Articles

603 thoughts on “Fan Mail from an ASEA Supporter

  1. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad “Although apparently not an active CPA license in Kentucky, BTW.”

    WOW! I never said I was. I voluntarily surrendered my license in 2010 because I got tired of paying $200 every other year and doing the continuing education knowing that I was never going back to it. I worked for Deloitte and Touche, a “Big 6″ firm at the time, I haven’t done public accounting since 1990 and I’ve been out of the accounting profession since 1998. My CPA certificate number was 5568 and was awarded Nov. 20, 1992. I got a full scholarship to Brescia College (now called University) and graduated in THREE years with a BS in Acctg Summa Cum Laude and received “Most Outstanding Accounting Student” in 1988-1989. I was awarded my MBA from the University of Kentucky December 1990 where I graduated with a perfect 4.0. I don’t know NMR but I am certainly not incapable of learning, or a liar.

  2. TracyKing says:

    @WLU we don’t NEED peer-reviewed studies BECAUSE WE’RE A SUPPLEMENT NOT A DRUG! The fact that we are PURSUING THEM ANYWAY means we CAN!

  3. Sialis says:

    Those patents are old patents and are for sterilization equipment and solutions. The solutions are not for human consumption or the treatment of human disease, nor for improving athletic performance. Are you claiming that these are ASEA’s patents?

  4. Sialis says:

    This is fraud.

  5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    animals don’t know about placebo. I’ve seen dogs with limps walk normally after drinking it for 3 days.

    How do you know they wouldn’t have gotten better without the ASEA? Once I had a cut on my arm. I ate peanut butter sandwiches for a week – and my arm got better! Peanut butter sandwiches HEAL LIKE JESUS!!!!

    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).

    Viral conjunctivitis disappears without treatment.

    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.

    Could you imagine if you mixed it with Windex? WE COULD FINALLY TURN THIS ECONOMY AROUND!!! And, of course, give you streak-free windows!

    Again, all of your anecdotes are not more convincing when summed together, nor do we have any way of verifying that they are 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.

    Do you know what would help even more people? Controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Seriously, every single character you type here is a complete waste of everyone’s time, time that could be better spent testing your god damned salt water. We don’t care how many tumors it cured on your father’s sister’s pet food supplier’s plumber’s house cat’s ass. If it is as effective as you say, it will be easy for you to demonstrate this in controlled trials, and your results will be easily replicable. For that matter, you could almost certainly get the FDA to fast track it. So go, research, publish, then return effulgent and triumphant. In short order you will have a Cochrane review you can rub our faces in, then a Nobel Prize. But please, just go.

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

    Really? I make money to spend it on food, clothes, mortgage and candy. You should incorporate as a charitable foundation, you’ll get some sweet tax deductions for giving away your salt water.

    did I live my life with integrity and did I make a difference?

    If you think you’ve lived your life with integrity, we have different definitions of the word.

    That’s what I want to leave behind, not a big fat bank account for them.

    Again, you have an MBA? Are you sure? Does it stand for something different than what I’m expecting, because I’m pretty sure ASEA is made by a company, that pretty much just exists to have a fat bank account – and is using a MLM plan to achieve it.

    Money won’t buy you a good night’s sleep. Money won’t buy you peace of mind. I have that!!!

    Correct me if I’m wrong, I believe the quality of your sleep is completely unrelated to the efficacy of your product. I’m not interested in your personal happiness – I’m interested in whether there is anything to back up your claims beyond “the internet”. Anyone can say anything on the internet, and it doesn’t make it true. For instance – you are a rooster. Carefully examine your extremities and oral cavity – I’m sure you will note the distinct lack of feathers and a beak.

    Who the hell talks like this?

    When people don’t understand a topic, analogies are used to try to help. I’m trying to show you what skepticism should look like by bringing it closer to an area where you (supposedly) have enough knowledge to understand why I am reluctant to take you at your word. It’s apparently not working.

    they can’t make their quick buckblahblahblahgold chain-wearing selvesblahblahblahI’m not successfulblahblahblahflashing big checks and promising a Mercedesblahblahblahthe common people

    None of which is proof that ASEA is effective. Peer reviewed studies are however, particularly if replicated by an independent lab.

    so that we don’t have to educate, just market. Sounds like you got cornered by a bad Amway rep back in the day?

    Yeah, wrong on both counts. You research first, then you sell. That’s the ethical way to do it. I’ve never encountered an Amway rep in person, I just dislike MLM’s penchant for forcing their sales people to shoulder all the risk.

    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’m not a doctor, I’ve just an ounce of common sense. You should advocate for a national health care service by the way, publicly-funded insurance is awesome and it might mean you aren’t treating cancer with salt water.

  6. TracyKing says:

    @WLU CAN YOU READ? ASEA is not is saying it cures diseases! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT! FIND ME SOME CORPORATE LITERATURE THAT SAYS THAT! We have a compliance dept that monitors this closely and educates associates on how to speak plainly without having to speak about disease! We don’t have to go there, WE DON’T HAVE TO SAY IT!

    If you understand that:
    1) IF YOUR CELLS ARE HEALTHY THEN YOU’RE HEALTHY
    2) ALL DISEASE CAN BE LINKED TO DAMAGED CELLS
    3) ALL HEALTH AND WELLNESS BEGINS WITH HEALTHY CELLS…
    … then why in the world do we have to do specific tests on isolated diseases IF WE ARE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM? The fact that we are proving our product out through athletic testing, antioxidant efficiency testing, absorption testing, metabolite testing, and who knows what other testing they is currently underway… shows that we are respecting academia but we can STILL BE CREDIBLE without having to make disease claims! New research is showing that it’s not about antioxidants, it’s about ACTIVATING the antioxidants and antioxidants are only activated in the presence of REDOX SIGNALING MOLECULES. This has only recently come to light. It’s no wonder you all are skeptical, I GET IT, I GET IT, I TOTALLY GET IT! But just because we don’t have peer-reviewed studies on a disease process doesn’t mean PEOPLE AREN’T GETTING RESULTS! And just because people are getting results doesn’t mean THAT IT IS ALL ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLACEBO OR ALL PEOPLE ARE LYING! What kind of logic is this?! Reasonable people reveal yourself!

  7. TracyKing says:

    Does this mean ANYTHING to ANYONE? I doubt it but wanted to show it anyway. It will make sense to you later. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9350680.htm

  8. JJ Borgman says:

    Dear Ms. King,

    We don’t know each other well enough to use terms of endearment such as ” retarded”. So you may KMA in that regard. Apparently the use of proper manners has eroded in Kentucky in your generation. I’m sure your daddy would slap your mouth.

    Just the same, I don’t have a bottle from which to take patent numbers. I only referred to your link to a “patent” claim which does not bear out. It is Not a patent. It is a patent application. Please try to focus.

  9. TracyKing says:

    @ WLU “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.”

    No they DID pursue it! The company commissioned a movie called “The Genesis” to document and confirm this claim. You can watch it at http://www.asea.net. They got offers from 3 pharmaceutical companies, Barre Pharmaceuticals is the only named one. J&J has been rumored to be the other one. But they would have required that all machines, copyrights, patents be handed over. Verdis was in his 70′s, HE would have had to turn over HIS machine and not have access, and people he PERSONALLY KNEW who were having life-changing results on the product would have had to STOP IMMEDIATELY. And it wasn’t clear what the pharmaceutical company would DO with it IF they bought it, it could conceivably not be available to the public for years, or at an exhorbitant price, or only for one disease indication, or that it would be shelved, especially if it competed with a therapy or drug that made more money for the pharmaceutical company than an alternative cure. After all, diseases like diabetes create a cash flow of pharmaceuticals, if you CURE something, then where’s the profit margin on that? Blah blah blah, conspiracy, but still conceivably true nonetheless.

  10. Narad says:

    WOW! I never said I was.

    Yes, you did:

    TracyKing on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:57 am

    I want to be right, I want to help people, I have good ethics. But I’m a CPA with an MBA….

    I understand that one may not wish to keep up one’s licensure, but then the thing to say is “I used to be a CPA” or “I’m a CPA (inactive),” as opposed to “I’m a CPA.” I was once a notary public, but I don’t run around trying to invoke this in the present tense.

  11. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    we don’t NEED peer-reviewed studies BECAUSE WE’RE A SUPPLEMENT NOT A DRUG! The fact that we are PURSUING THEM ANYWAY means we CAN!

    Marketing a product as a supplement rather than a drug is a tactic used by many companies to avoid having to do the kind of rigorous studies to make actual medical claims. You appear to be bragging about this when you should be ashamed of it. The only reason you can make such ridiculous claims is because of the DSHEA (which should be repealed).

    CAN YOU READ? ASEA is not is saying it cures diseases! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT! FIND ME SOME CORPORATE LITERATURE THAT SAYS THAT! We have a compliance dept that monitors this closely and educates associates on how to speak plainly without having to speak about disease! We don’t have to go there, WE DON’T HAVE TO SAY IT!

    This is another tactic used by supplement manufacturers – the company scrupulously avoids making claims of efficacy. Instead, the dupes selling their products make the claims for them. Again, the dupe shoulders the risk, the company makes the profit. I bet your compliance department is very, very careful to avoid saying anything that could get it prosecuted – mostly because it can’t back up its claims with real evidence. This is not a point of pride – its more evidence of how unethical the business and your company is. For FSM sake, Cherios can say it lowers cholesterol because there’s proof for one of its ingredients. Your company can’t even meet the same threshold of proof as a cereal box. Be proud.

    1) IF YOUR CELLS ARE HEALTHY THEN YOU’RE HEALTHY
    2) ALL DISEASE CAN BE LINKED TO DAMAGED CELLS
    3) ALL HEALTH AND WELLNESS BEGINS WITH HEALTHY CELLS…
    … then why in the world do we have to do specific tests on isolated diseases IF WE ARE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM?

    You have been carefully groomed by your company to avoid making these claims because if you do, you can get sued and you can get them sued. Again, this is not because you don’t need to prove your claim, this is essentially corporate malfeasance just this side of what is legal. The reason people don’t jump from test tubes to treatments is because the body is incredibly complicated, your cute little syllogism rests on the truth of your premises – which unfortunately use the word “healthy”. Obviously you are not aware that there is no universally accepted definition of “healthy” in the medical literature; it is meaningless. Another reason you are no doubt encouraged to use it.

    who knows what other testing they is currently underway… shows that we are respecting academia but we can STILL BE CREDIBLE without having to make disease claims!

    Nope, it means you are putting on a good show for the product you are selling without enough evidence to concretely say it does something clinically meaningful.

    New research is showing that it’s not about antioxidants, it’s about ACTIVATING the antioxidants and antioxidants are only activated in the presence of REDOX SIGNALING MOLECULES.

    Hm…obviously I missed the post where you linked to the peer-reviewed study that demonstrated ASEA has in vivo effects on redox signalling. Or perhaps you are still a rooster?

    I GET IT, I GET IT, I TOTALLY GET IT! But just because we don’t have peer-reviewed studies on a disease process doesn’t mean PEOPLE AREN’T GETTING RESULTS! And just because people are getting results doesn’t mean THAT IT IS ALL ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLACEBO OR ALL PEOPLE ARE LYING! What kind of logic is this?! Reasonable people reveal yourself!

    Clearly you don’t get it, because you’re still trying to substitute anecdote for data.

