Articles

603 thoughts on “Fan Mail from an ASEA Supporter

  1. JJ Borgman says:

    Unfortunately, Ms. King, plausibility and probability are not on your side. But, like others on this thread have stated, I am willing to be convinced by proper evidence, but nothing less. Let’s chat again in May.

    Happy Holidays!

  2. Narad says:

    This is one of the best darn educational experiences I have EVER had!

    I’d certainly like to thank nybgrus, as my (quite dated) training was in the physical sciences, and I haven’t really thought about the mechanics of cell membranes since sitting in on psychopharm with Lew Seiden over a decade ago.

  3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    to be honest I think the official claims look EXACTLY like any other product on the supplement market

    You say this like it is a point of pride. Supplement claims are consistently criticized on this site for being unfounded, vague, unproven, deceitful and only possible because of the absurdly weak legislation made possible by lobbyists from Utah. Saying you’re as good and validated as the next supplement company is like bragging you’re just as well-fed as a North Korean peasant, and your power supply is equally reliable.

    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.

    Yeah, the rules are clear – you can only make structure-function claims (supports eye health! Boosts the immune system) that are meaningless. “Support the immune system is like saying “purple moon happy boots potato thalidomide”. Unlike the FDA regulations for drugs, which are much stricter. You are again meeting a threshold so low it’s worthless, and as your training has made obvious, you are prevented from anything specific (more accurately, your company refuses to make any specific claims, and if you make any but get sued, the company will throw you so far under the bus you would be halfway to China). If ASEA were proven to cure cancer or pimples, you would be encouraged to say that, but it doesn’t, and a box of Cheerios can run rings around the specificity of your claims.

    I’m glad the rules are in place, it protects the consumer and it holds the supplement companies to a high standard.

    No it doesn’t, it means consumers are unprotected and companies are free to slyly imply an efficacy they can’t prove.

    Also, I’m glad we’re keeping you amused, lurkers! If Rome had the internet, it would have needed neither bread nor circuses!

  4. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad “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.”

    You mean like the agreement that Coca Cola has with a retailer to bring a certain amount of product each week with the price being based on the amount they agree to purchase over time, called a contract? Or the price I agree to pay for my free iPhone if I just agree to be auto-billed for two years?

    People are grown-ups, they can cancel at any time, and the company will honor their request to cancel, or they can send their product back for refund. Are we going to debate the business model now? Personally I’d like to stick to ASEA’s glutathione testing, that’s what got MY attention that I couldn’t de-bunk. Do some googling about the importance of glutathione, it’s captivating stuff. And the testing to measure glutathione and quantify it included Standard Western Blot analysis and Array Design Stressgen Kit. Can you tell me your opinion on the testing that was done to show the effect ASEA has on antioxidant efficiency?

  5. TracyKing says:

    @ Sialis “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.”

    That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

  6. Narad says:

    You mean like the agreement that Coca Cola has with a retailer to bring a certain amount of product each week with the price being based on the amount they agree to purchase over time, called a contract?

    No, I mean like the deceptive health-related advertising that permeates AM radio. This isn’t even a coherent response, as you are the “retailer.”

  7. JJ Borgman says:

    I came here as the result of listening to SGU for several years. This particular thread is what got me to register and comment. I have none of the scientific background that many of the posters do, but they are the voices of reason that continuously are born out by facts and other voices of reason. As an aggregate, I feel they sustain the requirement for evidence to support claims that I have adopted for myself.

    This thread has been a delight to read due, in part, to the presence of them and woo enthusiasts who will not take “nonsense!” for an answer.

    Should ASEA be the real deal, I will be a distributor and will hope for numerous subscribers from this site :P

    Top of my Bucket List: getting to TAM.

  8. TracyKing says:

    @nybgrus “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.”

    Quoting Dr. Samuelson, “The between-cell (intercellular) messengers are passed back and forth between cells. In order for them to work they must be able to leave one cell and “latch onto” or pass into surrounding cells. There are specific places built into the outer membranes of the cells, called “receptors” and “co-receptors,” where these messengers are allowed to “latch onto” the outside of the cell. Each different type of messenger molecules (called agonists) has its own custom-built latch (receptor) that allows it to pass a signal into the cell. In many cases, the receptor itself, when latched, will cause intracellular messengers to be released to continue carrying the message into the cell. Most cells are stuck together with a scaffolding of adhesive molecules that allow messages to more easily be passed around among neighboring cells. Redox messengers are able to alter the chemistry of the receptor latches that can either enhance or inhibit their ability to latch onto their messengers and pass messages into the cell. Sometimes the presence of these redox messengers themselves will spontaneously trigger a receptor to send messages into the cell.”

  9. Narad says:

    This entry from former minor-leaguer Dan Blewitt, by the way, is quite amusing to me at least.

    I’m pretty tired of people from “teamasea.com” email addresses posting comments to this review.

  10. Narad says:

    ^ My apologies to Mr. Blewett for the misspelling.

  11. Narad says:

    Quoting Dr. Samuelson, “The between-cell (intercellular) messengers… [etc., etc.]”

    Tracy, perhaps if you reread this passage several times, slowly, you will discover that it does not aid in the futile defense of your earlier misunderstanding.

  12. TracyKing says:

    @ nybgrus “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.”

    Again quoting, “Once a messenger has delivered its message, it does not “live” very much longer to continue sending more messages. The cells manufacture enzymes (protease “break-down crews”) that quickly disassemble the messengers and recycle their parts (Amino Acids). Thus an adrenaline “burst” lasts only as long as it takes for the protease crews to break down the excess adrenaline in the blood; after which the normal adrenaline balance in the blood is restored. In the body, the phrase, “kill the messenger,” takes on a whole new meaning.

    This process of continuous production and subsequent elimination of molecules is not restricted only to messengers. A careful chemical balance is maintained for hundreds of thousands of types of molecules in every cell that depends on a stable condition where the rate at which the molecules are being produced is the same as the rate that they are taken apart elsewhere. This kinf oa balance is called a homeostatic balance. The secret behind alost all biological processes lies in how the body works to maintain this balance.

    When the homeostatic balance inside any cell is disturbed, there is either a build-up or a depletion of certain types of molecules. This growing unbalanced condition triggers the cell to respond. If there is a deficiency of a certain type of molecule, the cell can respond by increasing production of this molecule. If there is an excess amount of a certain molecules, it can increase the prodeuction of the enzymes that break down this molecules, thus helping to eliminate the excess. The cell can also take a more complex course of action and send out messengers that will help correct a possible problem, or it can even signal for a series of more complex processes that will help the cell adjust to adverse conditions. If the action is successful, the normal balance will be restored and all is well.

    One example of this balancing act is “blood sugar” levels. If the blood sugar level goes up, then the pancreatic beta cells respond by producing more insulin. These insulin messengers speed up the sugar metabolism machinery in the body, causing it to burn some sugar and store the rest as fat. As the blood sugar level decreases, the rate of insulin production also decreases. The elevated amount of insulin in the blood triggers the production of the insulin clean-up crew enzymes. The blood insulin level will eventually go back to normal levels as the excess insulin is broken down and removed by these enzymes.

    It is interesting to note that if too much sugar is placed in the blood all at once, (due to eating easily digestible cabs and sugars), the pancreatic beta cells are stressed to work extra hard and end up producing too much insulin. Since the gross excess of insulin takes a while to clean up, it often happens that too much of the blood sugar is processed and blood sugar levels drop well below normal. This deficiency in blood sugar triggers the production of “hunger” messengers. If this cycle is continued, it may cause obesity and may also lead to over stressing and killing the pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin, causing type II diabetes. The body is not built to handle too much blood sugar all at once.

    The key to health is to make sure the cells have the raw materials they need to maintain a healthy chemical balance in the machinery that keeps them alive. If the cells are healthy, consequently the whole body is in good health. Good health then lies in being able to sustain a healthy chemical balance.”

  13. The Dave says:

    “That assumes anyone but the four of us are still reading”

    Been lurking for a while. It’s been highly entertaining, although hard to keep up with how rapidly responses are being posted.

  14. Sialis says:

    Here are two excerpts from an ASEA YouTube video, which seem to promote ASEA as a fountain of youth. “[..health...] challenges that people have been dealing with for years are now gone. Nothing compares to the joy of feeling truly healthy, of having your cells work like they did when you were young and strong.

    “Medical professionals are recognizing unprecedented improvements in the health of their patients as they supplement with these newly available molecules.”

    Tracy King on 21 Dec 2012 at 5:51 pm

    @ Sialis “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.”

    That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

    Shown below is one of the emails that I received when I inquired about ASEA.

    Time Machine in a Bottle!

    We live and die at the cellular level. Our bodies are programmed for health; programmed to protect, repair, and replace our cells. But our bodies’ ability to do that diminishes over time. We have a word for that: Aging.

    The key to protecting, repairing, and replacing cells is a specialized set of molecules: Redox Signaling molecules. Your own body makes them, every minute of every day. But as we get older, our bodies get less efficient at the process. In fact, while very young children operate at nearly 100% efficiency in what scientists call “the healing response,” a 70 year-old is operating at only 10% efficiency.

    That’s aging, right there. Reduction in efficiency in the healing response.

    The answer? The world’s only Redox Signaling supplement: ASEA.

    Do the math:

    Aging = The body’s decreasing ability to protect, repair, and replace its cells
    Redox Signaling molecules = The key to efficiently protecting, repairing, and replacing cells
    ASEA = The world’s first and only Redox Signaling supplement
    When it comes to aging, Redox Signaling molecules are the key, and ASEA is the answer.

    Watch The Incredible Product Video Here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdi__ZWpuGw&list=PL8CBFB3E112C67171&context=C3fc167fADOEgsToPDskKjKjsjRlXNkT3XZ1S044Mo
    Samples of ASEA!

    We now allow you to buy 1 Bottle of Asea, as a Sample. The cost is only $30. (Shipping Included!) We have priced this BELOW the Retail and Wholesale cost, so you can try the product without the commitment of a full case. Remember, most people feel the benefits after only a few doses, but for some, it may take longer. For this reason, some decide to order another sample…. No Problem. Just let us know.

    100% Results…. This works for ANYONE!

    Every person we’ve introduced to ASEA has noticed an improved difference in the way they feel. The first things people notice are: Improved sleep, better mood, increased mental clarity, And then comes improved energy, little or no fatigue, no soreness after intense workout or heavy exertion, and then, conditions that people have struggled with for decades… begin to fade away. You owe it to yourself to give this a try.

    To order your sample, please call 830-481-3903 or Send an email to the address below.

