• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Resveratrol?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 joe57777

  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 19 January 2009 - 04:08 AM


After reading more and more posts, I want to believe that resveratrol is what it is claimed to be. However, maybe I am missing something or many things. While I understand what some people are claiming that 99%, 98%, 97% pure (what did the mice have?) Why would they sell a 50% version if that is not what the mice had? Powder vs capsule (what did the mice have?), taken with this vitamin and or that vitamin, with this substance or with that substance, taken all at once, taken once a-day, twice a -day, 3 times a-day, 50mg or 1500mg, amodin (good against cancer but get diarrhea) or no amodin. Bottom line question is simple : did it or did it not prolong life in mice? I believe the answer was that it did prolong life in mice. Now did it not prolong life in mice just fine in the form (powder or capsule), in the purity (99%, 98%, 97% or was it the 50% with the amodin) and with X-brand or Y-brand. Therefore, can we not say that when a human is given resveratrol in the same form (capsule or powder), the same brand (X or Y), the same strength (99%, 98%, 97% or 50% with amodin) at the same frequency and time of day, using the same amount of resveratrol that would be the approximately the same ratio equivalent amount given to human as was given to the mice in the study. Now if all the variables are the same in the humans as were in the mice, then common sense would suggest that if life was prolonged in the mice then if resveratrol were to work in humans it should not need ANY OTHER VARIABLES (chemicals, larger or smaller doses, vitamins, minerals, metals, other drugs, etc...) Because if there are other variables needed, that makes me skeptical. As far as the claims about curing skin cancer by rubbing it on the cancer leasion, and shrinking tumors, etc... If that were true about the cancer, then why would Reveratrol not be in every hospital, clinic, or any medical facility with cancer patients at this moment treating every person with it?

In addition, by all this talk about Resveratrol giving people energy and how they can work out better, run, bicycle, etc... also with the "rush" buzz effect or super caffiene type anxiety effect it can have is Resveratrol a substance that prolongs life or a sper energy drink compound of some sort? My point is mostly that what differnce does it make it someone can workout better? Did the mice have to work out to extend their life? In other words, why would the person that does not get the time to exercise or eat properly care about taking Resveratrol if they need to have to work out intensely and or always eat properly to get the prolong life effect. In other words, what I should not only be hearing people saying in these forums (in addition to having more energy and stamina) is that they feel younger (maybe their eyesight is getting better, less or no aches and pains, recovery times always less and never more, etc...) but also they should be saying that they look younger (their skin is getting thicker, they are losing their wrinkles and gray hair, etc...) and this should be happening regardless if they are exercising or eating properly as long as they are relatively a healthy person. Or is this not the substance that has that kind of effect on the body that HGH is claimed to have in some degree?

Finally, I will repost (sorry I do not mean to be redundant but I need to make my point here) an article on Clioquinol. Is anyone interested in getting a forum started on being a human guinea pig for this potential "anti aging" drug? Below is about the drug Clioquinol:

"Clioquinol, an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, inhibits action of the CLK1 aging gene, may reverse Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases."

"According to Dr. Siegfried Hekimi and colleagues at McGill's Department of Biology, clioquinol acts directly on a protein called CLK-1, often informally called "clock-1," and might slow down the aging process"

"Clioquinol is a very powerful inhibitor of clock-1," explained Hekimi, McGill's Strathcona Chair of Zoology and Robert Archibald & Catherine Louise Campbell Chair in Developmental Biology. "Because clock-1 affects longevity in invertebrates and mice, and because we're talking about three age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases, we hypothesize that clioquinol affects them by slowing down the rate of aging."

"The exact mechanism of how clioquinol inhibits CLK-1 is still under investigation, Hekimi said. "One possibility is that metals are involved as clioquinol is a metal chelator," he explained. Chelation is a type of binding to metal ions and is often used to treat heavy metal poisoning."

"Hekimi is optimistic but cautious when asked whether clioquinol could eventually become an anti-aging treatment."

"The drug affects a gene which when inhibited can slow down aging," he said. "The implication is that we can change the rate of aging. This might be why clioquinol is able to work on this diversity of diseases that are all age-dependent."

Thanks for listening and I hope you can answer my questions in all due respect.

Joe


#2 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 19 January 2009 - 04:23 AM

After reading more and more posts, I want to believe that resveratrol is what it is claimed to be. However, maybe I am missing something or many things. While I understand what some people are claiming that 99%, 98%, 97% pure (what did the mice have?) Why would they sell a 50% version if that is not what the mice had? Powder vs capsule (what did the mice have?), taken with this vitamin and or that vitamin, with this substance or with that substance, taken all at once, taken once a-day, twice a -day, 3 times a-day, 50mg or 1500mg, amodin (good against cancer but get diarrhea) or no amodin. Bottom line question is simple : did it or did it not prolong life in mice? I believe the answer was that it did prolong life in mice. Now did it not prolong life in mice just fine in the form (powder or capsule), in the purity (99%, 98%, 97% or was it the 50% with the amodin) and with X-brand or Y-brand. Therefore, can we not say that when a human is given resveratrol in the same form (capsule or powder), the same brand (X or Y), the same strength (99%, 98%, 97% or 50% with amodin) at the same frequency and time of day, using the same amount of resveratrol that would be the approximately the same ratio equivalent amount given to human as was given to the mice in the study. Now if all the variables are the same in the humans as were in the mice, then common sense would suggest that if life was prolonged in the mice then if resveratrol were to work in humans it should not need ANY OTHER VARIABLES (chemicals, larger or smaller doses, vitamins, minerals, metals, other drugs, etc...) Because if there are other variables needed, that makes me skeptical. As far as the claims about curing skin cancer by rubbing it on the cancer leasion, and shrinking tumors, etc... If that were true about the cancer, then why would Reveratrol not be in every hospital, clinic, or any medical facility with cancer patients at this moment treating every person with it?

In addition, by all this talk about Resveratrol giving people energy and how they can work out better, run, bicycle, etc... also with the "rush" buzz effect or super caffiene type anxiety effect it can have is Resveratrol a substance that prolongs life or a sper energy drink compound of some sort? My point is mostly that what differnce does it make it someone can workout better? Did the mice have to work out to extend their life? In other words, why would the person that does not get the time to exercise or eat properly care about taking Resveratrol if they need to have to work out intensely and or always eat properly to get the prolong life effect. In other words, what I should not only be hearing people saying in these forums (in addition to having more energy and stamina) is that they feel younger (maybe their eyesight is getting better, less or no aches and pains, recovery times always less and never more, etc...) but also they should be saying that they look younger (their skin is getting thicker, they are losing their wrinkles and gray hair, etc...) and this should be happening regardless if they are exercising or eating properly as long as they are relatively a healthy person. Or is this not the substance that has that kind of effect on the body that HGH is claimed to have in some degree?

Finally, I will repost (sorry I do not mean to be redundant but I need to make my point here) an article on Clioquinol. Is anyone interested in getting a forum started on being a human guinea pig for this potential "anti aging" drug? Below is about the drug Clioquinol:

"Clioquinol, an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, inhibits action of the CLK1 aging gene, may reverse Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases."

"According to Dr. Siegfried Hekimi and colleagues at McGill's Department of Biology, clioquinol acts directly on a protein called CLK-1, often informally called "clock-1," and might slow down the aging process"

"Clioquinol is a very powerful inhibitor of clock-1," explained Hekimi, McGill's Strathcona Chair of Zoology and Robert Archibald & Catherine Louise Campbell Chair in Developmental Biology. "Because clock-1 affects longevity in invertebrates and mice, and because we're talking about three age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases, we hypothesize that clioquinol affects them by slowing down the rate of aging."

"The exact mechanism of how clioquinol inhibits CLK-1 is still under investigation, Hekimi said. "One possibility is that metals are involved as clioquinol is a metal chelator," he explained. Chelation is a type of binding to metal ions and is often used to treat heavy metal poisoning."

"Hekimi is optimistic but cautious when asked whether clioquinol could eventually become an anti-aging treatment."

"The drug affects a gene which when inhibited can slow down aging," he said. "The implication is that we can change the rate of aging. This might be why clioquinol is able to work on this diversity of diseases that are all age-dependent."

Thanks for listening and I hope you can answer my questions in all due respect.

