Sinclair and New Resveratrol Product

JCarlson,

99% of the supplements sold use resveratrol from Polygonum Cuspidatum.
I am not asking you to stop taking your favorite supplement, just to have your facts straight and not embellish it with incorrect information.

So far from your posts, you cite "Ellagic Acid" as the main motivator to buy this product, and not resveratrol... which can be found in many other products that are cheaper in price.

Is that the sum of your statements?

A

Furthermore,
does it really matter where the resveratrol comes from as long as it is pure? Personally, as a consumer of resveratrol, I want a safe pure source at the best price possible. If it costs more to extract say from grape skins, I'm not buying - unless, of course, it is Not pure and the grape skins offer something more.

Now I digress (sorry):

My take on the industry is that we really do not know a whole lot about resveratrol at this point - either its long term effects OR the proper dosage to take for health maintenaince, cancer, heart disease, osteoperosis. It is amazing how many products have come out since November of 2006 - many of which have been introduced by the same companies. This is because the science is rapidly evolving and the supply chain is scaling up as demand increases. From a business standpoint, is there really a first mover advantage at this point in the game? Look at Longevin$. They have introduced 3 different iterations of their product in 2.5 years. That does not instill very much confidence in this consumer with regard to their knowlege of resveratrol science. Got to go take some resveratrol. Later.

JCarlson,

99% of the supplements sold use resveratrol from Polygonum Cuspidatum.
I am not asking you to stop taking your favorite supplement, just to have your facts straight and not embellish it with incorrect information.

So far from your posts, you cite "Ellagic Acid" as the main motivator to buy this product, and not resveratrol... which can be found in many other products that are cheaper in price.

Is that the sum of your statements?

A

Anthony,

The sum of my statements is that I am getting positive results from Vivix. Call it an intellectual victory on your end but then again I'm not a scientist or a sales rep. Only time will tell whether or not Vivix can stand up to products such as your own. I hold Shaklee in high regard because of it's 50 year history and the fact that scientists such as one of the world's top immunologists, Dr. Kojima, and one of the world's top biologists and anti-aging expert, Dr. Sinclair, chose to work with Shaklee on developing it's products. Was it really for the money?

jcarlson,

It is more complicated than money, I am sure. Most scientists, most true scientists have an innate competitiveness with their collegues. That is why many scientists and researchers in Universities do not like to share their data until after it's published, and why many do consulting with companies that help build their CV as well as reputation in the academic community.

Public companies however, are required to keep share prices at a certain level and maybe even produce items that will make shareholders happy. It is difficult to know if the product made was actually intended to have 100mg, or if it changed over time to keep prices low since it would be used in a MLM. At this time, we simply do not know.

In the end the marketing used tries to combine muscadine and resveratrol (from japanese knotweed), and confuse the resveratrol science done by Dr Sinclair regarding longevity and diabetes with the AGE accronym (Advanced glycation endproduct), which is based on different research and not something that Dr. Sinclair worked on.

I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for the marketing, as he is not in charge of marketing the product for the public company and probably only wanted to expand his CV and help promote a supplement for a fee from a company that has helped him for many years. In my opinion however, I do think it was a mistake to try and combine different research, regarding AGE, Longevity and Resveratrol in confusing marketing materials, videos, and statements.

It seems like it confused folks like yourself, and fear it has probably confused others as well.

A

jcarlson,

It is more complicated than money, I am sure. Most scientists, most true scientists have an innate competitiveness with their collegues. That is why many scientists and researchers in Universities do not like to share their data until after it's published, and why many do consulting with companies that help build their CV as well as reputation in the academic community.

Public companies however, are required to keep share prices at a certain level and maybe even produce items that will make shareholders happy. It is difficult to know if the product made was actually intended to have 100mg, or if it changed over time to keep prices low since it would be used in a MLM. At this time, we simply do not know.

In the end the marketing used tries to combine muscadine and resveratrol (from japanese knotweed), and confuse the resveratrol science done by Dr Sinclair regarding longevity and diabetes with the AGE accronym (Advanced glycation endproduct), which is based on different research and not something that Dr. Sinclair worked on.

I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for the marketing, as he is not in charge of marketing the product for the public company and probably only wanted to expand his CV and help promote a supplement for a fee from a company that has helped him for many years. In my opinion however, I do think it was a mistake to try and combine different research, regarding AGE, Longevity and Resveratrol in confusing marketing materials, videos, and statements.

It seems like it confused folks like yourself, and fear it has probably confused others as well.