    Thanks

    Brandon Olson

    http://www.Asea101.com
    AseaRedox101@gmail.com
    664 S Seguin Ave, 78130, new braunfels, TX 78130, USA

    From: “RedoxHealth.net”
    Sender: asearedoxwater@aweber.com
    X-Loop: asearedoxwater@aweber.com
    X-Mailer: AWeber 3.2
    X-Subscription: Subscribed on 09/XX/2012, via web form, by XX.XX.XX.XX from http://redoxhealth.net/
    X_Id: XXXX:1:XXXXXXX
    List-Unsubscribe: ,
    Subject: ASEA Samples – Time (Machine) in a Bottle

    Is that enough? As mentioned previously, the Texas Attorney General likely has more information on Brandon Olson. I suppose you are going to dismiss the $30 sample fee for with some lame excuse, or are you going to implicate Brandon for scamming people (again)?

  15. Narad says:

    Again quoting,

    Not who you were quoting in the first place, of course. Bad form, Tracy.

    “Once a messenger has delivered its message, it does not ‘live’ very much longer to continue sending more messages. The cells manufacture enzymes (protease ‘break-down crews’) that quickly disassemble the messengers and recycle their parts (Amino Acids). Thus an adrenaline “burst” lasts only as long as it takes for the protease crews to break down the excess adrenaline in the blood; after which the normal adrenaline balance in the blood is restored. In the body, the phrase, ‘kill the messenger,’ takes on a whole new meaning.

    In the real world, “the phrase,” “protease ‘break-down crews’” occurs solely at “Healthy Living Light,” featuring the strange ramblings of Anthony Palumbo.

  16. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, I was referring to “The Science of Healing Revealed Book” by Dr. Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. Atomic/Medical Physics that was the subject of all the plaigerism comments, you told me to try to be brief, I was trying to save words. Read up a few, the book is to help the lay person and it contained a forward by a former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

    @ all: Sarah has a BS.c in Microbiology (Microbiology, Chemistry, Zoology) so I don’t care if you make fun of my rudimentary understanding of the redox process but she deserves respect.

    @ nybgrus regarding your question about the NMR technology used to measure the reactive molecules in the saline solution called ASEA that is referenced at minute 1 of the video which explains the contents and parameters of the upcoming publishable study… I believe you called it “nonsensical” logic?

    This is a response from Dr. Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Imaging Science, Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY. Does it address your concern at all? If so, can we start talking about the antioxidant efficiency studies now? This is obviously beyond my understanding but I like talking about glutathione and its many benefits! Or even your q’s regarding how the other side of the equation, oxidants, have made a bad name for themselves but how antioxidant cycles require both oxidants and reductants in order to work correctly.

    Dear Tracy,

    Your critic seems to have missed the point that the NMR spectrum shown is labeled as a Phosphorous-31 NMR, and not a hydrogen-1 (H-1) or carbon-13 (C-13) spectrum. Therefore the comments made about H-1 and C-13 spectra by the critic are inappropriate for the spectrum presented. My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

    Joe

    Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D.
    Professor of Chemistry & Imaging Science
    Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program
    Rochester Institute of Technology
    Rochester, NY 14623-5604

  17. Narad says:

    (Anthony Palumbo the chiropractor, that is.)

  18. Narad says:

    Read up a few, the book is to help the lay person and it contained a forward by a former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

    Are you under the impression that anyone here is going to be impressed by an administrative title?

  19. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Quoting an “atomic physicist” explaining intercellular signalling still isn’t proof. Again, the fact that intercellular signalling exists doesn’t mean ASEA effectively alters it (or cures cancer, whitens your teeth, improves performance or cures conjunctivitis; nor does it mean you can trust company representatives to honestly and dispassionately describe the failings of their product). Accurately describing metabolism at a cellular level is not the same thing as being able to positively modulate it with salt water.

    Go away, come back in April, then we’ll talk.

    Sarah has a BS.c in Microbiology (Microbiology, Chemistry, Zoology) so I don’t care if you make fun of my rudimentary understanding of the redox process but she deserves respect.

    Congratulations to Sarah for acquiring a degree. It’s a pity that her learning didn’t include some basic skepticism or ethical principles in business.

    Also, her degree is not proof that ASEA acts as a redox signalling molecule, that it survives digestion, that it improves athletic performance and that it cures all illness.

    This is a response from Dr. Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Imaging Science, Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY. Does it address your concern at all? If so, can we start talking about the antioxidant efficiency studies now? This is obviously beyond my understanding but I like talking about glutathione and its many benefits!

    The fact that the NMR spectrum may indicate a molecule is present doesn’t mean that ASEA is an effective medical treatment, that it is a redox signalling molecule, that it influences glutathione in any way, or that it’s an effective antioxidant. Each point stands on its own, much like the below highlighted segment:

    My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

  20. Sialis says:


    That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

    @Tracy, My full response is awaiting moderation. Meanwhile, are you implying that ASEA samples are free, no cost to the consumer, and anyone charging money for a sample of ASEA is doing so against company policy?

  21. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, IF Dr. Samuelson, in fact, did use someone else’s coined phrase of “clean-up crews” (and I’m not going to look up if there’s a monopoly on the use of this phrase that automatically makes someone an idiot if they use it) to explain enzymes, get over it! He didn’t earn the American Association of Physics Teachers award for Teaching Excellence in his work with physics students (awarded on student and faculty recommendations from the University of Utah) for nothing. He is known for making complex science easy to understand.

    And I hardly think that the forward to Dr. Samuelson’s book by Chase N. Peterson, MD, the Former President of the University of Utah and the Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard is a fake title! Look it up and take back your invalid comment. I’M NOT RESPONDING TO ANY MORE OF YOUR POSTS UNTIL YOU AT LEAST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG AND THAT DR PETERSON DOES NOT HAVE A FAKE TITLE! Let’s at least get SOMETHING resolved here before we go ANY further. I’m tried of letting all these lies and accusations stand and then other people come along, without reading our BOOK of comments, and accept your re-hashes as fact! I have made some very good points and arguments on here and presented evidence that should make anyone realize that ASEA is more than just a “salt water” scheme as Ms. Hall accuses. Where’s the reasonableness here? We don’t have to get into NMR technology to at least acknowledge that this is worthy of further study.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_N._Peterson
    http://medicine.utah.edu/dfpm/AboutUs/faculty/peterson.htm

  22. Sialis says:

    @Tracy, I’m a mere lay consumer and I even I can see that you have not posted any evidence that ASEA does as it claims. Also, again, are you saying that ASEA “samples” are supposed to be free?

  23. TracyKing says:

    @ Sialis “are you implying that ASEA samples are free, no cost to the consumer, and anyone charging money for a sample of ASEA is doing so against company policy?”

    Not at all. I’m saying that if anyone is charging $30 for a 2 ounce sample then they are assuming that’s what the market will bear. I can’t imagine anyone taking them up on that offer but if they are then of course no it is not against any kind of company policy. The company DOES crack down on anyone trying to sell it CHEAPER than prices that associates can offer from their replicated websites, such as on an e-bay site. Retailers like internal medicine clinics, health food stores, chiropractors offices, dentist offices, athletic gyms, etc, CAN obtain a cheaper price of $18/bottle if they buy in bulk of 10-cases at a time but then they can’t turn around and sell it on e-bay for a price that undercuts me and the prices established by the company through our “teamASEA” websites (threw that in for Narad’s benefit based on his irrelevant tirade). Anyone can give the product away for free, and I’d venture to say that 100% of ASEA associates DO indeed do that because they want to test the results on other people, and because of their generosity and empathy for those suffering needlessly.

  24. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    And I hardly think that the forward to Dr. Samuelson’s book by Chase N. Peterson, MD, the Former President of the University of Utah and the Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard is a fake title! Look it up and take back your invalid comment. I’M NOT RESPONDING TO ANY MORE OF YOUR POSTS UNTIL YOU AT LEAST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG AND THAT DR PETERSON DOES NOT HAVE A FAKE TITLE! Let’s at least get SOMETHING resolved here before we go ANY further. I’m tried of letting all these lies and accusations stand and then other people come along, without reading our BOOK of comments, and accept your re-hashes as fact! I have made some very good points and arguments on here and presented evidence that should make anyone realize that ASEA is more than just a “salt water” scheme as Ms. Hall accuses. Where’s the reasonableness here? We don’t have to get into NMR technology to at least acknowledge that this is worthy of further study.

    …none of which is peer-reviewed evidence that ASEA is anything but salt water, that it modulates redox signalling, that it affects gluthoionine (don’t care about the spelling), or that you’re justified in selling salt water for $4 per day. Please stop waving Samuelson around as if he were evidence that ASEA works. I suggest you look up another wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    In some cases an argument from authority is reasonable – but the great thing about authorities is they are very familiar with the evidence base and can easily provide peer-reviewed articles that substantiate their claims. So once again you are making irrelevant points that don’t substantiate your claims.

  25. Sialis says:

    @ Sialis “are you implying that ASEA samples are free, no cost to the consumer, and anyone charging money for a sample of ASEA is doing so against company policy?”

    Not at all.

    Then why are you making the statement “That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

    You, Tracy are quite skilled at misleading consumers. My psychic powers are telling me that the Feds will be investigating these amazing health claims being asserted by ASEA. My psychic powers tell me that some of these ASEA marketing people will not be selling ASEA for very long. The sad fact is that they will likely just move on to the next scam. It’s like playing whack-a-mole, as soon as the Feds stop one scam, another one pops up somewhere else.

  26. TracyKing says:

    @ WLU and Sialis, you are going to need to go the beginning to catch up, you can’t enter mid-stream, sorry. This is a waste of my time to re-hash. Narad had specific questions about some of the slides presented in the NMR discussion contained in the video presented by Dr. David Niemann, Director of the Human Performance Laboratory and VP of the ACSM, please start from the beginning. And Sialis, I have presented plenty of links for you to be able to make conclusions on your own without the need for a published study, all this discussion is about the findings that took the company in the direction of even being able to come up with conclusions worthy of publication.

    And to re-hash AGAIN, ASEA is NOT intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent ANY disease. If Sarah or I have presented ANY information that implies otherwise, we take it back and we are sorry if we mis-led you. The only point we intend to make is that ASEA is the only source of stable balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the world besides your own body, and there are benefits to introducing sets of balanced molecules into your body so that cells can sustain a healthy chemical balance which translates into good health for the body as a whole.

    What are Redox Signaling Molecules?
    Redox Signaling is a function that is central to all life on the planet. Redox Signaling molecules are created within every cell of the body, and are vital to the immune system and to cellular healing mechanisms. Redox Signaling molecules are so essential to life that without them, you would die within seconds. A proper supply of Redox Signaling molecules enables the normal cellular healing process: damaged, dysfunctional cells fading away and healthy, vibrant cells taking over.

    What is the importance of Redox Signaling Molecules?
    Redox Signaling molecules are classified into two groups: Reactive Oxygen Species and Reduced Species. The Reactive Oxygen Species arms the immune system, the Reduced Species activates antioxidants. A careful, homeostatic balance between these two species is maintained in all cells and tissues. When a problem or damage occurs, this balance is disturbed, and this imbalance sends a signal to cause the cells and tissues to defend and repair themselves, thus restoring healthy balance. Redox Signaling Molecules boost the efficiency of the body’s internal antioxidants by 500% and supports the vital activity of cellular communication.

