Articles

603 thoughts on “Fan Mail from an ASEA Supporter

  1. DavidRLogan says:

    This thread was a real gem! Fun read on a lazy christmas-break day. Thanks NYB, Gears, Chris, WLU and others for your informative posts.

    It’s hilarious that, after all the posts, it was easier to understand c13-NMR than it was to understand how this product is supposed to work :)

    Happy Holidays SBM!!!

    -David

  2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    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

    One last time, could you link the YouTube policy where they discuss their vetting process to ensure no false claims are uploaded to their website? Because in my experience, any moron can post any link on youtube and there’s no process to ensure the results are true. Put another way, how do you know the ASEA link isn’t self-serving propaganda made up out of whole cloth to help them sell more salt water?

    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.

    So what you’re saying is we have evidence that not all MLM companies are honest? The consumer protection organs are insufficient to ensure complete ethical conduct and honesty from these companies? That I’ll buy.

    But ASEA, they’re different.

    “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

    Company literature that is not peer reviewed is about as meaningful as toilet paper.

    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).

    “Could be” isn’t the same as “is”. The same problem as before – merely because someone thinks a finding applies to their pet product doesn’t mean it does apply. Until you have results involving ASEA specifically, you’re wasting your time.

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

    Why would you, when the stem of the link invariably does not involve any reliable source of information? It saves tremendous amounts of time to discard links that start with youtube, ASEA or similarly suspect sources when we know that even if they say something there is no guarantee that it is true? Not all information is equal. I will happily click on a link to pubmed, but I’ll close it again just as quickly if it doesn’t use the words “ASEA” or similar indications it applies directly to the topic at hand.

    And can I just say I’ve never met a more CHILDISH group of people in my life?

    Why, because we are unwilling to take you at your word? Because we are quick to point out that there is very good reason to discount a source of information that is extremely self-serving? That we insist on questioning your claims rather than taking them on faith? It seems this is the opposite of childish, as a child must passively accept the statements of adults while we demand meaningful information that reasonably represents what is known about reality.

    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

    Sadistic? Overdramatic much? Several times you have repeated the same inaccurate, biased or previously-discounted links and statements without modification or any indication you have grasped the criticisms ventured. Past a certain point, it seems reasonable to make the apt comparison to the learning disabled and head-injured. Want us to stop? How about you show evidence you’ve bothered to understand our replies.

    Of course, I know why. Humans have an innate tendency to avoid acknowledging information they find personally threatening to their self-concepts, or anything suggesting they have been wrong. Instead they project on their critics, claiming their criticisms are mean or unfair, thus having a reason to discount the criticisms. There’s nothing wrong with admitting you’ve made a mistake, painful as it is, that’s the only way to correct your misapprehensions about the world.

    I get that there’s a double standard here since I’m out-numbered.

    Actually, it’s not a double-standard, and that’s why you are upset. We’re asking the same standards apply to all claims of fact, you’re the one who is asking for special dispensation – essentially because you are selling something.

    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

    Sigh. The fact that you include anecdotal evidence as evidence is further evidence of your double-standard and failure to appreciate the scientific process.

    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.

    Sure, but before those products could be sold, that ridicule had to be met with evidence. The actual process is “idea, ridicule, investigation, publication, criticism, replication, sales”. You’re skipping several of those steps, with no real reason other than “I want it” and, underneath that, “I sell it”.

    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.

    Yup. Regular exercise, a diet high in fruits, vegetables and nuts, low in meat and refined fats and sugar. I’m adding to that “a plan to ensure enough money in retirement”, and your plan seems to be based on something similar (the difference being mine is a retirement fund, yours is coming from the bank accounts of the sick and desperate).

  3. Narad says:

    @ 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.

    The question whether it made sense to integrate 31P NMR peaks, which is what’s asserted in the legend on the spectrum? That’s been answered, in the negative.

  4. weing says:

    “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.”

    I guess you must be smarter than all of us here to be able to perceive that it has value. Is that why you come here? To rub our stupidity in our faces?

  5. Narad says:

    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?

    I’m pretty sure that if a spritz of salt water can diffuse directly into your capillaries, you’ve got rather more serious things to worry about than “aching tired swollen muscles and joints.”

  6. se habla espol says:

    I’ve been lurking until now, but here’s some background on stuff that the ASEA peddlers have been spamming SBM with for weeks, now.

    I’m just a well-meaning person who has ALSO thoroughly and thoughtfully studied the research and come to a different conclusion than you. I flew to the corporate headquarters and met the founders and the scientists and went to their conferences to meet the calibur of people ASEA is attracting

    So you went to Salt Lake City, the scam capitol of the country, to see these people, or did they come to you?
    The state of Utah has a marketing slogan that appears on its license plates, “Greatest Snow on Earth”. Those of us who live here know that’s the short version, suitable for non-resident consumption. The full version is “Greatest Snowjob on Earth”.
    The Utah culture places a premium on gullibility, crediting personal ‘testimony’, just-so stories and anecdotes above reality and verifiability. As a consequence, Utah is a great breeding and training ground for hucksters and hustlers: with ready access to so many easy marks, a sCAMmer can develop his pitch and his business practices on easy marks, before going out into the real world, where marks are a little harder to find. ASEA seems to have found some.
    Of course, with scamming as one of the primary economic factors of the state, Utah politicians are happy to support sCAM, and to provide legal cover for the sCAMmers.
    Someone, some time ago, mentioned the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco: that comment is well up the page by now. Nobody seemed to have noted that Pons and Fleischman did their cold fusion work at University of Utah: yes, the same place that Samuelson is from …. The UofU hospital, med and nursing schools are not too bad: that’s where my wife got her nursing degree.
    ——————————————-
    The ASEA hucksters have cited the North Carolina Research Institute as if it provides authority. It’s actually a real estate development on the site of an obsolete cotton mill, trying to become a minor-league Research Triangle. In its time, the cotton mill called itself the largest one in the world; it employed about 17,000 people in a town of about 40,000; the local radio station, WGTL, called it World’s Greatest Textile Land (since it was owned by Whitley’s Funeral Home, we locals called it Whitley Gets Them Last). They had to do something when the Dale Earnhardt Racing operation moved down the road to Mooresville: Earnhardt was their only remaining notable.
    Appalachian State University, née Appalachian State Teachers College, isn’t really a great bragging point either, to those of us who grew up in Kannapolis and left.

  7. Moebius says:

    On the positive side, all of these postings by ASEAmatics has given me a place to send anyone who might ask my opinion about the product.

    Nice to know that a scam that’s only worth the price of a coffee or pack of cigarettes per day is ok with Tracy. At least that gives us a yard-stick. Multiply that by a lot of sick and desperate people, you could make a living at it.

  8. Amalthea says:

    @Moebius: Good points.
    While it’s unlikely that anyone at work will me ask about ASEA it is a possibility and this is the best place to send them.

  9. Harriet Hall says:

    I just read that the people who spend the most effort to defend their beliefs are usually those who are beginning to doubt and want to convince themselves that they are right. Explains a lot…

  10. The Dave says:

    “I just read that the people who spend the most effort to defend their beliefs are usually those who are beginning to doubt and want to convince themselves that they are right. Explains a lot…”

    So does that mean we are more or less likely to actually convince someone on here? If they are beginning to doubt, we might help fuel those doubts, but if they are trying to convince themselves, they might be more defensive of further causes of doubt.

  11. Chris says:

    Dr. Hall, their belief may be directly proportional to how much money they have invested in it. The more they have spent, the more they must believe it will reward them! Unfortunately as a multi-level-marketing scheme those at the bottom of the pyramid are automatically the losers.

  12. TracyKing says:

    Per Dr. Samuelson regarding the q’s asked earlier:

    DIPPMPO molecules capture superoxides. DIPPMPO was only added in this case as an indicator to verify definitively that stable superoxides exist in ASEA. The stable superoxides that exist in ASEA were captured by the added DIPPMPO molecules. DIPPMPO, when it captures superoxides, forms two adducts, these can be detected by P31 NMR. The two peaks represent the existence of the two DIPPMPO adducts formed when in contact with the superoxides in ASEA. If there were no stable superoxides in ASEA, no superoxides would be captured and these two peaks would not exist. This is simply a common analytical technique used to verify the existence of superoxides in a solution. If someone has issue with this technique of measuring superoxides he/she will have to take it up with the whole scientific world. Stable superoxides are in ASEA. The novelty of this claim is that stable superoxides have not been detected before in saline solutions. They, along with the other molecules balanced in ASEA are what is meant by stable redox signaling molecules in the ASEA literature. ASEA is very unique in this regard. By the way EPR was also run on the DIPPMPO indicator with the same result. Superoxides are in ASEA.

    ROS detection is also possible by using techniques from fluorescent spectroscopy, you would need a fluorospectrometer, such as a “nanodrop 3300” or a 96 well fluorescent plate reader. R-PE (R-Phycoerythrin), an ROS indicator that changes fluorescence when exposed to ROS, as well as other indicators used to detect excess ROS in the blood and stomach liquids. Detailed reports are on the ASEA.net website. Any ASEA associate should have access to them. Two measurements are taken, baseline levels in the blood are measured and compared with the levels after ASEA has been introduced.

    - Gary

  13. TracyKing says:

    @ Harriett, you really should re-read the private email I sent you where I was able to tell you the exact detailed testimonials that I have personally seen and witnessed, especially the ones with children, (that would be non-compliant if I posted) and why my belief in this product is completely unshakable so you can quit trying to figure me out (and quit belittling me)… it’s no mystery, if you had seen what I’ve seen, you would do the research too, just like I have, to try to figure out WHY it works — which is the exact path ASEA is currently taking by pursuing evidence-based studies with the Human Performance Laboratory and Appalachian State University instead of just relying on the MLM network to continue to tell the story. And regarding my vehemence in defending this product, I owe it to the public to correct your inaccurate reporting lest they make bad decisions that could affect their health and their financial future. To allow ignorance to flourish and perpetuate is just not in my DNA, it’s a personality issue, it’s that simple.

