The Truth About Cordyceps Sinesis - Part 1

Let's be honest, all sorts of information about Cordyceps is available everywhere, the web is full of information on qualities, benefits, properties and whatever you want to add to sell.

We hide the core value behind the "VALUE" we want to give or offer to our customer.

I honestly believe that the value of the product is no longer in listing properties, mechanisms of action, etc., or let's say it is not only there.

In a digital sales context in the early 2000s, bringing value through key points and emphasizing the benefits of the product or service offered was a new thing and certainly a winning strategy.

in 2021i personally think this model is no longer sustainable, it is no longer sustainable in the digital context in which we find ourselves.

Today we are bombarded with every product or service that should improve our life or make it easier. and if perhaps it is no longer the time to make it simpler or better but only truer?

The digital marketing process has made it possible to create a dense and well-rooted network of services that help achieve a goal. which one? Sales.

The ability to be in control of your business, the sense of being able to achieve financial independence, 

the ability to simplify the sales process without special skills or competences

Platforms, programs, apps, and everything built to entice us to put ourselves in the forefront to sell, to give us the opportunity to generate profit with a click.

this simplicity of execution has allowed each of us to interface directly with a market in complete expansion and to be directly connected and stimulated by it every second of our life.

I think this process has led to a rapid saturation of the digital market in terms of supply.

Let's think about today; How many platforms operate under the model: AMAZON, UBER, NETFLIX, ALIBABA, an infinity.

How many survive emulating the original model? Few.

I am not against this digitization, on the contrary I am its first admirer and I analyze every aspect of it in order to be able to bring a healthy, cohesive, truthful and specifically ethical context.

I am writing these words to make you understand why I speak of truth, the truth of a product is a segment of a corporate and above all commercial truth.

If you love medicinal mushrooms, take a look and tell me what you think.

Today I am talking about cordyceps Sinesis and the differences around this great tonic. 

The Truth about Cordyceps Sinenis :


Cordyceps sinensis=hirsutella hepiali Chen et Shen=hirsutella sinensis

These 3 names represent the same thing just with different name, they’ve same DNA construction.

C. sinensis (also termed Ophiocordyceps sinensis) is an ascomycete fungus that possesses a peculiar mode of growth characterized by two main stages; the first stage is characterized by the fungus infecting underground caterpillar larvae in the winter, whereas the second stage is associated with the production of a fruiting body that protrudes from the dead caterpillar's head and grows above the ground during the summer. For this reason, C. sinensis is known as the “caterpillar fungus” or “dong-chong-xia-cao” (literally “winter worm, summer grass” in Chinese). The growth of this natural fungus is also unusual due to the fact that it is limited to the Tibetan plateau and southwestern China and it usually grows at or even below the relatively low temperature of 18°C. 

Due to the rarity of natural C. sinensis, other means of producing this fungus have been investigated. The identity of the anamorph of C. sinensis has been a topic of considerable controversy in the pastHirsutella sinensis, which today is widely accepted as the true anamorphic, mycelial stage of natural C. sinensis, is amenable to culture in vitro and is increasingly used as a health supplement. Studies of the pharmacological properties of HSM have shown that it possesses biological activities similar to that of the wild mushroom. For instance, these activities include reduction of drug-induced leucopenia following kidney transplantation, amelioration of radiation-induced toxicity and stimulation of immune cells in vivo.


Cordyceps sinensis and CS_4are two different planets why?

CS_4 is the most common strain used for commercial products. 

CS, is the English abbreviation of Cordyceps sinensis. Among the strains numbered from 1 to more than 200, the researchers selected the No.4 strain which is the most effective and closest to the wild Cordyceps sinensis, called ‘CS-4’. ‘CS_ 4’ Compared with other 199 strains, the content of active ingredients was closer to that of Cordyceps sinensis.

CS_ 4. It’s isolated from fresh Cordyceps sinensis, but it may be miscellaneous or even polluted strain. Several molecular biological studies showed that Paecilomyces chinense was not a clonal type of Cordyceps sinensis, and the similarity between the bacteria and the DNA fingerprints of Cordyceps sinensis was very low. By measuring its sequence of rDNA, scientists found that the similarity between Cordyceps sinensis and Paecilomyces chinense was only 72.6%; in addition, some scientists also compared and analyzed the sequence of rDNA its section. The results showed that the genetic differences between Paecilomyces chinense and Cordyceps sinensis in China was large, reaching 0.34, so Paecilomyces sinensis was not asexual of ‘Cordyceps sinensis’.