Joe


For a discussion of clioquinol please see this topic: http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=290318

Resveratrol is not a stimulant. You feel nothing special on taking it. I believe any such reports are due to placebo effect, or impurities in a 50% product. Resveratrol acts over time, at a cellular level. Wrinkles, the most visible sign of aging, are due to cross-linking and perhaps collagen formation. These are not reversed by resveratrol.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 22 January 2009 - 02:05 PM

After reading more and more posts, I want to believe that resveratrol is what it is claimed to be. However, maybe I am missing something or many things. While I understand what some people are claiming that 99%, 98%, 97% pure (what did the mice have?) Why would they sell a 50% version if that is not what the mice had? Powder vs capsule (what did the mice have?), taken with this vitamin and or that vitamin, with this substance or with that substance, taken all at once, taken once a-day, twice a -day, 3 times a-day, 50mg or 1500mg, amodin (good against cancer but get diarrhea) or no amodin. Bottom line question is simple : did it or did it not prolong life in mice? I believe the answer was that it did prolong life in mice. Now did it not prolong life in mice just fine in the form (powder or capsule), in the purity (99%, 98%, 97% or was it the 50% with the amodin) and with X-brand or Y-brand. Therefore, can we not say that when a human is given resveratrol in the same form (capsule or powder), the same brand (X or Y), the same strength (99%, 98%, 97% or 50% with amodin) at the same frequency and time of day, using the same amount of resveratrol that would be the approximately the same ratio equivalent amount given to human as was given to the mice in the study. Now if all the variables are the same in the humans as were in the mice, then common sense would suggest that if life was prolonged in the mice then if resveratrol were to work in humans it should not need ANY OTHER VARIABLES (chemicals, larger or smaller doses, vitamins, minerals, metals, other drugs, etc...) Because if there are other variables needed, that makes me skeptical. As far as the claims about curing skin cancer by rubbing it on the cancer leasion, and shrinking tumors, etc... If that were true about the cancer, then why would Reveratrol not be in every hospital, clinic, or any medical facility with cancer patients at this moment treating every person with it?

In addition, by all this talk about Resveratrol giving people energy and how they can work out better, run, bicycle, etc... also with the "rush" buzz effect or super caffiene type anxiety effect it can have is Resveratrol a substance that prolongs life or a sper energy drink compound of some sort? My point is mostly that what differnce does it make it someone can workout better? Did the mice have to work out to extend their life? In other words, why would the person that does not get the time to exercise or eat properly care about taking Resveratrol if they need to have to work out intensely and or always eat properly to get the prolong life effect. In other words, what I should not only be hearing people saying in these forums (in addition to having more energy and stamina) is that they feel younger (maybe their eyesight is getting better, less or no aches and pains, recovery times always less and never more, etc...) but also they should be saying that they look younger (their skin is getting thicker, they are losing their wrinkles and gray hair, etc...) and this should be happening regardless if they are exercising or eating properly as long as they are relatively a healthy person. Or is this not the substance that has that kind of effect on the body that HGH is claimed to have in some degree?

Finally, I will repost (sorry I do not mean to be redundant but I need to make my point here) an article on Clioquinol. Is anyone interested in getting a forum started on being a human guinea pig for this potential "anti aging" drug? Below is about the drug Clioquinol:

"Clioquinol, an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, inhibits action of the CLK1 aging gene, may reverse Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases."

"According to Dr. Siegfried Hekimi and colleagues at McGill's Department of Biology, clioquinol acts directly on a protein called CLK-1, often informally called "clock-1," and might slow down the aging process"

"Clioquinol is a very powerful inhibitor of clock-1," explained Hekimi, McGill's Strathcona Chair of Zoology and Robert Archibald & Catherine Louise Campbell Chair in Developmental Biology. "Because clock-1 affects longevity in invertebrates and mice, and because we're talking about three age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases, we hypothesize that clioquinol affects them by slowing down the rate of aging."

"The exact mechanism of how clioquinol inhibits CLK-1 is still under investigation, Hekimi said. "One possibility is that metals are involved as clioquinol is a metal chelator," he explained. Chelation is a type of binding to metal ions and is often used to treat heavy metal poisoning."

"Hekimi is optimistic but cautious when asked whether clioquinol could eventually become an anti-aging treatment."

"The drug affects a gene which when inhibited can slow down aging," he said. "The implication is that we can change the rate of aging. This might be why clioquinol is able to work on this diversity of diseases that are all age-dependent."

Thanks for listening and I hope you can answer my questions in all due respect.

Joe


For a discussion of clioquinol please see this topic: http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=290318

Resveratrol is not a stimulant. You feel nothing special on taking it. I believe any such reports are due to placebo effect, or impurities in a 50% product. Resveratrol acts over time, at a cellular level. Wrinkles, the most visible sign of aging, are due to cross-linking and perhaps collagen formation. These are not reversed by resveratrol.



Well then, Just how good would "quality of life" be if life was extended for people only because of inside the body functions, but yet their exterior body was full of wrinkles and signs of old age? One example would be, if a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's had the sex drive and stamina of a man in his 20's, but how many "younger attractive" women would want to have sex with him if he looks like a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's? In other words, what can we do about the extended life of our exterior body to go along with our inner body?

Any thoughts on this?

Joe


#4 Ringostarr

  • Guest
  • 87 posts
  • 8

Posted 22 January 2009 - 03:38 PM

After reading more and more posts, I want to believe that resveratrol is what it is claimed to be. However, maybe I am missing something or many things. While I understand what some people are claiming that 99%, 98%, 97% pure (what did the mice have?) Why would they sell a 50% version if that is not what the mice had? Powder vs capsule (what did the mice have?), taken with this vitamin and or that vitamin, with this substance or with that substance, taken all at once, taken once a-day, twice a -day, 3 times a-day, 50mg or 1500mg, amodin (good against cancer but get diarrhea) or no amodin. Bottom line question is simple : did it or did it not prolong life in mice? I believe the answer was that it did prolong life in mice. Now did it not prolong life in mice just fine in the form (powder or capsule), in the purity (99%, 98%, 97% or was it the 50% with the amodin) and with X-brand or Y-brand. Therefore, can we not say that when a human is given resveratrol in the same form (capsule or powder), the same brand (X or Y), the same strength (99%, 98%, 97% or 50% with amodin) at the same frequency and time of day, using the same amount of resveratrol that would be the approximately the same ratio equivalent amount given to human as was given to the mice in the study. Now if all the variables are the same in the humans as were in the mice, then common sense would suggest that if life was prolonged in the mice then if resveratrol were to work in humans it should not need ANY OTHER VARIABLES (chemicals, larger or smaller doses, vitamins, minerals, metals, other drugs, etc...) Because if there are other variables needed, that makes me skeptical. As far as the claims about curing skin cancer by rubbing it on the cancer leasion, and shrinking tumors, etc... If that were true about the cancer, then why would Reveratrol not be in every hospital, clinic, or any medical facility with cancer patients at this moment treating every person with it?

In addition, by all this talk about Resveratrol giving people energy and how they can work out better, run, bicycle, etc... also with the "rush" buzz effect or super caffiene type anxiety effect it can have is Resveratrol a substance that prolongs life or a sper energy drink compound of some sort? My point is mostly that what differnce does it make it someone can workout better? Did the mice have to work out to extend their life? In other words, why would the person that does not get the time to exercise or eat properly care about taking Resveratrol if they need to have to work out intensely and or always eat properly to get the prolong life effect. In other words, what I should not only be hearing people saying in these forums (in addition to having more energy and stamina) is that they feel younger (maybe their eyesight is getting better, less or no aches and pains, recovery times always less and never more, etc...) but also they should be saying that they look younger (their skin is getting thicker, they are losing their wrinkles and gray hair, etc...) and this should be happening regardless if they are exercising or eating properly as long as they are relatively a healthy person. Or is this not the substance that has that kind of effect on the body that HGH is claimed to have in some degree?

Finally, I will repost (sorry I do not mean to be redundant but I need to make my point here) an article on Clioquinol. Is anyone interested in getting a forum started on being a human guinea pig for this potential "anti aging" drug? Below is about the drug Clioquinol:

"Clioquinol, an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, inhibits action of the CLK1 aging gene, may reverse Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases."

"According to Dr. Siegfried Hekimi and colleagues at McGill's Department of Biology, clioquinol acts directly on a protein called CLK-1, often informally called "clock-1," and might slow down the aging process"

"Clioquinol is a very powerful inhibitor of clock-1," explained Hekimi, McGill's Strathcona Chair of Zoology and Robert Archibald & Catherine Louise Campbell Chair in Developmental Biology. "Because clock-1 affects longevity in invertebrates and mice, and because we're talking about three age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases, we hypothesize that clioquinol affects them by slowing down the rate of aging."

"The exact mechanism of how clioquinol inhibits CLK-1 is still under investigation, Hekimi said. "One possibility is that metals are involved as clioquinol is a metal chelator," he explained. Chelation is a type of binding to metal ions and is often used to treat heavy metal poisoning."

"Hekimi is optimistic but cautious when asked whether clioquinol could eventually become an anti-aging treatment."

"The drug affects a gene which when inhibited can slow down aging," he said. "The implication is that we can change the rate of aging. This might be why clioquinol is able to work on this diversity of diseases that are all age-dependent."

Thanks for listening and I hope you can answer my questions in all due respect.

Joe


For a discussion of clioquinol please see this topic: http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=290318

Resveratrol is not a stimulant. You feel nothing special on taking it. I believe any such reports are due to placebo effect, or impurities in a 50% product. Resveratrol acts over time, at a cellular level. Wrinkles, the most visible sign of aging, are due to cross-linking and perhaps collagen formation. These are not reversed by resveratrol.



Well then, Just how good would "quality of life" be if life was extended for people only because of inside the body functions, but yet their exterior body was full of wrinkles and signs of old age? One example would be, if a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's had the sex drive and stamina of a man in his 20's, but how many "younger attractive" women would want to have sex with him if he looks like a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's? In other words, what can we do about the extended life of our exterior body to go along with our inner body?