  14. TracyKing says:

    Watch these 2 minutes 44:30-46:30 of this Harvard Food Law Society video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HCDeso6SVOI, he’s wrong of course, there IS something we can do now to correct mitochondrial dysfunction and impact our health positively. :)

  15. weing says:

    “To allow ignorance to flourish and perpetuate is just not in my DNA, it’s a personality issue, it’s that simple.”
    Poppycock. Testimonials do not a study make. That is not science and you have just shown how you perpetuate ignorance.

  16. TracyKing says:

    And to respond to someone else’s comment, lawyers have a bad rep too but you don’t make a generalization that all lawyers are evil greedy soul-less scumbags. Many people are succeeding in MLM because they are authentic and they are willing to do what most people aren’t which is to go AGAINST the grain and put up with people who mis-read and disrespect them. I’ll be back when we have our peer-reviewed study, happy new year all!

  17. TracyKing says:

    Oh weing, we have more than testimonials, THIS explains SOME of the REASONS behind the results and the testimonials: http://teamreactive.com/docs/aseaandbig3.pdf, but it will take years and decades to FULLY understand the scope of this product. Just keep watching, not that it will ever be enough for you since you have invested too much in disbelieving it. I bet you are a member of the Flat Earth Society too. Matters not to me, I know in my heart what this product is doing, people with eyes will see, people with ears will hear. The science will catch up to this product, it’s inevitable. I’m glad your health is strong and no one in your family could benefit from this, not everyone is as fortunate as you, my job is to restore hope to those who are open.

  18. weing says:

    “The science will catch up to this product, it’s inevitable. ” Spoken like a true non-scientist.

  19. Narad says:

    The two peaks represent the existence of the two DIPPMPO adducts formed when in contact with the superoxides in ASEA. If there were no stable superoxides in ASEA, no superoxides would be captured and these two peaks would not exist.

    I take it that somebody missed the “if it’s so stable, why is spin-trapping necessary?” part.

  20. The Dave says:

    “I bet you are a member of the Flat Earth Society too. ”

    Flat-Earthers reject/deny/ignore the science that provides evidence the Earth is in fact round, and stubbornly cling to their ignorance and non-scientific dogmas/beliefs.

    Sounds like they have more in common with the ASEA supporters that continue to come on here and defend there product, than the SBM crowd, which, as the name states, bases their practice, beliefs, and opinions on science.

  21. nybgrus says:

    @Narad:

    First off, I am surprised this thread fired back up again.

    But secondly, I agree. I think I am out of my depth to comment authoritatively (maybe Gears could*), but it makes no sense to me why a stable molecule would form an adduct with anything. The concept of being stable means it has no energetic favor to adduct or otherwise react with anything.

    Anyways, once that science catches up, I’ll take a listen to Tracy King. Until then, ya got nothin’

  22. nybgrus says:

    oh, the * was to make a comment that I was hoping my awesome synthetic chemist genie would appear at the call of his name

  23. gears says:

    My mistake. It looks like spin trapping is a legitimate spectroscopic technique, one that I was not previously familiar with. I was hasty in asserting that 31P NMR could not be used to detect superoxides in solution and I should have looked into it more closely. On the other hand, choosing an appropriate method for characterizing radicals does not necessarily mean the spectrum is real, but maybe I am being uncharitable. i’ll believe it when it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal. nybgrus does have a point that it is curious that a “stabilized” redox molecule should need a trap to characterize it (if it’s already trapped?).

    So again, sorry for my misplaced certainty that the spectrum was meaningless and to those of you whose comments were based on my claiming expertise. In the spirit that skepticism is admitting when you get it wrong, I hope this doesn’t tarnish my credibility too much :/

    Anyhow, I’m going to go ahead and move the goalposts and say that even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that ASEA has “stabilized redox molecules in saline solution” it does not follow that ASEA should have any therapeutic benefit whatsoever. To me, the chemical and biological plausibility of this whole thing is far fetched, to put it mildly.

  24. Chris says:

    nybgrus:

    First off, I am surprised this thread fired back up again.

    Don’t be surprised. Multi-Level-Marketers like Ms. King needs exposure. She posted multiple comments only to show she is trying to bring in new suckers to get a payday.

  25. BillSeitz says:

    This looks like a good thread to request a review of the magnet/depression research, now that the FDA has approved a helmet… http://www.fastcompany.com/3004658/fda-approves-magnetic-helmet-treating-depression

  26. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Dear Tracy, how I haven’t missed your special pleading.

    1) Proving that stable superoxide molecules exist in ASEA (still questionable) doesn’t mean they have a meaningful biological impact.

    2) You still apparently do not realize that testimonials, no matter how detailed, do not matter. The problem is one of denominator. Did you keep detailed testimonials of people who were not miraculously healed? Humans have an innate tendency to remember things that confirm what they already know, and ignore contradictory information. It’s known as confirmation bias. Which is why your testimonials are, and ever will be, worthless.

    3) Irrespective how something is sold, the meaningful question is whether it works. ASEA, like all nutriscams, is taking advantaged of the lowered threshold of proof required of supplements to flog its product without any real evidence it does anything meaningful. The product you sell contains no specific claims, and you are trained very carefully to make no such specific claims, because doing so would classify it as a drug, and your company would be prevented from selling it without proper reserach. Because this would interrupt their license to extract money from the bank accounts of the credulous, they aren’t going to do this.

    4) If it will take “years and decades to FULLY understand the scope of this product” that means your company is selling a product without any proof of efficacy. The two citations in that worthless document you posted were about why hair goes gray and a study of the blood of autistic and neurotypical children. Nothing about ASEA having any effect on either issue.

    5) Your conduct remains unethical.
    a) You are selling your product with no proof of efficacy to desperate populations. This is not hope, it is false hope.
    b) If your product is ineffective, you are simply wasting people’s money (and giving them false hope) simply to enrich yourself and your company.
    c) If your product is effective, you are keeping it out of the hands of millions of sick people. By adopting a MLM approach rather than clinical trials, it is not being used by doctors – a far more effective, widespread and socially sanctioned method of ensuring sick people get treatment.

    So please feel free to leave until you get some real proof, repeating the same tired empty claims is not proving anything.

  27. nybgrus says:

    @gears:

    So again, sorry for my misplaced certainty that the spectrum was meaningless and to those of you whose comments were based on my claiming expertise. In the spirit that skepticism is admitting when you get it wrong, I hope this doesn’t tarnish my credibility too much

    Of course not. This statement, IMHO, encapsulates the truest meaning of skeptic. We are not fool enough to think we will never make mistakes – but we are intellectually honest enough to admit them.

    As for the detection of superoxides, I still think our critique stands. Spin trapping is used in order to keep the superoxide in a superoxide state long enoug for the characteristic spectra to appear. My understanding of DIPPMO spin trapping after a brief read is that the adduct forms and the change in the SO-DIPPMO adduct spectra then becomes characteristic proving that superoxides were previously present in solution. So if the SO is stable and doesn’t need to be trapped or else it would react, then you would be able to detect it without the DIPPMO. The only consideration I can think of (and I don’t know enough about the field in general to be sure this isn’t the case) is that since stable SO is essentially an oxymoron, there may be no other protocols for directly detecting SO via NMR spectra. That would be a valid reason for using this method in the context of “stable” SO. However, that should also make it impossible to distinguish between “stable” SO and any other SO since the adduct formed would be identical regardless.

    At least, as far as I know.

    Anyhow, I’m going to go ahead and move the goalposts and say that even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that ASEA has “stabilized redox molecules in saline solution” it does not follow that ASEA should have any therapeutic benefit whatsoever. To me, the chemical and biological plausibility of this whole thing is far fetched, to put it mildly.

    Thankfully for our integrity, this is not a moving of goalposts.

    We had stated clearly a priori that evidence of the existence of stable SO is merely the first step towards validation of ASEA. The goal post has remained and I still have critique of it. But even if this goalpost is met, we aren’t moving it forward, ASEA has just managed to make it to the next goal post.

    And yes, the biological plausibility is extremely low and is far from established. If the SO is “stable” that means it isn’t likely to react. We know that SO/ROS in vivo is unstable and reacts very rapidly. So if there is a signaling capacity via SO/ROS in vivo it must be based on the reactivity of it. So how is a “stable” molecule supposed to enter the signaling cascade? The only “out” I see is if there is some sort of reversible spin-trapping or other stabilization that delivers the SO to the cells and then somehow disengages and allows it to become unstable again.

    But here is the problem. Proving an effect in medicine is like observing a marathon. You can prove that someone finished the marathon in one of two ways (or both, for even more robust evidence).

    1) You observe that there is a starting line and a finish line. You have no idea what is going on in between but someone crosses the finish line. You can’t say how but you can say for sure that someone finished the marathon.

    2) You can’t see the start or finish line but you can observe the middle part of the race. You can see a runner going through every checkpoint and then disappear very close to the finish. You can’t be certain someone finished the marathon but you can be reasonably confident since you watched them run 99% of it all the way up to the finish line.

    Obviously 1 is better than 2 in isolation, but both together are the best. 2 can be of varying quality. Maybe we only saw a few snapshots of the person running and the last we saw was 1 mile away from the finish line. We can say it is likely, but less certain, that someone finished.

    In the case of ASEA we have nothing of value to satisfy 1 and we have, at best and being extremely generous, very little of 2.

    ASEA needs to either demonstrate robust clinical effect (it hasn’t) or establish the following (at a minimum):

    That “stable” SO/ROS exist as an entity and can be detected (see critique above)
    That SO/ROS in vivo are signaling molecules (very little evidence in very restricted circumstances)
    That SO/ROS in vivo have a significant clinical effect (no evidence outside the very restricted circumstances)
    That “stable” SO/ROS can interact with the in vivo system (no evidence)
    That this interaction can alter the signaling significantly (no evidence)
    That this alteration is beneficial (no evidence)

    So essentially we still have nothing. And of course, the huge strike against ASEA is that they claim it to be a panacea for just about everything. Even if every step I outlined above were true and demonstrated to be so, it still wouldn’t follow that ASEA could possibly have the incrediby disparate physiological effects it claims.

