Talk:Cycloastragenol

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with TA-65

Alans, this should not be merged with TA-65 at all. Unless you have proven that it is the same as Cycloastragenol. None of your cites have mentioned this, and no "sales" cite should be given as a priotity or reason for the merge. Unless the website has a document from a lab or has a document from the manufacturers stating that the materials are the same, you are just making this up.

Provide a link to a website that has a lab result, not a website that tries to make a sales pitch to buy cycloastragenol, and I will consider it. At this time you have not provided no proof why these where merged and no proof that these two materials are the same thing. --Mabidex (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist, you can reinstall the page on TA-65 - but cycloastrogenol is, in fact, available in the US from TA Sciences; that's where one paper's authors got it from. And stop making personal attacks on other editors in your edit summaries. Your insults will not be tolerated. Allens (talk | contribs) 21:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... yes, I probably shouldn't have merged the pages. But cycloastrogenol and TA-65 appear to have the exact same main property of interest (telomerase activation), from the exact same plant, from the exact same company. The deduction that they're the same thing is, however, OR, and I shouldn't have done it. A link between the two pages is sufficient. 21:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Allens, excuse my so called attack. But my main issue is Wikipedia's credibility, and citing papers that state in the abstract 'TA-65' and do not mention Cycloastragenol (for example) is something that can confuse people. Does the paper say that TA-65 is Cycloastragenol? I believe it does nothing like that. So if you want I will propose a new page called "Telomerase Activators" or similar that can encompass all materials that have been shown to activate telomerase. What I do not like is saying that TA-65 is Cycloastragenol without proof. At the very best, we can only say that they both have shown telomerase activation in one study or another. These need to be seperate pages, unless you provide a good citation that they are the same. At this point, I do not see such a citation. --Mabidex (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a page on telomerase activators is an excellent idea; thank you. I'll gladly assist with it. Allens (talk | contribs) 23:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great Allens, I am glad this has had a good resolution. --Mabidex (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC) ...[reply]

Allans, I have come across new information that shows that TA-65 is actually Cycloastragenol. I think you can now merge this with TA-65, and I will agree with the merge. The information and cites are available at Cycloastragenol.com Mabidex (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there may be other active ingredients in TA-65 I think the merge was a mistake. All results and data must state if they are for TA-65 or for pure cycloastragenol ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no page on Telomerase activators ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please declare any conflicts of interest

Would the authors please declare any conflicts of interest, i.e. personal, sales and R & D associations with the manufacturers of any of the products listed in this article. Thank you and apologies if I missed it. 70.208.0.171 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Lily[reply]

Chemical structure

The image File:Cycloastragenol.svg used in this article is missing stereochemical information at one position (C5 in standard steroid nomenclature). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.189.211 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Research

New research is coming out on this topic. http://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/2012/09/29/can-telomere-therapies-help-us-live-longer/ --Forrest Johnson (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Says "In 2011, independent scientists bought a sample of TA-65 and subjected it to analysis. They reported that the active ingredients are cycloastragenol and, to a lesser extent, astrageloside IV." - Rod57 (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User survey

How useful, really, is a self-selected and self-reported User survey from a manufacturer and distributor of TA-65. It's even acknowledged in the article that this is of a potentially dubious quality. I think this summary of the survey adds very little to the article given the low source material quality and high potential for bias. I don't think the conflict of interest is adequately highlighted in this case as well, given that the site where the User Survey is posted sells TA-65. -- 10 June 2014‎ User:120.148.201.197

Seems to have been dealt with - no mention of user survey now. - Rod57 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any clinical trials - Any US FDA/EU marketing approvals

Article mentions in vitro studies. Should highlight clinical study results and FDA approval status ? or is TA-65 being sold as a natural herbal extract ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]