Any thoughts on this?

Joe


With mice, resveratrol (and CR) gave them a more healthy coat than those not on resveratrol. I'm betting this translates to humans in some manner. Also, there are many skin creams starting to appear with resveratrol in them. Also (in mice), resveratrol applied to skin protects against UV damage and also heals skin already damaged by the sun. Hopefully human tests are underway.

#5 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 22 January 2009 - 07:39 PM

After reading more and more posts, I want to believe that resveratrol is what it is claimed to be. However, maybe I am missing something or many things. While I understand what some people are claiming that 99%, 98%, 97% pure (what did the mice have?) Why would they sell a 50% version if that is not what the mice had? Powder vs capsule (what did the mice have?), taken with this vitamin and or that vitamin, with this substance or with that substance, taken all at once, taken once a-day, twice a -day, 3 times a-day, 50mg or 1500mg, amodin (good against cancer but get diarrhea) or no amodin. Bottom line question is simple : did it or did it not prolong life in mice? I believe the answer was that it did prolong life in mice. Now did it not prolong life in mice just fine in the form (powder or capsule), in the purity (99%, 98%, 97% or was it the 50% with the amodin) and with X-brand or Y-brand. Therefore, can we not say that when a human is given resveratrol in the same form (capsule or powder), the same brand (X or Y), the same strength (99%, 98%, 97% or 50% with amodin) at the same frequency and time of day, using the same amount of resveratrol that would be the approximately the same ratio equivalent amount given to human as was given to the mice in the study. Now if all the variables are the same in the humans as were in the mice, then common sense would suggest that if life was prolonged in the mice then if resveratrol were to work in humans it should not need ANY OTHER VARIABLES (chemicals, larger or smaller doses, vitamins, minerals, metals, other drugs, etc...) Because if there are other variables needed, that makes me skeptical. As far as the claims about curing skin cancer by rubbing it on the cancer leasion, and shrinking tumors, etc... If that were true about the cancer, then why would Reveratrol not be in every hospital, clinic, or any medical facility with cancer patients at this moment treating every person with it?

In addition, by all this talk about Resveratrol giving people energy and how they can work out better, run, bicycle, etc... also with the "rush" buzz effect or super caffiene type anxiety effect it can have is Resveratrol a substance that prolongs life or a sper energy drink compound of some sort? My point is mostly that what differnce does it make it someone can workout better? Did the mice have to work out to extend their life? In other words, why would the person that does not get the time to exercise or eat properly care about taking Resveratrol if they need to have to work out intensely and or always eat properly to get the prolong life effect. In other words, what I should not only be hearing people saying in these forums (in addition to having more energy and stamina) is that they feel younger (maybe their eyesight is getting better, less or no aches and pains, recovery times always less and never more, etc...) but also they should be saying that they look younger (their skin is getting thicker, they are losing their wrinkles and gray hair, etc...) and this should be happening regardless if they are exercising or eating properly as long as they are relatively a healthy person. Or is this not the substance that has that kind of effect on the body that HGH is claimed to have in some degree?

Finally, I will repost (sorry I do not mean to be redundant but I need to make my point here) an article on Clioquinol. Is anyone interested in getting a forum started on being a human guinea pig for this potential "anti aging" drug? Below is about the drug Clioquinol:

"Clioquinol, an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, inhibits action of the CLK1 aging gene, may reverse Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases."

"According to Dr. Siegfried Hekimi and colleagues at McGill's Department of Biology, clioquinol acts directly on a protein called CLK-1, often informally called "clock-1," and might slow down the aging process"

"Clioquinol is a very powerful inhibitor of clock-1," explained Hekimi, McGill's Strathcona Chair of Zoology and Robert Archibald & Catherine Louise Campbell Chair in Developmental Biology. "Because clock-1 affects longevity in invertebrates and mice, and because we're talking about three age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases, we hypothesize that clioquinol affects them by slowing down the rate of aging."

"The exact mechanism of how clioquinol inhibits CLK-1 is still under investigation, Hekimi said. "One possibility is that metals are involved as clioquinol is a metal chelator," he explained. Chelation is a type of binding to metal ions and is often used to treat heavy metal poisoning."

"Hekimi is optimistic but cautious when asked whether clioquinol could eventually become an anti-aging treatment."

"The drug affects a gene which when inhibited can slow down aging," he said. "The implication is that we can change the rate of aging. This might be why clioquinol is able to work on this diversity of diseases that are all age-dependent."

Thanks for listening and I hope you can answer my questions in all due respect.

Joe


For a discussion of clioquinol please see this topic: http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=290318

Resveratrol is not a stimulant. You feel nothing special on taking it. I believe any such reports are due to placebo effect, or impurities in a 50% product. Resveratrol acts over time, at a cellular level. Wrinkles, the most visible sign of aging, are due to cross-linking and perhaps collagen formation. These are not reversed by resveratrol.



Well then, Just how good would "quality of life" be if life was extended for people only because of inside the body functions, but yet their exterior body was full of wrinkles and signs of old age? One example would be, if a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's had the sex drive and stamina of a man in his 20's, but how many "younger attractive" women would want to have sex with him if he looks like a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's? In other words, what can we do about the extended life of our exterior body to go along with our inner body?

Any thoughts on this?

Joe


With mice, resveratrol (and CR) gave them a more healthy coat than those not on resveratrol. I'm betting this translates to humans in some manner. Also, there are many skin creams starting to appear with resveratrol in them. Also (in mice), resveratrol applied to skin protects against UV damage and also heals skin already damaged by the sun. Hopefully human tests are underway.


First of all, what is CR? Secondly, you may be slightly missing my point; I wasn't talking about just wrinkles around the eyes. I was talking about the overall quality of the skin along which would include not only wrinkles around the eyes, but thinner wrinkled skin all over the body as well as gray hair all over the body. That would mean if those creams you are talking about with resveratrol in it worked on both wrinkly skin all over the entire body and improved gray hair, you would have to almost literally swim in it. And who know for how long at what dosage? On the other hand, your explanation about the fact that mice treated with resveratrol had more healthy coats is more what I wanted to hear. The simple reason being is that: if the wrinkly skin and gray hair are signs of visible aging outside the body that was indeed caused by the direct result of an aging process inside the body that resveratrol repairs and or eliminates, then common sense would suggest that the good results should be seen on the outside of the body. This body damage should not only include thickened skin, wrinkled skin, and eliminate gray hair, but may also improve hearing and eyesight. That may explain the healthier coat on the mice that used resveratrol? But what concerns me is that I have not yet run across anybody in these forum discussions that have mentioned developing thicker unwrinkled skin. I have heard of people saying that they thought their hair grew back a little or they lost a few gray hairs, etc, but nothing of impressive significance. In addition, is it possible that resveratrol could help stimulate the release of natural HGH in the body? If so, HGH has been claimed to be more of a rejuvenator that:

Over 28,000 clinical studies spanning
a 35 year period show that HGH can:

Posted Image

Increase Energy / Vitality

Posted Image

Reduce Fat / Cellulite

Posted Image

Build Muscle

Posted Image

Rejuvenate Skin, Hair and Nails

Posted Image

Improve Memory

Posted Image

Elevate Mood

Posted Image

Enhance Sexual Desire

Posted Image

Regulate Sleep

Posted Image

Rejuvenate the Immune System

Posted Image

Improve Brain Function

Posted Image

Protect Cells


Please elaborate about this,

Joe

#6 Ringostarr

  • Guest
  • 87 posts
  • 8

Posted 22 January 2009 - 08:37 PM

After reading more and more posts, I want to believe that resveratrol is what it is claimed to be. However, maybe I am missing something or many things. While I understand what some people are claiming that 99%, 98%, 97% pure (what did the mice have?) Why would they sell a 50% version if that is not what the mice had? Powder vs capsule (what did the mice have?), taken with this vitamin and or that vitamin, with this substance or with that substance, taken all at once, taken once a-day, twice a -day, 3 times a-day, 50mg or 1500mg, amodin (good against cancer but get diarrhea) or no amodin. Bottom line question is simple : did it or did it not prolong life in mice? I believe the answer was that it did prolong life in mice. Now did it not prolong life in mice just fine in the form (powder or capsule), in the purity (99%, 98%, 97% or was it the 50% with the amodin) and with X-brand or Y-brand. Therefore, can we not say that when a human is given resveratrol in the same form (capsule or powder), the same brand (X or Y), the same strength (99%, 98%, 97% or 50% with amodin) at the same frequency and time of day, using the same amount of resveratrol that would be the approximately the same ratio equivalent amount given to human as was given to the mice in the study. Now if all the variables are the same in the humans as were in the mice, then common sense would suggest that if life was prolonged in the mice then if resveratrol were to work in humans it should not need ANY OTHER VARIABLES (chemicals, larger or smaller doses, vitamins, minerals, metals, other drugs, etc...) Because if there are other variables needed, that makes me skeptical. As far as the claims about curing skin cancer by rubbing it on the cancer leasion, and shrinking tumors, etc... If that were true about the cancer, then why would Reveratrol not be in every hospital, clinic, or any medical facility with cancer patients at this moment treating every person with it?

