I am getting a bit sick of all the BS that people are sending me, saying whatever product they represent (usually by an MLM ) is superior to TA-65. I allow dissenting opinions, because no one is ever right 100% of the time, including me. Over the past few months I have publicly retracted statements I made a few years back, when new research indicated a clear cut answer to a question, or viewpoint I had expressed, that was incorrect. Even the great Dr Joe Mercola has publically admitted making mistakes. Not so long ago he sent an email out stating that after years of pushing cod liver oil, he does not endorse it any more. He gave, as his reason, concern that high doses of Vitamin A, as found in cod liver oil, might interfere with Vitamin D absorption/metabolism and could lead to an increase in colon cancer.
It takes a lot of guts to admit you might have had a hand in causing someone’s colon cancer, but if that is the case, then honesty is always the best policy.
And so it is to honesty that I speak to the people who persist on sending me comments about various and sundry (usually MLM) compounds.
1) The only possible study that was done on these compounds (I know of one of them, no others) was with a TRAP assay for telomerase. The expression of active telomerase does not necessarily equate to telomere maintenance, or lengthening (Oulette 1999 and others!) so, while that is a start, it is a far cry from proving anything.
2) These assays are done on human cell cultures, under ideal conditions, with varying concentrations of the product. This is how initial studies were done on TA-65. Mouse and human studies followed.
3) There is a little thing called “pharmacokinetics”, which describes how things are absorbed in the gut and distributed throughout the blood volume and ultimately the cells. Only TA-65 has this data because no one else has bothered to test their products in this fashion.
4) Even with positives on all of the above, the end point is “what does it do in live people”?
5) Since TA-65 was tested for safety and efficacy, using end points like a reduction in critically short telomeres, immune system de-aging, bone density improvements, inflammatory marker reduction, vision, skin and improvements in blood glucose and other “age related” biomarkers, it is the only supplement that has that data. The other supplements have none, not even safety data. They are made up using pre-existing supplements, that have proven safe, but in theory, at least a specific combination could have toxicity as the sum of its parts, that the individual compounds do not have. None of the “competitors” even have mouse studies.
This does not mean that the aforementioned compounds are worthless as supplements. They may indeed be a “telomere maintenance supplement”. Many contain a good mix of active antioxidants that may indeed slow telomere loss. We don’t know that for sure, but let’s assume it’s true for the moment. This is still a far cry from telomerase activation, in real live human beings, with reproducible results. It is also a far cry from the many mouse studies done with TA-65 in Maria Blasco’s and others’ labs around the globe. Said studies have shown remarkable reversal, in many physical parameters of aging; in at least one study, a 40% extension of lifespan. (Mice do not age solely by telomere loss, or it would probably be much longer).
I also understand the MLM mentality. Everyone is gung ho to change the world and make millions. The obscene fact that an infinitesimally small number of people do, either whether in or out of an MLM, seems not to be a deterrent.
Here is some of the BS I have had to listen to:
‘Our product has 30% more of the astragalus extract used in TA-65.’
Answer: if that is true, you are in violation of International Patent law and will be prosecuted and probably shut down. Better check your facts.
‘Our product is 10X more effective than TA-65.’
Answer: Great! I want some, but show me the human studies first.
‘I’ll show you studies, just give me a year.’
Answer: If you are making claims now, you should have the backup NOW, not in 1 year. I know, for a fact, one company has never pursed the studies they made so much noise about doing.
‘But it’s got bacopasides!!!’
Answer: What the hell does that mean? Do you have any idea what a bacopaside is? Since the answer is probably “no,” let me help. Functionally, Bacopa monnieri is an ethnobotanical antioxidant that has some ability to help with the generation of the body’s most potent antioxidant, glutathione. It may also influence neurotransmitters, like ACH and dopamine. The association of bacopa and telomeres exists in one single trial that just started and was filed in March 2012; thus, there is no data yet.
It is possible that a company has “internal data” they are not sharing, about a particular ingredient but, as of this writing, the only potentially reputable trial to even associate the words bacopa and telomere in the same paragraph is at least a year from completion.
