Ground Breaking - Not sure if you're allowed to put up links in these, if not let me know and I'll put in the web address.
Crep
Posted 27 August 2008 - 06:46 AM
Posted 27 August 2008 - 04:32 PM
More like BALL BREAKING.Ground Breaking - Not sure if you're allowed to put up links in these, if not let me know and I'll put in the web address.
Crep
Posted 27 August 2008 - 07:00 PM
Posted 27 August 2008 - 09:16 PM
Posted 28 August 2008 - 12:04 AM
Posted 28 August 2008 - 04:59 AM
Posted 28 August 2008 - 07:52 AM
I guess he gave up hope for a Nobel Prize. He'll have to settle for Shaklee employee of the month.
Posted 28 August 2008 - 09:04 AM
Posted 28 August 2008 - 04:06 PM
Gang, why are you ragging on him? The guy's allowed to make money, and a lot of it. And part of that is saying cheesey things and doing publicity, etc. To me people who say things like "selling out" are bitter and not wealthy. I'm sure he cares that someone on a thread thinks he's selling out as he rolls around in his money. He's making money man, you should applaud him unless he's hurting someone, and I don't believe that to be the case. Peace. By the wayl, "Ground Breaking" was what the link said, I didn't type that.
CrepI guess he gave up hope for a Nobel Prize. He'll have to settle for Shaklee employee of the month.
Posted 01 September 2008 - 09:55 AM
Sorry, Crep., but I'll have to disagree with you. I have no problems with someone making $ in a capitalist society but as a Harvard professor, he (Sinclair) has to be held to higher standards. Starting your own small biotech company and going public or selling it are great ways for someone of his caliber to make their fortune. Writing a novel is also fine. Schlocking an imperfect product with dubious claims from a "shaky" company-No! That is not suitable for a Harvard professor. I can guarantee that many of his Harvard colleagues have lost a lot of respect for him. Personally, as another academic, I can no longer take his science as seriously anymore. I will no longer read one of his scientific papers with quite the same regard.
Gang, why are you ragging on him? The guy's allowed to make money, and a lot of it. And part of that is saying cheesey things and doing publicity, etc. To me people who say things like "selling out" are bitter and not wealthy. I'm sure he cares that someone on a thread thinks he's selling out as he rolls around in his money. He's making money man, you should applaud him unless he's hurting someone, and I don't believe that to be the case. Peace. By the wayl, "Ground Breaking" was what the link said, I didn't type that.
CrepI guess he gave up hope for a Nobel Prize. He'll have to settle for Shaklee employee of the month.
Posted 01 September 2008 - 03:48 PM
Posted 01 September 2008 - 03:54 PM
I guess he gave up hope for a Nobel Prize. He'll have to settle for Shaklee employee of the month.
Edited by DukeNukem, 01 September 2008 - 03:56 PM.
Posted 03 September 2008 - 11:28 AM
Malbec, with all due respect, I don't believe he cares, nor is it relevant wether or not you read his scientific papers anymore. Yes he can make money selling his biotech company and yes he can make it writing a book, and yes, he can also make it selling a product which you make assumptions to be "shaky". First, we have no science on it yet, so you're purely speculating, unless you have some newly found info. Another important note, though it seems you may doubt his philanthropic abilities, he truly may be doing this for the good of the people. As he's previously stated, it will take another 5-7 years before his GSK venture sees the market, so this is his intermediary to supplement his science to the people. I believe he has noble aspirations, and yes wants to make a lot of money in the meantime. Now, if something comes up dissproving the science of his new Shaklee venture, then of course my perception of this whole encounter will change, but until then, as I stated before, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, as he has thus far earned it.
CrepSorry, Crep., but I'll have to disagree with you. I have no problems with someone making $ in a capitalist society but as a Harvard professor, he (Sinclair) has to be held to higher standards. Starting your own small biotech company and going public or selling it are great ways for someone of his caliber to make their fortune. Writing a novel is also fine. Schlocking an imperfect product with dubious claims from a "shaky" company-No! That is not suitable for a Harvard professor. I can guarantee that many of his Harvard colleagues have lost a lot of respect for him. Personally, as another academic, I can no longer take his science as seriously anymore. I will no longer read one of his scientific papers with quite the same regard.
Gang, why are you ragging on him? The guy's allowed to make money, and a lot of it. And part of that is saying cheesey things and doing publicity, etc. To me people who say things like "selling out" are bitter and not wealthy. I'm sure he cares that someone on a thread thinks he's selling out as he rolls around in his money. He's making money man, you should applaud him unless he's hurting someone, and I don't believe that to be the case. Peace. By the wayl, "Ground Breaking" was what the link said, I didn't type that.
CrepI guess he gave up hope for a Nobel Prize. He'll have to settle for Shaklee employee of the month.
Posted 03 September 2008 - 01:09 PM
Total cholesterol was significantly reduced in 22-month-old non-obese mice after 10 months of resveratrol treatment, although triglyceride levels had only a slight, non-significant trend toward a decrease. Further, the aortas of 18-month-old obese and non-obese mice treated with resveratrol functioned significantly better than untreated mice. Resveratrol also moderated inflammation in the heart. In addition to cardiovascular function, the scientists found resveratrol to have a variety of positive effects on other age-related problems in mice:
* Treated mice tended to have better bone health, as measured by thickness, volume, mineral content and density, and bending stiffness compared to the non-treated control group.
