Indomitus Industries heraldic achievement.

This Issue:

Contact Us
Jim's CV
About the Name
About the Crest

2004 Issues #1 to #16

The Indomitus Report
Volume 2

10 January 2005

Being Sovereign

    "The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor."
    John Adams,
    "Letter to Thomas Jefferson,"
    13 November 1815

Our search for an exceptionally clever or succinct quote regarding sovereignty with which to begin the new calendar year has reminded us of what an awful lot of drivel on the topic has been uttered over the centuries. Sovereignty, we are impelled to remind ourselves, is a personal authority resident in every human being.

You are as much a sovereign as that emperor. Your sovereignty is as significant and as meaningful and as masterful as that sovereignty held collectively by any oligarchical junto. The power you exert in the world is as justifiable as that power exerted by the most arrogant aristocratical council. The majority of a popular assembly by being the majority of that assembly has no greater authority before God or man compared to your authority as an individual. Whatever is done in the name of the people by those claiming to represent them is not more just nor more rational nor more serious nor more significant than what you choose to do in your own name, representing yourself.

Indeed, in our view, to the extent that someone claims to represent a majority of the people in some district, that person is lying. To the extent that you claim to represent yourself, you are being truthful, for who else may honestly claim to represent you?

Some might suppose that by this illustration we are arguing for direct democracy, but we are not. For the entire premise of democracy is that the majority should rule in any case. We have yet to find the case where the majority should rule and the minority should suffer, so we say the majority should not rule in any case, let alone in every case as democracy enthusiasts suggest. The rule of the majority, even by direct democracy, is not the rule of the nobility, nor is it even the rule of the mob or mobility. It is the rule of bullies over cowards. Bullies because those who think that because the majority are more numerous their opinions should count for more over cowards who think that by giving in to the majority and meekly accepting their ruling that appeasement might produce safety or freedom.

Rather, we are arguing for individual liberty and personal sovereignty. Govern thyself. Seek not to govern others. You are responsible for yourself, for your choices, for your actions, and you are free to think, say, write, express, do, or be anything you please, circumscribed only by what you think is right.

This conception of sovereignty as resting with the individual is the natural consequence of "all men are created equal." It is the natural consequence of being endowed by our Creator with certain essential features, characteristics, properties which some denote as rights or liberties. The difference between your genetic make-up and that of the most august and high emperor, or the most self-important and self-proclaimed ruler, or the appointed Secretary General of the United Nations, or the elected President of the United States, is trivial and inconsequential. The difference is so little as to be no difference.

Indeed, only the emperors or kings would argue that their heredity makes any difference. No one takes such claims seriously, least of all kings and emperors. Nobody supposes that the Secretary General or the President are genetically superior. Anyone who takes a moment to look into these things must conclude that these men aren't morally superior. Scandals dog these men wherever they go.

The only fig leaf of decency covering the naked arrogance of the claims of these men to rule over others is the possibility, however rudely constructed, of delegation. If you choose to submit to their power, then you have delegated your sovereignty to one (or more) of them. But look whose choice is at stake.

If it is not your choice to take, then it wasn't your sovereignty to begin with. If you are free to choose to delegate your sovereignty, then it must be your property from the start. Indeed, the very nature of a society based upon consent is the underpinning ideal that you are individually sovereign. Else, why would your consent matter?

Rather than arguing for majority consent, we prefer to argue for unanimous consent. It is unanimous consent that recognizes the individual as superior to the collective. Unanimous consent argues for the equality of sovereignty of the individuals. It is this freely chosen unanimous consent that makes up the spontaneous order of the free market.

Examine your contracts. Every contract exists among individuals or legal entities because of unanimous consent. Even if one party has a unilateral power to change the terms of the agreement, every participant in that agreement had to consent to those terms at the beginning. Moreover, should the terms become unreasonable or unbearable, the participants always retain the power of withdrawing their consent and ceasing to cooperate.

Most contracts are extremely ad hoc. You walk into a store, you select your purchases, you exchange value, you leave the store. If you are using cash, specie, or digital gold you may complete your purchase without signing anything. The consent of the merchant to accept your form of payment and your consent to exchange it for the merchandise is spontaneous, immediate, signified "over the counter," and complete the moment you leave money behind and take your purchases out the door.