    So don’t worry Gears. No goalpost shifting here. There are just a lot of goalposts to meet for any medical treatment and even if we grant the ASEA folks the first one, that really doesn’t do them all that much good. But such is the reality of medicine. These are complex biological systems we are talking about that are mostly uncharacterized. We know enough to do a lot of amazing things and act rationally, but we don’t know vastly more than we do. This isn’t like physical sciences where the mathematics of it all are so well established that you can go from input to output reliably and not worry about all those steps in the middle. Our only “out” is that we can observe the end rigorously and prove an effect without knowing the steps in the middle. But that is much easier said than done and costs a lot of money to do well. And has ethical consideration to boot.

  28. nybgrus says:

    Oh I should add that for everywhere I said in vivo you can substitute in vitro but that doing so automatically decreases the robustness of the evidence and requires more and smaller steps to be verified to maintain the same level of confidence at the end. This is, for all practical intents, mostly impossible at our current level of technological sophistication, so in vitro must invariably decrease our confidence that the effect is real.

  29. nybgrus says:

    Ok last bits of refinement:

    There could be the possibility that in vivo physiological system utilize “stable” ROS/SO and we have not discovered that yet. I think it is highly unlikely based on what I know about how these systems work and the chemical properties of ROS/SO (put simply signal cascades happen either because a receptor interacts with a ligand [stable/stable] or a chemical reaction cascade triggers downstream effects [stable/unstable]. But there is no known receptor that would interact with an inorganic molecule/atom that is stable except as a cofactor, but that would then change the MOA of ASEA drastically and be unlikely to have any robust effect).

    In the marathon analogy, for 1), if we do not observe the starting line but only the finish, we can be certain an effect happened but not from what. It could have been a runner from the sidelines 1 mile before the finish and have nothing to do with anyone from the starting line. In the case of ASEA if we can’t robustly establish the starting line but find something crossing the finish line, we can’t be sure it was ASEA doing it. This is why highly implausible therapies have equivocal results and small effect sizes. Very robust results would be like seeing a whole bunch of runners cross the finish line and give us significantly more confidence that this is actually what is happening. But still not the best confidence.

  30. TracyKing says:

    According to this 2001 article http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=15196577, there ARE already published peer-reviewed findings on the saline solution as it existed before the technology was sold to current owner, Verdis Norton. These findings are in the AJIC and APIC, if anyone has free access to these journals I’d love a copy of the conclusions. Again, I’m not suggesting ASEA is a treatment or a cure for any disease, just that my conclusion that the product has legitimacy is more likely than Harriet’s conclusion “it’s just another expensive way to buy salt water.” The wording she used, “multilevel marketing SCHEME,” shows her obvious bias against a decades-old legitimate distribution method that has created more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry (get with the times Ms. Hall or at least try to veil your contempt!)

    And according to this http://www.drugs.com/news/medical-discoveries-inc-engages-strategic-advisor-explore-alternatives-5532.html, “Medical Discoveries, Inc. develops cures for major diseases though its novel oxidative therapy program (“MDI-P”), and in-licensing promising technologies that address some of today’s most serious illnesses. The Company was founded on MDI-P, a novel oxidative therapy that is a stable solution rich in highly reactive hydrogen, chlorine and oxygen chain species. MDI-P has demonstrated potential to work directly on pathogens, or as an enhancer to the immune system.” Again, I’m not making claims, just highlighting that the original company employed solid science, research, investment, patent-protection, testing, and safety studies before its eventual purchase and re-branding. They even did human clinical FDA trials http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/AIDS-Weekly/1995-12-18/12189587217517AW.html which seems like a lot of hoops to jump through in order to achieve a few months of profit on a “salt water” scam.

    Lastly, Harriet said “NOT A SINGLE PLACEBO CONTROLLED STUDY” which is incorrect information, whether she did so with malicious deliberate intent or just flippant oversight, this error needed to be addressed. This video clearly shows that ASEA has one and it was NOT in-house research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Uignb91Rw. And ANY profit-driven company marketing to “the masses,” if they could, would promote favorable independent studies on their product using YouTube, especially if they’re worldwide in 11 countries. It was totally appropriate that I be able to respond in a blog comment of her sham article to point out her error without having to have a Ph.D. or be personally attacked, or be accused of dredging for customers, and given that I gave full disclosure about why I care that she was disseminating false information (because I am an independent associate who paid my $40 associate fee… get informed, it’s not a “big investment” to become a rep!). If I’m wrong, prove it, I’m a big girl, I can take it, but if you just want to trash the MLM industry indiscriminately and make fun of me, and dismiss all supplements blanketly that aren’t in a medical journal and that don’t make claims about a disease, well then, who’s the ill-informed one now?

  31. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    An 11 year old press release. A five year old news story. An 18 year old news story. And a youtube video. This is your evidence. And you expect us to be convinced? Three ancient bits of non-research in venues designed to promote and a video on a site with zero fact checking, where anyone can say anything, and we’re supposed to be convinced? Clearly in your time away you have learned nothing. I’m having a hard time veiling my contempt, at this point because I wonder if you have a learning disability.

    Again, I’m not suggesting ASEA is a treatment or a cure for any disease

    Of course you are not, that would open you and the parent company up to legal challenges. No, you are going to stick to vague testimonials and worthless “supports the health” claims, because then you can keep selling it.

    just that my conclusion that the product has legitimacy is more likely than Harriet’s conclusion “it’s just another expensive way to buy salt water.” The wording she used, “multilevel marketing SCHEME,” shows her obvious bias against a decades-old legitimate distribution method that has created more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry (get with the times Ms. Hall or at least try to veil your contempt!)

    You have consistently failed to show any evidence ASEA does anything to affect human health (anecdotes don’t count, I’ll repeat because you still don’t seem to grasp this rather simple point) and you think Dr. Hall is the problem? At least with a MLM company like Amway you’re actually getting soap.

    Again, I’m not making claims, just highlighting that the original company employed solid science, research, investment, patent-protection, testing, and safety studies before its eventual purchase and re-branding. They even did human clinical FDA trials http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/AIDS-Weekly/1995-12-18/12189587217517AW.html which seems like a lot of hoops to jump through in order to achieve a few months of profit on a “salt water” scam.

    a) A news story is not a pubmed citation for a completed clinical trial.

    b) You’re scrupulously not making claims, again because you’ve been trained not to, because that leads to law suits

    c) If there were real proof ASEA did anything, they could sell it with specific claims rather than the vague nonsense you are trained to spew out; they can’t, because there is no proof your expensive salt water does anything.

    If you’ve got an actual published placebo-controlled trial, please link to that – a youtube video where someone claims to have such a trial is, laughably, not the same thing. The sham here is you pretending this is knowledge or evidence.

    Who’s the ill-informed one now? Still you.

  32. Narad says:

    The wording she used, “multilevel marketing SCHEME,” shows her obvious bias against a decades-old legitimate distribution method that has created more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry

    As the keen observer of human nature that you doubtlessly are, what would you say that recycling the exact same wording for a preposterous assertion shows on your part?

  33. Sialis says:

    As posted earlier here, I had inquired about obtaining a sample of ASEA water. In return, I received emails from someone using the name Brandon Olson, an ASEA distributor who has an interesting history with the State of Texas Attorney General’s office. Well, I’m still getting those emails, but it seems that Brandon has now shared my email address with some ‘gentlemen’, term used loosely, from overseas. They’re emailing me advertising bogus services, and Brandon has written in their support with an added assurance about them stating,

    “P.S. How does he get the time to make all these videos while on vacation? There must be a superhero lurking in that chiselled Asian body. He did not pay me to say that!

    From: gurusecrets@thefamilyexchange. com
    Sender: kohlskoupons@aweber.com X-Loop: kohlskoupons@aweber.com

    It seems I should write a letter to the Texas Attorney General.

  34. TracyKing says:

    I found one of the clinical studies that was published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal: http://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(00)40576-6/abstract, but yeah I guess you’re right, since it’s from year 2000, it’s totally irrelevant. Say what? Some chemotherapy drugs are still in use since the 1980′s, if not earlier, even despite being proven to be unable to cure most cancers after they have metastasized! Man you guys seem impossible to influence, I hardly see how our publication in a mid-tier this year is going to make any difference to you whatsoever, but oh well, can’t say I didn’t at least TRY to give you at least another opinion about whether it’s “just another salt water scam.” And, Harriet, only 1% of people doing network marketing make any money? Wow I didn’t know I was so special.

    Hey Sialis, I met this lady one time who botched people’s faces doing botox so my conclusion is that all people who inject botox are incompetent. And I also remember someone I know being arrested for lottery fraud, and she worked at a bank, so now I know all bankers are crooks. Man, this is easy stuff, isn’t it? Glad everybody and every profession comes pre-packaged with easy-to-read labels, life’s a breeze living this way! So glad I don’t ever have to think for myself again, woohoo!

  35. Narad says:

    I found one of the clinical studies that was published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal

    You don’t exactly understand what “top-tier” “medical journal” means, do you? (Nothing against AJIC, but it’s not what you are representing it as.)

  36. The Dave says:

    Just looking at the abstract, (which I’m sure is all you did) let me point out some key points that demonstrate why this study does not support the use and sale of ASEA:

    ” in vitro microbicidal activity of MDI-P”
    in vitro is NOT a clinical study. Lots of things show promise in vitro only to be ineffective in vivo

    ” the effect of MDI-P on tissues were studied by using a mouse model.”
    again, not a clinical study. agan lots of things show promise in animal models only to be ineffective in humans

    “may be useful for various sterilization and disinfection applications.”
    suggests use for surfaces and instruments. Nothing suggesting use in (or on) the body. Lysol works great on counter tops, but you shouldn’t ingest it, apply it othalmically, or even gave prolonged skin exposure

    In addition, the abstract says nothing of a control group. If I were doing the study, I would test regular (“untreated”) sterile saline and see if it had the same effect. Saline itself has antimicrobial properties, simply because of the high salt content and the osmotic effect.

