Index Home About Blog
From: ((Steven B. Harris))
Subject: Re: Coenzyme Q-10
Date: 27 May 1995

In <3pctbg$> (D. B.
Robinson) writes:

>Can anyone point me to a source of information about Coenzyme Q-10?
>I am especially interested to know if any side effects have been reported.
>Thanks, David

There is a book on CoQ10 by Emile Bliznakov.  The stuff is remarkably
free of side effects.  We fed CoQ10 to mice at doses of 1 part in 1000
in the dry diet (about like 750 mg per day in humans on a percent of
food basis, and more on a mg/Kg/day basis), and got no toxic effects.
If anything, the animals on CoQ10 looked a lot better in old age.
Average lifespan was also improved, but not max life span.  This last
was due to an interesting thing: lymphoma, which is generally a disease
of young and middle aged mice, was moved out to older ages and killed
the geriatric mice in the CoQ10 group, something we'd never seen before.

                                                 Steve Harris, M.D.

From: ((Steven B. Harris))
Subject: Re: Antioxidants
Date: 29 May 1995

In <> writes:

>To ((Steve Harris)):
>I appreciate your high standards for safety.  I'm surprised
>that you sort of lump CoQ10 with other less natural substances.
>I suppose you're aware that CoQ10 is essential for life, and
>the body makes it.  It surely beats the hell out of the
>nitroglycerine tablets (and other synthetic analogues) that
>Board-certified cardiologies confidently dispenses out to
>patients with cardiac insufficiency, in preparation for the
>$40,000 inevitable open-heart surgery.

You misunderstand me: we were talking about preventive supplements to be
taken for decades by perfectly well people, in hopes of extending their
lives beyond the otherwise likely span and AVOIDING diseases.  The
risks/and tradeoffs are very different here than they are for the guy
with a disease which is 50% likely to kill him within 5 years, like many
grades of heart failure.  Desperate conditions may call for more
desperate remedies.

CoQ10 is an interesting "drug".  I don't recommend it for well people
as a prophylactic, but I do take it myself, as a result of some direct
experiences using it in in mouse lifespan studies (I not being immune
to the results of personal experience, at least in my own life choices;
I don't ask YOU to believe me).  Essentially, I've chosen to experiment
on myself with this one.  Nothing wrong with that-- I can be more
conservative in my recommendations for others than what I chose to do
with MY life.  Some days even I reflect that mice naturally make CoQ9,
not CoQ10, so we were giving them something entirely synthetic for their
systems.  That's one more reason those results might not apply to me--
might be setting me up for early lymphoma or something.  But I'm still
taking it.  If you want to also, it's up to you, but I warn you, we
still don't know if the stuff is risk-free for humans for really long
periods of time-- and at large doses it's NOT just a quasi-vitamin.

   For people with CHF I certainly recommend things like CoQ10,
hawthorne, acetyl-L-carnitine, and so on, if their cardiologists want to
go along with the program after they've hit the wall with inotropics,
venodilators, afterload reducers, and so forth.  But that's a whole new
ballgame, as I said.

>BTW, if you play fair and apply the same high safety standards
>to prescription drugs, 99% of them would probably be of even
>less acceptable risk, when compared to the supplements.

Hard to compare, since we have so few efficacy studies on supplements.
I do agree that most are pretty safe, although (again) you can buy
things like ethoxyquin and vanadium and germanium and even ascorbyl
palmitate and BHT that I myself would not take in large doses for
decades, on a bet.  Geez, just because it's in a healthfood store does
not mean that somebody screened it for healthiness.  Or that it will do
what it is supposed to.  There WILL be a next tryptophane-- I just don't
know what it will be.  The fewer of these things you take, and the more
you limit yourself to only ones with massive human supplemental
experience, the better off you'll be.