Why, then, have you any interest in delegating your political power in a fashion that you wouldn't delegate your economic power? You delegate economic power all the time. You hire workers to do a job, you engage professionals to provide services, you have associates who work with you for common objectives, you may even have gardeners or chauffeurs, on a retail basis such as taxi drivers or on a wholesale basis if you need a driver for several years. What you don't have are open-ended deals with obligations on your part to pay and collective responsibility persistently shirked on their part. When you pay to have a job done, it gets done, most often, or you have a dispute and proceed through a settlement process.

Delegating political authority doesn't work. It provides poor results. But, it must be done, some would say. National security must be provided. Someone has to keep the country safe. Without the military, without spies, without diplomats, how would we keep ourselves safe?

The answer is all around you. If you would seek monuments to the wisdom of delegating political authority, look around you. Go to lower Manhattan and stand at Ground Zero. We did. We stood there in 1984 and looked down from the observation platform at the very highest level of the World Trade Center. We dined at Windows on the World, met a brother who was staying in a hotel there. And witnessed the devastation since. Nearly three thousand people died as a result of their decision to delegate political authority in exchange for national security.

The men and women responsible for that security let four planes be stolen, three of which were flown into buildings. The fourth was not, owing in no way to the operations of the military, the spies, the diplomats, or the other sundry government functionaries. That fourth plane was prevented from being used as a guided missile to destroy another ground target by the men and women on board that plane who took it upon themselves to defend themselves and their compatriots.

Ultimately it was their willingness to take their lives in their own hands and mete out justice against perpetrators of wrongdoing that saved lives. Equipped in some cases with pocket knives and other items routinely carried in carry-on luggage aboard airplanes at the time, but prevented from carrying effective tools of self-defense like all the other victims that day, they took on their attackers and apparently were in the process of taking control of the plane when the kamikaze pilot flew it into the ground.

A distributed threat cannot be met with a centralized response. It must be met with a distributed response. The only way to safeguard against terrorism, or freedom fighters, or resistance fighters, who may come and go without being identified and strike at times of their choosing is for every individual to be armed. The only way to be sure that you will be defended is to be able to defend yourself.

Relying for your security on others makes no sense. It gets people killed. Rely on the government for tsunami warnings or hurricane warnings, and you may end up like a hundred and fifty thousand other people in recent days. Rely on the government to defend your country from hijackers and bombers and you may end up like those men and women who reported to work on the morning of 11 September 2001 at the World Trade Center or at the Pentagon. Allow yourself to be disarmed and you may face your final enemy armed with nothing more dangerous than a Bic pen, the pocketknives now being confiscated should you leave them in your carry-on luggage.

Being disarmed, among the other harm it brings you, causes you to be despised, said Niccolo Machiavelli in the Sixteenth Century. Be armed. Be wary of open-ended arrangements where payment on your part is obligatory and responsibility on the part of your so-called agents is collective or ephemeral. If they are only going to pretend to defend the country and uphold the constitution, perhaps you should only pretend to pay the taxes they suppose you must owe.

When, in the course of events, it becomes necessary for an individual to dissolve the political bonds which have connected him to others, and to assume among the powers of the Earth the equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle him, then a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires he declare the reasons impelling him to the separation. It is self-evident that we are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with natural liberty including life, liberty, and property which are elements or characteristics of the same ideal, and that we are ill served by the forms of government we see around us. We choose self-government because it is the only logical way in which to govern ourselves. As no one else shares our interest in our well-being, no one else is suitable to govern our actions.

Free yourself. Arm yourself. Govern yourself.

Next week is time for a thoroughgoing appraisal of handguns.

Free Market Money

    "Money, when considered as the fruit of many years' industry, as the reward of labor, sweat and toil, is not to be sported with, nor trusted to the airy bubble of paper currency."
    - Thomas Paine

Gold has been coming along nicely for several years. We remember, quite vividly, selling a used computer for $254.50 in September 1999, accepting an ounce gold coin for payment. We've recently completed the fifth full year of the current bull market. Nothing fundamentally has changed for gold. The dollar continues to be uninspiring, deficits both federal- and trade-related continue to soar, and numerous reports suggest that inflation is much greater than the government statisticians are reporting. Gold remains significantly supply trapped, having endured low prices for many years so that new discoveries are not going to come on line soon enough to provide a substantial alleviation of the supply problem.