    Does this mean ANYTHING to ANYONE?

    It means you’re trying to substitute a press release for actual evidence (again).

    No they DID pursue it! The company commissioned a movie called “The Genesis” to document and confirm this claim.

    My GOD why didn’t YOU SAY SO!! THEY DON’T LET JUST ANYONE MAKE A MOVIE AND PUT IT ON THE INTERNET!!!! Incidentally, there’s an entire category of movie reviews you might want to check out. It might make you a little less trusting of stuff you find on YouTube and in press releases.

    After all, diseases like diabetes create a cash flow of pharmaceuticals, if you CURE something, then where’s the profit margin on that? Blah blah blah, conspiracy, but still conceivably true nonetheless.

    You should check your dictionary; conceivable isn’t the same thing as “actually happened”.

    And you seriously think that if Big Pharma had a cure for cancer, they couldn’t make money off of it? Are you sure you have an MBA? You can’t think of any situation in which Big Pharma could make money off of a cure for cancer (hint – they could sell it to people with cancer).

  12. TracyKing says:

    @ Sialis “Those patents are old patents and are for sterilization equipment and solutions. The solutions are not for human consumption or the treatment of human disease, nor for improving athletic performance. Are you claiming that these are ASEA’s patents?”

    No the patents listed on the bottle and in the patent application were created to protect the PROCESS by which ASEA is made. The ingredients are unpatentable. Let’s say I’m right and we have created balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the same molecular formation as your body makes them and they can be utilized by your body’s cells to bring them in balance so that unbalanced free-floating free radicals are neutralized, there is increased capacity for signaling to be received and transmitted with greater clarity to the immune system… we do ALL the research, testing, marketing… and then people can just learn how to make it themselves, undercut our price, skirt around the individual marketer, make it in China and sell it at Wal-Mart for cheap! Since they have no sunk costs to recoup — somebody else did all the work for them — they just get to come in and scoop it all up! Thankfully, there’s a 3-day patented PROCESS using sudden temperature changes and electric currents to vibrate the molecules apart and put them back together in a different molecular formation that is stable (because it’s enveloped in salt water molecules) and non-reactive (until it comes in contact with organic matter). The PROCESS is what’s patentable, no we don’t have a patent on a cure for diseases or for athletic performance.

  13. Narad says:

    Does this mean ANYTHING to ANYONE?

    Yes, that you think advertising material is some sort of insurmountable force in the battle against evidence.

  14. Sialis says:

    They got offers from 3 pharmaceutical companies, Barre Pharmaceuticals is the only named one.

    Where is this “Barre Pharmaceuticals” located and who is the CEO?

  15. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, “I understand that one may not wish to keep up one’s licensure, but then the thing to say is “I used to be a CPA” or “I’m a CPA (inactive),” as opposed to “I’m a CPA.” I was once a notary public, but I don’t run around trying to invoke this in the present tense.”

    Ok fine, sorry, I was proud that I had obtained it, I passed 3 parts on the first try and then picked up law the 2nd time. You’re so right, I should have said “I’m a CPA (inactive)” but my POINT in bringing it up was that I did NOT pretend to have knowledge of chemistry or medicine. I wasn’t trying to solicit your business to do your taxes.

  16. Sialis says:

    Tracy, Give me the name of the person at Barr.

  17. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    As HUGELY entertaining as this is, there’s only so much repetition even I can take. I’m going to bed, and I eagerly await the arrival of new anecdotes, special pleading, unverifiable information, press releases and youtube videos that will greet me with the new day.

    Here I am now, entertain me!

  18. Narad says:

    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?

    It’s not every day that one sees the Benneth homeopathy defense repurposed, but I suppose some inferences may usefully follow.

  19. Sialis says:

    Interesting that someone has created a Facebook page for “Barre Pharmaceuticals” with only one Friend and not other entries. It does not seem that such a company is in business, or if it is it’s certainly not a major pharmaceutical company. On the other hand, if Tracy did indeed mean Barr Pharmaceuticals, she should be able to provide detailed information as to who from Barr was involved in this big pow wow. I’d like the names and date of the meeting, Tracy.

  20. TracyKing says:

    @ WLU “Marketing a product as a supplement rather than a drug is a tactic used by many companies to avoid having to do the kind of rigorous studies to make actual medical claims. You appear to be bragging about this when you should be ashamed of it. The only reason you can make such ridiculous claims is because of the DSHEA (which should be repealed).”

    The fact that it takes $100m and 12+ years to get a technology to market is what you should be ashamed of. There are plenty of technologies that WORK but that aren’t pursuable because of investment required. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxArVCsKho

    “This is another tactic used by supplement manufacturers – the company scrupulously avoids making claims of efficacy. Instead, the dupes selling their products make the claims for them. Again, the dupe shoulders the risk, the company makes the profit. I bet your compliance department is very, very careful to avoid saying anything that could get it prosecuted – mostly because it can’t back up its claims with real evidence. This is not a point of pride – its more evidence of how unethical the business and your company is. For FSM sake, Cherios can say it lowers cholesterol because there’s proof for one of its ingredients. Your company can’t even meet the same threshold of proof as a cereal box. Be proud.”

    OR… we’re trying to create a paradigm shift whereby people quit thinking diseases are “curable” but rather understand that 80% of diseases are “preventable.” Doesn’t that send a better message? A more TRUE message? One that lets us AVOID a Dateline exclusive of an ASEA meeting where people are getting up on stage and saying their cancer was cured only to be caught on hidden camera… and fined and dismantled… who do you think might have initated that hidden camera excusive? A pharmaceutical company that is making a trillion off chemo/radiation? I think it’s a smart route myself.

    “Nope, it means you are putting on a good show for the product you are selling without enough evidence to concretely say it does something clinically meaningful.”
    Only time will tell. Keep watching.

    “Hm…obviously I missed the post where you linked to the peer-reviewed study that demonstrated ASEA has in vivo effects on redox signalling. Or perhaps you are still a rooster?”

    You can look that up, I’m not going to do your work FOR you, it will mean more to you if you find it. It’s out there. It’s published material on redox signaling. Hint: start with the research links enumerated here: http://www.asea.net/usa/science/redox-signaling-research

    “And you seriously think that if Big Pharma had a cure for cancer, they couldn’t make money off of it? Are you sure you have an MBA? You can’t think of any situation in which Big Pharma could make money off of a cure for cancer (hint – they could sell it to people with cancer).”

    Oh they COULD make money off it, but why would they introduce it if they’re ALREADY making more money than they could if they came out with their cure? Is that so hard to believe my dear Watson? If so, that’s naive. It’s about the money for them, make no mistake.

  21. Narad says:

    Let’s say I’m right and we have created balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the same molecular formation as your body makes them and they can be utilized by your body’s cells to bring them in balance so that unbalanced free-floating free radicals are neutralized, there is increased capacity for signaling to be received and transmitted with greater clarity to the immune system… we do ALL the research, testing, marketing… and then people can just learn how to make it themselves, undercut our price, skirt around the individual marketer, make it in China and sell it at Wal-Mart for cheap!

    “We”?

    TracyKing on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:06 am

    I don’t work for corporate

  22. Sialis says:

    I want names and dates, Tracy. Good night.

  23. TracyKing says:

    @ Sialis, I wish I could provide it, it’s not like I was there. I’m just a lowly associate, I’m not privy to such information. I shouldn’t have said the name of the company, it has not been named in company documents to my knowledge. The fact that they made a movie to support that a solid offer by a pharmaceutical company WAS MADE puts them in the hot seat if it’s not true. Personally I think it’s unlikely they would just make it up out of thin air but then again I’m a skeptic not a cynic, I’m sure you need the proof. For what it’s worth, here’s the 1-minute video showing that they are unequivocably professing to have had an offer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgbnwcdlvc. But play along for a minute… let’s say it IS true that they got an offer — do you think a pharmaceutical company would make an offer if there wasn’t some validation? Remember they are getting to look at the vaulted research we aren’t privy to since it’s a supplement now.

    Here’s another juicy tidbit: consider that it took two years between ASEA purchasing MDI-P and consulting with Dr. Samuelson to devise the discovery that was even bigger than how to make it (how to STABILIZE it). The scientist team DID finally figure out how to keep it shelf stable (prior to that time, it was only stable for about 30 minutes before becoming inactive), yay! But that also meant that ALL those preliminary safety, toxicity, efficacy studies would need to be REPEATED — and would cost MILLIONS of dollars — because it wasn’t the same solution anymore, it was a new solution. Sounds like a crossroads doesn’t it? And consider how hard it is to find investors who are willing to belly up $100m for a product to go up against big pharma, or be consumed by them or not be marketable because somebody beats you to it or comes up with something better… drug mining is risky. What decision would YOU have made? Sounds like a good movie doesn’t it? Let me know if you want it, I’ll mail you the DVD.

  24. Narad says:

    OR… we’re trying to create a paradigm shift whereby people quit thinking diseases are “curable” but rather understand that 80% of diseases are “preventable.” Doesn’t that send a better message? A more TRUE message?

    You seem to have left out the part where one reads Kuhn before invoking him.

  25. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad… “We? I don’t work for corporate”

    I like to think I’m part of the company as their representative. But no I’m not on any corporate payroll. When I worked for an employer, I ALWAYS said “we,” don’t you? Even when I worked for Wal-Mart as a teenager, I said “How can WE serve you?” I was a consultant with Pampered Chef and I said “OUR products…” I was their representative and I was treated like family. I worked for Kentucky Utilities and “WE” had a softball team. Seriously though, THAT’S where we’re going with this now? Are you all used to talking to trolls who disguise themselves as non-corporate so that’s why you all use this kind of abrasive condescending language on here? I’m sorry, I’m sure that’s frustrating.

  26. TracyKing says:

    @Sialis. “Interesting that someone has created a Facebook page for “Barre Pharmaceuticals” with only one Friend and not other entries. It does not seem that such a company is in business, or if it is it’s certainly not a major pharmaceutical company.”

    There’s a facebook page called Sialis with 1 like, does that mean YOU’RE not real?!

  27. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, “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.”

    Yes of course you are right, I concur completely. They EXPECT that it will be published in the spring so I’m just saying April to be safe, I’m sure with Murphy’s Law that it will be even later, I hope not. But regardless, the process is underway. If it takes until NEXT April, then that’s how long it takes, but be forewarned, we WILL have published peer-reviewed data eventually. AND NOT ON A DISEASE PROCESS! I just HAD to throw that in one last time for the benefit of people who keep repeating the same misinformed arguments, obviously without reading any previous comments (cough… WLU).

  28. Narad says:

    When I worked for an employer, I ALWAYS said “we,” don’t you?

    Absolutely not. I’ve had to explain fairly rigid policies and negotiate mutually acceptable paths around them, but this is different from the MLM marketing model, which apparently involves some sort of now-I’m-in-now-I’m-out-SMILE! shtick.

  29. Narad says:

    But regardless, the process is underway.

    If you cannot identify the journal (and note that your construction of this scenario requires a single journal), you’re plainly full of beans.