In addition, by all this talk about Resveratrol giving people energy and how they can work out better, run, bicycle, etc... also with the "rush" buzz effect or super caffiene type anxiety effect it can have is Resveratrol a substance that prolongs life or a sper energy drink compound of some sort? My point is mostly that what differnce does it make it someone can workout better? Did the mice have to work out to extend their life? In other words, why would the person that does not get the time to exercise or eat properly care about taking Resveratrol if they need to have to work out intensely and or always eat properly to get the prolong life effect. In other words, what I should not only be hearing people saying in these forums (in addition to having more energy and stamina) is that they feel younger (maybe their eyesight is getting better, less or no aches and pains, recovery times always less and never more, etc...) but also they should be saying that they look younger (their skin is getting thicker, they are losing their wrinkles and gray hair, etc...) and this should be happening regardless if they are exercising or eating properly as long as they are relatively a healthy person. Or is this not the substance that has that kind of effect on the body that HGH is claimed to have in some degree?

Finally, I will repost (sorry I do not mean to be redundant but I need to make my point here) an article on Clioquinol. Is anyone interested in getting a forum started on being a human guinea pig for this potential "anti aging" drug? Below is about the drug Clioquinol:

"Clioquinol, an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, inhibits action of the CLK1 aging gene, may reverse Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases."

"According to Dr. Siegfried Hekimi and colleagues at McGill's Department of Biology, clioquinol acts directly on a protein called CLK-1, often informally called "clock-1," and might slow down the aging process"

"Clioquinol is a very powerful inhibitor of clock-1," explained Hekimi, McGill's Strathcona Chair of Zoology and Robert Archibald & Catherine Louise Campbell Chair in Developmental Biology. "Because clock-1 affects longevity in invertebrates and mice, and because we're talking about three age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases, we hypothesize that clioquinol affects them by slowing down the rate of aging."

"The exact mechanism of how clioquinol inhibits CLK-1 is still under investigation, Hekimi said. "One possibility is that metals are involved as clioquinol is a metal chelator," he explained. Chelation is a type of binding to metal ions and is often used to treat heavy metal poisoning."

"Hekimi is optimistic but cautious when asked whether clioquinol could eventually become an anti-aging treatment."

"The drug affects a gene which when inhibited can slow down aging," he said. "The implication is that we can change the rate of aging. This might be why clioquinol is able to work on this diversity of diseases that are all age-dependent."

Thanks for listening and I hope you can answer my questions in all due respect.

Joe


For a discussion of clioquinol please see this topic: http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=290318

Resveratrol is not a stimulant. You feel nothing special on taking it. I believe any such reports are due to placebo effect, or impurities in a 50% product. Resveratrol acts over time, at a cellular level. Wrinkles, the most visible sign of aging, are due to cross-linking and perhaps collagen formation. These are not reversed by resveratrol.



Well then, Just how good would "quality of life" be if life was extended for people only because of inside the body functions, but yet their exterior body was full of wrinkles and signs of old age? One example would be, if a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's had the sex drive and stamina of a man in his 20's, but how many "younger attractive" women would want to have sex with him if he looks like a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's? In other words, what can we do about the extended life of our exterior body to go along with our inner body?

Any thoughts on this?

Joe


With mice, resveratrol (and CR) gave them a more healthy coat than those not on resveratrol. I'm betting this translates to humans in some manner. Also, there are many skin creams starting to appear with resveratrol in them. Also (in mice), resveratrol applied to skin protects against UV damage and also heals skin already damaged by the sun. Hopefully human tests are underway.


First of all, what is CR? Secondly, you may be slightly missing my point; I wasn't talking about just wrinkles around the eyes. I was talking about the overall quality of the skin along which would include not only wrinkles around the eyes, but thinner wrinkled skin all over the body as well as gray hair all over the body. That would mean if those creams you are talking about with resveratrol in it worked on both wrinkly skin all over the entire body and improved gray hair, you would have to almost literally swim in it. And who know for how long at what dosage? On the other hand, your explanation about the fact that mice treated with resveratrol had more healthy coats is more what I wanted to hear. The simple reason being is that: if the wrinkly skin and gray hair are signs of visible aging outside the body that was indeed caused by the direct result of an aging process inside the body that resveratrol repairs and or eliminates, then common sense would suggest that the good results should be seen on the outside of the body. This body damage should not only include thickened skin, wrinkled skin, and eliminate gray hair, but may also improve hearing and eyesight. That may explain the healthier coat on the mice that used resveratrol? But what concerns me is that I have not yet run across anybody in these forum discussions that have mentioned developing thicker unwrinkled skin. I have heard of people saying that they thought their hair grew back a little or they lost a few gray hairs, etc, but nothing of impressive significance. In addition, is it possible that resveratrol could help stimulate the release of natural HGH in the body? If so, HGH has been claimed to be more of a rejuvenator that:

Over 28,000 clinical studies spanning
a 35 year period show that HGH can:

Posted Image

Increase Energy / Vitality

Posted Image

Reduce Fat / Cellulite

Posted Image

Build Muscle

Posted Image

Rejuvenate Skin, Hair and Nails

Posted Image

Improve Memory

Posted Image

Elevate Mood

Posted Image

Enhance Sexual Desire

Posted Image

Regulate Sleep

Posted Image

Rejuvenate the Immune System

Posted Image

Improve Brain Function

Posted Image

Protect Cells


Please elaborate about this,

Joe



CR is caloric restriction or the process of consuming far less calories in the typical western diet while obtaining good nutritional value. Resveratrol has been found to mimic the effects of CR in mice AND humans without the CR diet. If you want to, you can look up studies of the rhesus? monkeys who have been on a CR diet for many years (maybe at the University of Wisconsin?) The monkeys on the CR diet (vs. the standard diet) are in much better health and they look much better as well. The theory is that resveratrol induced sirtuin activation will have the same effect both from an appearance and a general health standpoint. From the results of the monkey studies, I think the odds are good. The key is getting the resveratrol into the bloodstream - there are numerous technologies that are now available to ensure that this happens - from taking large doses of pure resveratrol (which I have no opinion on although Glaxo reported no adverse side effects), to micronization of resveratrol, to sublingual or buccal delivery, to additives such as tween etc.

#7 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 23 January 2009 - 12:47 AM

After reading more and more posts, I want to believe that resveratrol is what it is claimed to be. However, maybe I am missing something or many things. While I understand what some people are claiming that 99%, 98%, 97% pure (what did the mice have?) Why would they sell a 50% version if that is not what the mice had? Powder vs capsule (what did the mice have?), taken with this vitamin and or that vitamin, with this substance or with that substance, taken all at once, taken once a-day, twice a -day, 3 times a-day, 50mg or 1500mg, amodin (good against cancer but get diarrhea) or no amodin. Bottom line question is simple : did it or did it not prolong life in mice? I believe the answer was that it did prolong life in mice. Now did it not prolong life in mice just fine in the form (powder or capsule), in the purity (99%, 98%, 97% or was it the 50% with the amodin) and with X-brand or Y-brand. Therefore, can we not say that when a human is given resveratrol in the same form (capsule or powder), the same brand (X or Y), the same strength (99%, 98%, 97% or 50% with amodin) at the same frequency and time of day, using the same amount of resveratrol that would be the approximately the same ratio equivalent amount given to human as was given to the mice in the study. Now if all the variables are the same in the humans as were in the mice, then common sense would suggest that if life was prolonged in the mice then if resveratrol were to work in humans it should not need ANY OTHER VARIABLES (chemicals, larger or smaller doses, vitamins, minerals, metals, other drugs, etc...) Because if there are other variables needed, that makes me skeptical. As far as the claims about curing skin cancer by rubbing it on the cancer leasion, and shrinking tumors, etc... If that were true about the cancer, then why would Reveratrol not be in every hospital, clinic, or any medical facility with cancer patients at this moment treating every person with it?

In addition, by all this talk about Resveratrol giving people energy and how they can work out better, run, bicycle, etc... also with the "rush" buzz effect or super caffiene type anxiety effect it can have is Resveratrol a substance that prolongs life or a sper energy drink compound of some sort? My point is mostly that what differnce does it make it someone can workout better? Did the mice have to work out to extend their life? In other words, why would the person that does not get the time to exercise or eat properly care about taking Resveratrol if they need to have to work out intensely and or always eat properly to get the prolong life effect. In other words, what I should not only be hearing people saying in these forums (in addition to having more energy and stamina) is that they feel younger (maybe their eyesight is getting better, less or no aches and pains, recovery times always less and never more, etc...) but also they should be saying that they look younger (their skin is getting thicker, they are losing their wrinkles and gray hair, etc...) and this should be happening regardless if they are exercising or eating properly as long as they are relatively a healthy person. Or is this not the substance that has that kind of effect on the body that HGH is claimed to have in some degree?

Finally, I will repost (sorry I do not mean to be redundant but I need to make my point here) an article on Clioquinol. Is anyone interested in getting a forum started on being a human guinea pig for this potential "anti aging" drug? Below is about the drug Clioquinol:

"Clioquinol, an 80-year old drug once used to treat diarrhea and other gastrointestinal disorders, inhibits action of the CLK1 aging gene, may reverse Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases."

