• The Most Commonly Asked Question About Longevinex®

    March 20, 2010: by longevinex.com

    Believe it or not, the most commonly asked question received goes something like is:

    • Why isn’t Longevinex® on the Oprah show?
    • Why isn’t Longevinex® heralded in Time Magazine?
    • Why aren’t you marketing Longevinex® more broadly?

    These questions are received from the many users of Longevinex® who want to be helpful in promoting a product they have avidly adopted into their daily health regimen and want others to experience it too.

    From this end, it is puzzling to have produced a proven product that works better and safer than aspirin at saving lives that would otherwise be lost due to a sudden heart attack. Longevinex® is the first resveratrol-based pill to be successfully tested in animals for this purpose. (For ethical reasons, a human study is not possible.) Longevinex® worked equally as well as plain resveratrol, but at a far lower and safer dose. All of the non-resveratrol treated animals subjected to a chemically-induced heart attack died. All of the animals treated with Longevinex® survived.

    However, when Longevinex® issued a press release and online video clip interviewing the university researcher who demonstrated this life-saving property of Longevinex®, not one major news agency picked up this breaking news story via the satellite feed from PRNewswire. Thank God for the internet, or very few people would learn of this major discovery.

    It is also perplexing that Longevinex® was shown to exert a 9-fold greater genomic effect than plain resveratrol and mimicked the genomic activation profile of a calorie restricted diet, at a far lower dose than prior studies and at an earlier time point. It would require lifetime adherence to sparse calorie diet to produce the same effect observed using Longevinex®. However, this unprecedented discovery, published in the journal of Experimental Gerontology, has also been completely ignored by the news media. Not one other published paper has chosen to even cite this discovery. Longevinex® science has been completely ignored by researchers in the field of aging.

    When it was reported in the journal Optometry that, for the first time, an orally-consumed nutriceutical (Longevinex®) had reversed an unequivocal marker of aging (lipofuscin) in an 80-year old adult, in a proof-of-principle demonstration, biologists and the news media once again chose to ignore this discovery. This was an achievement other researchers in the anti-aging field said would take another 20 years to achieve.

    What are we to conclude from all this?

    • First, it is difficult for consumers to distinguish the proven Longevinex® science from that of renegade manufacturers of resveratrol who make totally unproven claims about their products.
    • Second, consumers assume, if Longevinex® is truly a remarkably proven product, then why hasn’t Oprah or the New York Times covered the story? After all, other resveratrol pill makes claim their products were endorsed by Dr. Oz on the Oprah show and that Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic tested their products — all complete falsehoods by the way.
    • Third, it appears that the news media is completely bought off by pharmaceutical advertisers. A similarly promoted pharmaceutical resveratrol pill, which by comparison did not activate as many genes nor reduce blood sugar as effectively as Longevinex®, has been widely extolled in the New York Times and other major news media.

    For all Longevinex® users who would like to see the product marketed in a broader manner, we can only say that TV and radio infomercials, network marketing and print advertising have been tried by Longevinex® and its many competitors and have been met with abject failure. The only brands of resveratrol pills currently experiencing growth in sales are marketed by renegade companies who do not comply with regulations regarding health claims as explained in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (FDA rules), and advertising guidelines issued by the Federal Trade Commission. We advise consumers to be wary of false advertising schemes.

    We hope this answers this most often-asked question.

One Response to “The Most Commonly Asked Question About Longevinex®”

  1. Bruce Kimzey Says:
    August 15th, 2010 at 1:36 am

    You state that side-by-side experiments looking to determine survival rates from so-called sudden death heart attacks would be unethical. While indeed they would be if conducted by inducing such attacks as they are in animal experiments. However, persons pre-disposed to sudden death by virtue of their history could certainly be found who would participate voluntarily in a blinded study for, say, 36-48 months. But then, these individuals would by definition not be healthy specimens as your animal specimens undoubtedly are.

    Could you be creating a medical strawman to knock down in these experiments by promoting Longevinex’s ability to stave off mortality from sudden death heart attacks – in HEALTHY animals? Healthy humans do occasionally experience sudden death-type attacks, but they mostly happen to persons whose hearts are already badly damaged or otherwise dysfunctional. I doubt that many of your animal test subjects suffered from congestive heart failure or had the rat equivalent of a 30% ejection fraction.

    By no means am I saying that Longevinex does not offer potentially significant health benefits. However, considering that very few human victims of sudden death attacks are anything close to being healthy humans much less as healthy as a 2-year old rabbit, how relevant is it really that Longevinex enhances the survival odds of heart-healthy people who experience sudden-death attacks? The odds of a healthy person dying from a sudden death attack are already overwhelmingly small, with or without Longevinex.

    Longevinex.com:

    For background information, aspirin was not approved for use initially because of prospective, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Since heart attacks occur in only a small percentage of adults, the claim for aspirin relied upon retrospective data, looking back at how many died who took aspirin. However, in this instance, we don’t have a lot of people taking resveratrol and being monitored by cardiologists. There is only one cardiology group in the country known to be actively prescribing a resveratrol pill.

    For comparison, we can only look at coronary heart disease mortality rates among red wine drinkers. In France, a study was conducted where 1st-time sufferers of heart attacks were given 2 glasses of red wine in the hospital and their risk for a 2nd heart attack was reduced considerably.

    What has been discovered is that while alcohol lowers cholesterol, red wine molecules (and in particular, resveratrol), sans the alcohol, produces a similar effect. We also know that the heart-protective effect diminishes as dosage increases beyond a certain point.

    Also recognize, the only entity that would possibly conduct a controlled human study would be the National Institutes of Health because of tremendous cost, beyond what any dietary supplement company could afford.

    As alluded to above, the quickest data might come from 1st heart attack sufferers in preventing a 2nd-event. -Bill Sardi

Leave a Reply


In order to submit your comment please complete the calculation below:


4 − 4 =