Articles

603 thoughts on “Fan Mail from an ASEA Supporter

  1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I don’t have any. Nevertheless I don’t see the logic supporting the use of substances such as mercury or methanol (aspartame) if there are alternatives.

    You may not see the advantage of these substances, but you are not a chemist or biologist. Thimerosal is a powerful anti-infective, it prevents the vaccine from being destroyed by bacterial infection. I am not sure if there is any aspartame (which is essentially harmless, particularly in the tiny doses you would get in a vaccine, less than in a can of diet soda) or methanol. Each ingredient is added rationally – just because you don’t understand the reason doesn’t mean it is arbitrary.

  2. Andres says:

    @Chris: Of course after reading Dr. Cannell on Blood Irradiation and on Common Cold, I got the impression that vitamin D is not going to be effective against staphilococcus aureus, rhinoviruses and influenza B at least. The study was tiny, but given “The reduction in influenza A was more prominent in children who had not been taking other vitamin D supplements (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.79; P = 0.006)” it seems a little silly to me not supplementing during the winter. And yes, there is already enough evidence for me.

    @William: What concerns me is that the reason of the lower toxicity of ethyl mercury is not understood yet. For what is worth I am a little more at ease now about my father’s vaccine, though.

    AFAIK here in Spain flu vaccine is targeted to risk population only, like my father (COPD), so no herd immunity target around here. About the meta-analysis and Mark Crislip take on it, I think that a RCT should take place on an elderly population with sufficiency status (say 40ng/ml of 25-OH-vitamin-D) of vitamin D (the other RCT of vitamin D on influenza was on African-American postmenopausal women in New York). Meanwhile my father will keep receiving the shot and having a 25-OH-vitamin-D above 40ng/ml.

    And no, vitamin D is not a panacea. Influenza vaccine isn’t either.

    I think I got your point on Thimerosal. I much prefer to understand the reason of its use, chemist or not. I don’t see any for aspartame on anything.

    @nybgrus: Your link VitD does not help prevent or alleviate the common cold or flu doesn’t discuss anything about flu. Cathelicidins doesn’t seem to do much on rhinoviruses (common cold).

    About the selenium cite, “Selenoproteins play two important roles in protecting against Hg toxicity. First, they may bind more Hg through their highly reactive selenol group, and second, their antioxidative properties help eliminate the reactive oxygen species induced by Hg in vivo.”, it seems to support its not as straightforward (ok!) role as antidote.

    @weing: Neither 5 vaccine shots. Nevertheless I will drink a diet coke only with a little gin and my father supplement selenium before shots, just in case.

  3. nybgrus says:

    @andres:

    The study was on URTI or Upper Respiratory Tract Infection, which is most commonly caused by rhino and corona viruses, but it also caused by flu. There was no decrease in URTI incidence or severity. While not specfically looking at influenza, this data support the notion that VitD likely doesn’t do anything particularly useful for the flu either, since that is captured in the “all URTI’s” criteria.

  4. weing says:

    “@weing: Neither 5 vaccine shots. Nevertheless I will drink a diet coke only with a little gin and my father supplement selenium before shots, just in case.”

    For me, rum is a better poison.

  5. Andres says:

    @nygbus: Ok! I have accessed the full paper now. There were 2 cases of influenza A in each arm of the study for 593 and 611 URTI episodes in vitamin D and placebo respectively (Table 2). 47% of the vitamin D and 54% of the placebo didn’t receive any flu shot (Table 1). Well, it seems to me that the vaccine for influenza H1N1 must have been a very good match (“Of particular note, there were few cases of confirmed influenza infection among our partly vaccinated group of participants.”) and “Both influenza seasons during the study period were relatively mild.”

    I don’t see any reason to discontinue vitamin D supplementation on winter.

    @weing: I prefer brandy, but without the coke.

  6. nybgrus says:

    I never said there was a reason to discontinue it. Especially in the light of clinical or laboratory deficiency. I just said that it doesn’t seem to help with URTI, including influenza.

  7. Andres says:

    @nybgrus (sorry for the previous mistype): I don’t think much can be said about flu in that study, with only 2 cases confirmed in each arm. Nevertheless it would be interesting to know who among them got the flue vaccine and which were their 25-OH-vitamin-D levels.

  8. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Andres:

    And no, vitamin D is not a panacea. Influenza vaccine isn’t either.

    The vaccine at least has proof of effectiveness. Given sufficient numbers of people getting multiple doses of well-matched vaccines (i.e. like most vaccines for genuinely life-threatening conditions) you could eliminate a large amount of morbidity and mortality due to influenza.

    I will make one final point – I trust experts. Real experts. I trust that no matter how many cheap slogans and cute sound-bites are uttered by conspiracy-theory loons or pro-CAM granola-crunchers, the genuine experts can do a reasonable job of guiding us. They are paid to spend their entire days embedded in their topics. I am not.

    I trust them.

  9. Andres says:

    @William: I am more skeptic than you about experts’ recommendations, it seems. After years complying with official recommendations about diet, I didn’t like realizing those recommendations were based on mere opinion and little else (see the Research Report by William R. Ware from page 9 onwards or Richard D. Feinman’s The Washington Diet). I don’t delegate decisions on preventive measures to anyone anymore. I am not sure of the experts’ unbiasedness (and logical assumptions used have been proven wrong before, like in treating mild high blood pressure). I would like a Randomized Controlled Trial taking place about flu vaccine effectiveness on the elderly with sufficiency status (say 40ng/ml of 25-OH-vitamin-D) of vitamin D (I would volunteer) to settle clearly the question.

  10. Sarah from Germany says:

    Greetings,

    Here is a copy of some email conversations I have had with Dr. Hall.

    Dear Paul, Harriet, Steve and David

    I was on your site Science-Based Medicine and I read the article published by Harriet about Asea. I completely understand your skeptisism – I was also there. I have a B.Sc. in microbiology. When my mother came to me singing the praises of Asea, I was nothing but skeptic. I did my research to prove it as a placebo hoax. I realize how Asea looks to the scientific community but I tell you – the research and properly published results are coming. I promise you – this is no hoax – this is the future.

    Dr. David Nieman from Appalachian State University is doing the 3rd party research about Asea. He has confirmed that there are in fact, stabilized redox signalling molecules in Asea. He does not know how they have done it but he has verified 100% that they are there. His findings will be published in a peer reviewed journal in April 2013. The first company which discovered the technology (Medical Discoveries Inc.) tried to have their product approved through the FDA for cystic fibrosis patients. They invested $29 million and ran out of money (they didn’t have the $100 million that most drugs cost to create and bring to market). There are 17 years of unpublished research about this product. When the current company, Asea, bought the intellectual property, they found in the research that this product helped pretty much every condition. They decided to market it as a supplement as salt and water are the only ingredients. Because it is sold as a supplement, they cannot claim to cure, treat or prevent anything, just make our immune systems work as efficiently as possible. They also decided on a direct sales model, it is a different method of distribution but definitely not a get rich quick scheme. They pay their associates for their marketing and advertising – it is a different method of inventory management. Word of mouth is a very powerful marketing tool when you have a product that can help many sick people but you are not permitted to state which types of illnesses it helps. Many negative stigmas exist about direct sales but Tupperware, Melaluca, Amway and Usana are all legal network marketing companies just like Asea. If they had decided to pursue drug approval through the FDA for the more than 200 indications they found Asea helped, they would have needed more than a billion dollars to invest and more than 10 years to get it to the people. Then the people could really complain about the price. It is just a matter of time until all embrace this technology. Asea is now in 14 countries with over 100,000 associates – that is a whole lot of placebo results… I promise you, at some point in all of your lives, you will take Asea. It is not an “if” product, it is a “when” product. Penicillin was also laughed at when it was first introduced as a medicine. My, my how we have learned to depend on antibiotics. Asea is the next step. It sure doesn’t taste like salt water, the more out of balance your system is, the worse it tastes. I have seen first hand how Asea works – that is the kicker – it really works on a 100% of people 100% of the time. Many big pharma companies were interested in buying the technology to shelve it – food for thought – healthy people are not good for the pharma sales. Please ask me questions – I am willing to educate people.

    Thank for hearing me out. Please send me any questions or comments you have.
    Regards,
    Sarah

    Hi Harriet,

    I was under the impression that you contribute in this website for the better education of the general public about what’s on the market. I can completely understand the space you are in and the doubt you have about Asea – I was also there. I am not trying to gain anything but having these conversations, people need to know that this exists and that it works. If you have questions, I am willing to offer explanations. I have regular meetings with medical doctors to show them what Asea is – I have no intention to have them endorse it or distribute it. Patients go to their doctors to ask if products are safe – how can the medical professionals give their educated advice if they have no idea what it is? Everyone is skeptic – skeptic is good but there is actually some interesting science about redox signalling and Asea that is helping people recover from some very serious illnesses. Any person suffering deserves to know about this product and they can decided for themselves.

    Here is a webinar by a medical doctor – Dr. Robert Ward. http://www.DrRobWebinar.com I know that much of the info available about this product is very sensationalized but I promise you there is truth behind all the miraculous crap.

    I stumbled upon this video clip – the DCA has one similar chemical aspect (a chlorine speices) to ASEA which triggers similar physiological responses. Of course, DCA produces 1 of these 16 molecules so its potential to be toxic is very likely. I find it sad that big pharma is not really interested in healing people, just making money.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxArVCsKho

    Please do ask questions. I am willing to be educated – prove me wrong. I have had too many experiences with Asea to discredit it as a placebo product.

    Regards,
    Sarah

    Hi Harriet,

    I appreciate your willingness to have this dialogue with me. I understand what you are looking for – I would love to have heaps of clinical evidence and trials to show you. At the moment, the only 3rd party evidence officially released is by Dr. Nieman and he did trials with athletes to see if Asea caused any shifts in metabolites. He and his team measured shifts in 43 metabolites, he and his team were very surprised as they are doing their double blind placebo research with all the skepticism that any intelligent scientist has. He has many more studies being conducted – one is a double blind placebo on a normal, healthy population from the community (from young to old) to see if Asea affects the incidents of normal seasonal infections (flu, cough, colds). The research and credible evidence that you and the rest of the scientific community are requesting, is coming. I have attached Dr. Neiman’s presentation.

    As for the labeling – because they have brought it to market as a supplement and not a drug – they can list what they put into it before processing (salt and water). Asea has over 30 patents protecting their intellectual property – of course they want to keep their discovery on how they stabilized it a secret. There are many firms trying to copy their work, there was one case in Slovenia where a scientist claimed to do what Asea had done, sold his product and made many people very sick. The composition of Asea is 8+ and 8- (16 in total) molecules. The positive are the ROS – Reactive Oxygen Speices and the negatives are the RS – Reduced Speices. Because the solution is in perfect equilibrium, it is non-toxic. In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to Asea young to old, pregnant to breast-feeding (of course they do not recommend Asea to any of these ladies as most drugs/supplements never have clinic trials on these ladies but I have met some ladies who had issues during their pregnancies and they claim that Asea helped them overcome those issues), on medication or not as this all stuff that is already in our cells. From the Patent doc – here is the list of chemicals:

    Hypochlorous acid (HOCl)
    Hypochlorites (OCl sup-, NaClO)
    dissolved Oxygen (O2
    Chlorine (Cl2) between 1 – 200ppm) *O. Sup 2.Sup -, H2O
    Ozone (O3) from 1 – 50ppm
    Activated Hydrogen ions (H. sup – )
    Chlorine ions (Cl. sup.-)
    Hydroxides (NaOH, OH. sup.-)
    Singlet Oxygen (*O2)
    other forms of Reactive Oxygen Speices (ROS) (OCl, HO. sup.-)

    I am happy to post on the website – it says that you are not accepting further comments on this topic though. Is there somewhere else to leave my comments?

    As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate your time and effort in entering into this dialogue. It is clear that I have my experiences and convictions with Asea, I will continue to share proper, credible evidence as Dr.Nieman releases it.

    Regards,
    Sarah

    As one extra side note – I have a lab running HPLC (high pressure liquid chromotography) on an Asea sample – I will be happy to share my findings.

  11. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    The conventional advice for diet is:
    - try to eat mostly unprocessed foods
    - try to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables
    - try to eat a lot of whole grains
    - limit the amount of meats, cheeses, and other high-fat foods
    - monounsaturated fats are pretty good for your arteries, but not so great for your weight
    - avoid a lot of sugar
    - exercise daily

    I don’t know whether the links you provide really represent the kind of mainstream, expert advice that I’m talking about. I also don’t know about the comparability of dietary recommendations (which, beyond basic advice is pretty open, not the kind of nutty, “eat a pound of carrots every day and you WILL NEVER DIE” restrictive advice people on the promise of it being a miracle) to things like the toxicity of ethyl versus methyl mercury. Diet is pretty complex, a fair bit more complex than a single bit of advice about a single toxic compound delivered in very small doses. And while advice and recommendations have been wrong before, they evolve over time and become more right as the science refines itself. A genuine expert is still a far better judge of risk in their topic area than you or I.

    I’m not sure what your link to rationalwiki has to do with supporting your point since it’s a) a wiki and b) starts with the statement that an argument from authority is a valid one in appropriate circumstances (i.e. an expert discussing their area of expertise, drawing upon the body of research that underscores their expertise). I’m also unclear about the applicability of a letter to the editor, regarding the levels of vitamin D in a specific group of people (African-American women in North America) to the overall topic of whether vaccines prevent influenza. The fact that vitamin D may help prevent clinical-level infections (which again, says nothing about subclinical infections that are still infectious to others) does not mean vaccines are ineffective. Assuming the observation in that letter to the editor is accurately representing reality, taken in concert with the other observations of vaccination and influenza overall the suggestion is to get vaccinated and take a vitamin supplement if you live above a certain latitude. Yes, vitamin D may help prevent influenza from being symptomatic, or even prevent transmission – but a vaccine does this also. It is not “vitamin D or vaccine”, it is “get a vaccine, vitamin D might help”. Again, even those in the vitamin D group still got sick. Vaccination would prevent that, within the limits of influenza vaccination.

  12. nybgrus says:

    Um. Wow. I’m at a loss.

  13. Andres says:

    @William: The diet advice doesn’t relate to the mercury debate, it was just my starting point about skepticism about the experts’ unbiasedness. That’s the point to my link to RationalWiki: Frequently, however, it is often a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority’s expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (the authority is biased).. I now consider appeal to authority always unconvincing. As an aside, we humans as a species are quite stubborn with our own beliefs and are quite unwilling to reevaluate them. Even pigeons do it better.

    Third and fourth point of your outline of conventional advice for diet are highly disputed. Actually I favored evolutionary reasoning as background first and any result in contradiction to it needs much more clear-cut evidence. I think that the diet advice shouldn’t have taken place in the first place with such weak evidence: just look the deconstruction of the evidence by Denise Minger. Yes, no credentials at all and it is a blog and not a peer reviewed paper: but it is written and anyone can read it and crosscheck those peer reviewed papers discussed on it. No, I don’t submit to the appeal to authority argument either and it seems that confirmation bias is rampant.

    About the vitamin D paper (letter), it reports result on an RCT (no, its main focus wasn’t measuring vitamin D effect on flu): After 3 years, a total of 34 patients reported cold and influenza symptoms, eight in the vitamin D3 group vs. 26 in the placebo group (P<0·002) [104 women in each arm of the trial]. Probability of these results be due to simple chance is quite low (P<0.002 is quite low for me). Does it prove the vitamin D effectiveness in the whole population? Of course not, but I think that it and other pieces of evidence prove that screening for low vitamin D levels (lower than 30ng/ml at least) should be started about now, specially since they are going to be low due to current advice of fearing Sun exposure (another piece of experts' advice).

    I consider the vitamin D approach more elegant than the vaccine one, since it is based on our own defenses. Subjective, I know. Here on Spain herd immunity is not a goal, so the vaccine argument is weaker. Nevertheless, my father will do the two things while we wait confirmation on both sides.

  14. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Meh, I see several logical fallacies in your approach (for instance, you seem to think that the topics you are discussing are beyond the authority of genuine experts, but somehow not your own), but if your family is getting routine vaccinations and your elderly father is getting an influenza shot, we’re not that far apart. I still think you are wrong, and trusting your own ability to assess evidence far beyond what is realistic (for instance, genuine experts recommend returning thiomersal to vaccines). Certainly while vitamin D may not prevent influenza with nearly the same efficacy as a well-matched vaccine, preventing deficiency isn’t a bad thing. It’s been recognized for years that vitamin D is one vitamin that might be usefully supplemented, one of the few evidence-based supplementation recommendations that is generally agreed on. The real issue is those who think vitamins are magic, and better than actual medicine, and eschew actual medicine in favour of expensive urine.

  15. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    @Sarah

    There are 17 years of unpublished research about this product.

    Why isn’t it published? Strike one.

    When the current company, Asea, bought the intellectual property, they found in the research that this product helped pretty much every condition…I have seen first hand how Asea works – that is the kicker – it really works on a 100% of people 100% of the time.

    A universal panacea? Stirke two. Anecdote, strike three. You lose at bullshit baseball.

    Many big pharma companies were interested in buying the technology to shelve it – food for thought – healthy people are not good for the pharma sales…I find it sad that big pharma is not really interested in healing people, just making money.

    Paranoid rambling about Big Pharma and unfounded conspiracies – strike four! You’re not doing research here, you’re doing marketing. But it’s nice to know that apparently the marketers of ASEA aren’t interested in making a profit. An interesting business model to say the least…

    Asea has over 30 patents protecting their intellectual property – of course they want to keep their discovery on how they stabilized it a secret.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t a patent require publication in order to protect intellectual property? Isn’t the patent process quite public?

    I’m still curious why, despite all this amazing research that exists, nobody has thought to, I don’t know, publish the results? If it’s as miraculous as described, surely they could make a career out of it, and not just selling through pyramid schemes…

  16. Harriet Hall says:

    @Sarah,

    ” it really works on a 100% of people 100% of the time.”

    I find that hard to believe. Nothing in all the history of medicine has worked on 100% of people 100% of the time. And your claim is contradicted by accounts on the internet of people who tried it and experienced no benefit.