And there is lots of misinformation out there.  Example: I STILL to this
day see inositol sold as a sleep aid, based on the recommendations of C.
Pfeifer, and Pearson and Shaw.  But Pfeifer had only anecdotes, and if
you read Pearson and Shaw closely, you find that they are basing their
recommendations on the fact that they have confused inositol with
inosine, which really is a natural GABA receptor agonist.  As for
inosine, it's being sold as a pump you up weightbuilding supplement,
when it ought to be mellowing people out, if anything.  Hillarious.
People get out of supplements in so many instances just what they are
expecting, and this pair of chemicals is a good example.

>In light of your standards, I would like to hear your views on
>the prescription drug safety as compared to health supplements,
>even supplements deemed "dangerous" and strictly banned by the
>FDA, such as tryptophan, a cheap essential amino acid and an
>erstwhile sleeping pill competitor, elevated to the status of
>a "harmful" "drug" by the agency.

Oh, in general, prescription drugs are much more dangerous than
supplements.  That's why they're available only by prescription. <g>

>Looking forward to your unbiased opinion in a future posting

Thanks for the compliment.  Why, by the way, am I considered more biased
as a physician, when I can legally give my patients anything I want to,
including vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, herbs and homeopathics and
specially made of compounding pharmacy chemical mixes?  As opposed to
the people who cannot write prescriptions for most of the
molecules we really known much about in controlled conditions,
and therefore are much more fairly represented as like the guy
who has just a hammer, and needs to see everything as a nail?

                                         Steve Harris, M.D.

From: (Steven B. Harris )
Subject: Re: HEART DISEASE...........CURED??????????? (CoQ10)
Date: 22 Aug 1995

In <41crv2$etf@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> (The
Snyder-Dunns) writes:

>In article <41c77d$>,
>Steven B. Harris  <> wrote:
>>In <41bg9o$> (Palansky
>>) writes:
>>>In <41b7oc$> (Ray K.)
>>>>No, I am not nuts! I was channel surfing the other day, as "we men"
>>>>tend to do, and I caught a piece on one of the educational channels on
>>>>alternative medicine about some NEW product that was being used,
>>>>successfuly, to reverse heart disease.
>>>Never saw anything on TV about it, but Coenzyme Q10 is capable of doing
>>  Perhaps, but if it does, the heart disease occasionally reversed is
>>primary cardiomyopathy, not the most common kind of heart disease,
>>which is coronary atherosclerosis.
>The abstracts I've seen claim benefit for a vast majority of congestive
>heart failure patients with Q10 treatment - and many of these are large
>studies, even randomized - the chance of obtaining benefit in this
>disease appears to be more than just "occasional". But Dr. Harris is
>certainly correct that there is no evidence for benefit in coronary
>disease which is the most common kind of heart disease as he states.
>                        -Steve Dunn

Yep.  Remember that congestive heart failure, like jaundice and anemia,
is a symptom, not a disease.  I've asked some of the guy's who've done
the biggest US studies if they have any evidence of coronary disease
regression with CoQ10, and the answer is "no."  Nor, of course, is this
stuff going to regenerate dead heart wall (scar) and turn it back into
muscle.  The most common cause of "CHF" in the US is not enough
ventricle due to too many previous infarcts (MI's, heart attacks).
That heart is GONE.  CoQ10 isn't gunna bring it back.  Whether it makes
the REST of the disease free heart beat more efficiently or strongly
(i.e., is an inotrope like digoxin) has not been proven.  I'm an
agnostic on this issue.  I can say that there are fundamental limits as
to what heart tissue can do in the absense of oxygen (blood supply),
and THAT is a mechanical problem too often.

Is CoQ10 worth trying for the other kinds of CHF patients?  Sure.  I
think enough of it that I've used it myself.  It's relatively non-toxic
(I once did a 4 year tox study of it in mice, and there is extensive
human experience).  And, as you say, there are now several US studies,
and several foreign studies, to suggest that there is a real effect
from the stuff for selected heart patients.

                                                 Steve Harris, M.D.

