When I've previously read statements like: Yes we are EXTREMELY litigious. The sentiment I experience is one of a threatening, bullying, uncooperative agent wishing to convey 'I will protect my myself at ANY COST'. That almost sounds like a noble sentiment, though unfortunately it isn't. The issue is of responsbility. We frequently witness in a range of areas in life how the persistent threat of litigation facilitates indefinite wrong-doing since the risk-reward profile of risking litigation isn't justifiable for the complainant. Legitimate complaints, failures, abuse, neglect go unreported and the suffering grows until at best some critical level is reached and the fall-out starts. With c60 there is no much uncertainty there needs to be open dialogue, continual investigation not repression of analysis of products.
Independent testing of an unregulated product, as Ichor did, is a responsible thing to do for the c60 community. We were/are all taking risks with c60, for the betterment of ourselves and for mankind. Surely you see this as a worthwhile thing to do? You may question their intentions, that is your right; however, quality-testing c60oo vendor's products is a necessary function for the entire c60 community, whose future well-being is something in which you hold a vested interest. Surely you must agree that regulation of c60oo vendors is necessary, or are you against regulation in general, if not then why specifically should c60 oil be excluded from it? I have never heard your champion such a cause, you have simply only offered your word and unshakeable belief in your product. I'm quite certain with your knowledge of the industry, you would not consider verbal reassurance sufficient from a person you've never known who could profit from blind faith. This is the problem we all face in the supplement industry: sorting the wheat from the chaff. As consumers we need evidence of proof and confidence.
You expected us all to accept your word that your product is as described, cannot be harmful, that your processes are faultless; yet you do not accept the word of anyone challenging it. We are to believe your integrity not Kelsey Moody's - when most of us know neither of you. Now fine, you may feel aggrieved with their findings, believe the results to be false, perhaps you're right. But getting your product tested by an independent third party is something you should be doing and should have done from the outset. That is the responsible thing to do - the product is not regulated but it very clearly should be regulated since there is uncertainty over toxicity. This was the case regardless of Kmoody's toxicity claims - as the saying goes 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. We are all taking a risk with c60oo and you are providing a service and profiting from it. That's fine but mitigating our risk, through ensuring the quality of your product and sponsoring further safety studies should be in your domain of responsibility and charged in the price. A race to zero on price, unfortunately is in nobody's interest, since it can induce the irrational compromisation of both vendor and consumer risk.
Rather than simply deny the problem or threaten litigation - the responsible response should have been 'what if he is right, what's going on here, how could this have happened?'.
Why not immediately have posted to this effect. How impressive it would have been to have suspended sales, investigated the matter, encouraged users to send samples to another independent lab recommended by say longecity. Then if the concentration levels are confirmed encourage users to send in samples once you've corrected the process to assure them it is safe.
A company acknowledging the need for consumer confidence in what an is unregulated industry and sets up a regulatory framework would have the respect and custom of this community and the wider c60 community. One that simply threatens any dissenting voices with litigation is a company I wold avoid, since I would sense its singular objective is its own survival and well-being.
As for threatening Kmoody with litigation. The vendor product which caused toxicity in the leukemia mice wasn't yours, but rather SES. He has had dialogue with them, yet they didn't litigate. The acute toxicity caused by extreme light exposure with your product but rather Ichor's own mix, you have no patent on c60oo: he can do that. So your problem is with concentration levels. This you want to litigate over. My understanding is that the concentration levels can be off through the product of damaging epoxides within the oil - no vendor has consistently passed test with Ichor: you're not being singled out. Why not simply encourage people to send in their VW samples to another lab and see what the results are and critically how consistent they are. That would be of far greater service to your customers, than silencing dissenting voices with law-suits.
In addition you have claimed that Turnbuckle is lying. Are you aware of the legal definition of lying? Making a false statement doesn't constitute lying: you need intent. My understanding is quite simple. Turnbuckle took significant doses of c70. He experienced unpleasant side-effects. He has explained how this can be harmful at a cellular level. He has claimed that your baking process doesn't eliminate the c70 impurities. Can you refute that claim? If you can prove this then there is no problem and your potential customers will be reassured that they don't have to worry about c70 contaminants: this is quite straightforward and important.
Edited by ambivalent, 03 November 2017 - 05:03 PM.