    Is ASEA safe?
    Absolutely. In fact, there is almost nothing else as safe for the body as ASEA. It is safer than tap water, spring water, or alkaline water. This record of safety is documented by more than $5 million in safety studies conducted on ASEA and the foundational technology. ASEA has been proven 100% non-toxic on all tissues, organs, and systems of the body.

    HOW IS ASEA ABSORBED?
    ASEA IS ABSORBED QUICKLY THROUGH WATER ABSORPTION CHANNELS IN THE SOFT TISSUES OF THE MOUTH, ESOPHAGUS, AND STOMACH LINING. THE RS AND ROS MOLECULES IN ASEA ARE ABLE TO SURVIVE THE HARSH ACIDIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE STOMACH UNTIL THEY ARE ABSORBED. TRACES OF RESIDUAL RS AND ROS MOLECULES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE BLOOD HOURS AFTER INGESTION.

    I hope this helps you better understand Sialis, I realize you all are used to being able to de-bunk anything but, try as you might, you have presented NO evidence that ASEA Corporate is presenting any false or misleading information. They have a product that is heavily backed by research and supported by clinical as well as anecdotal results, you can either buy it or not. But calling a rose by any other name is still a rose.

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Gandhi

  27. Sialis says:

    NO evidence that ASEA Corporate is presenting any false or misleading information. They have a product that is heavily backed by research and supported by clinical as well as anecdotal results, you can either buy it or not. But calling a rose by any other name is still a rose.

    Amazing! And I hear that the jail system only houses innocent people.

  28. Narad says:

    Narad had specific questions about some of the slides presented in the NMR discussion contained in the video presented by Dr. David Niemann, Director of the Human Performance Laboratory and VP of the ACSM, please start from the beginning.

    No, I did not. Please try to at least keep people straight before further issuing decrees about who gets to say what about whom.

  29. Sialis says:

    Furthermore, I fail to understand how spraying salt water into one’s eyes would be considered “safe”. What about people with Sjogren’s or Sarcoidosis, or diabetes and other diseases which can cause people to have extremely dry and sensitive eyes?

  30. Narad says:

    He didn’t earn the American Association of Physics Teachers award for Teaching Excellence in his work with physics students (awarded on student and faculty recommendations from the University of Utah) for nothing.

    As has already been pointed out, this is not a noteworthy credential and does not meaningfully involve the AAPT.

  31. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    WLU and Sialis, you are going to need to go the beginning to catch up, you can’t enter mid-stream, sorry.

    Oh, are we inventing rules now? Anyway, I was aware of the criticisms of the NMR “evidence” presented above, I just lack the technical background to address specifics. Now, it may very well be that the response you got indicates the particular atomic bonds exist, but again as I have said before – this doesn’t mean your magic salt water has any medical effects. So no need to repeat anything, since you haven’t addressed any of the flaws found in your previous arguments.

    This is a waste of my time to re-hash. Narad had specific questions about some of the slides presented in the NMR discussion contained in the video presented by Dr. David Niemann, Director of the Human Performance Laboratory and VP of the ACSM, please start from the beginning.

    I thought we weren’t re-hashing?

    And Sialis, I have presented plenty of links for you to be able to make conclusions on your own without the need for a published study, all this discussion is about the findings that took the company in the direction of even being able to come up with conclusions worthy of publication.

    Yeah…the majority of criticisms against you have been your complete failure to provide any publications that support your claims. Lots of company propaganda, nothing relevant from peer reviewed press.

    And summarizing again – blah blah blah more explanations of real phenomena lacking any proof ASEA affects them blah blah blah safety isn’t efficacy blah blah blah irrelevant crap ignoring the fact that ASEA deliberately doesn’t make specific claims because it means they don’t face action from the FTC or FDA.

    This is new, a quote from Ghandi. Now, he was talking about political processes, not empirical evidence, so finally something relevant! You have successfully contextualized your claims as non-empirical. Good job! Does absolutely nothing to demonstrate ASEA is effective, but at least you’re in the right ballpark. Here’s another couple quotes for you:

    Carl Sagan – “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

    Robert L. Park – “It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.”

    See, these address empirical claims, which you keep trying, but failing to make. Wanna take another swing there slugger?

  32. Sialis says:

    Some patients have medical conditions which require that only sterile solutions be used in their eyes, ASEA leads consumers to believe the ASEA is safe for everyone to use, including in their eyes. Is ASEA sterile? How do you maintain that sterility after the bottle has been opened? That’s ok, don’t bother answering because you can’t. ASEA being sprayed into the eyes of certain patients could indeed cause medical problems. Your complete lack of ethics astounds me.

  33. TracyKing says:

    And should there be any doubt, ASEA is the single greatest health science breakthrough of our lifetime, the key to living younger longer.

    I love Einstein quotes don’t you all? We should take a break from arguing…

    The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

    Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.

    Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… it takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

    Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value.

    Peace cannot be achieved by force, it can only be achieved by understanding.

    I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.

    Look deep into nature and then you will understand everything better.

    Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.

    Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.

    Concern for man and fate must always form the chief interest of his endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.

    The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

    It is a miracle that curiosity survives a formal education.

    Most people say that it is intellect that makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    It should be possible to explain the law of physics to a barmaid.

    Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to anyone.

    We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.

    AND MY FAVORITE FROM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
    “Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.”

  34. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    And should there be any doubt, ASEA is the single greatest health science breakthrough of our lifetime, the key to living younger longer.[citation needed]

    Fixed it for you champ. Also, you are a rooster.

    AND MY FAVORITE FROM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
    “Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.”

    Ha, are you fucking kidding? Your company isn’t investigating anything! I’d like to investigate using good-quality sources, but you haven’t provided any!

    Man, you just keep missing the boat, don’t you?

  35. TracyKing says:

    I publicly apologize to Narad even though I’m not speaking to him UNTIL he admits that Chase N. Peterson, MD, who wrote the forward to Dr. Gary Samuelson’s book, “The Science of Healing Revealed” has a real title of “Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

    It was NOT Narad who posed the NMR question, it was nybgrus, who has yet to respond to the Ph.D.’s comment that should have cleared up his concern that all the information presented in the metabolites video was a sham and complete bogus.

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

    Dear Tracy,

    Your critic seems to have missed the point that the NMR spectrum shown is labeled as a Phosphorous-31 NMR, and not a hydrogen-1 (H-1) or carbon-13 (C-13) spectrum. Therefore the comments made about H-1 and C-13 spectra by the critic are inappropriate for the spectrum presented. My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

    Joe

    Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D.
    Professor of Chemistry & Imaging Science
    Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program
    Rochester Institute of Technology
    Rochester, NY 14623-5604

  36. Narad says:

    I publicly apologize to Narad even though I’m not speaking to him UNTIL he admits that Chase N. Peterson, MD, who wrote the forward to Dr. Gary Samuelson’s book, “The Science of Healing Revealed” has a real title of “Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

    I didn’t dispute this in the first place. I stated that it wasn’t impressive. Again, it’s administrative. And nobody “has” a “title” that begins with “former.”

  37. Narad says:

    I love Einstein quotes don’t you all?

    No, not really, particularly given that it involves a sourcing task that you don’t merit.

  38. weing says:

    @Tracy,

    “And Sialis, I have presented plenty of links for you to be able to make conclusions on your own without the need for a published study”

    I have actually made my own conclusions based on what you linked. But I am afraid you won’t like them. You have nothing. You only have unsupported claims. The links are totally irrelevant to the claims. Anyone who thinks you have anything else, has to be a blubbering idiot.

  39. Chris says:

    Personally, I am not a big fan of links. I usually ask for the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed studies that support a claim.

  40. weing says:

    “Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.”
    It’s right up there with clearing and accepting under the same circumstances. So is thinking that you know how to investigate.

  41. weing says:

    “The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
    When did you stop questioning what you were told by the promoters of ASEA?

  42. The Dave says:

    “And I hardly think that the forward to Dr. Samuelson’s book by Chase N. Peterson, MD, the Former President of the University of Utah and the Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard is a fake title! Look it up and take back your invalid comment. I’M NOT RESPONDING TO ANY MORE OF YOUR POSTS UNTIL YOU AT LEAST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG AND THAT DR PETERSON DOES NOT HAVE A FAKE TITLE! Let’s at least get SOMETHING resolved here before we go ANY further. I’m tried of letting all these lies and accusations stand and then other people come along, without reading our BOOK of comments, and accept your re-hashes as fact! I have made some very good points and arguments on here and presented evidence that should make anyone realize that ASEA is more than just a “salt water” scheme as Ms. Hall accuses. Where’s the reasonableness here? We don’t have to get into NMR technology to at least acknowledge that this is worthy of further study. ”

    A few observations:
    1. you sound like a 3rd grader that was told “my father is better than yours” and your response is “nuh uh! Tae it back!” Shows a great deal of immaturity.
    2. Nobody said it was a fake title. We just said aministrative titles mean nothing to the conversation about whether or not ASEA works.
    3. If you’re going to get all butt-hurt over titles, show some respect and address her as Dr. Hall. Not Harriett or Ms. Hall. She earned her MD, and is still license an praticing, which is more than can be sai about your CPA, if I remember right from upthread.

  43. Sialis says:

    All other claims aside, ASEA Corporate states that:

    “ASEA is safe to all tissues, organs, and systems of the body. ”

    “ASEA is safe and soothing to even the most sensitive tissues.”

    “Apply to cuts, sores, open wounds, burns, abrasions, scars, acne, wrinkles and any other skin issue. ASEA is safe to apply to open cuts, sores and wounds and does not sting or irritate.”

    “ASEA can be applied safely to the eyes by using the personal applicator (spraying) or with an eye dropper. “ASEA has a soothing affect on the eyes and can be used to promote cellular healing and correction of many issues. Dryness, inflammation, soreness and vision issues are typical reasons for applying ASEA to your eyes.”

    The only usage missing is as a douche or enema, unless I am overlooking the mention. It seems to me that any product being sold for optical, nasal and similar usage must be manufactured under strict laboratory conditions so as to ensure no product contamination occurs. Furthermore, the product must be packaged so as to remain contaminant free throughout the entire use of the package.

    How does ASEA ensure that its product remains free from contaminants when the product is packaged in a multi-use container?

    Inhaling ASEA using a nebulizier would also pose risk to patients, especially those immune-compromised. Is ASEA safe for patients with asthma, pneumonia, pulmonary sarcoidosis, or COPD to inhale in a nebulizer? Again, after the container has been opened and used, how does ASEA guarantee it’s safety and sterility as is often needed for such patients?

    What procedures are in place at the ASEA manufacturing plant to ensure that the product is sterile and safe for nebulizer usage? What materials are used in the making of the ASEA packaging and the personal applicator? Do they degrade over time? Could such degradation contaminate or otherwise effect the safety of the product when used as recommended in the eyes, nose and as a nebulizer for the lungs?