From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: statins don't reduce dementia risk
Date: 19 Jul 2005 21:39:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Sharon Hope wrote:
> It is a start, and would help if all the problem were directly traced to
> statins crossing into the brain.
> However, the problem is that all statins cause a Coenzyme Q10 deficiency,
> which may be involved in the memory loss.  That deficiency is due to the
> "HMG CoA Reductace Inhibitor" (all statins) halting the Mevalonate pathway
> prior to the step that makes the CoQ10.  This happens in the liver and in
> the cells, so the blood/brain barrier is not really involved in that
> particular transaction.


Though the theory that statins cause a CoQ10 deficiency looks good "on
paper" (ie, if you trace it out on the biosynthesis chart) it's been
very, very hard to prove. I can find you papers where the plasma CoQ10
goes down. I can find you papers where it goes down, but no more than
the LDL does, which is not surprising because 2/3rds of plasma CoQ10 is
carried on LDL and triglycerides (that means your plasma CoQ10 goes
DOWN if you just eat healthily and improve your cardiovascular
profile-- in fact blood CoQ10 in non-treated patients anti-correlates
nicely with cardiac risk indicies in mine and other's studies).

There is even one paper where statins were given and LDL manifestly
dropped, but plasma CoQ10 didn't change at all, meaning (if we are to
believe it) that concentrations of CoQ10 in LDL actually rose with
statins. Suggesting that perhaps blood levels of CoQ10 are
independently regulated.

I've no doubt that if enough statin were taken, at some point CoQ10
synthesis would be hurt. But we're far from knowing if that amount is
in the the normal therapeutic range or not.

Having said all this, would I take CoQ10 if I suspected that I had a
statin side-effect?  You bet. CoQ10 is benign. And you might as well
supplement while you're waiting for science to figure things out.  Most
ill people have a buck-a-day to play a horse with those odds.

Should everybody ON a statin take CoQ10? That I do not know. Nor does
(really) anybody else.


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Cold feet and CoQ10 Re: statins don't reduce dementia risk
Date: 20 Jul 2005 15:50:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>

George Cherry wrote:
> I've been taking Riboflavin and CoQ10 as migraine
> prophylactics for several years, hoping to get some
> other benefits as well.


CoQ10 is a mild vasodilator, and lowers blood pressure a bit. My own
anecdotal response to it is that it helps cold feet. I rarely wear
shoes in the house but don't have central heat. CoQ10 is the difference
between usually wearing socks or not.

Boy, I'll bet a government health system wouldn't give it to me for
that! Or an HMO, either. You see, CoQ10 for me is not a need. It's just
a want. :)


> Efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized controlled
> trial.
> Sandor PS, Di Clemente L, Coppola G, Saenger U, Fumal A, Magis D, Seidel L,
> Agosti RM, Schoenen J.
> Headache and Pain Unit, Neurology Department, University Hospital Zurich,
> Frauenklinikstrasse 26, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
> Riboflavin, which improves energy metabolism similarly to coenzyme Q10
> (CoQ10), is effective in migraine prophylaxis. We compared CoQ10 (3 x 100
> mg/day) and placebo in 42 migraine patients in a double-blind, randomized,
> placebo-controlled trial. CoQ10 was superior to placebo for
> attack-frequency, headache-days and days-with-nausea in the third treatment
> month and well tolerated; 50%-responder-rate for attack frequency was 14.4%
> for placebo and 47.6% for CoQ10 (number-needed-to-treat: 3). CoQ10 is
> efficacious and well tolerated.
> PMID: 15728298 [PubMed - in process]

From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: Cold feet and CoQ10 Re: statins don't reduce dementia risk
Date: 20 Jul 2005 19:12:24 -0700
Message-ID: <>

George Cherry wrote:
> It doesn't help my cold hands. But I'm only taking 150 mgs
> per day.


You can always take more. CoQ10 varies widely in absorbability and
price per mg. You can pay top dollar for Solanova or Twinsorb
"Q-gel/Biosolve" technology which are about a buck per 100 mg, but they
give you no more than twice the increase in blood level of your
standard 100 mg, something up around 1.7 from your normal baseline of
..7 ppm.  But cost up to 4 times as much.  If you pay 4 times as much
per mg for twice the absorbability, you've not only gained nothing, but
have actually lost.