    “I promise you, at some point in all of your lives, you will take Asea”

    That’s a rash promise. I see a sure opportunity to make money for my heirs. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? How much money would you wager? I’ll match it and put it in a secure escrow account, and if I’m not taking Asea when I die, my heirs will get all the money.

  17. Harriet Hall says:

    @Sarah,

    The chemicals listed in the patent are not therapeutic signaling molecules. The patent is for an electrolysis apparatus that is used on salt water. Any kind of electrolysis apparatus would produce those same chemicals. Of course they can say it is “balanced” but that’s meaningless, because when you separate a molecule into ions, an equal number of positive and negative ions are necessarily produced. The chemicals on that list are produced in tiny amounts and don’t last. As soon as a positive ion meets up with a negative ion, they glom onto each other to form a neutral molecule. There is no way to “stabilize” them and prevent their recombination.

    And while it is true that redox signaling molecules play an essential role in biology, redox processes can harm as well as help. There is no evidence and no reason to think that:
    1. Significant quantities of “stabilized” redox signaling ingredients are present in Asea
    2. These ingredients get to places in your body where they can produce significant signaling effects.
    3. They affect your physiology in ways that do more good than harm.

    And no, they can’t get away with not listing the specific ingredients on the label just because it is a diet supplement.

  18. nybgrus says:

    WLU and Dr. Hall:

    Do you think Sarah’s post is at all legitimate? That was what my short comment of amazement referred to. I cannot tell if it is an Asea marketer, an independent true believer, a complete troll, or a Poe. It’s just so over the top that I cannot even fathom where to begin.

    It’s like seeing the internet version of a battleship appear on the horizon. You just know there is no point in even trying to doing anything about it.

    At least the internet allows for such random curveballs to be thrown our way and keep my brain wondering what on earth leads to the generation of such a post.

  19. Harriet Hall says:

    @nybgrus,

    “Do you think Sarah’s post is at all legitimate?”

    I’m assuming it is. In her private e-mails to me she gave her full name and identified herself as an Independent Associate for Asea. What she writes is consistent with what other true believers and marketers say. She appears to be a scientifically illiterate person who sincerely believes she has scientific as well as testimonial evidence and wants to spread the good news. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she’s not just cynically trying to separate customers from their money.

  20. Sarah from Germany says:

    Hello,

    Thanks for reading through my long post – I appreciate all of your time and energy in having this dialogue. I know this product seems impossible. I understand chemistry – I realize that these redox signaling molecules, in the normal environment of the mitochondria are highly reactive and exist for milliseconds. When Asea first brought in Dr. Gary Samuelson to look at the technology they bought, he also said, “I’m not interested in salt water – everything there is to know about salt water has already been discovered.” They showed him some of their unpublished research from the preceding company and he was intrigued enough to jump in and help them understand what they had. He, as a PhD in atomic physics with a background in medical nanotechnology, was able to stabilize these molecules for them – the balanced set of ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) and RS (Reduced Species) molecules is key. Everyone knows it is impossible but yet, somehow, this man has done it. Dr. David Nieman has verified that those molecules are stabilized and there. He will be publishing his finding in Apr 2013. I will be very sure to share the paper once I have it.

    As for the issue of patenting – yes, it is a double-edged sword. If you patent something, you tell the world that you have this, you discovered or invented it and this is how you did it. You legally own that knowledge for 17 years. Unless you have the millions of dollars for lawyers necessary to keep other parties from reading your patent and copying what you have done – it is much wiser to keep it in a patent pending status or top secret. I lived in Asia for almost a decade – observing patents is not their forte.

    The science of redox signaling science really became an emerging field in 1997 when these 3 men (Paul D. Boyer, John E. Walker, Jens C. Skou) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1997/
    It is only in recent years that we have been able to understand how important these redox signaling molecules are in maintaining health. Here is another website if you are interested. http://aseascience.blogspot.de/

    I understand your skepticism, I don’t appreciate cynicism. I understand the image problem this company has. Asea is a very important discovery regardless if it approved for market as a medication or a supplement or if it is sold in shops or through direct sales. I am grateful to have family members’ health restored and feel that other suffering people deserve to know about Asea and decide for themselves. Being seriously sick really sucks, imagine having an opportunity to have a healthy life again.

    I wish you all a wonderful holiday season filled with good health and happiness,
    Sarah

  21. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Why hasn’t this amazing data been published? Publication, particularly of novel, amazing or hitherto-unrecognized phenomena, is free bar the time required. Publishing data that is paradigm-shifting in replicable conditions would make a career, or several careers, win Nobel Prizes and get you feted on everything from scientific conferences to talk shows the world over. If you are genuinely accomplishing the heretofore impossible, why aren’t you publishing? Where are Dr. Samuelson’s works published on google scholar, because a cursory search turns up nothing relevant but a lot of youtube and company propaganda trying to sell me crap. It is not cynical to ask for proof of extreme, surprising or improbable claims, or to maintain the belief that companies are willing to lie to make money. However, lots of companies cynically use social media, blogs and similar internet-based communications to handwave the fact that their claims are empty and their criticisms of the greed of Big Pharma are hypocritical.

    You want to impress a skeptic, don’t point to unpublished data and pretend you’ve won. It is the use of facile and unlikely claims to sell unproven supplements to desperate sick people that makes skeptics into cynics, and you are contributing to that by continuing to use special pleading to avoid answering these rather basic and uncontroversial questions. Perhaps you should not bother posting here until April, 2013.

  22. nybgrus says:

    Perhaps you should not bother posting here until April, 2013.

    Just in time for my birthday. I’ll wait till then. Until that time I’ll assume the fundamental of physical chemistry and human physiology haven’t been overturned wholesale, so I guess I’m a cynic.

  23. “He, as a PhD in atomic physics”

    Did he get that PhD in a ’50s Sci Fi film? Perhaps you mean nuclear physics?

    “with a background in medical nanotechnology”

    Because those two fields mesh so well, it makes sense a nuclear physicist would have a background in medical nanotechnology. Small is small, right?

  24. Moebius says:

    Don’t forget she has a lab running HPLC (high pressure liquid chromotography (sic)) on it, not specifying what that might prove about her claims.

    I could have done that for her in about 20 minutes. And the results are…..?

  25. Moebius says:

    HH, ions do exist in solution as solvated (surrounded by water molecules) positive and negative species. Strong electrolytes (like HCl) tend to have their equilibrium shifted towards ionization, weaker electrolytes (like acetic acid) the opposite. The existent charge does allow these solutions to conduct electricity.

    Doesn’t explain the other nonsense presented here as proof of anything, however. “Activated hydrogen ions”?

  26. Narad says:

    Did he get that PhD in a ’50s Sci Fi film? Perhaps you mean nuclear physics?

    I’d rue having that bit of ad copy pinned on me. The dissertation is “Nuclear Spin Relaxation of Polycrystalline 129 Xenon” (2005). Whatever, he completed a physics Ph.D., while having five kids, well done. Medical physics track, his advisor does experimental atomic work and condensed matter, etc. He’s apparently not pursuing an academic research career with it.

  27. TracyKing says:

    Harriet, thanks for your article and I appreciate that there is a forum available for informed discussion of this significant breakthrough. Even if the press is negative, I am thankful that people are delving into this, and even if only giving it a cursory glance like many of the comment writers have done. Thanks to everyone for the time invested so far, please indulge me… Remember that this company just turned 2 years old under the company name ASEA, but know that they spent 16 years in pharmaceutical and university research so studies DO exist if you know where to look, obviously we can’t “use” them to make health claims since we’re in the supplement market but we are proving out our merit through athletic studies at this time in our journey to obtain credibility. The company commissioned studies performed by the Human Performance Laboratory, a well-established exercise physiology testing lab led of respected Ph.D.’s and scientists, and in cooperation with 5 universities including Duke, NC State, UNC, etc. These findings fueled further research on MICE that showed a 29% increase in endurance and that it was glycogen-sparing (a big deal, the mice were using fat for fuel first), which WILL BE published in a journal of medicine in April 2013; however this YouTube video is all we have UNTIL the study comes out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g. This video is worth watching, I think it will give you the impetus to follow me through the rest of this research to rebut the misinformation above…

    Here’s the FIRST step to take with science-minded skeptics like your readers, and for all the people that are relying on you to do your research: confirm that a proper redox signaling balance inside the body IS crucial to the body’s ability to heal itself. There are many independent “journal of medicine” articles to support this at http://www.asea.net/en/science/redox-signaling-research, as well as these I found on my own:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286106
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15286382
    http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v21/n1/full/9591032a.html (the “conclusion”)

    The NEXT step is to confirm that what we have in our bottle IS indeed redox signaling molecules — balanced, reactive, and the exact same as the native ones that are crucial to cellular protection and repair. This evidence is referenced in the first video above = the equipment and tests used to verify the molecules are described at the 1 minute mark, THIS factor was the most crucial component we were missing before we could get our study published, but we have obtained it. If you concede that 1) redox signaling is vital to health and 2) we have the only source of redox signaling molecules outside the body, then you won’t need to see “miracles” in your own body, rather you will understand the role of a healthy redox balance in repairing damage, guarding against bacterial and viral invasions, supporting efficient cellular turnover (including identifying and destroying cancer cells), and just slowing of the aging process. These downloads are compelling http://www.asea.net/en/science/asea-science, and especially this document from the lead scientist in this emerging field of science: http://www.redoxmolekula.com/ASEA_Component_Verification_Document.pdf

    I’ve read your blogs and understand that many people worry that studies are just manufactured data and that even reputable research groups can be paid off; however one would have to conclude that there’s definitely too much evidence here to believe it’s only simple salt water.
    1. clinical trial by nation’s most respected exercise physiology lab overseen by VP of American College of Sports Medicine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6k4up4kwyA
    2. one year double blind study by a top 10 nutritional education institute: http://www.hippocratesinst.org/archives/118-supplements/818-exciting-results-from-new-supplements

    Lastly, although we can’t use any of this in our marketing materials for ASEA (since it’s a health supplement and not a drug), there are plenty of existing published peer-reviewed studies that were written about it while it was owned by a pharmaceutical research group called MDI-P showing that it was indeed a very promising and intriguing new technology at the time of its discovery:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10840346
    http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/mdi-announces-promising-results-on-anti-hiv-activity-of-its-novel-drug-156713715.html
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MEDICAL+DISCOVERIES,+INC.+DEVELOPING+A+NEW+WEAPON+IN+THE+WAR+AGAINST…-a018340939
    http://ww1.aegis.org/news/pr/1996/PR960421.html
    http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?msgid=9013148
    http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=15491120
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/748790/000095012404002498/v99255exv99.htm
    http://sec.edgar-online.com/global-clean-energy-holdings-inc/10ksba-amended-annual-report-small-business-issuers/2004/11/15/section3.aspx
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11366516
    http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MLSC&read=2009
    http://www.bioresearchonline.com/doc.mvc/Dana-Farber-Cancer-Institute-To-Investigate-M-0001
    http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Medical-Patent-Week/2004-06-06/05312004333987MP.html
    http://www.thepharmaletter.com/file/69884/medical-technologies-appoints-board-for-mdi-p-african-tests.html
    http://www.drugs.com/news/medical-discoveries-inc-engages-strategic-advisor-explore-alternatives-5532.html
    http://www.biospace.com/News/1-files-ind-with-fda-for-cystic-fibrosis/18300220
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medical+Discoveries+Inc.+Receives+Favorable+Study+Comparing+Joint+Use…-a0132398997

    If you aren’t willing to take the time to look into this, I completely understand, but please all I ask is that you refrain from making quick judgments online, people are relying on you because they are too lazy to take the time themselves… they look for a “smoking gun” so they can get out of doing their due diligence. People will defer to the authors of these comments and expect that a respected Ph.D. like the author has thoroughly vetted the product (so they don’t have to) and reached logical informed conclusions. ASEA associates in 16 countries around the world have livelihoods at stake, reputations and futures are on the line. Please at least give us until April, when our studies will be published, before you continue to disparage us. I would be glad to talk to any of you by phone, 859-388-4297, or you may contact Atomic Medical Physicist, Dr. Gary Samuelson, Ph.D., at 801-973-7499, ask for his extension, he returns calls timely, he just asks that they be initiated by the inquirer. Here is his bio and here is a website of 66 one-hour recorded calls on how redox signaling impacts every organ system in the body: http://www.aseascience.blogspot.com.

    Dr. Samuelson was awarded his Ph.D. in Atomic/Medical Physics from the University of Utah and has received the American Association of Physics Teachers Award for Teaching Excellence. He works as an independent science consultant to help bridge the gap between promising emerging technologies and commercialization efforts in the health science field. He has worked on stabilizing nanoparticle structures integral to several promising technologies. Dr. Samuelson was the first to discover that the components of ASEA are stable redox signaling complexes being studied world-wide and has also helped to further stabilize them. Dr. Samuelson is devoted to advancing the science behind such promising technologies to the highest extent possible.

    Thank you so much for your time and attention, I’m sorry to provide so much data that is not in the form your readers would like, but this is what we have AT THIS TIME. ASEA is a significant discovery in health science, it’s cutting edge, pioneering-type science, and frankly, the results people are having ARE unbelievable and should raise eye brows! I am not at all surprised at the comments making fun of it. Believe me, I GET that it is incredulous at first, but all I ask is that all of you research this further before you continue to damage our reputation and do any more irrreparable harm than you’ve already (albeit unintentionally) done.

    Sincere gratitude, Tracy King 859-388-4297

  28. Andres says:

    @William: I am capable enough of understanding results of usual intervention trials or meta-analysis by myself, thank you. I am capable enough of understanding those points arisen by critics of vaccination and those arisen by their supporters. I don’t think that you are saying that I must be an expert on biology and vaccine making in order to understand intervention trials results, do you? In my point of view the expert has to be capable of explaining why he/she arrives to his conclusions and convince us.

    About expensive urine, I suppose you are referring to vitamin C, since vitamin D is actually an steroid hormone (or precursor if we are talking of cholecalciferol) and I am not aware of it being excreted directly through urine. Well, I don’t find the argument compelling and I find the labeling of ascorbic acid (AA) as a vitamin misleading. Why?:
    a) Ascorbic acid is consumed by marine fish and not internally produced, so it is a vitamin for them. Nevertheless, we have some special effects at high doses. From Optimization of dietary vitamin C in fish and crustacean larvae: a review (1997): “In studies with European sea basss using diets supplemented with high AA concentrations, positive effects on stress resistance have been observed in salinity stress tests (Merchie et al., 1995b). Also for turbot, cumulative mortalities after challenge with Vibrio anguillarum increased up to 50% for the control, while only 40% mortality occurred in the groups fed vitamin C-enriched diets, providing evidence for an immunostimulatory effect of high AA doses. This lower stress sensitivity was confirmed also for African catfish (Merchie et al., 1995b, 1997b),”.
    b) Some species of fresh water developed the capacity of its production in their kidneys, so it isn’t a vitamin for them. Nevertheless, there is some effects of supplementation of ascorbic acid under stress. From Dietary ascorbic acid may be necessary for enhancing the immune response in Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii), a species capable of ascorbic acid biosynthesis (2006): “There were no significant differences in renal l-gulono-1, 4-lactone oxidase (GLO) activity between dietary and LPS treatments, but fish exposed to LPS without dietary AA demonstrated an inter-organ transfer of AA from posterior kidney to liver. Our results indicate that dietary AA may be conditionally necessary for Siberian sturgeon to achieve optimal immune response, particularly in early developmental stages, information imperative to developing successful aquaculture programs for sturgeon species”; and “Many papers reported that supplementation of dietary vitamin C to the animals with AA biosynthesis capability can raise up the animal’s anti-stress ability and immune functions ( Pardue and Thaxton, 1985, Bains, 1996, Li et al., 2001, Zhou et al., 2002 and Zhou et al., 2005).”
    c) It seems kidney production was conserved by amphibians, reptiles and some birds while been transfered to the liver of mammals and other birds. Nevertheless, supplementation of ascorbic acid under stress still seems beneficial. From Ascorbic acid decreases heat shock protein 70 and plasma corticosterone response in broilers (Gallus gallus domesticus) subjected to cyclic heat stress (2004): “Under stressful environments, physiological requirements for AA may exceed the AA synthesizing ability of chickens (Pardue and Thaxton, 1986). These authors cited several studies that suggest beneficial effects due to heat stress amelioration and acclimation associated with AA supplementation”. From Vitamin C and infections in animals by Harri Hemilä (excerpt of his dissertation Do vitamins C and E affect respiratory infections?): Rawal et al. (1974) reported that survival of mice infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa was increased by vitamin C supplementation in a dose-dependent fashion. Senatuite and Biziulevicius (1986) reported that in rats infected with Trichinella spiralis the average number of muscle larvae after 3 weeks was 40% lower in the vitamin C administered group. Chaiyotwittayakun et al. (2002) induced mastitis in cows using intramammary infusion of endotoxin, and vitamin C reduced the fall in milk production caused by endotoxin.”
    Actually it seems that liver ascorbic acid production is increased under stress at least in mammals. From Eight Decades of Scurvy by Irwin Stone: “This liver metabolite, ascorbate, is produced in an unstressed goat for instance, at the rate of about 13,000 mg per day per 150 pounds body weight (Chatterjee, 1973). A mammalian feedback mechanism increases this daily ascorbate production many fold under stress (Subramanian et al., 1973)”.
    It seems that these animals are also prone to increase the value of their urine. From Metabolic interactions between l-ascorbic acid and drugs by Conney et al. (1961): “The urinary excretion of ascorbic acid increased from control values of about 0.3 mg. per day to values of 17 mg. per day by 6 days after the dose”.
    d) Some species of birds and mammals have lost our capacity of ascorbic acid production, so technically it has come back to be a vitamin for us. Nevertheless, it seems it has some special effects at high doses, such as guinea pigs and rabies.

    My point? It seems to me highly unlikely that ascorbic acid at high doses is completely useless under stresses like virus infections on humans. Is it scientifically proven? No, I haven’t found any double blinded RCT with intravenous doses of ascorbic acid. Neither I have found a refutation of promising preliminary evidence like the guinea pigs one. Looking away from it and waiting enough time so I can complain about it being old enough in order to dismiss it doesn’t cut it for me either.

