 5

Posted 05 September 2010 - 05:14 AM

Bobmann,

In my personal opinion, your semantics argument surely sounds like the "Pot is calling the kettle black". You first start by stating not to play semantics games, then proceed to explain what you believe the significance of the words and the obvious problems of understanding them when it comes to word selections and injecting your opinions and assumptions about my words instead of asking questions for clarification... in essence another 'semantics' argument or 'game' as you put it.

Let's end this and be practical to help folks on this board, instead of continuing an argument that serves no practical purpose on this thread. If you want to be helpful please provide answers to my previous questions:

1- Please provide any lab test that shows how much cycloastrgenol is available in regular astragalus. This information would be most important if you claim all reliable natural producers have the same amount.
2- Provide any test of another product on the market that has cycloastragenol.
3- Can you provide the amount of
cycloastragenol assumed to be in regular astragalus?


If you cannot do any of the above to help folks compare astragalus, or bring any new information to the table then surely you are simply being argumentative and I will have to ignore you. In my opinion, making that kind of Gensing/Astragalus comparison and stating globally that all standardized extracts will fail over a lifetime is incorrect. Also, whenever you state "this study, or that study"... can you provide a reference? I tend to ignore posts that do not provide references.

At this point in time, I do believe we are the only company that guarantees cycloastragenol in our product to the public, is there anyone else? If you state that all astragalus extracts have cycloastragenol, then you need to state how much.

Peanuts have resveratrol, but you would not be able to eat enough peanuts in a day to equal what is found in 1 capsule of resveratrol, that many supplement companies are offering. The same goes for Cycloastragenol. To make an accurate assessment, folk would need to know how much cycloastragenol is available in regular astragalus.

Is 5 mg of Cycloastrgenol found in 20 grams, 40 gram or 100 grams or more of astragalus? Nail the amount to the board, and let folks easily compare any regular astragalus extract instead of assuming there is a lot of it in Astragalus. I know for a fact, there is not a lot at all.

Cheers
A


Anthony that burden of proof is yours, I'm not selling astragalus products. Like I said, the issue I took was with the statement that only you provide cycloastragenol, which is an obvious white lie. You're the only one that guarantees it on a label, that's all and it's a major distinction. The glycoside is not yours. I'm on my iPhone right now but I'll post back a few sources tomorrow. What surprises me is that you don't know what I'm refer

#877 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:50 PM

At this point in time, I do believe we are the only company that guarantees cycloastragenol in our product to the public, is there anyone else?

You may not be selling Astragalus, but If you state that all astragalus extracts have cycloastragenol, then you need to state how much. However it appears that by your own post you believe that Cycloastragenol does not naturally exist in astragalus and can only be produced as an acid-base byproduct of Astragoloside IV.

From your earlier post:

Cycloastragenol is extracted from astragalus membranaceus, and is as far as I know it is the acid-base byproduct of Astragoloside IV.


I don't understand how you can try to argue both things in your posts ("naturally found in all astragalus" vs "It is not natural found, but an acid based byproduct of Astragaloside IV").

As far as my burden, it is to simply guarantee our own products. If you want to make regular Astragalus comparisons against our product, then it is your burden to state how much cycloastragenol is found in the regular astragalus product you want people to consider, instead of arguing things that apparently you are not sure about.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 05 September 2010 - 06:30 PM.

  • like x 1

#878 bobman

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • 5

Posted 06 September 2010 - 08:16 AM

At this point in time, I do believe we are the only company that guarantees cycloastragenol in our product to the public, is there anyone else?

You may not be selling Astragalus, but If you state that all astragalus extracts have cycloastragenol, then you need to state how much. However it appears that by your own post you believe that Cycloastragenol does not naturally exist in astragalus and can only be produced as an acid-base byproduct of Astragoloside IV.

From your earlier post:

Cycloastragenol is extracted from astragalus membranaceus, and is as far as I know it is the acid-base byproduct of Astragoloside IV.


I don't understand how you can try to argue both things in your posts ("naturally found in all astragalus" vs "It is not natural found, but an acid based byproduct of Astragaloside IV").