    All of the above questions, and yet ASEA Corporate states those internal uses are safe. How is this possible? Yet ASEA does in fact post a Safety Warning: The stability of ASEA is sensitive to contamination. Always cap unused portions, and do not drink directly from the bottle, as this will encourage contamination.

    It seems to me that if ASEA is going to market a product for use on “all tissues”, they at least need to find a way to package it so that it is not so “sensitive to contamination”.

    ———-

    Cardiovascular, Pulmonary and Residual Toxic Effects on Dogs Exposed Nasally to the Product (File: TS21,TS32)
    Investigator MPI Research, Mattawan, Michigan
    ASEA Corporate’s Nebulized product vapor does not cause irritation to the soft tissues of the nose, mouth, throat, eyes or lungs in dogs over long-term exposures. No abnormal macroscopic or microscopic damage, blood or urine markers, blood gas findings, are observed.

  44. nybgrus says:

    I just skimmed through all of this, but one thing caught my eye. The disingenuous misrepresentation of our statements by only cherry picking my first comment and continuing on as if nothing further had been said.

    It was NOT Narad who posed the NMR question, it was nybgrus, who has yet to respond to the Ph.D.’s comment that should have cleared up his concern that all the information presented in the metabolites video was a sham and complete bogus.

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

    Dear Tracy,

    Your critic seems to have missed the point that the NMR spectrum shown is labeled as a Phosphorous-31 NMR, and not a hydrogen-1 (H-1) or carbon-13 (C-13) spectrum. Therefore the comments made about H-1 and C-13 spectra by the critic are inappropriate for the spectrum presented. My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

    Hmm:

    “12/19/12 at 10:11 AMnybgrus
    The NMR spectroscopy data in the video don’t make sense. Gears can help me out here if he is so inclined, but from what I recall from my undergrad synthetic chem days and a quick refresher thanks to Professor Google…”

    “12/19/12 at 11:17 AMgears
    Regarding the NMR spectrum, the caption says that it is a phosphorus NMR. This should mean that it is looking at the environment of phosphorus nuclei in the solution. That isn’t unreasonable per se, as phosphorus is biologically relevant, but I can’t understand how that spectrum should lead them to conclude that superoxide is present (phosphorus NMR can detect phosphorus bonded to . The spectrum is meaningless to me (as a point of reference, I use NMR basically every day).”

    “12/19/12 at 12:55 PMgears
    Anyhow, you were totally on the mark that the spectrum was worthless, which is why I tried to impress upon my pre-med students that organic chemistry literacy was important, even if you don’t actually use it every day.”

    “Yesterday at 12:49 PMTracyKing
    nybgrus and gears, can you please tell me if this helps answer your question at all? If not, what else do you need? And can you be as specific and brief as possible please? Thanks for your help!

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

    “Yesterday at 4:00 PMnybgrus
    For me it doesn’t help at all. Perhaps Gears can comment if it does. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since it was just now that my comment came out of moderation but the crux is that the ROS/RS species purported to exist in the literature you have provided are not the same as the ones the NMR spectra appears to show”

  45. TracyKing says:

    So, just to establish some parameters, pretty much this is a bogus product/company because:
    1) they don’t yet have a published article
    a) in PubMed exclusively (no other journal will suffice)
    b) that contains hundreds of studies
    c) to support a claim about a specific DISEASE
    d) that is on humans, NOT mice
    2) it uses MLM as its worldwide distribution method
    3) the company’s claims are unproven even though they are the strongest claims ANY supplement can make regarding its product, and
    4) the company’s claims are vague because they say that it can help maintain proper balance inside the body to support the immune system and healing process.
    5) it’s made using the raw materials of salt and water as its starting ingredients
    6) the patents only protect the PROCESS whereby the salt and water molecules are dismantled and put back together in a different molecular formation that creates a saline solution of balanced sets of reducant and oxidant molecules (8 of each) that are reactive but stable (so they do not neutralize themselves). Patents should relate to disease processes or they are of no value.
    7) being the first to market with a patented product that has no competition and is proven to be safe doesn’t provide enough incentive for people to get involved
    8) it attracts gullible people who are just out to make a fast buck by duping people with unstoppable autoships

    And absolutely not one person on here can determine the value and crediblity of this product based on one or more of these discussion points which are unworthy of exploration
    1) an understanding of the emerging science of redox signaling which includes volumes of research from independent scientists around the world who confirm the vital nature of Redox Signaling to cell health as evidenced by the 100′s of research studies, published articles, and textbooks being generated about Redox Signaling monthly, making it one of the fastest growing research fields in science
    2) the fact that we have 11 safety studies by universities and independent labs
    3) the fact that we have independent verification of molecules in our solution through
    a) standard fluorescent indicators, namely RPE, APF, and HPF, measured with a Nanodrop 3300 fluorospectrometer which measures the intensity of the spectrum of light emitted from the indicators
    b) NMR technology by independent researchers unaffiliated with ASEA
    4) antioxidant efficiency studies using BOTH Western Blot Analysis AND Array Design Stressgen Kit (plus white papers)
    5) Vo2Max and ventilatory threshhold uncontrolled testing which led to a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover randomized clinical trial that tested metabolite profiles of athletes that was performed by the independent Human Performance Laboratory and overseen by the VP of the ACSM and other completely independent Ph.D.’s (plus white papers)
    6) the integrity of the founders including Verdis Norton, former VP of Strategy for Kraft Foods, and Jim Pack, who retired in his 40′s from the telecommunications industry and whose son is a former Silver Medal US Olympian, (no prior experience with MLM’s, good reputations as respectable business men in their fields)
    7) the value of the research and press releases available on-line when it was under the umbrella of a biotech company called MDI-P, for which all of the safety studies were conducted
    8) the fact that the drug approval process with the FDA
    a) costs $100′s of millions of privately funded investment
    b) takes an average of 12 years
    c) is high risk because of competition, and the uncertainness of the expected research results
    d) can only specify that a drug be used for one indication even if the drug is determined to be useful for many others (without going back through phase 1, 2 and 3 phases for the 2nd indication)
    e) requires an LD-50 for which a product “native” to the body can not obtain (any unmatched electrons are just flushed like water so there is no risk of over-use or mis-dosing which is why it’s so safe)

    And I am PERSONALLY
    1) a fraud
    2) deceptive
    3) an idiot
    4) unethical
    5) uneducated
    6) a liar
    7) an opportunist
    8) preying on people’s illnesses and health challenges for my own financial benefit
    9) incapable of understanding how I’ve been mind controlled
    10) unaware that groupthink concepts are a powerful motivator for not being able to see another side of things
    All because I dared to suggest to such an accomplished group of Ph.D.’s the possibility of using any other type of analysis BESIDES a published study since FOR NOW we don’t have that YET; what we DO have, however, is a company-sponsored video promising that we WILL in fact have a publishable study, it just hasn’t offically been announced which journal or when (so as not to jeopardize its release), BUT the company HAS publicly acknowledged that we are in the process of obtaining it, we are pursuing it (and this is the part that makes the least sense to me in all of your arguments… if they DON’T produce it now that they’ve said they’re going to, then isn’t the company only going to be viable up until they have to admit that they don’t have it — so they are going to get in 4 more “good” months of profits and orders before it crashes — and all of you everybody thinks that makes sense despite evidence that they have recently invested in international expansion, and building an infrastructure that supports a long-term “legacy” company including recent investments in technology, training, marketing materials, website design, and multi-country platforms for ordering and pay plans). Wow that seems like a lot of trouble to make a “quick” buck that took 20 years in the making!

    Is anyone interested in continuing this discussion based on my MISunderstanding of any of these parameters set forth by this group of heady braniacs, for whom I am unworthy to go head-to-head with? Because I would LOVE to continue the discussion on any one or more of these points as long as we can be reasonable and refrain from personal attacks.

  46. TracyKing says:

    ha ha HARRIETT… the funny faces aren’t mine obviously. couldn’t you have kept the indentions to make it easier to read?

    @ nybgrus, can you help clarify for me your unresolved NMR question? Are you saying that you don’t think the ROS/RS species presented in the chart at the one-two minute mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g are the same as the ones presented in the NMR spectra of the same chart? Are we talking about one chart showing two pieces of conflicting information? I’m sorry, I’m sure that’s not right but I can’t understand your question unless it’s phrased in a more understandable way for stupid ol’ me.

  47. Narad says:

    And I am PERSONALLY

    While parts of your numbered list stand, I think the underlying suggestion is that you quite simply didn’t know what you were getting into when voyaging here, and I say this as an infrequent commenter (for the reason that I am generally outclassed), on some sort of expedition in search of self-validation.

  48. Narad says:

    ha ha HARRIETT… the funny faces aren’t mine obviousl

    Um, if you’re referring to the emoticons, which I haven’t noticed Dr. Hall making fun of, the irksome one is automatically and unfortunately generated by WordPress when it sees “8).” You can type “8&#” if you wish.

  49. Narad says:

    Allow me to try that again. …Can type “8&##41;”

  50. Narad says:

    Dagnabit. Just put ampersand-octothorpe-41-semicolon after the ’8′ and it’s fine.

  51. nybgrus says:

    Curioser and curioser. Anybody else notice the numbering of the points? Look at it closely.

    nybgrus, can you help clarify for me your unresolved NMR question? Are you saying that you don’t think the ROS/RS species presented in the chart at the one-two minute mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g are the same as the ones presented in the NMR spectra of the same chart? Are we talking about one chart showing two pieces of conflicting information? I’m sorry, I’m sure that’s not right but I can’t understand your question unless it’s phrased in a more understandable way for stupid ol’ me.

    The NMR spectra shown in the video does not identify ROS/RS and it does not correspond to the compounds that are supposedly in ASEA based on the literature you have provided.

    In other words, the NMR specrtagraph cannot be showing what the video is telling us it is showing.

    It would be like me showing you this and telling you it demonstrates that whales are endangered. The claim does not follow from the data.

  52. nybgrus says:

    Just realized, I should be clear that I am not speaking about the accidental emoticons. Something much more interesting, IMO

  53. TracyKing says:

    @ nybgrus, you mean the numbering turning into lettering? i wrote it so that the letters would be indented but wordpress just put them under each other so now it’s harder to read.

    do you mean the 2nd chart that shows an EPR spectrum? Here is some information that might clear it up:
    Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) or electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy is a technique for studying materials with unpaired electrons. The basic concepts of EPR are analogous to those of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), but it is electron spins that are excited instead of the spins of atomic nuclei. Because most stable molecules have all their electrons paired, the EPR technique is less widely used than NMR. However, this limitation also means that EPR offers great specificity, since ordinary chemical solvents and matrices do not give rise to EPR spectra.

  54. TracyKing says:

    5-Diisopropoxyphosphoryl-5-methyl-1-pyrroline-N-oxide (DIPPMPO) spin trapping has been used in measuring superoxide production in mitochondria.