A

Anthony,

You make several good points, but I'm not sure if you meant to say Shaklee is a public company, which it is not. I may not be as clear on the science as you are, but the results leave me with no doubts. If the marketing is a mistake on Shaklee's part, it will ultimately harm them, and possibly Dr. Sinclair's reputation. What is most important is that the product is safe and doesn't harm people. If someone tries the product out of confusion from the marketing, and they find it doesn't work, they can get their money back. It will be interesting to see whether Shaklee or similar companies continue to team with celebrity scientists in the years to come.

Ah, I was looking at the Japanese Sh*klee, or maybe it was the one in San Francisco Sh*klee... that one is public. However, the rest of my post regarding the product remains the same even if they are a corporation regarding product development.

You mention safety many times, care to elaborate where the FDA is failing the consumer? I have my own ideas, but I wanted to know what you meant by the phrase. Also, I didn't know Sh*klee had a money back guarantee, do they? How does it work?

A

Ah, I was looking at the Japanese Sh*klee, or maybe it was the one in San Francisco Sh*klee... that one is public. However, the rest of my post regarding the product remains the same even if they are a corporation regarding product development.

You mention safety many times, care to elaborate where the FDA is failing the consumer? I have my own ideas, but I wanted to know what you meant by the phrase. Also, I didn't know Sh*klee had a money back guarantee, do they? How does it work?

A

Shaklee Global Group Inc., which operates the Japan based Shaklee, is public. Shaklee Corporation is privately held. As for the FDA, I do not believe they are doing their job in terms of product safety and efficacy. I'm sure we can both agree that there are countless nutritional supplement products out there that are either totally ineffective or may have harmful impurities. With that being said, it's also the consumer's responsibility to do some research on what they're taking. The sad part is that many people think that if it's on the shelves, it must be safe and it must work. That simply is not the case with many products these days.

Regarding the money back guarantee, they state on the website that "If for any reason a Shaklee Product is not satisfactory, return it to your Shaklee Independent Distributor or Shaklee Corporation for exchange or full refund." It's a nice thing to have, although I don't think too many people return their products.

Thanks...

I was wondering about the return, as I wanted to send our Vivi* order back to Shak*ee.

A

Thanks...

I was wondering about the return, as I wanted to send our Vivi* order back to Shak*ee.

A

Why the asterisks? Are these dirty words? Vivix Vivix Vivix! Shaklee Shaklee Shaklee! You see, they may represent something unsavory but I promise they won't hurt you.

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 16 December 2008 - 09:26 PM.

Funk,

we were contacted by the company, and the lawyer personally asked us not to use their name.

Thanks
A

In the end the marketing used tries to combine muscadine and resveratrol (from japanese knotweed), and confuse the resveratrol science done by Dr Sinclair regarding longevity and diabetes with the AGE accronym (Advanced glycation endproduct), which is based on different research and not something that Dr. Sinclair worked on.

I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for the marketing, as he is not in charge of marketing the product for the public company and probably only wanted to expand his CV and help promote a supplement for a fee from a company that has helped him for many years. In my opinion however, I do think it was a mistake to try and combine different research, regarding AGE, Longevity and Resveratrol in confusing marketing materials, videos, and statements.

It seems like it confused folks like yourself, and fear it has probably confused others as well.

Again, I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for leaving the supplement company. I am surprised his press release noted the issue with marketing which is similar to what I mentioned previously.

I do wish him well, and hope that if he was interested of dealing with supplements companies again to instead deal with a single lab that tests supplements instead. A partnership like this with a lab like AACL, or the a group like the NPA as a new program, could verify resveratrol in products at various amounts, and those that met his standards would have a "seal of approval" by Sinclair.

If the lab also did regular GMP testing for companies, I believe many supplement companies would seriously consider the new lab for their day to day GMP tests as well, not just the "Sinclair Seal".

I would certainly pay for this type of lab verification, and I am sure many others would seriously consider it as well. He wins, good companies that produced a quality product would win, and we would then argue about price, studies and benefits, and not resveratrol quality because of regular GMP tests for every batch.

Who wouldn't want Sinclair to say that he approves of a particular supplement?

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 28 December 2008 - 03:55 AM.

In the end the marketing used tries to combine muscadine and resveratrol (from japanese knotweed), and confuse the resveratrol science done by Dr Sinclair regarding longevity and diabetes with the AGE accronym (Advanced glycation endproduct), which is based on different research and not something that Dr. Sinclair worked on.

I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for the marketing, as he is not in charge of marketing the product for the public company and probably only wanted to expand his CV and help promote a supplement for a fee from a company that has helped him for many years. In my opinion however, I do think it was a mistake to try and combine different research, regarding AGE, Longevity and Resveratrol in confusing marketing materials, videos, and statements.

It seems like it confused folks like yourself, and fear it has probably confused others as well.

Again, I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for leaving the supplement company. I am surprised his press release noted the issue with marketing which is similar to what I mentioned previously.

