12 replies to this topic

[Anthony_Loera]

Folks, I decided to put this in it's own thread so as to not pollute the main Astragalus thread:

This morning, I just saw the following file:
http://www.hta98.com/ta65coa.pdf

I really don't like when others use RevGenetics property for their own purposes, and erase 'RevGenetics' information from it. This is a lab test we made at our own expense. The "Mackenzie Protocol" folks need to stop using it altogether, or give credit where credit is due, instead of falsely portraying it as their own.

Tony, I am calling you out. Take that down, you do not have my permission to use it.

For folks that want to compare, here is a link to the original lab test:
http://www.longecity...&attach_id=9536

Folks can see what has been taken out immediately when comparing both. This sort of clear violation of copyrighted material should send a red flag to everyone.

Seriously... are these folks trust worthy enough to provide a quality product, of any kind, if they find it a good practice to manipulate lab tests?

A

P.S. For those without a PDF Reader, you can see the attached image that shows the lab test manipulation. The one that says 'RevGenetics' is the original lab test.

Attached Files

•  COA-Manipulation.Png   68.15K   22 downloads

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 17 November 2011 - 05:10 PM.

[improvelifespan]

Dear Anthony Loera,

This is to exercise my right of reply in a public forum

I am sorry you have felt offended by this action which was done, unknown to me, by a website assistant a few days ago.

If you had contacted me privately first  I would have been happy to imediately  correct the matter and I am grateful that you have brought it to my attention, albeitl in a rather heavy handed fashion..

The fact is that this certificate is now firmly ensconced in the public domain and knowledge anyway and was further publicised when you contacted myself and other cycloastragenol supppliers recently with a link to the certificate together with an offer to buy the dotcom domain of cycloastragenol  from you for $100,000.

I can confirm that the link to the amended pdf hostedon www.hta98.com has now been replaced with a link to the original domain on this forum showing the certificate with the revgentics name on it. This link is clearly in the public domain and is searchable via Google.

IAs it says on my website at www,mackenzieprotocol.com I went into this business from a genuine over-riding altruistic intention and believe that the consumer should have a choice in a free  and democratic society.

We are doing our best to offer an economic alternative to consumers and practitioners alike.

As the first company over this side of the pond in Britain offering 98% cycloastragenol on worldwide distribution at an affordable price we seem to have ruffled a few feathers and vested interests have already been blocking our attempts to introduce a telomere measurement service.

It seems that there is something of a closed shop amongst people in this new cutting edge business and added to the opposition now apparent from Codex Alimentarius restricting the pubiic's access to natural herbal products and vitamins I wonder if I shouldn't be looking for an easier product to promote.

Like many people on this forum, and as  a previous wholesale purchaser of your products, I am extremely, baffled as to why you have gone over to selling the more expensive TA65 products.which is licensed to the sellers from a pharmaceutical company.

My view of the politics of pharmaceutical companies and their links with Codex Alimentarius are supported by the links to the comprehensive information I have researched including the bravery of Dr Rath of the Rath Foundation in putting his head above the parapet in cellular medical research.

Whilst mentioning Dr Rath I should not omit to mention the exellent work of Scott Tips at the National Health Federation in the USA  and Dr Verkerk at the Alliance for Natural Health in the UK.

Thank you Anthony for your previous efforts and I'm genuinely sorry if we did something wrong.

Regards

tony@globaltrade-eu.com
Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
Independent Anti Aging Researcher

"300 club" funding member of
The Methuselah Foundation

International member of
The National Health Federation (USA)

Rath Foundation Advanced Course
certificate - cellular medicine

Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd

Edit: links removed.  -mod

Edited by niner, 17 November 2011 - 08:22 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Tony,

Thank you for changing the COA, to the original one that states 'RevGenetics' on it.

A few points:
1- The COA is copyrighted. No sale of it, was ever made, and no authorization of it's use was made to anyone, for any business purposes.

