37 replies to this topic

[opendoor]

David Sinclair wrote:

NEW STUDY: Colon cancer study, Oct 27:
"3.7% control mice vs 68.7% resveratrol-treated mice free of metastasis. Oral resv at 30 mg/kg. Amzng"

1:10 PM Oct 30th from web



I couldn't find any other information....

[Anthony_Loera]

David Sinclair wrote:

NEW STUDY: Colon cancer study, Oct 27:
"3.7% control mice vs 68.7% resveratrol-treated mice free of metastasis. Oral resv at 30 mg/kg. Amzng"

1:10 PM Oct 30th from web



I couldn't find any other information....

He's a little late to the party.

We sent our newsletter a day earlier to our customers pointing to this study a well as a couple others, or PM me.
Maybe you should sign up for my little newsletter?

This is the abstract of the study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....3?dopt=Abstract

If your interested to see what was in the newsletter, look for a link in the blog section of the website.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 November 2009 - 02:24 AM.

[opendoor]

He's a little late to the party.

Why didn't you post it here then?

Maybe you should sign up for my little newsletter?

Thanks for the offer, but I don't trust you enough to read your newsletter.




Anti-cancer activities of resveratrol (3,4',5-trihydroxylstilbene) have attracted extensive research attention. Suppression of pulmonary metastasis of BALB/c mice challenged with CT26 colorectal adenocarcinoma cells achieved by oral administration of resveratrol was assessed in three separate experiments. Each mouse was challenged by tail vein injection with CT26 cells. Prior to challenge, 8-wk-old mice were fed with a basal diet and orally administered with resveratrol (30 mg/kg/2 days) eight or twelve times. After challenge, oral administration of resveratrol was continued until mice were sacrificed on day 20. As integrated from three experiments, 3.7% of the control mice (n=27) and 68.7% of the resveratrol-treated mice (n=26) exhibited free of metastasis. In a second study, 8-wk-old BALB/c mice were orally administered with resveratrol 12 times and challenged with CT26 cells for 100 days. All control mice died but 50% of the resveratrol-treated mice survived. The surviving mice were challenged with CT26 cells by hypodermic injection, fed with a basal diet for an additional 30 days, and sacrificed. Tumor lumps or nodules were not detected at the injection sites or in the lungs. This reveals that intrinsic vaccination-like defense has resulted from administration of resveratrol and challenge of tumor cells.

Edited by opendoor, 01 November 2009 - 02:54 AM.

[opendoor]

Anthony,
I saw the news letter at RevGen's blog.
I'm curious who the doctor in the picture is since I didn't see a name. Is he related to resveratrol?
Second, why did you write this:

Although the studies are far from complete for humans, they may help determine new treatments for a variety of these issues sometime in the future.



Sirtris' cancer/liver trial is over in December. That is, very close to complete.

Edited by opendoor, 01 November 2009 - 03:48 AM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Opendoor,
It is interesting how you tell me that you don't trust me enough to to read my newsletter... and then run out to read it...

Then does that mean you trust me now?

As for your second post:
Sirtris study is aimed at colon/liver? I believe women may want human studies on breast cancer, while others would want studies on other types of cancer as well? Many others don't want to know about cancer, but longevity, or how it affects muscle and bone in older folks... wouldn't this constitute that resveratrol studies far from complete for humans?

Our scientist is looking to do other items not related to cancer as well, while the NIH is looking to check if two grams of resveratrol a day helps out older folks. (I think you may have read something about the NIH item in the newsletter?)

The newsletter is not limited to studies on 1 subject.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 November 2009 - 01:42 PM.

[tunt01]

anyone have a thought on the risk of taking resveratrol and retroviruses? say a person has XMRV, HTLV or other retroviruses -- is taking resveratrol a bad idea then?

[maxwatt]

anyone have a thought on the risk of taking resveratrol and retroviruses? say a person has XMRV, HTLV or other retroviruses -- is taking resveratrol a bad idea then?

SIRT1 activation seems to inhibit some kinds of retroviruses (HIV) in vitro. The mice in Sinclair's study that were infected with a lymphoma retrovirus had the same life-span whether being fed resveratrol or not. It is possible thathte pathways resveratrol inhibits or activates could possibly agonize some particular retrovirus, but in general this seems unlikely.

