25 replies to this topic

[MikeDC]

https://patentimages...180147225A1.pdf

[stefan_001]

Just a comment, how can somebody rate info sharing as "dislike" ?

[MikeDC]

Just a comment, how can somebody rate info sharing as "dislike" ?

We have quite a few demons on this board who have been trying to discredit NR everyway they can. I have to say I have never seen so many trash people in any place than here.

[Fredrik]

I find the wording in this patent kind of funny:

 

...a method for breast enhancement in a female mammal (e.g., a human) in need (emphasis mine) thereof.

 

 

What are the symptoms and pathogenesis of small breasts? How is it a medical condition in need of treatment, as Chromadex employee and nicotinamide riboside researcher Charles Brenner describes it in this patent.

 

Maybe small breasts are considered a diseased condition "in need" of treatment in certain cultural settings.

 

I have absolutely nothing against cosmetic improvements, as long as we do not claim that they are needed. The inevitable coming topical and oral NAD precursor treatments of photoaging (wrinkles, hyperpigmentation, enlarged pores, coarse texture and dryness) will probably have the added side effect of photocarcinogenesis prevention. I am all for that.

 

But let us differentiate between what is wanted and what is really needed.

 

 

Edited by Fredrik, 23 June 2018 - 12:39 PM.

[stefan_001]

I find the wording in this patent kind of funny:

 

 

 

What are the symptoms and pathogenesis of small breasts? How is it a medical condition in need of treatment, as Chromadex employee and nicotinamide riboside researcher Charles Brenner describes it in this patent.

 

Maybe small breasts are considered a diseased condition "in need" of treatment in certain cultural settings.

 

I have absolutely nothing against cosmetic improvements, as long as we do not claim that they are needed. The inevitable coming topical and oral NAD precursor treatments of photoaging (wrinkles, hyperpigmentation, enlarged pores, coarse texture and dryness) will probably have the added side effect of photocarcinogenesis prevention. I am all for that.

 

But let us differentiate between what is wanted and what is really needed.

 

Wrt your comments about word choice my view is that ultimately it's nobody's business what a person decides is good for them and whether they are "in need" of something. You cannot decide or judge if it is "needed" for a person to be able to feel good or just wanted like a nice watch or car. This study may lead to a person having more choice - avoid implants. Personally I think it is a remarkable study.
 

Edited by stefan_001, 23 June 2018 - 01:05 PM.

[Fredrik]

EDIT: I am off on a tangent here, please DO get back to discussing the patent this post is about

 

 

Wrt your comments about word choice my view is that ultimately it's nobody's business what a person decides is good for them and whether they are "in need" of something. You cannot decide or judge if it is "needed" for a person to be able to feel good or just wanted like a nice watch or car. This study may lead to a person having more choice - avoid implants. Personally I think it is a remarkable study.
 

 

In some societies we already DO decide and judge what treatments are medically necessary or just wanted to "feel good" though. 

 

In Sweden we have universal healthcare. You do not pay a cent for the most advanced cancer treatments or heart surgery available, it is totally free for all citizens and we do not pay more than 248 dollar A YEAR for drugs per person and there is a limit on how much you pay a year in doctor/health care provider fees.

 

BUT we have decided that anal bleaching, breast implants (unless after accidents or mastectomy), face lifts, teeth whitening, hair transplants etc should not be subsidized by the government because we have decided and judged them to be medically not necessary enough compared to other treatments like open heart surgery, insulin pumps and chemotherapy.

 

So yes, I do think we can and should judge and decide the importance of treatments and interventions. Not morally, but medically and economically.

 

It is a fun patent, I will give you that. I wonder if nicotinamide riboside also works as a penis enlargement pill? I get some strange emails about breast and penis boosting pills from time to time. Gmail has judged and decided them to be spam though.

Edited by Fredrik, 23 June 2018 - 03:09 PM.

[stefan_001]

@Frederik you miss the point. I also live in a country with universal healthcare, which I wholeheartedly support. I could not care more or less about what you and your fellow swedes want to pay for. I am sure that I cannot pick up any anti-aging medication in Sweden either as part of this 248USD per year (which is a lie as you pay also income tax to finance this)? Would that then mean I should not buy Niagen or any anti-aging supplement either because some Swedes think its not needed?

 

I am also sure that there are plenty of female swedes that undergo breast augmentation that makes them feel better, more confident and so on. Your labeling "fun" I think is misplaced. I am sure they would love to have a non invasive low cost alternative. Sounds to me all the "WE" stuff in Sweden has led to a deterioration of individual choice and thinking.