As far as my burden, it is to simply guarantee our own products. If you want to make regular Astragalus comparisons against our product, then it is your burden to state how much cycloastragenol is found in the regular astragalus product you want people to consider, instead of arguing things that apparently you are not sure about.

A


Anthony I'm not sure if you're kidding around, because otherwise I don't know how much more clear I can be about the fact that the statement I took issue with was this one:

3- Yes Smithx is right, we are the only company that offers cycloastragenol to the public.


That is a lie.

With regard to whether cycloastragenol is a metabolite of Astragalus Membranaceus, or directly found in the raw :
1) It doesn't matter unless you're injecting it
2) Yes I wasn't sure at the time, and it isn't information that I need to provide to you. You should know everything there is to know about Astragalus, since Astragalus Radiix extract is essentially what you're selling. It's pretty bothersome that you have close to no knowledge about it's composition. How can you be selling cycloastragenol and not know where it comes from? Moreover, how can you possibly claim that you are the only company offering it, when you clearly don't know that it is a naturally occurring glycoside?

3) After a little digging, I confirmed that it does in fact occur directly in Astragalus Membranaceus, and about 10 other species of Astragalus, and not as a metabolite, at least not only as a metabolite.

http://www.sciencedi...20&searchtype=a

Abstract

Agroastragaloside II, a new astragaloside was isolated from the hairy root culture of Astragalus membranaceus. its structure was established as 3-O-β-(2′-O-acetyl)-d-xylopyranosyl-6-O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(24S)3β,6α,16β,24,25-pentahydroxy-9,19-cyclolanostane on the basis of spectroscopic data. Three known astragalosides, astragaloside II, isoastragaloside I and 3-O-β-d-xylopyranosyl-cycloastragenol were also isolated.


To access the rest of these links you need an account at sciencedirect (otherwise just abstract), but I'll post them up in case you do. They are far too long to post in entirety, and I'm not going to spend my time creating an out of context chop, but suffice to say it is present. Of course you can take this information and run a red herring on it, pointing out that the links only demonstrate effects of the total fraction, but the instant retort is that you have far less evidence for activity on your side. Also, I made, and make no claims about the effectiveness of your product, just that it is not the only one that contains cycloastrageonl, and that Astraglus Radiix extract/raw herb, which IS present on the market, is not only biologically active, but active against the target (telomeres) your company markets.

http://www.sciencedi...34&searchtype=a

http://www.sciencedi...fb&searchtype=a

http://www.sciencedi...d4&searchtype=a

3.3. Natural compounds
3.3.1. The Chinese herb Astragalus

Astragalus has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years, often in combination with other herbs, to boost the immune system. It contains antioxidants which protect cells against damage caused by free radicals. Astragalus is also reputed to have antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and diuretic properties, and the plant is sometimes used topically for wounds. However, little was known about the mechanism of action of Astragalus until recent studies revealed that its downstream targets include telomeres and their maintenance (Fauce et al., 2008). TAT2 the drug extract from the Astragalus root, Astragalus membranaceus(Huang Qi) exerts its effect on telomerase. Exposure of CD8+ T cells from HIV-infected human donors to TAT2 inhibited telomere shortening, increased the proliferative potential of the cells, and, importantly, enhanced cytokine/chemokine production and antiviral activity (Fauce et al., 2008). The telomerase-dependent specificity of TAT2 is demonstrated by an effect of telomerase inhibitor, suggesting that TAT2 operates to raise immunity by enhancing telomerase maintenance of telomeres (Fauce et al., 2008).