2- If you have been in business selling herbal supplements previously, it would seem you would know the rules and regulations in the UK. It appears you are new to the business, and have led with your heart (or your purse) into the endeavor.

3- As you know, we have tested Cycloastragenol (link) in 2009 for telomerase activity, we tested TA-65 last your (our COA), and then again this year for telomerase activity (The study is not yet available), as well as high extracts of Astragalus (that were just under Geron's patent). We are setting out to prove and test other telomerase activators as well. However, what I don't need are folks using our tests without giving clear knowledge of where they came from, and who performed them. Usually I don't have a problem with the information, unless you manipulate it to try and sell something with it.

My personal aim is to get this history straightened out properly.

If people use our findings, and find it easy to manipulate lab tests, then you open the door to the manipulation of your own COA's or lab tests for your own purposes. I understand that you have stated that it was your website assistant, and so...

My suggestion for your business and growth:
I suggest you fire that person and his 'report to' or manager outright, and take responsibility for his actions instead of making excuses. Remember, the buck stops with you, when you are starting up a business. Don't be tempted by the power of your tools to fib or lie, because it will certainly come back and haunt you. If you start from a position of honor and truth in your business communications, then you will never fear what any 'assistant' might do. He will take his cue from you automatically.

Why do we sell TA-65?
We retail to customers (and wholesale to businesses) TA-65, because it works very well and have always provided world class products to our customers. We also noted certain manufacturing/production characteristics that are impossible to accomplish using high herbal extracts of astragalus... which I personally believe, gives TA-65 an enormous leg up over other astragalus based products in this arena.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 17 November 2011 - 09:41 PM.

[chrono]

@Anthony: sorry if I'm missing something here, but the picture you posted does not show any manipulation of lab tests/results. All it shows is the deletion of your company details. Was there a manipulation of the actual data elsewhere in the file, or was the name deletion the only change?

If so, it might help to 'set the record straight' if you edited your posts and the thread title accordingly. I think your sensibilities are correct in that this was inappropriate, but 'Manipulates Lab Results' and 'Reposts lab test without permission/credit' imply very different things.


@Tony: thanks for the level-headed response

Edited by chrono, 17 November 2011 - 11:26 PM.

[improvelifespan]

Hi Anthony,

I am not going to comment on all the personal and condescending remarks you have made about myself and my business other than two salient points:-

1. You have publicly delared that we "manipulated the test results" which is blatantly untrue. We simply omitted  your name which was a bad move on our part and it was removed within days with an apology as soon as you pointed it out. As I said, you only had to point this out pivately to achieve the same result.NO TEST RESULTS WERE MANIPULATED AND WE QUOTED  EXACTLY THE SAME TEST RESULTS AS YOUR  VERSION.NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. The guy who did the copy was unaware of the legal requirement that the  name of Revgebetics should not have been removed even though we made no claim to the report being ours as you claim plus thename of the laboratory was clearly shown.  I have publicly and humbly apologised for this.

2. What you have publicly shouted out to the world regarding this untrue "manipulation of the test results" together with impuning our trustworthiness is legally libellous and I request  a public apology for this libel on this forum to prevent discussion between myself and our company lawyers.

In summary, you have not adequately answered, to the satisfaction of most people on this forum, as to why you are now promotong a considerably more expensive  product licensed from a pharmaceutical company that you yourself have already previously demonstrated and claimed on this website has little significant difference. You have also previously critiised  the TA65 patent which you declared as "smoke and mirrors."

The certificate in question was carried out long before you were selling TA65 and at a time when you were promoting your own cycloastragenol and doing your best to show that TA65 was very little different than the basic upatented  cycloastragenol product. I am sure there are other reasons why you have decided to market TA65 at his time and these real reasons are known only to you.

I, like many on this forum,  have previously had the utmost respect for what you were doing but you will not maintain that  respect if you attempt to malign honest competitors and their trustworthiness.

When I am on the receiving end of such unfounded  libel  I get most upset.