Edited by stefan_001, 23 June 2018 - 03:38 PM.

[Fredrik]

I could not care more or less about what you and your fellow swedes want to pay for. 

 

Sure. That is your prerogative.

 

 

I am sure that I cannot pick up any anti-aging medication in Sweden either as part of this 248USD per year (which is a lie as you pay also income tax to finance this)?

 

 

You are damn right you can not get "anti-aging" supplements subsidized in Sweden. As it should be. I want my tax money used for evidence based medicine.

 

I pay 100% for my supplements, based on A LOT more shaky evidential ground than that applied by the government, mixed with hope, faith and a dash of "what the heck".

 

Since NO "anti-aging medication" exists in Sweden or in the United States or anywhere else that I know of, the same applies there. You will have to pay for that yourself, as it should be until there is evidence of these "anti-aging medications".

 

Would that then mean I should not buy Niagen or any anti-aging supplement either because some Swedes think its not needed?

 

 

Eh, no. You can buy whatever you want and believe in. Just do not expect to get supplements, healing or homeopathy paid for by tax money until there is evidence that they do what they claim.

 

 

Sounds to me all the "WE" stuff in Sweden has led to a deterioration of individual choice and thinking.

 

 

We are the sWEden. Your individual choice and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.

Resistance is futile 

Edited by Fredrik, 23 June 2018 - 06:34 PM.

[stefan_001]

@frederik I dont really get what your tax obsession is. This is a remarkable finding and I am sure that this can be usefull for people in "need" for this. Just like you are in need for your "anti-aging" needs that are not approved by the sWEden - some people might call what you do funny just as you did a few posts earlier about the people needing breast augmentation. Personally I not only buy Niagen of my own money, I also bought a small piece of the company that makes it, so some of this research is in fact funded by me. Is that good enough for contribution?

Edited by stefan_001, 23 June 2018 - 07:43 PM.

[Fredrik]

Then we are co-owners. I bought shares in Chromadex earlier this year (still on + but not by much).

So what?

 

Everyone is obsessed with taxes, no? Whether for or against.

 

I am much more interested in the science of NAD+ precursors than the investing part though. Investing can be fun and/or anxiogenic. I do not care if it is NR, NMN or some other intervention altogether that will provide extension of life- and healthspan.

 

If something, anything, works in blinded human trials of appropriate sample size and power and can be reproduced I am satisfied. Even if I lose every swedish krona invested in Chromadex. 

Edited by Fredrik, 23 June 2018 - 08:33 PM.

[stefan_001]

@fedrerik I am not obsessed with taxes, don't follow your reasonings, you are negative and insulting about potential female needs, use bold far too much probably out of some sense of swedish superiority...so well thanks for the wonderfull discussion

[Fredrik]

To be honest Stefan, I do not follow your reasoning or objections either so let us just agree to disagree (or to be confused).

 

I do use bold far to much. It has gotten out of hand I will try to temper that...swedish superiority (??). Thank you for the banter. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Fredrik, 23 June 2018 - 08:37 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

MikeDC,

 

Gayle63 in post # 1296 of this thread notes:

 

"The most interesting thing is that I haven't gone through menopause, and why that's interesting is that I'm pretty sure I was starting before I began taking the NR. I hadn't stopped having periods (sorry if this is TMI for some of you guys, lol), but I was having some other symptoms, and now they've all gone. I've noticed that NR is mentioned on fertility boards as a fertility supplement (not that I am interested in getting pregnant, ha), so it could be a factor for sure."

 

You add another related example in the same thread.

 

So, is NR somehow affecting hormone production in females? If so, will NR also affect male estrogen production (or maybe testosterone depletion, or perhaps facilitation of aromatase production, etc.)? Estrogen is known to be associated with gynecomastia--something that, perhaps, may be unwanted for many males.

 

Law of Jante

[Supierce]

Yes, I'd be cautious about assuming this study is only interesting for cosmetic reasons. Apart from the example above, if one has estrogen-driven breast cancer, this is a red flag. If one's breasts are too small for breast feeding, this might help If one's breasts are uncomfortably large, this might be smart to avoid, etc.

Edited by Supierce, 24 June 2018 - 02:12 AM.