And, yes, gold is off its peak from earlier in 2004. It has tested and fallen through support at $432, it has tested and fallen through support at $425, and it has recently tested support at $418, and was, at this writing somewhat above that level. So is it time to sell all your gold and go back to paper dollars? No.

Rather, gold is cheap at this price, and you should use the current period of brief "strength" in the dollar as an opportunity to exit the dollar. There is no reason to expect the trade deficits nor the federal debts to be resolved. There is no fundamental strength to the dollar, which is why we use quote marks earlier in this paragraph. The debt problem is systemic rather than symptomatic.

Yes, the dollar has fallen to unprecedented levels, at an amazingly fast rate in recent years, and was accelerating downward. Possibly some interventional action has taken place, and certainly a pause was to be expected even in natural trading as the "oversold" sentiment became overwhelming.

The practical issues are clear, though. Gold should go higher, and much higher. Silver should go higher, as well, and the ratio between the two should move back toward 20 ounces of silver to the ounce of gold over the next few years. The dollar should move lower against all other major forms of money, and the precious metals should appreciate against other national currencies.

The moral issues are even more clear. As Thomas Paine noted some 200 years ago, paper currency produces all manner of airy bubbles. The Imperial Chinese mulberry bast money, tally sticks and the closing the Exchequer, the South Sea Bubble, the John Law Banque Royale fiasco, the Continental, the assignat & the mandat, the paper pound, the greenback, the Confederate dollar, the Weimar mark, the Nationalist Chinese paper money, the Italian lira, the South Vietnamese piastre, and today's USA dollar all have one thing in common: they are based on the fatuous notion that governments may be trusted with the issue power of money. Here we mean fatuous in the sense of complacent self-deception rather than unconscious inanity.

What government has done to our money, as Murray Rothbard and many others have pointed out, is immoral. The only aspect of this situation that preserves a modicum of sanity is your choice in the matter. You have a choice of currencies. The USA may implement currency controls and other extreme measures to attempt to delay the inevitable. These should be seen for what they are: desperation. While you have a choice, move money into precious metals and offshore for safekeeping.

Be prepared to follow your money, if necessary, to preserve your safety and freedom.

Gold Mining

Here's how the stocks we presently suggest in this area look right now:

Company Symbol C$ US$
Almaden AMM.TO 1.78 -
Free Gold ITF.TO 0.35 0.27
Luzon LZN.V 0.24 -
- C$0.05
Lumina LCC - 4.46
- 0.18
Silver Standard SSRI - 11.45
- 1.33
Vista VGZ.TO 4.20 -
- C$0.80
Newmont Mining NEM - 41.60
Northgate NXG - 1.54
- 0.11

The recent "strength" in the dollar has produced lower gold prices. The exploration companies are least effected by this short-term drop in metal prices, and two out of three of our suggestions seem to be holding up well. The rest of the sector is looking weak, and should turn around with higher gold prices. As well, our small cap picks should do well from the January effect, as mentioned in our last issue.

We continue to track these stocks based on the date of our initial suggestion. The column at far right now shows price changes against the price of the stock at the date of our suggestion of it, in red if there has been a drop in price and in green if the price has risen. You can click on the links in the various columns for pricing information either from the company or from third party sites, and follow your own progress or daily progress.

If you followed the "dips on chips" advice in the 1995-2000 timeframe, you probably made out pretty well. Now might be a good time to buy on dips in strong mining stocks.

Free Market Money

Gold closed in New York at $418.50 or so and is up to $419.50 as we go to press. It looks like gold should hold above $418 for the full 24 hours since trading opened in Sydney, so the week is off to a good start. Overall, the correction seems to have been swift and comparatively limited since the $455 peak late last year. We expect prices to work their way back up from here to again test lofty levels like $480 or $500. Prices should stay firm and work their way higher through April or May. We would expect a high around $550 by then, before the usual summer doldrums.

Silver closed today in New York at $6.42 and was up a penny on NY access market trading when we checked for this report.

A note on PayPal from our column of 31 December 2004. We are informed that PayPal is now licensed in various states of the USA. Based on their policies, they would not properly be classified as free market money. We did not mean to suggest that PayPal was a free market money alternative, but, rather that it was an economically successful online payment system and therefore a possibly useful basis for comparison.

The two stocks we've suggested in this sector are PVH and MCG. MCG is unchanged at .513 grams. PVH is unchanged at 0.025 grams.