    Keep trying.

  37. Narad says:

    Perhaps Tracy would settle for trying to peddle ASEA as a surface disinfectant. That should go well.

  38. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    I hear ASEA works especially well as a sanitizer if heated to 212 F or so…

  39. Sialis says:

    It would work great in a hot tub.

  40. Narad says:

    again, not a clinical study. agan lots of things show promise in animal models only to be ineffective in humans

    I get the impression that they were merely testing for toxicity in any event. AJIC appears to be a practical/nursing–oriented version of Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, which is a fine and valuable thing but again not at all what Tracy seems to think it is.

  41. The Dave says:

    “I get the impression that they were merely testing for toxicity in any event.”

    Good point. I was trying to make sense of why they would test it in mice and then conclude it might be a good surface/instrument sterilizer. Now it all makes sense.

    But, ya know: one (seemingly) positive study for ASEA’s pre-cursor (described as “low cost”). I’m totes gonna run out and sign up as a distributor…

  42. nybgrus says:

    The amazingly over the top response from Tracy was a wonder unto itself.

    But it gets better.

    I have institutional access to the full article she posted. Which makes it entirely clear what the study is about. And it in no way, shape, or form could possibly relate to any product or claim Tracy or ASEA have been making.

    This is an article about a surface disinfectant for surfaces:

    Disinfectants, including antiseptics, are commonly used to reduce the numbers of potentially harmful microorganisms on surfaces…Numerous chemical agents are widely used for disinfection of inanimate surfaces, cold sterilization of medical devices such as endoscopes and surgical instruments, and antisepsis of skin.

    Oh, but it gets better. Indeed. Tracy claims that this article is evidence for the efficacy of ASEA as a stablized ROS/RO system?

    MDI-P was generated from injection saline by using an instrument provided by Medical Discoveries, Inc, Layton, Utah. A current of 3 A was applied for 3 minutes by using platinum/titanium-coated steel electrodes…MDI-P was diluted with injection saline to concentrations of 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% and used within 4 minutes of production.

    That some stabilization! Amazing how ASEA ships you (and you use) the product within 4 minutes of production!

    Oh, but really, none of that even matters. Because this study is about killing germs with chemicals that kill germs!. Seriously:

    It contains numerous highly reactive chlorine and oxygen species, including HOCl–1, OCl–1, Cl–1, Cl2, O2–1, and O3.

    Yeah! Those ROS/SO species sure will kill bugs! That’s great! So what does this have to do with all those health claims ASEA makes… err… suggests… {wink}{wink} …? Wait, are they trying to market us a new antibiotic? That would actually be kind of cool… perhaps as an adjunct therapy to treat bacteremic sepsis… or infected wound. The data in this study seem to indicate that it is tolerated quite well intravenously by the mice. But, why would someone who isn’t infected with a nasty bacterium want this stuff?

    ‘Twould seem there’s ’nuffin ‘ere Cappin!

    Oh, and just a few more nails in that coffin:

    The pH of MDI-P immediately after generation ranged from 8.9 to 9.1, averaging 9.0. It decreased gradually by approximately 1 pH unit over 24 hours, but did not change significantly during the time between generation and use

    The absence of significant microbicidal activity after 1 minute of exposure suggests that MDI-P might be very unstable. However, preliminary data (not shown) demonstrate that MDI-P remains active in both undiluted and diluted forms for at least 48 hours after preparation. These results suggest that the loss of microbicidal activity after 1 minute of exposure is associated with the presence of the microorganisms rather than the innate instability of MDI-P. In view of these results, it is interesting that dilution of MDI-P in serum causes only a minimal decrease in antimicrobial activity.

    These results suggest that MDI-P may be useful for the irrigation of wounds and ulcers and for antisepsis of unbroken skin.

    Although further studies are indicated, the results presented here suggest that MDI-P may be useful for disinfection of inanimate surfaces, cold sterilization of medical devices, antisepsis, and irrigation therapy for wounds and ulcers.

    Bazinga!

  43. TracyKing says:

    I’m sorry but you guys are missing the ENTIRE point… I thought we were having a discussion about whether ASEA is just salt water or not? Nobody has to prove that it can treat a disease or boost an immune system or be used in vivo for more than just mice, good Lord step away from the details! Can’t we at least agree that this is more than just salt water based on the 20 years of investigative research that led up to its commercialization as ASEA? And that Harriett did absolutely NO RESEARCH for her article, not even tasting or testing it for herself? As experienced scientists, can’t you just objectively look at this body of evidence, all bias aside, and conclude that it’s an interesting concept worth investigating?

    Here’s an SEC filing http://www.secinfo.com/dmR7p.9b.htm that discusses joint ventures with two pharmaceutical companies, and it was more than just mice, there were bovine and human studies.

    “OTHER RESEARCH EFFORTS. During the last half of 1994 and early
    1995, MDI commenced two separate joint research efforts with two large,
    United States-based pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies. The primary
    focus of these preliminary research efforts is the use of MDI-P to
    remove or inactivate infectious agents in blood-derived products. One
    company is focusing on product applications for humans while the other
    company is focusing on the veterinary market. Studies underway have
    demonstrated killing of the bovine diarrhea virus, a significant viral
    pathogen in cattle, which is also used as a laboratory model for the
    hepatitis virus.”

    Why would “large United States-based pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies” invest time and money in pure salt and water? I’m no scientist but can’t you see what was happening throughout this patent and IND application process and all the safety studies… Scientists develop a hypothesis and test it out and write about it and obtain more funding, they explore which test to perform next, and then consider what’s the next direction, the next application, the next conclusion, it’s expensive trial and error… Think about the logical path this product took in its journey… if it can kill the HIV virus on delicate dental equipment with lots of crevices that normally takes hours to sterilize using other methods, can it kill it in vitro in mice tissue, rabbit tissue, bovine tissue? can it kill it intravenously, can it kill it in humans (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medical+Discoveries+appoints+African-American+Advisory+Board+to…-a017816154)? Hey if it can kill HIV, can it kill parasites, fungi, MRSA, candida? What else can it do (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13655940_ITM, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21472383_ITM)? We’d better test for tissue morbidity, toxicity, especially the delicate endothelial cells in the lungs/eyes, why isn’t there a lethal dose on this stuff? Crap we need to find out WHY this solution is working so well, what the heck is it really? And has anybody noticed that our compounds look strikingly similar to what all those other researchers all around the world are writing about in 100+ new published articles per month that sometimes took a minimum of 2+ years to complete… you know the testing they are doing about molecules that are inside all living cells, I think they’re called “redox signaling molecules” or something like that? What’s the best application for this stuff IF we pursue drug approval with the FDA? And can we beat the other countries and big pharma to the punch? And can we find investors to work with us until we figure this out? Holy crap, we’re out of money and our incompetent management has mis-valued our preferred stock, now what are we going to do?! Darn it, now we’re up for sale, right when things were getting interesting…

    Regarding in vitro vs. in vivo… my goodness, the story doesn’t end on that one AJIC article! The story continues… just keep reading further down the SEC filing… “The U.S. PTO has granted a patent to the Company for the IN VIVO use of electrically hydrolyzed salines as microbicides and the treatment of multiple sclerosis and cardiomyopathy.” And then there’s THIS SEC filing: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/748790/000089161802001588/f80453e10ksb40.txt. And this paper on in vivo HIV: http://www.aegis.org/DisplayContent/?SectionID=267364

    Blah blah blah… all I’m trying to prove here is that it’s MORE THAN JUST SALT WATER, you don’t have to admit ANY MORE THAN THAT, set your pride aside and just open your eyes here! This is a scientific discovery that is promising, PERIOD, can’t you just say that? It’s going to be interesting to follow it over the next 3-5 years. That’s all. In fact, here’s the latest direction they are taking, ASEA might increase metabolism and combat obesity: http://www.salisburypost.com/article/20130120/SP01/130129973/?fb_comment_id=fbc_401053669981974_2498872_402337079853633#f2148efec. I can tell you the direction I’D like to see them take… everybody I know has way less bruising (IF ANY AT ALL, even with physical contact sports!) and less CELLULITE, why is that? I honestly do not know, is it anecdotal? Maybe! But if they prove a reason for why it works for those applications, is that even marketable? Can we promote that without making any claims? We need to find an application that is easily understood and observable by MOST people, and still be compliant with the U.S. regulatory environment. Is that likely to happen? I hope so. Is it a sure thing? NOTHING is a sure thing! That’s where entrepreneurs come in, and financial opportunity for those who have vision. There are those who DENY that the escalator works because they refuse to walk out in front of it and watch it work, there are those who are too scared to ride it because it looks dangerous, and then there are those who jump on it, without needing to understand WHY or HOW it works, and ride it all the way to the top! They might get a toe stuck in a crease or an arm ripped off (that’s what it feels like anyway to be arguing with you people who are so rude and dismissive), but they survive and they were first.

    At some point, you’re going to have to question if all this evidence could really just be some elaborate money-making pyramid scheme, 20+ years in the making, or a journey of discovery with the ending yet to be written? If I’M right, you’re jeopardizing your health by not protecting it as best you can, and I’m a pioneer who recognized it before “the masses” which presents a financial opportunity (not without risk but nothing ventured nothing gained). If YOU’RE right, then it will fizzle out and run its course, and you all just wasted a lot of time making fun of me. Where are the risk takers, the optimists, the intellectually curious, the people willing to hope? Either prove me wrong or quit talking. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN ME WRONG, as scientists, isn’t that your job? YOU keep saying where’s MY evidence, WHERE’S YOURS?

  44. Narad says:

    Wait, are they trying to market us a new antibiotic? That would actually be kind of cool…

    Givent that it’s described as “broad spectrum,” I suppose they could go with “ASEA: Coming to Wipe Out Your Gut Flora” as a new slogan.