  55. TracyKing says:

    It is worth noting that the radical adduct (or products such as the hydroxylamine) can often be stable enough to allow non-EPR detection techniques. The groups of London, and Berliner & Khrahmtsov have used NMR to study such adducts and Timmins and co-workers used charge changes upon DBNBS trapping to isolate protein adducts for study. A major advance has been the development of anti-DMPO antibodies by Mason’s group, allowing study of spin trapping reactions by a simple immuno-based techniques.

  56. Narad says:

    It is worth noting that the radical adduct (or products such as the hydroxylamine) can often be stable enough to allow non-EPR detection techniques. The groups of London, and Berliner & Khrahmtsov have used NMR to study such adducts and Timmins and co-workers used charge changes upon DBNBS trapping to isolate protein adducts for study. A major advance has been the development of anti-DMPO antibodies by Mason’s group, allowing study of spin trapping reactions by a simple immuno-based techniques.

    Tracy, you’re now grabbing stuff from Wikipedia for no discernible reason and failing to mention that you didn’t make it up yourself. Give it a rest.

  57. Narad says:

    Or, to put it another way, explain the anomalous Zeeman effect in your own words.

  58. TracyKing says:

    Ok, now you get to see why I’m on the business side and not the development side, bear with me… so do you mean that the equipment is just showing a high concentration of only superoxides and not a balanced set of reductants and oxidants like other ASEA literature purports? If so, then I think that the NMR technology is just being utilized to identify the presence of ANY redox signaling molecules, which is all that was necessary for them to proceed with their study (they had to confirm that the solution did in fact contain reactive molecules that create signaling in the body, of which superoxides are included). Since superoxides are only produced as a by-product of the energy-making process of mitochondrial respiration, then the requirement that the ASEA solution contains something only made by the body could be satisfied. (???) ASEA literature DOES state that the solution contains BOTH reductants and oxidants, however it appears that this NMR technology is only SHOWING the oxidants, however, perhaps there is other equipment they would use to measure the reductants and for the sake of satisfying the reactive molecules verification, showing both sides was not necessary (that doesn’t mean the solution lacks reductants, just that they weren’t measured with NMR). (???)

    OK so is your next question then, “well if you can’t prove there are also reductants in the solution to balance out the superoxides, then is it safe” (answer yes, see safety studies done on mice and animals); “and why would you want to put superoxides in your body AT ALL, aren’t those ‘free radicals’ which are biologically toxic?”

    Now I’ll get Dr. Samuelson’s help with that question (from his book): “Oxidants have made a really bad name for themselves; several of them are free radicals that have high-energy, unpaired electrons that will tear apart whatever they come into contact with (like tiny molecular cannons). Oxidants will damage DNA, tear holes in cellular membranes, destroy important proteins, etc. The reductants are also hazardous, they will fire electorons into molecules (with the ferocity of small cannons), theerby causing destruction. To be perfectly clear, reductants are not antioxidants. Reductants are simply the chemical counterparts of oxidants (much like acids and bases). Antioxidants, on teh other hand are a class of much larger organic molecules produced by genetic coding that act as catalysts capable of facilitating the revers chemical processes needed to ultimately “untie” and neutralize both the oxidants and the reductants. Antioxidant cycles require both oxidants AND reductants in order to work correctly.

    Let us focus on the antioxidants for a minute. The antioxidants were historically considered as the heroes of the cell because they break down the harmful oxidants and reductants by pulling them in and neutralizing them, leaving just common harmless molecules in their wake. Over an antioxidant cycle (some of which are complex multi-step processes) the oxidants and reductants are neutralized, however the antioxidant itself remains unchanged, ready to do it all over again to the next set of oxidants and reductants. The antioxidant in this sense is a catalyst that speeds up the neutralization of oxidants and reductants and yet of itself remains unchanged. You can think of an antioxidant as a black box: reactive and potentially dangerous oxidants and reductants go into the box and harmless neutral sea-water molecules come out.

    Ironically, the oxidants (that historically have been thought to be the villains) are now seen as central players to the healthy function of the cells. We have recently learned that we would not be able to live without either the reactive oxidants or the reductants. Truth be told, these tiny reactive molecules play an absolutely essential messenger role in our cells and tissues. The most critical aspect of healthy redox-messenger balance is in that the oxidants and reductants must be produced and eliminated in perfectly-balanced and equal portions. As long as there are equal portions of oxidants and reductants in the interior and exterior of the cell, the antioxidants can readily neutralize them both as fast as they are created. As discussed, the antioxidants need equal portions of oxidants and reductants in order to function.

    In the case of Glutathione (an abundant antioxidant made in our cells), the large mouth of the relatively huge antioxidant molecule lures in a reductant and then lures in an oxidant and then pulls them both together into the “active site” in the middle. At the active site, the reductant and oxidant are combined together, neutralizing them both. The resulting harmless molecules float away. The antioxidant is then free to do it all again. If there is an ample supply of reductants and oxidants in the neighborhood, one antioxidant molecule can typically neutralize tens of millions of oxidant molecules every second, as measured in the lab.

    The antioxidants are purposefully manufactured, sent to and positioned around the areas of the cell, such as the nucleus, that are vulnerable to oxidative damage. As equal portions of oxidants and reductants approach these protected areas, the antioxidants standing guard around these areas pull them in and neutralize them both. The antioxidants are thus able to keep these potentially harmful reactive moleucles away from protected areas and corral and use them for their own best purposes. Consequently, the immune system uses large amounts of such oxidants, along with strong demolition enzymes, as its weapon of choice against harmful invading bacteria and viruses. The foreign invaders do not even stand a chance against these potent weapons. After the invaders have been torn apart and destroyed by the enzymes and oxidants, the surrounding antioxidants standing guard and other enzymes clean up the mess, toxin and hazards.

    The key to understanding how this redox balancing process helps the body heal itself comes when considering what happens wetn the cells become damaged or defective for some reason or another. There are thousands of different proteins and molecules placed everywhere inside the cell. When something is not working right, how does the cell detect the damage? The answer lies in the fact that as the normal homeostatic balance that exists in healthy cells is disturbed, somewhere in the cell there is either a build-up or deficiency of the normal quantity of molecules. There is a high probability that this growing imbalance will at some point make the metabolism of sugars less efficient. When this happnes, the redox-messenger production in the mitochondria becomes unbalanced, producing many more oxidants than reductants or vice versa. In other words, the damage will ultimately manifest itself as a build-up of oxidants or reductants. This condition is called “oxidative stress” and is a real phenomenon seen (under the microscope) to occur in almost all defective or stressed cells (in both animals and plants).

    An imbalance in the redox messengers, usually manifesting itself as oxidative stress, sends a clear signal that damage has occurred somewhere and that the cell is defective. The excess oxidants are not balanced by reductants and cannot be effectively neutralized by antioxidants. These oxidants end up causing even more damage to other parts of the cell. This clear signal for help causes the DNA to code for the “fix-it crew” and cytokine messengers are sent out to alert the immune system. If this imbalance (oxidative stress condition) is not corrected by the attempts of the fix-it crew, the oxidants continue to build up. Then after about two hours, the fatally damaged cell starts a “programmed cell suicide” cascade (apoptosis) that will end up with the cell killing and dismantling itself. This is not a bad thing. Normal healthy neighboring cells will then be able to divide in order to fill in the vacancy. On the microscopic scale, this is essentially the healing process.

    The oxidative stress condition in a stressed or damaged cell also causes the DNA to code for messengers to be sent to neighboring cells, advising them of its condition. Redox messengers can also be used as these intercellular messengers. If the damaged cell, such as those found in tumors, is not able to kill itself, then its neighboring healthy cells will send back “death domain” messengers as well as distress messengers to the immune system that will either cause the damaged cell to die or to be attacked by the immune system. This system is regularly used to detect and destroy practically all of the damaged and dysfunctional cells in the body. Remember, it only takes one undetected dysfunctional cell, out of the trillions that are successfully detected and killed, to start seeding an abnormal growth.”

  59. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, of course I copied and pasted that! I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, I figured you could tell how it was written that it wasn’t me… I was just trying to help you answer your own question so I pasted things that seemed relevant in the hopes that it would mean something to you? Because yes it meant NOTHING to me. And I was busy writing so I didn’t see your comments about it until now. Sorry if you feel like this is wasting your time. You still think I’m a con artist and I’m not, I promise you, I have 3 kids, ages 15, 13 and 8, I’ve been married to the same man for 23 years and we’ve been together since we were 13 and 14 years old! I’m just loyal, passionate, curious, and I truly want to make a difference int e

  60. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, of course I copied and pasted that! I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, I figured you could tell how it was written that it wasn’t me… I was just trying to help you answer your own question so I pasted things that seemed relevant in the hopes that it would mean something to you? Because yes it meant NOTHING to me. And I was busy writing so I didn’t see your comments about it until now. Sorry if you feel like this is wasting your time. You still think I’m a con artist and I’m not, I promise you, I have 3 kids, ages 15, 13 and 8, I’ve been married to the same man for 23 years and we’ve been together since we were 13 and 14 years old! I’m just loyal, passionate, curious, and I truly want to make a difference int e

  61. TracyKing says:

    oops… in the world and to live a life that matters. Money is not that important to me as long as we have our basic needs, I’m really pretty much of a minimalist. Please just have a conversation with me, snide comments aside. Give me the benefit of the doubt until we at least get through the crux of your dilemma regarding those slides presented. If they’re wrong, I want to know it.

  62. weing says:

    “And I am PERSONALLY
    1) a fraud
    2) deceptive
    3) an idiot
    4) unethical
    5) uneducated
    6) a liar
    7) an opportunist
    preying on people’s illnesses and health challenges for my own financial benefit
    9) incapable of understanding how I’ve been mind controlled
    10) unaware that groupthink concepts are a powerful motivator for not being able to see another side of things”

    Well, you finally got something right, but I doubt that you actually believe it. You want us to accept the claims of some company sponsored video, just like you have, and call it knowledge.

    I prefer Shakespeare, ” it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  63. TracyKing says:

    regarding the Zeeman effect, are you talking about the 1st chart “ASEA Composition” or the 2nd chart “EPR Spectrum” — (sorry!)

  64. TracyKing says:

    @ weing, don’t “ACCEPT” it, prove it WRONG (that’s what I tried to do)! And without needing someone else to do a stupid study FOR you! We don’t have that yet so we are left to use our decipherin’ skills. When I got involved, we didn’t even have the promise of ANY studies on the horizon so I had to either accept it or de-bunk it if I wanted to take action NOW and not wait until it took off without me… and regret seeing myself saying “well damn, I wish I’d seen that potential, I’d be a millionaire right now!” [And not because money is my motivation but because money buys freedom and the power to help other people in more significant ways.] I know that’s all way to “woo” (as JJ would say) to all of you right brain thinkers but that really is me and I don’t apologize for it. And weing, like I’ve said, I tried to understand it myself and I sought advice from people who are FAR smarter than me who could not de-bunk it either and who actually became involved because they TOO got intrigued by the research which seemed plausible and valid in the absence of any information to the contrary. And then I saw the incredible results people were having with the product… I mean what was I to do, really?! Keep selling kitchen tools at home parties or sit in a desk cranking numbers all day? This is the chance to be part of something that could literally change the world IF IT’S TRUE. So HELP me, don’t make fun of me.