  29. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Your first three publications, which are far more important than any of your completely unsubstantiated prose, don’t appear to mention ASEA, salt, sodium or chloride that I can see from the abstracts and the one full text. Yes, reactive oxygen species exist. That doesn’t mean your salt water product produces them in a way that is biologically meaningful. Your claims about mice having enhanced exercise capability, if true, in no way substantiates the same product being meaningful in any sort of health intervention. This is “science” by press release (and youtube). Why you think your highly improbable claims should get to leap over the peer review and substantiation process, straight into widespread acceptance and use by the general public is unclear. Actually, it’s quite clear – making salt water is cheap, but proving it is effective is expensive. Much as everyone criticizes Big Pharma for being profit-driven, they at least spend hundreds of millions of dollars testing and proving their products are biologically active. You’ve got…some mice. If Pfizer tried to sell a drug to treat all diseases based on its ability to make mice run a bit longer, do you think perhaps some skepticism might be ventured? Again, all I see here is a tremendous double-standard that seems designed to sell a product that there is every reason to suspect is worthless.

    All the letters written about proxy measures, crap studies published in-house by supplement companies (“nutritional education institute”? Really?), youtube videos and PR-reprints that are more than a decade old don’t change the fact that you are selling a product that has no high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence of effectiveness for anything in humans, let alone claims it can treat everything. The smoking gun here is the fact that you are trying to sell a product that would never pass FDA approval on the basis of the evidence you’ve presented here. If this is the best you can do, I don’t know why you are surprised at the skeptical reactions you are getting.

    ASEA associates in 16 countries around the world have livelihoods at stake

    This doesn’t mean salt water cures cancer or cystic fibrosis, and from an economics perspective their lives and time would be much better spent digging ditches and filling them in – at least at that point they would not be wasting other people’s resources.

    Please at least give us until April, when our studies will be published, before you continue to disparage us.

    You don’t think a more reasonable request might be skeptics and the general public asking you to stop making unfounded claims until after they have passed critical scrutiny? Again, you’re asking for a free pass on criticism so you can keep making money on an unproven product. And the skeptics are being unreasonable?

    Here is his bio and here is a website of 66 one-hour recorded calls on how redox signaling impacts every organ system in the body

    And where are his publications that indicate ASEA impacts redox signaling? The fact that redox signaling exists doesn’t mean ASEA affects it.

    I’m sorry to provide so much data that is not in the form your readers would like, but this is what we have AT THIS TIME.

    I think what you mean is you don’t have any data that would convince even a moderately skeptical and informed person, but you’re trying to handwave this fact away.

    the results people are having ARE unbelievable and should raise eye brows

    Two points – extreme claims require extreme proof (you have none that is convincing, testimonials aren’t science) and if these results are as extreme as you claim, independent demonstration in well-controlled trials is easy. Like, ridiculously easy. To the point that if you have a genuine effect and you are not undertaking rigorous science to demonstrate them to the medical community, it’s borderline unethical.

    all I ask is that all of you research this further before you continue to damage our reputation and do any more irrreparable harm than you’ve already (albeit unintentionally) done.

    I’d like to research this further, but you’re not giving me anything meaningful to go on – testimonials, youtube videos and unrelated journal articles proving irrelevant points are not exactly helpful. You could repair the harm youv’e done to your own reputation by a) halting sales until there is replicable evidence that ASEA does anything meaningful and b) stop showing up on message boards whining when people criticize the worthless evidence you provide. Seriously, if you want skeptics to stop bashing your product, stop pretending you’ve got evidence (and stop trying to make money off of salt water).

    I really can’t wait until April, and I hope your study gets reviewed here.

  30. nybgrus says:

    The NMR spectroscopy data in the video don’t make sense. Gears can help me out here if he is so inclined, but from what I recall from my undergrad synthetic chem days and a quick refresher thanks to Professor Google, the values listed indicate that he is doing C13 spectroscopy since H1 spectroscopy only goes up to about 12ppm shift and the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish. Furthermore, the two peaks he notes are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift. Using this handy dandy table we find that corrsesponds to R3C and R2C2.

    For those readers not familiar with what NMR does, it creates a high energy spin state in either carbon (C13) or hydrogen (H1) and then measures the relaxation of the high energy state. The relaxation will be in a discrete frequency, which depends on what else the atom in question is bonded to. For example, methane which is CH4 will have a different frequency of relaxation than ethane which is H3C-CH3 because the carbon is bonded to different atoms (H vs C) which stabilize the carbon in question differently and thus require more or less energy to excite it. The relaxation is highly characteristic.

    Now, NMR data is like a puzzle. You look at the peaks and determine how many different bonds there are and what kind they are and, assuming you have a single pure molecular species, can then fit the pieces together to make a molecule that would have all the different types of bonds that the NMR shows us. In my undergrad days our exams were literally just that graph and we had to determine the precise composition and shape of the molecule in question.

    What the peaks don’t do is tell you exactly which compounds are present. They only tell you which specific types of bonds exist in the molecule. A single peak does not necessarily correspond to a single molecule (unless it is a very simple molecule like methane or ethane). Furthermore, the height of the peak tells you the relative contribution of each type of bond. For example ethane (3HC-CH3) would have a single carbon peak that is double the height of the reference standard since each carbon in the molecule is identical with respect to the molecule (i.e. each carbon is bonded to 3 hydrogen and 1 carbon atom). You could then do a hydrogen NMR and you will find a peak 6 times higher because the hydrogens are all equivalent to each other (each one is bonded to a carbon which is in turn bonded to a carbon).

    In other words, not only is the presentation of what that NMR graph is telling us wrong, but it further begs the question – why are there carbon compounds in a drink that is supposed to be nothing but salt and water and these magical redox signaling molecules?

    I was tempted to go further and do the same thing with every point I could find in the video but with this egregiously wrong presentation only 2 minutes into a 17 minute long video, plus the fact that a google search for the “Right Now Convention” demonstrates it is a “convention” put on entirely by ASEA means I am pretty done here.

    This video is worth watching, I think it will give you the impetus to follow me through the rest of this research to rebut the misinformation above…

    Hardly. Unlike most people watching this video I am a little too informed on the specific scientific topics and methods to be blinded by the pseudoscience.

    Oh yeah, and of course comments like:

    WILL BE published in a journal of medicine in April 2013

    You know, I have an article in review right now which probably won’t get published till Feb or March of 2012 at the earliest. But unlike ASEA I actually list which journal I submitted it to. That’s how things are done around academia.

    The actual studies listed? Random PubMed indexed articles demonstrated that ROS exists in cells and trigger signal cascades. Nobody is debating that. So that NEXT step is the only step of actual interest at the moment. NEXT would be to prove that IF ASEA contained what they say it does that it would actually have an effect.

    This evidence is referenced in the first video above = the equipment and tests used to verify the molecules are described at the 1 minute mark, THIS factor was the most crucial component we were missing before we could get our study published, but we have obtained it.

    Ahem. Back it up TracyKing. Explain to me the NMR data and what it actually means and then we can talk. Oh yeah, I should add here that carbon compounds can exist in redox states but they are incredibly reactive species and should be handled with extreme caution. Mostly because even exposure to air will make them react but also because if you were to manage to ingest it they would instantly react with every molecule in your mouth long before it even reached your gut.

    The Gish Gallop of links seems random until it becomes clear that MDI-P is what ASEA used to be called. Notably, the composition claimed in the peer reviewed journals is different to what the NMR spectra reveal in the video linked. Like, fundamentally different. I won’t bother going into every article and debunking it.

    Next I looked up the AAPT awards list and of all the awards they have ever given, Gary Samuelson’s name is not listed. I also cannot find evidence that he is a U of Utah alum, though granted that is not definitive at all. The only things that come up for him at all are related to ASEA and PubMed doesn’t have a single author named Gary Sameulson.

    All of what WLU wrote is, of course, also correct. I just thought it would be fun to quickly poke a few very serious holes in the supposed science involved here. I am also tempted to call the numbers listed just to see what happens.

    As for eagerly waiting till April… I got a shiny quarter that says nothing will be published and there will be a landslide of rehashing all this with the accusation that “peer review is keeping me down, man” and nothing more. I don’t think the data or the study actually exist.

    Anyways, I am more or less done here. It was fun taking a trip down synthetic chemistry memory lane though!

  31. nybgrus says:

    dangit, right up at the top that should be R3CH for the 24ppm shift peak. But I’m sure everyone here already knew that. :-p

  32. Narad says:

    He works as an independent science consultant to help bridge the gap between promising emerging technologies and commercialization efforts in the health science field.

    Actually, he works as a radiology tech at the University of Utah Hospital.

  33. gears says:

    Regarding the NMR spectrum, the caption says that it is a phosphorus NMR. This should mean that it is looking at the environment of phosphorus nuclei in the solution. That isn’t unreasonable per se, as phosphorus is biologically relevant, but I can’t understand how that spectrum should lead them to conclude that superoxide is present (phosphorus NMR can detect phosphorus bonded to . The spectrum is meaningless to me (as a point of reference, I use NMR basically every day).

    Like others have said, it’s true that redox molecules are involved in cell signaling. I think it’s important to point out, though, that they are 1) transient and 2) reactive. So far as I understand it, superoxide is generated by the immune system to kill invaders because it is highly toxic. And because it is highly toxic, most cells have an enzyme, superoxide dismutase, the express purpose of which is break down adventitious superoxide, produced by regular metabolic activity. The idea that it is somehow stabilized in ASEA solution doesn’t make sense.

    Amusingly, to me anyway, is that their “redox active signaling molecules” seem to be the same reactive oxygen species that other people furiously try to quench by taking anti-oxidant supplements. It just goes to show that people can accept multiple types of woo that are entirely contradictory to each other.

    Minor, very technical and OT, quibble: In 13C NMR, peak height is not actually quantitative with respect the number of carbons present, for boring reasons I don’t really need to expound on. In 1H NMR, it is peak integration that is quantitative for the the number of protons at each chemical shift. Sorry for the digression. I used to be an organic chemistry TA and it gets the better of me sometimes.

    TL;DR ASEA has negligible prior probability, and the evidence presented is nonsensical.

  34. Narad says:

    I also cannot find evidence that he is a U of Utah alum, though granted that is not definitive at all.

    Right here.

  35. gears says:

    Oops: phosphorus NMR can detect that a phosphorus is bound to oxygen, but not oxygen by itself. Superoxide is O2-, i.e. not bound to phosphorus.

  36. nybgrus says:

    Thanks Gears!

    I knew you would be able to refine my rusty undergrad chemistry. I must have missed where the graph was labeled as phosphorus NMR. But at least I wasn’t too far off in my assessment. In any event, it really did look fishy to me and I knew that the graph couldn’t show what it was pretending to show (i.e. one of the peaks meant superoxide). And if gears says the spectrum is meaningless, then I feel pretty confident banking on that.

    You are also correct about the medical aspects of ROS as well as the whole anti-oxidant thing being completely opposite (though the anti-oxidant hypothesis of aging is essentially a non-starter these days; if there is an effect it most certainly is not the primary driver of senescence in animals of any kind, including humans).

    I appreciate your “minor quibble” – I was writing pretty much entirely from memory of my undergrad days so I am surprised there isn’t more for you to correct. I can’t seem to recall why 13C NMR is not quantitative – I seem to remember learning it that way. Or maybe I am confusing it with IR spectra? If you have the time and can give me a short refresher I’d be appreciative!

  37. nybgrus says:

    @narad:

    Thanks. I knew there was a good chance I simply wasn’t finding it. I still haven’t been able to find the teaching award though (at least not from the AAPT). Not that any of that matters – the science is enough damnation.

  38. gears says:

    OT chemistry rambling:

    13C NMR isn’t quantitative because the time it takes for a carbon nucleus to relax (and emit a signal) is variable, being dependent on the local environment (what the bonding partners are). The basic idea for fourier-transform NMR, like you were talking about, is: irradiate with radio waves, wait and collect the signal, and then repeat until the signal-to-noise ratio is acceptable. What this means for peak height is that, if the time it takes for a given nucleus to relax is long, then the signal will be weaker. The relaxation process is one of exponential decay, so fewer nuclei will have a chance to relax and emit a signal during the “wait” time before you irradiate again.

    If you look at a 13C spectrum of a known compound, you will typically see that carbonyl carbons (R2CO) and quaternary carbons (R4C) have smaller peaks than unsaturated aliphatic carbons, for example. I am not sure why the relaxation times are different, but the consequence is that peak height is not correlated with the number of carbons that share a given environment, i.e. chemical shift. Thus, 13C NMR can only tell you how many different unique carbon atoms are present in a molecule, but not their relative numbers. IR similarly identifies the presence of functional groups, but is not really quantitative.

    This happens to a lesser extent in proton NMR. Aromatic protons relax a little bit slower than other protons, so if I am taking an NMR of that sort of compound I will make the “wait” time longer*. This makes the integration of peaks more accurate, which theoretically should be quantitative with respect to the number of protons at each chemical shift. I forget why it is peak integration rather than height that is what you measure.

    I hope that’s a reasonably useful explanation. I didn’t originally intend to write so much.

    *Silly aside: I suppose it’s possible that you could indefinitely extend the “wait” period in a carbon NMR so that the peak integration approached a quantitative measurement, but NMR spectrometer time is expensive, and the 13C isotope is both not very abundant in nature (~1%) and relatively insensitive to irradiation (a couple thousandfold less so that 1H), so this isn’t practically feasible because the total experiment time would be very, very long.

    Anyhow, you were totally on the mark that the spectrum was worthless, which is why I tried to impress upon my pre-med students that organic chemistry literacy was important, even if you don’t actually use it every day.

  39. gears says:

    oops you said short refresher, didn’t you.

  40. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Not that any of that matters – the science is enough damnation

    Science be damned, the rhetoric, even the logic is enough to indicate this is bullshit. The real science being discussed in the comments is far more interesting than money-fuelled word salad pumped out by ASEA.

  41. Narad says:

    I still haven’t been able to find the teaching award though (at least not from the AAPT).

    The only thing that seems to make sense is one of these, which would make the claim puffery of the first water.

  42. nybgrus says:

    Hey Gears, that was a short refresher… and much appreciated!

    I guess what I was learning then was 1H NMR and in somewhat idealized circumstances for examination purposes. The principles, rather than true application, as it were. I almost became a chem major actually, and getting the chance to chat with you about it highlights the amount of education I didn’t get as a result of my choice. Not regretting it, of course, but merely wistful that we only live to be octogenarians so not enough time to major in and specialize in everything.

    At least I had the basic principles down and was able to identify that the spectrum was garbage.

    Anyhow, you were totally on the mark that the spectrum was worthless, which is why I tried to impress upon my pre-med students that organic chemistry literacy was important, even if you don’t actually use it every day.

    Exactly. I don’t need to know how to do all the day-to-day activities of a synthetic chemist but if I were completely oblivious to what was going on in principle I would have been blinkered by the sciencey talk. Of course, as WLU accurately points out, the entirety of everything spewing out of Sarah and Tracy is bunkum but people can get more sphisticated if they really wanted to.

    Also cool to know you read the comments even on older posts like this that you haven’t actually commented on before. I feel like I have a really awesome genie I can conjure up do discuss these sorts of topics :-D

  43. nybgrus says:

    Oh yeah, Gears…

    If you look at a 13C spectrum of a known compound, you will typically see that carbonyl carbons (R2CO) and quaternary carbons (R4C) have smaller peaks than unsaturated aliphatic carbons, for example. I am not sure why the relaxation times are different

    Wouldn’t it have to do with resonance stabilization? In aliphatic carbons, whether saturated or not, you have a highly non-polar structure where the electrons are spread throughout “evenly” but also where hydrogen still predominates as side groups to the target carbon. Since hydrogen is less electronegative than carbon, there would be less interaction with the target carbon and side groups, allowing relaxation to occur more quickly. Whereas in carbonyl carbons you have the much more electronegative oxygen double bonded to the carbon and thus creating partial positive and negative charges. Similarly in quaternary carbons, the R-groups would act as electron sinks and “spread out” the electron density more than just aliphatic compounds. This could create additional interactions between the target carbon and the stabilizing R-groups, making relaxation take longer?

    I am really just hypothesizing (i.e. guessing) based on what I already know. Not sure if that even makes sense, but it seems to to me, anyways.

  44. nybgrus says:

    @narad:

    Yes, that is where I was looking and no “Gary Samuelson” was listed in any of the award categories in any location.

  45. Narad says:

    @nygbrus:

    Right, right, but my point was that “Outstanding Teaching Assistant” awards are handed out like candy; the department chair makes the “nomination,” and that’s it. The prize is a one-year AAPT membership. Samuelson Jr. doesn’t actually appear to been a teacher at any point (I also checked whether it was a conflation with Samuelson Sr., who also has a physics Ph.D. from Utah, but that didn’t pan out), so the T.A. angle is the only thing that appears to fit.

  46. Moebius says:

    The chemical shifts in nmr are definitely due to electron density, and deshielding of the atom by nearby electron hogs. The magnitude in 13C-nmr is more related to interactions with the magnetic spin of neighboring atoms. It’s been a few years, and I’m probably not expressing it too well. Allowing longer relaxation times helps, as well as chemical agents that promote relaxation.

  47. Narad says:

    Allowing longer relaxation times helps, as well as chemical agents that promote relaxation.

    An observation with broader applicabiliity than just NMR.

  48. gears says:

    @nybgrus:

    I am a serious lurker on SBM–I would post more often if I weren’t such a slow writer (I am continually impressed with the amount of coherent prose that others here can produce).

    @Moebius and nybgrus

    Ah crap. When I said “unsaturated aliphatic” upthread, I really meant saturated aliphatic. My sincerest apologies for any confusion this might have caused.

    In any case, while chemical shift is definitely determined by the surrounding electron density as you have observed, I think peak height (aka signal strength) is not so strongly correlated with it. For example, quaternary carbons have a similar chemical shift to other saturated carbons, but the respective signals are weak and strong. Additionally, carbonyl carbons and aromatic carbons are in roughly the same region of chemical shifts, but aromatic carbons tend to have stronger signals.

    Electron density of the local environment is certainly part of the picture, but there are other factors, too. Digging up an old physical chemistry lab report I did about NMR, part of the relaxation time is how much “molecular flexibility” the carbon has, i.e. how quickly it can move around its bonds.