  45. TracyKing says:

    Bazinga? Ha ha, thanks nybgrus, you just told the story of ASEA you dim wit! Have you not watched ANY company videos? Verdis bought the technology in unstabilized form. He brought in Dr. Samuelson who spent two years working with a team and university researchers figuring out how to stabilize it which is the bigger breakthrough than learning how to make it. In fact other countries already do know how to make it, but not stabilize it, therefore it’s not commercializable. The first discovery was MAKING it which is MDI-P’s contribution, but the much greater discovery was keeping it “ON” by allowing two opposite charges to exist inside a bottle without neutralizing. See starting at minute 4:53 of this company video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8IfaW-38yE. HA HA HA HA!

    This is how Dr. Samuelson explained his involvement and the stabilization discovery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzjK8ilccfg

    And this is my FAVORITE video of him, gives me chills: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z58yvehhHrI, such a humble guy, I see that is an emotion that is lost on you! Hysterical… smug much?! Catch up with me here nybgrus, I think you’re starting to see the light!

  46. TracyKing says:

    Hey Dave, they were testing for toxicity because they wanted to use it in human trials, duh! http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Good+News+for+Medical+Discoveries,+Inc.+From+Latest+Toxicological…-a081516525. Not as a surface cleaner. Get it now? I thought you guys were insightful scientists? Is your emotion clouding your judgment?

  47. Narad says:

    Not as a surface cleaner. Get it now?

    Yes. You can’t read.

  48. TracyKing says:

    Hey nybgrus, can you use your institutional access to help me find out more about these studies?

    http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Law-and-Health-Weekly/2004-09-18/091320043331365LH.html

    http://business.highbeam.com/436989/article-1G1-117320524/mdi-p-medical-discoveries-preclinical-data

    I’d like to see if these were in vivo for Dave, I think I can win him over if that’s all he needs to see, right? Snort.

  49. TracyKing says:

    You can see MDI-P’s dilemma in the “Overview” — so promising but $20m down and still WAY more needed with no surety… http://www.investorscopes.com/MEDICAL-DISCOVERIES-INC/10QSB/6118249.aspx. If this were a novel, it’d be riveting!

  50. TracyKing says:

    Why are all my comments held up in moderation? Hmmm… Harriet are you up late again? No sensoring now, call a spade a spade, nobody’s perfect… I know you see a lot of MLM fraud so no one could blame you for trying to skate by without doing your homework on this one, after all… who’d have thunk it, huh? A LEGITIMATE MLM company?! Is that even possible?! It is now. And can I just say it for you?… IT’S ABOUT TIME! I agree with you, there’s a LOT of trash out there, but give us our due! ASEA is NOT a salt water scam, and humble pie will taste better today than if you wait… a retraction article admitting your negligence to do due diligence would be a nice gesture.

  51. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    What new evidence do you think you’ve presented here that would prompt Dr. Hall to retract the original post? Why don’t we all wait for the ground-breaking peer-reviewed RCT paper you’ve promised us this April?

    How have you shown us you’re involved in a legitimate MLM company?

    That Investorscopes link you provided is a subscription-only site. I’m not signing up to read it. Either provide the information yourself or provide a link we can read.

    Those other two studies you asked nygbus to check are mouse studies. They’re both indicated as such in the links you provided.

    And stop being so paranoid: all posts with links are moderated. It prevents spam links to garbage websites selling nonsense.

  52. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    If this were a novel, it’d be riveting!

    No it wouldn’t. I can tell you how the story ends already.

  53. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    That Free Library link Tracy provided leads to nothing more than a press release from the company itself. From 2002.

    Here’s the lead:

    SALT LAKE CITY — Medical Discoveries Inc. (BULLETIN BOARD: MLSC) announces that test results from WIL Research Laboratories have indicated that MDI-P, the company’s proprietary AIDS drug, produced no systemic toxicity in laboratory animal tests used to assess potential problems for human application.

    It was called an AIDS drug back then?

  54. nybgrus says:

    The one you have to sign up for is a financial statement about the company to the SEC. You actually can read it – just scroll up and down and read around the “sign up” pop-up. It is nothing exciting – just ledgers for the year 2006. Says nothing of interest to me (though I am not a financial expert).

    The second two I do not have institutional access to. But after how incredibly, utterly, laughably horribly my instutional access turned out for you last time, I really think you should be glad I don’t.

    I mean, do you seriously not realize how incredibly bankrupt you are when you very snottily put forth a study that not only demonstrates absolutely nothing to support your claims, but actually is evidence against at least some of your claims? It is pathetically obvious that you are scrambling to throw anything up in some delusional hope that it will somehow stick and we will be converts and support ASEA. My only guess is because you are actually losing your shirt in this MLM scheme and desparately need to rationalize and hopefully turn a profit at some point.

    In any event, I’d honestly suggest just giving up here and then packing up your bags with ASEA and dropping them before you get in even deeper. And that is genuine and friendly advice.

  55. Sialis says:

    @Dr. Hall, I would just like to thank you again for writing this blog post on ASEA. The information contained in this post, as well as your previous post on ASEA, serves as an excellent learning tool to teach people the thought processes on how to dissect and analyze product claims. I also appreciate the many comments by people who are willing to spend their time to help readers understand these misleading claims.

  56. The Dave says:

    “I think I can win him over if that’s all he needs to see, right?”

    Boy, wouldn’t that be great if 1 in vivo study was needed to “win me over”. Have you not understood the many times we have tried to explain the characteristics of a valid study? Here’s a hint: “in vivo”, while important, is not the only thing.

    But, hey, I could use a little extra cash. Can you guarantee I’ll make money if I become a distributor? lol

  57. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I found one of the clinical studies that was published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal

    As Dr. Gorski once said, you can sprinkle nearly anything on a petri dish and kill bacteria. Humans aren’t petri dishes. At best, this indicates you could use it to clean glassware. A far cry from being the cure to all diseases. Not to mention, real drugs genuinely used in vitro or in vivo must go through far more testing than one journal article. The FDA requires no less than two clinical trials to approve a medication for use in humans, and even authorizing those clinical trials requires at least two applications in a successful animal model. And “clinical trial” itself is not a single thing, there are clinical trials for safety before efficacy is tested. I’m not sure why you think one article in a journal is sufficient to convince us that ASEA magically cures, well, everything.

    Some chemotherapy drugs are still in use since the 1980′s if not earlier, even despite being proven to be unable to cure most cancers after they have metastasized!

    Yes, because it has been consistently demonstrated that they are effective at killing cancerous tissues in vivo, not in stemware. You need a [citation needed] tag on your final clause, and in particular must realize that chemotherapy tends to be quite cancer-specific. They don’t use the same treatment for brain cancer that they use for blood cancer. “Cancer” is not a unitary phenomenon, try reading The Emperor of all Maladies.

    So glad I don’t ever have to think for myself again,

    Well, you’re certainly doing a great job letting your company do your thinking for you in this regard.

    I’m sorry but you guys are missing the ENTIRE point… I thought we were having a discussion about whether ASEA is just salt water or not?Not really, you’re Gish galloping all over the place and we’re methodically pointing out the flaws in your evidence. It’s easy to make claims, it’s hard to make well-substantiated claims that are backed by evidence, and it’s even harder (apparently particularly in your case) to understand what makes for good evidence.

    Incidentally, if they tested a powerful cyanide derivative on bacteria in a petri dish and found it killed them all, would you immediately swallow it? Just wondering.

    And that Harriett did absolutely NO RESEARCH for her article, not even tasting or testing it for herself? As experienced scientists, can’t you just objectively look at this body of evidence, all bias aside, and conclude that it’s an interesting concept worth investigating?

    The onus is on the claimant, not the skeptic. Anyone can make any claim, it’s up to that person to demonstrate that their claim is substantive. SEC filings don’t count.

    Also, not a scientist, I’m a skeptic.

    Final point – there might be enough evidence to suggest this is an interesting concept worth investigating. Unfortunately you are not doing this. You are selling it as a form of treatment.

  58. Scott says:

    It’s also worth noting that the “try it yourself” gambit fails horribly, since individual experience is so extremely fallible and subject to so many confounders. There’s a reason we need careful clinical trials to answer these questions. If you could “try it yourself” and get reliable answers, then nobody would bother doing the trials. The investigators aren’t exactly doing it for fun!

  59. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Bah, SBM needs a comments preview function.

    In fact, here’s the latest direction they are taking, ASEA might increase metabolism and combat obesity (snip) I can tell you the direction I’D like to see them take… everybody I know has way less bruising (IF ANY AT ALL, even with physical contact sports!) and less CELLULITE, why is that? I honestly do not know, is it anecdotal?

    By the FSM, is there anything your magic salt water can’t do?

    Where are the risk takers, the optimists, the intellectually curious, the people willing to hope?

    I’ve two guesses:

    - selling ASEA apparently, and
    - losing money on shady business ventures

    Making money is generally difficult, or requires a large amount of dishonesty. If it were so easy, everybody would be rich. For every genuine opportunity, there are many, many more liars, scammers or promising but ultimately fruitless avenues that do nothing but drain resources.

    such a humble guy

    I’d rather he were an arrogant but honest researcher who published in peer reviewed journals instead of spending his time making youtube videos.

    @ The Dave:

    But, hey, I could use a little extra cash. Can you guarantee I’ll make money if I become a distributor?

    You can make money at nearly anything with persistence and a complete lack of ethics. But it’ll require taking advantage of the credulous. If you’re very, very lucky though, you’ll convince some poor True Believer(TM) who will then do the heavy lifting, misrepresentation and testimonials for you. Better yet, take the lessons you learned here and start your own structure-function-based MLM company. Get in on the ground floor and you can win big!

  60. The Dave says:

    Today’s post over on the Skeptical OB explains really well why reading just the abstract is insufficient to support your claim. The link is here:
    http://www.skepticalob.com/2013/01/why-reading-the-abstract-of-a-scientific-paper-isnt-enough.html

    At the beginning, she compares abstracts to the blurbs on the back covers of novels. If you just read the blurb and not the book itself, you will look like a fool when trying to discuss it with others that have read the book.

