It looks like where we are at is some are saying that the substances are different in the sense they give different results so one is better that another. Others are saying they have a difference in makeup but it is so small that they are essentially the same product doing the same thing. That there isn't an advantage using one over another in getting the results we have been talking about.
we will find out when my unscientific human trial starts. I purchased a bottle of NR on the day the news was released...it shipped last week. Maybe the NR will come in today and I will start taking it tomorrow.
Ha, I did the same. I think wagner should wait for the scientific human trial results before buying, he sounds convinced that all the research going on right now about NR is for no reason whatsoever. Why beleive Dan/Sharon/Not.Real - they go around blinking twice as much these days, because it's very hard to counter the interest NR is getting with reasoning why NR is not as good as Niacin. To me, now that Scripps is involved we will have a definative third party proof soon that will be trustworthy enough for the more serious investors who are by design limited unless there is a trust there first. In other words, the door will soon be opened for some less speculative backed buying, especially since they seem to be focused on the balance sheet to. Pureenergy and the new sweetener seem very promissing too, all from a common sense point of view - which makes all the difference in the world, to me. Anyone know why any one of the three does not make common sense as a marketable and profitable product? See, you know it too :)