Telomere maintenance is required for all immune cells undergoing clonal expansion; however, HIV infection causes exhaustion of CD8+ T cell proliferation and shortening of telomeres (Wolthers et al., 1996). It is accepted that HIV infection interferes with telomere maintenance in CD8+ cells and increases senescence in both CD8+ and CD4+ T cells ([Aladdin et al., 2000], [Bestilny et al., 2000], [Nichols et al., 1999] and [Palmer et al., 1997]). Telomere maintenance is also affected in CD4+ T cells, with decreased hTERT expression and hTERT protein phosphorylation (Franzese et al., 2007). People who live with HIV infection for many years without developing AIDS showed high telomerase activity and longer telomeres in T cells than patients who progressed to AIDS (Tucker et al., 2000). Constitutive over-expression of hTERT leads to increased maintenance of previous telomere by telomerase in CD8+ T cells, which contributes to maintenance of polyfunctional HIV-1-specific CD8+ T cells from HIV-1 controllers ([Dagarag et al., 2004] and [Lichterfeld et al., 2008]). These studies suggest that telomere maintenance by telomerase, which is preserved in vitro by the Chinese herb Astragalus, is critical to the correct functioning of lymphocytes.


Again, these are just example articles to support my claim that Astragalus extract/raw herb is active, and that it contains cycloastragenol, and are in no way comprehensive. I feel that if you're selling the stuff, you should be interested enough to do your own research. The burden to prove the greater, or even equal effectiveness of your product compared to other Astragalus products, specifically with regard to the relevance of the "formulation" you settled on, is yours, as you are the entity attempting to profit from this information.

The ginseng example was just that, an example. In my experience isolated herbal fractions do not have the same qualitative effect that the whole parent does. Empiric evidence shows this to hold true for Gotu Kola, Turmeric, and Ginseng, and I merely suggested that this may hold true for Astragalus, as the vast majority of studies on this substance, demonstrating positive effect, have been from the natural extract or whole herb, and as far as I'm aware not a single study beyond a cell culture for any particular fraction. However, that really isn't the point, I was just disputing the idea that you somehow own the cycloastragenol market. That is a wacky idea, since it's extracted from Astragalus.

I'm not arguing that you guarantee a certain amount of it, no one ever made that statement. This is something that should be self evident: either it's on the label or it isn't. I wasn't challenging the "uniqueness" of the mixture either; or the fact that you guarantee it on the label, or why 150mg is somehow an ideal amount, the latter for which I suppose there is no answer, and not something I want to get into, and not what I have been posting about.

If your next reply is going to be a terse quip to an out-of-context quote, save yourself the time, I don't care, and won't be following the thread any longer. The purpose was to make sure you were being straight with your potential customers, and if what you wrote, what I quoted above was a slip up, it should be trivial to admit, and not worth these confrontational, and frankly somewhat embarrassing squabbles.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 2

#879 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 06 September 2010 - 02:02 PM

Hi Bobbmann,

I know a bit about cycloastragenol and Astragalus.
Heck our first attempt to extract it from our first large batch of regular astragalus was in 2008. In that attempt we made a standardized extract with only 2% cycloastragenol. This was the end result after the extract (Which was great, as this amount of cycloastragenol was much greater than what is typically found in regular astragalus). These first results where provided by Dalton (image below). The fact is that we have been working on this material for a long time. It amazes me how folks believe they know where we get our material, when they are simply guessing.

1- I am glad you now know not to argue about both things in your posts ("naturally found in all astragalus" vs "It is not natural found, but an acid based byproduct of Astragaloside IV"). You have educated yourself, and I believe that probably was the most important part of your exercise.

2- We have been doing our own research. Our CSO Dr. V previously checked our material to conform to the UCLA study.

3- My main issue is that you stated that all astragalus supplements had cycloastragenol, and I know their are barely trace amounts (if any) in most astragalus material.


Regarding trace amounts of cycloastragenol in astragalus:
Your argument reminds me of another one: It reminds me of a customers that call us to say.... "Your resveratrol product has mercury!".

I would have then said "no, it is safe... we test for it". Then state that my COA that shows trace amounts of mercury and then proceed to say... "You Lied!" I find the argument silly, as trace amounts of mercury are found most every food, even drinking water... but at such low trace amounts, these levels are considered by the FDA to be safe and not do anything. I have to explain to the customer that 'EVERYTHING" they eat has traces of lead and or mercury. We test for them and provide the COA to show it has traces that the FDA considers safe (and Prop 65 considers safe), while others do not even test the material or show you their results.