One of the better CoQ10 values you can get out there in the standard
health stores is the Twinlab Mega 100 dry, which performs nearly as
well as the liquid gels, but costs maybe 50 to 70% as much, depending
on where you get it.

The actual best CoQ10 buy on the market *by far,* in terms of cost per
mg and cost per ppm blood level increase, is a product made by the Life
Extension Foundation. Disclaimer: I have a BIG confict of interest in
recommending that one. But all the same, it happens to be true.


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: statins don't reduce dementia risk
Date: 21 Jul 2005 13:04:53 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Sharon Hope wrote:
> From what I learned by listening to the presentations at the International
> Coenzyme Q10 Conference (way over my head, it was by and for doctors and
> researchers, they were kind eonough to let me attend the day the statin and
> cardiovascular sessions were presented), it isn't the plasma CoQ10 that is
> important, it is the level of CoQ10 in the tissue.  As I understood it, the
> problem is that it is much more expensive to test that level, and few labs
> are equipped to do it.


True enough, but not to relevent to mental problems, because even if
you could find a lab, are you going to let them biopsy your brain?

There have been studies where they even did endocardial biopsies, but
you can imagine how much of a pain that is. However, they correlated
reasonably well with plasma levels. Levels of CoQ10 go up in
mitochondria go up everywhere in the body if you give enough of the

A word about mouse doses--- since mice eat 7 times the kcal per kg
humans do, you must divide mouse doses of CoQ10 by 7 to get human
equivalent doses. If you figure an average human at 70 kg, that means
you take the mouse dose/kg and multiply by 10 to get the total
equivalent human daily dose. That's a handy dandy rule. In mice, 150
mg/kg/day which is about like 20 mg/kg/day in humans = about 1500 mg a
day. If you only give small doses like 10 mg/kg/day to mice, that
corresponds to about 1.5 mg/kg/day in humans = 100 mg per day.

Anyway, if you give mice only 10 mg/kg = 100 mg for a human, you get
increases only in plasma and liver. If you got as high as 150 mg/kg =
1500 mg for a human, you get increase in tissue levels everywhere. Just
what the happy median is (since the first dose is affordable and the
other isn't), I can't say. I would recommend you take at least 300 mg a
day of the good stuff (LEF brand), and twice that if you can afford it.
I know one good Parkinson studies have run on 1200 mg a day for many
months, and this was non-toxic. And enough got into the brain to
influence the progression of the Parkinson's so I know THAT worked. It
was associated with plasma levels increasing from about 0.7 to about 4
ppm (these were unfortunately taken randomly, and probably are over
what you'd see after an overnight level-out period, which is the way my
lab does it).

> Also, the rate or percentage of absorption is difficult to estimate and
> perhaps to ensure.


Well, absolute percent of absorption is difficult to estimate, but
RELATIVE absorption is easy to estimate-- you just measure plateau
plasma levels (you have to be careful not to touch the buffy coat,
because that gets you into measuring intracellular levels, whereas pure
uncontaminated plasma levels are levels in the LDL and triglycerides).
Since blood CoQ10 kinetics are to a good approximation first order
(half-time 34 hours), your plateau level at a week of supplementation
is a good index of your RELATIVE absorption (since whatever you absorb
all goes through our blood, obviously). If you get twice the blood
increase of person A, you aborbed twice as much for your weight
(however much that was). And if you get twice the increase from
supplement A as from supplement B, then it's giving you twice the bang
for the buck.

> So, just taking supplements may or may not be effective in actually
> replenishing the deficiency in the cells.

It's a pretty safe (but not sure) bet that if you get your plasma
levels up to 4 ppm, as in the Parkinson study, you're going to be
getting significant CoQ10 into your brain. My estimate is it would take
as little as 300 mg and no more than 600 mg a day of LEF product to do
that. You can always get your plasma levels checked-- collect a
yellowtop and have the plasma separated and sent to Kronos labs in
Phoenix, AZ. Your own draw lab should be able to do it for you.