"According to Dr. Siegfried Hekimi and colleagues at McGill's Department of Biology, clioquinol acts directly on a protein called CLK-1, often informally called "clock-1," and might slow down the aging process"

"Clioquinol is a very powerful inhibitor of clock-1," explained Hekimi, McGill's Strathcona Chair of Zoology and Robert Archibald & Catherine Louise Campbell Chair in Developmental Biology. "Because clock-1 affects longevity in invertebrates and mice, and because we're talking about three age-dependent neurodegenerative diseases, we hypothesize that clioquinol affects them by slowing down the rate of aging."

"The exact mechanism of how clioquinol inhibits CLK-1 is still under investigation, Hekimi said. "One possibility is that metals are involved as clioquinol is a metal chelator," he explained. Chelation is a type of binding to metal ions and is often used to treat heavy metal poisoning."

"Hekimi is optimistic but cautious when asked whether clioquinol could eventually become an anti-aging treatment."

"The drug affects a gene which when inhibited can slow down aging," he said. "The implication is that we can change the rate of aging. This might be why clioquinol is able to work on this diversity of diseases that are all age-dependent."

Thanks for listening and I hope you can answer my questions in all due respect.

Joe


For a discussion of clioquinol please see this topic: http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=290318

Resveratrol is not a stimulant. You feel nothing special on taking it. I believe any such reports are due to placebo effect, or impurities in a 50% product. Resveratrol acts over time, at a cellular level. Wrinkles, the most visible sign of aging, are due to cross-linking and perhaps collagen formation. These are not reversed by resveratrol.



Well then, Just how good would "quality of life" be if life was extended for people only because of inside the body functions, but yet their exterior body was full of wrinkles and signs of old age? One example would be, if a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's had the sex drive and stamina of a man in his 20's, but how many "younger attractive" women would want to have sex with him if he looks like a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's? In other words, what can we do about the extended life of our exterior body to go along with our inner body?

Any thoughts on this?

Joe


With mice, resveratrol (and CR) gave them a more healthy coat than those not on resveratrol. I'm betting this translates to humans in some manner. Also, there are many skin creams starting to appear with resveratrol in them. Also (in mice), resveratrol applied to skin protects against UV damage and also heals skin already damaged by the sun. Hopefully human tests are underway.


First of all, what is CR? Secondly, you may be slightly missing my point; I wasn't talking about just wrinkles around the eyes. I was talking about the overall quality of the skin along which would include not only wrinkles around the eyes, but thinner wrinkled skin all over the body as well as gray hair all over the body. That would mean if those creams you are talking about with resveratrol in it worked on both wrinkly skin all over the entire body and improved gray hair, you would have to almost literally swim in it. And who know for how long at what dosage? On the other hand, your explanation about the fact that mice treated with resveratrol had more healthy coats is more what I wanted to hear. The simple reason being is that: if the wrinkly skin and gray hair are signs of visible aging outside the body that was indeed caused by the direct result of an aging process inside the body that resveratrol repairs and or eliminates, then common sense would suggest that the good results should be seen on the outside of the body. This body damage should not only include thickened skin, wrinkled skin, and eliminate gray hair, but may also improve hearing and eyesight. That may explain the healthier coat on the mice that used resveratrol? But what concerns me is that I have not yet run across anybody in these forum discussions that have mentioned developing thicker unwrinkled skin. I have heard of people saying that they thought their hair grew back a little or they lost a few gray hairs, etc, but nothing of impressive significance. In addition, is it possible that resveratrol could help stimulate the release of natural HGH in the body? If so, HGH has been claimed to be more of a rejuvenator that:

Over 28,000 clinical studies spanning
a 35 year period show that HGH can:

Posted Image

Increase Energy / Vitality

Posted Image

Reduce Fat / Cellulite

Posted Image

Build Muscle

Posted Image

Rejuvenate Skin, Hair and Nails

Posted Image

Improve Memory

Posted Image

Elevate Mood

Posted Image

Enhance Sexual Desire

Posted Image

Regulate Sleep

Posted Image

Rejuvenate the Immune System

Posted Image

Improve Brain Function

Posted Image

Protect Cells


Please elaborate about this,

Joe



CR is caloric restriction or the process of consuming far less calories in the typical western diet while obtaining good nutritional value. Resveratrol has been found to mimic the effects of CR in mice AND humans without the CR diet. If you want to, you can look up studies of the rhesus? monkeys who have been on a CR diet for many years (maybe at the University of Wisconsin?) The monkeys on the CR diet (vs. the standard diet) are in much better health and they look much better as well. The theory is that resveratrol induced sirtuin activation will have the same effect both from an appearance and a general health standpoint. From the results of the monkey studies, I think the odds are good. The key is getting the resveratrol into the bloodstream - there are numerous technologies that are now available to ensure that this happens - from taking large doses of pure resveratrol (which I have no opinion on although Glaxo reported no adverse side effects), to micronization of resveratrol, to sublingual or buccal delivery, to additives such as tween etc.


Ok, but since when is it difficult to get resveratrol into a human blood stream? It is my understanding that all that the mice had to do was to eat the resveratrol with their food. So with all do respect, what is the problem? I never knew their was a problem, especially reading about people in this forum already reporting good experiences from taking resveratrol. You are confusing me.

#8 geddarkstorm

  • Guest
  • 191 posts
  • 31

Posted 23 January 2009 - 03:43 AM

Ok, but since when is it difficult to get resveratrol into a human blood stream? It is my understanding that all that the mice had to do was to eat the resveratrol with their food. So with all do respect, what is the problem? I never knew their was a problem, especially reading about people in this forum already reporting good experiences from taking resveratrol. You are confusing me.


The problem is that those mice were taking huge doses, from the human perspective, anywhere from 22mg/kg of body weight to 400mg/kg. An average person, like me, who is around 63kg would need, at that lowest 22mg/kg dose if calculated straight, 1,386 milligrams of resveratrol; 25,200 milligrams for that highest dose at which arguably the greatest overt physical benefits in mice were seen! It has been shown in several absorbance studies, from mice to humans, that only about 1% of dietary resveratrol actually makes it into the blood stream as such. The majority remains in the sulfonated and glucuronidated forms, which are mostly inactive and incapable of activating Sirt1 according to current research. Similarly, resveratrol has a very short half life in the body, and is cleared rapidly from the blood into its metabolites - something like a half life around 14 minutes to half an hour or so. This is why it's difficult to get enough resveratrol into a human. Thankfully, micronization helps greatly increase absorbance, and tween 80 massively boosts how much resveratrol enters the body as such; possibly by helping resveratrol get across the lumenal membranes so it doesn't have to be converted and actively pumped.

Edited by geddarkstorm, 23 January 2009 - 03:44 AM.


#9 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 24 January 2009 - 11:18 PM

Ok, but since when is it difficult to get resveratrol into a human blood stream? It is my understanding that all that the mice had to do was to eat the resveratrol with their food. So with all do respect, what is the problem? I never knew their was a problem, especially reading about people in this forum already reporting good experiences from taking resveratrol. You are confusing me.


The problem is that those mice were taking huge doses, from the human perspective, anywhere from 22mg/kg of body weight to 400mg/kg. An average person, like me, who is around 63kg would need, at that lowest 22mg/kg dose if calculated straight, 1,386 milligrams of resveratrol; 25,200 milligrams for that highest dose at which arguably the greatest overt physical benefits in mice were seen! It has been shown in several absorbance studies, from mice to humans, that only about 1% of dietary resveratrol actually makes it into the blood stream as such. The majority remains in the sulfonated and glucuronidated forms, which are mostly inactive and incapable of activating Sirt1 according to current research. Similarly, resveratrol has a very short half life in the body, and is cleared rapidly from the blood into its metabolites - something like a half life around 14 minutes to half an hour or so. This is why it's difficult to get enough resveratrol into a human. Thankfully, micronization helps greatly increase absorbance, and tween 80 massively boosts how much resveratrol enters the body as such; possibly by helping resveratrol get across the lumenal membranes so it doesn't have to be converted and actively pumped.


Ok, I have just read an article that everyone taking any amount or even thinking of starting to take any amount of Resveratrol should read. You can find the article by copying and pasting this url into your address bar if this link below does not work:

http://junkfoodscien...esveratrol.html


Here are the last paragraphs of the article that will basically sum up the idea of was said:

* Even without getting into the scientific research itself, all of the clues are there to help us figure out if these claims of benefits for humans are credible. Falling back on those basic tenets for protecting ourselves against health fraud and fake remedies make a surprisingly good place to start.As covered here, to evaluate any new modality, there are some simple things that can also help us know if something is sound. To start:

● if it’s been tested in phase III, human clinical trials that are well-designed to be fair tests, and clearly shown to be safe and effective, based on objectively-measured hard clinical outcomes, rather than false surrogate endpoints;

● if its potential benefits outweigh the risks;

● if the research has been independently replicated and holds up to the body of evidence and biological plausibility;

● and if the research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

What doesn’t matter is many people agree, how prestigious or famous the person is who’s selling the remedy, how many amazing testimonials or before-and-after pictures we’re shown, how much news coverage it gets, how polished the product literature or website looks, or how impressive the accompanying bibliography.