I believe the same could be stated for trace amounts of cycloastragenol in astragalus. Astragalus could contain trace amounts of cycloastragenol, but at such low trace amounts you would need to take a very large amount of astragalus daily for you to take any similar amount of cycloastragenol to compare to our product. Low trace amount of most anything (resveratrol, cycloastragenol, most vitamins...) doesn't mean taking these will benefit most people, as many compounds and vitamins are dose dependent.

RDA's (recommended daily allowance) were setup to provide 98%+ of folks basic nutritional requirements. Imagine if we didn't have standards or such things, and people accepted 'trace amounts' of some of these basic nutrients as being acceptable. I am not sure any practicing CR folks would go for that argument, as many CR folks choose supplements to fill in the gaps.

Your apparent standards:
Since no other product states cycloastragenol on the label (that I know of) then... we are the only one that sells it (You would have us then state that anyone else may have some trace amount?). Sorry Bobmann, from my perspective as a supplement maker I continue to be correct, and I continue to be right. I know you want to feel like you outed me in some way, by showing how 'wrong' my statement was, simply because you believe that some trace material can usually provide enough for people. I will agree to disagree with you on this one... as I believe cycloastragenol is dose dependent.

Cheers
A

Attached Thumbnails

  • Dalton.Png

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 06 September 2010 - 02:14 PM.

  • like x 2

#880 Hotpot

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • -5

Posted 08 September 2010 - 02:24 PM

Anthony,

I seem to be having problems getting a reply from my email to your orders dept. regarding an order I made.

Edit: I've just received a reply. I had a problem with my card and asked about ordering with a check. However, the card issue has been sorted now and I wish to cancel my order so I can reorder as normal with my card.
I'd just like confirmation that the original order has been cancelled before making a new one.
Thanks in advance.

Edited by Hotpot, 08 September 2010 - 02:58 PM.

  • dislike x 1

#881 saxiephon

  • Guest
  • 79 posts
  • 28

Posted 08 September 2010 - 10:38 PM

See attachment

A Natural Product Telomerase Activator As Part of a Health Maintenance Program

This is the latest report on Geron based actvators.

Attached Files


Edited by saxiephon, 08 September 2010 - 10:42 PM.

  • like x 3

#882 GreenPower

  • Guest
  • 201 posts
  • 69
  • Location:Europe

Posted 09 September 2010 - 05:24 PM

See attachment

A Natural Product Telomerase Activator As Part of a Health Maintenance Program

This is the latest report on Geron based actvators.


Very interesting reading with some indications on what TA65 really is.
  • In an earlier study by Rita Effros, TAT2 is reported to be Cycloastragenol. In this study they refer to TAT2 as being a "related molecule" to TA65. This would mean that TA65 is not Cycloastragenol.
  • The study also shows a decrease in percentage of some types of "old" cells (T-Cells, NK's), especially the number and percentage of NK cells. This ought to have made for lower values when measuring the Standard Deviation, in much the same way as my results did after using AIV (100mg). After I tested Cycloastragenol my SD-values had increased again.
  • They were using doses of 10-50 mg daily of TA65. Earlier posts in this thread av indicated this to be very large doses for Cycloastragenol, but probably quite normal doses for AIV.
This seem to indicate that TA65 is actually Astragaloside IV.

First the study seem to have had lots of money, because they seem to have let the Canadian laboratory do Flow-FISH tests on the test subjects every third month and have tested a large number of additional parameters. Then it states that it did not have a control group, that the test subjects were not participating in a controlled study and that the study was actually nothing more than a "hypothesis generating exercise".

They are very detailed in the presentation of the baseline results, where they present exact numbers for a large range of stuff they are to measure in the study. But when they come to present the results of the changes which occurred during the study, the numbers start to get very fluffy. It's for example no longer possible to see the changes in Lymphocyte and Granulocyte telomere lengths separately, which I would have liked.

Several times they mention a "positive remodeling of the immune system" as a result. They show that the percentage of old immune cells have decreased and draw the conclusion that the immune system now have a better and younger profile.They don't show any numbers on the total amount cells (their concentration / ml) after the study, though. Because they also state that the mean telomere length did not increase (it showed a "non-significant decline"), this might as well mean that a lot of old cells died off.