> I don't know the ratio between plasma and cellular CoQ10 levels (normal, on
> statins, and with supplementation), but there was a discussion on some of
> the better ways to ensure absorption of the supplements, so I take that as
> evidence that this is still a problem area.

Yes, but the real problem area is in absorption of the supplements,
since there's not really much you can do about partitioning between
your CoQ10 in the plasma and your other tissues. No doubt there are
people who are poor transferers, but if people are like mice, that's
not where the big problem is.
Anyway the absorption from supplements is a fixed problem. There are
good supplements, and there are good ways to check their performance.

> All that is to say: Even if you raise the plasma level of CoQ10, that does
> not necessarily mean that you have remediated a tissue deficiency of CoQ10.

No, but your odds are very, very good, if you raise the plasma level
enough. The stuff is fat soluble and you can't keep it OUT of every
body compartment. It would be quite remarkable if it DIDN'T get into
the target tissue you were interested in.

Int J Tissue React. 1988;10(2):95-7. Links

Plasma and tissue concentrations of coenzyme Q10 in the rat after its
oral administration.

Scalori V, Alessandri MG, Mian M, Giovannini L, Bertelli AA.

Institute of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Pisa,

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) kinetics was investigated in rat tissues after
oral treatment. CoQ10 passes quickly from plasma into the tissue
examined, reaching levels higher than physiological ones; the liver
shows the maximal CoQ10 concentrations. Our results indicate that oral
treatment makes it possible to obtain good tissue levels of CoQ10 that
might be of clinical value against endogenous CoQ10 insufficiencies due
either to pathological alterations and/or to drug administration.

PMID: 3182188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: statins don't reduce dementia risk
Date: 25 Jul 2005 16:54:42 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Sharon Hope wrote:

> One of the surprising facts that I learned at the conference (Q&A session
> with the docs and researchers in the audience keeping the presenters on
> their toes) is that mice do not use CoQ10, they use CoQ9.  Thus, any CoQ10
> study results in mice are suspect in their potential application for humans.
> From what I gathered from the questioners, to do a valid mouse study, you
> need to use CoQ9 and extrapolate to the human equivalent CoQ10.  This Q&A
> got particularly lively, and therby quite memorable.


It is true enough that mice use CoQ9, not 10. Though, if you feed mice
CoQ10, their levels of CoQ9 go up also, so they obviously can
down-convert one to the other. Most animals can, using precursors of
one CoQ for another. The "9" or "10" is the number of isoprenoid units,
and these are added or substracted by an enzyme. The addition is an
energy-dependent process, but the cleavage isn't.

> > It's a pretty safe (but not sure) bet that if you get your plasma
> > levels up to 4 ppm, as in the Parkinson study, you're going to be
> > getting significant CoQ10 into your brain. My estimate is it would take
> > as little as 300 mg and no more than 600 mg a day of LEF product to do
> > that. You can always get your plasma levels checked-- collect a
> > yellowtop and have the plasma separated and sent to Kronos labs in
> > Phoenix, AZ. Your own draw lab should be able to do it for you.
> >
> Not sure it is the same test, but a few of the people there made mention
> that they had access to special labs that could do such work, by which I
> understood that it is not commonly available.


It's commonly available, but it may not be commonly known about.
There's a difference :).

> I found it interesting that 3 years ago 800-1200 mg/day was a clinical dose,
> now they are using 3,000mg/day with no recognizable adverse effects of any
> kind and far better efficacy response.


The dose is rather meaninless without the blood levels reported with
it. Nobody cares how much CoQ10 goes into the toilet.

> > Perhaps they should rerun the study using CoQ9.


Though it would be cleaner, it will be a LONG time before anybody runs
a rodent study with CoQ9.  CoQ10 is made industrially by the ton by
proprietary fermentation proceses in yeast by companies like Kaneka.
CoQ9 is make in back-street labs by suppliers for Sigma for
biochemists, and is 1000 times the price.  Nobody could afford to run a
mouse study with it.