Maybe you have now "shot yourself in the foot!!!"

regards

Tony Mackenzie

[Anthony_Loera]

Tony,

My answers are adequate and after reading your last post, I personally believe that your apology is not sincere.
The lab results are copyrighted property of RevGenetics.

You are now formally requested to cease and desist from using it further.
Please take down the COA from your website, you do not have permission to use it in any way shape or form.

A

P.S. Also, It is was not a false statement, that you edited the lab coa and took out our information from copyrighted material. The definition of 'Manipulate' meets the definition used, and the post further describes the exact nature of what happened. The initial post description of the issue is all fact based as well. Something only qualifies as libel if it is false. I think we have established that what you did meets the definitions below, was not false statement at all, and that the context supports it as well.

You admited that you did use software to edit the copyrighted lab analysis for your own purposes. In my opinion this meets the definitions by established dictionaries of the English language: "to change it in an artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose" (merriam-webster.com)," to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage" (Dictionary.com), "To tamper with or falsify for personal gain" (thefreedictionary.com). I see no libel issue because you did do this to our copyrighted lab tests for your personal gain / advantage, without our permission:


Definitions of "Manipulate":
http://dictionary.re...owse/manipulate
http://www.merriam-w...nary/manipulate
http://www.thefreedi....com/manipulate

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 18 November 2011 - 03:38 PM.

[improvelifespan]

Hi Anthony,

Yesterday you said:- "Thank you for changing the COA, to the original one that states 'RevGenetics' on it."


I now have nothing on our website that is your copyright. We are merely pointing at something that you put into the public domain when it suited you and is also avaiable to the whole world  from Google.

Now, it appears you have changed your mind, and this change of mind is not based on   what we have done but on what I have said to you.

I think you are letting this issue get of hand. It's a big world and I think there is room for both of us, don't you?

All I want is to be fair and honest and to be treated fairly and honestly.

I think I have already demonstrated this in the content of my previous posts in this thread so the forum and any members interested in the issue can be the judge of this.

Here is a copy of the emails between us today.

from you to me:-

Tony after reading your last post,  
I am formally requesting that you cease and desist using the RevGenetics copyrighted COA in any way shape or form.


I am copying legal council on this email.

Anthony Loera
President
RevGenetics

email from me to you:-


Hi Anthony,

I am disappointed in your unreasonable  response which appears to me to be based on emotion rather than reason.

The facts are as follows:-

1. We are merely pointing to an item which is already widely in the public domain as well as on the Imminst forum. We have no control over that content. The same item is linked to from the Google search engine and available to the whole word to view.

2. You have not responded to my polite request to apologise for and to withdraw your libel of myself and my company where you are seriously impuning our trustworthiness.

I welcome any approach from your lawyers with whom we will be seeking damages unless you are prepared to change your haughty attitude and rescind your previous libel.

This is a very disappointing response from someone I previously had a high regard for.

Regards

tony@globaltrade-eu.com
Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
Independent Anti Aging Researcher

"300 club" funding member of
The Methuselah Foundation

International member of
The National Health Federation (USA)

Rath Foundation Advanced Course
certificate - cellular medicine

Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd

[Anthony_Loera]

improvelifespan, on 18 November 2011 - 05:20 PM, said:

Hi Anthony,
Yesterday you said:- "Thank you for changing the COA, to the original one that states 'RevGenetics' on it."

I now have nothing on our website that is your copyright. We are merely pointing at something that you put into the public domain when it suited you and is also avaiable to the whole world  from Google. Now, it appears you have changed your mind, and this change of mind is not based on what we have done but on what I have said to you.

Tony,

The lab results are copyrighted property of RevGenetics and are not in the public domain because they are found on 'Google'. I cannot consider providing you permission of any kind, if you declare such statements.

I also hope you don't think that all the music found in Google is also in the public domain.
If you did...well I hate to break it to you, but that would be incorrect as well.

Per my email and my previous post, you do not have permission to use it in any way shape or form.