  30. Sarah from Germany says:

    Greetings again,

    As mentioned before, the first company that discovered this technology, Medical Discoveries Inc. decided to seek FDA approval for 2 indications – cystic fibrosis and an adjunct to HIV. Here is an article they released about their initial findings.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-discoveries-inc-announces-receipt-of-cystic-fibrosis-pre-clinical-report-on-mdi-p-74148372.html

    Here is another document released to verify the ROS and RS in Asea. http://asea.myvoffice.com/pdf/en/ASEA_Component_Verification_Document.pdf

    Asea is not at liberty to publish all the findings and research that Medical Discoveries Inc. (MDI) completed because MDI was working through the FDA in the pharmaceutical realm. When Asea decided not to sell the intellectual property, they decided to pursue approval through the FTC in the nutriceutical realm. I am sure you all realize, that in this realm, they can not make any claims to cure, treat or prevent any diseases just to boost immune function in the body. There are many MD’s and PhD’s accepting this technology every day. There is truth behind this product, you just need to know where to look to find proper, credible evidence. I encourage you all to do your own research and due diligence. Contact Dr.Samuelson, he is the mastermind behind it all. Imagine that everything I have told you is true, how could this product really impact the quality of life for so, so many people? Realize that my time is very valuable and that I only come here to share what I know because I have such a deep conviction in this product. Sick people deserve to know that Asea exists and that there is hope that they may get well again. I will continue to post credible information as I find it.

    Cheers,
    Sarah

  31. carassius says:

    @ Sarah:

    How could it possibly be wrong when it feels so right?

    Seriously though, I’ve tried to read through all the comments here and i haven’t seen anyone who supports this product(s) offer a good explanation as to why some simple, independent research cannot be performed. About 20 or 50 comments ago a very simple experiment was suggested which seems to be a great start in offering legitimacy to this product. (I’m trying to be diplomatic in my language).

    I have a goalpost in mind and it does not necessarily include FDA approval. It starts with independent, high quality, double blinded experimentation to support any claims made. Once that is done, it should be repeated 100 more times (approximately), preferably with a different independent group (how about an academic institution or two). If this goalpost is met and reveals consistent results I may start to believe you and think about buying this product for my family and random feral kittens that I meet. I would venture to guess that several of the most cautious and skeptical among this group may also be swayed, but I don’t claim to speak for them.

    If Dr. Samuelson, and/or his or her followers believe in this product so much, why don’t they do this? The initial costs might be a fraction of whatever you guys spend now generating this, in the few links I followed, crap offered in support of asea.

  32. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    The fact that it takes $100m and 12+ years to get a technology to market is what you should be ashamed of. There are plenty of technologies that WORK but that aren’t pursuable because of investment required.

    1) Youtube is not a reliable source
    2) You’re claiming a different unproven drug is justification for allowing the sale of your unproven drug?
    3) You should read this

    OR… we’re trying to create a paradigm shift whereby people quit thinking diseases are “curable” but rather understand that 80% of diseases are “preventable.”…I think it’s a smart route myself.

    Using the word “paradigm shift” doesn’t mean ASEA works. You’re not sending a “better” message, you’re “making unproven claims”. It’s not a “smart” route, but it’s definitely a profitable one. Let’s see if I understand your reasoning. Big Pharma invests hundreds of millions of dollars into proving their products work – and this is bad. ASEA invests…nothing in proving their products work – and this is laudable?

    I’m not going to do your work FOR you…It’s published material on redox signaling. Hint: start with the research links enumerated here

    In which case you’re working for the right company, since they are apparently uninterested in doing any work at all (beyond marketing). Again, redox signaling exists. There’s no proof that ASEA influences it. Surely you can provide me one link to a pubmed-indexed article that explicitly links ASEA to redox signaling via experimental testing? Otherwise this is yet more irrelevant links.

    Oh they COULD make money off it, but why would they introduce it if they’re ALREADY making more money than they could if they came out with their cure? Is that so hard to believe my dear Watson? If so, that’s naive. It’s about the money for them, make no mistake.

    I’m back to having trouble not using the word “idiot”. Are you sure you have an MBA?

    The fact that they made a movie to support that a solid offer by a pharmaceutical company WAS MADE puts them in the hot seat if it’s not true. Personally I think it’s unlikely they would just make it up out of thin air but then again I’m a skeptic not a cynic, I’m sure you need the proof. For what it’s worth, here’s the 1-minute video showing that they are unequivocably professing to have had an offer. . But play along for a minute… let’s say it IS true that they got an offer — do you think a pharmaceutical company would make an offer if there wasn’t some validation? Remember they are getting to look at the vaulted research we aren’t privy to since it’s a supplement now.

    1) You’re not a skeptic at all, but you are enabling them to make a lot of money. I’m sure they appereciate it.
    2) The only companies found in that video are ASEA, Toshiba and Mac. That video makes no actual claims that can be verified.
    3) Do you upload to a different Youtube than I do? Because the youtube videos I upload don’t get fact checked. It’s almost as if they let anybody put anything up on the internet.
    4) You need a better dictionary, because your definition of “proof” is about as bad as your definition of “skeptic”.
    5) Your chain of reasoning misses a critical step, the part that says “I wonder if there was any company or if they’re blowing smoke up our asses in an effort to undercut the skeptical reasoning of our MLM suppliers, who pay us for the privilege of selling our products”.
    6) Real science isn’t “vaulted”, it’s public. Patents are used to protect intellectual property so a company can publish evidence in a scientific venue without losing their claim.

    Sounds like a crossroads doesn’t it? And consider how hard it is to find investors who are willing to belly up $100m for a product to go up against big pharma, or be consumed by them or not be marketable because somebody beats you to it or comes up with something better… drug mining is risky. What decision would YOU have made? Sounds like a good movie doesn’t it?

    Sounds like corporate handwaving to excuse the fact that they don’t have any efficacy studies. If you request proof for claims and keep getting glib answers in response – you’re not working for a company, you’re getting scammed.

    But no I’m not on any corporate payroll.

    No, you’re part of a MLM scheme, where you pay the company for the privilege of bearing all the risk. To justify your illogical decision, you have to engage in intellectual contortions, and invest massive amounts of time into defending your choice. Again, read Mistakes were were made (but not by me).

    There’s a facebook page called Sialis with 1 like, does that mean YOU’RE not real?!

    Sialis isn’t claiming to be a successful pharmaceutical company.

    They EXPECT that it will be published in the spring so I’m just saying April to be safe…we WILL have published peer-reviewed data eventually. AND NOT ON A DISEASE PROCESS! I just HAD to throw that in one last time for the benefit of people who keep repeating the same misinformed arguments, obviously without reading any previous comments (cough… WLU).

    Why don’t you leave until then? And why don’t you stop selling ASEA until you have it? Oh, that’s right, because that would interfere with making a profit. And let me see the reasoning here. You sell ASEA to enhance performance and claim it treats disease (but never explicitly, always with plausible deniability, like you were trained by Corporate), you’re supposedly publishing something that shows it work, but not on a disease process – admitting you don’t have any proof for a disease process – yet you still use it to treat disease? But I’m the misinformed one.

    Maybe you should gargle with some salt water to help you with that cough.

  33. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Hi Sarah, as I told Tracy, links to the company’s website isn’t proof, it’s marketing.

    Asea is not at liberty to publish all the findings and research that Medical Discoveries Inc. (MDI) completed because MDI was working through the FDA in the pharmaceutical realm. When Asea decided not to sell the intellectual property, they decided to pursue approval through the FTC in the nutriceutical realm. I am sure you all realize, that in this realm, they can not make any claims to cure, treat or prevent any diseases just to boost immune function in the body.

    Oh, look – more handwaving to excuse the lack of reliable proof and information! Still not an adequate substitute. I’ve highlighted the important part, that lets companies sell products without making any specific claims that would get them sued. Looks like you attended the same training seminar as Tracy. I’m sure they were very scrupulous about ensuring you never said anything specific.

  34. Sarah from Germany says:

    Here is another publication from Medical Discoveries Inc. about their MDI-P formulation from 2000 from the Am J Infect Control. They gained them more than 20 patents from their studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10840346

    Like I said before William, there is credible, 3rd party research publications coming. I also know that some info from the previous company is being reviewed by Asea’s lawyers for release to the public. I am quite confident that Asea will get sued a some point – they are already affecting quite some revenue streams in the pharma industry. Many people who have had their personal experiences with the product are free to name what conditions they were healed from but that does not give any other person the right to make any sorts of claims about Asea healing that condition. People have their experiences and are excited to share with others. I know from the skeptic, scientific perspective this just looks like bullshit, miraculous crap – “magic water” if you will. I know what you are looking for – and as I said earlier, I will keep providing any publications and evidence as I have it. And just for your info – I don’t know who Tracy is and I have never gone to any sort of Asea training. All I know about this company is from me doing my own personal research. You should check out Jim Humble and MMR – this was the starting point for me. I completely understand why the FDA is having a shitfit about him.

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      “You should check out Jim Humble and MMR ”

      We have checked out Jim Humble and MMS (not MMR). See: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/bleaching-away-what-ails-you/

  35. Sarah from Germany says:

    http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=15491120

    Medical Discoveries Inc. clearly discovered this break-through that was very promising. They didn’t know what they had. They also clearly had some problems managing themselves, hence going bankrupt. Dr. Gary Samuelson is the one who stabilized this solution and also realized what it really is – redox signaling molecules.

  36. nybgrus says:

    This is just downright comical.

    I do believe this is the first time a bunch of outright schysters has attempted to market snake oil to a (figurative) room full of highly educated skeptics (at least in the 3 years I’ve been around here). It’s like the spy movies where they are trying to pull a scam on the bad guys and realize the bad guys brought a nuclear physicist with them to verify the information and they have to scramble. Only here, they aren’t scrambling; they are just putting their heads down and trying to plow right through us as if maybe, just maybe, the 50th time they say the same discredited marketing statements free from any reasonable evidence we’ll finally just click over in our heads and say “Hey!! Maybe there is something to this ASEA thing! How do I jump on that bandwagon?”

    LOL.

    Do you really think spamming us with useless information will actually further your cause? I feel like when my 8 year old nephew sprays me with silly string thinking it will actually incapacitate me if he just sprays enough of it.

    Let’s say I’m right and we have created balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the same molecular formation as your body makes them and they can be utilized by your body’s cells to bring them in balance so that unbalanced free-floating free radicals are neutralized, there is increased capacity for signaling to be received and transmitted with greater clarity to the immune system

    So wait. Let me get this straight. You are proposing that by introducing “balanced” redox signaling molecules into an unbalanced system that will somehow balance the system?

    Do you realize the fundamental error in just thinking that way? Let’s assume, for the moment, that “balanced” redox signaling molecules (whatever the heck that means) actually exist. Let’s further assume that the cell’s redox signaling is out of balance. And lets assume “balancing” the system even makes sense (see how many assumptions we need already??)

    How does a balanced system balance an unbalanced system without then itself becoming unbalanced??

    I mean think about it. In terms my silly string captor would understand.

    You’ve got a cell that normally needs 10 oranges and 10 apples to be perfectly “balanced.” It currently has 6 oranges and 7 apples. You now introduce a perfectly balanced ASEA dose, which has 10 oranges and 10 apples since it is “balanced.” Now, the cell says “Thank you!” and takes 4 oranges and 3 apples. It is now balanced! Yay! But all of a sudden we have just traded places! Our “balanced” ASEA is now unbalanced! What happens to the rest of the ASEA?

    Now before you go saying other cells take it up, just scale the whole thing and the math works exactly the same. So it seems to me this is either a lot of BS or ASEA has to be dosed extremely carefully with a very narrow therapeutic margin.