I interpret the "non significant decline" in telomere length to mean <4kbp. They seem to draw the conclusion that this is a "significant, positive response, and that TA65 contributes to the apparent benefit of the dietary supplement". Because they state that humans lose telomeric DNA at a rate of 15-60 bp per year and that the reduction in length among the test subjects in this one year study could have been as much as 4000 bp, I would seriously hesitate to draw the conclusion that the results were positive.

May I ask where you found the report? Anyone else drawing different conclusions?
  • like x 3

#883 GreenPower

  • Guest
  • 201 posts
  • 69
  • Location:Europe

Posted 09 September 2010 - 05:30 PM

A suggestion Anthony, if you stop feeding the trolls - they tend to starve and search for food elsewhere :)
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#884 chrono

  • Guest, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 801
  • Location:New England

Posted 09 September 2010 - 06:32 PM

I think there is a setting somewhere where you can set a threshold and block posts that many people consider irrelevant. If anyone finds it, please let me know! :~

At the bottom of every thread, there's a blue bar with the words "Currently viewing all posts, regardless of rating. Change threshold?" Clicking this text brings up the flydown box with the rating threshold. I don't think there's a permanent user setting for this, yet. Can't say that I necessarily recommend using it, though. Some people downrate posts that they simply disagree with, even if it's a valuable contribution.

I would agree that you shouldn't feel compelled to answer to people's concerns beyond a certain point. Useless argumentation about small and fairly irrelevant points is usually recognized as such by most users here, I'd like to think.

Edited by chrono, 09 September 2010 - 06:34 PM.

  • like x 3

#885 unglued

  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • 36

Posted 10 September 2010 - 06:35 PM

if you stop feeding the trolls - they tend to starve and search for food elsewhere :)


Yes, but one thing we know is that that will make them live longer.

#886 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 173
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 10 September 2010 - 06:45 PM

The Astral Fruit-NF has the following ingredients:

Terminalia Chebula
Portulaca Oleracea
Astragalus Extract With Cycloastragenol

we have also added chitosan, bioperine.
This is our proprietary complex in Astral Fruit-NF for telomerase support.

60 Capsules, each capsule runs about 500mg.

Please review the following if you are not familiar with some of these:
PubMed ID: 15478203
PubMed ID: 17764668
PubMed ID: 18981163

We expect this product to perform very well compared to others telomerase activators.


Why add something like bioperine that may be a potent CYP450 inhibitor. Wouldn't this make some people here less likely to want to take it? I know there is also concern over bioperine possible opening up and make vulnerable protective mechanisms that keep unwanted things from being absorbed by our bodies? Is it really worth it or necessary to add bioperine?

#887 unglued

  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • 36

Posted 10 September 2010 - 07:16 PM

From the abstract of the Harley et al paper (the same one attached above):

Although mean telomere length did not increase, there was a significant reduction in the percent short (<4kbp) telomeres (p=0.037).


That's very interesting, because it's encouraging but at the same time is consistent with the results that Anthony and GreenPower have reported here from personal tests by Repeat Diagnostics: In their personal tests, their average telomere length was not found to get longer (and actually seemed to get shorter, but it wasn't a significant reduction in terms of the test's accuracy). But my understanding is that the personal Repeat Diagnostics tests didn't measure the distribution of lengths, so it would have been unable to detect this beneficial effect if it occurred in Anthony or GreenPower. (The report shows a Standard Deviation, but that turns out to refer to how consistent the result is when they check samples from the same blood draw against each other.)

Harley et al go on to say

on average across all subjects there was a nonsignificant decline in mean telomere length. Rescue and selective expansion of near-senescent cells with short telomeres could lead to a reduction in the population mean telomere length despite some lengthening of telomeres in all cells.

-- which would make Anthony and GreenPower completely typical, if we can compare the various products they took with one the paper calls TA-65 -- and the authors conclude that that's actually a good thing, because it's the number of cells that run out of telomeres that cause problems, not how close the average cell is to running out.