[opendoor]

Opendoor,
It is interesting how you tell me that you don't trust me enough to to read my newsletter... and then run out to read it...

Then does that mean you trust me now?

No, I don't trust you. That is unfortunate because you claim you test every batch of resveratrol as well. I actually do believe that for whatever reason, though.
Is your scientist the person on the newsletter? He has a stethascope , but his name isn't available. Why not identify him and his area of specialty as long as you have a picture up anyway?

As for your second post:
Sirtris study is aimed at colon/liver? I believe women may want human studies on breast cancer, while others would want studies on other types of cancer as well? Many others don't want to know about cancer, but longevity, or how it affects muscle and bone in older folks... wouldn't this constitute that resveratrol studies far from complete for humans?

Sirtis has already shown SRT501 is effective against daibetes, and that effects a lot of people. The colon/liver study is very important because colon cancer also affects a pretty large population, and unlike breast cancer, the 5 year survival rate isn't very high yet. Liver cancer much lower - around 10% live over 5 years after diagnosis.
Sirtris also has another completely different type of cancer, multiple meyeloma, in trials with results expected in a year. So no, resveratrol studies aren't far from complete for humans. It just seemed strange that you'd phrase it that way.

[opendoor]

70% seems great compared to 4% of control mice, but I wonder why not even higher like over 90%. There was a study that showed mice taking resveratrol were protected better against an alcohol related stroke than control mice. I think it was 20% had a stroke opposed to 80% of the control mice. Again, it would seem like if resveratrol is doing something effective, there would be a higher percent benefiting. Then again, in the stroke case, the mice who got strokes even with resveratrol had somewhat milder ones.

[niner]

NEW STUDY: Colon cancer study, Oct 27:
"3.7% control mice vs 68.7% resveratrol-treated mice free of metastasis. Oral resv at 30 mg/kg. Amzng"

Yes, that's pretty nice, but it was only a 3 week experiment. Still, it's a good result with a reasonable dose.
Here's the full abstract:

Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009 Oct 27. [Epub ahead of print]
Oral administration of resveratrol in suppression of pulmonary metastasis of BALB/c mice challenged with CT26 colorectal adenocarcinoma cells.

Weng YL, Liao HF, Li AF, Chang JC, Chiou RY.

Department of Food Science, National Chiayi University, Chaiyi, Taiwan.

Anti-cancer activities of resveratrol (3,4',5-trihydroxylstilbene) have attracted extensive research attention. Suppression of pulmonary metastasis of BALB/c mice challenged with CT26 colorectal adenocarcinoma cells achieved by oral administration of resveratrol was assessed in three separate experiments. Each mouse was challenged by tail vein injection with CT26 cells. Prior to challenge, 8-wk-old mice were fed with a basal diet and orally administered with resveratrol (30 mg/kg/2 days) eight or twelve times. After challenge, oral administration of resveratrol was continued until mice were sacrificed on day 20. As integrated from three experiments, 3.7% of the control mice (n=27) and 68.7% of the resveratrol-treated mice (n=26) exhibited free of metastasis. In a second study, 8-wk-old BALB/c mice were orally administered with resveratrol 12 times and challenged with CT26 cells for 100 days. All control mice died but 50% of the resveratrol-treated mice survived. The surviving mice were challenged with CT26 cells by hypodermic injection, fed with a basal diet for an additional 30 days, and sacrificed. Tumor lumps or nodules were not detected at the injection sites or in the lungs. This reveals that intrinsic vaccination-like defense has resulted from administration of resveratrol and challenge of tumor cells.

PMID: 19862773

This last part is interesting; the surviving mice seem to have developed an immune response against the tumor. Very cool.

[Anthony_Loera]

Opendoor,

Again...what you typed up in your last post does not cover all the benefits that resveratrol is considered for.
So, if your world is limited to what SRT501 is testing, then for you... it maybe correct.

However, it does not cover other types of cancer, bone density, muscle growth, feeling of well being, longevity, etc... these have not been tested in humans.
In my world, resveratrol human studies are far from over...