  65. weing says:

    “This is the chance to be part of something that could literally change the world IF IT’S TRUE. So HELP me, don’t make fun of me.”

    OK. The burden is on them to prove it right not on anyone else to prove it wrong. Their claims are not true, so save your time and money.

  66. TracyKing says:

    One last comment and then I have GOT to go to bed! Do you not see that if you wait until it’s self-evident, then the financial opportunity will have long passed? I mean all of you want me to wait until they have a published study on HUMANS in PUBMED about a DISEASE PROCESS… blah, blah, blah. I mean come on, at some point, can’t you just look at a body of evidence as a WHOLE, all the pieces that make up the parts, and come to a logical conclusion BEFORE it hits Dr. Oz stage because by THAT time, everybody will already know about, will already know someone to get it from… I mean you all keep saying I’m buying everything the company is selling without having a brain to think for myself and I’m being duped by my blindness because I’m already in, but I see it as YES they don’t have everything but they have ENOUGH. Entrepreneurs have succeeded with a lot less to go on.

  67. nybgrus says:

    pubmed is not a journal.

    and no, the spectra was clearly an NMR not and EPR and it said specifically it was looking at phosphorus. I didn’t catch it at first and thought it was looking at carbon. Then gears caught it and it was confirmed by (supposedly) Samuelson himself that it was a phosphorus NMR – “spectra shown is from P31 NMR in the DIPPMPO molecule, targeting the phosphate”

    The claim is that “The peaks represent the chemical shifts due to the attachment of two known adducts OH* and OOH* to DIPPMPO”

    But then what is the point of the phosphorus? The point of DIPPMPO is to act as a spin trap to stabilize free radicals in an adduct. But if ASEA is already “balanced and stable” why would you to stabilize it? And why would you include phosphorus if that is not what is an ASEA? And of course, the part I have been hung up on the whole time – why does it show things that AREN’T what is supposed to be in ASEA?

    Gears, if he is still reading, can opt to comment more on the EPR vs NMR aspect of this since I never worked with EPR. But that would be purely academic. No matter how you slice it that spectra in the video does not prove anything and doesn’t even seem to be looking at what is supposed to be ASEA in the first place.

  68. Scott says:

    And to re-hash AGAIN, ASEA is NOT intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent ANY disease.

    Translated – we KNOW it doesn’t do anything, we ADMIT it doesn’t do anything, but we’re taking money for it anyway. THAT is what the statement above means. If you can’t see how completely unethical and logically bankrupt that is, well, there is no hope for you.

    I mean all of you want me to wait until they have a published study on HUMANS in PUBMED about a DISEASE PROCESS… blah, blah, blah.

    BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT TAKES FOR YOU TO HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES ANYTHING AT ALL! How in the world do you not have the faintest inkling of this fact given how many times it’s been explained? Are you truly THAT determined to completely ignore anything which might impair your ability to extract money from those even more gullible than yourself?

    (I guess I just answered my own question – yes. Motivated reasoning FTW. Arguing with my dining room table would be more productive. I’ll go do that for a while.)

  69. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I publicly apologize to Narad even though I’m not speaking to him UNTIL he admits that Chase N. Peterson, MD, who wrote the forward to Dr. Gary Samuelson’s book, “The Science of Healing Revealed” has a real title of “Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

    Oooh, a new level of maturity! The silent treatment! Let us know what we can all do to achieve this, and finally the thread will die down!

    The links are totally irrelevant to the claims. Anyone who thinks you have anything else, has to be a blubbering idiot.

    Weing, there is a sad coda to this actually – another group who thinks she might have anything are the desperately ill. Emphasis on the “desperate” :(

    1) they don’t yet have a published article
    a) in PubMed exclusively (no other journal will suffice)
    b) that contains hundreds of studies
    c) to support a claim about a specific DISEASE
    d) that is on humans, NOT mice
    2) it uses MLM as its worldwide distribution method
    3) the company’s claims are unproven even though they are the strongest claims ANY supplement can make regarding its product, and
    4) the company’s claims are vague because they say that it can help maintain proper balance inside the body to support the immune system and healing process.
    5) it’s made using the raw materials of salt and water as its starting ingredients
    6) the patents only protect the PROCESS whereby the salt and water molecules are dismantled and put back together in a different molecular formation that creates a saline solution of balanced sets of reducant and oxidant molecules (8 of each) that are reactive but stable (so they do not neutralize themselves). Patents should relate to disease processes or they are of no value.
    7) being the first to market with a patented product that has no competition and is proven to be safe doesn’t provide enough incentive for people to get involved
    8) it attracts gullible people who are just out to make a fast buck by duping people with unstoppable autoships

    Pubmed is a database, not a journal. There are no publications that specifically test efficacy against individual conditions in humans. The prior probability is very low given the simplicity of the ingredients and the manner in which they are processed, along with the complexity of the body and the chemical reactivity of the stomach. Despite this they sell the product in a way that places nearly all the risk on the backs of salespeople, exploiting a well-known loophole in consumer protection legislation with marketing using recognized terminology that is a red flag for quackery. And its proponents show up to argue tenaciously about its efficacy with know evidence of understanding basic science, skeptical thinking or the ability to recognize counter-arguments. The only thing they appear to have learned is how to parrot the carefully constructed nonsense of the company that is just a hair on the side of being legal, while still being completely inaccurate. The rest of your comments appear to be the usual grammatically correct, factually wrong blathering about patents, the cost of testing and irrelevant facts regarding redox signalling. I alone have refuted them multiple times, and the fact that you keep repeating them suggests to me you may indeed have had a stroke that prevents you from learning. You do seem to grasp “repetition” but clearly are failing to move on to “comprehension”.

    oops… in the world and to live a life that matters. Money is not that important to me as long as we have our basic needs, I’m really pretty much of a minimalist.

    You don’t seem to realize the fact that you are taking desperate, probably financially strapped people (medical treatment is expensive) and removing money from their pockets on the basis of false hope. Are you disgusted at the way megachurches take social security checks from impoverished senior citizens who are trying to buy their way into heaven? I am, and I am similarly disgusted at your exploitation of people with chronic, life threatening and painful conditions to sell expensive salt water with no empirical justification.

    Please just have a conversation with me, snide comments aside. Give me the benefit of the doubt until we at least get through the crux of your dilemma regarding those slides presented. If they’re wrong, I want to know it.

    There are hundreds of comments that have civilly pointed out the flaws in your nonsense. You have replied to them with the same logical fallacies and irrelevant links. We are explaining to you, but you are waving your hands like a Muppet without bothering to listen. And I dislike this, in part because Muppets are awesome, you are not worthy to be compared to them.

    When I got involved, we didn’t even have the promise of ANY studies on the horizon so I had to either accept it or de-bunk it if I wanted to take action NOW and not wait until it took off without me… and regret seeing myself saying “well damn, I wish I’d seen that potential, I’d be a millionaire right now!” [And not because money is my motivation but because money buys freedom and the power to help other people in more significant ways.]

    1) You say this with pride, as if it were a good thing.
    2) There are myriad companies that succeed only in fleecing investors and customers. A company that makes unfounded structure-function claims and markets salt water is probably one of them. I am sorry you have poured so much time and money into this. I am sorry you desperately want ASEA to be all it promotes itself as being. But the chance that any of its claims will turn out to be empirically valid are vanishingly small. It is hard to admit to one’s self that an enormous error has been made, and that you have been duped. But as an accountant and MBA holder, surely you understand the concept of sunk costs, an the idea that they should never impact decision making about the future. Keep this in mind as you contemplate whether to continue pouring money into products. Perhaps consider purchasing shares in the company instead, you can still gain from their success, but without having to unethically market to consumers.

    I sought advice from people who are FAR smarter than me who could not de-bunk it either and who actually became involved because they TOO got intrigued by the research which seemed plausible and valid in the absence of any information to the contrary

    Were any of them specialists in any of the areas relevant to ASEA’s medical claims? Gastroenterologists, doctors in general, biologists, etc., or just “smart people” without any understanding of just how hard it is to make a sick body healthy? I’ve very much been making fun of you, now I’m a little sad for you. I don’t like to be sad, so please go away.

    Do you not see that if you wait until it’s self-evident, then the financial opportunity will have long passed? I mean all of you want me to wait until they have a published study on HUMANS in PUBMED about a DISEASE PROCESS… blah, blah, blah [sic]

    So what you’re saying is, you can’t wait until human studies exist, because it would interfere with your ability to make money? That’s not a solid scientific argument.

    Also, have you ever heard the saying “if an opportunity appears too good to be true, it probably is”?

    I mean come on, at some point, can’t you just look at a body of evidence as a WHOLE, all the pieces that make up the parts, and come to a logical conclusion BEFORE it hits Dr. Oz stage

    1) The “body of evidence” as a whole incorporates basic biology, chemistry and physics, and one of the reasons we object to your claims is because no matter what you do to salt water, it’s extremely unlikely that it will have wide-ranging positive effects on disease processes or athletic performance (bar hyponatremia).
    2) Again, know your audience. Search for “Dr. Oz” on sciencebasedmedicine and see what turns up. Dr. Oz is a bit of a fame-beguiled idiot. You’d probably like him, or at least agree with him. He also thinks somebody saying X cures cancer means it actually cures cancer.

    because by THAT time, everybody will already know about, will already know someone to get it from… I mean you all keep saying I’m buying everything the company is selling without having a brain to think for myself and I’m being duped by my blindness because I’m already in, but I see it as YES they don’t have everything but they have ENOUGH. Entrepreneurs have succeeded with a lot less to go on.

    1) Business success is not the same thing as scientific efficacy
    2) I don’t doubt you have a brain. Very close to the same brain I have. Which means that unless you are careful and rigorous in how you assess evidence, you are amazingly vulnerable to various logical fallacies and cognitive biases. The rules of science, replication, extension, objective test, public discussion and acknowledgement of criticisms, exist to defend against these biases, because we’re still just jumped-up apes programmed by evolution to powerful cognitive blinders.

    Merry Christmas!

  70. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Fucking hell, blockquote fail (PLEASE SWITCH TO A BLOGGING SERVICE WITH A PREVIEW FUNCTION!!!!)

    There should be a close tag for the blockquote after “[sic]“.

  71. The Dave says:

    During this Holiday Season, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has revealed to me a prediction:

    Tracy, et al claim that an article supporting ASEA will be published in “a medical journal” in the spring. The FSM has made it known unto me that no such article will be published and then Tracy et al will return to this forum asking to be given a little more time, coming up with excuses why it didn’t get published yet, or even claiming a conspiracy by Big Pharma (who totes owns, like, all teh medical journals) to suppress this information to injure the credibility of ASEA to protect Big Pharma’s profits.