    Oh! And we haven’t even gotten to the other scenario. What if the cell is out of balance because it has 13 oranges and 14 apples? What is bringing in more apples and oranges supposed to do to balance them?

    OK… what other internal inconsistencies can we find? I know!

    The scientist team DID finally figure out how to keep it shelf stable (prior to that time, it was only stable for about 30 minutes before becoming inactive), yay! But that also meant that ALL those preliminary safety, toxicity, efficacy studies would need to be REPEATED — and would cost MILLIONS of dollars — because it wasn’t the same solution anymore

    So he discovered how to stabilize something, but that something is now no longer the same thing just stable? It is a completely different solution? You just spent all this time telling us how the process to generate it leads to stability and that is what is unique, but now all of a sudden the process and the solution are different?

    Yes of course you are right, I concur completely. They EXPECT that it will be published in the spring so I’m just saying April to be safe, I’m sure with Murphy’s Law that it will be even later, I hope not. But regardless, the process is underway. If it takes until NEXT April, then that’s how long it takes, but be forewarned, we WILL have published peer-reviewed data eventuall

    As Narad has been pointing out, if the article is in review you should be able to say what journal. Not only should you be able you should be happy to! Which journal is it?

    I’m in review at Clinical Pathways and will be submitting to The Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine by the end of January. See how easy that was? Can you imagine I go on interviews and just say “I’m going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal as some point.” “Which one?” “A medical one! Peer reviewed!” LOL

    Medical Discoveries Inc. clearly discovered this break-through that was very promising. They didn’t know what they had.

    Neither did anyone else. From the website you linked:

    Information in this press release relating to the potential of MDI constitutes forward-looking statements. Actual results in future periods may differ materially from the forward-looking statements because of a number of risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: MDI’s lack of significant operating revenue to date; MDI’s need for substantial and immediate additional capital; the fact that MDI may dilute existing shareholders through additional stock issuances; the extensive governmental regulation to which MDI is subject; the fact that MDI’s technologies remain unproven; the intense competition MDI faces from other companies and other products; and MDI’s reliance upon patents and other intellectual property that may not provide meaningful protection against competitors.

    Boy, sure sounds like a scam to me!

    Thanks for the morning’s entertainment ladies. WLU is handling it all quite well and with more patience and detail than I could muster. I just couldn’t resist those few simple points.

  37. Scott says:

    Let’s also keep in mind that the studies the FDA requires for approval as a drug are the very same studies that are required for the producers/sellers/users to actually determine whether or not it is safe and effective. It’s not like the FDA requirements are just window dressing to make things expensive – they’re the necessary science to protect consumers from ineffective and/or dangerous drugs.

    And make no mistake, if ASEA does a billionth of the things that are claimed for it, it is a drug. Which would have EXACTLY the same potential risks as anything Merck makes. The supposed “supplement” distinction has no grounding in reality. It simply represents the success of Big Supplement in buying enough legislators to purchase favorable regulation that completely fails to protect the interests of consumers.

    If you can’t get it approved as a drug, then you don’t know whether the claims being made for it are true.

  38. TracyKing says:

    @carassius Thanks for the response, I do believe you’re the first reasonable person I’ve met on here (besides Sarah of course, Hi Sarah, love our hearts for TRYING huh?). I’ve already referenced the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY, see these two links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Uignb91Rw, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g. They are YouTube videos (EGAD!) that ASEA produced TO EXPLAIN THE FINDINGS. The speakers on the video are the INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS who performed the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY.

    HAD THE RESEARCH COME BACK WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS OR NO RESULTS AT ALL, then the company would NOT have made a video about it, they would not have even told anyone about the results of the study, they would not have told anyone they were even DOING any kind of studies, they would have gone back to the drawing board to find out “well that wasn’t it, let’s figure out what is happening in the body so we can explain all these results people are having.” And they would have tested other parameters.

    Apparently the people on this website ARE NOT ENTREPRENEURS, this much is clear — the ONLY way to have a credible product FOR THEM is to have a PubMed research article linking it to 100′s of studies that prove it works for a disease. Ok then, we’re done here because that’s not the route we’re taking. And ALL MLM’s are schemes? Do your homework, they are owned by the most successful business men in America including Warren Buffet, and it’s how much of the world OUTSIDE OF THE US operates. Read this FORBES MAGAZINE article that says “not only are MLM’s interesting, they are successful.”

    Here is the research summary papers explaining who did the research:
    A. This research took place at the North Carolina Research
    Institute, a collaborative entity involving seven
    universities (Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, NC State, UNC
    Charlotte, NC Central, NC A&T State, UNC Greensboro,
    Appalachian State). The research was led by the Appalachian
    State University’s Human Performance Laboratory
    under the direction of Dr. David Nieman. Dr. Nieman
    and his team of Ph.Ds. are renowned for their rigorous
    research into the effects of supplementation on exercise
    and exertion.

    And how the research was conducted:
    A. The research team selected 20 highly fit cyclists, then
    randomized them into two groups of 10. Using doubleblinded
    techniques in which neither the athletes nor
    the researchers knew which group received ASEA and
    which received a placebo, one group drank four ounces
    of ASEA each day for seven days, while the other drank
    equal amounts of placebo. At the end of seven days,
    both groups undertook a 75-km cycling trial. Blood was
    drawn immediately before the trial, immediately after,
    and one hour after.
    After a washout period in which the athletes drank
    neither ASEA nor placebo, the crossover portion of the
    research took place. Again double-blinded, the original
    ASEA group now drank the placebo for seven days, and
    the original placebo group drank ASEA. At the end of the
    seven days, both groups did the same 75-km cycling trial,
    and blood was drawn just as before.

    And what was used as placebo:
    The answer to this question is extremely enlightening,
    especially if you’ve ever heard someone say that ASEA
    is just salt water. In the research that was conducted by
    the Human Performance Laboratory, the placebo was salt
    water! In other words, the research compared ASEA to
    salt water and found significant and substantial differences,
    so there is no way anyone can ever say that ASEA
    is simply salt water.

    And the results of the research:
    A. The researchers expected to see some difference in
    metabolite shift between ASEA and the placebo. However,
    they expected to see those shifts AFTER exercise, since
    most researched supplements express metabolite shifts
    due to the combination of supplement and exercise.
    To their surprise, they found that athletes who drank
    ASEA experienced a significant shift in metabolites PRIOR
    to exercise. In total, researchers found a shift in 43
    metabolites simply from drinking ASEA, even before they
    began to cycle. The results were so extraordinary that Dr.
    Neiman said, “When I saw it, I couldn’t believe it.”

    Including explaining what are metabolites since it’s a relatively new field of science too:
    A. Metabolism is the name we give to the chemical reactions
    that take place inside our cells in order to sustain
    life. Metabolites are the molecules that participate in our
    metabolism cycles. They are very small molecules in the
    blood that shift in response to supplementation and/or exercise.
    Metabolomics, the study of these metabolite shifts,
    is the very latest tool used by researchers to understand
    what effects supplementation has in the human body.

    And WHY the shift in metabolites was so surprising:
    A. In this research, 108 metabolites were mapped, and
    so the first thing that caught the scientists off guard was
    that a shift in 43 metabolites represented about 40% of
    the total. When you consider that most supplements may
    shift 10-20 metabolites, the sheer number of shifts was
    enough to get the researchers’ attention.
    But even more surprising, these shifts occurred PRIOR to
    exercise. Most supplements tested by the Human Performance
    Lab express metabolite shifts AFTER exercise. In
    other words, most supplements cause metabolite shifts
    when combined with exercise. ASEA, on the other hand,
    caused a major shift in metabolites even before the athletes
    began cycling. Simply drinking ASEA caused these
    shifts.

    And what shifts in metabolites even means:
    A. The specific metabolite shifts in the athletes who
    drank ASEA pointed mostly to a vast mobilization of free
    fatty acids. Fatty acids are the main source of fuel for the
    body, and they mostly come from fat stores in the body
    known as adipose tissue.

    And why a shift in free fatty acids is significant:
    A. When anyone, athlete or not, begins to exercise, the
    muscles need fuel. Initially, the fuel source for this physical
    effort is blood glucose and muscle glycogen. When
    muscle glycogen is depleted, the body shifts to another
    source of fuel: fatty acids from adipose tissue. The body
    converts triglycerides in adipose tissue into free fatty
    acids, which “mobilizes” those fatty acids – puts them in
    the blood stream for the muscles to use as fuel.
    What makes the research results so surprising is that even
    before exercise – before using muscle glycogen to the
    point of depletion – fatty acids are mobilized and ready
    to use as fuel for the muscles. The body is being “primed
    for exercise,” as one Ph.D. on the research team put it.

    And what effect this has on muscle glycogen:
    A. The implication is that muscle glycogen is likely being
    spared by drinking ASEA. While further research is being
    done to confirm this, the ramifications are huge. Athletes
    take months to train their bodies to spare glycogen and
    use fatty acids as fuel. And here it appears to be happening
    simply from drinking ASEA.

    And why the findings are also significant to non-athletes:
    The mobilization of free fatty acids is incredible news
    for athletes, but it also has meaning for the rest of us,
    as well. Once these fatty acids are mobilized, they will
    be used by the body as fuel. They are the primary fuel
    source for a body at rest. The body needs fuel simply to
    stay alive, so the freed-up fatty acids will be burned no
    matter what.

    And why we’re not claiming to be a weight-loss product:
    It is wrong to think of ASEA as a weight-loss product.
    Exercise is a weight-loss product. Proper nutrition is a
    weight-loss product. But that said, one very clear conclusion
    coming from the research is this: If you want to burn
    more fat during exercise, drink ASEA.

    And what did it mean when they saw an increase in abscorbic acid:
    The research did show a spike in the body’s production
    of ascorbic acid post-exercise, but it’s simply too
    early to draw any conclusions about what this means.
    Further research will be done to learn more.

    And how redox signaling tied in with the research:
    A. Redox Signaling works on a cellular level, and its
    primary functions ensure the ongoing vitality of our cells,
    including proper cell metabolism. Metabolites are the
    “fingerprints” left behind during cell metabolism, an
    indication of the chemical reactions that take place inside
    the cell. This research helps reveal some of the effects of
    the world’s first and only Redox Signaling supplement on
    cell metabolism.

    http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_MetaboliteFindings_FAQ_May2012.pdf

    And here are the research summaries of the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY explained. Apparently Narad and WLU would prefer that we let complicated test results just stand on their own without being explained to laymen but our business is to inform laymen so I’m glad they took the time to use YouTube as a method to distribute READILY AVAILABLE EASILY ACCESSIBLE WORLD-WIDE INFORMATION. http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Research_Summary_Presentation.pdf

    Now that we have our DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY, we have decided to finally DO FURTHER testing that is PUBLISHABLE… see, because ONLY NOW do we have enough information to go on to actually be able to present something with meaningful results that also tells a story.

    I hope this clears up the misinformation out there. Call me in April Carassius when we have the published study you need or I would be glad to send you a case for FREE just so you could try it and report back on here about your experience for us? Hopefully you will have a cut or burn so you can watch it work right before your eyes, it just gives you a visual of “if it works like this on skin cells outside my body, what must it be doing INSIDE the cells in my brain and heart and digestive tract?” Ideally, it is best to give it 90 days but most people see results within 30 days. It’s fun to watch good health unfold for you. Just email me your address information, tracypowersking@gmail.com. Thank you much!

