I apologize if I in any way derailed the thread with my quirky approach to joining this thread.
@Furetto, I think you raised excellent questions and started this conversation in a way that deserved serious replies. Allow me to do that and move past my past messages.
Here is part 1 of probably several posts. They may be intermittent and have a few days between each one, but I will continue to share and answer any questions that arise.
So, let me "translate" some things that I wish I had described in more concrete terms.
PRICE
Because of the small production run, the cost per bottle is much higher than a mass market supplement product. But that alone does not explain a $179 price point. The "outrageous" number comes from the costs associated with standardizing and testing—not just for ingredient identity and purity and for safety (things like heavy metals/microbials)—but, in addition, the chemical properties that are required, according to the Neurotec monograph. When you take those costs, and divide them over <1,000 bottles... you get a per bottle cost that runs close to $100. This seems crazy, and it is. And then there is the "R&D" costs and custom method development, also for the purpose of standardizing and replicating the trial formula, which add one-off setup costs which are spread across this initial <1,000 bottle production run.
We have in-house tests, third party tests, tests before ingredients are processed, tests after, and many of these are uncommon for supplements. They eat through margins and make price per unit so high it's nearly impossible to compete. Yet they are necessary, and were fundamental to replicating the trial formula.
We had a manufacturer offer to do a run of 500 bottles for something like, $13 to $15 per bottle. I believe 120 capsules per bottle. But there was no testing. They basically said, sure we'll order these ingredients and mix the powders into capsules, and we'll put the same thing on the label. But no care was given to actually refining or determining how "potent" or consistent these ingredients were compared to the trial formula. One of them actually turned out to not even be the same. Tanacetum parthenium is not tansy. But they insisted it was "close enough" and that's when I said... thank you for the information, and ceased corresponding.
I had similar conversations with a number of manufacturers and laboratories that claimed they could make anything, and to whatever standards required. But the conversation slowed down, and I stopped getting responses, once I kept pressing about the testing to determine the parthenolide % in tansy, or the chlorogenic acid content in the nettle, and whether or not the talc was free of heavy metals or contaminants. These were not things they considered necessary, nevermind how the ones who understood the importance were not capable of offering these custom tests.
Eventually, we connected with a lab that could do all this. At a feasible price. But one that, as far as dietary supplements are concerned, is "outrageous" and uncommon. So, I'd agree that it's outrageous, but want to emphasize that it's not a money grab. The margins are slim enough to be nearly erased by free shipping (and well into the red if shipping to a number of international countries).
Another price-related concern/question is to do with the fact that the bottle is 180 capsules. Why "force" people to buy 180 capsules, for something with an uncertain effect and which varies from person to person. That seems unecessary. A fair question is: Why not sell it in 60-capsule bottles, at a lower price? Make it more accessible and less of a lump sum. Those smaller bottles would seem like they give a better option to people who just want to try and see if it works. This is fair, but has major tradeoffs. In the end, we decided to go with a quantity consistent with our main goal which is to give people a way to follow the same trial protocol, which has a duration of 90 days and requires 180 capsules—and, importantly, to sell in a quantity that is consistent with the minimum duration until noticeable effects can be expected. The earliest time point for that (based on when people were tested) is 3 months, according to the study. Not earlier, or at least not that we can point to, if we are sticking to the known data.
If there was a shorter time to noticeable effects, than 3 months, we would have probably gone with that. Because it would represent the "minimum duration" that could, as far as we know, give someone an idea of whether or not they respond / how they respond. This was 3 months for the trial.
The trial results, for this study and ones for the same formula for different indications, point to a mechanism that is due to a cumulative effect.... and one which, after 1 month of two capsules daily, does not yet show a meaningful or statistically significant difference compared to the placebo/control group... but which, after 3 months of two capsules daily, shows effects that . The time to noticeable effects and clinically meaningful effects, according to the research paper, was still not the case at 1 month of two capsules per day. Whether the ensuing changes apparent at the end of month 3 became noticeable at week 5 or week 10... I could not tell you. But, just to say, we chose to get whatever efficiencies we could by having larger bottle sizes that were matched to the trial duration and time until meaningful effects were seen.
AVAILABILITY/SCARCITY
We currently have 52 bottles remaining, each of which has a corresponding "reserved" bottle set aside for up to 3 months after the bottle is delivered. This is to make sure anyone whoever buys does not need to worry about interrupting their use, should they [respond positively and] choose to continue using the supplement past the initial 3 months. Now, obviously not everyone is going to re-order, only some will. I don't yet know what that number is, but it seems to be increasing as we get past the 2nd month of use (for initial buyers/users), and which could approach 20-30% (or beyond) at the 3 month mark. We're on the verge of finding out. Those are very uncertain numbers but I will have a much, much better idea one month from now. That's when I will be able to see what % of people who have had the product for at least three months, have re-ordered, and that's not a bad proxy for response / positive experience. My hope is to couple that with a structured and objective way of collecting experiences, and that's an approaching date of significance. So, re-orders, while certainly an imperfect indicator, are an indicator nevertheless. To date, some people have re-ordered enough to last another year. Presumably there is something to it for them. But the quantity, and earliness, might also have to do with the international free shipping last call, and which is no longer offered [it was losing money in many cases and not feasible/sustainable for us]. But we'll see what happens once the first cohort of pre-orders hit that 3 month mark. There will be more units freed up, and added to "available" inventory.
Now, what this all means for people who are planning or waiting it out to see how others/early users respond (which is a perfectly understandable approach!).. Right now, there are remaining units available for sale. 52. However, there is also a "reserved" inventory that corresponds to those who have already ordered. They get first dibs. But within the next month, those reserve bottles will gradually free up—depending on who ends up re-ordering. That, I expect, will prevent any "sold out" situations that last more than a few weeks, and the goal on our end is to not let that happen. I don't want to make anyone feel like they could miss out and are rushed. But I just want it to be known. That it's possible but temporary and they won't have missed a chance. Goal here is to not startle anyone if they see that ordering has been [temporarily] paused, and then are left to wonder what that means, or if they will still have a chance if they decide to try. The answer is, yes, they will. And the context of a "sold out" = waiting for reserve inventory to be freed up. And once everything is almost gone, we'll have begun preparing for second production run. This shouldn't interrupt availability more than a month, and not for anyone who has ordered a bottle. Because the reserve bottles will still be there, for them. Hopefully that makes sense and at least gives context that does not ominously suggest now-or-never.
@Furetto was spot on in pointing out the effects of such statements, and how they were red flags. I agree they were quite similar to what you'd expect from predatory offers and scams. What I have written, above, will hopefully provide context that allows for people to better plan/decide, and not feel as worried if they prefer to wait and see what others have experienced.
The specific numbers I mentioned above are all current, at the time of writing. Which for anyone seeing this late, is October 6, 2024. If that changes, or the context changes, I will include it in any material that references availability. Instead of using vague scarcity/urgency language. I'll also try to distill this in a more concise way. These are the raw facts.
To be continued!
Member
