[Latin Name]  Pinus pinaster.

[Specification] OPC ≥ 95%

[Appearance] Red brown fine powder

Plant Part Used: Bark

[Particle size] 80Mesh

[Loss on drying] ≤5.0%

[Heavy Metal] ≤10PPM

[Storage] Store in cool & dry area, keep away from the direct light and heat.

[Shelf life] 24 Months

[Package] Packed in paper-drums and two plastic-bags inside.

[Net weight] 25kgs/drum

[What is Pine bark?]

Pine bark, botanical name Pinus pinaster, is a maritime pine native to southwest France that also grows in countries along the western Mediterranean.  Pine bark contains a number of beneficial compounds that are extracted from the bark in a way that doesn’t destroy or damage the tree.

[How does it work?]

What gives pine bark extract its notoriety as a powerful ingredient and super antioxidant is that it’s loaded with oligomeric proanthocyanidin compounds, OPCs for short. The same ingredient can be found in grape seeds, the skin of peanuts and witch hazel bark. But what makes this miracle ingredient so amazing?

While OPCs found in this extract are mostly known for their antioxidant-producing benefits, these amazing compounds exude antibacterial, antiviral, anticarcinogenic, anti-aging, anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic properties. Pine bark extract can help reduce muscle soreness and may help improve conditions relating to poor circulation, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, diabetes, ADHD, female reproductive issues, skin, erectile dysfunction, eye disease and sports stamina.

Seems like it must be pretty amazing, but let’s look closer. The list goes on a bit further, as the OPCs in this extract may “inhibit lipid peroxidation, platelet aggregation, capillary permeability and fragility, and to affect enzyme systems,” which basically means it may be a natural treatment for many serious health conditions, such as stroke and heart disease.

[Function]

1. Lowers Glucose Levels, Improving Diabetic Symptoms
2. Helps Prevent Hearing Loss and Balance
3. Staves Off Infections
4. Protects the Skin from Ultraviolet Exposure
5. Decreases Erectile Dysfunction
6. Reduces Inflammation
7.  Helps Increase Athletic Performance

Warriors! Experience the history of that which no longer can be contained! Prepare yourselves, for you are about to be consumed by a power that makes the skies rumble and the earth shake! In this ultimate collection, the power of the Warrior is alive like never before! Relive his first foray into the ring as a member of the Blade Runners, the advent of his singles career in World Class Championship Wrestling, his entry into WWE and his meteoric rise to stardom. It’s all here in this 3-disc set! For the first time ever on a WWE release, hear the Warrior discuss his career in his own words! So, descend into Parts Unknown, load the spaceship with rocket fuel and unleash the power of the Ultimate Warrior!

Vegetarians DONT have a lower sperm count afterall. It turns out the study measured “sperm concentration” not “sperm count”. There’s a difference. The Vegetarian men were producing more VOLUME of seminal fluid, that’s all. The vegetarians were healthier & finished like a Firehose, The meat eaters ended with a drip. And their sperm COUNT was Equal. EXAMPLE: Let’s say you take 10 grains of salt in 10 ml of water, and 10 grains in 20 ml of water. The 1st one will come out at 10 divided by 10 or 1 grain per 1 ml = 100%. The 2nd one will be 1 grain per 2 ml of water or 1/2 = 0.5 = 50% ! The 2nd one will *appear* lower, but in reality it had the same # of particles in it. This is exactly what the faulty researchers did in the ASRM Sperm study. They told people it was “count” but they actually measured “concentration” then reported it to the media as spermcount. In truth, the vegetarian men had a healthier diet and were simply producing more impressive ejaculations, but they all had the same number of sperm. NOT A LOWER SPERM-COUNT. The study is debunked.

Proof is in the title of the study itself, which clearly says the word “concentration”, not “count”. Look:

TITLE OF STUDY: “Decreased sperm concentration and motility in a subpopulation of vegetarian males at a designated blue zone geographic region”(Flawed)

See what they did? They measured one thing then falsely reported another to the Media. Thus, the study is now a flawed piece of work that can never be cited.

This is a “bait and switch”. The researchers either had willful intent to deceive the public, or were incompetent and their work should be withdrawn.

Here is the list of researchers involved in the corrupt “Vegetarian Sperm Count” paper brought out at the Conference for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM): E.M. Orzylowska, J.D. Jacobson, J.U. Corselli, P.J. Chan all with the Affiliation: Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, and E.Y. Ko of the Urology Dept. These individuals were all in league in the fallacious research. Thus, their other work, both papers and jobs, should also be investigated for corrupt practices.

The URL citation for this fallacious study is: DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.929

It should be dropped from the Journal Fertility and Sterility (FertStert) and retracted. Keep in mind, this entire paper was and Abstract and NEVER PEER REVIEWED. It was merely a “presentation” at a conference. It’s not a peer-reviewed study.

Next:
Note that ALL of the subjects they used in this study were taken from visitors to a FERTILITY CLINIC. It means they were already having problems getting their spouse pregnant. There were 443 MEAT EATERS, only 26 vegetarians, and only 5 vegans! So, fewer vegans were having fertility problems in the 1st place. In addition note this ENTIRE vegan sperm count claim spread world wide in the NEWS MEDIA is based on only 5 vegans. Thus it is Not statistically significant.

Also the mere fact that ONLY 5 vegans showed up at a fertility clinic, as opposed to 443 meat eaters, already means MORE meat eaters were having problems conceiving in the 1st place. Keep in mind, this took place in the vegetarian capital of the nation, LomaLinda, where there is a huge population of vegetarians. 50% or more, Not 3%. So there are plenty living there. And yet it says something that a mere 5 vegans showed up, but 443 meat eaters, 20-times, were there having defective sperm and manly problems.

Also, the authors never tested soy but falsely blame it, using only opinion and hear-say. Point: Beer contains estrogens. Beer has Hops with tons of phyto-oestrogen. Beer is full of isoflavones just the same as soy and tofu. Yet Beer which has the same thing as soy in it was found to INCREASE sperm and manliness. Claims about soy in the Orzylowska paper were mainly gotten from an internet hoax traced to a fraud group called the Weston A Price Foundation. This is a known quack nutrition group that spreads the “soy contains estrogen hoax” all across the web. Eliza Orzylowska never tested any of those cliams or chemicals. Turns out MEAT is what contains actual human form 17-beta-estradiol (effeminizing estrogen). Meat has estrogen, not soy.

Also *Never* reported was that:
-Soy actually BLOCKS Estrogen
-SOY BENEFITS male sperm count
-And the fact that Vegans & Vegetarians have HIGHER TESTOSTERONE

What actually was found to lower sperm count? Bacon and Meat. Meat and Bacon are what contain actual real mammalian human-form effeminizing estrogen. Turns out what actually lowers sperm count in men is Meat.

PROOF:

STUDY: VEGAN MEN HAVE HIGHER TESTOSTERONE THAN MEAT EATERS

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2400756

AGAIN: VEGANS HAVE MORE TESTOSTERONE

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10883675

BEER HAS SOY PHYTOESTROGENS IN IT

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10372741

EATING MORE SOY REPAIRED INFERTILITY IN A COUPLE!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16864151