    There’s a reason why scientific journals publish entire papers, not just abstracts and that reason goes to the heart of what a scientific paper is. The publication of a scientific paper is not the end of the discussion; it is merely the beginning. Just because a paper is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal does NOT mean that the paper is true. It merely means that the authors’ data and conclusions are worthy of being included in the discussion. The entire paper is presented for the specific purpose of allowing the readers who have appropriate background and knowledge of statistics to decide for themselves whether the authors’ claims are true.

    and she concludes by saying:

    Quoting a scientific abstract of a paper you have not read is not proof of anything other than the fact that you don’t understand science. If you wish to be taken seriously in any debate about homebirth, you MUST read, understand and analyze the paper itself. Anything else is the equivalent of claiming that a book is great because that’s what it says on the cover.

  61. Harriet Hall says:

    “And that Harriett did absolutely NO RESEARCH for her article, not even tasting or testing it for herself?”

    This is just hilarious! At risk of feeding the troll, I can’t help but comment. This started my morning out with a laugh.

    What would it taste like? What difference does that make?

    I wonder, if I wanted to write about hysterectomies, would I have first to have one myself to test it? Would that prevent men from ever writing about female conditions?

    She mentions chemotherapy – has she tried it for herself?
    And HER “research” doesn’t even extend to noticing that the studies she cites don’t support her claims or even that my name is spelled with one t.

    Brainwashed thinking is really sad, but sometimes it has value as a teaching opportunity for others and as comic relief.

  62. The Dave says:

    ” I thought you guys were insightful scientists?”

    I’m actually a lowly 1st year pharmacy student that, admittedly, doesn’t have nearly as much experience in research as a lot of other’s on this site. However, I try to follow the scientific process as best I can and attempt to remain humble enough to admit when I don’t know something and/or when I am wrong about it. Which, if you think about it, is the essence of science and scientific-thinking. Have you demonstrated the same about yourself?

  63. PernilleN says:

    I’ve written about Asea in my blog http://perpelle.wordpress.com/ (in Norwegian, sorry), and have had several emails from people who have become really sick after drinking ASEA’s magic water: nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, high blood pressure, headaches, diarrhea, fatigue …
    When it comes to taste, they say it tastes like a swimmingpool. That stands to reason, since there is reason to believe that the chlorine in is the form of chlorites.

    I also get some angry emails from people who think Asea is wonderful, and accusing me of poor research, not having tried it myself etc etc. I reply sweetly along these lines: “Since you obviously know much more about Asea than I do, can you please tell me what it really contains, and in what concentration?”. Interestingly, not one of them have answered. I have also asked several retailers about the exact ingredients. Not one of them is able to declare the contents of the supplement they sell. Or, they say it contains “redox-signalling molecules”. When I asked which ones, they clam up. I’m not sure if that is because they can’t answer, won’t answer or simply don’t understand the question.

  64. The Dave says:

    “I’m not sure if that is because they can’t answer, won’t answer or simply don’t understand the question.”

    My guess is “all of the above”

  65. TracyKing says:

    Wow Dave, that’s why I said “Snort” afterwards, it was sarcastic, get it? NOTHING would EVER be enough for you because your mind is already made up, absolutely NOTHING, not a study on mice, not a study on people, not a study on diseases, not patents, not decades of exploratory evidence and research, not a double-blind placebo-controlled independent third party randomized crossover study like the one we ALREADY did with the Human Performance Laboratory at the NC Research Campus, not trying the product… the ONLY thing will be 80 years of compounded research, too bad you will be dead by then. R u really that humorless that you did not pick up on sarcasm? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hey PernilleN, signaling is with one L (since Harriett equates alternate spellings of names to be somehow relevant, I’m going to assume the same regarding your knowledge on a complicated subject). And yes I will be using 2 L’s from now on for the sheer purpose that now I see that it annoys her. Life is full of small joys.

    nybgrus, that peer-reviewed published study most certainly did NOT provide evidence against my claims that ASEA is more than just salt water! Are you insane? I’m not trying to make any claims that it does anything, I WILL if we ever get past this first hurdle that it’s more than salt water, but I can’t even get you to meet me half-way on THAT?! LOL! How will I ever have a serious discussion with you about metabolites, VO2Max, ventilatory threshhold, glutathione, SOD, catalase, redox signaling, superoxides, safety studies… if we can’t even agree that it satisfies a simple placebo test after MONTHS of discussions? Hilarious to think I would even TRY at this point!!! First things first. Even after showing you test after test that PROVE that the predecessor product had significant differences from salt water that led to $20m in research done world-wide, that it is safe and non-toxic, that it is beneficial to all life forms. The conclusions of the study were OVERWHELMINGLY positive AND WARRANTED FURTHER STUDY, what more could you want from an initial study?

    Using Harrett’s logic, PernilleN, do I need to know WHY hysterectomies work in order to benefit from one? If you need specific information, and you seek it, it is MOST CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO YOU, you can get ALL your questions answered. Don’t be lazy and expect someone else to do the work for you, do it yourself. Contact Dr. Gary Samuelson at 801-973-7499, he returns calls on Mondays and Tuesdays to those who initiate the request. You have to want to know, you obviously do NOT. Shame though, I’d love for you to have a one-on-one conversation with him and report back on here. Come on, be the big man, save the day and show us how smart you are, as a lover of truth! Take the time. But I can tell you the “ingredients” are EXACTLY as listed on the bottle: salt and water, it’s not an ingredients-based product, the intellectual property is in the patented PROCESS whereby the water is electrolyzed, recombined, and stabilized in balanced form so that it contains redox signaling molecules inside the bottle that are identical to those found in and around living cells, as proven by various methods of testing. Redox signaling molecules, formerly thought to be “exhaust” from the energy-making process, have now been determined to be integral communicators of the immune system… the “smoke” from the “house” that tells us if it’s “on fire” and in need of repair/replacement. I would not expect a scientist of your caliber to take my word for it, study up my friend! Study, study, study!

    Every single bit of information I have provided herein has been from MY OWN INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS, ASEA has not provided anything to me beyond my being able to read their safety studies at http://www.asea.net and surmise the name of the predecessor company, everything else was just googling on my own. Anyone could do it. WHY would I do that? BECAUSE I WAS A SKEPTIC MYSELF! I wanted to prove them wrong and be writing on this blog right along with you making fun and feeling sorry for the naivety of well-meaning people, the power of the mind to heal, the placebo effect, pseudo-science, the lure of a greed… but the more I searched and questioned and listened and observed, the more convinced I became… and a skeptic convinced is a skeptic converted. And I didn’t stop at MDI-P, I researched Verdis, Jim Pack, redox signaling, I called the names on the prospectuses when it was a publicly traded stock! I researched network marketing, perused patent applications, investigated the field leaders of the company and the doctors on the advisory board, I even researched mormonism! Never condemn or defend something you haven’t fully investigated ON YOUR OWN! It will come back to bite you! DO IT, do it, do it, would love to see what YOU find, you might look in places I didn’t know to look… BRING IT!!! For better or worse, I am a student of LIFE, I am a truth-seeker with no bias about what I’m going to find, TRUTH is my only criteria!!!!!!!!!!!

    TO REITERATE, NONE OF YOU have provided ANY EVIDENCE that this company has ill intent, has a product that does not perform as stated, or that the underlying science is NOT valid. NO EVIDENCE! Surely you cannot expect me to just take YOUR word for it? That’s not in my nature! And believe me, if you all had real names on here… I’D BE INVESTIGATING YOU AS WELL, your motives, your experience, your track record of success. And Harriett has plenty to be concerned about regarding her ability to pass judgment on ANYTHING… http://www.blindspotmapping.com/hariett_hall_syndrome.html. She NEVER admits it when she’s wrong or mistaken, she is BLIND to her own shortcomings, she just trudges on in her sticky stinky mess picking up sheeple on her back as she goes. She reverts to childish name-calling instead of relying on “science-based” arguments, ironic isn’t it, given her forum?

  66. The Dave says:

    “that it is beneficial to all life forms.”

    tell that to the bacteria it was effective in sterilizing against.

    (now, that’s humor. :) )

  67. Narad says:

    I am a student of LIFE, I am a truth-seeker with no bias about what I’m going to find, TRUTH is my only criteria!!!!!!!!!!!

    I take it this is why you petulantly doubled down when it was pointed out that the AJIC paper didn’t show what you thought it did.

  68. Narad says:

    Hey PernilleN, signaling is with one L (since Harriett equates alternate spellings of names to be somehow relevant, I’m going to assume the same regarding your knowledge on a complicated subject).

    Could somebody point me to what this insane babbling refers to?

  69. Scott says:

    The sheer lunatic pettiness of deliberately misspelling someone’s name just to be annoying, combined with the gall and arrogance to not realize that British and American English spell signaling/signalling differently, are quite amusing in the context of such a rant.

    I also find it hilarious that, after so long, Tracy doesn’t get that some inconclusive preliminary evidence does NOT constitute any basis on which to sell a product. It is the seller’s obligation to show that it works, not the victim’s obligation to show that it does not – and selling it without that evidence is prima facie evidence of ill intent. Or at a minimum, negligence.

  70. Robb says:

    Don’t stop! I’m only half finished my bag of popcorn!
    It’s quite a transformation that Tracy has gone through in this thread considering she started with lines like:
    “Harriet, thanks for your article and I appreciate that there is a forum available for informed discussion of this significant breakthrough.”

  71. PernilleN says:

    Dear Tracy,

    I’m infinitely sorry and ashamed that I misspelled an English word. Most English speakers do allow foreigners a little lenience when it comes to spelling and grammar, but if you think this proves I’m an amateur at everything else, you’re free to do so.
    (I promise not to laugh at you when you try writing in a foreign language. How’s your Norwegian?)

    Pleasantries aside: I would like to ask you the question I ask the other proponents of ASEA: Since you obviously know much more about Asea than I do, can you please tell me what it really contains, and in what concentration? NB “16 types of signaling molecules” is not an adequate answer.