    I freely admit at this point that my knowledge ends and that a spectroscopist could tell me how I am getting it wrong. Like you say nybgrus, there is a whole lot that I didn’t learn.

    @Narad

    Ahahaha

  49. gears says:

    After all of my technical rambling, I’m going to tell my favorite story about NMR:

    So back in the day when they invented NMR, somebody was like, “Hey, this could be pretty useful for medical imaging.” But when they tried to market it, people were scared away by the acronym “nuclear magnetic resonance” and nobody wanted it, the irony being that it uses magnets and radio waves rather than ionizing radiation.

    Then, some clever person said, “Hey, what if we drop the ‘N’ and just call it ‘magnetic resonance?’” and thus was born the MRI.

  50. Sialis says:

    WARNING: If you want to read science-based evidence for ASEA, skip this message.

    There is so much confusing medical and dietary advice being promoted on the Internet by physicians and other marketing agents. Again, I want to extend my appreciation to the Science-Based Medicine blog. It’s a top online go-to place for medical straight talk.

    Dr. David Silverman states that he is a physician from Washington, D.C. According to the following interview as well as other online advertisements, he appears to be associated with both a hospice nurse from Virginia, and Dr. Zachary Bush of Scottsville, Virginia. They appear to have teamed up in order to market ASEA to hospice and other patients and animals.

    You can listen to Dr. David Silverman’s conversation with Nurse Amy on ChargeUP. This particular ChargeUP recording should be available online for another day or so. Dr. Silverman alleges to explain “the science” behind ASEA. In listening to their talk show, it becomes clear to me that I’ve read more actual science being discussed here on Science-Based Medicine than in their sales pitches. Listen for yourself to Dr. Silverman’s “Dec15Doc” recording at https://soundcloud.com/chargeupcall

    One of ASEA’s current Facebook pages deceptively features a two-year old video, which was originally created not to promote ASEA, but to encourage area residents to participate in the local farmer’s markets. Yet, two years later, the video has re-emerged on the ASEA Facebook page and is being misused to promote ASEA. Interestingly, the video includes coverage of another alternative/integrative physician, Dr. Sandra Amrita McLanahan. Dr. McLanahan advertises as practicing out of the Ashram of H. H. Sri Swami Satchidananda (Sri Gurudev), otherwise known as the Satchidananda – Yogaville Ashram in Buckingham, Virginia. Dr. McLanahan explains how a vegan diet can reverse cancer and “self-correct” your body. Some of these statements appear quite misleading and seem to have been contrived from bits of truth blended with heavy self-promotion, marketing and woo – unless of course, there is indeed a dietary cure for prostate and breast cancer or the practice of yoga is inherently better than any other form of regular gentle exercise.

    The Yogaville Ashram, however, is affiliated with numerous area businesses which perhaps not so coincidentally specialize in offering vegan, yoga and alternative medicine and lifestyle products and services. It seems there is quite a bit of marketing for the interests of the Yogaville Ashram embedded in the doctor’s medical advice. I’d rather have the straight talk that I get here on Science-Based Medicine than be misled into thinking I must pay for yoga lessons, only eat 100% organic vegan, or spend hundreds on what appears to be fancy bottled salt water in order to stay healthy. The video can be viewed on the ASEA Facebook page, as well as on YouTube at the following links,

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asea.healingyourself

    YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=15yf8zzH5i8

    According to the following article, H. H. Sri Swami Satchidananda and his student, Dr. McLanahan worked with Dr. Dean Ornish and are recognized as introducing Dr. Mehmet Oz to his first yoga class. That figures…

    Why am I writing this? Because if or when I am unfortunate enough to become too ill to read Science-Based Medicine and am instead forced to depend on the advise of licensed medical professionals, I do not want to be fooled away from appropriate medical intervention; there are just some things I don’t trust an organic carrot or asana to cure.

    http://www.swamisatchidananda.org/docs2/health.htm
    http://www.healthinsightstoday.com/articles/v4i5/mclanahan_all.html

  51. nybgrus says:

    First off I just finished watching Kinyarwanda and after that some fun nuclear chemistry is quite refreshing. It was a very good movie – I recommend it. But very emotionally draining. It is basically the story of the Rwandan genocide told through the eyes of the Rwandans themselves. It wasn’t so much a historical documentary (though it was accurate), but a story told by the Rwandan people about what they went through.

    Anyways….

    I am a serious lurker on SBM–I would post more often if I weren’t such a slow writer (I am continually impressed with the amount of coherent prose that others here can produce).

    A misspent youth of video games and internet browsing. For a long while I was a huge tech nerd and did a lot of programming, hardware, and IT. I even worked as a repair technician at an electronics shop. This was so long ago I am completely worthless in any of these fields, but the rapid typing and navigation through multiple windows has stuck with me.

    Ah crap. When I said “unsaturated aliphatic” upthread, I really meant saturated aliphatic.

    I was actually wondering if that is what you meant, because that would have made more sense to me. I wrote it off in my head as the double bonds simply didn’t affect the electron density that significantly.

    I’ll admit I was trying to wrap my head about the strength and weakness of various signals, but I think I would need to do some more reading to refresh more and get more in depth.

    After all of my technical rambling, I’m going to tell my favorite story about NMR:

    Believe it or not, I actually knew that story…. my sister is in public relations so she loves that story.

    Lastly, @narad: very funny!

  52. TracyKing says:

    Love it! Of course I could never match wits with brilliant minds such as these, ALL I KNOW is from direct personal knowledge of friends of mine with SERIOUS challenges who are now healthy and can show before and after extensive labwork that has their doctors confused but not sufficiently intrigued enough to investigate why (no surprise there!). People build belief in ASEA in 3 ways: they see a result in themselves, in others, or through the science – you guys obviously REQUIRE the science! Go get ‘em! Keep looking, I hope you figure it out for all of us, you would be doing mankind a huge favor and creating a legacy for yourselves! But for me, results speak for themselves… I don’t have to know WHY the NMR spectroscopy values listed in the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish and the peaks are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift corresponding to R3C and R2C2. I just don’t, sorry. And so as not to put the company in danger with compliance, I regret that I must not list the challenges I have seen corrected — and I’m fully aware that this sets me up for a slew of childish comments, so have at it, it’s not like I haven’t heard it before but I KNOW what I KNOW and your psycho-babble mumbo jumbo holds absolutely NO weight with me. You know what you know and that’s ALL that you know… there is much you do NOT know, and to be honest, that we may not figure out in our lifetime, but I fully expect both of you to be my best customers when you realize the results people are getting are too profound to ignore.

    I’d love to hear what you think of these safety studies… http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/TS2700.pdf, http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/ASEA_Safety_Studies_with_full_study_links.pdf. Seems like a LOT of trouble to go to in order to create a scam for salt water! And I’m wondering why the fact that ASEA’s founder was the former VP of Kraft Foods and their Director of International Strategy (who undertook this endeavor in his 70′s, when he was already retired and already wealthy), doesn’t hold any weight with you or make you curious? Why would someone like him, who, in his retirement, served on the board of a biotech company that was about to go under but that had sunk costs in the millions showing decades of efficacy and safety studies on a product that showed so much promise in published peer-reviewed journals and press releases but that scientists at that time could not identify the known mechanism of action, nor keep it shelf stable long enough to test it properly… why would he do this? Just for the money? Hmm. And yes he’s a devout mormon and he worked on the SLC Olympics, he was a well-respected business man. The reason he was on the biotech board in the first place was because of his knowledge of using nanotechnology to produce lactoferrin to preserve meats in deli cases for Kraft… he’s no dummy. I think my scenario seems much more believable than yours!

    Here are some other studies under way that might turn up something interesting, might not too but I think it’s cool that they are willing to put their product to the test and keep trying to figure out WHY some people are having such substantial reversals in their health profiles and why the results can be so varied. We know ASEA does something significant in the body, we just haven’t nailed down all the “why’s” yet but we’re investing in it. That’s how discoveries are made… trial and error. http://ncrc.appstate.edu/research-focus/current-and-upcoming-research. The VO2max and endurance threshhold studies http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/Athletics_US_ENG.pdf and the metabolites studies http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_MetaboliteFindings_FAQ_May2012.pdf, http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Research_Summary_Presentation.pdf,
    have just been interesting learning how the body is mobilizing fatty acids for fuel which create less metabolic waste… there’s some pretty substantial findings there worthy of further study and that’s exactly what they’re doing. And you dismiss studies on MICE? That’s how ALL studies start isn’t it? You’re telling me that giving a mouse some ASEA and watching it run on a wheel 29% longer than his counterpart doesn’t intrigue you? People do illegal doping with steroids to get 4% and we can give 29% and that has no value? Wow it takes a LOT to impress you guys, I’m beginning to wonder if you have any “common” sense because it’s obvious that you have “book” sense.

    Granted I have a very rudimentary understanding, I’m just trying to convey to you, from the standpoint of being an end user, I saw SIGNIFICANT results in my own body’s ability to heal itself — I’m not making some “snake oil” claim here, I’m just saying experiment with it yourself on how much faster your body heals, let’s do something really easy — test it on a cut or burn, it’s a simple test really, just use a curling iron, or burn your tongue with some hot water, after all, it’s for SCIENCE, right? You will become CONVINCED that this is something worth trying to figure out.

    And ASEA is not only ROS molecules in a bottle but RS molecules as well, it’s a BALANCED SET of stabilized reactive molecules – http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/Reactive_Molecules_Verification_US_ENG.pdf. We are now able to provide our body with a buffet of what it needs and it takes what it is deficient in. Get the book on Amazon, “The Science of Healing Revealed” by Dr. Gary Samuelson, ATOMIC MEDICAL PHYSICIST. I can send you a pdf if you just email me at tracypowersking@gmail.com. Again, from my very basic understanding, one set activates antioxidants (we have antioxidant efficiency and glutathione studies showing an increase of 500-800%) and the other set provides additional signaling capacity at the cellular level (immune system communicators), both are paramount processes that healthy cells perform; but when there are unbalanced molecules floating around (a consequence of stress and aging — our bodies just produce less ROS and RS as we age), that’s where our immune systems becomes compromised (inflammation, and auto-immune disease, respectively). There’s no “magic” molecules here, just do a quick look up about the benefits of glutathione, you’ll see that it’s a substantial marker of good health. People in hospice have low levels of glutathione, healthy people have high levels. If you can raise your glutathione level, it stands to reason that THAT ALONE will help mitigate disease processes already at play. It’s not magic, it’s “if A then B” logic. That’s why we will always refuse to make health claims about a disease, we don’t need to.

    And the Hippocrates Health Institute has been the preeminent leader in the field of natural and complementary health care and education since 1956. It may be hogwash to you, but I’d rather have their endorsement than not have it. And they did a double-blind placebo-controlled one year study on humans, I’m thankful we have that as much as you want to dismiss it. They were deemed the world’s number one teaching institute in 2000 by Spa Management Group. I’m sure that’s a crap award to you, but I bet they did a lot to earn that worldwide designation in their specific field and they have a reputation to uphold in their community, they took a risk exposing the results of their study.

    And as much as you want to dismiss the “YouTube” video, the speaker in the video is THE VP OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE (ACSM, perhaps you’ve heard of it?). He calls out frauds all the time. The fact that he broke protocol and speak at our national conference to defend this product shows its significance, the man has a stellar reputation to uphold, I’m sure he weighed the pro’s and con’s and believes our impact on the world and our impressive results will create a paradigm shift in medicine and health. Instead of symptom treatment, we are helping educate the masses to move towards prevention, and believe me, it’s not an easy “sell,” especially with people like you who are unwilling to look at this from any perspective other than another MLM scam. Instead of nutrition, think cellular, that’s a shift in thinking for most people. Due to our country’s regulatory environment, surely you are aware that finer companies than us have been dismantled for trying to make health claims? We do not WANT to make health claims about diseases, we want people to understand that keeping your body in balance is what helps you MAINTAIN health… if we made claims about the TREATMENT OF DISEASE we would be tarred and feathered for heaven’s sake! You really expect us to do that? Any associates who are doing that are endangering our very existence and they should stop it. There is no other more important foundational safer NATIVE supplement you could ever take than ASEA if you want to protect your health. The most significant conclusion I think a skeptic could draw from the “Metabolites” study is that the data showed only positive benefits with no toxicity. And if you were going to test a “SUPPLEMENT,” can you give me the name of a more significant and respected lab in America for this task than the Human Performance Laboratory which is a cooperative of well-established corporations and well-respected universities whose job it is to establish correlations between supplements and their impact on nutrition and exercise?

    Redox Signaling is the fastest growing field in medical biology and has been for about the last 11 years. There are over 7000 abstracts available in Pubmed, the National Institute of Health’s Library of Medicine, and about 200 new published papers are released every month, EACH STUDY TAKING AN AVERAGE OF TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE. You’re forgetting how new and cutting edge this science even is, YES sure we could have waited until we had all the data and figured everything out, all the why’s, all the how’s, all the clinical trials that cost $100′s of millions of hard-to-find investors’ money, but WHY wait when we already have anecdotal evidence that it is doing so much good, antioxidant efficiency studies, white papers, metabolite studies, we have the Guinness Book of World Record holder in Most IronMan’s (previous record 20, new record 30, google James Lawrence), we have an Olympic Gold Medal Winner in swimming Bree Larson… http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Antioxidant_Efficiency_US_ENG.pdf, white papers http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/WhitePaperVTUSENG.pdf, http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/WhitePaperBioactivityUS_ENG.pdf, etc. We know it can do NO harm — not one claim has been made about anyone being harmed from ASEA, can you say that about ANYTHING, any pharmaceutical, any drink, how about broccolli? Anything is eventually toxic at some level and causes problems for some people, but not ASEA because it’s NATIVE, whatever is not utilized is flushed like water.

    This I found on the internet but maybe it can explain it better than me, after all, I’m just some stupid housewife trying to raise my 3 kids, who enjoys learning new things and who isn’t so jaded as to believe that everything in the world worth knowing about has already been invented and exposed. This guy has his Ph.D., and has written some books on quantum physics, maybe his words carry more weight than mine. But seriously, thanks for the dialog and for engaging. You are and will be influencing thousands, if not millions of people worldwide, until we earn the respect we deserve. Your words will stand in history as will mine. Once it’s written, it can’t be erased. I feel completely confident in knowing what we have BEFORE the world knows it, before you know it. Are you as confident in your complete and arrogant dismissal of this technology? Only time will tell I guess. But for the sake of people I know who are struggling with health challenges and financial concerns, I hope it’s sooner rather than later… you are certainly doing your best to make sure it’s later. I feel sorry for people who are relying solely on your opinion, they are missing out, plus it makes it harder for me to get their attention. So be it.

    “Over 30 patents protect the PROCESS whereby ASEA is made using electrolysis in a unique way to electrically rearrange a sodium chloride solution into 16 different molecules. Sodium Choride and Distilled Water are composed of molecules that come from 4 different atoms: sodium, chlorine, hydrogen and oxygen. When they are rearranged, they can create ozone (o3), hydrogen peroxide (h2o2), various chlorine derivatives that are superior to a popular chlorine product known by a three letter acronym, and other molecules that are highly reactive. Superior because it has the other side of the equation – the RS molecules necessary to activate antioxidants that will neutralize the oxidation the chlorine compounds will cause. Using one without the other is completely irresponsible.

    In addition to these positively charged molecules known as ROS or Reactive Oxygen Species (8 of them), there are 8 RS molecules or Reduced Species, which are negatively charged.

    What is unique and profound about the latest research and perhaps the more significant discovery than even being able to create these native molecules outside the body, is that the ROS and RS molecules are able to co-exist in a single stabilized solution so that they do NOT neutralize themselves. That means they can be ingested so that the ROS and RS molecules can be absorbed into the body and can do their respective jobs.

    Until now, this was claimed to be impossible by the medical, physics, biology and other scientific fields because it is counter intuitive – how can you put both the positive and negative molecules together without them neutralizing themselves? The secret lies in enveloping the individually charged molecules in salt water molecules so that they remain stable and separate until coming in contact with organic matter, at which time they are activated, put to use, and made available for scavenging loose molecules wanting to donate or accept an electron (unattached loose molecules wreak havoc, hence the term “free radical damage”), all while inside the human body, inside living cells (i.e. plants, pets, and animals have cells too, hence no “placebo effect” theory, not to mention that the metabolites study was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized crossover study).”

  53. TracyKing says:

    Utah man AND ASEA ATHLETE James Lawrence breaks world record in most Ironman’s completed in one year: previous record by a guy from Belgium in 2008 was 20, James reached #21 in Sept and kept going to SHATTER the record with 30 Ironman’s! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YPX7o2F6dI

    http://fox13now.com/2012/09/02/utah-man-breaks-ironman-world-record/

  54. TracyKing says:

    Former “skeptic” Rich Roll, named Men’s Fitness Magazine’s 2009 “Top 10 Fittest Humans on Earth” endorses ASEA, first time he’s ever endorsed anything: http://www.richroll.com/uncategorized/asea/

  55. TracyKing says:

    Board Certified MD, clinical research physican, chiropractors, etc, endorse ASEA! http://www.amazingcd.com/. http://www.drrobwebinar.com

  56. TracyKing says:

    Olympic swimmer, Guinness World Record Holder, race car driver, Hollywood stuntman, professional cyclists and triathletes, retired Olympic Gold Medalist, professional baseball player, and NCAA Div. 1 basketball coach ALL ENDORSE ASEA! http://www.redoxendurancetraining.com/REDOX_Training/ASEA_Athletes.html

  57. Narad says:

    Ms. King, this barrage merely makes you and the product that you hawk look very foolish.

  58. rork says:

    In other news, homeopathy endorsed by those making money from it, destroying any doubts of its efficacy.

  59. TracyKing says:

    @Sialis “You can listen to Dr. David Silverman’s conversation with Nurse Amy on ChargeUP. This particular ChargeUP recording should be available online for another day or so. Dr. Silverman alleges to explain “the science” behind ASEA. In listening to their talk show, it becomes clear to me that I’ve read more actual science being discussed here on Science-Based Medicine than in their sales pitches. Listen for yourself to Dr. Silverman’s “Dec15Doc” recording at https://soundcloud.com/chargeupcall

    Dr. Silverman is trying to explain ASEA in layman’s terms, it is not intended to be directed at scientists. If you want science, go to http://www.drrobwebinar.com but that’s still trying to make it understandable for a “reasonable” person, in simple terms. We are marketing a product, it’s not our job to explain the intricacies of the science behind it when we already have white papers and clinical testing to show it has value. Due diligence is our job as consumers. It was presented at the 2010 A4M conference http://osteoporosis-lawyers.com/tag/samuelson/.