CS_4 has better effective ingredients than other Cordyceps strain, but it's DNA cannot replace Cordyceps sinensis. CS_4 is a strain taken from Cordyceps Sinesis DNA and extracted through a process called " liquid fermentation". This is the easiest and most affordable way to extract Cordyceps Sinesis From the Original DNA.

The natural and wild ‘Cordyceps sinensis’ is rich in a variety of high-quality effective ingredients. However, due to its harsh growth environment and conditions, it is difficult to collect, and the High demand has led to drammatic exploitation of resources and a shortage. Therefore, China has issued a protection policy, explicitly forbidding individuals and enterprises to directly use ‘natural and wild Cordyceps sinensis’ as raw materials for health food. At the same time, if the ‘natural and wild Cordyceps sinensis’ is not scientifically extracted, it will not be able to fully release the effective components in the body, and the human body can not fully absorb it.

What is Hirsutella Hepiali Chen et chen ? and why we ONLY use this strain

After a long period of research, a large number of experiments and the firm determination of the third-party authority, ‘Hirsutella hepiali chen et shen’ has been considered the only asexual strain of ‘natural and wild Cordyceps sinensis’, and it has complete DNA genetic information same as ‘Cordyceps sinensis’.

Hirsutella sinensis has, by far, the highest number of published reports than other reported anamorphs. This is a reflection of many studies which have confirmed H. sinensis as the true anamorph of O. sinensis [56151920]. This is also a clear indication that there is now much more research interest on H. sinensis than the other isolates.

In other words, ‘Hirsutella hepiali chen et shen’ it can be consider the closest strain to‘Cordyceps sinensis’.

 At the same time, about 200 kinds of mixed bacteria can be isolated from ‘Cordyceps sinensis’, but only  "hirsutella hepiali chen et shen" can grow into "Cordyceps sinensis"!

The DNA of the other bacteria can't match with Cordyceps sinensis!

In the laboratory, the high-quality ‘Hirsutella hepiali chen et shen’ strain was breed into Mycelium of Hirsutella hepiali chen et shen’.

‘Cordyceps sinensis’(that’s Cordyceps sinensis (Berk.) Sacc), which is hirsutella hepiali Chen et shen, has a high similarity of DNA structure, up to 99.46%. 

  • The most authentic "Cordyceps sinensis (Berk.) Sacc" is ‘hirsutella hepiali chen et shen’, also known as "hirsutella bat moth", which is an asexual fungus of ‘Cordyceps sinensis’
  • Since 2000, PhD.Yao Yijian from the Royal Botanical Garden of the United Kingdom , led the members of the research team to the Qinghai Tibet plateau many times. After verification, PhD.Yao Yijian and others scientists confirmed that the ‘Hirsutella hepiali chen et shen’, and ‘hirsutella sinensis’ are exactly the anamorph. That’s to say, they’re pretty real ‘cordyceps sinensis’. Meanwhile Paecilomyces chinense(CS_4) and the Trichothecium bat moth are not consdered Cordyceps sinensis. 



The substrate where this strain is cultivated is soybean at first, but with high risk that genetically modified soybean is used, or that soya allergies may appear. 

Have you ever experience mild side effects taking cordyceps? if so it is most likely that your cordyceps was made with this fast and easy process


We use a patented processing method of cordyceps sinensis mycelium, with the following steps: cultivating a Hirsutella hepiali Chen et Shen strain to obtain mycelium, conducting ultrasonic extraction by using 30-50 wt% of ethyl alcohol, filtering by using a membrane with a molecular weight of 2000-4000 Daltons, centrifugalizing, discarding a precipitate, extracting a supernatant, and cooling and drying to obtain a concentrated freeze-dried mycelium powder.

Our Method has been proven to be 12 times more concentrated than Commercial Strain Cs-4 Mycelium and other type of Strain used for the production of this type of products.