    What I’ve never understood about the “Big Pharma suppressing the little guy” conspiracy is this:
    Supposedly Big Pharma is only profit driven. So when they see a company hawking some other remedy, therefore competing with Big Pharma’s profits and making lots of money off of their product, why wouldn’t Big Pharma just purchase said product and sell it themselves, therefore making all the profit the other company supposedly was making, instead of investing tons of money to suppress said money-making product, without being able to then make any money off of the investment.

    I know the conspiracy usually says that Big Pharma is afraid because it actually cures the disease instead of treat the symptoms (utter BS) and therefore Big Pharma will go out of business because everybody will be healthy (more utter BS), but then that begs the question, what does the supplement company plan on doing once everybody has been cured and no longer needs their own product? Or is a “maintenance dose” necessary to stay healthy, once the SCAM product has “healed” you? If so, why couldn’t Big Pharma continue to make a profit off of the maintenance doses of the products users…

    Whoa, hold on… All this round-and-round is making me dizzy… I think I need a break… Wait, does salt water also cure dizziness?… :)

  72. Narad says:

    regarding the Zeeman effect, are you talking about the 1st chart “ASEA Composition” or the 2nd chart “EPR Spectrum” — (sorry!)

    I’m talking about trying to think about things that are put in front of your nose. (The anomalous Zeeman effect is the preface to the Story of Spin, to invoke Sin-itiro Tomonaga.)

    In the spirit of taking my own advice, I was wondering whether gears or nybgrus could enlighten me as to whether assigning “integral” [sic] values to the areas under those 31P peaks makes any sense.

  73. Chris says:

    The Dave:

    Tracy, et al claim that an article supporting ASEA will be published in “a medical journal” in the spring.

    I did say “PubMed indexed, so that should have been a hint that it is not a journal, Tracy is showing that she is out of her depth and does not even know it. It reminds me of the guys who tinker in their garage and claim to have made a “Free Energy” motor, and then try to make it work in an audience of physicists and engineers.

    I used Google to see if there were any sellers giving away free samples of ASEA, but did not find any. I did, however, find some forum conversations from around two years ago. First there is this message that quotes another. And then when I open that ACEA Scam article, well look who I found (after clicking “more messages”):

    Tracy Powers King · Lexington, Kentucky
    your cells are made up of salt water which makes it the perfect vehicle for holding the molecules stable without reacting until they’re in your body. it has 16 years and $17 million and 30 patents to back it up. anyone wondering should just keep googling if you’re going to use google as your sole source of checking up on this company, keep searching, the deeper you dig, the more convicted you will get. and google “ty tribble” while you’re at it, pathetic! the internet truly is the bathroom wall of the world.
    Reply ·
    · February 15, 2011 at 1:05pm

    Does that look familiar?

  74. Chris says:

    I know I was influenced by Brian Dunning’s recent Skeptoid podcast on free energy, but I also remember years ago reading Bob Park’s Voodoo Science. He went into great detail on Dennis Lee who is scientifically incompetent, yet is still trying to get investors for his special machine:
    http://skepdic.com/dennislee.html

    I bet ASEA has lots in common with the Free Energy scammers. Both are trying to get something from nothing with lots of hand waving.

  75. Quill says:

    Do you not see that if you wait until it’s self-evident, then the financial opportunity will have long passed?

    And there is fuel of the passion for this tepid water, the fire by which it all burns, and eventually the smoke covering the mirror.

    And for what it’s worth, I think ASEA will be mentioned in publications this spring, probably with headlines like “Attorney General Cracks Down on Scam Product.”

  76. Chris says:

    Sorry for not closing the italics after the book title. I hope I did not italicize the internet.

  77. The Dave says:

    ” keep searching, the deeper you dig, the more convicted you will get. and google “ty tribble” while you’re at it, pathetic! the internet truly is the bathroom wall of the world.”

    Just for kicks and giggles, I did google “ty tribble”. I’m not exactly sure what I should be looking at. The first hit for his name is his personal blog with the tagline “Husband, Dad, Entrepreneur”. How utterly contemptible and pathetic that he works from home to spend time with his wife and kids! The horror!

    Tracy et al has shown just how bathroom-wall-y the internet can be

    “And for what it’s worth, I think ASEA will be mentioned in publications this spring, probably with headlines like “Attorney General Cracks Down on Scam Product.””

    My only hope is that we don’t have to wait til the spring

  78. Sialis says:

    Tracy Powers King · Lexington, Kentucky

    … the deeper you dig, the more convicted you will get.

    Maybe the Attorney General will help Tracy realize her dreams and show her how ‘convicted she can get’.

  79. Sialis says:

    As far as the Attorney General investigations go, what about all the physicians and chiropractors that are selling ASEA to their patients? They are making the same claims as Tracy, but they are indeed licensed and practicing medical professionals. What about them? The AG and the medical boards are not going to go after them all. How could they? Sad world we live in.

  80. Narad says:

    Does that look familiar?

    I kind of wish that I could prevent this exposure to the “I am a winner” indoctrination mantra from making it out of short-term memory.

  81. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    This whole scheme reminds me of the Mannatech expose a few years ago. Another MLM “cure-all”, except the company couldn’t make any health claims publicly, of course, so it was sold as a supplement. But it was all “nudge nudge wink wink” when the salespeople got together to discuss how to sell the garbage to their gullible friends, neighbours and co-workers.

    One of the major newtworks snuck a hidden camera into one of their sales rallies and the company leaders were caught coaching their salesmen on the verbiage they could and could not use to sell to stuff. Off the record (on hidden camera) the company claimed it could cure cancer (and pretty much everything else under the sun) but they crafted all kinds of legal loopholes and carefully-worded scripts they had their salespeople memorize.

    Another example of this scam is CanCell or Protocell, yet another MLM product. All kinds of claims are made in secret, without one iota of scientific evidence, but no official claims are ever stated to remain compliant.

    And it seems the ASEA people don’t like Ty Tribble because he’s a MLM salesperson selling a different “health product” and they consider him competition. Kind of like Big Pharma suppressing the competition.

    Those comments on the Tribble site are very revealing. Some of the ASEA telemarketers were stating back in 2010 that “studies were just about to be published” and we should all “be patient.” That was over three years ago, and still nothing. Maybe ASEA is learning from Burzynski how to delay and never publish clinical studies.

    I haven’t heard of this scam hitting Canada yet but I will be sure to file as many complaints with as many consumer protection agencies as I can.

  82. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    Turns out Mannatech was made of nothing more than sugar. The company claimed to have all kinds of research to show that our bodies were “deficient” in the particular type of sugar in the product, and by adding that sugar back, our bodies could cure themselves of anything. They showed all kinds of sciencey charts, papers and presentations to back up their claims.

    Sound familiar?

    At least with Mannatech and ASEA you’re getting (very expensive) sugar and salt, the basics of any good condiments and seasonings pantry.

  83. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    I also love how Tracy King tries to convince us of her credibility and sincerity by telling us she’s married (to her high-school sweetheart, no less!) and has three children.

    I live in a city with a major organized crime problem. Bikers, mafia, the whole works. At least a couple of times a month there is a gangland “settling of accounts” and one of these scumbags get murdered. In the news coverage it turns out most of these criminals were married (often for several years to the same person) and most have children, grandchildren and gasp! maybe even a dog or cat. These are the most despicable people on the planet, having conspired to smuggle hundreds of kilos of heroin or committed execution-style murders.

    Bernie Madoff was married for 50 years and had two kids. Does that mean he wasn’t defrauding people?

  84. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I have my own predictions. A paper will appear, in a low-impact journal, it will not be research on human illness, it will have a low n, and it will not prove that ASEA can cure anything.

    ASEA will not be sued by the FTC or similar agency, because they pursue, with utmost fidelity, compliance with the woefully broken DSHEA that allows them to make whatever claims they want so long as they are meaningless. The odd enthusiastic proponent will be reprimanded by the state and declaimed by the company. People will lose money in the face of false hope, and nothing much will change.

  85. Sarah from Germany says:

    Asea acquired the intellectual property from Medical Discoveries Inc. They were developing a new drug called MDI-P. They had 2 IND’s submitted to the FDA. Here is a copy (a pdf) of the toxicity study they did on dogs conducted by WIL Research Laboratories Inc. out of Ohio. I know you will all hate the link name but here it is:
    http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/TS1101.pdf

    Google MDI-P Medical Discoveries – there is a lot of info that describes the scope of where they were going with their discovery. In the end, they were scientists and not good business men. I appreciate everyone’s participation in this discussion – I agree that the FDA has it’s place and I applaud all of you for being devoted watch-dogs and skeptics to new products on the market. I am confident that Dr. Nieman from Appalachian State University will provide some credible evidence to support Asea.

  86. Moebius says:

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    These last several days of commentary have been very entertaining and enlightening. Their ability to produce endless reams of useless data is impressive; I can see now how these schemes work, with proponents like that. You know, the ones trying to make money so that they can give it away.

  87. Sialis says:

    @ASEA people, please clarify for me exactly why Barr Pharmaceuticals turned down your product.

  88. Sialis says:

    WLU, If I may add but one addition, some people will lose more than money and hope. Some patients are being led away from appropriate and effective medical care because of false claims such as those being made here. That could cost them their life.

  89. Chris says:

    To add to Sialis’ comment: like the injuries described here and here.

  90. Sialis says:

    BTW, since ASEA is so easily subject to contamination per ASEA CORPORATE, one should not use it to irrigate their sinus’ or in a nebulizer for their lungs. People have died from doing nasal irrigations using contaminated water. It is reckless for ASEA to promote their product for such purposes knowing full well that it is easily subject to contamination, regardless of the contaminant.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57499285-10391704/tap-water-in-neti-pots-behind-two-brain-eating-amoeba-deaths-in-2011-investigation-finds/

  91. The Dave says:

    “I have my own predictions. A paper will appear, in a low-impact journal, it will not be research on human illness, it will have a low n, and it will not prove that ASEA can cure anything. ”

    I’m not sure which will be worse, having to argue with true believers about why the stud wasn’t published as promised (per my predicction) or trying to explain why the study, even though it was published in a “peer-reviewed” journal, is still worthless…

  92. nybgrus says:

    1) I go with the “no paper at all” prediction

    2) TheDave: Excellent comment! (today, 9:26am)

    3) I am now back home with family and officially on vacation so any responses will be short and sweet. In this case, Gears is vastly more qualified to answer the question about NMR. Also, I have not had the time (or will or desire) to read every word of gibberish put forth here, so I do not know the full context of your question. However, as I was corrected by Gears, the “integral value” under the NMR peak means nothing. I had thought it was quantitative of how many bonds of the same type there were, but Gears corrected me by saying that only applied to 1H NMR and even then not completely robustly. In any event, both Gears and I are (unless something has come up that I am not educated enough to have caught and he is) in agreement that relevant to the discussion and claims, the NMR spectra is useless.