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: CoQ10 economic reality: Re: Cognitive problems with simvastatin?
Date: 5 Sep 2005 23:13:03 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Robert wrote:
> I see nothing wrong in that. I just don't see why you can't see the
> commericalism attached to CoQ10. Does CoQ10 cause blindness?


Apparently. FYI, 100 metric tons of CoQ10 are produced year year and
sold in supplments in the US, which absorbs about a third of total
world production. Kaneka in Japan is the world's largest producer. They
sell that 100 tons to US manufacturers for about $200 million, and the
manufacturers mark it up for retail sale to somewhere between $2 and 3
billion a year (bottle of 60 100 mg tabs for $12 to $18).

Now, compare 2-3 billion/yr with US sales of Lipitor last year of $7.1
billion, and Zocor maybe $5.5 billion. The CoQ10 is a smaller market
than THOSE giants, but it's not chickenfeed or chump change. Lipitor
and Zocor are the top grossing drugs ON the US market. There are only
*6* drugs on the US market that do more than 3 billion a year.

1  LIPITOR  PFIZER, INC  $7.10 billion
2  ZOCOR  MERCK & CO.,INC  $5.50 billion
3  PREVACID  TAP PHARMA  $4.00 Billion
5  PROCRIT  JOHNSON & JOHNSON  $3.30 Billion
6  ZOLOFT  PFIZER, INC  $3.00 Billion

US CoQ10 sales probably beat more of the rest, including all the ones
you know like the antibiotics, the rest of the antidepressants, Viagra
and so on.

Just to inject a hint of reality into the utopian idea of Sharon's
totally scientific conference, working on a poor-cousin ignored
nutrient, which nobody makes any $ on, due to evil pharma. LOL.

While meanwhile, in the part of the universe Sharon pays no attention
to, a giant Kaneka CoQ10 plant is due to go online in Texas next
Spring. No fools, they.


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: Cognitive problems with simvastatin?
Date: 6 Sep 2005 00:03:29 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Robert wrote:
> "Sharon Hope" <> wrote in message
> >
> > "Robert" <> wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > > "Sharon Hope" <> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> Again, had you attended the International Coenzyme Q10 Association's
> > >> conference this spring, as I did, you would have heard multiple
> > > researchers
> > >> state it as a GIVEN in the their introductory remarks leading to the
> > >> presentation of their research.
> > >
> > > Sponsored by the maker of CoQ10. They were paid by the drug manufacturer
> > > no?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No
> >
> >
> The researchers did not get free CoQ10 for the studies?
> The researchers are not paid consultants for CoQ10 producers?
> There was no funding or collaboration with the producers?
> They went to the store and bought off the shelf untested for purity or
> strength CoQ10 samples?
> The producers were not there at the conference?

Funny stuff, Robert. In a $3 billion a year industry, what do YOU

Sharon just went around like an innocent puppy at a county fair, cause
she didn't see any Pfizer signs.


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: Cognitive problems with simvastatin?
Date: 6 Sep 2005 14:42:56 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Robert wrote:
> See the reference stuff I found below under.
> There's nothing wrong with it mind you. Some of the best research comes out
> of competition. One drug vs another drug.
> The CoQ10 people don't want you to stop taking statins. They want access to
> the wide open market of people taking statins. They don't just want to treat
> Parkinson's and limit the sales.
> They present an article at the conference stating the statins unmask
> Parkinson's and so if you want to keep it masked then everybody taking
> statins must take Q.


Yep. Same game, different pills. I just find it amusing that if you
remove the "pharm" label and the prescription status, and the obvious
elephantine big companies (except Kaneka, which stays in the
background) people like Sharon can't even see the process anymore. It
just looks like pure science, nobody with any agenda, no hidden funding
sources, all objective. As I say-- such innocence. It would be sweet if
it didn't come from somebody who's ordinarily so paranoid and nasty
when it comes to the pill-profit mechanisms she's familiar with.