Interventions that claim to slow aging or prevent diseases associated with old age — such as cancers, heart disease, diabetes or dementia — have long been a source for spurious modalities. One of the most popularly believed adages is that lots of antioxidants can avert free radical damage and prevent chronic diseases and enable us to live longer. Decades of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, however, have failed to support such abilities of antioxidants — or any dietary factor. People around the world have enjoyed a wide range of diets with no common relationship to lifespans or health. Even the recent Cochrane Systematic Review of every clinical antioxidant trial conducted since 1945 found not a single one had been able to find a tenable effect. [Covered here.]

Humans have been trying to find the secret to longer life throughout recorded history, and countless people have claimed to have found it. But haven’t. Fifty-one of the world’s most recognized scientists in the field of human aging, concerned about the continued quackery surrounding aging, recently examined the scientific research and published their findings in Scientific American and the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences and is available online here. Their concluding remarks said:



Since recorded history individuals have been, and are continuing to be, victimized by promises of extended youth or increased longevity by using unproven methods that allegedly slow, stop or reverse aging. Our language on this matter must be unambiguous: there are no lifestyle changes, surgical procedures, vitamins, antioxidants, hormones or techniques of genetic engineering available today that have been demonstrated to influence the processes of aging.

The next anti-aging remedy that comes along will, no doubt, claim to be different and be the miracle breakthrough. It will probably be endorsed by highly degreed professionals from prestigious institutions who say they know they’ve finally found the secret. Look for the clues.

posted by Sandy at 12/30/2008

I would welcome as many responses to this article as possible because I was very interested in trying Resverasol before I read these substantiated facts that were presented.

#10 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 25 January 2009 - 01:29 AM

Ok, but since when is it difficult to get resveratrol into a human blood stream? It is my understanding that all that the mice had to do was to eat the resveratrol with their food. So with all do respect, what is the problem? I never knew their was a problem, especially reading about people in this forum already reporting good experiences from taking resveratrol. You are confusing me.


The problem is that those mice were taking huge doses, from the human perspective, anywhere from 22mg/kg of body weight to 400mg/kg. An average person, like me, who is around 63kg would need, at that lowest 22mg/kg dose if calculated straight, 1,386 milligrams of resveratrol; 25,200 milligrams for that highest dose at which arguably the greatest overt physical benefits in mice were seen! It has been shown in several absorbance studies, from mice to humans, that only about 1% of dietary resveratrol actually makes it into the blood stream as such. The majority remains in the sulfonated and glucuronidated forms, which are mostly inactive and incapable of activating Sirt1 according to current research. Similarly, resveratrol has a very short half life in the body, and is cleared rapidly from the blood into its metabolites - something like a half life around 14 minutes to half an hour or so. This is why it's difficult to get enough resveratrol into a human. Thankfully, micronization helps greatly increase absorbance, and tween 80 massively boosts how much resveratrol enters the body as such; possibly by helping resveratrol get across the lumenal membranes so it doesn't have to be converted and actively pumped.


Ok, I have just read an article that everyone taking any amount or even thinking of starting to take any amount of Resveratrol should read. You can find the article by copying and pasting this url into your address bar if this link below does not work:

http://junkfoodscien...esveratrol.html


Here are the last paragraphs of the article that will basically sum up the idea of was said:

* Even without getting into the scientific research itself, all of the clues are there to help us figure out if these claims of benefits for humans are credible. Falling back on those basic tenets for protecting ourselves against health fraud and fake remedies make a surprisingly good place to start.As covered here, to evaluate any new modality, there are some simple things that can also help us know if something is sound. To start:

● if it's been tested in phase III, human clinical trials that are well-designed to be fair tests, and clearly shown to be safe and effective, based on objectively-measured hard clinical outcomes, rather than false surrogate endpoints;

● if its potential benefits outweigh the risks;

● if the research has been independently replicated and holds up to the body of evidence and biological plausibility;

● and if the research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

What doesn't matter is many people agree, how prestigious or famous the person is who's selling the remedy, how many amazing testimonials or before-and-after pictures we're shown, how much news coverage it gets, how polished the product literature or website looks, or how impressive the accompanying bibliography.

Interventions that claim to slow aging or prevent diseases associated with old age — such as cancers, heart disease, diabetes or dementia — have long been a source for spurious modalities. One of the most popularly believed adages is that lots of antioxidants can avert free radical damage and prevent chronic diseases and enable us to live longer. Decades of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, however, have failed to support such abilities of antioxidants — or any dietary factor. People around the world have enjoyed a wide range of diets with no common relationship to lifespans or health. Even the recent Cochrane Systematic Review of every clinical antioxidant trial conducted since 1945 found not a single one had been able to find a tenable effect. [Covered here.]

Humans have been trying to find the secret to longer life throughout recorded history, and countless people have claimed to have found it. But haven't. Fifty-one of the world's most recognized scientists in the field of human aging, concerned about the continued quackery surrounding aging, recently examined the scientific research and published their findings in Scientific American and the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences and is available online here. Their concluding remarks said:



Since recorded history individuals have been, and are continuing to be, victimized by promises of extended youth or increased longevity by using unproven methods that allegedly slow, stop or reverse aging. Our language on this matter must be unambiguous: there are no lifestyle changes, surgical procedures, vitamins, antioxidants, hormones or techniques of genetic engineering available today that have been demonstrated to influence the processes of aging.

The next anti-aging remedy that comes along will, no doubt, claim to be different and be the miracle breakthrough. It will probably be endorsed by highly degreed professionals from prestigious institutions who say they know they've finally found the secret. Look for the clues.

posted by Sandy at 12/30/2008

I would welcome as many responses to this article as possible because I was very interested in trying Resverasol before I read these substantiated facts that were presented.







In addition, please read this article: http://www.longevine...fs/12182008.pdf I really want to know what people taking Resveratrol (especially in higher doses) will think about taking it after reading some of these studies that I am finding? Believe me, I am not trying to be pesimistic here. I want to be able to take a substance that really is clinically tested proven to work in humans. In addition, the magic substance should be regulated in some way to prove it's absorbtion quality is good as well as it's main ingredient is actually present in the amount stated on it's packaged label.

Please comment!

#11 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 25 January 2009 - 02:34 AM

Hi Joe,

For the most part I completely agree with the statements made regarding proof for humans, and have stated time and time again that no human studies have been performed for resveratrol for cancer, for longevity, for alzheimers, etc. In fact no human clinical studies have been completed for resveratrol that I know of, so supplement makers are ordered by the FDA to state no claims on their labels otherwise the claims would make the particular supplement be considered a drug by the FDA.

As such, I will post a few quotes from our website that lets people know that the studies have not been made on humans. These are found in the text on each of our products:

The following mentions research done in animals and in labs. We do not claim our products will act in a similar fashion in regular people. As a dietary supplement company, we can only present the information for your consideration.


and...

As a natural herbal supplement: *these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.


The first statement is not required by the FDA for selling supplements, but we have requested it on our website to notify folks that none of the studies have been done on humans, again we are going above and beyond what is required. The second quote is mandatory for all supplement makers including one "TA-65" supplement that is unrelated to resveratrol.

In regards to your last post, I will not comment on this as it has been done previously and available on these forums, so please do a search before posting. Many of your answers are waiting to be found on this board. Also...No need to add the link again, it's already been published here and discussed:

http://www.imminst.o...t...&pid=285564

=================================================================

Now, I believe it will take time for Phase III studies to be completed. Here we can see that Resveratrol studies are underway by the NIH, and I like many would like to know when these will be completed:
http://clinicaltrial...r="Resveratrol"

Do these studies suggest the possibility of certain things? Maybe, but since these studies are not complete, it is not correct to assume that resveratrol will help a human being. At this time we only have the studies done on animals or petri dishes. I have compiled most of them that were completed in 2008 here while I write a small article for our newsletter:
http://knol.google.c...wp3gktedf6ex/3#

Since humans are not rats, mice, dogs, fish, etc... but merely intelligent mammals that have not been tested, then the studies can only be a source of interest to discover possible new methods in which resveratrol can be used, and later, to extrapolate theories (which can be tested in some future time). We can only use these as guides as to how resveratrol may help or hinder, since no human studies have been completed (although maybe except for a Phase I study from Sirtris for safety which used 2.5 grams and 5 Grams - See slide 23: Sirtris Prospectus).

=================================================================

In addition, the magic substance should be regulated in some way to prove it's absorbtion quality is good as well as it's main ingredient is actually present in the amount stated on it's packaged label.


You and the article also mentions the fact that many supplement makers are not regulated like drug companies, so you may not be sure what you are getting is resveratrol. Well, the simple issue is that there is a loophole for all supplement makers. Yes currently, any and every supplement on the market in the USA, does not need to come from a batch that has been tested for safety or purity. You see the FDA doesn't require folks to test every batch. So, what is the simple answer to this issue with supplement makers?

Just test every batch like we do, it's not expensive. Anyone who says it is expensive, is not ordering very much at all, or is simply lying to you.