    “One of ASEA’s current Facebook pages deceptively features a two-year old video, which was originally created not to promote ASEA, but to encourage area residents to participate in the local farmer’s markets. Yet, two years later, the video has re-emerged on the ASEA Facebook page and is being misused to promote ASEA.”

    That’s just an ASEA associate who started a fan page of her friends, it has 63 likes, it’s just a community of like-minded people who care about health. She started that page for her FRIENDS, it’s not by ASEA, LOL! That video did not have anything to do with ASEA nor did it claim to, it was just an FYI since anyone who is willing to invest in ASEA for their health, is also aware of the misinformation that exists about our food supply. We just try to help each other and inform each other of good information, some not related to ASEA at all. Good cellular health and nutritional health go hand in hand. Anyone should be able to recognize that this was not produced by corporate or intended to mislead anyone. Let’s stick to ASEA’s claims, we have more than enough to debate without going here. I did enjoy the blood analysis video on her page though, we duplicated those exact results by a hematologist in our group who lives in my hometown, it was quite compelling.

  60. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Hey Tracy, I can shorten your posts considerably:

    Blah blah anecdote blah irrelevant link blah unfounded claim blah conspiracy blah blah blah blah JUST TRY IT BECAUSE IT WORKS blah blah and I’ll hit my sales target for the month.

    You are either an extremely credulous person whose innate skepticism has been overwhelmed, or a dishonest huckster (I’m leaning towards the latter now). In either case you work for a multi-level marketing company that sells expensive salt water with no reasonable proof it does something. Your posts show evidence of magical thinking – that if you mention ASEA in the same sentence as “redox signalling” that somehow the two become linked. There’s also considerable hypocrisy (don’t trust Big Pharma, but trust me). You don’t understand or don’t care why anecdotes are not trustworthy (here’s three reasons from most-to-least positive – the people for whom it didn’t work don’t post their negative anecdotes; the people could be lying; the people might not exist whatsoever). Your in-house studies are essentially worthless since again, there is massive profit motive to fake results and no quality control. I mean really – if ASEA is completely making up their nonsense, who is going to call them on it? You are also citing in house safety studies, but correct me if I’m wrong here – is there a difference between not poisoning someone and curing disease? I was under the impression they were different. I was also under the impression that mice and people were different, which is why mouse studies are generally seen as a starting point. But since you’ve now demonstrated that mouse studies are good enough for ASEA, we can dispense with human trials and start popping pills based on Pfizer’s in-house mouse work. It’ll be great for their bottom line, and we here at SBM really love doing what we can to support our Dark Corporate Overlords.

    Frankly I’m having a hard time posting comments without using the word “idiot”. It’s not childish to point out the flaws in your claims, because most adults would prefer to base their beliefs on reality. Perhaps you are the exception. Please, go shill your product elsewhere. Someone who considers a 12-year-old endorsement by the “Spa Management Group” is completely wasting our time, despite their doubtless well-respected “Journal of Spa Studies”, or perhaps more narrowly-targetted “Mud Based Facial Masks Science Quarterly”.

  61. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Olympic swimmer, Guinness World Record Holder, race car driver, Hollywood stuntman, professional cyclists and triathletes, retired Olympic Gold Medalist, professional baseball player, and NCAA Div. 1 basketball coach ALL ENDORSE ASEA!

    Ha.

    Board Certified MD, clinical research physican, chiropractors, etc, endorse ASEA!

    Ahaha!

    Naturopath explains ASEA

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    You just missed the first rule of communications – know your audience. We get it, you have a sales target to meet, you probably have a part-time job as an ASEA Web 2.0 officer, and you realize that most people on the internet know about as much about science as you do, so they’ll probably be convinced by some technobabble. Tell me, are the patents you talk about held by Rockwell Automations? Perhaps your Chief Ethics Officer is Kevin Trudeau?

    None of your handwaving and desperate Gish Galloping changes the fact that your product has no good evidence to support it as an effective medical intervention, yet you are still selling it. Your actions are flatly unethical – you’re either taking money for a product that has no real proof of efficacy, or you have a genuinely effective product (ha!) that you are keeping out of wide-scale adoption by refusing to test it.

    Please stop wasting your time here. Either conduct a high quality test (which again, if ASEA is as effective as you say would be easy – double-blinding with objective outcome measures) or leave. This isn’t a naturopathy discussion board, you won’t get traction here. A lot of mockery though.

  62. nybgrus says:

    I’m thoroughly impressed. This is downright Oracian in length… if only it were also Oracian in scientific literacy.

    I don’t have to know WHY the NMR spectroscopy values listed in the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish and the peaks are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift corresponding to R3C and R2C2. I just don’t, sorry

    Firstly, I’m impressed that she is actually reading what we are writing.

    Secondly, you think you would come to a place called science based medicine and then think that a hand wave of “I don’t need to understand no stinkin’ science, my stuff works anyways” is going to fly? You must be just a little delusional.

    Why does it matter? Because the safety data on MDI-P lists what is supposedly in ASEA (which apparently used to be called MDI-P):

    HOCl-, OCl-, Cl-, Cl2, O2-, H2O2, and O3-4

    First off that is (in order): bleach, bleach, chloride anion, chlorine gas, superoxide radical, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone.

    Besides being products of white cell metabolic burst for bacterial killing in phagolysosomes, these are highly reactive molecular species known as free radicals.

    Oh yeah, and none of them correspond to the NMR peaks from the spectroscopy. I knew they didn’t, and Gears refined that and clearly demonstrated it even more.

    So that, Ms. King, is why it matters what the NMR data show – because you are throwing mountains of sciencey sounding stuff at us which is contradictory, doesn’t make sense, and would be flashy enough to fool most people, but not those at science based medicine.

    Also, safety data is not interesting to us. We have no doubt that salt water ingestion is generally pretty safe.

    Seems like a LOT of trouble to go to in order to create a scam for salt water!

    If you are going to lie about something, lie big so more people will believe you.

    why would he do this? Just for the money? Hmm. And yes he’s a devout mormon

    That’s supposed to carry some weight? Because no religious people, particularly Mormon’s, knowingly take people’s money? Never mind that the Mormon church is ridiculously rich and gives nearly none of its money away, the world is full of the “devout” scamming money from people.

    I think my scenario seems much more believable than yours!

    Your ramblings are much more believable than us actually analyzing the supposed hard science facts you have been flinging at us? Really? Stuff you say means more than a group of people with expertise in the matter pointing out that everything you have been handing us is not only worthless, but flat out wrong?

    Ms. King, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree here.

  63. TracyKing says:

    Wow ok let’s back up. And please put me in the first category if you must, I am a just a LAYMAN trying to figure this out and using every bit of resources I can find. I was the biggest skeptic you could ever meet, that’s why I have become so involved because I kept trying to disprove it and in the process became convinced, there’s just too much compelling evidence to ignore even if they don’t have everything a scientist like you needs at this time. And sure I think if you have a good product you can make money at it but I’m not willing to lose my soul over it! I want to be right, I want to help people, I have good ethics. But I’m a CPA with an MBA, I don’t know chemistry except what I’ve learned on my own and what I’ve deferred to people who are smarter than me who have examined this thoroughly and come to my same conclusions. Not people on blogs, people who are doctors and nurses and health advocates in my community, people who I know.

    Let’s just take one claim at a time then and forget about the athletics claims and metabolite testing which shows 44 out of 140 markers with positive improvement and no toxicity, just dismiss that all together! See these studies on antioxidant efficiency testing and white papers on bioactivity showing an increase of glutathione by 500-800%. Increasing our body’s production of these internal antioxidants is a good thing, surely we can agree on that point? So IF they show that glutathione is increased and IF we know that’s a good thing, THEN that could explain the crazy results people are reporting, and that can be duplicated by observing immediately with your own at-home burn testing on skin cells. Why are these antioxidant efficiency studies not credible? You have to start somewhere, nobody is going to pay for testing for your product, so yes they were performed tests in-house but that’s where everybody starts, even drug companies. We’re continuing with MORE studies, we’re working on it but do you have to be so negative at this early stage in the game? We’re paying for more tests, we’re trying to find the answers, the company is two years old! And they’ve already gone viral in that short amount of time and are available in 16 different countries, the strongest of which is Germany.
    http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Antioxidant_Efficiency_US_ENG.pdf
    http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/WhitePaperBioactivityUS_ENG.pdf

    And can you all please just refrain from calling me an idiot and help me understand? I’m trying to follow you. And I’m contacting NMR experts and sending emails all over the world trying to answer those completely ridiculous technical q’s, I WILL get those answers for nybgrus or die trying. That’s just completely out of MY purview unfortunately! But I’m willing to learn.

  64. TracyKing says:

    I don’t work for corporate, I live in Lexington KY and my facebook is Tracy Powers King if you want to see my friends, interests, family, I am an open book. I don’t have a sales target to meet, I’m just trying to help people with their health challenges by showing them some other solutions besides pharmaceuticals. Not that there’s anything wrong with them, they have their place, but if you can give the body the tools to do its job more effectively then you can avoid those imbalances to begin with. IT MAKES SENSE TO ME! And those endorsements are credible, real people, a Guinness Book of World Record Holder who beat the world record of 20 by 10 more Ironman’s, that’s a 50% increase in performance and endurance, how do you explain that? I have a pdf of the patents I can send you, all the stuff on the internet has been adopted by associates so I can’t find the actual anymore but you can find enough of it here http://www.billjacques.com/scientific-proof/asea-patent/.

  65. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    As a layman, you appear to be missing the fact that genuine experts who know how NMR works are telling you that one of your tests is nonsense. That knowledge seems to be bypassing your frontal lobes completely. You are continuing to put up links to documents published by ASEA alone, which I have repeatedly said are worthless. You say you want to help people. You are not. You are selling them something unproven. You need to do some research into basic skepticism and alternative medicine. You need to read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell and Trick or Treatment by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh. You need to read other linsk on science based medicine about testimonials, anecdotes and the importance of appropriate controls. You need to inform youself from a source other than the company you work for. You need to learn how easy it is to fool yourself and justify past decisions with selective reasoning, which means reading Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

    I was the biggest skeptic you could ever meet

    I very much doubt that, or you’ve possibly sustained some sort of stroke since then. I woudl consult a neurologist if this is true. More likely, you think you are skeptical, or claim you are skeptical, without exhibiting any of the characteristics of genuine skepticism – being willing to admit you’ve made an error, questioning the information given to you, familiarize youself with the science behind the claims and perhaps think about switching careers. If you are actually a CPA, what would you think about someone who claimed they could triple your money with no risk in less than a month, but you just have to give them $1,000 cash, right now, and ask no questions? Because that’s the level of credibility ASEA holds right now. Who assumes the risk of the products, the company, or the sales person? Is that a good business model? And for whom, salesperson or company? You’ve got an MBA, you tell me.

  66. JJ Borgman says:

    TracyKing,

    Just an observation: it seems you linked to a 2009 Patent Application on billjacques.com, not an actual patent. It is presented on your linked ASEA site to be a patent.

    That’s not very honest, IMO.

  67. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Let’s just take one claim at a time then and forget about the athletics claims and metabolite testing which shows 44 out of 140 markers with positive improvement and no toxicity

    How do you define toxicity? Was this in humans, or in test tubes? Are humans test tubes? Do test tubes possess multiple feedback systems which can actively control homeostasis?

    See these studies on antioxidant efficiency testing and white papers on bioactivity showing an increase of glutathione by 500-800%.

    These are proxy measures, there’s no guarantee that this results in meaningful effects. How do you know that merely increasing the amount or concentration of one substance is helpful? What are the long-term effects (assuming they actually occur in humans)? Does “bioactivity” mean “good”?

    Increasing our body’s production of these internal antioxidants is a good thing, surely we can agree on that point?

    This is an assumption on your part. Oxidants are used in multiple ways within the body, stopping all oxidation would kill us. Numerous antioxidants become pro-oxidants at certain concentrations. Large doses of vitamin C (an antioxidant) interferes with chemotherapy, a distinct negative side effect. And again, the body tightly controls the levels of many substances in the blood, including antioxidants. And this assumes that a) you are see real results, not experimental artifacts or simply made-up data, and b) these results are beneficial. So no, we can’t agree on that. Pseudoscientists and their proponents assume that medicine and biology are simple things, that blood levels of classes of compounds are like simple levers in a machine – pull on the lever and get a result. This is very much not the case.

    Why are these antioxidant efficiency studies not credible? You have to start somewhere, nobody is going to pay for testing for your product, so yes they were performed tests in-house but that’s where everybody starts, even drug companies.

    Yes, in-house testing is definitely a starting point. But ASEA has used it as a stopping point and the only thing they’ve started is direct sales to consumers. These studies are not credible because they are in-house, science advances by independent replication and extension, not by calling it a win when a couple test tubes go fizzy.

    We’re continuing with MORE studies, we’re working on it but do you have to be so negative at this early stage in the game? We’re paying for more tests, we’re trying to find the answers, the company is two years old! And they’ve already gone viral in that short amount of time and are available in 16 different countries, the strongest of which is Germany.

    Note that homeopathy is very popular in Germany, so perhaps not the best country to brag about.

    People here are negative because these are extraordinary claims that are not independently corroborated, but are used to sell the product. These claims fly in the face of what is known about biology, physiology and chemistry, and in fact physics since some of them sound like the spontaneous development of new atomic nuclei beyond the four found in the initial mixture (hydrogen, oxygen, sodium and chloride, the only ingredients on the bottle).

    And can you all please just refrain from calling me an idiot and help me understand? I’m trying to follow you. And I’m contacting NMR experts and sending emails all over the world trying to answer those completely ridiculous technical q’s, I WILL get those answers for nybgrus or die trying. That’s just completely out of MY purview unfortunately! But I’m willing to learn.

    You need to show evidence of learning. For instance, stop popping up links to in-house “studies”. I’ve made the point several times now – in-house studies are not reliable, nor are testimonials or anecdotes. Trying to use them as evidence after I’ve made this point indicates a) you aren’t understanding or b) you only want to use this venue as an opportunity to continue promoting a product – if you keep the conversation going, people will keep buying. Your basic starting point should be that you may be wrong. There’s a reason why real experts are skeptical and the only people who keep proclaiming it a miracle product are those selling it, or trying to justify spending $75 for a bottle of salt water. Please add to your reading list something on logical fallacies and cognitive biases; again Mistakes were made is a good starting point.

    I’m just trying to help people with their health challenges by showing them some other solutions besides pharmaceuticals.

    Why? Because pharmaceuticals have proof behind them? You’re again asking for a double-standard; drugs need proof, but my product does not. Do you think false hope or lies helps people with health challenges? And again consider my point about ethics – you’re either promoting a worthless product which is unproven, or your company’s failure to test the product in an open, scientific manner is preventing large numbers of people from benefiting. Either way, the ethical thing to do is to stop selling and start testing. The only reason why you would not do this is because the company is justifiably afraid of failing the tests and losing their ability to make money. Your company has lost its way, or is deliberately walking away from good science to make a buck.

    if you can give the body the tools to do its job more effectively

    Again, you don’t fucking know if this is happening. You’re claiming it is without any shred of reasonable evidence.

    IT MAKES SENSE TO ME! And those endorsements are credible, real people, a Guinness Book of World Record Holder who beat the world record of 20 by 10 more Ironman’s, that’s a 50% increase in performance and endurance, how do you explain that?

    Read Snake Oil Science, Bad Science, Trick or Treatment and Mistakes Were Made. Keep in mind, bloodletting made sense for two thousand years. Doctors saw visible, dramatic results. There were loads of testimonials. Do you support bloodletting? Ultimately someone took two groups, cut one and left the other alone, and kept track of who got better. That is pretty close all you need to do (throw in some blinding and control groups). But you’re not. Instead you’re relying on testimonials. I understand, you want to believe, but you are too easy to fool without the adequate experimental controls.

    I have a pdf of the patents I can send you, all the stuff on the internet has been adopted by associates so I can’t find the actual anymore but you can find enough of it here

    You do realize that a patent just provides intellectual property rights, don’t you? It says nothing about effectiveness. If you want to demonstrate medical effectiveness, the hurdle you need to overcome is FDA approval. Patents are barking up the wrong tree.

  68. nybgrus says:

    hmmm, seems my other comment is in moderation for some reason…

    anyways… it is funny how Ms. King keeps blathering on with the same useless stuff:

    I was the biggest skeptic you could ever meet, that’s why I have become so involved because I kept trying to disprove it and in the process became convinced, there’s just too much compelling evidence to ignore even

    Yet you also admit you have absolutely no background in any relevant science, can’t reconcile actual experts (btw, I am a Year 4 medical student and Gears is a professional synthetic chemist, never mind the fact that the author of this post is a fully qualified physician), and that “it just makes sense.” So which is it? Skeptic looking at evidence which you admit you can’t understand or a shill hawking for a product she can’t defend or someone who got suckered in and truly believes the nonsense despite how much evidence is actually against your claim?

    I mean seriously, you claim “compelling evidence” while at the same time saying you have no idea how to understand the relevent evidence!!

    And I’m contacting NMR experts and sending emails all over the world trying to answer those completely ridiculous technical q’s, I WILL get those answers for nybgrus or die trying.

    LOL. Thanks. I won’t hold my breath though. I’ve never had someone say they would do something for me “or die trying” though. Not sure how to feel about that.

    Lastly, we can say up front that any in-house, non peer reviewed “study” or youtube video of a talk by a paid ASEA representative at an ASEA sponsored “conference” simply is not evidence. We won’t consider it, because it is worthless to the conversation, especially with so many valid criticisms against the product at literally every single level of evidence imagineable.

  69. weing says:

    @TracyKing,

    I suggest that you get a copy of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Pharma. See how study results can be manipulated. Then consider that Big Pharma doesn’t have a monopoly on these types of shenanigans.

