This is a copy of a message relevant to this thread which, together with my comments, has just been
posted to the MoreLife Yahoo group: groups.yahoo.commorelifeOpen ↗. the name of the poster
has been ommited. As is my style in moderator commenting on the MoreLife Yahoo group, my comments
are within square brackets [] terminated with "--Paul", while the remarks not within [] are those of
the poster of the message
[Note: This post relates to a company called Geronova (geronova.comgeronova.comOpen ↗ ). I only found out
about this company 10 days ago from a post on sci.life-extension. It seems that Geronova is a new
name for a company which a year ago was called "Neogen Research". Neogen Corporation (see
neogen.comneogen.comOpen ↗ ) is an older and entirely unrelated company. My guess is that the owners of
Geronova had to give up the name "Neogen Research" when the older company found them to be using it,
but I fully admit this is just a guess.
At the time that I recently heard of them, I made a quick inspection of the Geronova website. At
that time, while I was a little put off by the exceedingly hyped statements (but no worse than many
retail supplement suppliers) which I was particularly surprised to see from a company which seemed
to be orienting itself as a supplier to the supplement industry. However, I also decided at that
time that much that they were doing were steps in the right direction of providing better supplement
products and so I decided not to say anything either positive or negative. This decision was also
fully in line with my reduction of postings on sci.life-extension because of my increased
expenditure of time on the Self-Sovereign Individual Project and related activities. It was only the
appearance of this message and the *demands* of the poster that I reply followed by the message of 3
days later writing of "accusations" that I felt compelled to thoroughly review the Geronova website
and report on the many points that I have below. As the old saying goes, "sometimes it is better to
let sleeping dogs lie". :-) Now that I've done all this work, I'll post this entire message to the
original sci.life-extension thread. --Paul]
I read Tom's posted information regarding R lipoic acid and the stability issues. There is an
American manufacturer that has posted all of the stability issues concerning RLA and has found a way
to stabilize RLA.
[It is my understanding that the company in question, Geronova, does not directly manufacture any of
its products. They may be custom manufactured for them elsewhere, but that is not quite the same
thing. Here is an analysis of statements made about RLA on the website in question
(geronova.comgeronova.comOpen ↗ ).
page: geronova.comintro rla.htmOpen ↗
1) "The only '100% biologically active' natural form of lipoic acid" This is a great example of
sales hype. It is the kind of statement which sounds great (to the unwary) and yet actually says
nothing. It is both true by logical default and at the same time misleading. It is logically true
that RLA is '100% biologically active', because it is produced by the human body (is natural) to
*be* biologically active. However, the not-so-hidden implication of the statement is that other
forms of lipoic acid (the unnatural ones) are not biologically active. But this is not true! One
of the problems with the S-form (not produced by the body) is that it has some effects which are
stronger than the R-form (eg on red blood cells) about which the value (positive or negative) is
unknown and it also has effects on the effectiveness of the R-form where that form is of most
value (in the mitochondria and perhaps elsewhere).
2) "Alpha-lipoic acid has been called the ideal antioxidant." By whom and where was this said? What
is their credibility? Without such information this is not science but mere sales hype! Certainly
the paper that is cited (PMID: 7649494) which states in its summary: "alpha lipoic acid scavenges
hydroxyl radicals, HOCl, and singlet oxygen, but is ineffective against hydrogen peroxide and
superoxide radical." does not say or imply the above statement.
3) The reference (PMID: 7649494) given for the statement above and all the rest of the first
paragraph of this webpage is a 1995 review paper for alpha lipoic acid in general. It makes no
distinction (because little RLA specific research had been done at that point in time) between
the effects of the different enantiomers (the R and S forms).
4) "R-Lipoic Acid is the only form of lipoic acid that is proven to significantly reduce
inflammation, an underlying cause of the degenerative diseases of aging." The reference given for
this statement is a *patent*. However, statements made in patents are *not* peer reviewed and are
not acceptable as credible scientific information.
5) "The S-form may actually interfere with the metabolism of the R-form." Using the general term
"metabolism" (rather than specifically describing what the interference actually is) is very
misleading because many people equate "metabolism" with digestibility and bioavailability to the
body as a whole (ie ability to get into the blood stream). Although there is evidence (PMID:
10072479) that the R-form is more bioavailable than the S-form in healthy human volunteers, I
know of no evidence that the presence of the S-form makes the R-form less bioavailable.