=================================================================
I believe the main question in the end is... should Joe try resveratrol?
If he is a healthy individual and has concerns, then I say no until he is satisfied with the proof he seeks from the NIH regarding human studies.

Just to be clear Joe...
there is no resveratrol supplement on the market that has passed Phase III human clinical trials for any benefit.

Not a single one, regardless of their marketing. Yes, not even the one you linked too.

You see clinical trials are generally used for drugs, not supplements. Drugs are generally made by drug companies, and any (as you said) "magical substance" made by a drug company will likely cost you much more than any supplement on the market, unless covered by insurance. Since insurance (much like the FDA) does not recognize "longevity" as an issue to be solved by drugs, it will likely never be insured for that purpose.

The closest you can get is to have your doctor say you have "Melas" and wait in line until Sirtris releases their MELAS drug that uses resveratrol: "SRT501".

=================================================================

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 25 January 2009 - 02:58 AM.


#12 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 25 January 2009 - 03:59 AM

The only Resveratrol product I would think of trying is Longevinex from what they claim on their website. I have to believe somebody. If not for the simple reason that they are better salespeople. Now to say whether Joe is healthy. Yes, I think so. Joe is 51 and wants to look younger for a longer period of time. But does Joe or anybody else need to be healthy to take Resveratrol? I understand it is a preventative substance. Because as I get older, I am slowly dying like everybody else is. Is that not enough reason to take a substance like this? Besides, I am interested in more lean muscle mass, body fat down, reversing gray hair, having more stamina, sex drive and performance up, keeping blood pressure normal, sugar levels normal, LDL down, HDL up, etc... This can be achieved, according to what I have read, if Resveratrol and or additional substances can help cell duplication become perfect instead of the usual deteriating process that causes us to age and lose our youthful qualities and appearance.

Also, do you feel that if Resveratrol is found to do "wonders" in humans, that us "poorer" consumers will either need a prescription for it or have to pay big dollars to get it? Or will there always be supplement manufacturers like Longevinex?

#13 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 25 January 2009 - 04:40 AM

One question...
Do they test every batch?

A

#14 geddarkstorm

  • Guest
  • 191 posts
  • 31

Posted 25 January 2009 - 07:30 AM

The only Resveratrol product I would think of trying is Longevinex from what they claim on their website. I have to believe somebody. If not for the simple reason that they are better salespeople. Now to say whether Joe is healthy. Yes, I think so. Joe is 51 and wants to look younger for a longer period of time. But does Joe or anybody else need to be healthy to take Resveratrol? I understand it is a preventative substance. Because as I get older, I am slowly dying like everybody else is. Is that not enough reason to take a substance like this? Besides, I am interested in more lean muscle mass, body fat down, reversing gray hair, having more stamina, sex drive and performance up, keeping blood pressure normal, sugar levels normal, LDL down, HDL up, etc... This can be achieved, according to what I have read, if Resveratrol and or additional substances can help cell duplication become perfect instead of the usual deteriating process that causes us to age and lose our youthful qualities and appearance.

Also, do you feel that if Resveratrol is found to do "wonders" in humans, that us "poorer" consumers will either need a prescription for it or have to pay big dollars to get it? Or will there always be supplement manufacturers like Longevinex?


I wouldn't go with them, considering they have a habit of out right lying about published scientific research, and fabricating results to spin their own product. But, that's just my personal ire at their shenanigans; anything and everything you take is up to you.

On a side note, as a rule of thumb, any mg/kg/day dose done in a mouse study should be divided by seven before being applied to humans, for equal effectiveness. Our slower metabolism makes us more sensitive than lab animals in a sense (really, what they eat in proportion to their body mass in a day is equal to what we take in several days). The 1/7th reduction for the same effects also correlates well with the anecdotal evidence seen on these boards. So that highest dose from my last post really would just be 3.6 grams in a human, in general. Actual tests and human trials have to be done to prove the correct human dose. Never the less, again, this correlates with what we've observed so far.

Edited by geddarkstorm, 25 January 2009 - 07:40 AM.


#15 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 25 January 2009 - 12:55 PM

Well Anthony, that is something that I need to research even if I have to have it tested myself at an independent lab after gathering samples from several batches randomly. However, if the testing checks out good and the pill contains what is advertised on its label, I like the idea behind the Longevinex product better than any of the other competitor's versions. Here is why:


http://www.longevinex.com/

Edited by joe57777, 25 January 2009 - 01:04 PM.


#16 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 25 January 2009 - 02:46 PM

Ok Joe,

I am now considering you an advertiser for these folks, as you apparently asked a whole lot of questions on res, quality etc to get people to read the thread and now are pushing links without any explanation, except that they have nice marketing that folks like geddarkstorm have basically explained away as manipulation of research for marketing purposes. Links were given to you explaining a couple issues and geddarkstorm has provided you some insight as to how they advertise.

Navigators, can you deal with this attempt at spam advertising?

A

#17 joe57777

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 25 January 2009 - 06:55 PM

I am not advertising for them. I am just a consumer trying to read between all the BS that salespeople try to lay on all of us. I was in sales too before. With all do respect, since I am being forced to choose who is telling the truth about their product because the FDA is not involved in the regulation of this product, I am just trying to use my own judgement as to who I believe is telling the truth. It is like when consumer reports conducts independent (unbiased) tests on similar products. That way the truth comes out more often than not on what products live up to their claims. Remember "buyer" and (in this case) "user" beware. It is too bad I am not on a "neutral" playing field here. But what I was hoping is that I could get some people respond to whether they have tried both RevGenetics and Longevinex products who will give me an honest opinion on which product they feel is giving them the best results. With all do respect, I will have both products independently tested myself to see which one lives up to it's claims. All I want to do is like everyone else in this game. I want to get the best results possible if I am going to take this product. I am not out to "product bash" any company. Again, I am simply saying "if True" I like the sound of what Longevinex product claims to do better than what RevGenetics claims. I do not want to turn this into a "political bashing type campaign". That is the last thing I want to do. I am sorry if this forum has its interests in one of these brands, that is "too bad" for us consumers!

Joe

#18 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 25 January 2009 - 08:21 PM

Joe,

It is hard for me to believe that saying "I like XXXX company" then stating "Here's why" with only a link to the company website is not advertising for them...

I personally can't find you credible at this point.

If you want to discuss questions about resveratrol, then provide the questions or search for answers on this forum.

If you want to know which resveratrol competitor is better based on whatever criteria is right for you, ask the competitors regarding the criteria and make up your own mind. At this point you provided a study, and a link was given to you so that you can see the issue with the competitors assertions. You then stated that you just like them better (disregarding science and safety concerns). You then say that you, yourself will test the resveratrol batch's randomly, which costs much more than the bottles you would purchase from any competitor, instead of requesting COA's from the competitor's from independent labs.

This simply doesn't sound right.

I am sorry, this sounds like a post made by Crep again.


I think I will let others talk with you if they want to. Hopefully a navigator will disable your link to the advertisement you provided.
I will go enjoy my weekend.

Cheers
A

#19 2tender

  • Guest
  • 673 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 January 2009 - 12:45 AM

I was confused about product, so to insure that I was getting the best Res. I purchased from both companies. Im taking them on an alternate eod basis.

#20 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:45 AM

Joe,

It is hard for me to believe that saying "I like XXXX company" then stating "Here's why" with only a link to the company website is not advertising for them...

I personally can't find you credible at this point.

If you want to discuss questions about resveratrol, then provide the questions or search for answers on this forum.

If you want to know which resveratrol competitor is better based on whatever criteria is right for you, ask the competitors regarding the criteria and make up your own mind. At this point you provided a study, and a link was given to you so that you can see the issue with the competitors assertions. You then stated that you just like them better (disregarding science and safety concerns). You then say that you, yourself will test the resveratrol batch's randomly, which costs much more than the bottles you would purchase from any competitor, instead of requesting COA's from the competitor's from independent labs.

This simply doesn't sound right.

I am sorry, this sounds like a post made by Crep again.


I think I will let others talk with you if they want to. Hopefully a navigator will disable your link to the advertisement you provided.
I will go enjoy my weekend.

Cheers
A


I will not disable the link to longevinex because anyone can google it in about 10 seconds. I will note that the first two headings on that page should set off alarm bells in a critical web-surfer. "Affects 9-fold more genes" is irrelevant. Are they the right genes? Does it matter? Isn't a sort of random expression of genes as likely to be detrimental as not? The second "Overmineralization of Aging" is not by any measure official scientific theory. Other than calcification it's dubious, and would be an effect rather than a cause where aging is concerned. The product contains many other things besides resveratrol; in the current iteration of the product they have included IP6, which should not be taken without monitoring by blood testing, especially by pregnant women. The product is sold with all the aplomb of a snake-oil salesman, which is why so many here have bashed it, besides its relatively high cost.

If Joe is honestly interested in

an honest opinion on which product they feel is giving them the best results

using the forum search tool will provide the answers he needs. This has been discussed

ad-nauseum

.