  70. TracyKing says:

    I can’t afford to do testing myself, nor do I have the background or knowledge or time to do it, so yes I’m going to rely on the testing they have provided on their own product as something to go on but of course I thoroughly examined all their evidence and immersed myself in the research that exists that ASEA did not provide me and sought outside resources to help me examine the evidence. That’s what you do right? You don’t just summarily dismiss hypotheses, you use those as a basis for discussion and expand on them. I have read some of those books which is why I WAS the biggest skeptic, I’m not lying about that either, geez! In fact I wrote a scathing email to a bunch of networkers which is why I got the attention of someone at corporate who informed me I could be sued because I was being so aggressive in my condemnation of them (and MLM) so I got some individual attention and was able to get all my questions satisfactorily addressed. And actually if you do some due diligence on the MLM industry you will find that there is a curriculum being taught in reputable universities now. This industry has produced more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry including medicine, professional sports, law, accounting, Hollywood. It is attracting intelligent people because it leverages resources like company support, research, training, and people, and creates residual income… without massive amounts of overhead, startup costs, or know-how. It’s entrepreneurship at its best. I like my odds.

  71. TracyKing says:

    Sure, I get it nybgrus, I’m not a scientist like you but here’s what you’re missing… I don’t NEED empirical studies because I have seen the results in people I know whose lives have been PROFOUNDLY impacted by this product, this is WHY I’m able to take all this personal badgering. So what if you don’t think they have the right science to support the results, I think they do but let’s assume they don’t, they will find another route to prove it out, the results are what counts. I’m passionate about the RESULTS I’m seeing in ME and my FAMILY, these results cannot be discounted, I don’t need the WHY. The testimonials are a starting point for research and that is exactly what they are doing. This takes time. It costs $100m and 12 years for a DRUG to get through FDA approval for ONE indication which is why they did not choose to go down that route when it was already proving to have positive effects without toxicity on several complicated disease processes as backed up by clinical trials as if it was going through drug approval for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis and HIV which were listed on the patents.

    They have the VP of the ACSM doing testing for them, that’s more credible than ANY product in the MLM industry. They will never have studies on disease processes, that would be against the law if they tried to make a claim as I’m sure you’re well aware of. They are doing HEALTH studies instead of disease studies. They did not go down the pharmaceutical route on purpose despite 16 years and $16m in research with a pharmaceutical research company.

    I AM PASSIONATE BECAUSE I SUSPENDED MY DISBELIEF AND NOW I AM APPROACHING THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN EMOTIONAL FIRST-HAND MIRACLE-OBSERVER, THE REST WILL ALL COME IN TIME, I’M NOT WAITING. I’m sorry that people who read this will be swayed by you and will wait, but that’s how all great breakthroughs happen. I’m sure there were more than a few naysayers when somebody said moldy bread had anecdotal benefits.

  72. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I can’t afford to do testing myself, nor do I have the background or knowledge or time to do it

    Actually, you can. Get ASEA. Make a salt-water substitute that tastes the same (or as close as you can get it). You now have a placebo. Choose an outcome measure – best if it is objective. Get someone else to label your placebo and active intervention (salt water and ASEA respectively), recording which is which in such a way that you can check who got what after the fact, but can’t tell while you’re actually testing. Normally this consists of something known as an “envelope”. Get five people. Give them one or the other, recording which they got, then undertake your test and record the outcome measure. Wait a couple days. Repeat, this time giving them whatever they didn’t get in the first place. Compare. You’ve just conducted a preliminary trial – not very useful as your n (experimental group size) is low. If your results are truly as dramatic as you claim, hey, you might even have something you could publish!

    That’s the skeleton of an experimental trial. Keep increasing your n and you might have something respectable. The core ideas regarding clinical trials and testing are not particularly difficult to grasp. R. Barker Bausell’s Snake Oil Science goes into them in reasonable detail, but also lays out why they are important and what value each step adds.

    Nobody here is summarily dismissing the hypothesis, we are pointing out the flaws in the evidence, the conflict of interest and self-serving nature present with the current evidence, and the basic skepticism you are required to address before any reasonable scientist will take you seriously. You are making extraordinary claims – why should we believe them when your evidence is so poor? Why should we support people handing over money (and inflating hopes of the sick and desperate) in the face of such poor evidence? “Enriching the manufacturer”, “it provides jobs” and other broken-window type fallacies are certainly not enough, nor is “because it helps people”. At this point it looks like an expensive, self-serving way to “help” people who would be better served with real hope. At $75 a bottle, that’s a lot to pay for a placebo. Even homeopathy is at least relatively cheap.

    Incidentally, which of those books have you read?

    actually if you do some due diligence on the MLM industry you will find that there is a curriculum being taught in reputable universities now. This industry has produced more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry including medicine, professional sports, law, accounting, Hollywood. It is attracting intelligent people because it leverages resources like company support, research, training, and people, and creates residual income… without massive amounts of overhead, startup costs, or know-how. It’s entrepreneurship at its best. I like my odds.

    I’m sure it is, it’s a fantastically lucrative business model for the early-entrants. It just happens to be outrageously exploitive for subsequent entrants (and anyone with a conscience). Merely because a university is teaching about the topic doesn’t make this particular product effective, nor does it make the business model ethical, nor does it mean you’ll get rich.

    Also, for a skeptic you’re surprisingly unaware of the fact that “you can make millions” isn’t evidence that your product is effective. I will say it one more time – IF ASEA IS AS EFFECTIVE AS YOU CLAIM IT WOULD BE EASY TO DEMONSTRATE IN WELL-CONTROLLED TRIALS. Jumping over those easy to conduct trials is an enormous red flag that ASEA has ethical, scientific and empirical flaws. You are making extraordinary claims, you need to realize your evidence is not comparably extraordinary.

  73. Narad says:

    This industry has produced more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry including medicine, professional sports, law, accounting, Hollywood.

    With those sort of cipherin’ skills, I can see why you’re looking to get out of the CPA racket.

  74. Harriet Hall says:

    Tracy is only a skeptic wannabe. She did question ASEA’s claims, but then she accepted testimonials and company propaganda without adequately questioning them (her skepticism had a double standard). She did not look into the possibility that there were other explanations for the testimonials: see Barry Beyerstein’s “Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbelief.html) and other considerations, for instance human psychology, basic science, and incorrect labeling. She allowed herself to be persuaded and is now deep into confirmation bias. My rule is before you accept a claim, try to find out who disagrees with it and why. She failed to do that and now it is too late because she has swallowed the Kool-Aid and is unable to process information that contradicts her beliefs.

    Rather than ridicule her for doing what comes naturally, what the human brain evolved to do well, we should be kind to the handicapped. Her thinking is handicapped by her lack of education in the critical thinking skills that must be learned to overcome our evolutionary flaws. I hope she will continue to read this blog and learn from it.

  75. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    …I don’t NEED empirical studies because I have seen the results in people I know whose lives have been PROFOUNDLY impacted by this product, this is WHY I’m able to take all this personal badgering.

    The fact that you see this as a strength rather than a problem is in large part the reason why you are getting so much criticism here. I suggest, again, that you read Mistakes were made (but not by me).

    the results are what counts.

    Acutally, it’s less the results than what caused them. Look up the Hawthorne effect. Results are easy to get, it’s linking them to a specific intervention rather than nonspecific effects is what counts.

    It costs $100m and 12 years for a DRUG to get through FDA approval for ONE indication which is why they did not choose to go down that route when it was already proving to have positive effects without toxicity on several complicated disease processes as backed up by clinical trials as if it was going through drug approval for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis and HIV which were listed on the patents.

    A single drug being able to help in all those diseases is a red flag. Were these results show in objective measures (i.e. well-understood lab tests) or subjective measures (self-report or observation by company observers)? Were the anecdotes verified? Did you make an effort to find people who weren’t helped by ASEA? If 100 people use ASEA, 95 of them aren’t helped, but 5 got better simply because people often get better (at least over the short term), and ASEA gets sent five anecdotes – where do you think they come from? Do you think ASEA is honest enough to publish on their website someone saying “I tried ASEA and it didn’t do a damned thing for me”?

    They have the VP of the ACSM doing testing for them, that’s more credible than ANY product in the MLM industry.

    I was under the impression that ASEA was a part of the MLM industry.

    They will never have studies on disease processes, that would be against the law if they tried to make a claim as I’m sure you’re well aware of.

    And also requires inconvenient amounts of objectivity, verification and truth, I’m sure.

    I AM PASSIONATE BECAUSE I SUSPENDED MY DISBELIEF AND NOW I AM APPROACHING THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN EMOTIONAL FIRST-HAND MIRACLE-OBSERVER, THE REST WILL ALL COME IN TIME, I’M NOT WAITING.

    And that, again, is why nobody here is taking you seriously. People were just as passionate that the Earth was flat, that bloodletting cured disease, that Zeus was responsible for lightning, that laetrile cured cancer, and that China was the centre of the universe. Ask Steve McQueen how that worked out for him. Your passion and unsubstantiated claims of efficacy are not remarkable. They’re not special. And above all, they are not convincing. Passion is not evidence, it is bias.

    I’m sorry that people who read this will be swayed by you and will wait, but that’s how all great breakthroughs happen. I’m sure there were more than a few naysayers when somebody said moldy bread had anecdotal benefits.

    Fucking really? I’m sorry, did Alexander Fleming look up from his lab dish and start leaving bread out to sell to the public? Or did he spend years testing and proving it worked? Wikipedia says Ancient Greeks and Indians used mouldy bread to treat infections, that Fleming dropped some bread in a petri dish in 1928. Mass production started in…1945. The difference being, of course, that instead of a bunch of claims that it helped, Fleming took the time to scientifically test it and publish the results. You want your miracle salt to cure the world? Test it, don’t sell it. Direct marketing without testing is flat-out unethical. Even if you are doing good, failure to test and publish the results means you are doing good on a far smaller scale than you could if you got an article published in JAMA.

  76. TracyKing says:

    This is from Dr. Gary Samuelson, the scientist in question, he got back with pretty quickly! Please do call him, what do you have to lose? That way you can talk scientist to scientist, he is talking to scientists from all around the world, he will not be offended by your disbelief, he hears it all the time.

    nybgrus and gears, can you please tell me if this helps answer your question at all? If not, what else do you need? And can you be as specific and brief as possible please? Thanks for your help!

    My Ph.D. research was on NMR of hyperolarized polycrytaline Xe129. I know the theory intimately and have even built NMR spectrometers, but do not have time to elucidate right now. The spectra shown is from P31 NMR in the DIPPMPO molecule, targeting the phosphate. The peaks represent the chemical shifts due to the attachment of two known adducts OH* and OOH* to DIPPMPO. These adducts are formed in the presence of superoxides. The peaks represent definitive evidence of the existence of stable superoxides in the product. The complexes that hold the superoxides stable are part of the redox signaling molecules in ASEA.
    -Gary

  77. weing says:

    @Harriet,

    She also has skin in the game now, making it more difficult than ever to save face. It’s very difficult to realize and admit that you were stupid. It can and has been done.

  78. TracyKing says:

    William of course I have done thorough testing and picture taking and Visia scans of complexion analysis… and I got caught up in that at the beginning but what I found was that it didn’t help, in fact it hurt, because that’s what everybody thought THEY had to to do too. I’ve got an ASEA album of pics on my facebook and I still take pics, as do many other reps, but it just doesn’t seem to carry any weight with people like you and I’m not trying to attract people like you anyway. And I read “Bad Science,” as if that matters.

    I’m as much of a skeptic as someone outside of academia can be. Anyone who knows me can tell you that it is to my detriment, as evidenced by how much time I’ve wasted arguing with people who cannot be swayed in the hopes that it will help people who are just like me, take a closer look and not just dismiss this as salt water after the see the headline… that IS exactly what people are doing, you have to know that. They don’t even read the comments they just send me the link as their “smoking gun.” I have immersed myself in glutathione studies, antioxidant efficacy as well as studying the industry… whereas most people in this industry can just start talking to people and building a strong business with blinders on! I WISH that was me!

    And it’s $30/bottle not $75, which lasts 8 days. A month’s supply is $120 on autoship and that’s enough for 2 ounces bid. And I’ll say it again, they are working on several trials right now and they will have a published study in a peer-reviewed journal in April. Let’s talk then.

  79. Narad says:

    that’s enough for 2 ounces bid

    You are on very thin ice using language such as this.

  80. “I don’t NEED empirical studies because I have seen the results in people I know whose lives have been PROFOUNDLY impacted by this product”

    This is a profoundly naive statement. We do need empirical studies, because you cannot trust the results you think you have seen. Anecdotes are overwhelmed by placebo effects and confirmation bias. We have been here a thousand times before – fantastical claims, dodgy science, and nothing but anecdotes. There is absolutely no reason to think that this time the claims are real.

    The image of Charlie Brown kicking a football comes to mind.

  81. Narad says:

    And I’ll say it again, they are working on several trials right now and they will have a published study in a peer-reviewed journal in April.

    I skipped this previously. Speaking as someone with substantial experience in journals publishing, I am confident in informing you that this statement in and of itself badly undercuts your credibility. If this were a paper submitted to a journal, the publication date would not yet exist. If it had been submitted and accepted, you could (1) identify it and (2) explain a four-month lead time from acceptance, which, given that high impact factors and hence clogged pipelines are right out, implies a seriously backwater operation, a commissioned special issue, or both.

  82. nybgrus says:

    Of course all the critiques by WLU, narad, Dr. Novella, Dr. Hall, et al are spot on.

    nybgrus and gears, can you please tell me if this helps answer your question at all? If not, what else do you need? And can you be as specific and brief as possible please? Thanks for your help!

    For me it doesn’t help at all. Perhaps Gears can comment if it does. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since it was just now that my comment came out of moderation but the crux is that the ROS/RS species purported to exist in the literature you have provided are not the same as the ones the NMR spectra appears to show. I don’t care if Samuelson has built NMR machines, designed them from the ground up, or can use magical lasers in his eyes to just look at a compound and get the NMR spectra – the data shown in the video does not match the data purported in the studies.

    And before you get too excited thinking that settling that issue will fix the problem here (well, in addition to every other critique leveled thus far) even if the NMR data matched the “literature,” those ions/ROS/RS being present don’t fix the problem either – there is no known biological mechanism by which these molecular species would induce the extremely varied and universally beneficial changed ASEA purports to do.

  83. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I’m not saying read Bad Science the webpage, I’m saying read Bad Science the book (by Ben Goldacre, though the excellent one by Gary Taubes on cold fusion could also be instructive), which provides much material similar to his website, but in greater depth (and if I recall correctly, he goes into a couple general reasons why regular experts are better than fake ones, and the basics of scientific testing including controls). Even if you have read Bad Science, website or either of the books, you apparently didn’t absorb the lessons it attempts to impart.

    I’m as much of a skeptic as someone outside of academia can be.

    Academia and skepticism, sadly, don’t necessarily overlap. One does not have to be a scientist to question extremely improbable claims, like salt water magically forming hitherto-unrecognized redox compounds that will cure all diseases and survive passage through the digestive tract. One merely needs to ask whether something is too good to be true and on the balance of probabilities, whether perhaps the someone might be fibbing to make a quick buck.

    Anyone who knows me can tell you that it is to my detriment, as evidenced by how much time I’ve wasted arguing with people who cannot be swayed in the hopes that it will help people who are just like me, take a closer look and not just dismiss this as salt water after the see the headline… that IS exactly what people are doing, you have to know that.

    Do you know why it’s been a waste of time? Because you have no real evidence. You think you do, but you don’t understand why you don’t. If you actually understood the scientific process and how medicine, healing and placebo works, you wouldn’t be here.

    Again I go back to – would you give money to someone who promised to triple it risk-free within 30 days as long as they are paid in cash in increments of $1000 per share?

    They don’t even read the comments they just send me the link as their “smoking gun.” I have immersed myself in glutathione studies, antioxidant efficacy as well as studying the industry… whereas most people in this industry can just start talking to people and building a strong business with blinders on! I WISH that was me!

    Oh, honey. That is you, you’re just pretending the blinders are flashlights.

    Please post a link to a peer-reviewed journal article that shows your magic salt water in any way influences glutathione. Step two would be showing it has these effects in rats, step three is in humans, and step for is in humans after oral consumption. Then you are ready to start a phase II controlled trials (phase III? Which one is where you’re actually using sick people?).

    And it’s $30/bottle not $75, which lasts 8 days. A month’s supply is $120 on autoship and that’s enough for 2 ounces bid. And I’ll say it again, they are working on several trials right now and they will have a published study in a peer-reviewed journal in April. Let’s talk then.

    Claiming that a bottle is $30 instead of $75, for 8 days ($4 per day for salt water? Really?) is merely proving that when someone is ripped off, it’s for slightly less money. You’re still selling people salt water and claiming it’s got magical healing with no actual proof. If Bernie Madoff had only ripped people off for a couple hundred million dollars instead of several billion, does that mean he’s less guilty, or his actions somehow pardonable?

    Please, stop calling yourself skeptical until you know what the word means.

  84. nybgrus says:

    Now, now WLU.

    It is actually reasonable to expect that ROS would affect glutathione. It is one of our antioxidant molecules after all – you know, to stop oxidative damage from free radicals generated during oxidative level phosphorylation.

    Of course, that still doesn’t address how ingesting ROS would do that in any physiologically meaninful way and it is at odds with all the anti-oxidant mumbo jumbo people seem to still love, but hey, what are we here? Medical scientists?

    Come on man, just go with the flow and feel the vibe, man. It’s all good. Just spread some love because this agression will not stand, man.

  85. nybgrus says:

    Dangit, second link is copy of first.

    This agression will not stand, man

  86. Sialis says:

    A month’s supply is $120 on autoship and that’s enough for 2 ounces bid.

    You are on very thin ice using language such as this.

    I hope the ice cracks.

    As a consumer, if I were to believe the ASEA ads and testimonials being promoted by licensed medical professionals as well as people like Tracy King, then I could spray ASEA on my cuts and wounds to speed their healing. People and pets with gum problems could spray it in their mouth and like magic, their periodontal problems would resolve. Spray it in your eyes, and improve your vision. No more tinnitus, no more need for antidepressants. Taking ASEA for six months would enable me to stop taking blood pressure medication. If someone is vomiting from potential food poisoning, I could successfully treat them with 6 ounces of ASEA. ASEA claims “This is REAL “health insurance”" and that people have even successfully used ASEA to treat small masses.