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      I apologize to our readers for inadvertently unleashing this torrent of … I’ll be polite and not give it a name. I do not, however, apologize for my article. I stand by what I wrote, and this outburst shows why writing it was necessary. ASEA supporters: please go away and don’t come back until you have the kind of evidence required to support any scientific claim.

  39. TracyKing says:

    Sarah, WOW that was some good info in those links… you’re a better researcher than ME! Not that anyone on here will open them up but I sure did, thank you so much!!! Takes the “magic” out of all the results people are seeing. Friend me on Facebook if you’re on there OK? I’d love to keep in touch. Tracy Powers King

  40. Amalthea says:

    TracyKing said: “ASEA is not is saying it cures diseases! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!”

    I beg to differ, YOU are saying that. Did you expect us all to have forgotten your previous claims of cures by the time we got to this post?

    TracyKing said: “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.”

    TracyKing said: “we don’t NEED peer-reviewed studies BECAUSE WE’RE A SUPPLEMENT NOT A DRUG!”

    If ASEA can do what you claim in the long quote above, it most certainly IS a drug and needs to be tested so any possible side effects or long term effects can be discovered. Anything which manipulates the biochemistry of the body has a chance of screwing up something else.

    I’m sorry, Ms. King, but one doesn’t have to be a scientist or medically trained person to see the total disconnect between some of your posts. It’s simply a matter of being able to think logically. As a result you are not only making yourself look foolish to the pros here, you’re also looking foolish to the untrained people like myself as well.

  41. TracyKing says:

    @ Scott, it’s not and will never be a drug. It is the exact molecular composition as what’s inside all living cells, it’s NATIVE to the body, to my knowledge there’s never been a supplement available that is already NATIVE to the body, it is man-made but the atomic make-up is the same as what is already in you, it’s just that your body doesn’t make enough of it as you age. If you could just find this lying around outside the body then it wouldn’t be patentable but it takes a PROCESS to make and stabilize the mixture, that’s what we’ve obtained patents on. But just think about it… your body is made up of SALT WATER — tears, semen, amniotic fluid, saliva — we’re walking bags of salt water. If you were going to make something that could go INSIDE living cells, and even cross the blood brain barrier — what would YOU make it out of? Berries? Nope, blueberries are good for us but our bodies aren’t made of blueberries. Antioxidants? Nope, plant-based antioxidants protect the PLANT from which they came, but your body makes its own INTERNAL antioxidants called glutathione, superoxide dismutase and catalase and they’ve done testing on ASEA that proves that we can increase the internal production of antioxidants by 500% which returns our body’s production to a level that is similar to what a level we had back when we were children when we healed quickly from cuts, we slept like rocks, we played hard and never got sore, we had abundant energy… neat huh?

  42. Scott says:

    @ Scott, it’s not and will never be a drug.

    A meaningless marketing BS statement. If it has the effects claimed, it’s a drug. Full stop.

    The purported important of being “NATIVE” to the body just proves (if any further proof were needed) that you haven’t even the faintest clue what you’re talking about. All SORTS of drugs (including some labelled as “supplements”) are molecules which naturally occur in the body, but need their levels adjusted for one reason or another.

  43. TracyKing says:

    @Amalthea you neglected to include the rest of my comment that was RIGHT AFTER what you posted. “I’m trying to be compliant here…” I was trying to stick to things that were just about symptoms not diseases.

    And we DO have 20 years of safety and toxicity studies when it spent 16 years being developed AS A DRUG but for which that was abandoned when it was determined that it was in fact NATIVE TO THE BODY, scientists unknowingly discovered how to make something that was already present inside living human cells.

    We have double blind safety studies including:
    in vitro chromosmal aberration cytoxicity 2005 done at NAMSA in Northwood, Ohio, an independent lab with affiliates worldwide;
    2 genotoxicity studies in 2005
    another genotoxicity study in 2006
    a gene expression toxicity study in 2005
    University of of Albany Functional Genomic Center gene expression analysis for toxicity study 2005 and 2006
    acute intravenous toxicity study at Biological Test Center in Irvine California in 1994
    a Rising Dose Tolerance Study at WIL Research in Ashland Ohio in 2002
    a 4-Week Toxicity Study
    a Peripheral Blood Micronucleus Study at NAMSA in 2006
    a 3-Day Acute Toxicity Study by James Clagett, Ph.D., Snohomish, Washington
    Central Nervous and Behavioral Effects Nasal Study in 2006.

    10 in all, see them at http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Safety_Studies_for_Website.pdf which has been referenced previously.

  44. TracyKing says:

    @ Scott, these are the OFFICIAL CLAIMS made by the company, all compliant: http://www.asea.net/usa/product/why-do-i-need-it

  45. Narad says:

    But just think about it… your body is made up of SALT WATER — tears, semen, amniotic fluid, saliva — we’re walking bags of salt water.

    It’s a good thing I hadn’t yet picked up the coffee when getting to this one. Tracy, perhaps you’d like to explain why the concentrations of sodium and potassium are drastically different between blood and cytosol.

  46. Scott says:

    @ Tracy:

    They are “compliant” only in that “purchased favorable legislation” sense. Anything that modifies immune function, for example, is definitely a drug by any rational standard.

    As a very broad rule, structure/function claims are either (a) meaningless or (b) drug claims. If it DOESN’T treat any disease or condition, there is no reason that anyone would ever want to buy it. It’s false advertising, plain and simple.

    “Fraud” is also a term which could very reasonably be applied.

  47. TracyKing says:

    AND these 35 pages of DOUBLE BLIND safety studies performed by James Clagett, Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from University of Nebraska, Chief Science Officer of LifeNet Health, an independent lab of 38 scientists and engineers with an annual research budget in excess of $7m.

    http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/TS2700.pdf

  48. TracyKing says:

    @ Harriett, thanks for the link, since my mom has Alzheimer’s I had already heard of his research but didn’t know what to think of it. But frankly, judging from your quick dismissal of this product without doing your due diligence, I’d have to doubt anything you have to say about any product.

  49. TracyKing says:

    @ Scott, what’s your background? I think you missed some business classes?

  50. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, metaphorically speaking of course, geez, lighten up! If you need fluids at the hospital, do they give you water? No they give you saline. You’d die without the proper amount of salt water fluid in your body which is about 75% in the body, 80% in the brain. But I’d like to have seen you spit out your coffee!

  51. Narad says:

    Asea is not at liberty to publish all the findings and research that Medical Discoveries Inc. (MDI) completed because MDI was working through the FDA in the pharmaceutical realm.

    Sarah, this statement is nonsensical. To whatever extent the FDA is able to rely on proprietary data in the drug approval process, it has nothing at all to do with the ability of the owner to release the information.

  52. Narad says:

    If you need fluids at the hospital, do they give you water? No they give you saline.

    Allow me to remind you that you were jabbering about “what’s inside all living cells.”

  53. TracyKing says:

    @ Harriett, just go ahead and say it like you did in your private email to me… I believe you said “pearls to swine” as if I’m not fit to participate in this discussion board. As if your information is not capable of being understood by me because I’m swine and you’re pearls referring to BIBILICAL scripture of all things, now that’s Christian of you! Well if Ph.D.’s in chemistry and NMR were the only ones reading your “bullshit” article, which is the word you used to describe ASEA, then I’d be glad to let it stand. We don’t need their endorsement. But the problem is that people who just want their knees to stop hurting when they walk up and down the stairs (and their Celebrex is causing gastrointestinal problems)… you just closed the door for that person to even try ASEA on a money-back guarantee. That’s on YOUR conscience when you realize a year from now or 10 years from now (however long it takes because we’re NOT going away), how much damage you caused and how many lives you negatively impacted just because of your short-sightedness and your inability to suspend your disbelief for even a second. And I wish you’d change the name of this thread from “Fan Mail” since it’s a simple rebuttal of the misinformation you’re proud to disseminate. I’m just a well-meaning person who has ALSO thoroughly and thoughtfully studied the research and come to a different conclusion than you. I flew to the corporate headquarters and met the founders and the scientists and went to their conferences to meet the calibur of people ASEA is attracting, did you? Did you do anything except some quick google searches. Shame on you.

  54. nybgrus says:

    @Dr. Hall:

    I reckon it isn’t that big of a deal. The real science and fun stuff has already been discussed and the points made. At this point the two of them of just making a mockery of, well, themselves!

    I’m sure once myself (soon) and other become tired of posting here it will die down anyways. I find it an interesting look into the motivated reasoning of a couple of people duped into thinking ASEA is anything but salt water. I’m still trying to figure out how much True Believer ™, active and knowing scam work, and “I got suckered into an MLM so I have to sell my stuff or I lose money” they actually are.

  55. nybgrus says:

    @tracy:

    I’ve already referenced the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY, see these two links:

    Hey Tracy – you know what would be a LOT better than a YouTube video explaining the study? How about the actual study itself!. You do realize that there are a number of us here that are actually qualified to read and understand medical and scientific studies, right? And that until we do, we aren’t going to budge.

    You think you are flinging more and more and better stuff our way and act amazed that we haven’t changed our stance after a manic deluge of words strung together in (mostly) grammatically correct sentences. You aren’t – you are flinging more and more of the same garbage and are unreasonably amazed that we don’t find it compelling.

    We are very simple people – no need for a lot of words. Just data. Actual science. Not link after link from ASEA themselves, with supposed data not published anywhere else.

    So as doctor hall said, either put up or shut up.

    But whatever, in the meantime WLU and others can handily take down every bit of piffle you sling our way.

    I will make one point though:

    Narad, metaphorically speaking of course, geez, lighten up! If you need fluids at the hospital, do they give you water? No they give you saline. You’d die without the proper amount of salt water fluid in your body which is about 75% in the body, 80% in the brain.

    Not true. We often give just plain water with a little glucose in it. It isn’t always saline. And even it we did only give saline… what’s the difference between my salt water and your salt water besides magic?

  56. Amalthea says:

    @Dr. Hall: It hasn’t been a total waste. I’ve learned some things from reading the responses to/discussions started by points in the Believer’s Walls ‘O Spam. I’m sure some other people have as well.

  57. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad it was a BIG DEAL for us to get approval by the FDA to publicly use the safety studies that MDI-P performed on their solution when it was being developed as a drug… HUGE!

    All life processes take place inside of our cells. In the simplest definition, a cell is a tiny bag filled with salt water and organic chemicals. The bag itself is made out of a bi-lipid membrane (a thin sheet that has waterproof layers on both sides and a thin layer of fat in between). All of the materials that the cell needs to maintain life must be passed through this membrane into the inside of the cell and also all of the unneeded garbage that is generated inside the cell needs to be passed back out through this membrane to the outside of the cell. The cell manufactures certain portals or gateways, called receptors and co-receptors, that are embedded in the cell membrane to let the materials in and out and to pass chemical messages from the outside to the inside of the cell and vice versa. Everything that affects the cell must be able either to pass through these portals or to diffuse through the membrane.