We expect the NIH to do some of these tests, and as mentioned before, we are helping them with one of these.
(The NIH request document is on our website if you would like to see it)

[Anthony_Loera]

Opendoor,

Since you are still a pretty new compared to most people here, I suggest to look at some of the older posts in the 500 club to see who has been here for the long haul talking about resveratrol: http://www.imminst.o...day-t14124.html

If anyone else is new, and just browsing the website, I would ask you to consider that thread as well. It has tons of information, and in my opinion, should be pinned along with the pricewatch thread and resveratrol effectiveness thread.

Cheers
A

[malbecman]

Given the multivariate nature of cancer, 70% is outstanding, actually......

70% seems great compared to 4% of control mice, but I wonder why not even higher like over 90%. There was a study that showed mice taking resveratrol were protected better against an alcohol related stroke than control mice. I think it was 20% had a stroke opposed to 80% of the control mice. Again, it would seem like if resveratrol is doing something effective, there would be a higher percent benefiting. Then again, in the stroke case, the mice who got strokes even with resveratrol had somewhat milder ones.

[opendoor]

Opendoor,

Again...what you typed up in your last post does not cover all the benefits that resveratrol is considered for.
So, if your world is limited to what SRT501 is testing, then for you... it maybe correct.

However, it does not cover other types of cancer, bone density, muscle growth, feeling of well being, longevity, etc... these have not been tested in humans.
In my world, resveratrol human studies are far from over...

We expect the NIH to do some of these tests, and as mentioned before, we are helping them with one of these.
(The NIH request document is on our website if you would like to see it)

It just seemed strange how you worded it, as if we won't know for years what the Sirtris pills might do. I think there is a good chance SRT501 will be considered a cancer breakthrough in a few weeks. It isn't quite the same study as the recent mouse/cancer study, but if 70% of the patients saw tumors shrink or even (gasp) disappear, that would be pretty exciting.
Multiple Meyeloma results are only a year away as well. I've wondered why they picked those cancers to test, but glad to see both are fairly common and hard to treat. Did they maybe assume it wouldn't work well for lung cancer?

The Sirtris pills are almost certainly more powerful than just reseveratrol alone, so it makes sense to follow how a resveratrol blend performs on different cancers. And as I wrote, the SRT501 diabetes study is very big news. Wouldn't you agree with that?

I'm glad the NIH is finally doing tests with resveratrol and wonder why those didn't start a couple of years ago. Wouldn't it be easy to test 2g on diabetics? Do you know why the NIH is using RevGenetics for only one of the studies? If they are doing a series, why not get it all from your company? Also, what are they testing RevGen on?

(As for 70% being great, I agree, but wonder why it didn't do well with the other 30%. )

Edited by opendoor, 02 November 2009 - 10:42 PM.

[ensun]

(As for 70% being great, I agree, but wonder why it didn't do well with the other 30%. )

30mg/kg is still low for a cancer-fighting dose. Another study showed optimal resveratrol effect against cancer at 180mg/kg.

This still probably wouldn't bring it to 100%. Resveratrol isn't effective against all cancers.

[opendoor]

(As for 70% being great, I agree, but wonder why it didn't do well with the other 30%. )

30mg/kg is still low for a cancer-fighting dose. Another study showed optimal resveratrol effect against cancer at 180mg/kg.

This still probably wouldn't bring it to 100%. Resveratrol isn't effective against all cancers.

Why wouldn't they go higher than 30mg/kg?
Can you link the study that showed the optimal amount is 180mg/kg?

Also, how do we know for sure yet that resveratrol isn't effective for all types? That could be the case, but how has that been settled?

[Anthony_Loera]

I'm glad the NIH is finally doing tests with resveratrol and wonder why those didn't start a couple of years ago. Wouldn't it be easy to test 2g on diabetics? Do you know why the NIH is using RevGenetics for only one of the studies? If they are doing a series, why not get it all from your company? Also, what are they testing RevGen on?

Wow, you like making a lot of assumptions don't ya?