Space Frontier

Last Thursday, the Bush Administration released information about the new national policy authorized 21 December 2004. It is a matter of considerable ambivalence for us that it takes seventeen days to get a fact sheet about a new national policy out where it may be discussed. On the one hand, it is sort of nice that the system is so rigid and so slow moving that it takes weeks to roll out a policy announcement, and perhaps months or even years to make semi-coherent policy decisions. On the other hand, it was probably just a national security review to determine how much of the super secret national policy could be released to the public. Not quite a secret bombing of Cambodia, but things are headed that way. By the way, the policy updates policies of 1994 and 1996.

Let's take up the jawboning first, since that's where the fact sheet starts. GoldMoney founder James Turk gives a nice overview of jawboning in his latest commentary (which focuses on the trend in the dollar, not the bounce).

"Classic jawboning - lots of talk but no action. These words are no different from ... dozens of other times .... comments are designed to lull inattentive investors.... Jawboning is a limited resource. D.C.'s politicians know that they cannot go 'to the well' too often, with the consequence that they have to jawbone only when it can be most effective ...." Truly, an excellent operational definition of jawboning. It is exactly what we mean here.

This fact sheet is full of jawboning. Much of it is contradictory, and therefore a semantic analysis would probably reveal a value close to null.

Because the policy asserts that assured access to space is a requirement for national security (we suppose so), homeland security (we have not found constitutional authority for this idea, but we suppose it means spying from space on Americans), and civil missions (again, no constitutional authority for civil space missions), the policy establishes that nothing shall change. The Secretary of Defense is the launch agent for national security and maintains the capability to develop, evolve, operate, and purchase services for space transportation systems. Same for NASA.

Which means that NASA won't buy civilian space launch services, will continue to fly its shuttle fleet until it destroys the last two orbiters with crews, and won't even bother to use the chaos math that produces superior transfer orbits on the basis of its usual creepy not-invented-here attitude. We've seen NASA ordered in 1988, by changes to its Charter, to facilitate the human settlement of the Solar System, and nothing has changed.

A real space policy change would take away from NASA the authority to operate any space transportation system, ever again. Such a policy change would recognize that NASA kills people with its incompetent attempts to operate space transportation systems. Such a policy change would also recognize that NASA is incapable of reducing the cost to orbit. A better, though somewhat less realistic space policy would be to eliminate NASA and liquidate its assets to the university sector.

The policy asserts that new US commercial launchers that "demonstrate the ability to reliably launch intermediate or larger payloads will be allowed to compete on a level playing field" for US government missions. We view this statement as a lie, and one that was told before. But, there won't be much investor capital in demonstrating such a capability, since it is up to NASA and the SecDef to decide whether a reliable demonstration has been provided. Nobody in their right mind would speculate on such thin promises, given the history of space policy in the USA, although we do admit that Elon Musk and friends at SpaceX might not be in their right minds. Also notice that the ability to compete on a level playing field for smaller payloads is apparently not a part of this policy.

Rather than bore you with long quotes from the policy fact sheet, suffice it to say that the usual defense contractor suspects, NASA, and the Pentagon are to research, develop, and deploy systems to provide enhanced space transportation capabilities. Which means, of course, that the private sector is to be ignored or directly challenged by the defense contractors whenever possible.

Various subsidies to the commercial space transportation sector are identified. All of these policies are in place with the status quo, which we suppose is why some few companies have been pursuing private launch capabilities in order to win the Ansari X Prize. None of these policies are likely to be implemented in any way to deter NASA from continuing to kill people with its shuttle program.

All the anti-missile proliferation rules remain in effect. Anyone developing launch technology in the USA is going to see it nationalized to the extent that they may be forcibly prevented from using it to provide launch services from outside the USA. Attempts to patent launch technologies should be expected to continue to meet the usual national security objections, so good luck with all that.

In other news, some of our friends in the industry have again expressed concern about the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and its chilling effects on space settlement. We've written extensively on the topic. Our views on the treaty are here, the treaty text here, and the Moon Treaty, which is even worse, and which the USA isn't party to thanks in part to our efforts back in the 1970s, here.

We don't expect much to change with respect to this treaty, nor national space policy. Every once in a while, it amuses us to pick at these things, like any other festering sore. National and international policy is a bit like formal dinner attire. Everyone encounters it sooner or later, nobody gets any actual work done in it, it doesn't make much difference, some people think it makes them look good, and it all amounts to dirty laundry at the end of the day.