    In the middle of each cell there is another smaller double bag (made from two bi-lipid membranes) that contains the nucleus and the DNA. The DNA has encoded instruction on how and when to build the proteins that the cell uses. A DNA strand is made out of two molecular spines twisted into a double helix. Between the spines there can be found only four distinct types of molecules called nucelotides (labeled A, T, C, G) which are arranged in sequenced groups like rungs on a ladder. Groups of three of these rungs are called “codons” (A-T-G, for example). The exact sequence of these codons in the DNA strand determinds the specific ordeer in which amino acides are chained together (called polypeptied chains) in order to form proteins, thousands and thousands of different varieties. Most of the cell’s machinery and inner structure is formed out of the proteins manufactured from these genetic instructions. One exception to this rule is the formation of an organelle called the Mitochondrion. The Mitochondria (plural) contain their own DNA (called mtDNA) formed in circular strands, and they divide and reproduce inside the cell much like bacteria divide, but are controlled and regulated by messengers from the nucleus. The Mitochondria’s primary job is to efficiently produce the fuel (ATP) that energizes the micro machines inside the cell that carry out the life processes. There are anywhere from 10 to 5000 Mitochonodria in a typical cell, taking up to 50% of the cell’s volume.

    In theory, the DNA sequences of instructions (genes) inside any given cell in your body are entirely identitical to the DNA sequences (genes) that are in every other cell (with the exception of the reproductive cells). Lately researchers have cloned whole animals by placing the DNA from a single skin cell inside an empty egg cell. The egg cell starts to divide and form a complete organism. The DNA package inside every cell in the animal has all of the instructions necessary to form a whole new animal. This begs the question: If the DNA in every cell is identical, then how does there come to be so many different varieties of cells and tissues, brain cells, bone cells, skin cells, liver cells, etc? The answer to this question is found in the understanding that the individual cells do not act alone, they are grouped and bound together into tissues.

    The genes activated in the individual cells depend largely on messengers sent back and forth from their neighbors and are specific to where the cells are located in the body. After a while, the chemical messages sent from the surrounding cells activate the genes that determine the behavior of all the cells that collectively form similar tissue. So in a real sense, the cellular function is determined by the environment in which it lives. Cells, in this sense, “become what they eat.”

    The ability of a cell to change its form and function depending on the messengers surrounding it is called “cellular differentiation.” A cell gains its identify (brain, muscle, liver, etc) from the messengers it finds around it and/or builds inside it. A recent triumph in science came when “stem cells” were discovered. These cells can take the form of any cell they come into contact with (they are undifferentiated cells). If you want to grow new brain cells, for example, then all that is required is to place stem cells in the brain. They will soon transform into new brain cells that fit flawlessly into their new environment as they are programmed to become new brain cells by their neighboring cells. This also happens if they are placed in the liver, heart, etc., the stem cells ultimately become similar to the cells that surround them. It is an interesting fact that the cells in your body can also genetically shift due to the intake of nutrients that you eat. What you eat can literally change the form and genetic function of your cells. There have been experiements with identical twins in mice, both having exactly the same DNA, that were fed different diets. One mouse grew shiny brown fur and was skinny the other grew light gold fur and was fat and sickly. The only difference between the two mice was in what they ate.

    In order for a cell to be healthy, it needs proper nutrients and oxygen. IT TAKES THESE THINGS FROM THE FLUIDS THAT SURROUND IT. Nutrients and oxygen are normally supplied by the blood. It may be surprising to some that cells can even survive outside the body just fine if they are given enough nutrients and oxygen. There are human tissue cultures in laboratores that are still alive that have been taken from people who died 50 years ago. If a cell is given the necessary raw materials, it can manufacture its own fuel and the micro machines that use this fuel to keep it alive. Just with a handful of different varieties of amino acids, it can create complex proteins, duplicate itself and maintain its form and function indefinitely or until it eventually becomes broken or damaged for some reason. Oxygen is essential for healthy cell function. This can easily be experienced if you hold your breath for more than a minute; your system screams for more oxygen (less carbon dioxide). IF OUR CELLS ARE HEALTHY, THEN WE ARE HEALTHY. It is as simple as that. In order to maintain our health, we must learn to provide our body with the nutrients that our cells need to survive and thrive. When the cells become damaged, for whatever reason, we must be able to give the body the raw materials it needs to heal itself, replacing the damaged cells with healthy new ones. If we do this, then the body can the rest – this is simple in principle but much harder in practice.

    See I didn’t have to talk about disease so that we understand cellular health. Narad, you were saying about those bags of salt water that we’re made up?…

  58. TracyKing says:

    @ nybrgus my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution. Have you been paying any attention?

  59. Amalthea says:

    @TracyKing: “my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution. Have you been paying any attention”
    Then please send samples to several independent labs and show us the proof!

  60. TracyKing says:

    ROS and RS are the smallest and most fundamental universal signaling molecules in the body are the simple but extremely important reactive molecules that are formed from combinations of the atoms (Na, Cl, H, O, N) readily found in the SALT WATER bath that fills the inside of the cells (cytosol). All of life’s players (kinases, ATP, ribosomes, mRNA, RNAP, helicase, DNA) float around in this bath and can be surrounded by a balanced mixture of these reactive molecules. These are just a few of these reactive molecules but there are 20 in all: superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorous acid, nitric oxide, charged metal ions making up the electric current that carries signals along our nerves and muscles (including calcium ions, potassium ions and sodium ions), cytokines (the messengers that activate and regulate the immune system, controlling inflammation, white blood cell movement and natural cell death), endocrine messengers (the messengers that regulate and control digestion, metabolism, and organ function), hormones (the messengers that determine tissue growth and reproductive function), transcription factors (the messengers that cause the DNA inside the nucleus to call for increased production or reduction of certain specific proteins). And then there’s enzymes which are the break-it-down, clean-it-up and recycle-it crew of antioxidants and proteases, among others.

    For the most part, the cellular micro machinery is controlled by the varioius signaling messengers that carry messages insdie the individual cells (intracellular communication) as well as carrying messages between cells (intercellular communication). As has already been mentioned, the very identity and behavior of the cell depends on the quantities and types of messengers being passed around in its surrounding environment.

    The intracellular messengers float around inside the sea-water solution (cytosol) inside the cells. There are generally two types of intercellular messengers 1) messengers that are regulated by the DNA and built, delievered, passed around and moedified by enzymes and cellular machinery, and 2) A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NETWORK OF MESSENGERS CALLED “REDOX SIGNALING AND REGULATION” messengers made out of small, highly-reactive molecules (ROS and RS) that are formed by the REDuction and OXidation (redox) of the very SEA-WATER BATH that surrounds all of this cellular machinery. These messengers modify the behavior of the machinery by changing the chemical potential in the SALT-WATER environment where all of this machinery exists. Since these “redox” messengers are integrally involved in the healing process, hence the breakthrough in being able to create them outside the body and keep them stabilized until inside the body where they can do their respective jobs.

  61. JJ Borgman says:

    Ms. Kings 1:01 post courtesy Anthony Palombo, DC, ACN. Little original material added to massive cut and paste of his March 18 2011 blog in “The Health Light Newsletter” also posted with ASEA among others.

    Ms. King,

    I think it’s been made abundantly clear that that pulling anything out of your bag apart from empirical evidence for ASEA claims is truly a waste of your time.

    The really nice thing, though, is how many google hits for SBM this drawn out commentary should produce for your target audience. While much of that group will cheer you on, I feel confident a few of them will take pause and will turn away from the woo. I used to follow the woo before I actually started looking into it. I got away; others will, too. For that I say “thanks!.

  62. TracyKing says:

    @ Amalthea, we’ve already done so:
    http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/Reactive_Molecules_Verification_US_ENG.pdf

    In addition to that testing, the information presented at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxyufw4A90k describes at the one minute mark the testing that we did using NMR technology and which will be the focus of an upcoming publishable study that we EXPECT to be released in the spring. Obviously, we have NO CONTROL on WHEN it will be published but when it is, I will be back on this website to update everyone or if you want to give me your email, I can send it to you as soon as I get it if you do not check back to this website frequently. My email address is tracypowersking@gmail.com.

  63. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Like I said before William, there is credible, 3rd party research publications coming.

    Yet you and Tracy persist in posting noncredible publications as if they were meaningful…you could save a lot of typing by simply waiting until they are published and then droping a link in the comments.

    they are already affecting quite some revenue streams in the pharma industry.

    Oh look more paranoia. Yes, “Big Pharma” is going to sue people because you’re taking away all of their diseases. Good one. Yes, they are the greedy ones, with their requirements for proof and good manufacturing practices. You poor, innocent sellers of miracles are so persecuted, what with your complete lack of proof and giving away salt water for free.

    Also, again, patents are not proof. Efficacy is not required for patents. If you want to impress me, show me FDA approval, not patents, paranoid claims about how Big Pharma wants people to be sick and how ASEA cures everything while carefully making it clear that you’re not really claiming it cures everything. You and Tracy seem to have a curious idea that you can make up for poor-quality evidence through volume. I assure you, this is not the case. When your peer-reviewed publications arrive, I assure you I am entertained enough to review them.

    Do you really think spamming us with useless information will actually further your cause? I feel like when my 8 year old nephew sprays me with silly string thinking it will actually incapacitate me if he just sprays enough of it.

    Actually, your nephew has a much greater chance of success. Quite literally if he uses enough silly string he will succeed in incapacitating you. He’ll just need a couple hundred cans and a lot of patience. Tell him he’s better off hitting you with a hammer or something.

    What else do we have…blah blah blah more youtube (again, are you aware of some sort of quality-control process at Youtube that I’m not? ‘Cause generally they’ll let you post anything that’s not a copyright violation or pornography). I’m not interested in a youtube summary of research, I want the publication. It’s not hard, even just the PMID or DOI would help. Last I checked, Youtube wasn’t a peer-reviewed journal.

    Blah blah blah more claims of positive results without replication, more discussion of MLM as if it had anything to do with scientific efficacy (I don’t doubt MLM is a good business model – for the business – but that doesn’t mean their products do what is claimed), some crap about metabolite shifts (PMID please, not a bunch of PDFs from a company’s website), a bunch of claims indicating the outside and inside of the body are apparently exactly the same (do you know what the liver is? Do you have one outside of your body?), some garbage about how eating what you need is the same thing as producing it internally (question – have you ever grown an apple or pork chop on your body? If so – see a doctor; if not, perhaps consider the implications for consumed substances. The process to get drugs to their metabolically active site is quite involved, simply swallowing something won’t cut it – your body is very good at breaking things down into simple components and buffering to preserve homeostasis), ten studies in mice, rabbits, dogs and bacteria (you should know, I am not a mouse, rabbit, dog or bacteria, so perhaps these might not apply to me), a couple metaphors (because there’s no reality to point to), and this:

    AND these 35 pages of DOUBLE BLIND safety studies performed by James Clagett, Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from University of Nebraska, Chief Science Officer of LifeNet Health, an independent lab of 38 scientists and engineers with an annual research budget in excess of $7m.

    Which hilariously includes the statement “There were no biologically significant alterations in the anatomy, behavior, clinical chemical and hematological parameters of blood [in rabbits]“. Awesome. That hole in your foot? It’s from shooting yourself. Incidentally, can I have the peer-reviewed journal where these results were published? No? How surprising!

  64. TracyKing says:

    @ JJ, actually your information INCORRECT, it came from “The Science of Healing Revealed” book by Dr. Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. in Atomic/Medical Physics who was hired by ASEA to do testing on the solution to figure out WHY it was having the effects it was having, and HOW to keep it shelf stable without the solution turning back into salt water and the reactive molecules becoming inactive. Dr. Samuelson remains an independent consultant…

    “Dr. Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. (Atomic and Medical Physics, University of Utah), is an independent advisor to
    various companies in the health science industry, with specialties in safe, stable nonparticle structures and
    redox signaling molecules, helping them build a science-based research platform for several promising emerging technologies.”