    I’m starting to see the problem here – you skeptic Docs and scientists will all be out of a job soon, because ASEA will cure all diseases. It’s a conspiracy – you just feel threatened.

    If I were to believe the promos, those unfortunate hospice patients could simply bounce back to health simply by taking ASEA @ “2 ounces bid”. That sounds like ASEA is indeed being marketed as a drug, especially when such claims are also being made by physicians.

    My goodness, what it must be like to see a dying person, laying in hospice care, sick and lonely and afraid, desperate and so wanting to live and love again. And then to have an ASEA sales rep enter the room and tell them that they can indeed extend their life and regain their health – the path to wellness is ASEA. I ask you, what kind of sick and twisted medical predator would do this to hospice patients? In my opinion, that should earn a felony for the sales rep.

  87. TracyKing says:

    @JJ Borgman, here is the patent information, it was just quicker to do a google search, I’m sorry.
    PATENT INFORMATION AT LINK: http://WWW.FAQS.ORG/PATENTS/APP/20090110749

    Method and apparatus for producing a stabilized antimicrobial non-toxic electrolyzed
    Saline solution exhibiting potential as a therapeutic – Patent application

    Patent application title: Method and apparatus for producing a stabilized
    antimicrobial non-toxic electrolyzed saline solution exhibiting potential as a
    therapeutic

    Inventors: Verdis Norton Gary L. Samuelson

    Agents: MARCUS G THEODORE, PC

    Assignees: Medical Management Research, Inc.

    Origin: SALT LAKE CITY, UT US

    IPC8 Class: AA61K3340FI

    USPC Class: 424616

    Abstract:

    An improved method and apparatus is disclosed for producing a stable, non-toxic,
    antimicrobial electrolyzed saline solution with a broad range of anti-infective
    and therapeutic applications. The resulting solution is balanced to normal and
    hypertonic saline and has been shown to exhibit remarkable antimicrobial,
    antiviral and therapeutic characteristics. The nature of this solution makes it
    suitable for applications in food safety, animal health, agriculture and
    sterilization. The solution also exhibits a marked lack of toxicity upon
    intravenous, aspired, oral or topical application in mammals. The therapeutic
    applications represent a broad platform, possibly covering a variety of
    potential areas of use, including topical disinfection, antimicrobial
    application, wound treatment, oxidative stress reduction and enhancement of
    immune function to better detect malfunctioning cells.

    Claims:

    1. A method for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species
    (ROS), comprising:a. preparing a saline solution having a saline concentration
    of at least about 0.15%,b. inserting within the saline solution an inert anode
    and a spaced apart corresponding inert cathode associated with a power source,c.
    regulating the temperature of the saline solution to maintain a solution
    temperature sufficient to prevent production of chlorates and regulate relative
    concentrations of resulting components during electrolysis,d. circulating the
    saline solution to maintain a flow of the saline solution between the anode and
    cathode, ande. applying an effective voltage potential less than about thirty
    volts between the cathode and the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture
    of chemically reduced and oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl),
    Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine
    (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to 200 ppm and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide
    (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding
    amounts of Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50
    ppm, Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-, Hydroxides
    (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen
    Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-), and total ROS between 0.05 to 50 ppm, utilizing
    electron and proton donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport; the temperature,
    anode and cathode spacing, saline solution circulation rate, and effective
    voltage combination selected to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies and
    stable specie compositions containing stable ROS compounds while preventing
    production of chlorates.

    2. A stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline solution exhibiting
    anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a therapeutic containing
    regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS), comprising a balanced
    mixture of chemically reduced and oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid
    (HOCl), Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine
    (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to 200 ppm and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide
    (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding
    amounts of Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50
    ppm, Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides
    (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen
    Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-), and total stable ROS compounds between 0.05 to
    50 ppm.

    3. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal, comprising:a. preparing a
    saline solution having a saline concentration of at least about 0.15%,b.
    inserting within the saline solution an inert anode and a spaced apart
    corresponding inert cathode associated with a power source,c. regulating the
    temperature of the saline solution to maintain a solution temperature sufficient
    to prevent production of chlorates and regulate relative concentrations of
    resulting components during electrolysis,d. circulating the saline solution to
    maintain a flow of the saline solution between the anode and cathode, ande.
    applying an effective voltage potential less than about thirty volts between the
    cathode and the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture of chemically
    reduced and oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), Hypochlorites
    (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to
    200 ppm and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2),
    Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding amounts of
    Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50 ppm,
    Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides (NaOH,
    OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species
    (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-), and total ROS between 0.05 to 50 ppm, utilizing
    electron and proton donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport; the temperature,
    anode and cathode spacing, saline solution circulation rate, and effective
    voltage combination selected to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies and
    stable specie compositions containing stable ROS compounds while preventing
    production of chlorates, andf. administering the electrolyzed saline solution
    balanced mixture to a human or warm-blooded animal for therapeutic use to attack
    infective microbes and enhance the ability of the immune system to recognize and
    destroy damaged or malfunctioning cells.

    4. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm blooded-animal according to claim 3,
    wherein the electrolyzed saline solution balanced mixture is administered by
    injection, oral or anal ingestion, applied topically, used as a bath, applied in
    a wound dressing, or inhaled in atomized form.

    5. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
    wherein the saline solution balanced mixture is placed in container means
    fabricated from a biologically compatible material.

    6. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm blooded-animal according to claim 3,
    wherein the anode is made of a base metal selected from the group consisting of
    platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with platinum bonding and is
    coated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the base metal.

    7. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 6,
    wherein the anode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar) shaped structure.

    8. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
    wherein the cathode is positioned coaxially or in parallel in relation to the
    anode.

    9. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
    wherein the cathode is made of a base metal selected from the group consisting
    of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with platinum bonding and
    is plated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the base metal.

    10. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 7,
    wherein the cathode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar) shaped structure.

    11. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
    solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
    in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
    wherein the spacing between the cathode and the anode is less than about one
    inch.

    12. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
    saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species
    (ROS), comprising:a. a container filled with a saline solution having a saline
    concentration of at least about 0.15%,b. an inert anode and a spaced apart
    corresponding inert cathode placed within the saline solution,c. a temperature
    regulator for regulating the temperature of the saline solution to maintain a
    solution temperature sufficient to prevent production of chlorates and regulate
    relative concentrations of resulting components during electrolysis,d.
    circulation means associated with the container for circulating the saline
    solution to maintain a flow of the saline solution between the anode and
    cathode,e. a power source associated with the anode and cathode to apply an
    effective voltage potential less than about thirty volts between the cathode and
    the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture of chemically reduced and
    oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-,
    NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to 200 ppm and
    Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions
    (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding amounts of Superoxides
    (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50 ppm, Activated Hydrogen
    ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet
    Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (*OCl,
    *HO.sup.-), and total ROS between 0.05 to 50 ppm, utilizing electron and proton
    donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport; the temperature, anode and cathode
    spacing, saline solution circulation rate, and effective voltage combination
    selected to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies and stable specie
    compositions containing stable ROS compounds while preventing production of
    chlorates.

    13. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
    saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
    according to claim 12, wherein the container is fabricated from a biologically
    compatible material.

    14. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
    saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
    according to claim 12, wherein the anode is made of a base metal selected from
    the group consisting of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with
    platinum bonding and is coated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the
    base metal.

    15. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
    saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
    according to claim 14, wherein the anode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar)
    shaped structure.

    16. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
    saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
    according to claim 15, wherein the cathode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar)
    shaped structure and is positioned coaxially or in parallel in relation to the
    anode.

    17. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
    saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
    according to claim 16, wherein the cathode is made of a base metal selected from
    the group consisting of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with
    platinum bonding and is plated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the
    base metal.

    18. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
    saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
    according to claim 12, wherein the spacing between the cathode and the anode is
    less than one inch and is dependent upon ion transfer rates and electric fields
    to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies to produce different varieties of
    solution components all containing stable ROS compounds.
    Description:

    BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

    [0001]1. Field

    [0002]This invention pertains to an electrolytic method and apparatus for
    producing electrolyzed saline redox-balanced solutions. More particularly, it
    pertains to a method and apparatus used to produce a stable, non-toxic,
    antimicrobial electrolyzed saline redox-balanced solution from pure saline or
    hypertonic saline (NaCl and H.sub.2O), both referred to hereafter as saline
    solution, exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
    therapeutic employing a balanced mixture of chemically reduced and oxidized
    species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO),
    dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine (Cl.sub.2) and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases,
    Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO)
    and corresponding amounts of Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone
    (O.sub.3), Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-),
    Hydroxides (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of
    Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-).

    [0003]2. Prior Art

    [0004]Electrolysis of saline solutions has long been used to produce
    antimicrobial solutions that are compatible with mammalian biology. Some
    examples include methods to produce chlorinated water, bleach and hydrogen
    peroxide. Typically, the methods and apparatus used to electrolyze these
    solutions employ ion-selective barriers between the electrodes in order to
    efficiently isolate the target molecules and eliminate unwanted byproducts. A
    fundamentally different method and apparatus for producing a non-toxic
    antimicrobial electrolyzed saline solution is disclosed in eight United States
    patents, and two Japanese patents and a Mexican patent based on these U.S.
    patents, all held by the applicant, covering various other applications for
    intravenous injected electrolyzed saline solution (named MDI-P) the machinery
    that manufactures it and the method by which it is manufactured. These U.S.
    patents are as follows:

    [0005]U.S. Pat. No. 5,334,383, Morrow, dated Aug. 2,
    1994 entitled [0006]“Electrically Hydrolyzed Salines as In Vivo Microbicides for
    Treatment of Cardiomyopathy and Multiple Sclerosis.” This patent covers a method
    of treating antigen related infections related to cardiomyopathy and multiple
    sclerosis in humans and other warm blooded animals. It does not cover the MDI-P
    Substance itself, but covers a particular use of the substance. This method of
    treatment includes the use of an electrolyzed saline solution in conjunction
    with one or more modulating agents such as ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), with or
    without concurrent colchicine, to mimic or enhance the body’s naturally
    occurring immune response to bacterial, viral or fungal infection. The duration
    of this patent is until Aug. 2, 2011, subject to patent term extension for
    clinical trial time.

    [0007]U.S. Pat. No. 5,507,932, dated Apr. 16, 1996 entitled
    [0008]“Apparatus for Electrolyzing Fluids.” This patent covers equipment that
    exposes a liquid solution to an electrical current, creating an electrolyzed
    solution. This equipment may be used to produce an electrolyzed saline solution,
    capable of killing bacterial, viral and fungal agents, for use in medical
    applications such as the treatment of antigen related infections in humans and
    other warm blooded animals. This patent covers the equipment used to produce
    MDI-P, not the substance itself. The duration of this patent is until Aug. 26,
    2014.

    [0009]U.S. Pat. No. 5,560,816, Robinson, dated Oct. 1, 1996 entitled
    [0010]“Method for Electrolyzing Fluids.” This patent covers a method for
    electrolyzing fluids, by using specialized equipment to expose liquid solutions
    to an electrical current. Saline, for example, may be treated by this process to
    yield an electrolyzed saline solution, capable of killing bacterial, viral and
    fungal agents, for the treatment of antigen related infection in humans and
    other warm blooded animals. This patent covers the method by which MDI-P is
    produced, not the substance itself. The duration of this patent is until Aug.
    26, 2014, subject to patent term extension for clinical trial time.

    [0011]U.S.
    Pat. No. 5,622,848, Morrow, dated Apr. 22, 1997 entitled [0012]“Electrically
    Hydrolyzed Saline Solutions As Microbicides For In Vitro Treatment Of
    Contaminated Fluids Containing Blood.” This patent covers a method of treating
    whole blood and other blood products with an electrolyzed saline solution to
    reduce infection with bacterial, viral and fungal agents. This patent covers a
    particular use of MDI-P, not substance itself. The duration of this patent is
    until Apr. 22, 2014, subject to patent term extension for clinical trial time.

    [0013]U.S. Pat. No. 5,674,537, Morrow, dated Oct. 7, 1997 entitled [0014]“An
    Electrolyzed Saline Solution Containing Concentrated Amounts Of Ozone And
    Chlorine Species.” This patent covers a specific electrolyzed saline solution
    containing a regulated amount of microbicidal agents including ozone and active
    chlorine species. This solution is intended for use in the treatment of
    infections in the body of humans and other warm blooded animals, or in blood or
    blood products. This patent covers the MDI-P substance. The duration of this
    patent is until Oct. 7, 2014, subject to patent term extension for clinical
    trial time.

    [0015]U.S. Pat. No. 5,731,008, Morrow, dated Mar. 24, 1998 entitled
    [0016]“Electrically Hydrolyzed Salines as Microbicides.” This patent covers a
    method of using a specific electrolyzed saline solution containing a regulated
    amount of microbicidal agents including ozone and active chlorine species for
    the treatment of microbial infections, including HIV infection. The method
    includes intravenous administration of the solution along with one or more
    modulating agents such ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), with or without concurrent
    colchicine. This patent covers a method for using MDI-P, not the substance
    itself. The duration of this patent is until May 23, 2010, subject to patent
    term extension for clinical trial time.

    [0017]U.S. Pat. No. 6,007,686, Welch et
    al, dated Dec. 28, 1999 entitled [0018]“System for Electrolyzing Fluids for Use
    as Antimicrobial Agents.” This patent covers a system for electrolyzing fluids,
    such as a saline solution, for use in sterilizing dental and medical instruments
    and other health care equipment. The patent covers the necessary equipment for
    generating and circulating the electrolyzed saline solution around the
    instruments to be sterilized, and includes specific claims for equipment
    designed for use with dental drill hand pieces and flexible tubing. This patent
    covers a process by which MDI-P may be made for a particular use, not the
    substance itself. The duration of this patent is until Aug. 26, 2014.

    [0019]U.S.
    Pat. No. 6,117,285, Welch et al, dated Sep. 12, 2000 entitled [0020]“System for
    Carrying Out Sterilization of Equipment.” This patent covers a system for
    cleaning and sterilizing medical and dental instruments to prevent the spread of
    infection from one patient to another. The covered system bathes the instrument
    in an electrolyzed saline solution and causes the solution to flow into and
    sterilize any openings in the equipment. It includes specific claims for systems
    designed specifically for the sterilization of dental drills and flexible
    tubing. This patent covers a particular use of MDI-P, not the substance itself.
    The duration of this patent is until Aug. 26, 2014.

    [0021]The two Japanese and
    one Mexican patents provide corresponding coverage in those countries for
    several of the U.S. patents. Applicant also has pending applications with the US
    Patent and Trademark Office for patents on MDI-P as a pharmaceutical treatment
    for cystic fibrosis, sepsis and asthma.

    [0022]The above embodiments of these prior patents typically have produced
    measurably different variations of electrolyzed saline solution. Each variation,
    however, exhibited some antimicrobial action and many of these devices produced
    solutions with measurable amounts of the components (chlorine, pH, ozone, etc.)
    within the range of the disclosed regulated amounts. The resulting electrolyzed
    saline compositions, however, have not historically been satisfactorily
    consistent or controllable, specifically regarding the concentrations of
    Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS). In addition, these prior inventions could produce
    toxic chemicals (chlorates) in the process of electrolyzing the saline solution.
    Consequently, there is a need for an improved manufacturing method and
    apparatus, such as that described below, to consistently produce solutions
    suitable for therapeutic applications in humans and warm-blooded animals.

    SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

    [0023]The improved method and apparatus described below provides an improved
    electrolyzing fluid containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen
    species (ROS) particularly suited for stable, non-toxic antimicrobial
    applications and to aid the immune system in identifying and destroying
    malfunctioning cells. The invention comprises a method for making an
    electrolyzed saline solution for use as an in vivo treatment of a human or
    warm-blooded animal. Specifically, it comprises:

    [0024]a. placing a saline solution having a saline concentration of at least
    about 0.15% within a container,

    [0025]b. activating a fluid circulation device to maintain a flow of the saline
    solution between the electrode surfaces,

    [0026]c. adjusting the temperature of the circulating saline at a preferred
    level to prevent production of chlorates and regulate the relative
    concentrations of resulting components

    [0027]d. placing in the saline solution an anode and a cathode associated with a
    power source, and

    [0028]e. applying an effective voltage potential less than about thirty volts
    between the cathode and the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture of
    chemical redox balanced species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl),
    Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine
    (Cl.sub.2) and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2),
    Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding amounts of
    Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3), Activated Hydrogen ions
    (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen
    (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-)
    utilizing electron and proton donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport to
    produce a specific redox balanced set of molecules and ions. This redox-balanced
    set of molecules and ions in combination are a potent anti-infective and help
    the immune system identify and destroy malfunctioning cells.

    [0029]This electrolyzed saline solution is then administered to a human or
    warm-blooded animal for therapeutic use. Preferably, the electrolyzed saline
    solution is administered by injection, oral or anal ingestion, applied
    topically, used as a bath, applied in a wound dressing, or inhaled in atomized
    form.

    [0030]The container for producing the electrolyzed saline solutions is
    fabricated from a biologically compatible material. In addition, the anode is
    made of a base metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, niobium,
    titanium or any metal compatible with platinum bonding with an outer layer of
    platinum bonded to the base metal. The shape of the anode has a cylindrical, or
    flat (planar) shaped structure. The anode is preferably permeable to fluid flow.

    [0031]Usually the cathode is positioned coaxially or in parallel in relation to
    the anode. This cathode is made of a base metal selected from the group
    consisting of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with platinum
    bonding with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the base metal and has a
    cylindrical, or flat (planar) shaped structure similar to that of the anode and
    is also preferably permeable to fluid flow.

    [0032]The spacing between the surfaces of the cathode and the anode is typically
    not greater than about one inch. This invention has means to circulate and
    regulate the temperature of fluids during production, has appropriate electrode
    design and has methods that effectively stabilize the composition of the
    resulting solution.

    [0033]The temperature, fluid flow and effective voltage are chosen as to
    eliminate production of chlorates and to create the desired mixture of
    components. These parameters are determined by experimentation. The resulting
    solution is consistently stable and suitable for in vivo therapeutic
    applications. The stable ROS concentration, for example, has a variation of less
    than 5% from batch to batch and from device to device when the same set of
    parameters are employed by each.