A

[opendoor]

I'm glad the NIH is finally doing tests with resveratrol and wonder why those didn't start a couple of years ago. Wouldn't it be easy to test 2g on diabetics? Do you know why the NIH is using RevGenetics for only one of the studies? If they are doing a series, why not get it all from your company? Also, what are they testing RevGen on?

Wow, you like making a lot of assumptions don't ya?

A

What assumptions?

You said the NIH was using RevGenetics for one of their studies but also said they were conducting several resveratrol studies.
"We expect the NIH to do some of these tests, and as mentioned before, we are helping them with one of these."


When you wrote they are testing to see the effectiveness on the elderly, is that one study? Can you tell us what they are specifically studying?

[Anthony_Loera]

Opendoor,

Regarding what they are testing: You'll need to wait and see.
About assumptions: You do make many assumptions.

The words "Some of these tests" refer to the tests we would like them to do.
How on earth did you make the assumption I was talking about a "series"? That is all in your head.

I know it's exciting that they are taking steps to test 2 grams a day in humans, but things work slowly because of bureaucracy. Don't make assumptions that the whole world is as excited about this as we are here. Remember life, work, testing, proper paperwork and bureaucracy all will have a hand as to the time-frame of completion. I believe the results may prompt other possible studies.

Cheers
A

[opendoor]

Opendoor,

The words "Some of these tests" refer to the tests we would like them to do.
How on earth did you make the assumption I was talking about a "series"? That is all in your head.

Nah. Not in my head: You wrote, "We expect the NIH to do some of these tests, and as mentioned before, we are helping them with one of these. One of what? "These tests" , plural, more than one.

But thanks for clearing that up.

so,
1) who is the doctor with the stethascope on your newsletter? Is he a resveratrol scientist? It simply looks strange not to have his name there.
2) Can you tell us what test the NIH plans to do with 2 g of Revgenetics? This is a good sign. Wish there were more.

Edited by opendoor, 03 November 2009 - 02:13 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Opendoor,

Again...what you typed up in your last post does not cover all the benefits that resveratrol is considered for.
So, if your world is limited to what SRT501 is testing, then for you... it maybe correct.

However, it does not cover other types of cancer, bone density, muscle growth, feeling of well being, longevity, etc... these have not been tested in humans.
In my world, resveratrol human studies are far from over...

We expect the NIH to do some of these tests, and as mentioned before, we are helping them with one of these.
(The NIH request document is on our website if you would like to see it)

Hmmm....
When I read my initial post, it seems quite clear to me.

I have no new information to post for you opendoor, so I will leave you with that and take my leave from this thread for a bit.

Cheers
A

[opendoor]

I have no new information to post for you opendoor, so I will leave you with that and take my leave from this thread for a bit.

Cheers
A

You said the 2g were for the elderly. If you can't say what they are testing for, could you tell us when we might know?
At any rate, I hope the 2g regimine helps the elderly in future trials.

[ensun]

(As for 70% being great, I agree, but wonder why it didn't do well with the other 30%. )

30mg/kg is still low for a cancer-fighting dose. Another study showed optimal resveratrol effect against cancer at 180mg/kg.

This still probably wouldn't bring it to 100%. Resveratrol isn't effective against all cancers.

Why wouldn't they go higher than 30mg/kg?
Can you link the study that showed the optimal amount is 180mg/kg?

Also, how do we know for sure yet that resveratrol isn't effective for all types? That could be the case, but how has that been settled?

Yes, it seems 180 mg/kg did not perform much better:

Treatment of 180 mg/kg resveratrol for 3 days caused 69.3% decrease of ODC activities in croton oil-induced dorsal epidermis. It was shown that resveratrol could inhibit DMBA/croton oil-induced mouse skin papilloma, which includes prolonging the latent period of tumor occurrence, decreasing the incidence of papilloma, and reducing tumor number per mouse in dose-dependent manner.