It sort of reminds of the socialist-blindness. When the government
screws them in all the very same ways that businesses screw them, they
don't mind it at all. At worst, they just write letters and petitions
and run voter registration drives, as though that will more easily fix
the same basic problems of centralized decision-making without enough
information, that usually are at the root of corporate gaffs as well as
government ones. They figure: "If only our elected leaders knew or
understood how bad it was, they'd fix things." Yeah, well maybe. And
probably the same is true of your average corporation. Few large
institutions interested in long-term success actually *want* to piss
off society, future customers, future voters. It's just that it's so
easy to make short term gains on credit, while ignoring long term costs
and risks, that both public and private institutions are tempted in
absense of information, same as people are.


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: CoQ10 conference
Date: 6 Sep 2005 22:47:04 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Sharon Hope wrote:
> LOL.
> Lipitor does ~ $10 BILLION per year.

Not in this country. You're talking world market.

> You think that the non-patentable supplement CoQ10 in the food category,
> which MIGHT hit $200 Million per year in 2006 is in the running?

No, it's 2 to 3 billion gross retail. I know the figures very well.
$200 million is pure wholesale bulk CoQ10, manufacturer to product
maker. Then big markup to retail.

> You see
> this as an industry throwing its weight around?
> Remind me not to take any tips on the stock market from you.
> ROFL!!!

You could do worse than take tips on the stock market from me. I
haven't been beaten by the "street" indicies or the major funds yet
(which last is not a big deal, since most funds lose relative to the

But I don't invest in Pharma. It's like FDA roulette, where knowledge
does you no good at all.

> BTW, they haven't been able to identify a single adverse effect from CoQ10.
> But they have seen it do incredible good in cases of Cerebellar Ataxia and
> Parkinson's Disease.

There are of course individual reports of all kinds of efffects from
it, but they are indeed minor.

We've seen many of these in our own studies, but not much to tell


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: CoQ10 conference
Date: 7 Sep 2005 15:57:38 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Robert wrote:
> "Sharon Hope" <> wrote in message
> > You think that the non-patentable supplement CoQ10 in the food category,
> > which MIGHT hit $200 Million per year in 2006 is in the running?  You see
> > this as an industry throwing its weight around?
> It sponsors research on it's behalf.

It does indeed. Some of that CoQ10 research pays a part of my salary
(I've been doing CoQ10 research off and on since 1987--- often
supported by marketers of CoQ10). That connection is one reason I've
been careful not to be a CoQ10 booster here. Or at least attempt to
identify conflict of interest where I have (by contrast, I get nothing
from fishoil :)).

As for CoQ10 not being patentable, there are actually many patentable
aspects of how to use, package, deliver, solublize, increase the
bioavailability etc, of the stuff. Go to the USPTO database and search
on CoQ10 if you don't believe. I've actually written a pending CoQ10
patent. This is just Sharon, on the strength of having attended only
little CoQ10 scientific meeting in Hollywood, now trying to educate me
about my own profession, and tell me about my own business. The egotism
of some of these people!  It's really quite astounding.

I suppose next we'll hear that the reason I'm a booster of some statins
(some I like, some I don't) is because I'm secretly trying to get the
whole world to take them, so that they'll need CoQ10! Sneaky!

Truthfully, however, I don't have that much financial connection to
statins, even by this very indirect route. If I ever get rich, it won't
be from my CoQ10 patent. And indeed, most of the people who take CoQ10
don't take statins--- they take it as a tonic or for preventative
reasons. And one disease where there's the best evidence for a CoQ10
effect (Parkinson's) is fairly common, and was fairly common before
statins had ever been invented. The same goes for cardiomyopathy. So
I'll do just fine, thanks, statins or no. I would, even if CoQ10 was
most of my support. Which it isn't.