    [0034]The effective voltage may be applied by direct current, alternating
    current, or various combinations of alternating current and direct current power
    sources, resulting in a combined effective voltage ranging anywhere between 0
    and 30 volts. The effective voltage is chosen to eliminate the production of
    chlorates and to create the desired mixture of components containing stable ROS.
    For example, a typical temperature range of the saline solution is from 30 deg.
    F. to 100 deg. F. In the lower temperature range, less O.sub.2 is absorbed by
    the fluid and the fluid has smaller electrical conductivity, therefore higher
    effective voltages can be utilized to maintain adequate electrical current
    required to provide regulated amounts of stable ROS without significantly
    increasing the probability of creating chlorates and while maintaining a pH of
    7.2 to 7.5.

    [0035]The effective voltage may be adjusted, as desired, to regulate the
    concentration of the components and the pH of the resulting solution over a
    large variety of temperatures and fluid flows. Wherein it is difficult to
    theoretically determine the concentrations of all the various resulting chemical
    components when given any specific set of parameters, the optimal effective
    voltage, fluid temperature and flow are determined by experimentation. This
    methodology allows for the intentional regulation of concentrations of the
    specific chemical components in these stable ROS enriched solutions, allowing
    for the optimization of solutions intended for specific purposes.

    [0036]The method and apparatus thus provides a stable, ROS enriched,
    antimicrobial, non-toxic electrolyzed saline solutions, hereinafter referred to
    as Reoxcyn, with a specific redox-balanced set of molecules and ions in solution
    that has the ability to attack infective microbes and enhances the ability of
    the immune system to recognize and destroy damaged or malfunctioning cells.

    [0037]Reoxcyn solutions are balanced to normal and hypertonic saline and have
    been shown through extensive, repeatable research by accredited laboratories to
    be stable, non-toxic and exhibit remarkable antimicrobial, antiviral and
    therapeutic characteristics. Besides the therapeutic applications, the nature of
    these solutions also makes them suitable for applications in food safety, animal
    health, agriculture and sterilization. The solutions exhibit a marked lack of
    toxicity upon intravenous, aspired, oral or topical application in mammals.

    [0038]Reoxcyn solutions provide a broad platform for anti-infective and
    therapeutic applications covering several potential areas of use, including
    topical disinfection, antimicrobial application, wound treatment, oxidative
    stress reduction and enhancement of immune function. Reoxcyn solutions, being
    that they contain regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS), are
    particularly suited for enhancing the ability of the immune system to recognize
    and destroy damaged or malfunctioning cells. Such solutions can also be
    administered in a number of different ways appropriate for the desired
    therapeutic application.

    [0039]Furthermore, all of the molecular components found in these solutions are
    involved in a growing field of scientific investigation categorized as redox
    messaging and regulation of genes. Such molecular components, being a balanced
    set of reduced species (RS) and reactive oxygen species (ROS), are the same
    molecules and ions that mirror those found in biological systems and are
    intimately involved in the ability of the immune system to recognize, detect,
    eliminate and heal infected, damaged or mutated tissues in mammals.

    [0040]The measurement of concentrations of ROS inside the solutions has been
    done by means of a fluorospectrometer, Nanodrop 3300, and three varieties of
    fluorescent dyes, R-Phycoerytherin (R-PE), Hydroxyphenyl fluorescein (HPF) and
    Aminophenyl fluorescein (APF), that are commonly used to determine relative ROS
    concentrations inside active biological systems and cells. The molecules in
    these dyes change shape, and therefore fluoresce only when exposed to molecular
    components in ROS. The resulting change in fluorescence can then be detected by
    the fluorospectrometer and can be related to the concentration of ROS present.
    ROS concentrations in Reoxcyn are verified and detected by either APF or R-PE
    fluorescent dyes, both of which produce entirely consistent measurements of
    relative concentrations of ROS in various concentrations and dilutions of
    Reoxcyn. Dr. James Clagett has linked the ROS measurements in Reoxcyn, using
    R-PE fluorescent dye, to the reaction of this dye to regulated concentrations of
    2/2′-Axobis(2-methylpropionamide)dihidrochloride, a molecule that produces known
    amounts of ROS. This is not an absolute measurement, but it relates ROS in
    Reoxcyn it to amounts of a known producer of ROS.

    [0041]These fluorescent dyes are often used in combination with a fluorescence
    microscope to create high-resolution images of the build-up of ROS (oxidative
    stress) inside individual living cells. These dyes have been shown to
    specifically be sensitive to concentrations of ROS regardless of complex
    surrounding chemical environments.

    [0042]Although APF and R-PE dyes are capable of measuring relative ROS
    concentrations in Reoxcyn, no known absolute standard concentration for
    stabilized ROS in pure saline solutions exists. Furthermore, discrepancies in
    the decay time of these fluorescent dyes make measuring standardized amounts of
    ROS in other solutions incompatible with measuring those found in Reoxcyn. This
    may be due, in part, to the molecular complexes in Reoxcyn that keep the ROS
    concentration stable, effectively shielding the free radicals from readily
    reacting with the dyes. The standard for ROS concentration in Reoxcyn is
    therefore measured relative to the ROS concentration in a standardized solution
    that has been used in all of the antimicrobial and toxicity studies to date,
    both published and unpublished. Methods to measure absolute ROS concentrations
    in Reoxcyn are actively being pursued.

    [0043]The regulated amounts of ROS, thus measured, inside a variety of the
    Reoxcyn solutions produced by various embodiments of this invention have been
    shown to be stable, consistent and predictable, sufficient for therapeutic
    applications.

    DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

    [0044]FIG. 1 is a side view of one preferred embodiment of the invention.

    [0045]FIG. 2 is a top view of the preferred embodiment of the invention shown in
    FIG. 1.

    DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATED EMBODIMENTS

    [0046]FIG. 1 is a side view of an embodiment of the invention. It has a
    container 101, which holds a saline solution having a saline concentration of at
    least about 0.15% to 1.0% by weight. The container may be fitted with a lid 100.
    The container 101 has a cylindrical anode 101a and a surrounding concentric
    cylindrical cathode 101b positioned on its bottom 105. The anode 101a and
    cathode 101b are operably associated with a power supply 107. The power supply
    107 provides a source of electrical current with an effective voltage of under
    30 volts via wires 106 affixed to the anode 101a and a cathode 101b.

    [0047]The anode 101a is a mesh cylindrical ring comprised of titanium with an
    outer layer of platinum bonded to the titanium base. The cathode 101b is a
    cylindrical mesh ring comprised of titanium with an outer layer of platinum
    bonded to the titanium base that is positioned coaxially about the anode 101a.
    The spacing between the cathode 101b and the anode 101a, at the preferred flow
    rate below, is typically not greater than about one inch. Moreover, the
    effective voltage potential between the cathode 101b and the anode 101a is not
    greater than a preferred amount, typically under 30 volts.

    [0048]A temperature regulation device, such as a combination heating/cooling
    device, is positioned along the sides 104 inside the container 101 to exchange
    heat with the saline solution in order to maintain the saline solution at a
    desired temperature between 30 deg. F. to 100 deg. F.

    [0049]A circulation tube 102 is mounted on the exterior of the container 101
    with openings connecting and in communication with the top and bottom interior
    of the container 101. The circulation tube 102 is associated with a fluid pump
    103 to provide for fluid circulation and flow inside the container 101. This
    allows saline solution in the container 101 to flow through the anode 101a and
    cathode 101b assembly at a preferred flow rate, typically between 0.1 to 50
    cc/cm.sup.2/sec.

    [0050]FIG. 1 also shows a second circulation tube 102 and fluid pump 103
    similarly structured and mounted on the exterior of the opposite side of the
    container 101 that performs a similar fluid circulation function. This two tube
    102 circulation structure and flow pattern insures complete mixing and
    electrolysis of the saline solution to produce ROS concentrations calculated to
    be between 0.05 and 50 ppm.

    [0051]FIG. 2 is a top view of the preferred embodiment of the invention shown in
    FIG. 1.

    [0052]Although this reference has made reference to the illustrated embodiments,
    it is not intended to limit the scope of the claims. The claims themselves
    recite those features deemed essential to the invention.

    Patent applications by MARCUS G THEODORE, PC
    0.01.02.03.04.05.02001-102003-042004-082005-072006-062007-092008-062009-11

    Patent applications in class Hydrogen peroxide
    0.01.42.84.25.67.02005-012005-112006-092007-072008-072009-032009-092010-02

    Patent applications in all subclasses Hydrogen peroxide
    0.03.06.09.012.015.02005-012005-122007-032008-042008-112009-052009-112010-05

  88. TracyKing says:

    @WLU “Acutally, it’s less the results than what caused them. Look up the Hawthorne effect. Results are easy to get, it’s linking them to a specific intervention rather than nonspecific effects is what counts.”

    Agreed. That’s exactly WHY they commissioned testing at the Human Performance Laboratory. They can’t know why it works either, at least not enough to provide the proof for mass media attention. They did the tests to help give them some direction on where to go next with more enhanced studies. It’s just that the findings were so surprising that they decided to show us what they’ve determined so far… that the body mobilizes free fatty acids for fuel which produces less metabolic waste which might explain why athletes report less soreness. They are trying to find out the WHY’s.

    “A single drug being able to help in all those diseases is a red flag. Were these results show in objective measures (i.e. well-understood lab tests) or subjective measures (self-report or observation by company observers)? Were the anecdotes verified? Did you make an effort to find people who weren’t helped by ASEA? If 100 people use ASEA, 95 of them aren’t helped, but 5 got better simply because people often get better (at least over the short term), and ASEA gets sent five anecdotes – where do you think they come from? Do you think ASEA is honest enough to publish on their website someone saying “I tried ASEA and it didn’t do a damned thing for me”?”

    When it was under a pharmaceutical company umbrella, THEY did the tests for diseases, it was being pursued as a drug for IV therapy for cancer. They WERE pursuing FDA approval and it got to phase 2 until they ran out of money and investors. It was originally developed as a way to clean dental equipment so tests included killing staph, candida and HIV on contact within 5 minutes with 99% dilution. The next step became, can it kill HIV in blood, and then can we test it on other pathogens? Then can it kill HIV in humans in Africa, etc… It was all investigative to get to a point where they could figure out WHY it was working and what its best use might be, what the best disease to market a drug for would be, no doubt probably what disease could it best be developed to make a profit so they did diabetes testing. It was looked at as a way to clean water for livestock… it was just “testing,” years and years and millions and millions worth of TESTING to even get it to the next stage.

    “I was under the impression that ASEA was a part of the MLM industry.”
    I’m sorry, I should have said that it’s more testing than any OTHER product in the MLM industry is wiling to do on their product. Or in the toothpaste or make-up industry or nutrition industry for that matter.

    And thanks for making my point that penicillin worked 20 years before its use. It could have saved countless lives. But it wasn’t until the syphillus outbreak in WW2 that forced its use without testing which then fueled studies. It was dismissed too initially. I hope it doesn’t take an anthrax attack in the US before people embrace this technology. Surely in the technology age we can shorten the turnaround down to 5 years instead of 20?

  89. Narad says:

    Tracy, copying and pasting patents in toto is utterly meaningless.

  90. Sialis says:

    Patent application title: Method and apparatus for producing a stabilized
    antimicrobial non-toxic electrolyzed saline solution exhibiting potential as a
    therapeutic

    Inventors: Verdis Norton Gary L. Samuelson

    This is indeed a patent application as previously mentioned. Anyone can apply for a patent. Doing so does not in any way evidence that the product or device performs as claimed.

  91. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    1) A patent is meant to defend intellectual property, not demonstrate that something is medically effective; if you want to demonstrate that ASEA is anything but overpriced salt water, the threshold is a peer-reviewed journal article, and the ultimate hurdle is FDA approval.

    2) What does freeing fatty acids for metabolic fuel have to do with curing diseases? Is ASEA a performance enhancer, a magical cure, or both? Is there anything it can’t do?

    3) So…you’re saying Big Pharma had miracle drug that treated multiple diseases with no side effects and they didn’t pursue it? The scale I use to rate the absurdity of nonsense needs to be recalibrated.

    Are you sure it wasn’t more like “hey, this salt water doesn’t really work well because it’s just salt water” and they moved on to more profitable areas? Because a single, patentable compound that can effectively and safely treat multiple diseases is pretty much the holy grail of pharmaceutical development. Drug companies spend millions of dollars trying to repurpose neuroleptics as GI modulators, or beta blockers as anti-anxiety medication, or antidepressants as sleeping pills. I’m sure you have been told all of the things you say above, I’m sure you can provide me with a bunch of useless ASEA webpages that make these claims – I just don’t think they’re true and I don’t think you have any independent evidence. Why would Big Pharma spend millions on a product that was actually effective – then simply abandon it? You’ve got an MBA, why don’t you give me the business perspective on this?

    Surely in the technology age we can shorten the turnaround down to 5 years instead of 20?

    And every day you spend on message boards desperately trying to drum up business is one more day that wasn’t used to test this miracle you believe in. According to your own standard, you are the problem. If you really want to help people with your magic salt water – you need to research and publish. Why don’t you go do that?

  92. TracyKing says:

    @ everybody! Of course I know about the placebo effect! But animals don’t know about placebo. I’ve seen dogs with limps walk normally after drinking it for 3 days. I’ve seen horses with conjunctivitis in the eyes be cleared up in hours. My daughter had pink eye, one spray at night and it was gone the next day (forgot to spray the other eye though but that was easy enough to remedy). It helped my 10-year tinnitus in 3 weeks and the numbness and tingling down my arm from an 8-month old bulging disc problem at C5-C6, my years-old bacterial infection in my eyes cleared up after 3 weeks of spraying even though the warm compresses and continuous lens cleanings didn’t work. My cat’s abcess cleared up in less than 10 hours. Did my cat know about the placebo effect? Did my plant know about it, because I bought identical peace lillies and sprayed them with water and ASEA but the ASEA one thrived? Did my friend who had has a 20-year-old disabled sister tell her that her diaper rash would clear up if she sprayed it because it did clear up despite dozens of medications that didn’t work. Did my nursing home friend tell the old lady with the bed sore that ASEA THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER BY A FRIEND was going to help it even though she’d tried antibiotics for 8 months to no avail? I only know of one hospice story and it was my friend in Berea KY who was given it by a friend, she didn’t pay for it, nobody is prEying on hospice people, good Lord! Her hair grew back black at the base of her neck, she started gaining weight and she’s out of hospice care now. I’m trying to be compliant here, I’m not even telling all the REALLY compelling stories I know that have labwork to back it up! Enough to fill a room, this YOUTUBE (I know you love youtube’s!) is my friend Cindy Sawyer in Versailles KY and I don’t think it’s compliant but it’s already out there so I’ll use it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iHjsiRCn20. I know Cindy’s husband who is an international Christian artist, a documentary has been made about his work, I know her son, I’ve watched his progress. These aren’t people who are just trying to make a buck. Believe me, quite the opposite is true! We are GIVING AWAY more product than any amount of money we have made because we just can’t help it when we know how much it will help someone. There’s more to life than money, the only reason I want to make it is to give more away! And to give more ASEA away! I want to leave a legacy for my kids, they don’t care if I die rich… was I a good person and did I live my life with integrity and did I make a difference? That’s what I want to leave behind, not a big fat bank account for them. They need to find their own way and I hope they don’t chase money, it doesn’t buy happiness. Money won’t buy you a good night’s sleep. Money won’t buy you peace of mind. I have that!!!

  93. JJ Borgman says:

    Dear Ms. King,

    An echo, (echo, echo), of what you have cited is useless. There seems to be NO patent. Please give the seven digit patent number for the patent. A Patent Application number comprises nothing in regard to an actual patent. In other words, there is no patent.

  94. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, thin ice? My mom has Alzheimer’s, and that how doctors talk to me, and you said you were a doctor so I was talking straight to you. I don’t understand your comment. I was trying to be concise.

  95. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, about the patents, he asked for them.

  96. Narad says:

    You’ve got an MBA

    Although apparently not an active CPA license in Kentucky, BTW.

  97. TracyKing says:

    @ WLU “Again I go back to – would you give money to someone who promised to triple it risk-free within 30 days as long as they are paid in cash in increments of $1000 per share?”

    Who the hell talks like this? No ASEA rep I have ever met has EVER used anywhere close to language resembling that tired rhetoric. Find me one who talks like that! We’re a different breed, we’re not attracting those slime balls, they can’t make their quick buck, they might come in for a while but they leave quickly, this is a JOB like any other, they take their gold chain-wearing selves to the juice and shake companies, that’s not us. Most ASEA reps have spouses who are doctors, chemists, biologists and that’s how they’ve become successful, I’m not successful because right now we’re in education mode in the USA, it’s slow and tedious, we’re not flashing big checks and promising a Mercedes. I am investing my time right now in the hopes that we will reach the language the appeals to the common people, or we get the studies that give us the medical community backing so that we don’t have to educate, just market. Sounds like you got cornered by a bad Amway rep back in the day? Are you a doctor cuz I’ve had some bad doctor experiences but I don’t generalize that ALL DOCTORS are horrible arrogant people who don’t care and are out to take my money and put my mom on prescriptions that cause more harm than good. I’ve never gotten my money back on a prescription that didn’t work, and there have been PLENTY for her! ASEA offers a complete 30-day empty bottle money-back unconditional guarantee. Do I get money back if my mom’s doctor gives us bad advice? Or charges us for a worthless clinic visit? SHEESH I WISH!!!!!!!!!!

  98. Sialis says:

    There’s more to life than money, the only reason I want to make it is to give more away! And to give more ASEA away!

    OMG! You’re truly a saint. You have magic water that can cure all disease and restore the elderly to youth, and you want to give away all the money you make.

  99. TracyKing says:

    @ JJ Borgman, are you retarded or illiterate? These are the U.S. patent numbers listed right on the bottle and in the patent document: 5,507,932 cited at [0007], and 5,674,537 cited at [013], 6,007,686 cited at [017], and 6,117,285 [019].

    These are the the other patents:
    [0005] 5334383
    [0009] 5560816
    [011] 5622848
    [015] 5731008
    [019] 6117285
    [021] 2 Japanese and 1 Mexican patent

Comments are closed.