I do wish him well, and hope that if he was interested of dealing with supplements companies again to instead deal with a single lab that tests supplements instead. A partnership like this with a lab like AACL, or the a group like the NPA as a new program, could verify resveratrol in products at various amounts, and those that met his standards would have a "seal of approval" by Sinclair.

If the lab also did regular GMP testing for companies, I believe many supplement companies would seriously consider the new lab for their day to day GMP tests as well, not just the "Sinclair Seal".

I would certainly pay for this type of lab verification, and I am sure many others would seriously consider it as well. He wins, good companies that produced a quality product would win, and we would then argue about price, studies and benefits, and not resveratrol quality because of regular GMP tests for every batch.

Who wouldn't want Sinclair to say that he approves of a particular supplement?

Cheers
A

Here's the link for everyone confused with Anthony's last post: http://online.wsj.co.....eTabs=article

This is unfortunate, but after watching the video of Dr. Sinclair explaining why he became a member of the advisory board I question whether he quit because of the the use of his name in the marketing, when Shaklee insists that every use of his name was predetermined and fully agreed upon by Dr. Sinclair. I hope to hear more from both sides in the next few weeks. If this is really about the marketing then Sinclair should have known in the first place that this would happen.

In the end the marketing used tries to combine muscadine and resveratrol (from japanese knotweed), and confuse the resveratrol science done by Dr Sinclair regarding longevity and diabetes with the AGE accronym (Advanced glycation endproduct), which is based on different research and not something that Dr. Sinclair worked on.

I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for the marketing, as he is not in charge of marketing the product for the public company and probably only wanted to expand his CV and help promote a supplement for a fee from a company that has helped him for many years. In my opinion however, I do think it was a mistake to try and combine different research, regarding AGE, Longevity and Resveratrol in confusing marketing materials, videos, and statements.

It seems like it confused folks like yourself, and fear it has probably confused others as well.

Again, I don't blame Dr. Sinclair for leaving the supplement company. I am surprised his press release noted the issue with marketing which is similar to what I mentioned previously.

I do wish him well, and hope that if he was interested of dealing with supplements companies again to instead deal with a single lab that tests supplements instead. A partnership like this with a lab like AACL, or the a group like the NPA as a new program, could verify resveratrol in products at various amounts, and those that met his standards would have a "seal of approval" by Sinclair.

If the lab also did regular GMP testing for companies, I believe many supplement companies would seriously consider the new lab for their day to day GMP tests as well, not just the "Sinclair Seal".

I would certainly pay for this type of lab verification, and I am sure many others would seriously consider it as well. He wins, good companies that produced a quality product would win, and we would then argue about price, studies and benefits, and not resveratrol quality because of regular GMP tests for every batch.

Who wouldn't want Sinclair to say that he approves of a particular supplement?

Cheers
A

Here's the link for everyone confused with Anthony's last post: http://online.wsj.co.....eTabs=article

This is unfortunate, but after watching the video of Dr. Sinclair explaining why he became a member of the advisory board I question whether he quit because of the the use of his name in the marketing, when Shaklee insists that every use of his name was predetermined and fully agreed upon by Dr. Sinclair. I hope to hear more from both sides in the next few weeks. If this is really about the marketing then Sinclair should have known in the first place that this would happen.

My guess is that Dr. Sinclair, as an Aussie, was not familiar with the stigma of middle level marketing companies (whether this stigma is deserved or not). He probably thought Shacklee would be the best vehicle to get resveratrol to the masses (i.e. speed being the most important concern). I believe he was a bit naivee, but had nothing BUT good intentions.

One thing that does worry me about Dr. Sinclair, Wetphal, and the whole Sirtris gang is that they might have mislead the world into believing that ultra high dose resveratrol is the only effective way to consume resveratrol. For one thing, they never published the results of the lower dose studies even though lower dose studies were conducted (save for the diabetes study and diabetes treatment is Not the main benefit of resveratrol therapy - it is perhaps a side benefit). Also, if ultra high dose is the only way to go, how come Dr. Sinclair associated himself with a relatively low dose product such as V$vix? It does not make sense.

I believe Glaxo did not expect resveratrol delivery technology to progress as fast as it has. They cannot contain this animal.

If a higher dose is in fact needed, then we now have mechanisms for allowing this - tween, micronization, sublingual delivery etc. - and perhaps in the future a resveratrol patch, resveratrol gum, resveratrol fortified wine, beer, food, sports drinks etc. With this in mind, I am very optomistic that humanity will benefit from resveratrol and sirtuin therapy without having to go through Big Pharma to get the benefits.

Edited by Ringostarr, 30 December 2008 - 03:44 PM.