[MikeDC]

MikeDC,

Gayle63 in post # 1296 of this thread notes:

"The most interesting thing is that I haven't gone through menopause, and why that's interesting is that I'm pretty sure I was starting before I began taking the NR. I hadn't stopped having periods (sorry if this is TMI for some of you guys, lol), but I was having some other symptoms, and now they've all gone. I've noticed that NR is mentioned on fertility boards as a fertility supplement (not that I am interested in getting pregnant, ha), so it could be a factor for sure."

You add another related example in the same thread.

So, is NR somehow affecting hormone production in females? If so, will NR also affect male estrogen production (or maybe testosterone depletion, or perhaps facilitation of aromatase production, etc.)? Estrogen is known to be associated with gynecomastia--something that, perhaps, may be unwanted for many males.

Law of Jante

NR does not increase estrogen production. NR repairs the DNA Chromosome of your eggs and grow new ones so it will significantly delay your menopause if you take NR at younger age. The rejuvenation of eggs was demonstrated by Sinclair with NMN. NR works the same way. Increasing NAD+ Helped chromosomes to rearrange in an orderly fashion. It improves chromosomes repair mechanisms.

[MikeDC]

Yes, I'd be cautious about assuming this study is only interesting for cosmetic reasons. Apart from the example above, if one has estrogen-driven breast cancer, this is a red flag. If one's breasts are too small for breast feeding, this might help If one's breasts are uncomfortably large, this might be smart to avoid, etc.

Remember this study used 10x the normal dose. Also the mechanism is not through estrogen production.
I have 2 breast cancer survivors taking NR. NR repaired the damages from chemo and their health recovered fully.

Edited by MikeDC, 24 June 2018 - 10:16 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Assertions that might not be generally known, probably should require authoritative reference.

 

Assertions that might be generally known, such as “1+1=2”, for example, probably should not require authoritative reference. In the case of 1+1=2 it seems that it would be a waste of time to include reference to a proof such as the exhaustive 1+1=2 proof demonstrated by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in their "Principia Mathematica".

 

Questions, speculation, supposition, opinion, and gedanken-experiment, among others, for example, would seem to be immune from a requirement of authoritative reference.

 

The question of what is "generally known", or not, may be problematical, and thus possibly be subject to debate. A sorites-paradox-type argument regarding “generally known” might ensue among those who differ in an assessment as to whether a particular assertion is, indeed, "generally known".

 

In my opinion, an assertion such as: "Estrogen is known to be associated with gynecomastia" might not be generally known to be true, and thus would require an authoritative reference to support the claim.

 

Clicking on the hyperlink "gynecomastia" will open a Mayo Clinic Proceedings document entitled "Gynecomastia: Pathophysiology, Evaluation, and Management".

 

The first sentence of that document's abstract reads: "Gynecomastia, defined as benign proliferation of male breast glandular tissue, is usually caused by increased estrogen activity, decreased testosterone activity, or the use of numerous medications.". The mention of "estrogen" and its connection to gynecomastia in that sentence validates the assertion of "associated with", as claimed above, and thus the "authoritative reference" is provided.

 

 

 

MikeDC, in post #16 of this thread you asseverate that: "Remember this study used 10x the normal dose. Also the mechanism is not through estrogen production.".

 

I suspect that the validity of those above claims are not generally known. Please provide an authoritative reference(s) that validates your claims regarding dosage and mechanism. After you have satisfactorily done so, I, for one, will undo the "Needs references" tag that I put on your post.

 

As to the perhaps nebulous "satisfactorily", mentioned above, I'll just paraphrase United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: "I'll know it when I see it."

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 25 June 2018 - 01:48 AM.

[MikeDC]

If you care to read the patent before criticizing people, you will find the dose was mentioned in the patent. Male has much less estrogen than female, so a lot more estrogen might enlarge the breast a little bit. But women already have large amount of estrogen and a little more will not make much difference. Besides, NR does not increase estrogen release. There has been no report of enlarged breast from people taking higher doses of Niagen. My estrogen level has been stable since taking Niagen.

[Harkijn]

Assertions ..... I see it."

Strutting your stuff here may be amusing to us and no doubt a great relief to you, but MikeDC has brought forward a number of  very valid points.

The NR dosage is high.

The patent clearly states that NR does not work via influencing estrogen levels but by growth stimulation through higher tissue levels of NAD.

[Harkijn]

An important point missed by us sofar: this NR patent also targets  women of a 'more advanced age' who want to keep their breasts firm. While there are relatively affordable 'hormonal' breast growing options (hop creams, drinking beer) there is not yet much solace for the sagging breasts of 30plus women. AFAIK....