A

[Anthony_Loera]

To limit the accessibility of the copyrighted document, I am taking the CoA off of Imminst for now.
I suspect all the google links will be broken once we do this, since we control the document here.

A

[improvelifespan]

Hi Anthony,

You are perfectly entitled to do that.  I was merely  pointing out that I believed I was correct in my legal interpretation.

The fact is that you keep changing your approach and your mind.
First you said it was OK for us to point to the forum showing the certificate with your name on it then you said it wasn't because you got angry over something I said.

Maybe, just perhaps,  you are really angry over some unknown circumstances that caused you to have to start selling TA65 instead of your own product and we got the brunt of it.

I really don't care one way or the other as there are plenty of other Google links that discuss what the main contents of TA65 are based on and we dont really need the  certificate that you had placed in the public domain to demonstrate this fact.

What I do care about is the fact that you have publicly libelled us by  impuning our trustworthiness  in a public forum.

I don't expect you will be  big enough to retract this  libellous statement but, depending on how I view it's future knock-on effect, I will reserve my rights to take action over it.

I  never had the intention of causing such offence and I am still genuinely sorry it came to this but I do actually think you have made yourself look rather foolish the way you have handled it.

regards

Tony Mackenzie
The Mackenzie Protocol
Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd
worldwide distributor of HTA98

[Anthony_Loera]

Tony,

This issue has always been about copyright violations, editing our document for your own purposes without our permission, and stating the document is in the public domain, when it isn't. I really can't believe you ask me for permission to use the document while continuing to argue that the document is in the "Public Domain". If you can't possibly register how those two conflict, then it is not up to me clear that up for you.

Since you appear not to care about US Copyright law, I reserve all legal rights to enforce our copyrights regarding this action at any time in the future. I am very happy that you admitted that your people edited the document without our permission on on this forum.

I personally find it unsettling that you still think this is about pricing between Cycloastragenol & TA-65.
In my honest personal opinion editing CoA's is the worst thing that any foreign manufacturer can do, and once it's shown that it happens in foreign production facilities, it needs to be addressed for the public well-being (we did something similar for resveratrol here). The public needs to make up their own minds about the facts.

Cheers
A

[improvelifespan]

Dear Anthony,

Why do you stubbornly refuse to recognise that you accepted the amendment we made by thanking me and then changed your mind when you didn't like something I said in response to your haughty attitude about how I run my business.

This is when it got personal.

Our part-time web assistant originally thought he was doing the "right" thing by not including your name as he thought that to include your name would have been be using your name without permission. I have now explained the situation to him and done my best to rectify that issue.

It is quite clear to anyone reading the thread that we did not have any bad  intent and the false claims you have made about us were unwarranted.

You may like to know that the certificate you have listed on the forum was still appearing when I tried it a few minutes ago.

However, although I still maintain that my legal interpretation was correct, I have now completely removed the  link to the forum  hosting of  the certificate anyway as I really don't like bad feeling.

If you had contacted me privately in the first place this slanging match would not have ensued.

I'm quite a gentle soul at heart until I get bullied or  have my integrity impugned and integrity is something I always endeavour to maintain high standards of.

I now feel that I don't really need to display a link to your certificate  to sell my product and it is a pity you can't reciprocate the same goodwill.

Regards

tony@globaltrade-eu.com
Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
Independent Anti Aging Researcher

"300 club" funding member of
The Methuselah Foundation

International member of
The National Health Federation (USA)

Rath Foundation Advanced Course
certificate - cellular medicine

Advantage Impex Co Uk Ltd

[times_are_changing]

Hello Tony,
did you get any laboratory telomere length measurements to bring a difference between telomere length with/without a daily  intake of a  telemerase booster like cycloastragenol / astragaloside ?
Do you have some tech documents related to a human cell culture like MRC-5 human strain showing up a difference between the telomere length when cells are fed/not fed  with a  telomerase booster like cycloastragenol / astragaloside ?
I didn't find out some scientific works asserting such a proof of concept...
Did I make the proper data mining ?
Thank you for bringing some light on this concern....