No need to spin the story. It's true, and anyone who does a bit of research can confirm it. What needs to be explained is why you are trying to discredit it.
At my GNC, Cherry Creek Mall, Denver, they are noticing a gradual increase in sales, no complaints from repeat customers, and general satisfaction with the product. Nothing sensational yet. But study tipping points. One will come for this product.
Received a promotional email this afternoon. Very strong recommendation of ISCO. Meaningful? I have no idea.
By the way, everyone ought to listen to the first four minutes of John Maginnes's interview with golfing legend, Nancy Lopez. It can be found on Maginnes' website, Maginnes on Tap. This is solid gold for Abc. I have no doubt that what NL says is completely true.
You are onto something there chipper4747. Anatabloc works. I've seen it too many times to be fooled by those who ridicule it. This is something they cannot cause to go away and it's going to do them in at last. Maybe soon.
I've personally seen enough people benefit significantly from using Anatabloc that I think I'll continue to hold my stock.
I see no reason to doubt Nancy Lopez's account of her personal benefit from Anatabloc. It's in the first four minutes of an interview by Bob Maginnes. See "Maginnes on Tap." The interview is at the right of the page.
Look for his resumé at Chapman Pharmaceutical Consulting, under "Staff" and then Curriculum Vitae.
It's impressive. Answers a lot of questions being asked here.
I'm just foolish enough to believe my own observations of the effectiveness of Anatabloc. Most of the people in our office are using it and re-buying it. It works.
I reposted it there for you, 11/24/13 02:51:11 -- it is still there. All my positive posts are still there.
What if you know less than you think you do?
Dr. Mullan will be the CEO of Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals (the renamed Star Scientific) after December 27, 2013, assuming the stockholders vote confirms the current board's proposal.
I've read this whole discussion. My conclusion is that there is a lot of desperation being expressed, and not by the longs. The result of the study was positive. When I ask why that result was not quoted here, the answer I get is that it was not quoted because the scientists who did the study are paid to lie and have done so. That claim raises significant doubts, true, but those doubts are not about the scientists.
You assert that the scientists who did the study are paid to lie and have done so. But, even so, you didn't mention their positive published conclusion. Maybe that's because you don't want people to read it and then decide for themselves if that conclusion is trustworthy. The omission of the conclusion of the study does not seem honest, and that weakens your assertion that the scientists are dishonest.