Comment · Fri, October 7, 2022 · ND Owner
⚠️ NEW PRODUCTS ALERT | Red Reishi Ultra Concentrated 9% Ganoderic Acids Extract Capsules, Salidrosol Tablets, & OmegaTAU V Capsules⚠️
Original post in this thread
NDSocialMedia · 33 points
​
Use coupon code NDSUBREDDIT for 10% off your total order.
What they were answering
sebovarli · 2 points
not sure I follow 100%🤔
about oriveda
>know their lion's mane is trash. We tested that in our lab already
because it has no erinacine, rigth, or what
but
>those researchers in Taiwan -- their sample doesn't contain erinacine-A
meaning the research extracts on which the hype is based is also trash 😲😲
and why ND goes for erinacine A if it is not responsible for the effect everybody expects 😯😯🤔
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · ND Owner
I consider products trash if they contain none of what they claim. They claimed to have a bunch of erinacines and hericenones. We found none. That's trash. If you get good effects, great! I am just talking about claims and lab testing results. Also, effects can be altered by other things added to the product. We recently tested a company's product that claimed to be an extract from magnolia bark. People online were saying they were getting really good effects, like sedation and calming effects, so we decided to buy some and test it. We found none of what they claimed to be in there, so I was curious as to why people online were claiming good effects. I know etizolam is really cheap and easy to spike into products, so I just guessed it was spiked with that. One of our chemists decided to run it through UPLC-MS just to see, and sure enough, we found etizolam in it. Then another customer wrote me saying this cistanche on Amazon worked better than anything else out there, so I got some of that to test. We ran it through the lab and it's not even cistanche. We are building out a screening method for common male enhancement drugs spiked into supplements, like Viagra and Cialis, as I think that is what is in there. So just because something has subjective effects doesn't mean those effects are from what the product claims to be. Now I am not saying Oriveda's stuff is spiked with anything. I am just saying that products are trash if they don't contain what they claim to, or if they contain other things they don't claim to.
meaning the research extracts on which the hype is based is also trash 😲😲
Yes, by my jaded definition of trash it is. It doesn't contain what they claim it does. This is especially bad with products that are using in human clinical research. Everyone in the mushroom community is citing those two research papers as evidence that the antidepressant effects they observed are from the erinacine-A content, as they are literally the only two human clinical studies on lion's mane mycelium that we have. Now everyone is making incorrect assumptions on how lion's mane works because of faulty analytical chemistry. Maybe their clinical data is good. I don't have enough data to say one way or another. However, let's assume it is. Let's assume that the statistically-significant positive effects they observed in humans is legitimate. Well that means those effects are from a compound that is different than eriancine-A. This is still useful information, because that means a different compound in lion's mane mycelium can be useful for depressed people. However, now everyone assumes that is specifically erinacine-A because they claim it is, when we have proven their extract contains no erinacine-A. Their extract also feels dysphoric, which points to the main active being a kappa opioid agonist. This might help people with clinical depression by down-regulating the KOR. However, for the average person this effect will just make them feel "off." So does that mean their extract is useless? No, because it might have a use case for certain people, and their clinical data might be perfectly legitimate. However, the active compound and mechanisms involved are different than everyone thinks, due to their faulty analytical chemistry.
and why ND goes for erinacine A if it is not responsible for the effect everybody expects 😯😯🤔
Because that is the really nice feeling compound. I've taken a standardized erinacine-A extract multiple times now, and I really loved the effects. It's not dysphoric like the other extract, and has much better acute effects. The other extract will likely take regular daily dosing, and you won't see positive effects till the KOR down-regulation happens. With Erinacine-A specifically, you get immediate positive effects. It's just very difficult to get lion's mane to make erinacine-A. Our mushroom researcher has pretty much dedicated his life since his doctoral thesis to optimizing erinacine-A specifically in lion's mane. It is a really cool compound. However, it's not the only cool compound in lion's mane, and erinacine-A is never made in the fruiting bodies. The primary actives in the fruiting bodies are different. I wouldn't say one is "better" than the other (our researcher would, but he is biased for erinacine-A). So that's why we are working on a bunch of fruiting body extracts on top of the liquid culture lion's mane mycelium. I think there is beneficial stuff in both the mycelium and fruiting body, and only concentrating on one would do it a disservice.
So I realize I am very blunt and direct in my language a lot of the time. I call things "trash," "bullshit," and "scams" a lot, because I am very upset that we keep finding that products do not contain what they claim to, or contain other things they don't claim to. At the very least, products in this industry should contain what they claim to on the label. That should be the very base level standard expected of every brand. When they don't, I get upset. I try not to discount people's anecdotal reports, because I am sure some people are getting good effects. I know those people taking that etizolam-laced magnolia bark extract are certainly getting effects. It's just not from anything in magnolia bark. I am sure that dude that was raving to me about the effects of that rando Amazon "cistanche" actually did get the amazing effects he was reporting. It just wasn't from real cistanche. Claims matter. Validated science matters.