Yeah, and that was always the thing - the original always had so much better feedback than the other versions so if it was a different extract, why not go back to it? That's why I think so many people speculated that it was a different herb rather than Anacyclus in the original; I don't do the conspiracy thing + I really like PES; I just think that was what fueled the flames of those questions back then.
But that's the dilemma - we can easily offer a great quality Anacyclus BUT if the original was a different herb than Anacyclus or if it was a mix, there's no way we could promise to offer something exactly like it without knowing what it was.
I don't want to get too off track and I am biased, but I think it comes down to a couple things (hype and nostalgia).
I always got amazing results on the sequel products.
I think what tends to happen is when a new novel thing that actually works come out the initial hype builds and people expect miracles. This raises the ceiling of expectations and then when people get results, but maybe not the crazy things they saw others report they think the newer product is watered down, not the same, etc.
The same thing happens when people use something again or a single ingredient in a new formula if all the other life variables don't line up to give them better or even equal results suddenly now "it isn't good".
I've been on the boards awhile and it happens with so much. PES releases Erase. It is amazing. Then they release Erase Pro which is literally arimistane + extras and suddenly some people think the OG is still better.
Or look at the original epicatechin logs. People were claiming absurd strength gains in a week. If I gauged my results on epicatechin based on the original logs I'd say it doesn't work.
Or ArA. When Molecular Nutrition first released it that stuff got insane feedback. It has tempered (or stabilized?) over the years and appears more "hit or miss", but I'd say it is just still as effective.
As the sample size of users increases with these "novel" ingredients you get more people with unrealistic expectations or people who don't have good plans or proper training or nutrition use them then their negative reviews get tossed in the pile of all the cumulative reviews, where as a lot of times when these new ingredients come out the more tedious people use them first and probably do get better results because they are more structured in their training, diet, etc.
Again this isn't to discount others views on anything and we should take the good and bad reviews. It just seems to be a thing of finding where that ingredient settles. Some have huge initial feedback then no one ever enjoys it again (means probably hyped and not useful) or something has great initial feedback, a mix of bad reviews, but still some decently positive (means its probably effective just not a miracle).
And I got off track, sorry! Just think if people have reasonable expectations and you can find a good Anacyclus to provide then people would see benefit, but can see the areas that doubt creeps in with it.