Here's how things stand for the stock we suggested in this sector:

SpaceDev is at $1.70. It is up $0.20 since we first recommended it, well down from its peak. Based on our earlier discussion, you should have formed a trailing stop and presumably sold your position. However, we continue to monitor this stock against our earliest suggestion.

Launch Technology

    "Transport times for a chaotic system are highly sensitive to initial conditions and parameter values. ...The strategy is to build the epsilon chain from segments of a long orbit - the point is that long orbits have recurrences in neighborhoods where faster orbits must also pass. ... We find a chaotic Earth-Moon transfer orbit that achieves ballistic capture and that requires 38% less total velocity boost than a comparable Hohmann transfer orbit."
    - Erik M. Bollt and James D. Meiss
    "Targeting Chaotic Orbits to the Moon through Recurrence"
    29 October 2001

"NASA recognized it suffered from a 'not invented here' syndrome. If it wasn't invented by NASA, then NASA didn't want to hear about it," says Ron Turner, senior science advisor for the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. Very true.

Of course, NASA's solution in establishing the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts was to throw taxpayer money (stolen money) at the problem. Jerome Pearson was recently awarded $75,000 to design a space elevator that would operate from the lunar surface to an equatorial lunar orbit. Pearson is in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, in case you want to drop by and see what he's doing with your money.

The opening quote for this section of the newsletter refers to a technique refined in 2001 for finding highly cost effective transfer orbits. A transfer orbit is simply an orbit that moves you between two other orbits. Say you are orbiting Earth and you'd like to go orbit the Moon. Fine. You need to configure a transfer orbit to make that happen.

It turns out that using classical physics, one can work out the most energy efficient (or change-in-velocity efficient) transfer orbit for any two known orbits. This class of efficient transfer orbits is named for a 19th Century space enthusiast. Walter Hohmann was a civil engineer and a member of the Society for Space Travel in Germany. He published his findings in 1925 in Attainability of Celestial Bodies.

The mathematics of chaotic systems wasn't available to Hohmann, so it is no disrespect to his memory that contemporary mathematicians are able to design an even more efficient transfer orbit. It fills us with pride in the American people that two Americans developed this technique and the Japanese actually used it to put a spacecraft in lunar orbit. To our knowledge, NASA has never used this technique. No doubt they would rather waste more taxpayer money than use something not invented by NASA.

The December 2004 issue of Air & Space magazine was very depressing. We learned that Buzz Aldrin, Peter Diamandis, and Byron Lichtenberg formed Zero Gravity Corp. in 1997. Clever business plan. They realized that a lot of cargo freighters only fly during the week, and that they could easily convert a 727 to work cargo during the week and fly microgravity parabolas on the weekend. Using any moderately powerful aircraft, one can get up to thirty seconds of "weightless" or free fall at the top part of a parabolic trajectory. Plenty of people would enjoy it, and for $2900 a trip - which provides fifteen parabolas and about eight minutes of weightless experience - the company can make money. That's not the depressing part.

The depressing part is that the FAA took nearly eight years to approve a license, and then only on condition that everyone be required to wear a parachute. Since then, FAA seems to have waived the parachute requirement. Now, if it takes these goofs eight years to figure out how to license an airplane operation that has been used for over 40 years to provide weightless training to astronauts and cosmonauts, how long is it going to take them to license Virgin Galactic flights?

There was good news, though. Without going over much into the details of the dihedral effect, the extreme excess of which causes SpaceShip One to react to swings of its nose with a powerful tendency to roll, the short of it is that the first X-Prize flight by the Mojave Aerospace Team with Mike Melvill at the controls and all those lovely spins on the way up has now been fully understood. Very specific initial conditions were able to establish a directional instability, and the problem is now fully corrected. Meanwhile, Melvill says he'll try to get into the Guinness Book of world records for the longest series of vertical rolls ever performed at Mach 3. We wish him the best.

New Country Developments

Well, that's the Ganesha Project. "Develop an arsenal of liberty, involving fiction and other art forms as well as scholarly works, that may eventually grow into substantial on-line libraries and databases with many points of reference for reformers, revolutionaries, film-makers, teachers, etc."

The project takes its name from a subcontinental Indian deity called "the remover of obstacles" which is apparently associated with business and art. While we object to idolatry and find Meinshausen's term "US monoculture" offensively clueless in the extreme, we suppose there may be the kernel of an idea here.