6) "R-Lipoic Acid costs more per unit than alpha-lipoic acid, but it may be 10 times stronger than
racemic alpha-Lipoic acid at reducing inflammation;" No scientific reference is given for this
statement and I doubt that any exists. Many things *may* be true, but until there is some
evidence to that effect, saying so adds little to the quest for knowledge.
Okay. The purpose of the above was to show the "hypy", non-scientific nature of so many statements
which are made on the Geronova website. The same goes on and on throughout every page on there.
Without examining every last one of those statements, I think that I have accomplished that goal.
The previous site neogenresearch.comneogenresearch.comOpen ↗ (which attempts to redirect you to the new site but
can still be examined in its entirety if one cancels the redirection notice) did not appear to be
this hypy, although many of the same statements can be seen there. In addition, it appeared to be
more scientific, dignified and credible in its appearance (my subjective personal evaluation). Here
is an example of the greater "hypiness" of the new site over the old site:
Old website neogenresearch.comrla500.shtmlOpen ↗
"R-lipoic acid is directly involved in cell metabolism and redox states. R-lipoic acid crosses the
blood brain barrier, and helps regulate neuronal calcium homeostasis, scavenges a variety of
reactive oxygen species (ROS) while recycling vitamins C, E and glutathione. R-lipoic acid has been
shown to regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines,"
Which is quite accurate in scientific information (although it would be better still if it were
direct quotes from peer reviewed papers).
New website geronova.comintro rla.htmOpen ↗
"It has potent antioxidant actions in every cell of the body, boosts levels of other antioxidants
(vitamin C, vitamin E, Coenzyme Q10 and glutathione) and reverses the cellular redox status (from a
more oxidized to a more reduced state) which prevents inflammation, associated with all of the
chronic degenerative diseases of aging."
Note: the misleading nature of the phrases "boost levels", "reverses the cellular redox status", and
"prevents inflammation".
Now I will examine a few of the more substantive claims that are made by whoever wrote the text on
the Geronova website.
On page: geronova.comrla buyer beware.htmlOpen ↗ occur the following statements:
1) "SLA is essentially useless as a nutritional supplement." This is a hypy non-scientific
statement. An objective scientific statement of what is likely meant would be: "SLA is known to
be have effects which appear to be negative with respect to optimal biological function, and it
is not known to have any major biologically beneficial effects." (with references given).
While much of the rest of the information on the page appears to be friendly and open and it may
even be interesting and useful, it is all essentially "hearsay" with no scientific evidence to back
it up. In addition, while it is understandable that particular manufacturers alluded to are not
identified, nevertheless doing so has a smear effect on *all* other manufacturers of RLA. One way to
avoid this would have been to list those manufacturers which to the best of Geronova's knowledge did
produce an RLA product of high purity and quality. Furthermore, some of the information is
tantamount to scare tactics! Here are some examples:
2) "A sample must be pulled before accepting the order and assayed to see if the product actually
meets your specs. This is frequently difficult if not impossible to perform, considering the
effort to coordinate Customs, USDA, import brokers, analytical labs, banks, etc. This will slow
down the importation of your delicate product, which is frequently sitting in warehouses without
climate control. You must have a "statement of origin" on file with your broker for the USDA,
that states the source, intended use, manufacturer, contains no animal or cell culture-derived
products, or is not intended for veterinary use without permit. USDA inspections generally occur
once or twice per week which can cause an entire batch to be lost to polymerization, before
clearing inspection."
This is not necessarily true and is generally avoidable by standard business practices.
3) "RLA is inherently unstable. RLA should be shipped by air, on dry
ice. Even if the product leaves the production facility with a low polymer content, it can arrive at
your facility largely polymerized if it has not been refrigerated and nitrogen packed."
Dry ice is not necessary, and I am aware of no evidence that RLA need be nitrogen packed or even
benefits from it.
4) "We have seen the polymer content of RLA sitting on a shelf for three months grow from
<2% to 31%."
Labochim has been studying the polymerization for several years, and has not seen any significant
polymerization over a period of years, given that the initial product is very pure (theirs is) and
that the ambient temperature is kept under 25'C.