Now, here is the thing. Most of these claims are not written anywhere. They are the parroted words of an MLM devotee, who feels personally attacked, when asked for solid proof. That is when the ad hominem attacks on me start, by these people who have never met me and have no clue about what I really do.
In the words of Larry David, “Curb your enthusiasm!”, at least on my site. If you want me to take what has, here to fore, been absolute nonsense mixed with ignorance, BS and not a little bit of marketing hyperbole, fed to you by salesmen who use you to make their money for them in large doses, seriously, you are going to have to show me proof.
Until you actually have more than what your up lines told you, please do not claim any product is superior to TA-65. There are some head to head trials going on right now that are awaiting publication. Wanna guess what they show? My attitude, in this blog, should be a big hint!!!!
Finally, Suzanne Somers’ book “Bombshell”, mentions only one telomerase activator for 21 pages — TA-65, not anything else, for telomerase activation. So, if you think that her book is going to increase your revenues and down line signups for something else, you will be disappointed.
Remember, there is a huge difference between telomere support, telomerase activation in cell culture and lengthening telomeres, in real live human beings. The latter is the only end point that really matters and that is where TA-65 has a monopoly. So, if you want to convince me that you have something worthwhile, show me those human studies. Don’t say you are “going to do them” and then not get around to it, as one of these companies seems to have done. Get a reputable lab, with reputable scientists and do an independent study, the way TA Sciences has done. No one else has. I have been approached by all the MLM’s to support their product and have declined for this reason.
Someday, there will be a superior product to TA-65. When it comes, I will test it take it and report on it. But that day is not today, or tomorrow, or any time in the immediate future. Meanwhile, unless you are lengthening those critically short telomeres, you are getting older.
Don’t blame me!
24 thoughts on “TA-65 versus other telomerase activators”
Enjoyed your blog.
How do you feel about adding ta65 to standard treatment for lung cancer, chemo and radiation, to enhance immune system?
I can only tell you what I would do If I had that problem and repeat the oft heard, “This is not medical advice. Consult your doctor” – but I would take it!
Thanks for this…I, too, get bombarded with the MLM companies touting their “superior” products. I’ll be referring them to this post.
I found this interesting: this is the founder of Sisel http://www.marketwaveinc.com/viewalert.asp?id=72 Of course, like anyone else who has been jailed, penalized or sued by the FDA, FTC or IRS, whatever “wrong doing” was alleged, I am sure it was just to protect all of us from the conspiratorial powers of government regulatory agencies and dismantle the evil empire behind them that oppresses us all. I am sure they did it for “us”! LOL
Thank you again, Dr. Woynarowski. Your science-based products and information are ‘beacons of light’ in the sea of hyperbole and deceptiion. I look forward to your newsletter and blog knowing I will come away with something of value.
Enjoyed your blog. Did you start taking the TA-65 BEFORE the clinical trial data was published in Sept 2010 ? TA- 65 was released to the public in July 2007 at $25,000 for a years supply. Or were you one of the later adopters?
Trevor, there were several physicians who were the original people who got on TA early. They were Fred Vagnini, Joe Rafaele, Al Sears, Ed Park, myself, Miki Shima, Mike Fossel (in no particular order) and several people who worked on the development of the molecule who are famous scientists you might recognize, but they wish to remain unnamed. Those who are willing to be named include Bill Andrews who may have been the first person commercially to take TA-65. I will simply say that most of the other people who researched and tested the molecule preceded the “commercial recruits” by at least 2 years. This would include my co-author Greta Blackburn and TAS CEO Noel Patton who would have to be the people on it the longest with one exception. Within the vaults of Geron there is a clinical trial from the original HIV+ patients who were treated with what became TA-65. You will never see this data but it dates back to 2005 and possibly before. It absolutely infuriates people (see my other comment on this blog) that I have access to information that few do. There are only two ways to look at this: I am a complete lying charlatan who only cares about making money by selling TA-65 and am making things up, or I actually know some things few do and continue to know more things few do and share them with the people who trust me and those who don’t. That particular decision to trust or not to trust is yours. But I will give you a hint. You will read things here you will not read ANYWHERE else. Best, Dr Dave
TA-65 was also sold and promoted for a number of years before the clinical trials were published. They started selling TA-65 in July 2007 but the first clinical trial was not published electronically until 2010 and in hard copy until 2011….See below..:
Rejuvenation Res. 2011 Feb;14(1):45-56. Epub 2010 Sep 7.