(I think of it by this analogy: If Company A and Company B are worried about how soon their work force is going to retire, and Company A's workers are 30 years old on the average while Company B's workers are 35 years old on the average, which one is more likely to start losing workers to retirement in the near future? You can't tell from the average; Company B has nothing to worry about if 95% of its workers are in their 30's, while Company A might have a majority of 25-year-old workers but also be about to lose a large fraction of their workforce because they're a year away from retirement. I hope that this analogy isn't confusing I'm using companies to stand for people, workers to stand for cells, and age in years to stand for telomere length; for purposes of this analogy please ignore the fact that real workers are made of cells whose telomeres tend to shorten with time.)

#888 stephen_b

  • Guest
  • 1,735 posts
  • 231

Posted 10 September 2010 - 07:23 PM

I'm not clear whether TA-65 would prevent cells' telomere length from falling below a specific threshold.

#889 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 12 September 2010 - 07:21 PM

Assuming that TA65 is AIV, which looks increasingly likely, is there any good reason to assume that the cell types activated by cycloastragenol will be identical to those reported by Geron et al for TA65. Has there been any research to examining other cell types such as cheek cells, hair roots etc?

#890 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 13 September 2010 - 03:18 AM

We do seem to be playing with fire here, by using materials which we are not sure have been tested to do anything in particular.

The only thing which is known conclusively is that astragalus itself is safe and seems to promote longevity.

I believe that full-spectrum extracts are probably the most reasonable thing to take until we know conclusively that some particular fraction is actually providing some benefit on its own.

Edited by smithx, 13 September 2010 - 03:20 AM.

  • dislike x 2
  • like x 2

#891 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 13 September 2010 - 03:53 AM

One thing that hasn't been talked about much is the nature of the other supplements that make up the Patton Protocol. From Harley et al., it looks like these supplements are described in supplementary material S1. I looked on the Liebert site, but couldn't find either this paper or the supplementary material. Anyone seen it?

#892 bsm

  • Guest
  • 30 posts
  • -1

Posted 13 September 2010 - 04:37 PM

From the abstract of the Harley et al paper

Harley et al go on to say

on average across all subjects there was a nonsignificant decline in mean telomere length. Rescue and selective expansion of near-senescent cells with short telomeres could lead to a reduction in the population mean telomere length despite some lengthening of telomeres in all cells.

-- which would make Anthony and GreenPower completely typical, if we can compare the various products they took with one the paper calls TA-65 -- and the authors conclude that that's actually a good thing, because it's the number of cells that run out of telomeres that cause problems, not how close the average cell is to running out.


Isn't telomerase's job to stop old cells from losing more telomeres? If the old cells are dying doesn't that mean telomerase was ineffective? Or is the research implying that telomerase increased the old cells telomere length beyond 4000bp?

Secondly, couldn't the decrease in old cells be due to the difference in samples taken?

Edited by bsm, 13 September 2010 - 04:46 PM.


#893 stephen_b

  • Guest
  • 1,735 posts
  • 231

Posted 13 September 2010 - 05:00 PM

Isn't telomerase's job to stop old cells from losing more telomeres?


My speculation is that perhaps telomerase only works on old cells. Which might not be a bad thing.

#894 DeadMeat

  • Guest
  • 151 posts
  • 160

Posted 13 September 2010 - 09:15 PM

One thing that hasn't been talked about much is the nature of the other supplements that make up the Patton Protocol. From Harley et al., it looks like these supplements are described in supplementary material S1. I looked on the Liebert site, but couldn't find either this paper or the supplementary material. Anyone seen it?


Here they have it apparently. It's not very well readable though.
http://www.lieberton...9/rej.2010.1085
http://www.lieberton...e/Supp_Data.pdf

They seem to have used quite a lot of other anti aging thingy's in significant dosages. For example: a bunch of B vitamins, Vitamin D3, vitamin K2, magnesium, Ginkgo Biloba extract, ALA, ALCAR, l-carnitine and Co-Q10.

#895 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 13 September 2010 - 09:42 PM

Thanks DeadMeat. I googled "17,168 IU", from the bitmap and turned up this vector postscript file at TA Sciences. It's the same thing as at the journal but easier to read.