    4) Happy Holidays to all! Enjoy the season, friends, family, and a well deserved over indulgence of relaxation, food, and drink.

  93. Narad says:

    I’ve been rereading.

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

    It seems as though the answer here lies in the availability of dipole-dipole relaxation. Directly attached hydrogens seem to go for this until one gets up to methyl groups, which have twirling to hand. And, yes, I’m way out of my depth, but the water’s nice.

  94. nybgrus says:

    @narad:

    That makes sense to me. I was trying to think my way through it the other day and realized I would actually need to do some reading else I would be chucking up a just-so story and got lazy.

    But yeah, dipoles and the relative electron density and the interactions therein must be the explanation, it is just a question of exactly how.

    And swimming out of your depth feels great – it really lets you improve your stroke :-D

  95. TracyKing says:

    @ Sialis, “@ASEA people, please clarify for me exactly why Barr Pharmaceuticals turned down your product.”

    According to company literature and the movie “Genesis” (where they documented the offer), the founders turned down the pharmaceutical company’s offer, not the other way around. Here is a 1-minute trailer to the 20-minute movie:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgbnwcdlvc

    @ The Dave “Just for kicks and giggles, I did google “ty tribble”. I’m not exactly sure what I should be looking at. The first hit for his name is his personal blog with the tagline “Husband, Dad, Entrepreneur”. How utterly contemptible and pathetic that he works from home to spend time with his wife and kids! The horror!”

    Ty Tribble is a gold-chain-wearing porsche-driving slick MLM guy who hops companies, and he’s exactly what gives MLM a bad rep. He started Max International, an MLM company that had a glutathione-enhancing product which had some real science and credible doctors but all of the top Max people moved over to ASEA when they found out about ASEA’s glutathione studies (they already knew the benefits of glutathione, catalase and SOD and had seen what it could do for people). To stop the mass exit (and “punish” those who left) he put out ASEA-bashing youtube’s, he didn’t try to refute anything, just dismissed it by walking out in the ocean and picking up ocean water and calling it ASEA and laughing. Made him look rather petty I thought. He’s apparently tried to clean up his act by burying some of his early “work” (he’s apparently quite handy now with internet marketing now so it’s no surprising he was able to suppress some of his early embarrassing videos of himself), and he took off the jewelry but he’s still a slime-ball.

    @ Narad, my quick laymen’s research led me down the path that maybe the phosphate has something to do with the buffer solution commonly used in biological research? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate_buffered_saline. Heck if I know, since I’m so stupid, but I’ve forwarded your q, so rather than point out how ignorant my assumption is, why don’t we just wait on that point since I’m obviously out of my element.

    @ all, regarding how it can survive the stomach lining, as I stated earlier:

    “ASEA is absorbed quickly through water absorption channels in the soft tissues of the mouth, esophagus, and stomach lining. The Redox Signaling molecules in ASEA are able to survive the harsh acidic environment of the stomach until they are absorbed. Traces of residual Redox Signaling molecules have been found in the blood hours after ingestion.” Per company literature.

    I found this website http://www.anaesthesiamcq.com/FluidBook/fl1_2.php which led my dullard brain to conclude that it COULD BE plausible for ASEA to be absorbed, and it COULD BE possible that there is an explanation for why people might be able to see results when used in the eyes, in a nebulizer, and on skin (even though NOWHERE in company literature are users directed to use it in this way despite that safety studies did explore these uses).

    Some excerpts (since I know no one really opens links on here_:

    “Water molecules cross cell membranes by 2 pathways which we can call the lipid pathway & the water channel pathway.

    In some membranes the water flux is very high and cannot be accounted for by water diffusion across lipid barriers. A consideration of this fact lead to the hypothesis that membranes must contain protein which provide an aqueous channel through which water can pass. The water channels have now been found and are discussed below. Flow of water through these channels can occur as a result of diffusion or by filtration.

    The above discussion refers to water moving from one side of a lipid barrier to the other and this is relevant to the cell membrane. Other ‘membranes’ need to be considered; in particular the capillary membrane & the lymphatic endothelial membrane. These are tubular sheets of very many endothelial cells, each with their own cell membrane, but also with a potential pathway for water & solutes existing at the junction of adjacent cells. Similarly all epithelial cell layers can be considered as ‘membranes’ through which water passes and these also have intercellular pathways.

    Water can cross capillary membranes via:
    •the intercellular gaps between the endothelial cells
    •pores in the endothelial cells special areas where the cytoplasm is so thinned out that it produces deficiencies known as fenestrations.
    •diffusion across the lipid cell membranes of the endothelial cells

    Fenestrations are found only in capillaries in special areas where a very high water permeability is necessary for the function of these areas. A high water permeability is clearly necessary in the glomerular capillaries and water permeability here is very much higher than in muscle capillaries. Other areas with fenestrations are the capillaries in the intestinal villi and in ductless glands.

    Water also easily enters the lymphatic capillaries via gaps between the lymphatic endothelial cells. These gaps function also as flap valves and this also promotes forward lymph flow when the capillaries are compressed.

    The presence of specific pores (channels) in the cell membrane has long been predicted but the proteins involved in these water channels have only recently been characterised. At present at least 6 different water channel proteins (named aquaporins) have been found in various cell membranes in humans. These aquaporin proteins form complexes that span the membrane and water moves through these channels passively in response to osmotic gradients. These channel proteins are present in highest concentrations in tissues where rapid transmembrane water movement is important (eg in renal tubules).

    Aquaporin 0 is found in the lens in the eye. It has a role in maintaining lens clarity. The gene for this protein is located on chromosome 12.

    Aquaporin 1 (previously known as CHIP28) is present in the red cell membrane, the proximal convoluted tubule and the thin descending limb of the Loop of Henle in the kidney, secretory and absorptive tissues in the eye, choroid plexus, smooth muscle, unfenestrated capillary endothelium, eccrine sweat glands, hepatic bile ducts and gallbladder epithelium. The Colton blood group antigen is located on extracellular loop A of aquaporin 1 in red cells. The gene is located on chromosome 7.

    Aquaporin 2 is the ADH-responsive water channel in the collecting duct in the inner medulla. Insertion of the channel into the apical membrane occurs following ADH stimulation. The gene is located on chromosome 12.

    Aquaporins 3 and 4 are present in the basolateral membrane in the collecting duct. They are not altered by ADH levels. Recently, aquaporin 4 has been found in the ADH-secreting neurones of the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei in the hypothalamus and it has been suggested that it may be involved in the hypothalamic osmoreceptor which regulates body water balance. (See Section 5.3). The gene for aquaporin 3 is located on chromosome 7.

    Aquaporin 5 is found in lacrimal and salivary glands and in the lung. It may be the target antigen in Sjogren’s syndrome.

    Aquaporin research is currently an active field. These proteins have been identified IN ALL LIVING ORGANISMS.”

    Ok I’m done pasting. Seems like I read a lot of stuff about “endothelial cells” when I looked up “redox signaling cystic fibrosis” on PubMed, and I think that’s what MDI-P was studying as evidenced by their patent application? Again, I’m not implyinig ASEA does anything for CF, I’m just satisfying a reasonableness test about whether it’s a scam or not, and looking at evidence to suggest that the product has value. And I’ve heard of people seeing results spraying their aching tired swollen muscles and joints and seeing results, maybe it’s placebo but maybe it’s capillary absorption as explained above?

    And can I just say I’ve never met a more CHILDISH group of people in my life? Sorry I got caught up in it with my “I’m not talking to you until…” comment, I was just trying to have a little fun with you and going tit for tat without launching into the sadistic disrespectful personal attacks that you all enjoy. I get that there’s a double standard here since I’m out-numbered. And yes I realize PubMed is not a medical journal, I was just responding to all the harping that it’s no good unless it’s in there. A good journal for us (at first) would be AJSM, and eventually, ARS, but I’m sure that yes, at first it might be a smaller lesser-known one, and yes it might get held up in review. But I, for one, am glad they are pursuing publication. The product is just ahead of the science right now but it will catch up as they continue to invest more in R&D. For me, there is enough scientific and anecdotal evidence for me to want to keep taking it and to keep introducing it to others who can make up their own minds. I’m sure that more than a few people benefitted from moldy bread and aspirin (and any other number of things I could name!) before it was widely accepted and scientifically validated. ALL catefory-creator products follow the same continuum, ALL face criticism and ridicule at first.

    And my goodness, all the posts about scamming people out of their money and how expensive it is? I don’t know how much you people earn, but my daily use is the equivalent price of a cup of coffee for heaven’s sake, or less than a pack of cigs, which ppl seem to have no trouble affording. It’s all about establishing a value for it, not how much it costs, I’m happy to be able to give people options, it’s up to them to make up their own minds. Yours are jaded because of what you do I guess, and all the scams that you see, but thankfully most people just need to satisfy a reasonableness standard.

    Have a wonderful holiday with your familes. We all want the same things in life, to be able to dance with our grandchildren at their wedding, and enjoy

  96. TracyKing says:

    quality of life to the end of our days. I trust that you are doing everything in YOUR power to ensure that these goals are not left to chance, as am I.

  97. TracyKing says:

    @ the dave, ““I have my own predictions. A paper will appear, in a low-impact journal, it will not be research on human illness, it will have a low n, and it will not prove that ASEA can cure anything.

    It will DEFINITELY not be a published study on human ILLNESS (catch up with me on this point please, lest people who aren’t reading everying like nybgrus leave here misinformed), rather the human CONDITION. NO claims made by the company imply otherwise.

  98. Chris says:

    Ms. King, how is ASEA any different from the free energy claims of Dennis Lee?

    And you say: “quality of life to the end of our days. I trust that you are doing everything in YOUR power to ensure that these goals are not left to chance, as am I.”

    And it seems you have spent most of your days during the last two years cutting and pasting marketing blather, and have bothered to learn anything.

  99. The Dave says:

    Speaking of low-impact: “A good journal for us (at first) would be AJSM, and eventually, ARS,”

    I’m amazed at how low you have your sites set:
    http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal201672
    (impact factor 3.792)

    Is this the ARS you are referring to:
    http://www.liebertpub.com/ars
    (impact factor 8.456)

    “It will DEFINITELY not be a published study on human ILLNESS (catch up with me on this point please, lest people who aren’t reading everying like nybgrus leave here misinformed), rather the human CONDITION. NO claims made by the company imply otherwise.”

    Catch up with US on this point: if your “groundbreaking” peer-reviewed article doesn’t address a specific disease state, or states, and show improvement in treating it, then the study still doesn’t show that your product is effective and is just as worthless at proving your point as all your youtube/anecdotes, even if it were published in a jounal that actually has a high impact factor like the NEJM.

  100. Chris says:

    Oops… “have not bothered to learn anything.”

Comments are closed.