From: Steve Harris <>
Subject: Re: CoQ10 conference
Date: 9 Sep 2005 14:32:54 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Sharon Hope wrote:
> Steve Harris <> wrote in message
> >
> > Sharon Hope wrote:
> >> "Robert" <> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Sharon Hope" <> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> LOL.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lipitor does ~ $10 BILLION per year.
> >> >>
> >> >> You think that the non-patentable supplement CoQ10 in the food
> >> >> category,
> >> >> which MIGHT hit $200 Million per year in 2006 is in the running?  You
> >> >> see
> >> >> this as an industry throwing its weight around?
> >> >
> >> > It sponsors research on it's behalf.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Remind me not to take any tips on the stock market from you.
> >> >>
> >> >> ROFL!!!
> >> >
> >> > It wasn't for the financial advantage but for the financial disclosure
> >> > of
> >> > studies you refer here to.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, they haven't been able to identify a single adverse effect from
> >> > CoQ10.
> >> >> But they have seen it do incredible good in cases of Cerebellar Ataxia
> >> >> and
> >> >> Parkinson's Disease.
> >> >
> >> > Studies paid by who? That's the whole point.
> >> > They call it incredible while others call it "negative or neutral".
> >> > You want to have them do research for you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> You have yet to list a single link to a study paid for by a producer of
> >> CoQ10.
> >>
> >> Where is the evidence?
> >
> >
> > You want me to post links to CoQ10 papers in the literature paid for by
> > producers of CoQ10 products?
> Yes, back your claim.  Your claim is counter to what was said by the
> presenters at the conference.
> Citations please, it is only what you would require of me.
> >It will be a little harder to post links
> > for abstracts at some conference you attended, because they aren't
> > published yet.
> >
> > SBH


Robert has adequately answered you on the matter of the conference. As
for papers in the literature, you merely have to use pubmed and look at
CoQ10 studies in humans.

For example:

Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 1998;68(2):109-13.

Relative bioavailability of coenzyme Q10 formulations in human subjects.
Chopra RK, Goldman R, Sinatra ST, Bhagavan HN.

Tishcon Corp., Westbury, NY 11590, USA.

The relative bioavailability of typical commercially available forms of
coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) was compared with that of Q-Gel, a new solubilized
form of CoQ10, in human subjects in two separate trials. In the first,
standard softgel capsules containing CoQ10 suspension in oil,
powder-filled hardshell capsules and powder-based tablets were tested
along with Q-Gel using a daily dosage of 120 mg for three weeks. The
baseline plasma CoQ10 values were all very tight (0.50-0.52
microgram/mL) and after three weeks the values were 1.37, 1.63 and 1.60
micrograms/mL for the first three products and 3.31 micrograms/mL for
Q-Gel. The relative bioavailability calculated using the areas under
the plasma CoQ10 curve (AUC) were (micrograms/mL x time in days) 7.16
(100%), 8.97 (125%), 9.19 (128%) and for Q-Gel 22.86 (319%). The second
trial, carried out to replicate the findings in the first, employed
only two groups, namely the standard softgel capsules containing the
suspension and Q-Gel, and the duration was extended to four weeks.
Plasma CoQ10 values were: baseline 0.40 and 0.38 and after four weeks
1.26 and 2.80; the corresponding AUCs were: 8.33 (100%) and 22.75
(273%). Thus, the data from both the trials show that Q-Gel, the new
solubilized form of CoQ10, is vastly superior to typical commercially
available preparations of CoQ10. This means much lower doses of Q-Gel
will be required to rapidly reach and maintain adequate blood CoQ10
values than with any of the other currently available products.

PMID: 9565826 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Please note that this study is FROM Tishcon corporation. Google
Tishcon. Tishcon is the owner of the basic Goldman emulsion patent for
the CoQ10 "BioSolve" system used in "Q-Gel" products, as mentioned in
the study above. They license this technology to products like
Solanova's "Q-gel" line. But you have to be a real connoiseur of the
industry to know they also licence it to Twinlab for Twinlab's
"TWINSORB" CoQ10 line. Twinlab doesn't want you to see from their
bottle that the technology isn't theirs.

Note this drug study was done in India. It's cheap to do human trials
in India, and you can get any results you like. Just ask <g>.

Is that enough inside info for one day? Do you need to sleep with mommy


Index Home About Blog