Forum

2tender said:  I think it may be beneath your level of intellect to nit-pick, and bash other posters, let it go. I know you have a wealth of information regarding Resveratrol and other scientific matters. 

---

First we had RevGenetics doing something I'm quite sure Dr. Sinclair would not approve of, namely, using his quote out of context and not report the immediate follow up on dosages that contradict Revgenetics' little word games. As a consumer, I'd like to knoiw if a resveratrol vendor is playing games with respect to what the biggest name in the field said.  Any vendor.

With respect to maxwatt, cancer is a serious issue, and many are having their hopes raised with the prospect of either a cure or a slowing down of the disease. So if so serious, why did maxwatt post 2g here and the one he knew to be true, 1.5g twice a day , or 3g, where he is a moderator? He was just "updating…"  Right.

People reading this forum may check the resveratrol forum at the Immortality Institute because there is some good information there. Unfortunately, there is also a heavy bias toward  high dosages and even more agaisnt lower dosages. 2tender himself repeatedly says he recommends "clicking the pretty picture at the top of the site," which is of course RevGenetics. Nothing wrong with that, but if Longevinex is mentioned, RevGenetics accuses the person (not just me) of being a "sock puppet" and plays a game where he knows the navigators, who want his ad revenue, will shove aside posters who question high dose and not cave immediately. maxwatt also sells high dose resveratrol. See how a small problem might arise?

It isn't a soap opera. Really, it is boring – anyone who reads there long enough knows there is a game going on.  

Post edited 10:21 pm – November 27, 2009 by FM2020

2tender said: I know you're credible Maxwatt, others know that too.

The questions are: 

1) why did Maxwatt post a higher dose of 3g for the cancer patient at the Immt Ist and just 2g here?

2) why did he write that Nicholas Wade (New York Times),   thinks of Dr. Sinclair as "somewhat of a clown" without providing a link? Did he talk to Wade himself??

3) why did Maxwatt pretend that a 2007 article that showed Dr. Sinclair took a litlle over 300mg of Longevinex a day was suspect, despite being a scoop by the Immt Inst at the time, and then lock and move the thread?

4)  why did he praise my posts and then ban me — twice? Both times claiming it was a suspension when it was a ban?

5) why did Maxwatt tell the Immt Inst. resveratrol forum what country I'm posting from? Is that typical navigation behavior?

Maxwatt posts good some stuff, has been called out on his errors by other biochemists, and also plays games as navigator. It will be good for that forum if the games end soon, but the administration seems to defend him. 

So what?

FM2020 said:

MaxWatt said:

Simple explanation:  I updated the imminst forum as I received more information, but did not bother to here because:

---

The posts were one day apart.

 I think it is b.s., just like all the other games you play at the Immt Inst as navigator.

By the way, you once posted at the Immortality Institute that NY Times reporter Nicholas Wade thought Dr. Sinclair was "somewhat of a clown."

Can you back that up with any evidence at all?

Thanks in advance.

Post edited 6:30 am – November 25, 2009 by MaxWatt

Simple explanation:  I updated the imminst forum as I received more information, but did not bother to here because:

a. the forum software in a pain to use (immnst.org forums have better software.)

b. Smaller audience, and apparently the same people.

c. I did not actually see him take resveratrol, he was not weighing it but he estimated it as between 2 and 3 grams.

Hopefully, the Resveratrol is what triggered the remission here and will continue to heal to this person. Miracles do happen. Please keep us updated on this Maxwatt.

Post edited 9:17 am – November 12, 2009 by RevGenetics

Davids said:

Michael Karin reported at a conference in Madrid his a new liver cancer mouse model – sees liver cancer is up 4-5 fold in mice that are obese vs lean ones.  TOR, STAT3 pathways are implicated in causation.

Using this model, Manual Serrano at CNIO Madrid reports that his supermouse is highly resistant to liver cancer, the most common lethal form of cancer in humans (see New Engl J Medicine 348:1623 for cancer risk). Amazingly, the livers treated with the carcinogen has much less DNA damage (measured by H2AX staining). 

Hi David,

I believe you mention this because resveratrol upregulates the P53 Gene, however we have to point out that the super mice were engineered to have extra P53 genes. That is ok, as in another study were P53, P16 and Telomerase where upregulated in the same way, the mice lived about 25% longer if I recall. Not sure if it will work in humans of course, but keeping these 3 genes active and healthy looks pretty good to maintain general health.

I think it maybe beneficial to take consider upregulating these 3 genes, not just one of them.

Here is the text from Manuel Serrano:

Manuel Serrano*, Isabel García-Cao, and Ander Matheu Spanish National Center of Biotechnology, Campus de Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain *Present address: Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain
Research on cancer has benefited enormously from the genetic manipulation of mice. Until recently, most of the emphasis has been put on tailoring genetic alterations that recapitulate particular aspects of the tumorigenic process. However, the reciprocal question of whether it is possible to confer cancer resistance to mammalian organisms, has remained largely unexplored (reviewed in ref. 1).    We have undertaken a long-term project with the goal of testing the effects of increasing the gene dosage of critical tumor suppressors in mice, with a strong emphasis not only on cancer but also on aging and general organismal fitness. We have recently reported the generation and characterization of "super p53" mice (ref. 2).    We have different mouse colonies carrying either two, or three, or four extra gene copies of p53 in the form of large transgenic BACs. Previously, we have proven that these "genomic" transgenes recapitulate faithfully the expression and function of p53 when present in mice that are nullfortheendogenousgenes. These"superp53"mani- fest an enhanced defensive response to genotoxic agents, as shown by an increased apoptosis after ionizing radiation.    The more stringent elimination of damaged cells has a reflection on an increased resistance to develop tumors when challenged with carci- nogens, and also to spontaneous tumors.

link: http://www.google.com/url?q=ht…..aXDNg_cYLA