A viewer asks: “You told me that the supplement for erectile dysfunction, Longjaxin, has a unique ingredient for those individuals whose problem stems from nerve damage as opposed to flagging nitric oxide responses in blood vessels. I ordered it accordingly. Then, in a question comparing 3 different supplements, you said that TestPlus+ was number one, “but it will not be sufficient for a subset for whom the Longjaxin represents an essential missing approach in providing coverage uniquely.” In looking more closely at ingredients, the Longjaxin is said to contain Long Jack berry, which is also called Tongkat Ali, and no other ingredients are described in the mailing I received. The TestPlus+ has 700 mg of a 200:1 extract of Tongkat Ali. Was the endorsement of TestPlus+ as superior overall for ED, but not having a key ingredient contained in Longjaxin needed by a subset of sufferers a channeling error? What is the correct way to view the pros and cons of these two supplements? Do I not need Longjaxin if I start taking TestPlus+ and should try cancelling the Longjaxin order?”

This is not a channeling error. You are simply lacking certain specific facts to make sense of our channeling in the context of the advertised contents of these two supplements. The Longjaxin, indeed, contains other ingredients not fully appreciated by the source as to their precise mechanisms and thus relative merit for differing subsets of ED sufferers. So you have followed the advice as given initially, but still as yet, do not understand what the magic is in the sauce, so to speak. That you will be able to ferret out when you receive the Longjaxin and get further information about specifics and put these two to the test in personal use. So nothing ventured, nothing gained. The system is working. You are being given the best advice we can under the constraints of the rules of engagement, but not steering you in the wrong direction, perhaps as a learning opportunity as you fear. This will all work its way out over time.