Edited by Harkijn, 25 June 2018 - 03:40 PM.

[MikeDC]

An important point missed by us sofar: this NR patent also targets women of a 'more advanced age' who want to keep their breasts firm. While there are relatively affordable 'hormonal' breast growing options (hop creams, drinking beer) there is not yet much solace for the sagging breasts of 30plus women. AFAIK....

This applies to young women too. Women who a lot of exercise will have firmer breast than women who doesn’t exercise. NR replicate good effects of exercise.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Harkijn, re your post #19:

 

You wrote: "The patent clearly states that NR does not work via influencing estrogen levels but by growth stimulation through higher tissue levels of NAD."

 

Read the Patent Application Publication again. Harkijn. No mention of "estrogen" appears anywhere in that document. You might as well have said: "The patent clearly states that NR does not work via influencing gut bacteria levels...", because "gut bacteria" doesn't appear in the document either.

 

As to the second part of that sentence, I'll address it in a subsequent post in a few days (where "few" might mean 2 or more days). In the interregnum you might want to consider proffering a corrigendum to your assertion--as a preemptive measure to avoid something or another (hah, hah).

 

You also wrote: "Strutting your stuff here may be amusing to us and no doubt a great relief to you, but MikeDC has brought forward a number of  very valid points.".

 

My response is: LOL--I'll leave it to the reader(s) to guess if the "LOL" applies to the stuff before the comma, after the comma, or both. LOL

 

 

 

MikeDC, in your post #16 you wrote: "Remember this study used 10x the normal dose.". If the "normal dose" (whatever that means, you don't say) is 30mg/kg then the factor is 100x, not 10x. I make a lot of typos and your "10x" may have been a typo too, so, no big deal--except that the record is now corrected. More on dosage in a subsequent post which will appear in a few days, where "few" might mean 2 or more days--hint: a rat isn't a mouse.

 

My comment(s) on your post #18 will appear later.

 

 

 

[Harkijn]

 

 

 

My comment(s) will appear later.

Don't hurry.

 

The  only pertinent remark you posted was about the  mention of estrogen in the patent. No, he does not say estrogen, he says hormones   .

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #23.

 

On advice of counsel [That's you, Harkijn, I just appropriated you as such--hope you don't mind. I also hope that you won't expect remuneration. Your middle name is "Pro Bono" (not to be confused with being "for" a particular U2 member) isn't it? I hope, I hope.] I'm  extending my estimated time-to-posting from the original "2 or more days" to "unspecified".

 

Counsel's sage advice (no, not hints for using the herb) of "Don't hurry." is well taken.

 

 

Now, back to my nitpicking (it's part of my job description--see my nick).

 

Who is the "he" you refer to in post #23? There are several women (I'm guessing based on name) listed as "Inventors" in the Patent  Application? Also, it's unknown as to whether any of the inventors actually wrote all or part the Patent Application.

 

Note that I use "Patent Application" here and "Patent Application Publication" elsewhere in this thread, hoping that you'll eventually get the hint and make proper reference to the document under discussion (it's not a "patent").

 

You write in post #23: "No, he does not say estrogen, he says hormones    .".

 

Sorry, but "he" doesn't say "hormones" "he" says "hormone" and where mentioned in the Patent Application--in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section--it's not in direct reference concerning the way(s) in which NR might affect mice and rats: 

 

"Regarding the herbs/creams, there is generally is a lack of evidence for efficacy, long-term safety concerns and these products may result in untraceable effects the body's natural hormone levels. Thus, there is a need for new methods and therapies for breast enhancement and/or promoting mammary gland development.". (Bolding and italic are my emphases in the former quote.)

 

In this case, "hormone" is a hapax legomenon for the document.

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 26 June 2018 - 08:02 AM.

[Harkijn]

Re: post #23. document.

TLDR

[Advocatus Diaboli]

MikeDC re: post #21

 

Do you have some authoritative references to back up the 3 claims found in the sentence below?:

 

"This applies to young women too. Women who a lot of exercise will have firmer breast than women who doesn’t exercise. NR replicate good effects of exercise."

 

Thanks, your friend 妖精, er, I mean Advocatus Diaboli

 

Harkijn, re post #25--I infer from the "TLDR" reply to a relatively short post, that you might not have read J. J. Voskuil's "Het Bureau"?