    Would you like me to email you a copy of his book so you can read it in its entirety? Just send me your email.

    And TO BE CLEAR, I’m not writing to elicit support, I’m trying to clear up misinformation so people who read this can make a more informed decision. IF NOTHING ELSE, this discussion should PROVE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that ASEA is MORE THAN JUST SALT WATER which was the premise of Ms. Hall’s “smoking gun” expose. The fact that the metabolites study used salt water as the placebo control and that we have obtained patents on the process to convert salt water to a different solution more than satisfies the criteria to prove this point.

    And here is another safety study performed by the PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY obviously with this disclaimer: *PNNL does not in any way endorse ASEA, it merely acted as an INDEPENDENT LABORATORY in performing and producing these test results. http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Safety_US_ENG.pdf

  65. Narad says:

    Not true. We often give just plain water with a little glucose in it. It isn’t always saline.

    I’ve heard that flat Coca-Cola works to supply IV fluids in a pinch.

  66. TracyKing says:

    @ WLU “Yet you and Tracy persist in posting noncredible publications as if they were meaningful…you could save a lot of typing by simply waiting until they are published and then droping a link in the comments.”

    IF HARRIETT CAN POST DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT HAS THOROUGHLY BEEN VETTED THEN WE CAN DAMN SURE POST REBUTTALS! There are other ways to determine the effiicacy and credibility of a product without needing someone else to do it for you through a published study. It’s called a BRAIN, use it.

    Does anybody know WLU? I’m beginning to think HE is a paid consultant for “Big Pharma” or a Washington lobbyist? Any credentials WLU so I can check you out? What’s your angle? How do you profit if Big Pharma keeps their monopoly on information disseminated to the public?

  67. nybgrus says:

    The cell manufactures certain portals or gateways, called receptors and co-receptors, that are embedded in the cell membrane to let the materials in and out and to pass chemical messages

    Nope. You are referring to channels, not receptors. Receptors do pass on chemical messages (though no known cellular membrane receptors exist for transduction of ROS/RS signals), but do not allow materials in or out of the cell.

    Cells, in this sense, “become what they eat.”

    Nope. You are now trying to speak on deco-bio or developmental biology. The cells do not differentiate based on “what they eat” they differentiate based on different signals sent during varying times at development based on gene clusters called homeobox and sonic hedgehog (among other but those are two principle ones). The cells themselves secrete signalling and messaging molecules – none of which are ROS/RS – to differentiate. Otherwise, there would be no way to define a border between, say, the edge of the liver and the start of the peritoneum. External influences can affect this by messing with the signal molecules released by the cells, but doing anything other than screwing up the process is insanely difficult. Which is why it is big news that scientists have, for the first time this year, been able to succesfully de-differentiate cells. We have just now been able to manipulate these devo-bio signals for the first time and we know it is insanely complex and not dependent on ROS/RS signalling.

    If you want to grow new brain cells, for example, then all that is required is to place stem cells in the brain.

    Bullsh!t. We have been trying to do that for decades now. Injecting stem cells into the CNS has proven to not work. Not without significant modification and induction which we are just barely starting to be able to do. And certainly not from drinking magical salt water.

    It is an interesting fact that the cells in your body can also genetically shift due to the intake of nutrients that you eat.

    [citation needed]

    It may be surprising to some that cells can even survive outside the body just fine if they are given enough nutrients and oxygen

    LOL. Not to us here. I’ve worked with cell cultures before. Dr. Hall has reviewed and recommended the book (which I also recommend) called The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.

    See I didn’t have to talk about disease so that we understand cellular health. Narad, you were saying about those bags of salt water that we’re made up?

    No, but your pathetically simplistic and factually incorrect attempt to teach us here about cell biology sure was entertaining. Granted, I’d be pretty stoked if my 8 year old nephew could get this much. But if I were teaching a bunch of undergrad intro to bio students and they wrote something similar for a term paper I would fail them.

    my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution.

    Ahem, we still don’t actually have any evidence of that. At all.

    But it is nice to skim through your obviously cut and pasted ASEA corporate talking points. LOL.

  68. nybgrus says:

    @WLU:

    Actually, your nephew has a much greater chance of success. Quite literally if he uses enough silly string he will succeed in incapacitating you. He’ll just need a couple hundred cans and a lot of patience. Tell him he’s better off hitting you with a hammer or something.

    Now that got a belly laugh out of me. You are, of course, correct. There is actually much more prior plausibility to being incapacitated with silly string than being convinced by these atrociously bag arguments.

  69. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    To Dr. Hall and everyone else – my apologies. I am enjoying this hugely, but it must be a tremendous strain on the servers and your patience. If the editors of this blog want this poisoned fruit to wither, just let me know and I’ll stop posting. No matter how much fun it is. Such delicious snark, it’s worthy of a sock puppet.

    @Nybgrus:

    I’m still trying to figure out how much True Believer ™, active and knowing scam work, and “I got suckered into an MLM so I have to sell my stuff or I lose money” they actually are.

    Have you read Mistakes were made? The chapter discussing eschatological cults is quite applicable (and depressing) – someone who wastes an enormous amount of time and money will undergo the most astonishing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting they got suckered. At least nobody’s children are being raped in this case…though I have no doubt some are using miracle salt water as a substitute for vaccination :(

    Jesus Tracy, a comically simple primer on cell biology a) doesn’t teach anyone here anything and b) doesn’t mean your product works. Yes, conceptually it’s easy to treat disease, but your comments are about as useful and meaningful as saying launching a satelite is simple, just get it high enough in the air, or that world hunger is easy to fix because you just have to make sure you feed everyone. Oh, and you still don’t grasp that the word “health” is pretty meaningless. Chemotherapy is the process of systematically sickening cells, but it’s an effective treatment for cancer. Please use this as a segue into how ASEA can cure cancer, I really want to hear it, and this time I promise to believe you uncritically. Your ongoing primers on cell signaling are, well I won’t use the word “interesting”, so I’ll just call them “there”, but again – showing a very basic grasp of biology doesn’t mean ASEA is effective. Your charicature is pseudoscience, because it attempts to paper over the massive gap in evidence with superficial and meaningless patter. Please, go away or put in some pubmed numbers whose abstracts involve ASEA, humans and objective measures.

  70. nybgrus says:

    next belly laugh came from tracy:

    IF HARRIETT CAN POST DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT HAS THOROUGHLY BEEN VETTED THEN WE CAN DAMN SURE POST REBUTTALS! There are other ways to determine the effiicacy and credibility of a product without needing someone else to do it for you through a published study. It’s called a BRAIN, use it.

    Tracy, WLU is absolutely spot on with his critiques.

    And no, you can’t post a rebuttal before you have evidence because the claim is that you don’t have evidence.

    And that last line of advice is best suited for you. I suggest you try and head it well.

  71. nybgrus says:

    @narad:

    I’ve heard that flat Coca-Cola works to supply IV fluids in a pinch.

    I have heard the same thing. I haven’t vetted it myself though so I am unsure.

    All things being equal, I would probably opt for some bleached then boiled and cooled water with around 1tsp of salt and 1tbsp of sugar per liter if I really needed IV fluids in such a pinch. Though, in a true emergency that would take too long and I reckon flat coke could be handy in that case, assuming it was remotely feasible which I am not sure of.

  72. nybgrus says:

    For what it is worth, it obviously doesn’t bother me much. I reckon the server load isn’t a big deal and anyone not interested can just stop reading at this point.

    And no, I haven’t read Mistakes were made… though I am well aware of the premise of which you speak.

  73. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    IF HARRIETT CAN POST DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT HAS THOROUGHLY BEEN VETTED THEN WE CAN DAMN SURE POST REBUTTALS! There are other ways to determine the effiicacy and credibility of a product without needing someone else to do it for you through a published study. It’s called a BRAIN, use it.

    Wow, that last comment is rich. Pointing out your complete lack of convincing evidence isn’t “damaging” so much as it is “factually accurate”. Also, minor point – you are posting a lot of text but you have yet to approach anything close to a rebuttal. There are many ways to test a product, but only human trials can be used in a meaningful way to demonstrate ASEA has any impact on human health. You’re not proving your product effective, you’re proving how credulous you are.

    Does anybody know WLU? I’m beginning to think HE is a paid consultant for “Big Pharma” or a Washington lobbyist? Any credentials WLU so I can check you out? What’s your angle? How do you profit if Big Pharma keeps their monopoly on information disseminated to the public?

    YAY!!!! MY FIRST PHARMA SHILL GAMBIT!!!!!! Does that mean I can start cashing my Evil Pharma Overlord cheques, or collect my Evil Pharma Disneyland tickets?

    Your ad hominen accusations notwithstanding, you’ll notice that accusing me of being a paid shill for Big Pharma hasn’t magically produced any peer reviewed articles indicating your claims have any meaning. You’re now engaging in a bit of a false dilemma, the idea being if you can prove I’m a pharma shill, that means somehow ASEA is indeed magical. The lovely thing about empirical research is it doesn’t matter who makes a claim, what matters is the evidence. You still have’t provided any that matters. Hitler (damn you Godwin!) could be pointing out how empty your claims are, but he’d still be right (despite being Hitler).

    Anyway, amusing as this is, I’ve got a snowy bus ride home to enjoy. I look forward to more drama when I get there though, keep pumping that septic tank of evidence until it’s dry, I forsee myself becoming convinced in the near future.

  74. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    For what it is worth, it obviously doesn’t bother me much. I reckon the server load isn’t a big deal and anyone not interested can just stop reading at this point.

    That assumes anyone but the four of us are still reading :)

    And no, I haven’t read Mistakes were made… though I am well aware of the premise of which you speak.

    It’s worth reading – the principles are pretty obvious, even without the research behind it. But they accumulate a tremendous number of convincing examples that are both startling and convincing. It really drives home just how omnipresent the tendency is within humans, it’s a little depressing. It’s also quite a quick book to read, which is nice.

  75. JJ Borgman says:

    Ms. King,

    I realize it’s an ad hominem, but it sure seems clear that one of the two good doctors is plagiarizing the other. That much info/text that can be found in common between a book, which I have not read, and a blog which I have read and your post is not coincidental. But, it has also been sufficiently demonstrated that a tremendous amount of cut-and-paste goes on in wooland, so I suppose it is likely to happen.

    Go ahead, pick a few sentences anywhere in that post and google it. liftingtones.com will display it almost verbatim on the first results page. My problem is it appears you are trying to pass such a post off as original having given no credit to the author. Again, you come off as being dishonest. Or opportunistic. Kind of the same thing, I suppose.

  76. Scott says:

    @ Scott, what’s your background? I think you missed some business classes?

    Physics PhD, if you must know.

    You seem to be implying that if my background were in physics, I’d consider lies and fraud to be unremarkable and unobjectionable simply because legislation making them legal in a particular industry had been purchased. (And yes, it was morally equivalent to an outright purchase.)

    Ethical businesspeople the world over weep.

  77. weing says:

    “my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution.”

    So does my urine. I can bottle it and sell it to you for half price.

