The following was a study conducted at Indigo Biosciences, by Penn State University researchers, written by BA Sherf, Ph.D and approved by J. Vanden Heuvel, Ph.D to validate one of the major claims [and benefits] surrounding?s efficacy: A lack of suppressive hormonal action. While "hormonal suppression" is almost exclusively represented as sex-steroidal, suppressive can refer to other endocrine functions such as GR [glucocorticoid receptor] antagonism. GR expression is ubiquitous: Appearing in almost every cell-type in the human body, the agonism and antagonism [and resultant effects on gene regulation] of the GR has a wide array of physiological consequences; ranging from sex-function to the immune system. As a result, this particular endeavor was undertaken to determine whether or not GR antagonism was occurring, and to what degree, to ensure that no hormonal action was occurring.
Fortunately for the consumer, this Penn State Study is the first step in a thorough legitimization process that USPlabs is embarking on with ; it (the Penn State study) will be accompanied by an objective trial of sorts (The Staley Report), where trainees were selected away from mainstream boards (and the associated biases ? positive or negative) and thoroughly recorded their progress under Charles Staley; it will also be accompanied by the release of the Beta Tester's blood abstracts which, along with this particular study, will display no cyto-toxicity and no suppression of endogenous hormones.
Simply, we are objectively validating what we know to be subjectively successful, through unaffiliated, and independent means. While detractors will no doubt detract - merely on a new tangent - upon seeing this study, we feel it important to communicate the uniqueness of the actions we are currently undertaking. The expense and bureaucracy involved in securing studies such as this one from respectable and recognized Universities is enormous; and this is exactly why we [as an industry and consumer] seldom see them surface. While University studies such as this one are often utilized as objective research, they are very seldom conducted for the company itself; however, in the case of PRIME, realizing a lack of objective data to validate consumer feedback, we thought it was only necessary. Fortunately for the consumer, that process has only begun, and not ended, here: The results in respects to GR Antagonism came back negative, as we had hoped;however, as a company we are diligent in our desire to positively illuminate the exact MoA [method of action] of USPlabs PRIME.
However, in that light, we must remember that many products we commonly use today do not have validated MOAs; much in the fashion we have done here, simply their safety and efficacy need be validated for them to be produced en masse. For example, Minoxidil (Rogaine), one of the most effective and the widest-selling hair treatment products available, does not have a proven MOA. Much like PRIME, there are several postulates (one being the mediation of the NO pathway, despite the fact no cGMP-specific action has been proven) but none proven. Does this in any way invalidate the massive body of anecdotal feedback surrounding Minoxidil? Of course not: Despite the lack of MOA for Minoxidil, it is still regarded as the ?first-line-of-defense? for uncomplicated hair loss.
Even Acetaminophen - a compound so engrained in popular culture and medicine, your spell-checker recognizes it - has no verified specific MoA. While it has been elucidated that Acetaminophen lowers levels of Prostaglandin E2, the exact mechanism [Mechanism of Action] through which this is accomplished has not been elucidated. As PGE is a product of the commonly inhibited COX [cyclo-oxygenase, in forms I and II] pathway, Acetaminophen?s exact effect on COX [if any is occurring] is unknown and debatable. This point, then, cannot be stressed enough in regards to the actions USPlabs is currently undertaking: We are seeking to provide for PRIME what has not been provided for the widest-selling analgesic available. Why USPlabs is being subjected to a standard not subjected to a compound each person reading this has ingested remains a mystery ? this being said, we do intend to live up to even the most veracious of detractors in regards to our attempts to validate and legitimize PRIME.
In conclusion, we realize two things: a) that PRIME is a contemptuous topic as of late and; b) that this product, as efficacious as it may be, needs some external validation to dissuade some of the negativity surrounding it. We are going through these great lengths ? funding University Studies, in-depth trials and blood tests and expending massive amounts of capital and energy to do so? to address both of these things at the same time. Simply put, a ?scam company? would not do anything of this scope or magnitude for an ineffective product; we know PRIME works, we simply want to know how, and want YOU to know how.