A natural product telomerase activator as part of a health maintenance program.
Harley CB, Liu W, Blasco M, Vera E, Andrews WH, Briggs LA, Raffaele JM.
Geron Corporation, Menlo Park, California, USA. email@example.com
Most human cells lack sufficient telomerase to maintain telomeres, hence these genetic elements shorten with time and stress, contributing to aging and disease. In January, 2007, a commercial health maintenance program, PattonProtocol-1, was launched that included a natural product-derived telomerase activator (TA-65®, 10-50 mg daily), a comprehensive dietary supplement pack, and physician counseling/laboratory tests at baseline and every 3-6 months thereafter. We report here analysis of the first year of data focusing on the immune system. Low nanomolar levels of TA-65® moderately activated telomerase in human keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and immune cells in culture; similar plasma levels of TA-65® were achieved in pilot human pharmacokinetic studies with single 10- to 50-mg doses. The most striking in vivo effects were declines in the percent senescent cytotoxic (CD8(+)/CD28(-)) T cells (1.5, 4.4, 8.6, and 7.5% at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively; p = not significant [N.S.], 0.018, 0.0024, 0.0062) and natural killer cells at 6 and 12 months (p = 0.028 and 0.00013, respectively). Most of these decreases were seen in cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositive subjects. In a subset of subjects, the distribution of telomere lengths in leukocytes at baseline and 12 months was measured. Although mean telomere length did not increase, there was a significant reduction in the percent short (<4 kbp) telomeres (p = 0.037). No adverse events were attributed to PattonProtocol-1. We conclude that the protocol lengthens critically short telomeres and remodels the relative proportions of circulating leukocytes of CMV(+) subjects toward the more "youthful" profile of CMV(-) subjects. Controlled randomized trials are planned to assess TA-65®-specific effects in humans.
It will certainly be easier when we get the Clinical Trial data…
True but this also contains a common misconception. The results of clinical trials are often known long before an article is accepted for publication. Right now a clinical trial is going on and I have seen most of the results. It will be published in late 2015. This was the same reason we were called “speculative” in the writing of The Immortality Edge. We knew results that were not yet published. Any scientist who has published anything will tell you there is often a 2 year plus lag time. I wrote my part of The Immortality Edge in April of 2009. It was published in Dec 2010. Not fair, but there are some advantages to being “in the field”! I will continue to reveal things I know to be true at the risk of criticism from the general public because there are people who want to know things right away and actually trust what I say because it has been true for the past 12 years.
Dr Dave here with a little clarification and reminders. It seems, as is common on the internet, that people are writing in and commenting on this blog without doing any research at all into what I have said and done for the past 4 years. So before another person sends me the clinical trials in humans and mice on TA-65, let me say “I know, and I put them out as soon as they were published a few years ago. I also wrote and published a book, with 2 other well known authors in the field, called ‘The Immortality Edge’ (Wiley 2010) two years before Suzanne Somers wrote a word about TA-65. In addition, I worked for TA Sciences for a year as their Chief Medical Education Officer (2009-2010) and wrote the original doctor’s manual on TA-65. So I know a little bit about this topic! As a matter of fact, you can consider me an expert and someone who has been in the field for several years. I am happy for the comments but do 5 seconds of research on google first by typing my name and the word telomeres, especially if you want your comment published here.
So am I correct in assuming you were actually promoting TA-65 BEFORE the clinical trials were published ?
Again, you might want to check some of my other writings here. An article can be accepted long before it is published. One to two years is not abnormal. If one happens to have access to the information before the journal gets around to printing the article (again not accepting as in already peer reviewed – but printing as in they sat on it for a long time for no particular reason!) I guess it would be better manners to just wait until the rest of the world has access to what I knew for a few years. Sorry! If this kind of thing bothers you, you would enjoy my blog on The Immortality Edge entitled Wrong then Right now. It details the criticism of one famous anti-aging doc who WANTED PROOF instead of listening to me spout off at the various anti-aging conferences like I knew something he did not. In fact, I did and when what I said was “proven” to be correct because the journals got around to printing and publishing the article, his comment was. “Well you are RIGHT now but you were WRONG then!” Anyone who is skeptical has the option to sit and wait for “proof” while their telomeres shorten.