Kind of whopping doses of some things, but looks like a lot of people's stacks. A gram of NAC... hmm. It would be interesting to know how much of what they saw was from this supplement regimen and how much was from the TA-65.

#896 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 13 September 2010 - 09:44 PM

I see that Sierra Sciences are advertising the TA/Geron results all over the Facebook link......how closely linked are they?

#897 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 13 September 2010 - 10:16 PM

Thanks DeadMeat. I googled "17,168 IU", from the bitmap and turned up this vector postscript file at TA Sciences. It's the same thing as at the journal but easier to read.

Kind of whopping doses of some things, but looks like a lot of people's stacks. A gram of NAC... hmm. It would be interesting to know how much of what they saw was from this supplement regimen and how much was from the TA-65.


I find the 20mg dose of manganese interesting. I wonder how much of that is actually absorbed.

#898 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 14 September 2010 - 05:38 PM

I made some remarks on Facebook on the Sierra Sciences link commenting on the high price for what is probably AIV.....they seem to have disconnected me from their Facebook feed in revenge. I was sent two angry emails from TA Life Sciences full of waffle about how expensive the process is and how many certificates they have etc, but at no point did they admit what it actually is they are selling. It walks like a scam and quacks like a scam.......

#899 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:17 PM

I made some remarks on Facebook on the Sierra Sciences link commenting on the high price for what is probably AIV.....they seem to have disconnected me from their Facebook feed in revenge. I was sent two angry emails from TA Life Sciences full of waffle about how expensive the process is and how many certificates they have etc, but at no point did they admit what it actually is they are selling. It walks like a scam and quacks like a scam.......

Interesting response from them. Still, I'm not sure I'd call this a scam. They've invested a lot of resources in their program, have done a huge amount of testing, and are publishing on it. And they are the ones who brought it to the public and essentially ran a clinical trial for us. At the same time, they managed to get their patients to foot the bill for this, and are ultimately interested in getting rich off of their work. It's not terrifically different than a biotech or pharma, not that we necessarily consider those to be paragons of moral virtue. This is what it looks like when you employ capitalism to fund biomedical R&D.

Edited by niner, 14 September 2010 - 06:17 PM.


#900 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 14 September 2010 - 06:38 PM

Thought I'd post this e-mail between myself and Michael:


Hi Nikolay,
>
> Do you have any thoughts about the 'telomere lengthening' supplement
> sold by this company? http://www.tasciences.com/
> Supposedly the supplement, TA-65, activates telomerase in somatic
> cells. Would this be a practical way to combat aging?

I'm afraid not, for several reasons. In addition to the fact that it's
quite unproven to do what it claims to do even in the very narrow sense
(activating telomerase in people swallowing the capsults), it also
wouldn't do much to affect aging even if it did, and could actually be
dangerous for a specific, very important age-related disease: cancer.

First, we don't yet know that TAT2/TA-65 can lengthen telomeres in
vivo. I don't actually believe that this has actually been reported:
their only published report ( J Immunol. 2008 Nov 15;181(10):7400-6) is
of an in vitro experiment with human CD8+s taken *from* an HIV+ patient,
not in vivo or even ex vivo after oral administration of the compound.

They've shown that when they've mixed the stuff, in a *test tube* , with
white blood cells from HIV patients (whose white blood cells have
abnormally shortened telomeres, because the virus forces them to
replicate those cells which wears the telomeres down), TAT2/TA-65
activates telomerase in those white cells and brings their
pathogen-killing function (again, in a test tube) closer to cells from
normal healthy people.

But this doesn't prove that the same thing would happen to these HIV
patients (let alone normal, healthy people) after swallowing a *pill*
with TA-65: phytochemicals are, notoriously, extensively modified in the
gut and liver by the same enzymes that detoxify various toxins and
drugs, which often either blocks their absorption or drastically changes
their bioactivity once they actually reach the cells of the body through
the circulation. And, moreover, the fact that (broken record! -- *in a
test tube* ) these HIV patient cells have a *more normal* cell-killing
ability; that doesn't show that a person with *normal, healthy* white
cells would get an *even greater* cell-killing capacity (even in a test
tube ;) ) under the same conditions.