* At 30 months of age, resveratrol-treated mice were found to have reduced cataract formation, a condition found to increase with age in control-group mice.
* Resveratrol enhanced balance and motor coordination in aged animals. Scientists found significant improvement in performance at 21 and 24 months versus 15 months in the resveratrol-treated mice but not in the untreated mice.
* Resveratrol partially mimicked the effects of dietary restriction on the gene expression profiles of liver, skeletal muscle and adipose (fatty) tissue in mice.
Along with determining the effect of resveratrol on the health of mice, scientists also studied the effect of resveratrol on longevity.
"We found that while quality of life improved with resveratrol, the compound did not significantly affect overall survival or maximum lifespan for mice on a standard diet, compared to mice on the same diet without resveratrol," said de Cabo.
Posted 10 September 2008 - 01:41 AM
Posted 10 September 2008 - 02:31 AM
Edited by Anthony_Loera, 10 September 2008 - 02:33 AM.
Posted 10 September 2008 - 04:19 AM
Posted 10 September 2008 - 11:33 AM
Personally, as another academic, I can no longer take his science as seriously anymore. I will no longer read one of his scientific papers with quite the same regard.
Posted 10 September 2008 - 02:18 PM
thank you for that information. so, you are saying the extra ingredients are helpful for issues surrounding glycosylation, but the vivix people seem to be claiming that those ingredients directly increase the effectiveness of the RSV. (10 times more effective!!)
do you think those ingredients affect the action of RSV at all? i admit i know very little about this subject.
Edited by Anthony_Loera, 10 September 2008 - 02:19 PM.
Posted 10 September 2008 - 02:35 PM
No it's just marketing...
Even in the Shackleee video on vi*x, the have "advanced glycosylation end products" in tiny print on the screen, when they mention 10x more effective.
Posted 12 September 2008 - 01:00 PM
Posted 12 September 2008 - 03:11 PM
I just looked at some of the promotional materials and was surprised to learn that each serving contains 100mg of resveratrol. It comes in a 30-day supply ans supplies 3,000mg of resveratrol over that timeframe. Now I understand where they get the 3,000 glasses of wine equivalent, i.e. they use 1mg per glass as a conversion factor, which seems fair.
Posted 14 September 2008 - 04:45 PM
No it's just marketing...
Even in the Shackleee video on vi*x, the have "advanced glycosylation end products" in tiny print on the screen, when they mention 10x more effective.
Which means that it is only regarding "advanced glycosylation end products".
When people (MLM sales people) state 10x better about effectiveness without mentioning "advanced glycosylation end products" is like stating, the US Government is now 10x more effective, simply because we have created a new weapon that helps the army destroy many more enemies. Well the government is composed of many branches, state, health and a myriad of helpful services, not just the Army... so only the Army maybe more effective, but not the other aspects of government.
hmm... I think that example is a bit of a stretch, but I hope the meaning came through.
Athank you for that information. so, you are saying the extra ingredients are helpful for issues surrounding glycosylation, but the vivix people seem to be claiming that those ingredients directly increase the effectiveness of the RSV. (10 times more effective!!)
do you think those ingredients affect the action of RSV at all? i admit i know very little about this subject.
Edited by 100YearsToGo, 14 September 2008 - 05:03 PM.
Posted 15 September 2008 - 04:08 PM
I just looked at some of the promotional materials and was surprised to learn that each serving contains 100mg of resveratrol. It comes in a 30-day supply ans supplies 3,000mg of resveratrol over that timeframe. Now I understand where they get the 3,000 glasses of wine equivalent, i.e. they use 1mg per glass as a conversion factor, which seems fair.
Billy, I believe it's a maximum of 33mg a serving from estimates of how much is in the average bottle of wine, and not 100mg.
Nothing I have read states 100mg.
Cheers
A
Posted 15 September 2008 - 05:20 PM
Edited by Anthony_Loera, 15 September 2008 - 05:26 PM.
Posted 15 September 2008 - 05:34 PM
Posted 15 September 2008 - 06:52 PM
ok, I corrected the Resveratrol Price Watch...
the product stands at $33 per resveratrol gram instead of $99 per resveratrol gram...
Still quite high compared to most products on the list...
A
Posted 15 September 2008 - 07:23 PM
Posted 15 September 2008 - 08:31 PM
You are funny!
Here is your superfruit:
* Muscadine (vitis rotundifolia):
You can buy 120 capsules of Muscadine grape extract(500mg) for $14.99
* European black elderberry:
You can buy 15 Lozenges containing Black Edlerberry for $1.43 ($2.86 for 30 should be enough...)
* Daucus Carota Sativus, commonly known as the carrot can be bought at a variety of places (hmm... how much are carrots now-a-days?) accroding to this... these guys are pretty normal carrots:
http://www.floridata...auc_car_sat.cfm
Sounds to me like folks can save a bundle if they buy resveratrol, and the super fruit separately...
A
Posted 19 September 2008 - 02:03 PM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users