  78. TracyKing says:

    @JJ Dr. Samuelson’s book was copyrighted in 2009 so that pre-dates your 2011 reference. I did not reference Dr. Samuelson YET because I wanted to prove how it doesn’t matter what is posted in support of this product, whether it is written by me or one of your own, you are going to try to pick it apart, so thank you nybgrus for readily rising to my invitation!

    This is the forward in the front of the book:

    Dr. Samuelson has found a way to take a complex and difficult subject and make it lucid and understnadable to the lay reader. It is very rare that someone can convey concepts in science with such clarity and still mainbtain a degree of accuracy and precision. Dr. Samuelson possesses this unique talent; he explains the body’s natural healing process on the molecular level in a way that conserves the precision of the science, and yet exposes the technical terms and underlying concepts in clear language able to be understood by any interested reader.

    The reader stands to gain a much better view of the science of healing and a good understanding of the basic concepts of how the body’s healing process works.

    Chase N. Peterson, MD
    Former President of the University of Utah
    Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard

  79. TracyKing says:

    So I can see where this is going… I WILL have a publishable study that once and for all proves not only that ASEA is not just salt water but that it creates positive significant shifts in the body and it is safe. But based on the information presented in Mistakes Were Made, all of you will be too invested in your own shared contempt for the research behind this product so you will find fault with the published study… it was bought, manipulated, incorrect. Is this about right?

  80. Narad says:

    I have heard the same thing. I haven’t vetted it myself though so I am unsure.

    Here’s an odd one on the intersection of Coca-Cola and medicine. (I suppose I should have said “degassed” before.)

  81. Narad says:

    you just closed the door for that person to even try ASEA on a money-back guarantee

    Would you like to clarify whether this offer actually requires signing up to a subscription plan first?

  82. JJ Borgman says:

    Ms. King,

    Anything you present is worthy of doubt. You aren’t helping matters by using deception to “…prove how it doesn’t matter what is posted in support of this product…”. Again, you are being dishonest.

    Why ASEA would sell a product making veiled claims, with the proper evidence only a few short months away from release, is, once again, dishonest. It obviously smacks of opportunism.

    Many companies make lofty claims about the effectiveness of their products. They do it in ways that are legal without being honest. Caveat emptor. ASEA is just another one of them. And, true to form, the profit margins are totally off the rails. That makes them, and you, despicable to me…and to many who think like I do.

    I, personally, promise you this: IF your claims end up being justified by proper empirical evidence, not sham evidence, by the Spring (May) of 2013, I will retract anything I have written here that you wish in the fora of your choice. AND, I will buy at least six months worth of ASEA water from you on autoship. IF ASEA does for me what you claim it will do, I will further take a distributorship under you, where you may jest, jostle and flog me at will.

    I am as certain of not having to pay up on this promise as I was that the world would not end today, just for the record. And you have my real name.

  83. Scott says:

    Is this about right?

    No. Once you have it, it will be evaluated. Before you have it, YOU don’t know whether ASEA is safe and effective so you have no business selling it!

  84. Narad says:

    AND these 35 pages of DOUBLE BLIND safety studies performed by James Clagett, Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from University of Nebraska, Chief Science Officer of LifeNet Health, an independent lab of 38 scientists and engineers with an annual research budget in excess of $7m.

    Did you actually read what’s at the other end of the link you provided? “Double blind” doesn’t mean anything when it comes to intraperitoneal injection of rabbits.

  85. nybgrus says:

    appeal to authority now, Tracy?

    If Luc Montagnier and Linus Pauling can be written off as cranks, so can anyone else.

    And of course it doesn’t matter who wrote it! You act as if us picking apart anything worth picking apart is a bad thing! LOL.

    I swear, soon enough I’ll have actual stuff to do and won’t be reading these manic posts any more. Until then, they sure are entertaining!

  86. nybgrus says:

    @narad:

    This one makes sense to me. They used the acidic coca cola (degassed it would be primarily phosphoric) to both mechanically break up and chemically dissovle the bezoars.

    That doesn’t answer the question about IV administration. And I would reckon it isn’t quite as simple because of the acidic nature of cola, you could probably induce acidosis if you replaced enough fluid with it. Heck you can induce acidosis just from normal saline, because the chloride anion concentration is matched to the sodium cations, so while the sodium is isotonic (which is what matters most for managing osmotic shifts) the chloride is significantly higher than physiological concentrations. This leads to hyperchloremia which can lead to acidosis since the chloride anion is half of a strong acid (the hydrogen in the water of the plasma acts as the counter cation to the excess chloride, and at the right proportion the electrochemical forces favor dissociation of hydrogen ions leading to acidosis).

  87. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad “Would you like to clarify whether this offer actually requires signing up to a subscription plan first?”

    I hardly see how that’s relevant considering that anyone can cancel their auto-ship at any time, even as soon as immediately after their purchase by editing their order on-line or calling the phone number in their confirmation receipt.

  88. Narad says:

    ROS and RS are the smallest and most fundamental universal signaling molecules in the body are the simple but extremely important reactive molecules that are formed from combinations of the atoms (Na, Cl, H, O, N) readily found in the SALT WATER bath that fills the inside of the cells (cytosol).

    I take it you missed the part where the cytosol isn’t “SALT WATER.” Have you ever taken a moment to try to think about why cell membranes have a sodium-potassium pump?

  89. Narad says:

    I hardly see how that’s relevant considering that anyone can cancel their auto-ship at any time

    It’s relevant because this is a classic scam marker. Moreover, it allows the scammer to keep billing in any event in the hope that the mark won’t notice soon enough to contest the charge with their credit-card company.

  90. Scott says:

    I hardly see how that’s relevant considering that anyone can cancel their auto-ship at any time, even as soon as immediately after their purchase by editing their order on-line or calling the phone number in their confirmation receipt.

    It’s quite relevant because making it require effort for people to not continue buying something, decreases the odds that they will do it. Classic method to con customers into buying things they don’t want.

    It doesn’t surprise me that people who sell magic water with fake claims also use dishonest sales strategies.

  91. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    So I can see where this is going… I WILL have a publishable study that once and for all proves not only that ASEA is not just salt water but that it creates positive significant shifts in the body and it is safe. But based on the information presented in Mistakes Were Made, all of you will be too invested in your own shared contempt for the research behind this product so you will find fault with the published study… it was bought, manipulated, incorrect. Is this about right?

    Yes, in April you will have one study. That’s a good start on the process to demonstrate ASEA has some sort of remarkable properties. Why don’t you save your energy until then. You will note that in science it is a pattern of research built up over years that converges on a conclusion that leads to change in medical practice. We will certainly provide criticisms and suggestions for your paper, then look forward to the next in the program of research required to support a change in practice. If you have a well-controlled study in humans demonstrating significant shifts in biomarkers, that’s a pretty good starting point. However, proving changes to hard end points is a whole other matter. I’m expecting it to be some bullshit animal work, but perhaps I’m wrong.

    So you’re close – we’re unlikely to change our opinions and highly likely to point out any flaws in the study. But I think we can all admit that a peer reviewed paper is a good step in the right directly. Seem to think that research is easy, or that we’re somehow unfairly targeting your salt water. Not so. It’s just that well-supported interventions have years of research, studies and proof behind them. You’re asking to skip over all that work based on anecdote, and that’s not how it’s done. You aren’t special, so far there is no evidence your product is special, and we have good reason to be skeptical of an organization that asks for special dispensation to make money based on unverified claims.

    If you want, we can lay out quite clearly, in advance, a fair set of rules for evaluating the work, we can explain why each rule is important, and what sorts of claims you can make based on those rules. We can provide you the foundation to undertake a program of high-quality research that would be required to change the mind of even the most ardent skeptic, including the FDA – at which point you can make specific claims in your marketing. It’s a win-win! Here’s a starting point:
    - blinding, at least single-blind (the person taking the measurements doesn’t know which condition each subject is under
    - establish, in advance, your outcome measures and statistical tests
    - no subgroup analysis if your initial analysis fails
    - as far as possible, make your outcome measures objective
    - have as large an n as possible (there are sample size calculators you can use to establish power)

    Fellow commentors, any suggestions? I just shoveled 400 pounds of dense, wet snow and I’m tuckered out.

  92. Narad says:

    That doesn’t answer the question about IV administration.

    No, it doesn’t, but I have a fondness for bezoars, as it were. I had already started to wonder about the pH issue.

  93. TracyKing says:

    @ JJ, that made me smile for the first time. Love your heart. I think that’s MORE than fair. Someone who can admit when he’s wrong and ante up, your breed is few and far between. Maybe this wasn’t a total waste of time after all. For the record, I would love to work with any of you… anybody who is “all in” in their opinions is someone I respect, whether I disagree with them or not. Thanks for a reasonable compromise. As much as you are sure that it WON’T happen, I’m that sure that it WILL.

    And they’re not “veiled” claims, to be honest I think the official claims look EXACTLY like any other product on the supplement market, that’s what makes it hard to stand out. But the reasons all the claims look alike is because the FDA legislates what supplement companies can say about their product and the rules are quite clear. And actually it’s a GOOD thing. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to know who to believe if you were allowed to run info-mercials on a cancer-killing oral drink? What if any company could just make any claim they wanted without having to back it up? I’m glad the rules are in place, it protects the consumer and it holds the supplement companies to a high standard. The crappy companies, and most assuredly many of them ARE MLM, allow false claims to be made because they’re only in it for the short-term, they are going to make their quick buck, get sued, and then be out but with fat pockets. I could name a few but I’d better not, lest this become an MLM thread but I know of several who are marketing on gimmicks but they are just high-priced low-quality commonplace products. In contrast, ASEA is building an infrastructure that will enable them to be an international “legacy” company, capable of enduring decades of market whims, a company that will break the MLM mode and bring some much needed crediblity to the industry. Are there non-compliant claims out there by people who are in shock about what they just witnessed, who don’t KNOW the rules, and who don’t CARE because they’re not really interested in building a business? Absolutely. It’s America after all. But should grandma’s facebook post in any way cause an astute observer like you to hold the corporate office responsible. Hardly.

  94. Narad says:

    Given that Tracy’s psychological self-defense routine has lost anything resembling steam, I’ll offer one more item in the Annals of Coca-Cola Biology.

    Another interesting feature is that laboratory wastes are easy to dispose. Passing through the soil adds a very distinctive flavor which makes the refrigerated extractant freshly after use an interesting beverage.

  95. Chris says:

    Rats! I am out of popcorn and my break is over, time to go back to work. Thanks for the amusing reading on this solstice/”the world did not end today” Friday.

  96. Sialis says:


    That assumes anyone but the four of us are still reading

    @WLU and nybgrus, Narad, JJ, Scott and Dr. Hall and others – I’m still reading. This is one of the best darn educational experiences I have EVER had! I assure you that your time here is not in vain. You are teaching invaluable life skills and doing so in what I’d consider as a very safe manner. I’d certainly rather learn these critical thinking skills and how to dissect marketing propaganda here on SBM than learn them the hard way after forking out tons of money for any product that appears to promise more than the fountain of youth. I’ve started my own little ‘MLM’ routine. It involves my telling at least one new person every day to read SBM. Indeed, you have my respect, admiration and sincere gratitude. Thank you.

    BTW, the ads state that one can get a “sample” of ASEA to try. Many people consider being offered a sample of a new product as being a free, no-cost sample, but ASEA charges $30 for a 2 ounce sample.

Comments are closed.