I won’t contest that TA-65 is probably the best Telomerase Activator supplement on the market. What if I can’t afford it though? Is using a generic version of the supplement, such as “Product-B”, a waste of my money in the meantime? I understand antioxidants are always good for the body regardless, but is there anywhere I can find a comparison between the formulas of each so that I know exactly what I’m missing?
You will not currently find that comparison and you are not likely to anytime soon. Please be advised that Product B has no TA-65 in it. It is not a generic version of TA-65 since it has none of the TA-65 molecules in it. This does not mean it does not turn on telomerase — it means we don’t know what it does in humans. Rumor has it a head-to-head was done between TA-65 and Product B and the results are submitted for publication. Again, if that is even true, it will not be a human study, but a “cells in culture” study, which, while it may be intriguing, ultimately is meaningless. Compounding the frustration, the only way to know for yourself for sure is to get a Short Telomere Test done by Life Length, If you cannot afford $600 for a low dose 6 month course of TA, I doubt you’d want to spring the $700 for the test. My advice: Take your fish oil in large doses and choose whatever other activating products you can afford and take them religiously. Slowing down the loss of the telomere segment is not a waste of money — it’s just not the same as adding length. Trust me, I have been trying to get funding for a supplement testing company that would cut through all this BS and give people the truth, but no one is interested so far. It would probably destroy too many companies and careers! Doc.
Could you please explain the difference between a TA-65 activator and products that contain the actual telomerese enzyme from porcine thymus. Thank you.
Hi. I really have never heard of porcine thymus activators. In general, the difference between TA and all the other “activators” is the complete lack of data on most products and an actual human study on TA with more on the way. Doc
I’m almost 22 years old and I’m interested in this product. I’m curious if I were to take 3 capsules a day would that be dangerous since I’m this young or would it be completely safe and beneficial?
That should be fine with no problems.
Dave, have you seen GABRIEL COUSENS M.D. report on product B?, (http://www.gabrielcousens.com/DRCOUSENS/DRCOUSENSBLOG/tabid/364/PostID/188/language/en-US/Product-B-Special-Report.aspx) Now I know an anecdotal statement in not the same thing as a a clinical study, But still this is a impressive endorsement. Does this make you want to take a second look?
Actually no, Mark, it does not. I don’t even know what the active ingredient in Product B is and they have had almost 3 years now to do a clinical study. I realize testimonials are effective sales tactics and it is possible that Product B is worthwhile but at this rate we’ll never really know. For the record, my biological age has reversed 7 years on TA-65. I would like to see Isagenix do a study with Life Length – that would mean something!
You haven’t heard of epitalon? the one coming directly from the thymus gland? several studies done in this and you haven’t heard of it.. wish someone could tell me a bit more damn it!
Dear Dr. Dave, I took TA-65 for two years, at a cost an aveage cost of 600.00 a month – I started at 100 mg a day ( 25 mg per pill), and slowly worked down to 50 mg a day ( my doctor told me taking anything less 25 mgm ) was not helpful – after being gifted the 8,000. for the first year, and paying the 8,000.00 for the second year, I could no longer afford it – so I am puzzled by your stating that a 6 month supply for 600.00 dollars – at the official costs of a bottle – just one a day, a 25 mg pill would cost 200.00 a month, so I am curious how does your 100.00 dollars a day work ???? I loved what TA-65 did, from years of serious URI – I had none for two years 🙂 with great increase energy, younger skin, increase sexual energy etc etc – I was very sad to have to acknowledge I could no longer afford it – Are you suggesting a ‘low does’ of 1 every other day ( that is how you can get to the 6 months supply for 600.00 would work ) is worth it ?, this would go against my understanding of how much is needed for actual impact and I would love an update, if my information is out of date- thanks Jessica
opps I mean 100.00 dollars a month – not day
How does TA-65 compares with Epitalon? I am genuinely interested to know. Thank you.