Accuracy of beta-glucan analysis

Ohh man, I just knew I would have to go on a rant as soon as I logged in after Christmas! I've discussed it a few times before. Here is a post directly discussing the issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/7btz9o/paul_stamets_mycologist_on_jre/dpnd9h5/

That was in direct response to Stamets making the claims (lies) that he has made. I've went on a few other rants in relation to the mycelium/fruiting body situation, and other aspects of testing, as well. I'll link a few here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/94u05v/paul_stamets_host_defence_on_the_use_of_mycelium/e3nqxcq/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/67yctr/why_the_lions_mane_youre_buying_is_probably_bunk/dgu9fuc/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/b30mw2/why_doesnt_nootropics_depot_and_real_mushrooms/

I will warn you, there are some long responses from me in those posts, and I do get a bit riled up. A lot of them are about lion's mane specifically, but the same ideas apply to other mushrooms too.

_______________________________________

So those are some of my past comments on the subject. I can also speak to the accuracy of the beta glucan testing itself. These are Megazyme enzymatic methods that have been validated and approved by the AOAC. These are not just some random methods. The AOAC is the Association Of Official Analytical Chemists, which is an independent organization that was started in 1884. It was originally called the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. This is an organization dedicated to helping the analytical chemistry world standardize to accurate and validated methods. AOAC methods are the gold standard for compendial methods.

Here is the full published paper on the subject: https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/99/2/364/5658031

So the idea that beta glucan testing is inaccurate, especially with the Megazyme kits using the approved AOAC methods, is just plain false. Stamets has been trying anything he can to distract people from the fact that his product constantly fails all manner of testing. He wants people to get confused so that they think it is plausible that the science is just missing something. It's not. The poor test results from Host Defense products are not due to scientific limitations. They are just shitty products. Moreover, they are CHEAP to make. Seriously, making mycelium on grain products is dirt cheap. We could do it if we wanted to, and sell them for probably half of what our fruiting body products cost. They are shitty products without validated scientific evidence, though. Then you get Host Defense selling this ground up rice garbage for insane prices. It's a huge scam! This guy has been charging people insane prices for ground up rice for decades! Then when he is called out on it, he tries to make people distrust the science instead of making their products better. It's shameful!

Now if you read through some of my rants above, you will see that my issue is not with the mycelium itself. It's with the process of growing it on rice, then grinding it all up with the rice and calling it a mushroom. That's the issue. I think there are cool things in mushroom mycelium if you liquid culture them pure, and we are actually working on some of our own. It's the ground up rice issue that Host Defense popularized that is the issue. Just think about it. It makes no sense! If the mycelium is making the beneficial compounds, why grind the rice up with it? Then Stamets goes on to say it is actually bioconverting the rice into something new, like yogurt. However, he provides ZERO scientific evidence of that. He only even started claiming that after everyone started calling him out for the rice thing. If it was true, where is the validated science proving it? It doesn't exist.

Also, I understand polysaccharide krestin (PSK) is crucial to turkey tails anti-cancer activity. Does ND have any information about the PSK content of their 8:1 turkey tail extract?

We have been working on that for a while. The main issue is that separating specific polysaccharides from each other is difficult in analytical methods. We can see the polysaccharides in the turkey tail, but we still have to validate the chemistry to say for 100% certain they are PSK and PSP. It is something we are actively working on, though. It's part of our larger mushroom project, where we are creating our own reference standards and analytical methods to test these other actives. Right now everyone just claims total polysaccharides. However, that is rife with issues. You can spike things with cheaper polysaccharides to make the numbers look better than they are. This is why we rely on HP-TLC testing to verify the fingerprint of the mushrooms, so we know the turkey tail is exactly as it is supposed to be in relation to the validated botanical reference materials. Then we use the AOAC beta glucan testing to verify it meets assay claims. That tells you that it matches the fingerprint of what turkey tail should be, and contains the amounts we expect. That is the most scientifically-valid way to ensure a batch of turkey tail mushroom is of high quality. Once we perfect and validate the methods for PSK and PSP, then we will have extra assay data to get a more full picture. As of now, validated reference standards for PSK and PSP do not exist, nor do compendial methods exist. This is why we have to do all the work from scratch. It's the same for erinacines in lion's mane. We actually created our own reference standards for those, and created our own analytical methods for assay. So we have working and validated methods for a few of the erinacines now, and are working on the rest of them, plus the hericenones. You see lots of people claiming fake numbers there, but our data shows it is all BS. In fact, there is a terpene compound similar to eranacine-A in lion's mane, but it is not erinacine-A. If you don't get your chromatography right, it can look like you have a good amount of erinacine-A in there. However, it's a totally different compound. This is why using validated chemistry is so crucial. Numbers don't mean shit if they are fake or inaccurate. Everyone wants to rush to make a claim to make their product look like it is the best, but if the science is BS then it is all just lies. I am not going to make an erinacine or PSK claim on our products till I am damn sure the chemistry is valid. If I ever put out a number, and it later turns out to be wrong, people lose trust in what I say. I won't accept that. So for now we will validate the quality of our mushrooms using the most up-to-date methods approved by the AOAC, which is ID via HP-TLC and assay of beta glucans using the Megazyme methods. Then when we release numbers on erinacines or PSK/PSP, you can know for sure we have done the work to ensure they are accurate.

As to the cancer stuff, I can't really discuss that because of FDA issues. I am personally very impressed with our Immune Defense, which uses an 8:1 turkey tail and a 16:1 reishi. I have been thinking of releasing them as standalones, but I wanted to solve some of this analytical chemistry stuff first.