    And since you mention MDI-P, do you know whether ASEA is the same thing?

    Regards
    Pernille Nylehn
    Norway

  72. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    I’ll let everyone take care of all the science nonsense in Tracy’s post. I want to get pedantic.

    Hey Tracy,

    The U.S. is not the center of the universe, spelling-wise. In my country and several others (which are older than your U.S.A.) we double up the “L” in words like signalling, cancelling and travelling. We also add a “u” in words like neighbour and honour.

    It would be nice if you showed some professional respect and referred to our blog host as Dr. Hall, rather than using her first name like you’re best buds and then, acting even more juvenile, you deliberately misspell her name to get het goat. Real mature.

    You expect us to care what a butthurt chiropractor has to say about Dr. Hall? Oh yeah, chiropractors sell your magic salt water and are some of your best spokesholes. Just reinforces what we think about your salt water. Chiropractors also sell homeopathy, BodyTalk, CST, reflexology and a truckload of other quackery. They are anti-science, anti-vaccine and anti-medicine. (If ASEA works as well as Tracey claims, why would anyone even need a chiropractor? But that’s another story…)

    tracey, why don’t you just go away and annoy your friends and colleagues to buy your salt water. Impress your upline by showing them this blog as proof you’re out there “doing something”. Come back in April with your mystical, magical scientific paper you keep promising us and then we can re-open the conversation.

  73. Sialis says:

    WOW! Thanks Tracy, seriously, I needed to read that. You have sufficiently lit a ‘fire’ under my a**, enough for me to now make it my mission in life to combat such arrogant and destructive quackery. YOU try looking at a cancer patient who has been misled a bill of bogus goods from an ASEA-selling physician or salesperson such as yourself. Patients desperate for a cure, willing to try almost anything so they can spend more time in this world with their spouse and children. Those independent sales reps like yourself are exploiting desperate vulnerable people. Everyone reading these statements and patiently responding to you time and time again is keenly aware of this fact. Sad you can’t acknowledge your harmful behavior.

  74. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    Scott: I didn’t mean to echo your post about alternate spellings and deliberate juvenile misspellings of names. I only saw your post after I hit “Submit”. (And yes, I deliberately misspelled Tracy’s name in my post a couple of times to lower myself to her kindergarten level.

    Robb: Yes, she gets more belligerent, hostile, disrespectful and hysterical as she gets more desperate to convince us of something. I suspect her sale quotas are far below what her overlords expect at the end of each month so she thinks dragging up yet another useless paper or news release from the company might drum up some sales.

    Narad: Does Tracy remind you of another tri-named poster over on Orac’s blog? Someone who pops up frequently to support a quack and keeps posting the same junk links that he either hasn’t read, couldn’t understand or don’t say anywhere what he thinks it does? And uses juvenile insults? and keeps yelling that the truth will come out about his hero?

  75. The Dave says:

    Tracey:

    You’re my hero, Traci. Hey, everyone, I wanna be just like Traicee.

    Did you hear that, Trasie? I proclaimed it to everyone that you, Trazy, are my hero.

    Tre’-zee, Can you teach me everything you know about commenting online? You’re so cool, Trasee.

    (man, its difficult keeping that up… yes, I’ve just become a troll. Fight fire with fire. Right, Traycey?)

  76. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    The Dave,

    How about Traighsea?

  77. Chris says:

    Tray C ? Or Trey Sea?

  78. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    Since she’s just selling salt (sea) water, may I propose a bilingual (French/English) version:

    Très Sea

  79. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    Sialis,

    Despite all the frivolity here, you really hit the nail on the head. You summed up exactly what got me interested in the world of quackery, Burzynski and other cancer quacks specifically. I hate to see desperate, vulnerable people exploited, lied to and robbed by charlatans offering false hope and nostrums.

    Since Tracy has already “hinted” that ASEA works for cancer, that puts her and her business in the same category as Burzynski, Simoncini, Robert O. Young, John of God, the people selling MMS, black salve, Cancell and Mannatech.

    A homeopath posted on Natural News this week that he had a homeoquackic remedy for mesothelioma. Other homeoquacks claim cures for malaria and AIDS. All these people have to be stopped.

  80. nybgrus says:

    ROFLcopter!

    Though one post by TheDave was quite nice – thanks for the link to the OB blog. As you may have noticed I am keenly aware of the utility of actually reading an article beyond the abstract. Sadly, many folks – med students included – don’t even read the abstract. They read the news headline about the abstract. I’ve called out a number of my colleagues when they try to pull such shenanigans. I’ve been more disliked than liked for it, no matter what tack I take. Though I have managed to garner a few friends and converts in the process.

  81. Quill says:

    I am astonished this thread has continued, flabbergasted at what I read and yet oddly convinced, based solely on the evidence presented by the ocean of moral turpitude that is Très Sea, of several things: Très Sea is definitely in need of a new conservator; Très Sea also likes to shout while using punctuation like a drunken sailor uses the streets for urinals; and ASEA is salt water dearly and fraudulently sold.

  82. pmoran says:

    Tracy, all we can do is warn you that you are being snowed by experts. Your confidence in your own ability to evaluate complex scientific material is being used against you. You will probably make money for a while, but you will make some people very unhappy when they realize they have been dudded.

  83. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Wow Dave, that’s why I said “Snort” afterwards, it was sarcastic, get it? NOTHING would EVER be enough for you because your mind is already made up, absolutely NOTHING, not a study on mice, not a study on people, not a study on diseases, not patents, not decades of exploratory evidence and research, not a double-blind placebo-controlled independent third party randomized crossover study like the one we ALREADY did with the Human Performance Laboratory at the NC Research Campus, not trying the product… the ONLY thing will be 80 years of compounded research, too bad you will be dead by then. R u really that humorless that you did not pick up on sarcasm?

    1) Our minds are not made up, we are merely pointing out there’s no reason to believe salt water, however prepared, can cure all diseases; extreme claims require convincing evidence
    2) You’re criticizing us for not picking up on sarcasm on the internet, a text-based medium that invented smiley faces because it’s difficult to convey emotion? Yes, how stupid and humourless we are
    3) You’ve made such unscientific claims before, it’s not difficult to believe you are continuing down yet the same road for the umpteenth time.

    And yes I will be using 2 L’s from now on for the sheer purpose that now I see that it annoys her. Life is full of small joys.

    My, how petty.

    The conclusions of the study were OVERWHELMINGLY positive AND WARRANTED FURTHER STUDY, what more could you want from an initial study?

    Considering the claims you are making and the fact that you are selling this product as something that can cure disease, what we want is randomized, controlled trials on humans with statistically significant results. As we’ve said before.

    Using Harrett’s logic, PernilleN, do I need to know WHY hysterectomies work in order to benefit from one?

    The difference being a) prior probability and b) when a body part is cancerous and you remove it, the results are pretty inarguable. Salt water has neither of these things. You’ve got vague, untestable claims and anecdotes about something that really shouldn’t work.

    If you need specific information, and you seek it, it is MOST CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO YOU, you can get ALL your questions answered. Don’t be lazy and expect someone else to do the work for you, do it yourself. Contact Dr. Gary Samuelson at 801-973-7499, he returns calls on Mondays and Tuesdays to those who initiate the request.

    Heh, funny, I was thinking the same thing about you (not sarcasm). As said many times before, personal testimonials are not enough, independent, peer-reviewed journal articles are. The exact same thing we ask for before pharmaceuticals are approved. Why would we waste our time talking to a nuclear physicist who will just talk to us, when what we want and need are journal articles? Asking for weblinks to pubmed is hardly onerous, you are just frustrated because you don’t have them and we keep pointing this out.

    I can tell you the “ingredients” are EXACTLY as listed on the bottle: salt and water, it’s not an ingredients-based product, the intellectual property is in the unproven patented PROCESS whereby the water is electrolyzed, recombined, and stabilized in balanced form and sold for a massive profit without proof of efficacy so that it contains redox signaling molecules inside the bottle that are identical to those found in and around living cells, as proven by various methods of testing that are not replicated or reported in peer reviewed literature

    Fixed that for you.

    I would not expect a scientist of your caliber to take my word for it, study up my friend!

    Why waste time on an improbable avenue of research? Also, I think you mean “research”, since there’s nothing to “study” beyond press releases and youtube videos.

    Every single bit of useless information I have provided herein has been the worthless result from MY OWN INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS hampered by my failure to understand the scientific process, ASEA has not provided anything to me or anyone else beyond my being able to read their worthless safety studies at http://www.asea.net and surmise the name of the predecessor company, everything else was just googling on my own and I think google is the same thing as pubmed. Anyone could do it. WHY would I do that? BECAUSE I pretended I WAS A SKEPTIC MYSELF without actually understanding what it meant and also because I was selling the stuff!

    Fixed that for you too.

    I wanted to prove them wrong and be writing on this blog right along with you making fun and feeling sorry for the naivety of well-meaning people, the power of the mind to heal, the placebo effect, pseudo-science, the lure of a greed

    Truly were your efforts worth of failblog.

    For better or worse, I am a student of LIFE

    Very different from being an actual student by the way. Life does not lend itself to double-blinded studies, it’s actually quite hard to ensure adequate randomization and blinding.

    TO REITERATE, NONE OF YOU have provided ANY EVIDENCE that this company has ill intent, has a product that does not perform as stated, or that the underlying science is NOT valid

    As said before, the onus is on the claimant – it’s up to you to prove your fancy saltwater is magic. We have merely pointed out that your claims, evidence and assertions merit using fancy salt water to treat anything.

    Nice hissy fit by the way. You might want to lay off the salt water though, it raises blood pressure and you already kind sound like you’re close to stroking out. Way to double-down by the way, when you can’t refute someone’s point, a frothing rant is definitely the way to go.

    This is obviously causing you significant stress. Maybe just stop checking the comments. Maybe stop commenting. Maybe take a course on research methodologies.

  84. Narad says:

    Why would we waste our time talking to a nuclear physicist who will just talk to us, when what we want and need are journal articles?

    Again, a radiology tech who happens to have completed a physics Ph.D.