As for favoring one brand over another, we do not do that intentionally. Sometimes the truth hurts. There is an opinion that has been oft-expressed here that Longevinex is over-priced for the amount of resveratrol, and now contains many other things you might not want to take. Let me bash Revgenetics too. I know they perform diligent testing, but their tween-80 micronized capsule is IMO also an over-priced marketing-driven product. Micronization increases the peak serum level, but actually decreases the area under the curve over time in blood serum. All but one of the 98% - 99% resveratrols we looked at with SEM showed a mix of particle sizes, most under 10 microns, which meets the definition of micronization. Just taking more of a less expensive product would have the same effect on peak level, and lead to longer sustained levels. As for using Tween80 as a carrier, it was not chosen by Sirtris for their formulation - they preferred HPMC. Tween-80 may have issues if you take large (but still within FDA limits) amounts; this we have discussed. But then, if you wanted larger doses of resveratrol than such a pill provides, you would probably be using a powder or at least mere capsules rather than a gel cap.

Edited by maxwatt, 26 January 2009 - 12:44 PM.


#21 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:43 PM

Thanks Max,

I appreciate the feedback. Yes, we were looking to bring up the peak plasma levels with a lower dose. Apparently it makes a difference for certain people who have expressed this to us, because of a certain blood test*. Again, we receive these comments by email and by phone about the issue. I never recommend this for these folks, it was a recommendation done by a specialist as part of their dietary intake.

Now I am stuck between a rock and a hard place... I want to tell you the issue, I want to tell you who recommended us to all his patients, but I cannot. I simply do not have permission from the Doctor at this time. I do have permission from a few patients, but reading the FDA warning letters given to other competitors and companies, simply by providing their story regarding the issue is akin to advertising that a supplement will help you with a particular 'something'. I will not let the company receive one of these letters from the FDA, so I cannot state that resveratrol can help humans with certain issues.

So there you have it, we started making Micronized Resveratrol for a purpose, and it seems the assumptions are good because of the feedback. However, we are a supplement company and to maintain ourselves as such I can only say the following as required:

As a natural herbal supplement: *these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Having said that, we expect Sirtris (or glaxo) to provide a great drug in the future for folks to use and doctors to prescribe, and have insurance cover it. Remember that their drugs are targeting things such as Melas, Diabetes, and Cancer. Personally I think Sirtris will come out with a drug that will target colon/prostate cancer and help with this disease at least 50% of the time, maybe more. The Glaxo drug would at least lower PSA levels for many folks and make them certainly feel able, and enjoy life more like they used to enjoy it, before the disease. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we will see these breakthroughs from Sirtris (or glaxo) in the future. I think Glaxo's purchase of Sirtris was money well spent.

So far we have been recommended by Dr. Joe Maroon in his book http://www.neurosurg...lty/maroon.html. Yes he is also head of A4M, but he is not the doctor I was talking about.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 26 January 2009 - 02:11 PM.


#22 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 26 January 2009 - 03:02 PM

Maxwatt,

As for using Tween80 as a carrier, it was not chosen by Sirtris for their formulation - they preferred HPMC.


I might have missed this, but where does Sitris they state they use HPMC for their formulation? You have been of great help before, so this will help me greatly as it appears we missed it when we were considering the formulation.

thanks
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 26 January 2009 - 03:03 PM.


#23 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 January 2009 - 04:31 PM

Maxwatt,

As for using Tween80 as a carrier, it was not chosen by Sirtris for their formulation - they preferred HPMC.


I might have missed this, but where does Sitris they state they use HPMC for their formulation? You have been of great help before, so this will help me greatly as it appears we missed it when we were considering the formulation.

thanks
A


This patent #20090012080 seems to be Sirtris patent for oral administration. This paper details the amounts used for an aqueous solution used to inject pure resveratrol (SRT501) intravitrealy in the eyes of mice. Such a solution, if sterile and made with 99.9% pure micronized resveratrol might be useful for injection in the veins of cancer patients. I say might. The protocol for Sirtris' human trials in Phases I and II also called for HPMC and DOSS. HPMC makes it soluble, DOSS stabilizes it, and would not be needed if mixed up on the spot. Why they use HPMC instead of Tween-80 I can only guess, but possibly due to potential toxicity issues in very large doses, not seen with HPMC.

I appreciate the requirement you were facing for peak plasma level; the fact is that no one knows if area under the curve or peak level is to be preferred, and it is possible this depends on the condition being treated. It seems you were custom formulating for a physician and are making it available publicly.

#24 Houstonian

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Houston, Tx

Posted 26 January 2009 - 09:11 PM

My 2 cents worth.

Joe, you said you are 51 years of age. That's a year younger than me so we are in the same situation age wise. In general, my age "report card" puts me about a decade younger.

My thoughts are to spend what money you can towards a healthy lifestyle. I personally like to not put all my "eggs" in one basket and attack aging on different fronts. If you have the funds, you could try (as someone else is doing) various manufacturers of resveratrol and do some test on your own. Have some basic blood test and see which one seems to affect your health more positively. If you are a runner, you could log your times and record your heart rates for various dosages and manufacturers also. Performance might give you an indication. Personally, I like to at least "see" how I'm doing and getting regular blood test give me a good indication in addition to how I physically improve.

Since resveratrol mimics CR, you could get some of the same benefits by eating less. http://www.world-sci...115_caloric.htm

So then how much to take and where to buy it from all depends on many factors. One big one being how much are you willing to spend on a regular basis. Plus how healthy are you to begin with. Here's another article about how much to take. http://www.lef.org/m...veratrol_03.htm

again, just my 2 cents

Edited by Houstonian, 26 January 2009 - 09:13 PM.


#25 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 January 2009 - 07:49 PM

Hi! I started a thread on Longevinex, but after reading the posts here I'm afraid some people may suspect it is an attempt to reclamise the product from some infiltrator from the company. I'm just a user of the product who looks for some advice her. The reason why I'm taking Longevinex is - as I explained in the other thread - because several studies seem to indicate that high doses may have serious side effect or even being counterproductive, so I'm trying to chose the more prudent, safest option here. Longevinex, at least according to their claims, correspond to taking 3-5 glasses red wine a day (without the obvoious side effect) which seems a rather prudent choice. However I read here posts containing accusations of fraud about Longevinex, which of course can't fail ringing my alarm bells. Could somebody please elaborate about this, or direct me to links or other Imminst threads where this issue is treated? Thanx!

#26 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:04 PM

Well then, Just how good would "quality of life" be if life was extended for people only because of inside the body functions, but yet their exterior body was full of wrinkles and signs of old age? One example would be, if a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's had the sex drive and stamina of a man in his 20's, but how many "younger attractive" women would want to have sex with him if he looks like a man in his 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's? In other words, what can we do about the extended life of our exterior body to go along with our inner body?

Any thoughts on this?

Joe


Hey Joe, I understand u 100% and share your concerns! I'm 44 and I have a curse: I like younger women - women in their 20s... Fortunately, nature has blessed me with a youthful appearance, I look some 10 years younger and my skin is still wrinkle-free (I have some grey hairs but they can be easily taken care of by dyeing them). However I live in the terror that in a couple years my 'exterior' will decade so much that my only options will be women over 35 (that I personally don't consider sexually attractive - no offense, just matter of taste). So I'm also looking for remedies that can preserve my 'exterior' as long as possible, but it doesn't seem there is much - apart from the usual cosmetic stuff.

#27 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 28 January 2009 - 09:47 PM

Please Read:
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=15491

Specially the part about dummy accounts

If you are serious about finding dosage date, search the forum using the search bar at the top or google:
http://www.google.co...amp;btnG=Search

or

http://www.google.co...amp;btnG=Search

A

#28 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:01 PM

So far the amount of times I see a particular company name on one single post of Proconsul is quite astonishing.

In about 6 sentences it was mentioned 4 times...

I wish I cold do that and have it not be considered advertising.

Zoolander, what do you think?

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 28 January 2009 - 10:03 PM.


#29 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 January 2009 - 11:53 PM

So far the amount of times I see a particular company name on one single post of Proconsul is quite astonishing.

In about 6 sentences it was mentioned 4 times...

I wish I cold do that and have it not be considered advertising.

Zoolander, what do you think?

A


Wait a minute... Are u really accusing me of being a scam?? I wrote that I wanted informations on 'that particular company' presenting false research, as somebody wrote here. I wouldn't highligh such things if I worked for that company right? I also asked the moderator to remove my link on the other thread. That is because I read on this thread somebody accusing Joe of doing publicity for that company. And soon after, you are accusing me?? That seems borderline paranoia amigo. If that company's product is a fake, I would be really grateful to know it, so I'd stop to waste my money on them. On the other side, I didn't think that mentioning a company's name in such a forum would be considered strange, since this is the place where people evaluate products I think. And I have seen people mentioning other companies here, so why so much fuss for 'that one' in particular?

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 29 January 2009 - 12:03 AM

Anthony, I saw you were the one who accused Joe of doing publicity, and now you are accusing me. Are you the moderator here? Because if you aren't, these seem quite heavy accusation to be dropped like that. Who are you to sentence people guilty and without even the benefit of doubts? Also, I'm relatively new here, and this is a big forum, so even if I'm sure the subject have been discussed before, it's difficult to find old threads or posts, that's why I asked for links.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users