Thought everyone might be interested.
Peace be with you all,
AMDG
Zen Catholic
Posted 24 July 2004 - 01:36 AM
Posted 24 July 2004 - 02:51 AM
Posted 24 July 2004 - 03:52 AM
PYRIDOXAMINE-2HCl is one of three natural forms of vitamin B6. Unlike the oter two forms, it has been shown to counter the negative effects of blood sugar by inhibiting glycation and the formation of AGEs in ways similar to carnosine and benfotiamine. Pyridoxamine is neuroprotective, and inhibits lipid peroxidation and vascular damage, making it a premier anti-aging substance. It reduces oxidative stress by blocking superoxide radicals. In Europe it has been used to treat diabetic complications in animals and humans, and studies have compared it to the drug aminoguanidine. Usual dose is up to 100mg, 2 x per day. Elsewhere, 6 grams in capsules is listed at $25 or more. PYRIDOXAMINE-2HCl, pure powder, 20g (200 dose) (SRP $25.00), Our Price: $12.50. Code 106.8
Great news!!
Posted 24 July 2004 - 05:57 PM
Posted 24 July 2004 - 07:57 PM
great price too.. wow!
Posted 27 July 2004 - 02:59 PM
Posted 27 July 2004 - 04:01 PM
Posted 28 July 2004 - 03:47 PM
Posted 28 July 2004 - 04:04 PM
Posted 28 July 2004 - 04:57 PM
AOR-
Assuming your statistics are true, isn't 89-95% PM better than no PM at all? ...
Given my financial limitations, why should I not take a product which is 89-95%PM? Is that 89-95%PM somehow inferior? If it is, why is not worth taking?
You position seems to be the same as the LEF philosophy - that if a product is not pharmaceutical grade, then it's not doing you much (or any) good. Most of us can't afford pharmaceutical-grade supplements.
Posted 28 July 2004 - 05:54 PM
Posted 22 August 2004 - 05:01 AM
If it is indeed true that you have recievedOptimistically, we have requested samples, specification sheets, and certificates of analysis, all of which have been duly sent. But when we have sent these samples to independent labs to be checked, each and every one has flunked. It appears that the reason for these discrepancies is not simple supplier dishonesty or incompetence in their testing labs. It is a problem of outdated testing methodology.
samples, specification sheets, and certificates of analysis
sent these samples to independent labs to be checked
In accordance with your high standards, of course you kept records of these occurences, right? Show me, don't tell me.each and every one has flunked
Posted 22 August 2004 - 11:41 AM
Posted 23 August 2004 - 05:31 AM
Edited by ejdavis1, 23 August 2004 - 06:04 AM.
Posted 23 August 2004 - 12:57 PM
I've worked in sales and marketing before and know that intangible qualities of a product or service can be the largest contributor to value. Consumers love having that safety margin built into products. A little over-insurance never hurt anyone if you can afford it. If it does not cost me that much more, I'll gladly go for the purer supplement.
I do, however, tend also to agree with Zen Catholic's insight above. Our food supply and breathing air almost certainly contain tiny amounts of "unknown contaminants." Is that unacceptable as well?
Edited by nootropi, 23 August 2004 - 01:17 PM.
Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:20 PM
Optimistically, we have requested samples, specification sheets, and certificates of analysis, all of which have been duly sent. But when we have sent these samples to independent labs to be checked, each and every one has flunked. It appears that the reason for these discrepancies is not simple supplier dishonesty or incompetence in their testing labs. It is a problem of outdated testing methodology.
If it is indeed true that you have recieved "samples, specification sheets, and certificates of analysis"
You make it sound as if these samples you recived were grossly unacceptable; I would expect that surely you documented these grossly unacceptable samples, correct?
In accordance with your high standards, of course you kept records of these occurences, right?
Show me, don't tell me.
If you did not I would question the validity of your claims that you "sent these samples to independent labs to be checked" and that "each and every one has flunked"
Posted 23 August 2004 - 09:32 PM
If it's true that:
"By definition, there is nothing wrong with the 89-95% of this material which genuinely is PM. The issue is: what is the biological impact of consuming the contaminant? The answer, at present, is that we haven't the foggiest idea. It could be harmless -- or it could be a quite nasty,... "
then how is 98% pure any different? unless you know what the other 2% actually is, that too could be "quite nasty"
Something 100% pure can be helpful if you have problem to combat but counter-productive if you are healthy.
choose carefully....you are in charge of your own health...
(not to choose is also a choice)
Our food supply and breathing air almost certainly contain tiny amounts of "unknown contaminants." Is that unacceptable as well?
Posted 23 August 2004 - 09:59 PM
Edited by nootropi, 19 December 2004 - 06:54 PM.
Posted 23 August 2004 - 11:07 PM
Posted 23 August 2004 - 11:19 PM
I don't think that prices should be judged in light of the cost of the raw materials. A lot more goes into the value of a product to the consumer, and it takes a lot more profit to support the successful conduct of a business enterprise than one might think. Price alone is not everything.
Posted 24 August 2004 - 04:06 PM
Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:11 PM
Adam-
I'm looking forward to learning about what you and smi2le have planned!
I agree with you - price IS everything. It is only with the recent advent of much cheaper bulk powders that I have been able to add many supplements to my regimen which I could only dream of adding a few years ago (e.g. ALCAR, carnosine, nootropics). My funds are limited, but my desire to constantly improve my regimen is not.
Peace be with you,
AMDG
Zen Catholic
Posted 20 April 2005 - 01:09 AM
Posted 20 April 2005 - 01:42 AM
Posted 21 April 2005 - 02:22 PM
Posted 21 April 2005 - 03:39 PM
Edited by LifeMirage, 31 July 2005 - 06:00 PM.
Posted 21 April 2005 - 03:51 PM
As much as I would like AOR to carry Pyridoxamine, I think they are more concerned with potential legal issues from BioStratum.
Edited by LifeMirage, 31 July 2005 - 06:01 PM.
Posted 22 April 2005 - 02:56 AM
LifeMirage,
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand. BioStratum can't patent pyridoxamine since it has been around being sold. On what basis could there be for a lawsuit? (Biostratum could get a use patent but that wouldn't prevent anyone else from seling it for another purpose).
Smart Nutrition is still selling pyridoxamine, but they have received a lawyer's letter also and it sounds like they may not be selling it for long also.
Oh and Adam's COA above is dated 9/24/03. Is he selling 18 month old product?
Edited by LifeMirage, 31 July 2005 - 06:01 PM.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users