What may have changed.
Look, lowering c-rp was never "the objective" for Anatabloc. The objective is to help people feel better by helping them with specific diseases (including muscle recovery time, etc. ... things we don't think of as "diseases").
Anatabloc is sold as a supplement. Those of us who take it KNOW that it helps us feel better by helping us with specific diseases. THAT'S still the good news. The less than good news is that proving, disease by disease, that Anatabloc helps this or that is the ONLY way that Star will be able to SAY that Abloc helps this or that. That will be done, but it takes time. Look ... that's true of any drug. The diff here is that we can buy and use it now.
I perceive that it was hoped that a short study would show that Abloc also influences a common gauge of "overall bodily inflammation level" ... c-rp. Likely mouse c-rp measurements inspired that hope. Well, it did, but I think not to the extent, certainly overall, that they had hoped (for in a SHORT study). They wanted to be able to point, quickly, to the medical community and FDA and say "see, this explains why this stuff is so good". It just may not have worked on that "indicator" in humans as well as hoped ... in a SHORT STUDY.
So now, they either do a longer c-rp study (they will monitor it in all specific trials, like thyroiditis and Alz, etc.), and/or just take the longer route of doing it (proof of efficacy) disease by disease (I am sure they would anyway); and/or come up with another possible indicator (I don't know of one, but not a medical researcher).
So my perception of what may have changed is the availability of a quick easy route, a "marker" (c-rp), to being able to claim some larger degree of efficacy with regard to "overall bodily inflammation" ... thus to be able to make some overall claim of "explanation" as to why anatabine does indeed help with specific diseases. Indeed, even a longer human c-rp study may not prove out, I don't know ... but again THAT is not the ultimate objective here.
This slows things down some. Perhaps longer c-rp studies will redeem this "marker" concept, perhaps not. If not, then it's a slower disease-by-disease approach that will work. $$$ and time ... but we know it's there and coming.
Perhaps there is another indicator out there ... I don't know. All I really care about is that it helps me and others with arthritis, asthma, rosacea, BPH, skin and hair health ... and others with Crohn's, RA, fibromyalgia, and so on. THAT will continue to sell it, as it is doing now. No one can argue with that phenomenon. It works. And it sells because it works.
Maybe I'm missing something but haven't the Flint and Roskamp studies been going on for a while now? Wasn't there a video released about a year ago from the Flint study about a lady talking about the positive effects on her Chron's disease? This to me is not a short study unless there was a new study conducted after the first with no results reported. We've all been pretty patient waiting for results of these studies and hoping we can reap some rewards as a result but so far NADA.
At this point all I can do is hold and hope as I do foresee good things ahead but it seems every step forward results in 2 steps backward. By no means bashing, just saying. Maybe someone can chime in on the length of the studies and expected completion time.
Thanks, Izof, it's the Quality of information and earnings, not the Quantity. STSI is on only solid ground with whatever info they're releasing and not just touts. They have certain objectives and that's what they're striving to achieve.
Concur. Papering up why it works so well is not a simple task. Heck, it was accidentally discovered, not engineered to lower c-rp. Probably no one, including Roskenkamp knows for sure. But the good news is that it exists, is safe and is helping people. Word is getting out and sales are increasing exponentially. I love how Adam says 'only a couple million in sales for the quarter, blah, blah'. Yes, it went from ziltch to millions in sales practically overnight. If we continue to see 20-30%+ sales increases quarter over quarter that will add up real quick. And one thing the street loves is a growth story. Easy peezy lemon breezy to manipulate a small cap bio with zero or little revenue. That is why even a puppet like Adam can do it. STSI is starting producing revenue and that will be tougher to ignore / manipulate.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I am hearing that there will be new dosing reccommendations and labels coming out in the next couple months that will be geared towards weight. If these subjects in the flint study were indeed all taking the 2 tablets, 3 times a day and were over 200 pounds ( I thought I read somewhere most of the subjects were considered obese) they were taking half of what I understand the new recommended dose will be. Its also my understanding that Couples is taking 12 to 14 a day and has seen a incredible reduction in his CRP level. The 6 per day dose will be the dose for those under 125lbs. It goes up from there to 12 tablets a day for those over 200lbs with more required for heavier individuals.
These studies like the flint study are how they learn the dosing requirements for different size people, therefore the results of the study, although important are secondary to me as getting the proper dosing regime will produce the desired results over a larger population of people who try it and are dosed correctly both in the general public and individuals enrolled in clinical studies going forward. I have no doubt there are people who should have been taking 8 to 12 a day but were instead taking 6 who gave up because they didnt see or feel results or CRP levels that didnt respond in the flint study. There is nothing else like Anatabloc out there, this is all new ground here folks, its learn as you go.
I also have a feeling that as the recommended dosing levels by the company are increased we will see a downward adjustment on cost.
Very true. However, as a scientist I had problems with Star's press release for what it did not say. I wanted to know as many details as possible, and the PR did not appear to be written by a scientist... or at least a very good one. Too many unanswered questions... what was the dosage, same for everyone? based on body weight?? mean percentage decrease? p value for statistical comparisons (assumed to be p= 0.05)? Where was the TNF-alpha data (mentioned TNFa but no numbers given)? A few more details would have made all the difference to me... instead I was left with more questions.
And it would make sense to have stated what we all know: that this was a very short study designed only to detect a statistically significant effect in people who had a lot of inflammation (they were screened for high CRP levels)... not a real indication of what might happen for these same folks taking it long-term.
"I had problems with Star's press release for what it did not say."
But wait ... this is a PRESS RELEASE about an INTERIM look at the study. That is not the kind of data you would ever get from such a report. I don't even like the concept of such an "niterim look", in part because they cannot say much at all for fear of poisoning the process. It makes about as much sense as releasing scenes from the middle of a video/film while it is still being made.
I certainly can relate as a fellow scientists. However, we, as scientist, sometimes miss significant, meaningful events and developements which are obvious to lay people, since we insist on protocols which are tedious, laborious and lengthy. The developments to date do indicate to me that the anatabine citrate story will ultimately be successfull and proven correct.