This, obviously, in itself dampens enthusiasm, as (from the perspective
of the biogerontology community) does the fact that the patient is HIV+,
and thus has CD8+ cells that are already defective because of the
stressful systemic environment, so that -- even if the effects in vitro
were to translate into a result in vivo -- the *relative* increase in
telomere length, cytokine production, and virus-killing activity may be
of no significance to people with normal T-cell function, or with
age-related impairments unrelated to those in this HIV+ patient.

This leads into the second and broader question of whether activating
telomerase would actually provide any benefits to "normally" aging
people. Since the early excitement raised by the initial discovery of
telomerase in the context of the early, simplistic model of replicative
senescence on which it was superimposed (the "Hayflick limit"), our
understanding of both cellular senescence and its relationship to
organismal senescence has expanded quite a bit. While the popular press
continues to promote the idea that we age because our cells run out the
proliferative capacity by running up against critically-shortened
telomeres, there's very little support in the scientific community today
for either the proposition that cellular senescence is predominantly the
result of telomere erosion, or that replicative arrest per se makes a
major contribution to organismal aging. See:


Hopkin K.
More than a sum of our cells.
Sci Aging Knowledge Environ. 2001 Oct 3;2001(1) : oa4. Review.
PMID: 14602948 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Hornsby PJ.
Mouse and human cells versus oxygen.
Sci Aging Knowledge Environ. 2003 Jul 30;2003(30):PE21.
PMID: 12890857 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

(The above two are intend for the educated layperson; here's one that's
more challenging:

Patil CK, Mian IS, Campisi J.
The thorny path linking cellular senescence to organismal aging.
Mech Ageing Dev. 2005 Oct;126(10):1040-5.
PMID: 16153470 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Finally, and most importantly, even if it works systemically after oral
administration, and even if it did provide benefits to at least some
aspects of aging, systemic delivery of a compound that (putatively)
activates telomerase makes a lot of people (myself and Dr. de Grey
included) very nervous, for the simple reason that telomerase activation
could open up the proliferative barrier for preneoplastic cells to push
over the limit imposed by 'crisis' and programmed senescence and acquire
the additional mutation(s) required to become fully-fledged malignant
cancer cells. Part of the reason we have telomeres wearing down in our
cells in the first place is to prevent runaway cell proliferation -- in
other words, cancer. In fact, cancer cells can't survive without
acquiring mutations that allow them to keep lengthening their telomeres
as they divide furiously, and they most often do this exactly by
activating telomerase! These companies point to studies that show that
activating telomerase doesn't *cause* the cells to become cancerous, but
that's not the point: doing so gives *precancerous* cells the
*opportunity* to keep replicating themselves, acquiring new mutations
and eventually becoming full-blown cancers, by taking off the cell's
ultimate braking system for cell division. Bypassing this strict control
by a drug or supplement is really asking for trouble.

More on this here:

http://www.mfoundati...hread.php?t=437

http://www.mfoundati...p?t=1243&page=2

http://www.mfoundati...p?t=1243&page=2

> P.S. Happy new year.

And to you -- and many, many more! And , if you're ready to help us to
increase your odds of enjoying those additional years by hastening
progress in SENS science, we have quite a few listed here:

http://sens.org/inde...donations_other

Also, you can pick up a copy of Aubrey's and my book (link above) and,
after having read it for your own further understanding, get the word
out by passing your copy around to others you know, and/or by donating
it to a library, and/or by picking up extra copies for the latter 2
purposes.

And (naked plug!) remember that you can help to ensure that real
age-reversing biotechnology becomes available as soon as possible,
alleviating the most age-related suffering and death, by making a
donation to support SENS research:

http://sens.org/inde...onations_donate

I leave it to you to choose how you will take on the moral and
scientific challenge of biological aging. However you proceed: live long
-- live young!
-Michael


Edited by Elus, 14 September 2010 - 06:39 PM.

  • dislike x 2




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users