Resveratrol is not effective against all cancer types. I've read dozens of studies, papers, etc., and I can't find the reference right now. But first of all, resveratrol is most effective in gastrointestinal tract cancers due to bioavailability issues. (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Resveratrol)

But it is still not effective against all gastrointestinal cancers. Resveratrol can cause cancer cell death by gene acetylation/deacetylation, or turning a gene on or off. Resveratrol acetylates more genes than almost any other natural compound discovered. This deprives some cancer cell lines of the mechanisms they need to survive but does not effect some other cancer cell lines.

[smithx]

Opendoor is just nearly trolling and I think should get a warning.

You're being annoying opendoor.

Clearly that doctor is just a stock photo, and you know it, and it doesn't matter, so stop wasting space asking about it.

[opendoor]

Opendoor is just nearly trolling and I think should get a warning.

You're being annoying opendoor.

Clearly that doctor is just a stock photo, and you know it, and it doesn't matter, so stop wasting space asking about it.

I don't feel I'm being annoying, so I guess we have a different opinion.
No, it wasn't obvious that is a stock photo of a doctor since Anthony mentioned a scientist in his newsletter.

[2tender]

Opendoor, you have posted informatively before. We are here for open discussion pertaining to an exchange of knowledge regarding Resveratrol, your personal feelings regarding certain members that are well-liked and respected here, does not enhance that exchange. Please post informatively as you have previously. Thanks!

[opendoor]

Opendoor, you have posted informatively before. We are here for open discussion pertaining to an exchange of knowledge regarding Resveratrol, your personal feelings regarding certain members that are well-liked and respected here, does not enhance that exchange. Please post informatively as you have previously. Thanks!

Thanks for the concern. Anthony asked me to sign up for his newsletter. I said wasn't interestted in signing up for it because I don't trust what he writes. I didn't say I completely mistrust him and assume RevGenetics resveratrol is fine, but he lost my trust after I read through some archives. Others have been very critical of other resveratrol sellers, and they have expressed these views. I don't see a problem with that. I said it only once until responding to you.

Edited by opendoor, 06 November 2009 - 01:37 AM.

[bixbyte]

anyone have a thought on the risk of taking resveratrol and retroviruses? say a person has XMRV, HTLV or other retroviruses -- is taking resveratrol a bad idea then?

SIRT1 activation seems to inhibit some kinds of retroviruses (HIV) in vitro. The mice in Sinclair's study that were infected with a lymphoma retrovirus had the same life-span whether being fed resveratrol or not. It is possible thathte pathways resveratrol inhibits or activates could possibly agonize some particular retrovirus, but in general this seems unlikely.

MaxWatt,

Inosine is sold and readily available in the USA for athletic performance use.

Modulate the antiViral medication Inosine with Resveratrol and Niacin.

Inosine is Recognized by the WHO as an AntiViral and does not have any US FDA restrictions.

Nucleosides are very interesting.
IMHO, The sugar molecule breaks down into Nucleotides deep in your cells and might repair damaged RNA.

Bix

[Anthony_Loera]

Hehehe...

I just read your last post opendoor.

I have been known to say I was wrong about something on this board, and apologize... others will not do that. I am surprised more folks don't say you are trolling now since you don't link to the 'objectionable' content that you say made you lose trust. The only content I see, is the fact that mentioned that I believed you were an old user called Crepulance, or Holmes the guy who was a puppet for the "other" company when you first started posting...

If that hurt your feelings... I simply won't apologize. The fact is that I still believe you are one of these folks... maybe both.

Here are threads when I first noticed your bias:
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=344630
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=345510
http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry346118

The last link only tells me that you don't like doing searches... so your comment about reading archived posts struck me as funny.

(Ahh nuts, this whole little conversation will probably be moved as it doesn't contribute to the knowledge in this thread... just an apparent spat.)

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 06 November 2009 - 02:50 AM.

[opendoor]

Hehehe...

I just read your last post opendoor.

I have been known to say I was wrong about something on this board, and apologize... others will not do that. I am surprised more folks don't say you are trolling now since you don't link to the 'objectionable' content that you say made you lose trust. The only content I see, is the fact that mentioned that I believed you were an old user called Crepulance, or Holmes the guy who was a puppet for the "other" company when you first started posting...

If you read through some of the archived posts, it is clear that you have at times claimed posters say something that they did not when you disagree with what they have written.