LONGECITY

http://sci-hub.org/works quite well.

http://sci-hub.org/works quite well.

How should I search that?  For example, I am looking for a famous paper:

     Harman, D (1972). "A biologic clock: the mitochondria?". Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20 

When I enter that into sci-hub I get back what looks like a Google search, only less information than what I would get doing that search on Google.

All the help pages appear to be in Russian.   

Can you describe how to best use it?

Often, if you write to authors asking for a copy or preprint they send you one.

The state of the scientific publication world is like a nightmare. Science should be free! Universities should never have given their journals to private companies. They are now paying very high prices for what they have before for free, and now nobody outside an university or research center can read most scientific journals anymore.

 

http://sci-hub.org/works quite well.

 

How should I search that?  For example, I am looking for a famous paper:

 

     Harman, D (1972). "A biologic clock: the mitochondria?". Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20 

 

When I enter that into sci-hub I get back what looks like a Google search, only less information than what I would get doing that search on Google.

 

All the help pages appear to be in Russian.   

 

Can you describe how to best use it?

 

Once you get the Google results, click on the result that interests you. It's will then often load the pdf. Sometimes it doesn't.
 

 

 

http://sci-hub.org/works quite well.

 

How should I search that?  For example, I am looking for a famous paper:

 

     Harman, D (1972). "A biologic clock: the mitochondria?". Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20 

 

When I enter that into sci-hub I get back what looks like a Google search, only less information than what I would get doing that search on Google.

 

All the help pages appear to be in Russian.   

 

Can you describe how to best use it?

 

 

Once you get the Google results, click on the result that interests you. It's will then often load the pdf. Sometimes it doesn't.
 

 

I just did not notice any improvement in the search result using the Russian search engine versus searching Google directly.  I think I don't understand something.

And neither search is giving me the full text of the study.

I think it's hosted in Russia because it flaunts copyright laws; rather than being a search engine per se.

sci-hub doesn't show the Harman study, for me either.

Pone11, it sounds like you're looking for www.deepdyve.com .  You can get access to a lot of the literature (I don't know exactly how much, but I think it's a lot) for $40 a month.  If you sign up for a year it's $30 a month.  They advertise a "free trial"-- cancel before 14 days is up and they won't charge you, but it wasn't obvious how easy it was to cancel.  I just looked into it today for a paper I wanted, but didn't want to get into some sort of impossible to cancel deal.  I found the paper for free on sci-hub.  Thanks for the tip, Razor444!

I think it's hosted in Russia because it flaunts copyright laws; rather than being a search engine per se.

 

sci-hub doesn't show the Harman study, for me either.

Can you give an example of a search that works on sci-hub that does not work on Google?   That might go far to educate anyone reading this thread in future about how it works.

The Richie et al. paper on glutathione: 'Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione'.

If you search via Google Scholar, and click through, you get a two page sample. If you use sci-hub, you go directly to the full pdf.

The Richie et al. paper on glutathione: 'Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione'.

 

If you search via Google Scholar, and click through, you get a two page sample. If you use sci-hub, you go directly to the full pdf.

Good example, and I'm a believer.

On that study, I'm surprised at the result.  I thought glutathione levels would be self-regulating and the endogenous production would go down over time to compensate for supplementation.   I wonder how much better the result would be with a liposomal version.

Lol people the https://www.deepdyve.com/ offers 2 weeks trial. 

I hope, that they will offer it each year.

This means, that if we gather 26 people, we will have one year free access to sicentific literature. lol. Plus it will be absolutely legal - the deepdyve offers the 2 weeks legally lol

So, I need 25 people more, and we have to make a shedule when to be each - other's 2 weeks free trial lol

Can you imagine it, if they offer it each year? We will have a free access to scientific literature forever lol lol lol

 

The Richie et al. paper on glutathione: 'Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione'.

 

If you search via Google Scholar, and click through, you get a two page sample. If you use sci-hub, you go directly to the full pdf.

 

Good example, and I'm a believer.

 

On that study, I'm surprised at the result.  I thought glutathione levels would be self-regulating and the endogenous production would go down over time to compensate for supplementation.   I wonder how much better the result would be with a liposomal version.

 

Before looking at the paper (and hearing about on Longecity), I thought the same thing.
 

 

 

The Richie et al. paper on glutathione: 'Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione'.

 

If you search via Google Scholar, and click through, you get a two page sample. If you use sci-hub, you go directly to the full pdf.

 

Good example, and I'm a believer.

 

On that study, I'm surprised at the result.  I thought glutathione levels would be self-regulating and the endogenous production would go down over time to compensate for supplementation.   I wonder how much better the result would be with a liposomal version.

 

 

Before looking at the paper (and hearing about on Longecity), I thought the same thing.
 

Does the maker of this "Setria" version of glutathione make any claims to explain why their version bioabsorbs and others do not?

 

 

 

The Richie et al. paper on glutathione: 'Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione'.

 

If you search via Google Scholar, and click through, you get a two page sample. If you use sci-hub, you go directly to the full pdf.

 

Good example, and I'm a believer.

 

On that study, I'm surprised at the result.  I thought glutathione levels would be self-regulating and the endogenous production would go down over time to compensate for supplementation.   I wonder how much better the result would be with a liposomal version.

 

 

Before looking at the paper (and hearing about on Longecity), I thought the same thing.
 

 

Does the maker of this "Setria" version of glutathione make any claims to explain why their version bioabsorbs and others do not?

 

On the bottle I have (Healthy Origins. Thanks Turnbuckle!), it says it's produced via a 'proprietary fermentation process'. Other than that, there's no mention of anything else which would account for superior absorption. There may well be some more technical rationale on their website.

 so this is a pretty strange business model to give your content away for free to the people who use it most heavily, but to try to charge a fortune to those who are just curious about it.

 

Oh rest assured they're charging the universities a great fortune for these "free" subscriptions.  The government of course prints that money up and hands it to the universities in the form of "indirect cost" headings on their research grants.  So that's why we regular folks are priced out of that market -- we're bidding against the government. 

Love the deepdyve ploy by the way.  I bet that can work, precisely because it appeals to the regular folk, which aren't really a threat to the university subscription model (so far?). 

 

 

 

 

The Richie et al. paper on glutathione: 'Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione'.

 

If you search via Google Scholar, and click through, you get a two page sample. If you use sci-hub, you go directly to the full pdf.

 

Good example, and I'm a believer.

 

On that study, I'm surprised at the result.  I thought glutathione levels would be self-regulating and the endogenous production would go down over time to compensate for supplementation.   I wonder how much better the result would be with a liposomal version.

 

 

Before looking at the paper (and hearing about on Longecity), I thought the same thing.
 

 

Does the maker of this "Setria" version of glutathione make any claims to explain why their version bioabsorbs and others do not?

 

 

On the bottle I have (Healthy Origins. Thanks Turnbuckle!), it says it's produced via a 'proprietary fermentation process'. Other than that, there's no mention of anything else which would account for superior absorption. There may well be some more technical rationale on their website.

 

At the risk of hijacking my own thread, this glutathione study is quite interesting:

http://www.sciencedi...213231713000645

They test four different ways of boosting GSH and the winner by a large margin was that "Sulforaphane produced the most potent effect, increasing GSH by up to 2.4-fold. PC-Res increased GSH up to 1.6-fold,"   Unfortunately, this is an in vitro study so who knows what happens when you put this stuff into a human or mouse.   Study is available on sci-hub.

A duel approach of reduced GSH and Nrf2 activators may be optimal.

anti-agingfirewalls.com has a number of articles pertaining to Nrf2; and is a great resource in general!