  85. Narad says:

    Narad: Does Tracy remind you of another tri-named poster over on Orac’s blog?

    I’m afraid Tracy’s prose is still comprehensible.

  86. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Heh, who hear likes despair.com?

    Some people should just quit already.

  87. Harriet Hall says:

    Have a little compassion, folks. We are seeing a sad example of what happens when a “true believer’s” beliefs have been challenged to the point that they are beginning to doubt themselves. They can only lash out in a last desperate attempt to convince themselves that they are really right, and quite often they succeed in reinforcing the delusion. It’s painful to watch, sort of like a soldier in the trenches who is out of ammunition and persists in clicking the trigger.

  88. SkepticWolf says:

    Clearly no amount of logical reasoning or requests for solid evidence are going to work here. Like Harriet says, this is a “true believer.” So I think the important question this raises is this:

    How to we (skeptics, SBMers, etc) get through to someone like this? Appeal to reality doesn’t work, this is emotional at this point. Reality won’t trump personal investment. Sometimes it doesn’t trump financial investment either. What will work?

    It’s possible that nothing will work in the comments on an internet blog. This may be a lost cause. Taking a wider view of “true believers in general” might be to big a question. But speaking of things in a SBM context, what do I say to my immediate/extended family/friends that are convinced that quackery has some kind of efficacy? ASEA, Chiropractic, homeopathy, therapeutic touch (oh…raki….ugh….). Whatever the preferred method of “CAM” happens to be. How do I get through to them?

    Or do I just do what I’ve been doing and keep my mouth shut, only offering my opinion when asked for?

  89. nybgrus says:

    An interesting point and question SW.

    On the first, I tend to believe (I both like to and have evidence to) that these conversation are fruitful for the fence sitters and the rare True Believer (™) who are witnessing the conversation. I also see utility in that it is held on record for anyone in the future to examine the conversation and determine the outcome based on its merits.

    On the second, that is indeed a very good question. I tend to take a Socratic approach to it – how much trouble is it worth to me? By example, I was visiting a friend of my fiance’s over the holidays. She is not near and dear to my fiancé, but is somewhat close and she is even less close to me. She showed me a lab report she had done recently. It was from a DC and it was one of those live blood analyses with IgE and IgG testing for allergies. I know this to be utter bunkum, but I said absolutely nothing. I lamented about her difficulties with allergies and some of her health problems, offered some sound science based advice carefully without making it abut the lab report directly, and thatw as it. Afterwards my fiance asked if the report was BS because it sure smelled fishy to her. See, you don’t have to be in medicine or biology at all to pick up on that stuff. Just be intelligent and know the scientific method.

    It simply wasn’t worth my effort to try and disabuse her. For closer family members I have put in more effort, with that effort being in direct proportion to my analysis of what the potential harm is. When my mother used homeopathic drops for weight loss I told her she was wasting her money but it wouldn’t harm her and that was it. A comment in passing. I found that a year later the drops hadn’t been touched. For my fiance’s mother, I have been much more aggressive at times and devoted vastly more time and effort since she is a cancer survivor and has significant woo-ish influence from her sister. She is also in a more precarious financial position and thus the harm of wasted money alone is much more significant and, IMO, warrants more effort.

    Every time you confront someone about their bad ideas, you always run the risk of souring a relationship or losing it altogether. Just like how even minor surgery can have infection and death as complications. So I evaluate whether the risk to the relationship is worth the benefit of the confrontation. In many cases that means weighing the risk of the woo du jour against the risk to the relationship and determining the lesser of two evils. This is necessarily complex, dynamic, and subjective. Of course, a history of conversations gives some objective criteria to bank on and I make it a point that whenever I do engage in such a conversation I make it absolutely clear that I am only doing the best I possibly can to help someone I care about and that while I may be wrong, I have good reason(s) to believe I am not. And I always leave it open – the goal is truly informed consent, not to sway someone to my way of thinking. If, after being truly informed, my mother wants to continue using the homeopathy, then so be it. My goals have still been met and I can be comfortable with that fact.

  90. nybgrus says:

    At least she is becoming more concise in citing things which do not support her claims.

  91. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    That’s a press release indicating that redox signalling molecules exist.

    It doesn’t support ASEA having anything to do with actual redox signaling. The only mention of ASEA is in the comments section.

    I’ve made a comment on that page clarifying these facts. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

  92. TracyKing says:

    @ PernilleN, the composition of ASEA is 8+ and 8- (16 in total) molecules. The positive are the ROS – Reactive Oxygen Species and the negatives are the RS – Reduced Species. Because the solution is in perfect equilibrium, it is non-toxic. In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to ASEA young to old, on medication or not as it already resides in our cells. From the Patent doc http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090110749#ixzz1Lgl4zAsU, here is the list per your request:

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

    Here is also a more scientific presentation about healing, redox signaling molecules and ASEA: http://drrobwebinar.com/

  93. Narad says:

    In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to ASEA young to old, on medication or not as it already resides in our cells.

    Tracy still hasn’t figured out the difference between the inside and the outside of a cell, I see.

  94. nybgrus says:

    She also hasn’t figured out that the safety of it is not and never was a concern of ours. I am happy to concede without any data of any kind that small amounts of mildly salty water are generally pretty safe.

  95. Harriet Hall says:

    While I’m trying to catch my breath, will someone with more patience than I have please try to explain to Tracy why her list of ingredients (from a solution of salt water after electrolysis) has me rolling on the floor laughing:

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

  96. pmoran says:

    In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to ASEA young to old, on medication or not as it already resides in our cells.

    Despite the free chlorine, ozone, hypochlorous acid and other noxious agents (some of which I am fairly sure are never found in our cells, by the way)?

    The only reason that this product probably is safe is that there is too little of anything left in it to affect anything much. Fortunately that is pretty certain, after it having been stored for a while, ingested, reacted with the gut and its contents, then absorbed, reacted with the protein and cells in the blood and then further diluted throughout the extracellular space. (I am sure others have pointed this out.)

    Even if there were any “signalling molecules” left it is a complete and utter toss-up as to whether the effect on cells would be beneficial or harmful.

    Those fancy diagrams and the big names look great, but they are designed to lure people who cannot see the many problems with the claims that are being made. There are many, many chemicals that will stimulate or inhibit important cellular processes, but adding more of them to the body is mostly either harmful, or it is simply compensated for by the body producing less.

  97. nybgrus says:

    will someone with more patience than I have please try to explain to Tracy why her list of ingredients (from a solution of salt water after electrolysis) has me rolling on the floor laughing

    LOL. Sure. I just rolled my eyes at it before but I think I can do it rather quickly. I even found a handy little primer. A Wiki article on it and a NASA article on it from their education and outreach department (PDF). The NASA piece states a high school grade level person devoting 90 minutes can understand the lesson.

    However, to summarize, the specific reason why salt in general is used in electrolysis is that water is a very poor conductor of electricity. Which specific salt comes down to chemical and then cost reasons. The salt used must have an anion (the negative part of the molecule) and cation (the positive part) that have the appropriate standard electrode potentials. The cation must have a lower SEP than hydrogen (H+) and the anion must have a higher SEP than hydroxide (OH-). This is because if the SEPs were reversed then the electrolysis would break up the salt rather than the water. What this means is… nothing will happen.

    The way electrolysis works is by getting all the anions to the cathode and all the cations to the anode. Then the electrons can shift around and do their fun stuff really close to the respective electrodes. If there is no salt, then the pure water will require a ridiculous amount of energy to actually split it into hydrogen and oxygen. With salt, the ions from the dissolved salt act to create an electrical balance so that electrons can jump around and split the water into H2 and O2.

    So if the cation has a higher SEP than hydrogen it will just hold on to that electron and… nothing will happen. If the anion has a lower SEP than hydroxide it will not give up the electron and… nothing will happen. Sodium chloride (NaCl, or common table salt) is used because it is cheap, dissolves readily in water, and has the appropriate SEPs. It acts, essentially, as a catalyst for the reaction – hence why you can electrolyse any amount of water without adding additional salt to the solution.

    So if something does happen, it will be the production of gaseous and electrically neutral hydrogen and oxygen. Which is really fun, especially when you recombine them back into water with a small spark :-D

    So there really is no mechanism by which ROS or whatever else it is that Tracy claims can be produced by standard electrolysis of water using NaCl. Or really any other material since the point is that the electron transfers happen extremely rapidly (hence why ROS is reactive). This is because the moment electricity is turned off all these species that do exist right next to the electrode for brief periods of time react with one another and equilibrium is reached.

    There are systems for on-site production of NaOCl for disinfectant purposes. They are typically quite large and essentially work by making a whole boatload of gaseous hydrogen and oxygen and sweep away the NaOCl before it can completely react and be rendered nothing more than salt water again. But why anyone would want to drink NaOCl is beyond me.

    The further complication is that if all the molecular species that Tracy lists are actually present in solution, they would simply react with each other rather rapidly (I read somewhere some of these can be stable… up to one hour only though) and be nothing more than salt water again. That is why when you actually do electrolysis and then turn off the electricity you don’t actually have a solution of nasty ROS left over.

    Of course, I suppose the magic of ASEA is to somehow take all of these molecules and prevent them from returning to equilibrium somehow… which is, I suppose, hypothetically possible since we do spin-trap molecules, but not from some sort of electrolysis technique and not in a way that would magically un spin-trap them when we ingest it.

    Perhaps ASEA should start calling them “not-so-reactive oxygen species.”

    Oh yeah, and the last thing I thought of is that all these compounds actually do exist at all times in any salt water solution. The amounts are small and dictated by the respective dissociation constants (Km) of each compound and are in a dynamic equilibrium at all times. So no matter how you slice it the claim is both always right and always wrong depending on the specifics you wish to apply.

    What a trip down memory lane. Been a looooong time since I have done inorganic chemistry. I likely made a mistake or two along the way, or didn’t pick up on a nuance, but hopefully the gist is right. I can only hope that Gears will come educate me :-D

Comments are closed.