End Part 1 



  1. D. H. Jennings and G. Lysek, Fungal Biology: Understanding the Fungal Lifestyle, BIOS Scientific Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1999.
  2. C. S. Chen, R. S. Hseu, and C. T. Huang, “Quality control of Cordyceps sinensis teleomorph, anamorph, and its products,” in Quality Control of Herbal Medicines and Related Areas, Y. Shoyama, Ed., InTech, 2011.View at: Google Scholar
  3. J. C. Holliday, P. Cleaver, M. Loomis-Powers, and D. Patel, “Analysis of quality and techniques for hybridization of medicinal fungus Cordyceps sinensis (Berk.) Sacc. (Ascomycetes),” International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 151–164, 2004.View at: Google Scholar
  4. J.-S. Zhu, Y. Yao, W. Chen, T. Zheng, J. Lu, and Y. Guo, “Molecular co-existence of Paecilomyces hepiali and Hirsutella sinensis in caterpillar and fruiting bodies of Cordyceps sinensis,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 21, article 841.7, 2007.View at: Google Scholar
  5. Y.-Q. Chen, N. Wang, L.-H. Qu, T.-H. Li, and W.-M. Zhang, “Determination of the anamorph of Cordyceps sinensis inferred from the analysis of the ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacers and 5.8S rDNA,” Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 597–607, 2001.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. J.-L. Yang, W. Xiao, H.-X. He et al., “Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Paecilomyces hepiali and Cordyceps sinensis,” Yaoxue Xuebao, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 421–426, 2008.View at: Google Scholar
  7. C. Li, Z. Li, M. Fan et al., “The composition of Hirsutella sinensis, anamorph of Cordyceps sinensis,” Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 800–805, 2006.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. Y. Jiang and Y.-J. Yao, “Names related to Cordyceps sinensis anamorph,” Mycotaxon, vol. 84, pp. 245–254, 2004.View at: Google Scholar
  9. Y. Kobayasi, “Key to taxa of the genera Cordyceps and Torrubiella,” Transactions of the Mycological Society of Japan, vol. 23, pp. 329–364, 1982.View at: Google Scholar
  10. Y. Q. Chen, S. R. Xiao, and Z. Y. Shi, “Paecilomyces sinensis sp. nov. and its connection with Cordyceps sinensis,” Acta Mycologica Sinica, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 24–28, 1984.View at: Google Scholar
  11. Z.-Q. Li and Y.-H. Sun, “A new species of Scytalidium-Scytalidium helpiali,” Acta Mycologica Sinica, vol. 7, pp. 23–28, 1988.View at: Google Scholar
  12. C. L. Li, “A study of Typocladium sinensis C.L.Li. sp. nov and cyclosporin production,” Acta Mycologica Sinica, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 93–98, 1998.View at: Google Scholar
  13. Z.-Q. Liang, “A new species of Chrysosporium from Cordyceps sinensis (Berk.) Sacc,” Acta Mycologica Sinica, vol. 10, pp. 50–56, 1991.View at: Google Scholar
  14. G.-H. Sung, N. L. Hywel-Jones, J.-M. Sung, J. J. Luangsa-ard, B. Shrestha, and J. W. Spatafora, “Phylogenetic classification of Cordyceps and the clavicipitaceous fungi,” Studies in Mycology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 5–59, 2007.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. Z.-Y. Liu, Y.-J. Yao, A.-Y. Liu, D. N. Pegler, and M. W. Chase, “Molecular evidence for the anamorph-teleomorph connection in Cordyceps sinensis,” Mycological Research, vol. 105, no. 7, pp. 827–832, 2001.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. X. J. Liu, Y. L. Guo, Y. X. Yu, and W. Zeng, “Isolation and identification of the anamorphic stage of Cordyceps sinensis ( Berk.) Sacc,” Acta Mycologica Sinica, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 1989.View at: Google Scholar
  17. X.-C. Yin and L.-Y. Shen, “The conidial state of Cordyceps sinensis (Berk.) Sacc. Synnematium sinense Yin et Shen, sp. nov,” Acta Biologica Plateau Sinica, vol. 9, pp. 1–5, 1990.View at: Google Scholar
  18. N.-Y. Shen, “Brief account of research on Cordyceps sinensis,” Medicinal Fungi, vol. 1-2, pp. 85–88, 1983.View at: Google Scholar
  19. Z. Q. Liang, “Anamorphs of Cordyceps and determination of the relationship between anamorph and teleomorph,” Journal of Southwest Agriculture, vol. 4, pp. 1–8, 1991.View at: Google Scholar