5) "Open packages are also quite hygroscopic. After being exposed to air for a short period of time,
RLA gets sticky and difficult to handle or blend. When RLA is removed from deep freeze, it should
be handled in a low humidity atmosphere."
In handling open containers of RLA for 1 1/2 years, we have not seen this to be true.
6) "Even under the best conditions, RLA is unstable."
This is completely false and the very worst kind of scaremongering.
7) "It must be processed at an extremely low temperature after blending, as well as processed in an
oxygen free, low humidity environment (water is acidic enough to initiate polymer formation)."
Again this is false. Certainly, the last parenthetical remark is shown false by the in vivo human
bioavailability results (after passage through the acidic stomach) shown by PMID: 10072479.
8) "Considering the results of our independent analysis of these products, the manufacturers are
either not testing their finished goods or are relying on independent analytical labs,
inexperienced in the testing of RLA products."
No such results are presented for any manufacturers products. Instead this unsupported statement is
made apparently to "tar" many other manufacturers with one "brush".
I will only make one quick remark about their K-RALA product (which definitely sounds like a good
approach). There is absolutely no scientific information about any aspect of any claims for this
product. It could be the "best thing since sliced bread" or it could be completely useless! Any
claims at this time are pure conjecture. Human biology is rife with conjectures which are either
untested or were proven to be false. Human biology is still far too complex and lacking in
understanding for anyone to rationally rely on theoretical predictions. --Paul]
The raw material is comparable to Labochim's in enantiomeric purity and is significantly cheaper.
[While it is considerably cheaper, the product is still of Chinese origin. As my previously posted
information stated, the company owner David Carlson did verify that to me in private
correspondence about a year ago. To determine that the product is of the same quality and purity
as Labochim (an established European pharmaceutical manufacturer) would require head-to-head
testing which has not been done to my knowledge. While the bulk product is cheaper, it is not that
significantly cheaper, and it may not be cheaper than LaboChim's current price. I only know their
price of one year ago. --Paul]
They also sell pyridoxamine
[No. They will be selling it when they have it available. I have it available right now. But I have
stated many times and in many places that I am only interested in supplying chemicals which are not
yet fully available elsewhere in the quality/purity and price which I consider acceptable. Once any
chemicals are so available elsewhere, I will stop selling them and happily do other much more
enjoyable things. I have no desire to make a *career* out of selling supplements. --Paul]
and specialize in anti-aging and mitochindrial nutrition.
[There are many important mitochondrial nutrients which are potentially anti-aging which they do not
carry. But yes, those things they do carry, except for pyridoxamine, are mostly related to the
mitochondria. --Paul]
They have an extensive data base linked directly to pub med,
[This is good, but it is hardly innovative or novel, and it certainly does not prevent bias. LEF has
done the same for many years, but they are still biased by exaggerated statements (hyping), not
being complete and omitting negative information about their products. Furthermore, this page for
RLA (geronova.comrla research.htmlOpen ↗ ) which links directly to PubMed is not referenced by
the citations on the other pages which themselves do not link to PubMed (or even have a PMID#) and
are thus not immediately accessible. --Paul]
and they also link to morelife regarding your info on pyridoxamine.
[I think it is particularly egregious for them to use my information to sell their product without
either informing me that they have done so or offering any kind of value for value exchange. This
kind of narrowly selfish "take whatever you can get away without paying for" attitude means that I
will be very suspicious of and hesitate to deal with these people. That kind of attitude is contrary
to the principles underlying my Natural Social Contract (see
selfsip.orgsocialcontract annotated.htmlOpen ↗ ). Very frankly this is not the kind of
person that I wish to have in my society of value exchanging individuals. --Paul]
Check it out at www.geronova.com
I don't understand why Labochim wouldn't discuss their patent with you, since this is public
information even in Europe.
[Most companies will not fully discuss patented processes even when they are available by hunting.
Why should they aid others to steal their creations? They did roughly describe it to us on our
visit, particularly the low temperature requirements. None of Labochim's patents are referenced on
their website. --Paul]
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - morelife.orgmorelife.orgOpen ↗ Reality based tools for more life in quantity and
quality The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - selfsip.orgselfsip.orgOpen ↗ Rational freedom by
self-sovereignty & social contracting