In other freedom network news, this year's Freedom Torch Medal went to Barun Mitra. Barun is the founder and director of the Liberty Institute in New Delhi. The Institute is dedicated to promoting free market responses to contemporary social, economic, and environmental issues with the aim of promoting awareness of individual liberty, the rule of law, limited government, and free markets. Barun has edited Population: The Ultimate Resource published by the Institute which was awarded the 2001 Sir Antony Fisher Memorial International Prize for the best book from a new think tank. He's also worked with ISIL director and old hand Ken Schoolland to produce Hindi, Bengali, and localized English versions of The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey, and, we report with some irony, has been working to have the book included in India's public-school course of study.

In early 2002, the Henry Hazlitt Foundation ceased operations. A former friend, Louis James, was then director of their operation, begun way back in 1994 by Chris Whitten. We suggest Louis get in touch with Vince Miller of ISIL, and the result was the acquisition of by ISIL. Since then, ISIL has not been able to raise enough money to keep the network operational. So, they've dropped the e-mail re-mailer service and have merged the resources into the web site. On the plus side, they have changed to a libertarian-owned Internet Service Provider. Freedom News Daily has made a come-back thanks to Tom Knapp of Rational Review. The new site also has persistent columns by Laissez Faire Books founder Sharon Presley and by "SIL co-founder" Jarret Wollstein.

Why the focus for the last three issues on ISIL news? Well, their statement of principles is pretty nice. "The International Society for Individual Liberty is an association of individuals and organizations dedicated to building a free and peaceful world, respect for individual rights and liberties, and an open and competitive economic system based on voluntary exchange and free trade. Members and affiliated organizations pursue these goals through independent action, using their freely chosen strategies. The association exists to promote the exchange of information and ideas, to study diverse strategies, and to foster fellowship." We've enjoyed our involvement with ISIL over the years.


    "Red wine pills may mimic the beneficial health effects of calorie restriction, which has unequivocally been demonstrated to lengthen the life of yeast cells, fruit flies, roundworms, mice, and humans."
    - Bill Sardi, "Is the world ready for an anti-aging pill", newsletter, 4 January 2005

What does red wine have that you need? In 1991, the so-called "French Paradox" brought attention to the fact that the French have a high-calorie and high-fat diet, but live longer and have much lower rates of cardiovascular disease than other similar European populations. Why?

Early attention on red wine focused on the alcohol, since alcohol taken in moderation had previously been shown to reduce cardiovascular disease. Alcoholics are well known to cardiovascular surgeons for having exceptionally clean veins and arteries, rarely any blockage. Of course, alcoholics die from many other illnesses such as liver cyrhossis, so it is not our suggestion that you drink to excess.

We remember reading science journal articles on the red wine mystery during the 1990s. The focus turned to the salicylic acid which comes from the tannins found in red wine that are not found in white wine. Perhaps the combination of salicylic acid, which is found in aspirin in the form of acetylsalicylic acid, and alcohol would be especially beneficial. Studies produced ambivalent results.

In August 2003, Nature published the work of David Sinclair, Ph.D., of Harvard Medical School, and Konrad Howitz of Biomol in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, along with various colleagues. Their work suggests that the red wine molecule that may be the long-sought "fountain of youth" is resveratrol.

In October 2004, reported that its red wine pill activates the Sirtuin 1 gene enzymes. Harvard researchers have demonstrated that the activation of survival genes including Sirtuin 1 in calorie restricted rats as well as in human cells treated with serum from calorie restricted animals is the key to the longevity effects of calorie restriction.

In other words, the Longevinex pill seems to do the same thing that a calorie restricted diet does. On the basis of that assumption, we've been taking Longevinex for five months. During that time, we've noted a 5% drop in body weight, increased muscle mass, decreased body fat, better resting heart rate and blood pressure numbers, and improved energy and stamina.

We haven't enjoyed our customer service experience with Bill Sardi, though the Longevinex staff have shipped product reliably when we've ordered it. Pointing out limitations in his web site seemed to arouse ire and a "don't use our services" attitude, which we found baffling. The product is excellent, though.

Publication note: Pleae note our new publication schedule.


Copyright © 2005 Free West Trust, All Rights Reserved.

Indomitus Industries heraldic achievement