  20. Z.-Y. Liu, Z.-Q. Liang, A.-Y. Liu, Y.-J. Yao, K. D. Hyde, and Z.-N. Yu, “Molecular evidence for teleomorph-anamorph connections in Cordyceps based on its-5.8S rDNA sequences,” Mycological Research, vol. 106, no. 9, pp. 1100–1108, 2002.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. T.-H. Hsu, L.-H. Shiao, C. Hsieh, and D.-M. Chang, “A comparison of the chemical composition and bioactive ingredients of the Chinese medicinal mushroom DongChongXiaCao, its counterfeit and mimic, and fermented mycelium of Cordyceps sinensis,” Food Chemistry, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 463–469, 2002.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. G. S. Barseghyan, J. C. Holliday, T. C. Price, L. M. Madison, and S. P. Wasser, “Growth and cultural-morphological characteristics of vegetative mycelia of medicinal caterpillar fungus Ophiocordyceps sinensis G.H. Sung et al. (Ascomycetes) isolates from tibetan plateau (P.R. China),” International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 565–581, 2011.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. R. T. Hanlin, “Microcycle conidiation: a review,” Mycoscience, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 113–123, 1994.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. Y. Ito and T. Hirano, “The determination of the partial 18 S ribosomal DNA sequences of Cordyceps species,” Letters in Applied Microbiology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 239–242, 1997.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. A. E. Glenn, C. W. Bacon, R. Price, and R. T. Hanlin, “Molecular phylogeny of Acremonium and its taxonomic implications,” Mycologia, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 369–383, 1996.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. I. L. Gonzalez, J. E. Sylvester, T. F. Smith, D. Stambolian, and R. D. Schmickel, “Ribosomal RNA gene sequences and hominoid phylogeny,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 203–219, 1990.View at: Google Scholar
  27. S. B. Lee and J. W. Taylor, “Phylogeny of five fungus-like protoctistan phytophthora species, inferred from the internal transcribed spacers of ribosomal DNA,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 636–653, 1992.View at: Google Scholar
  28. V. M. Morales, L. E. Pelcher, and J. L. Taylor, “Comparison of the 5.8s rDNA and internal transcribed spacer sequences of isolates of Leptosphaeria maculans from different pathogenicity groups,” Current Genetics, vol. 23, no. 5-6, pp. 490–495, 1993.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. L. H. Qu and Y. Q. Chen, “Key to molecular taxonomy—principles and methods,” Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1999.View at: Google Scholar
  30. D. S. Hibbett, “Ribosomal RNA and fungal system,” Transactions of the Mycological Society of Japan, vol. 33, pp. 533–556, 1992.View at: Google Scholar
  31. N. Nikoh and T. Fukatsu, “Interkingdom host jumping underground: phylogenetic analysis of entomoparasitic fungi of the genus Cordyceps,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 629–638, 2000.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. C. S. Chen and R. S. Hseu, “Differentiation of Cordyceps sinensis (Berk.) Sacc. specimen using restriction fragment length polymorphism of 18S rRNA gene,” Journal of the Chinese Agricultural Chemical Society, vol. 37, pp. 533–555, 1999.View at: Google Scholar
  33. J. Holliday and M. Cleaver, “On the Trail of the Yak: Ancient Cordyceps in the Modern World,” 2004, at: Google Scholar
  34. Aloha Medicinals, “Cordyceps History and Cultivation,” at: Google Scholar
  35. S. Zhang, Y.-J. Zhang, X.-Z. Liu, H. Zhang, and D.-S. Liu, “On the reliability of DNA sequences of Ophiocordyceps sinensis in public databases,” Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 40, no. 3-4, pp. 365–378, 2013.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. D. L. Hawksworth, “A new dawn for the naming of fungi: impacts of decisions made in Melbourne in July 2011 on the future publication and regulation of fungal names,” MycoKeys, vol. 1, pp. 7–20, 2011.View at: Google Scholar
  37. H. C. Lo, C. Hsieh, F. Y. Lin, and T. H. Hsu, “A systematic review of the mysterious caterpillar fungus Ophiocordyceps sinensis in Dong-ChongXiaCao (Dōng Chóng Xià Cǎo) and related bioactive ingredients,” Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 16–32, 2013.View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar