Articles

603 thoughts on “Fan Mail from an ASEA Supporter

  1. nybgrus says:

    Oh, I guess that wasn’t so brief. Sorry. It was fun to read up and remember stuff.

  2. Harriet Hall says:

    Thanks, nybgrus. One further point: the claim that ASEA is “perfectly balanced” of course is true. If you start with a neutral substance and separate it into ions you necessarily get an equal number of positives and negatives. Duh!

  3. Narad says:

    Tracy, could you please explain in your own words, without running for help, what you think you mean when emitting the text “O. Sup 2.Sup -”?

  4. nybgrus says:

    My pleasure Dr. Hall. It was a nice distraction from my research activities. I had to edit a section of my heart failure review and am doing a lit review for my sepsis article. I really enjoy the outcomes but sometimes have trouble getting the train started, so to speak, and a distraction is nice at times.

    And yes, that was the final point I realized as I was writing – every solution, no matter what it is or how many molecular species are in it, is always perfectly balanced. And every reaction is reversible, it is just a question of how reversible it is. Highly reactive species – ROS – are reactive precisely because they are at a higher energy state and thus less stable. Entropy dictates that they will do everything they can to return to the ground state. So either they will react and simply be salt water, or there will be something preventing that and making ASEA quite unstable and dangerous. It’s simple thermodynamics.

  5. TracyKing says:

    Perhaps this ASEA associate can give you some additional detail that will help you understand? http://biotechsecret.com/biotechsecret.pdf. Regardless, keep laughing, and by all means keep writing. I know something you don’t. I’m just so very thankful that all this is being documented for posterity. Thank you for your time.

  6. The Dave says:

    Wow! A Bachelor’s degree! Super-impressive credentials. He must know WAY more than the MD’s and RPH’s and chemists here. What, exactly, is the curriculum to earn a BS in Natural Health, and what school did he get it from?

  7. nybgrus says:

    The “book” is a farce. It’s as if a middle schooler did a mock science documentary as an arts project.

    I honestly knew more science by the 8th grade than this “book” contains. And I would have known enough back then to realize it was pretty much total garbage.

  8. pmoran says:

    I meant to mention that my salt water swimming pool is kept free of algae and bugs via salt water electrolysis. There is a little 30 cm X 5 cm cell containing a bank of electrodes. Works well.

    Since some of the chlorine will be lost into the atmosphere and presumably also small and not necessarily equivalent amounts of hydrogen and oxygen I am not prepared to be dogmatic about the composition of the final solution i.e. I doubt if the water can quickly restore itself to an entirely original state.

    Neverthless its medicinal qualities remain extremely dubious.

    The obvious value of the process for Asea is that no one has thought of commercialising this quite mundane process as quackery previously.

  9. Narad says:

    I know something you don’t.

    Yah, but nobody really cares about your hat size.

  10. Narad says:

    Wow! A Bachelor’s degree! Super-impressive credentials.

    Especially when it comes from the now-defunct Clayton College of Natural Health, a diploma mill.

  11. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    The book is dedicated to, among others, a couple of QiGong “masters” and an energy healer.

  12. Sialis says:

    The book is dedicated to, among others, a couple of QiGong “masters” and an energy healer.

    Murakami makes it sound so intriguing, “If you happen to be benefiting from exotic subconscious mind technologies, you will receive great benefit from the redox signaling molecules.”

    If these signaling molecules work as TresSea describes, what association could there possibly be between “exotic subconscious mind technologies” and ASEA? I’m thinking it is simply a matter of identifying an easy target, a consumer who will most easily fall for other dubious product claims like ASEAs.

  13. TracyKing says:

    It’s not simple electrolysis, it’s a 3-day patented process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beKYeSdJ430&list=UUHo. And that’s why all the company videos call ASEA a “breakthrough” or a “discovery” or “previously thought impossible” — because it’s counter-intuitive to believe that these molecules could stay “on” after the electric current has been removed. The patents exist to protect the process not the ingredients. That’s also why they did the NMR testing to prove superoxides exist in the solution, it was a necessary step for publication.

    And Dr. Samuelson didn’t make that video, someone captured it on their iPhone from a convention and posted it to YouTube.

  14. Sialis says:

    The patents exist to protect the process not the ingredients. That’s also why they did the NMR testing to prove superoxides exist in the solution, it was a necessary step for publication.

    There are NO patents for ASEA. There are patents on similar processes using various salts and water processes for commercial and other cleaning solutions, etc., all of which have been discussed above. Show us one, just one patent for ASEA. No excuses, if you can’t show us a specific patent for ASEA, then don’t bother posting a bunch of excuses.

    I am not a scientist and that’s quite obvious, but even I can see through ASEA’s bogus advertising, especially with all the help others here have put into debunking every statement you’ve made as yet.

  15. PernilleN says:

    Tarcy, thanks a lot for your list. I’m not going to go into what it means, but you’re the first person who has actually been able to (and willing to) tell me what it really contains. And if this is true, all those who have said it’s “just Na and Cl” are clearly liars, or haven’t bothered to find out the real contents.

    But, can you also help me with the concentrations? It’s rather important – 0,5% OCl- or HCl is rather different from 5%, for example. The latter is very unhealthy, to put it mildly.

    One more question: The link to the description in patentdocs says nothing about ASEA, but I take it this is the same thing? Asea mentions a different patent, namely this one. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,674,537.PN.&OS=PN/5,674,537&RS=PN/5,674,537 (sorry, I don’t know how to change it to a shorter link). But it seems the product is more or less the same.

    Regards,
    Pernille Nylehn

  16. The Dave says:

    Wow! A Bachelor’s degree! Super-impressive credentials.
    Especially when it comes from the now-defunct Clayton College of Natural Health, a diploma mill.

    I earned my BA in psychology from and actual accredited state school. Perhaps I should start signing everything with that after my name:

    The Dave BAP

  17. nybgrus says:

    I particularly enjoyed how the video link – besides being worthless in general – was specifically worthless in that it had asbolutely nothing to do with the claim of a novel electrolytic process but was just a montage of an absolutely standard bottling facility. Which is neat; I actually had a brief stint as an oversight manager for a similar such plant that produced fruit juices. The amount and type of quality control checks to ensure the safety of the product as well as the innovations for high throughput production were very interesting to not only see first hand but actually do. But then again I really like watching shows on mass production and production in general like “How it’s made.”

    The only evidence that video provides us is that there is enough of a market of gullible people to warrant at least one mass production of ASEA. However, don’t let that fool you too much – most of these bottling plants are actually independently owned and manufacturers of various products actually “rent” the use of the plant and simply bring their own product to the facility. The cost of this certainly means that ASEA has been making some money somehow (either sales, MLM schemes, VC money, or some combination thereof) but it doesn’t actually have to be a huge amount since a single bottling run can be done rather cheaply without recurring costs or overhead. And since ASEA is just salt water and the plastic bottles extremely cheap, the profit margin is huge and the cost of facility rental would likely be easily absorbed. There may not have even been a second bottling run, so we can’t even use the video as independent evidence that ASEA has an ongoing production.

  18. Sialis says:

    Since Barr is no longer in business, there should be no problem with Tracy posting some evidence of their offers to ASEA? Surely if Barr or Johnson and Johnson made such impressive offers to ASEA, they did so in writing? Why don’t you give us some evidence of just one of these claims, Tracy? Who exactly were those individuals at Barr that made the offers? Go back and ask your contacts at ASEA to give us some evidence of at least this these claims.

  19. Narad says:

    I missed this when originally skimming Tracy’s mysteriously set out list of ingredients:

    Activated Hydrogen ions (H. sup – )

    That’s right, free hydride anions just sittin’ around shootin’ the breeze.

  20. nybgrus says:

    @narad:

    Excellent point. I glossed over it myself.

    Hydride anions are indeed a crazy atomic species. It is mostly found in stars and its theoretical existence wasn’t even proven till 1929 and it wasn’t even empirically proven until 1977 and is studied using particle accelerators.

    Free hydride anions exist only under extreme conditions and are not invoked for homogeneous solution. Instead, many compounds have hydrogen centres with hydridic character

    Yeah, very little chance that could exist in a bottle of water.

  21. Narad says:

    Yeah, very little chance that could exist in a bottle of water.

    Unless it’s… just like homeopathy. (I don’t have access to this.)

  22. nybgrus says:

    I am sometimes impressed with the level of institutional access I have. I was able to get the full article. It is vastly more technical than I can process. However, I think one sentence sums it all up:

    However, the hydride ion is hardly present in solutions, as it reacts with most solvents except alkanes.

    This includes water. And in fact much of the paper is about exactly how it reacts with water. And the energies involves are pretty staggering. Which is why:

    The hydride ion, which is the smallest anion and a strong reducing agent as one of the strongest bases known

    That is because it rips the hydrogen off of H20 to create H2 and OH- (hydroxide, the prototypical Lewis base).

    I almost don’t want to post the next quote, since it would just give the likes of Tres Sea undeserved talking points, but it is actually interesting:

    The hydride ion formed as an intermediate is involved in biologically important reduction processes of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP+), flavin mononucleotide (FMN), and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) (e.g., NAD++H++2 e- = NADH; FMN+2H++2 e- = FMNH2)

    Do note, please, that is an intermediate since it reacts so incredibly rapidly.

    A sample of stuff I do not understand:

    As the temperature increases from 0 to 298 K, the lowest energy structures in ΔGr for n = 4/5/6 changes the conformation from 4Y31/5Y32/6Y42 to 4R3I1/5I32/6Y32I1 due to the entropy effect (Fig. 2)

    I do not know what the conformation notation means. That is beyond the level of chemistry I ever learned.

    This seems important as well:

    The proton transfer process from the water molecule to the hydride ion is possible because of the low-energy transition barrier. The potential energy barrier from the monohydrated hydride to the dissociated OH− and detached H2 is estimated to be low [3.40, 1.79, and 4.68 kcal/mol at the B3LYP/6-311++G**, MP2/aVDZ+, and CCSD(T)/aVTZ+//CCSD(T)/aVDZ+ levels of theory, respectively], while the monohydrated hydride anion is more stable than the system comprised of the detached hydrogen-molecule and the hydroxide anion by about 3.2 and 2.8 kcal/mol at the B3LYP/6-311++G** and CCSD(T)/aVTZ+//CCSD(T)/aVDZ+ levels, respectively

    Meaning that the energy state highly favors H- + H2O –> H2 + OH- which is why it cannot exist in solution for very long. Adding additional hydration coordination states adds some stability, but not much, and most of the work (theoretical and practical) they appear to be doing in this paper is down near the zero Kelvin range.

    Lastly:

    However, the change from the excited state of hydride-water clusters to the complex of electron-water clusters with the hydrogen radical is exothermic, and the reactions are spontaneous [0.96 eV for H−(H2O)2, 1.78 eV for H−(H2O)4, and 2.47 eV for H−(H2O)6 at the MP2/aVDZ+ level]. The electron-water plus H radical system is more stable than the H−*(H2O)n system.

    So what this means is that hydride anion in water is so unstable that H* + H2O- (that is hydrogen radical with an extra electron on the water molecule) is actually the lower energy state. The “n” in ‘H-*(H2O)n’ refers to the fact that any number of stabilizing coordinated water molecules (in the paper they describe up to 6 as possible, which in and of itself is impressive for steric reasons) is still less stable than H* + H2O-. Incredible.

    So yeah, really no chance it could just exist in a bottle of water. It is an anion of interest because it is so extreme that it is difficult to study and gives us insight into the edges of physical chemistry knowledge.

  23. nybgrus says:

    Sorry, I should correct myself – the hydride anion is the Lewis base, the hydroxide is the Arrhenius base.

    Flashbacks to the end of high school and beginning of college. The last time I took inorganic chemistry was in 2002. Fun to remember all this stuff.

  24. Narad says:

    I almost don’t want to post the next quote, since it would just give the likes of Tres Sea undeserved talking points

    Just remember, if you start hearing “clathrates” from the ASEA crowd, they got it here.

  25. Narad says:

    I do not know what the conformation notation means.

    Oh, I’m sure it’s entirely straightforward. (These maps are actually fun to poke around in, as this is hardly the most intricate example.) But anyway, pictures! (Fig. 1; PDF)

    This stuff was an unmitigated nightmare to edit, not to mention getting it onto narrow measure (protip: do not repeat the basis set over and over.)

  26. nybgrus says:

    lol. like I said, beyond the level of chemistry I did. I can understand the basic premise of what is going on and at least some of the nomenclature I am familiar with – we did, after all, do a fair bit of stereochemistry (Trey Cee, that does not mean doing chemistry with a boombox) in organic chem. But that detail of conformational nomenclature is physical chem stuff, and I never took any p-chem but had friends who were chem majors and told me it was one of the toughest courses they had to take and laughed merrily at how breezy ochem was in comparison. Personally I rather liked ochem and aced all my courses. I was, at one time, considering being a chem major but realized I liked squishy science way more and hence the evo-bio degree instead.

    I actually entered undergrad as an anthropology major since I had discovered medical anthro and thought that would be a really interesting and cool way to get to med school. Then I began to realize I really needed a science degree (and wanted one anyways) so I was going to switch. In the end I decided to just finish both degrees. At my undergrad they were very snotty about their bioscience and physical science program (having 5 Nobel Laureates as active professors gave them airs) and so when I applied to add the major, they quite literally thumbed their nose at me since I was coming from the social sciences and said flat out “Biosci is really hard and we’ll have to review your application, which may take up to a week, and there is a good chance you won’t get in.” This was before they knew anything about me except that I was an anthropology major. I had already aced a full year of ochem and physics plus integral calculus and molecular biology as a non-major. I got a call the next day apologizing and asking if I would come to their department. The lesson learned is that you never know who you may be talking to and showing humility will never make you look bad, but being haughty can most definitely backfire on you!

    Just out of curiosity Narad (if you don’t mind answering) what is your profession/occupation? Forgive me if you have mentioned it before and I have forgotten.

  27. Narad says:

    Just out of curiosity Narad (if you don’t mind answering) what is your profession/occupation?

    Just a (currently underemployed) copy editor, journals publishing, mainly physical sciences. I was a physics undergrad, couple of years on a poorly chosen computer science Ph.D. that I didn’t finish, and then drifted into this dying racket.

  28. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Perhaps this ASEA associate can give you some additional detail that will help you understand? http://biotechsecret.com/biotechsecret.pdf. Regardless, keep laughing, and by all means keep writing. I know something you don’t. I’m just so very thankful that all this is being documented for posterity. Thank you for your time.

    The credibility of qi gong practicing self-publishers is rather low here. Particularly when the self-published book contains no citations and has the FDA quack miranda warning on page 4. Still not a peer-reviewed journal indicating salt water cures cancer or whatever.

    And “knowing something you don’t” doesn’t work in science, due to the openness and transparency required for peer review, critical scrutiny and replication.

    And Dr. Samuelson didn’t make that video, someone captured it on their iPhone from a convention and posted it to YouTube.

    Oh, well then, that settles it! Because only the highest quality science can be captured on an iPhone, and the fact checkers at YouTube are famous the world-over for not allowing any inaccurate information on the site.

    Narad and nybgrus, thanks for the science lessons. I followed about 50% of it and it was still interesting :)

  29. PernilleN says:

    @Tracy, you say there have been absolutely no adverse reactions. How do you explain the emails people are sending me, saying they got really sick form taking ASEA? Some are “only” sick for a few days, but one of them is still ill, several weeks after he stopped taking it.
    Even retailers say that it’s normal to feel bad the first days, with nausea, headaches etc etc. I call that adverse reactions.

    Pernille Nylehn

  30. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I’d call that nocebo.

  31. nybgrus says:

    Better than Arecibo.

  32. TracyKing says:

    @ nybgrus, I’m sorry, I gave you the wrong link, this is the one I meant to include, it’s only 1-minute but explains how it’s more than simple electrolysis: http://www.americanhealthjournal.com/medical-research-videos/asea-redox-video/.

  33. Narad says:

    I gave you the wrong link, this is the one I meant to include, it’s only 1-minute but explains how it’s more than simple electrolysis

    Tracy, there’s insulting the intelligence of your audience, and then there’s really insulting the intelligence of your audience.

  34. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Oh, look, infotainment. Like advertising, but with less integrity.

  35. Narad says:

    I will admit, however, that the video has its moments, and as such, I would ask Tracy to explain precisely what she thinks this is intended to mean.

  36. TracyKing says:

    @ PernilleN, according to a book called “The Science of Healing Revealed: New Insights into Redox Signaling,” written by the Atomic Medical Physicist who led the team of scientists that discovered the stabilization process, yes the compounds by themselves ARE TOXIC (he states “Strong reductants and oxidants can both be harmful and destructive to the cell if they are allowed to wander around at will.”) He goes on to explain the “redox balance” process in detail and I re-typed it in above posts but you can reference his book here: http://qwe.goforfiles.com/j5GRX2eQmlhv0aNcb5ieJS70sCZ%2BqbcsNpa4OX%2BpjTZ66pI6S7TUbRbnyyxfuoYOR7jIXgrYzVkQkI5SC9s0SgrYN0V1ww%3D%3D, or I can email you a pdf if you want to provide your email address to tracypowersking@gmail.com.

    Also ongoing redox signaling research is helping to explain the concept of “redox potential” — http://ccforum.com/content/10/1/208, and the evolution in our understanding about our bodies’ sophistication regarding the mechanisms that control these reactive molecules.

    And yes the patent you referred to is related to ASEA. You can see various safety studies that have only recently been able to be formally referenced at http://www.asea.net, which opened up the potential for any user to trace the name of the company mentioned in the safety studies, “Medical Discoveries, Inc. – Pharmaceutical” to press releases while it was a publicly traded stock. The company makes no claims related to those press releases, they only use the safety studies to confirm that the solution was thoroughly vetted as safe and non-toxic at any level.

    I am NOT a scientist and I do NOT feel qualified to comment beyond being able to reference what other independent scientists, doctors, physicists, chemists, microbiologists, etc, are providing in the way of resources to help explain this new-found availability to replenish native molecules that our body lacks as we age. I would highly recommend that you please address any further technical questions to askdrgary@asea.net, or call him directly at 801-973-7499. I did not want to represent myself as an expert, only someone who knew that the article in question did not take many factors into account, and that the writer’s bias is highly evidenced per a review of her history with network marketing products which she summarily dismisses in their entirety based on industry.

  37. TracyKing says:

    @ PernilleN, per Dr. Robertson Ward, M.D.: Much insight can be gained by considering the taste of ASEA. We are consuming the world’s first and only, native redox molecular supplement. Not surprisingly therefore, it has many special properties, some of which are reflected in its taste. Although most people find ASEA to be mild or refreshing, others may report the taste of something like “pool water,” or chlorine. These and other tastes are sensed predominantly through olfactory lobes and not by the tongue. Taste buds on the tongue respond to just four flavors: salty, sour, bitter and sweet. Much of what we commonly think of as taste is actually smell. Redox molecules in ASEA trigger olfactory sensation to the extent that our internal chemistry is deficient in redox molecules. Some people can detect the presence of hydrogen peroxide, for example, one of sixteen redox molecules in ASEA. This “taste” is actually a smell via olfactory sensation, and may simply indicate an imbalance in our own body chemistry. As we continue to consume ASEA, our experience with it evolves. The perceived flavor shifts toward a more bland water-like quality, as we gradually lose the ability to distinguish the presence of redox molecules. This happens when redox molecules are replenished within our olfactory lobes and other tissues. Our own body chemistry begins to approximate an optimal equilibrium of eight reductant redox molecules paired with eight oxidants. On a cellular level, this is the balance of health and youth that ASEA helps us to regain.

    How ASEA is Made: ASEA is made in Utah from municipal water that is highly purified using both reverse osmosis and distillation. The pure water is then combined with pure salt and allowed to cure, before undergoing a patented process that oxidizes and reduces the saline solution into the final product. During processing most of the chloride ions are integrated into redox molecules. Sodium ions are not affected and help to maintain electrical neutrality. Hydrogen and oxygen also contribute to the formation of redox molecules, but most of the water forms a matrix of clusters around the active redox molecules and ions. This micro-clustering further contributes to the stability and electrical neutrality of the product. The final product is no longer a saline solution. It is not salt and water. It is a balanced buffet of redox molecules. The raw materials have been transformed into a new product. Ingredients: Some people ask why redox molecules are not listed as an ingredient on each bottle of ASEA. By comparison, when we look at the ingredients on a loaf of bread, we find flour, water, eggs, sugar, oil, yeast, etc. Nowhere on the list does it say “bread.” The raw ingredients have been blended and heated and forever transformed. You can no longer locate the eggs or oil that we know went into the process. It’s the same with ASEA. The beginning ingredients are salt and water. The finished product is something very different. Sodium Content: Typically, adults consume 4,000 mg of sodium daily. Restricted diets may be set to 1,500 mg. One piece of whole wheat bread contains 210 mg of sodium. ASEA contains 123 mg of sodium in 4 ounces, the standard daily allotment. Safety & Assimilation: ASEA is transparent to pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. It does not interact, interfere or conflict with anything else you are eating or taking. ASEA is not metabolized by our internal organs but is assimilated, like water, through simple diffusion. The redox molecules in ASEA, as in our cells, are composed of just four tiny atoms, or fewer, and are essentially the size of H2O.

  38. TracyKing says:

    @ PernilleN: Per website: ASEA is proven safe to all tissues, organs, and systems of the body. It is so effective that it might increase the efficiency of certain message carriers in the body, such as hormones, insulin, adrenaline, etc. If you take anything of this type, carefully monitor yourself and make adjustments to compensate, with the aid of your doctor, if needed.

    Per instructions for use by Dr. Foster Malmed: “Some people experience a detox effect when starting ASEA. Do not be alarmed, it is perfectly normal. If you experience signs of detox, you can drink more water to flush your system quicker or cut your dose back and then resume as normal. Detoxing is a good sign!”

    Per a question posed to Dr. Samuelson regarding the detox process:

    This is a Question That I asked Dr Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. in Atomic/Medical Physics from the University of Utah.
    by Asea Alberta on Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 2:09pm
    Hi
    I have 3 different elderly people that are on my auto ship and after about 3 weeks or so of using ASEA they went to their doctors and got their blood pressures taken and they were slightly elevated. The doctors of course jumped all over it and told them to stop taking ASEA due to the salt. All of these people have had amazing results for the medical issues they were having. Of course the doctors have been telling them that it is only the placebo affect. I have told them the type of salt and amount it is but still their doctors seem to be getting satisfaction from trying everything they can to make them stop using ASEA. This also happened to me in the beginning and after 2 months my vitals were perfect and still are some 7 months later. Please can you help me to make them understand what is going on with their bodies? The sad part of this whole thing is that ASEA has helped them get total relief from major medical issues they were having, but it is very hard to change peoples minds about what today’s medical profession knows about how the bodyworks on a cellular level. I am 50 yrs old and feel like I am 20 now and ASEA has alleviated 23 different medical symptoms
    that I was having for many, many years. I can understand why doctors do not want to accept this technology
    as I have not been at mine for the last 8 months and I used to live at his office. HELP ?

    Dave,
    I am glad to hear about your improvement. It is generally difficult to introduce redox signaling to most medical professionals, it is a new field of science (13 years old) and change happens gradually in the medical field and requires ongoing education. To help you understand what might be happening inside the body: several measures of cellular efficiencies increase as a result of redox signaling exposure, especially in older people or people with large-scale tissue damage. The increased efficiencies may also help the cells to more efficiently clean up the “garbage” that has been building up in their cells, washing the garbage and toxins into the blood supply. This clean-up effort by the cells, at times, may cause what is termed a “detox” reaction. The kidneys, while trying to get rid of the garbage, will, at times, order an increase in blood pressure to help expel the toxins. This is a temporary condition that should not last more than a month after first taking the product consistently. The best recommendations to help someone that is going through a detox reaction is to ask them to drink plenty of water, to help flush the body, 12-16 glasses a day, for example. Be patient and if the detox symptoms get too uncomfortable, cut back, taking ½ – 1 oz 4 times a day (some just spray it in their mouths several times a day) while the cleanup process is taking place. One encouraging thought: athletes in our studies who underwent somewhat uncomfortable detox reactions at first and were patient, later had the greatest improvements later on.

    The amount of salt in ASEA is not large enough to significantly affect blood pressure. 129 mg of sodium is the same as that in three large carrots. Almost any salt-restricted diet can be adjusted to include ASEA. I hope that all goes well for you.
    -Gary

  39. Narad says:

    The pure water is then combined with pure salt and allowed to cure

    Tracy, you really don’t understand the hole you’re digging here, do you?

  40. TracyKing says:

    In my own experience, I have seen some people have fatigue symptoms at first, and temporary elevated blood pressure (your blood is thicker when it has more “junk” in it to get rid of, like the debris from cells that are being replaced, which is easily remedied by drinking more water or cutting back). People who have been on pharmaceutical drugs for decades do seem to have some initial swelling in their joints which I attribute to the body’s flushing of residual toxins too fast for the kidneys to process so it flows back into the lymph nodes temporarily. Some people even experience a temporary rash since the skin is also a way for toxins to be released from the body. I have never seen a serious detox reaction, all just minor (like diarrhea) and all completely explainable if you research “healing crisis,” and I might add, rare (in my experience with many users, it’s usually people with a history of a non-methylating liver or people who have extreme sensitivities to caffeine and most pharmaceuticals and OTC medicines, etc.). For whatever reason, ASEA tastes the worst to the people who need it the most (especially the obese), but the taste does change over time, and I find people tend to like it refrigerated at first, but then later prefer it at room temperature. I can tell if I’m coming down with a cold because the ASEA tastes different to me, sometimes very chlorine-like, sometimes metal-like or just “flat.” I know to drink more on those days to boost my immune system. I also have benefited greatly from spraying it up my nose like a saline spray for clogged sinuses and nebulizing with it if I have chest congestion, as well as dropping it into my eyes as you would natural saline. Perhaps this is the truest test that ASEA is more than simple “salt water” since direct contact in your eye with salt water would be stinging but ASEA is very soothing to delicate membranes like the nasal passages and eyes/lids. My children also nebulize with it during allergy season and it is immediately beneficial without a doubt. I am very thankful to have found ASEA.

  41. Narad says:

    I have never seen a serious detox reaction, all just minor (like diarrhea) and all completely explainable if you research “healing crisis,”

    Holy cats, now it’s Herxing.

    I find people tend to like it refrigerated at first, but then later prefer it at room temperature.

    Tracy, who in G-d’s name do you think you’re talking to?

  42. TracyKing says:

    @ nybgrus, thank you for your time and for the additional research, I appreciate that you are indeed intellectually curious. You will find some humor in this brand new video which is, by far, my most favorite to date: http://www.7minutes.biz. I know your time is valuable but just watch minute 3, he recounts that scientists slap their hands on the table because they are so disbelieving that redox molecules can be captured and stabilized for more than a few minutes. I went to a lecture by Dr. Samuelson and it sounded like to me that the secret lies in being able to envelop the individual redox molecules inside H2O molecules but again, I have no idea, nor at this point, any interest since I am able to confirm the existence of these molecules through observing my own results, as well as countless others, who previously had no relief through traditional means. I will send Dr. Samuelson your observations and report back to you if he has any insights to share (that would not endanger our intellectual property obviously).

    To whomever asked it, at minute 4:15 of http://www.7minutes.biz, the pharmaceutical company offer is discussed and documented at length publicly (in fact they made a movie called “The Genesis” about it), without mentioning the name of the company, which is understandable to me. The company need not be named and indeed, it was probably an exclusive one-time silent secret non-public offer to protect the pharmaceutical company from being associated with a network marketing company or admitting that there is something that exists that might actually do some good (I have my own personal beefs with big pharma because of what my mom has been through as an Alzheimer’s patient). Complete speculation but it would not surprise me if pharmaceutical companies are continuing to make offers since it is common knowledge among ASEA users, that some pharmaceutical drugs actually work BETTER when taken with ASEA, it would make sense that they would like to gain exclusivity to its use, thereby increasing the market share of their drug.

    @ PernilleN, one last comment on detoxing… IF a patient is on a drug, read the “side effects” and “cautions” for that drug and see if it doesn’t match the patient’s symptoms since (in my experience) often it is not a “detoxing” AT ALL but rather a side effect of an overdose of medication that is no longer needed (particularly synthroid, again maybe it’s just a coincidence but this has been my personal observation with the limited number of users I have seen who have “adverse” initial reactions). In particular, notice if the patient has not been on the drug in question for very long. Incidentally, high blood pressure is an often cited side effect for MANY medications, and furthermore, many “symptoms” do not immediately disappear at the start of most new medications… I remind new ASEA users to be patient, have realistic expectations, and to commit to the product for a minimum of 90 days to observe the subtle improvements in their health or gradual lack of ill health.

  43. Narad says:

    I went to a lecture by Dr. Samuelson and it sounded like to me that the secret lies in being able to envelop the individual redox molecules inside H2O molecules

    Tracy, did you miss the part where this has already come up?

  44. nybgrus says:

    lol. You should try digging up!

    I’m not going to waste my time further with this ridiculousness. Narad’s screencap was great though. And the “correct” video was nearly as hilarious as the first. Absolutely no evidence of anything.

    And do note, that I commented on that pchem paper that indeed, these things can be stabilized by water in coordination states, but that this is a miniscule effect.

    Sorry Tray See but still no dice. And I’m not expecting to see any either.

  45. TracyKing says:

    @ Narad, can you appreciate the dilemma of needing to appeal to a “general public” who is not knowledgeable in complex biophysics but who still needs understandable answers? Hence the reason for the book, “The Science of Healing Revealed,” which is meant to appeal to those who need a more technical explanation? Let me email it to you. Think about needing to explain this concept to a populace who overwhelmingly lack even a basic understanding of chemistry… if you get too technical then people will dismiss it as something they can’t understand. A blurb on a PBS show, “American Health Journal” does not have an audience of Ph.D.’s, therefore it is somewhat excusable that the language is more for mass media marketing and not meant to educate scientists.

  46. Narad says:

    Narad, can you appreciate the dilemma of needing to appeal to a “general public” who is not knowledgeable in complex biophysics but who still needs understandable answers?

    Tracy, the trick here is that you can’t explain anything coherently to an audience rather narrower than the general public, so that’s out. Now, please explain to me what you think that video still is supposed to represent.

  47. TracyKing says:

    That the company acknowledges the incredulousness of being able to stabilize a fleeting solution like this… however, they took it to “a group of university scientists” who confirmed that it DOES INDEED CONTAIN WHAT THEY SAY IT DOES. That the leadership has “Fortune 10″ CEO experience, never before seen in this industry. That the product works. That a “very big pharmaceutical company in New Jersey (about $10-11 billion dollars)” who were privy to ALL the research that you and I don’t have access to DID make an offer after only about 6 hours of negotiation. That this product is NOT salt water, it’s not going away, we have opened 10 countries and we are expanding.

  48. nybgrus says:

    That the company acknowledges the incredulousness of being able to stabilize a fleeting solution like this… however, they took it to “a group of university scientists” who confirmed that it DOES INDEED CONTAIN WHAT THEY SAY IT DOES

    I just read and commented on an article Narad posted up about the stabilization of the hydride ion. That was a peer reviewed, solid science paper. Why on earth does the same thing not exist for ASEA, if the “group of university scientists” confirmed it was there? To confirm it, they would have had to do what the paper Narad linked to did! They would have had to actually do the work to prove it is there, which means the data would exist, which means there is absolutely no reason there isn’t a paper on it.

    You can’t just get a group of people, university scientists or not, and have them just look at the damned bottle and agree it contains anything!

    Sorry Tracy, but there is absolutely no possible way this is legit.*

    *to within experimental error and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

  49. Narad says:

    we have opened 10 countries and we are expanding

    With nothing but absurdities in your pocket. ASEA makes baby Jesus sad, Tracy.

  50. BillyJoe says:

    “the Heisenberg uncertainty principle”
    The more those scientists examine the solution, the less they believe it contains what it says it does.

  51. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Wow, that is a truly impressive amount of handwaving nonsense. By using the terms “detox” and “healing crisis”, you’ve certainly shown your ability to learn from homeopathy, a field with which you share comparable scientific backing and respectability.

    Your use of “boost the immune system” has allowed me to win at quackery bingo by the way. I also would have won with “Big Pharma just wants to make money”, “lets the body heal itself” and “deals with the cause of a problem, not just the symptoms”.

    Tracy, you sell very expensive salt water. There is no reason to believe it is anything else. Technobabble from An Atomic Scientist is not any more impressive than technobabble from Star Trek.

    Is it someone’s job at ASEA to post as many videos as they can on as many websites as they can? You keep linking to new, equally worthless videos on new sites, it’s astonishing. Imagine what your company could have accomplished if they put their marketing efforts into real research, it would be amazing! Obviously not research on ASEA, but on real science.

    I’m so unsurprised ASEA contains what it says, considering it says it is salt water.

    QUANTUM! NOW MY CARD IS FULL!!!

    I feel like I’m being trolled by RusticHealthy.

  52. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I’ve thought of an analogy. Tracy, do you think that Peter Pan is real? He is, and here’s my evidence:

    There were dozens of books about him:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Books_-_fiction

    And comic books:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Comics

    And scholarly books:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Books_-_non-fiction

    And many plays:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Stage

    There were movies about him (lots actually):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Film

    TV shows:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#TV

    Video games:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Video_games

    Documentaries:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Biographical_dramas

    Radio shows, Russian and English:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Radio

    Now clearly, by your standards of documentation and research, you must believe that Peter Pan is real, right? With dozens of books, films, plays and sundry, isn’t that ample evidence that Peter Pan is a real, flying boy? And oddly hairless as an adult.

  53. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    As an exercise for the skeptics, it might be instructive to list all the indications of quackery we’re seeing here. We’ve got:

    - Big Pharma conspiracy
    - quantum nonsense
    - healing crises
    - improbable claims and improbable mechanisms
    - scientists making claims outside their specialties
    - claims published by non-peer reviewed outlets (youtube!)
    - irrelevant tangent scientific articles cited as if relevant
    - FDA-approved quack miranda warning
    - claiming it is “too important to wait for proof”
    - omnipotence (the ability to cure any and all diseases)
    - “just try it”
    - arrogant claimants
    - demands that we disprove it’s efficacy

    I’m sure there’s more, that’s just from the past couple days.

  54. The Dave says:

    “As an exercise for the skeptics, it might be instructive to list all the indications of quackery we’re seeing here. We’ve got:”

    -”Detox effects”
    -100% safe, no side effects

    The Dave BAP

  55. TracyKing says:

    I would probably be completely inclined to agree with all of you IF I “had not seen it with my own eyes!” I know the “quoters” will have fun with that jewel but if you could just SEE what I’ve seen, and if you could just FEEL it in your own body, then you would be a LOT more curious and open! Thanks for your time. This is a new science webinar I haven’t show you before, it’s by the founder’s son, it’s particularly compelling (to ME anyway) at minute 18, and 23 and 27. http://apps.attainresponse.com/MediaF5/liveRecording.htm?id=264478

  56. nybgrus says:

    “seen it with my own eyes” is a fundamental human cognitive error that we here have expounded upon over and over again.

    Unless you are willing to convert to Islam because of how an Imam FEELS Allah and because he has “seen it with his own eyes” then you should recognize how incredibly trite and trivial that line of argumentation is.

  57. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    So far everything that Tracy has found “compelling” has come directly from people selling this stuff!

    As if people with vested financial interests have never lied to sell their product. How do we even know that meeting with an anonymous “multi-billion dollar” pharmaceutical company ever took place? Because the two head shills for the company say so in a video? We’re supposed to believe that like we’re supposed to believe the phony science and fake claims. Because they say so.

    I wonder if Tracy believes everything she sees on TV in commercials too. Or expects everyone else to.

    I will say this company does spend a hell of a lot of money on video presentations, computer animation and colourful graphics. If you don’t have any facts, dazzle ‘em with graphics!

  58. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    And those scientists who were “banging their fists on the table”? I don’t believe a word of it.

  59. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    So Tracey, have you kept careful track of everybody who has tried ASEA and found it unhelpful? Have you taken a group of say, 10 people, given 5 of them ASEA and 5 of them regular salt water and carefully tracked whose symptoms improved and by how much?

    It is very easy to remember who got better (particularly if it is dramatic) and forget those who got worse or did not change. Science is the counter-intuitive task of consistently and carefully keeping track of these things. Your statements are indistinguishable from the hucksters who sold snake oil in the Old West, and just as invalid.

    Also note that “just try it” is number 11 on my list.

  60. The Dave says:

    if you could just FEEL it in your own body

    I HAVE felt salt water in my own body. Here are the results:

    I use saline in my eyes every morning and every night for my contacts. If its balanced right, it feels fine. If not, it burns!

    I’ve been to the beach and ingested sea water. The saltiness is not a very pleasing taste

    Salt water in an open wound? OUCH!

    Oh, almost forgot the IV saline for minor surgical procedures. Didn’t feel any different from the systemic salt water.

    Am I forgetting any?

  61. JJ Borgman says:

    Tracy,

    You should arrange for ASEA to provide substantial samples to some of the writers here. Let them use the product without the exorbitant cost to “feel” the results for themselves. Rock their worlds and you’ll have all the anecdotal evidence you could possibly need to sell this stuff. Nobody here is going to believe your claims on your poor evidence and certainly not on their dime. Let ASEA bear the cost for this experiment.

    Surely, that’s much less expensive than clinical trials, right? I’m willing to bet they’d be willing to participate.

    B…u…t, if they’re not really that confident, ummm…you know what I’m saying.

  62. nybgrus says:

    So as a former competitive cyclist who is currently trying to find time to get back into shape, if I actually bought and paid for some ASEA and found it did absolutely nothing to my performance (which I can and have measured quite rigorously in the past) would that be enough to convince you that it really is bunkum, Tracy?

  63. Harriet Hall says:

    @nybgrus,

    Nothing, but nothing, is going to convince Tracy. But if enough people tried it, found it didn’t help them, and sued the company in a class action suit for false advertising, that just might accomplish something.

  64. Sialis says:

    Tracy,

    You should arrange for ASEA to provide substantial samples to some of the writers here.

    I second that, Tracy. When I tried to get a sample of ASEA, I was told it would cost $30. That’s a lot of money for just one sample. Send us some samples, Tracy.

  65. pmoran says:

    I know the “quoters” will have fun with that jewel but if you could just SEE what I’ve seen, and if you could just FEEL it in your own body, then you would be a LOT more curious and open!

    And some here doubt the existence of placebo responses.

    (This is directed at a long-running dispute on these pages, not at you, Tracy. Placebo responses can be utterly convincing, quite indistinguishable from true therapeutic effects, especially to those experiencing them. You are merely reacting as millions of us have done before.)

  66. Sialis says:

    @pmoran, you are twisting people’s words and misrepresenting what they’ve stated in the past. I’ve been reading this blog long enough to see for myself that you are doing that. WTF?!

  67. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I would doubt any of the editors or regular commentors doubt the placebo effects. I think most of the disputes are about how meaningful, powerful, lasting or ethical it is – in particular, whether it is worth eroding patient’s understanding of science by lying to them about the source of their improrvements for what appears to be a questionable, over-reported and transitory symptom reductions.

  68. Sialis says:

    @WLU, As I see it, it also erodes the reliability of the patient’s reporting of their symptoms to their other physicians. When people don’t understand that the effect is due to placebo response, yet hear the patients reporting temporary improvement from treatments that are known to be relatively useless aside from the placebo effect, the physicians might be inclined to further question the reliability of the patients’ reporting of their other symptoms. It muddies the validity of the reporting of symptoms and treatment effectiveness.

  69. pmoran says:

    Oh, Sialis, you have to be joking!

    Mark Crislip:
    They do not mention that all of the above have no basis in reality and none have benefit for any objective findings and barely have any effect for the subjective endpoint of pain and that the entire subjective effect of acupuncture can be accounted entirely by bias on the part of the patient and the practitioner.

    Rarely does placebo get a mention here in any way that does not dismiss it as something that we need not bother our pretty little heads with (outside of clinical studies).

    Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.

    Also, once you accept that placebo responses exist at all, you have to deal with the fact that we can have no idea how strong they can be under very favorable conditions.

    We look at our studies and interpret them a certain way (which somewhat disturbingly happens to suit our other objectives and inclinations), when this may be one instance when we should be taking more note of the stories of patients. They are the basic subunit, the core subject matter for any consideration of CAM. Medicine is about nothing other than how it affects the user. So, those stories may not always be trustworthy; they most certainly are not, but it may be unwise for several reasons to assume that by default in all possible settings. Who else knows better how a person truly feels?

    But I did not wish to start another round of argument. I was pointing out that being too dismissive of the placebo overlooks some telling material, such as Tracy’s statement of how she and others feel affter using Asea water, and undoubted placebo. My present interest in placebo is purely as an aid to understanding CAM, why people use it, and what they might get out of it. This should interest everyone else here more, in my view.

  70. pmoran says:

    an undoubted placebo — not “and”.

  71. nybgrus says:

    pmoran:

    You keep touting this 0.5 effect size. I have yet to see literature to demonstrate that is a valid statement.

    From an article in the journal Pain

    Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche’s (2001) meta-analysis primarily included clinical analgesia trial studies and found a mean and range of effect sizes (m=0.27, −1.13 to 1.07) similar to that found in our analysis of clinical analgesia trials (m=0.15, −0.95 to 0.57).

    On the other hand, placebo analgesia effects were much larger, in a range from −0.64 to +2.29, in studies of placebo analgesia where subjects were told that they would receive an analgesic treatment.

    A few placebo studies investigating different placebo effects within similar settings and using similar placebo agents have shown that the same placebo agent can give rise to different magnitudes of placebo analgesia. These differences depend on manipulations that change subjects’ expectations

    So in other words it is very largely a belief expectation effect, rather than anything to do with the actual ritual, medication or placebo. If you get the patient to believe you pain will be better managed. I have argued exactly this for a long time. In fact that paper goes on to say:

    A more satisfying mechanistic explanation of the placebo effect is that the perception and the expectation of the placebo agent as a powerful painkiller may trigger opioid mediated descending controls to reduce the afferent processing of pain at early levels. Such a mechanism would result not only in reduced pain intensities but also in reduced pathophysiological consequences of pain that are processed at brainstem, hypothalamic, and cerebral cortical levels (Price and Soerensen, 2002). Thus, placebo analgesia may well have a real therapeutic effect and the biological and psychological mechanisms of placebo analgesia have the potential to be investigated to a far higher degree than they are today…For example, by interfacing a known efficacious treatment with a suggestion stating that “the agent you have just been given is known to significantly reduce pain in some patients”, the subjects’ expectations toward the treatment are likely to be enhanced. This is likely to increase the magnitude of the placebo analgesic effect and thereby the total level of analgesia. As this suggestion can refer to a statement of a true fact, it need not be inherently deceptive and it could be ethically justifiable. The potential utilization of this type of placebo suggestion as well as other types of suggestion need to be investigated in future studies.

    Quite consistent with what I have been saying all along and indeed the authorship here (ok, maybe Dr. Crislip takes a harder line but in general they all agree that subjective pain experiences can be modulated by placebo).

    However, the data is still muddy and in cases where the intent was not to trial placebo analgesia by using real analgesia we find that 0.5 effect size to be the upper limit of what is seen.

    When looking at placebo in general, such as for example in The therapeutic effect of clinical trials: understanding placebo response rates in clinical trials – A secondary analysis the authors note that placebo and treatment responses correlate highly (r=0.79). This indicates that there is a large proprotion of the total effect that is placebo (the paper assumes everything we here have possibly construed as placebo as “non specific effects” and that this plus specific effects = total effect size). So this means roughly 80% of the total effect size is “non-specific effects.”

    This high correlation should not come as a surprise, as in clinical trials a certain basic effect, thought to be covered by the placebo control group, is compared with this same basic effect plus some specific element of pharmacologic intervention. That is, effects in clinical trials are bound to be correlated. Indeed, if there were no intervention effects at all we would have a perfect correlation of r = 1.0. The fact that the correlation is not perfect is a sign that treatment and control groups behave differently. The fact that the correlation is so high and in fact explains 60% of the variance is a sign that the commonalities of factors in groups within trials is greater than their difference. In other words, non-specific treatment effects are more important than the specific ones. Thus we have once more corroborated a now growing body of evidence about the importance of non-specific treatment effects

    However, the paper goes on further to do multiple regression analysis and determines that:

    What is important from a differential point of view is, whether these non-specific elements of treatments, or the variability of responses in the placebo groups, can be further elucidated. Our regression analysis shows that a series of formal characteristics is responsible for this variability of therapeutic responses in placebo groups. The fact that this analysis can explain nearly 80% of the variance is a support for the hypothesis that a large part of those non-specific effects in randomised placebo controlled trials is due to formal characteristics

    Formal characteristics are defined as:

    Formal characteristics were coded: (1) disease treated (ICD-10 diagnosis according to the first and second level); (2) duration of study; (3) is it a multi-center study (4) attrition rate (number of drop-outs in each group); (5) is the statistical evaluation of the study results done according to intent-to-treat analysis; (6) rating of study quality; (7) ‘improvement’ = response rate with placebo and medical treatment in a manner similar to [18] (i.e. % patients improved according to main outcome parameter mentioned in the study), or alternatively, in prevention trials, the number of patients (%) without event (e.g., cardiac) or worsening of the condition being under investigation (e.g., dementia);

    In other words, 80% of the effect size of placebo is explained by things that are not inherently actually doing anything for the patient but are artifacts of the study itself.

    So sure, in some contrived cases we can see large effect sizes from placebo – but only for pain. And the data show us that it is expectation that mediates the vast majority of that effect and as such, can change quite ephemerally the moment the patient decides not to trust us for any given reason, valid or not.

    SO once again, the placebo effect does indeed have biological and physiological activity. However, it does not modulate objective outcomes, subjective outcomes are ephemeral, and even then there is serious question as to how big the effect size actually is especially in light of the example above where 80% of the effect size is explained by things having nothing to do with the actual treatment or of the placebo.

  72. pmoran says:

    for example — http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22965186

    Also, Nybrus, look for “standardised mean differences” — which are not always referred to as “effect sizes”.

  73. Sialis says:

    Oh, Sialis, you have to be joking!

    No, and what nybgrus said.

  74. nybgrus says:

    I will admit that this seems more robust than most reviews on the topic. However, up to 80% of that effect size is explained by anything but the actual physiological responses of placebo to the therapeutic ritual as per the paper I cited above. In fact, if you look more into that paper you will see that the regression analysis they did demonstrates these sorts of studies reviewd in your analysis to be the most explainable as study artifacts.

    And once again this is only for chronic pain. Which I have expounded on the reasons for this many times before. Do you have any good data showing similar effect sizes for anything else? Because, as I have stated before, I am unimpressed with the use of acupuncture for chronic pain – that does not, as I have argued, provide any evidence that the acupuncture itself or the ritual associated with it is uniquely beneficial for pain.

  75. TracyKing says:

    R u kidding? That would be awesome, absolutely!!! Just send me your addresses (doesn’t have to be yours if you want to still be anonymous about it, put a work address or something but they won’t deliver to a P.O. box), whomever is willing to be objective: tracypowersking@gmail.com. And, if luck is on my side, you will BURN yourself (accidentally of course, and not seriously) at least once in the 30 day trial, or hopefully at least nick yourself shaving or get a paper-cut, and then you can test out that PLACEBO EFFECT! I could list some other things but I don’t want to be accused of making claims, be creative (children and pets included).

    And please call my friend Cindy, 859-227-8189, and ask about her son’s lead and mercury toxicity levels that were tracked regularly from age 6 to 16, the glutathione connection, the BEFORE ASEA and AFTER ASEA brain biopsies and myelin sheath damage testing performed by Johns Hopkins Hospital (#1 in Neurology in the U.S. for the last 3 years). She made a YouTube video about it so I’m not the one making a claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iHjsiRCn20. She LOVES to talk about the placebo effect (typically as high as 40% right?), knows all about it! She’s expecting your call anytime, Eastern Time Zone.

  76. pmoran says:

    My last comment for now, as I wished to make just the one small point above.

    Nybgrus, I am sure you will have noted that the study you refer to also says this, which seems to quite strongly support what I am saying —

    We conclude that the placebo response rate in controlled clinical trials is not due to methodological artifacts, to disease history alone or to circumstantial characteristics of studies, but seems to reflect a genuine improvement, unless one invokes publication bias for all negative studies. This improvement accounts for roughly 60% of the variance of all therapeutic gains across trials.

    In any case, I am not phased by the “it’s only a small effect” argument. Firstly, CAM testimonials often suggest a very strong placebo response, and we have experimental evidence supporting the notion that these responses will vary greatly depending upon a number of factors to do with both the individual and the entire therapeutic environment, even if the average effect under the usual study conditions is relatively small

    Secondly, who is to be the judge of that? Those effects sizes themselves are highly arbitrary judgements, merely attempts to reach some way of judging “clinical relevance”. Two or three fewer migraines or tension headaches per year, at inconvenient times socially or occupationally, may be a worthwhile benefit to some. Small short-term relief from otherwise relentless symptoms might also be enough to jolt some out of an illness rut.

  77. Narad says:

    And please call my friend Cindy, 859-227-8189, and ask about her son’s lead and mercury toxicity levels

    Oh, great, you’ve got a nutty antivaccine ASEA associate as well.

    12 million people die world wide annually due to side effects of medicine of that 700,000 die annually in the US due to side effects from medicine. Death caused by over the counter and prescription medication is ten times greater that caused by illegal drugs. In the United States 783,936 people die every year because of mistakes made by conventional medicine. “Pharmakeia” is the name of a power of darkness rooted amongst mankind since ancient Egypt. Its the spirit of sorcery, witchcraft and occultism,which arose from that empire. The Greek word Pharmakeia, is translated as sorcery and magic in our Bibles. From its root. “Pharmakon” which means poison, drug, medication, come the words pharmacy, pharmaceuticals, drug, and drug addiction. “Pharmakos” is also the word used for sorcerer, or warlock. Dr. Stephen Marini, PHD, DC Immunologist and microbiologist spoke at the 4th International Vaccination Public Conference, various doctors gave their opinion about the perils of the H1N1 vaccine. “Vaccines are not what is recommended for your children. Today, there exist better methods of treating the infirmities these are hoping to prevent. Some of the side effects are asthma, allergies and autism” Dr. Warren Levin, member of a physicians committee: “One of the reasons why I am here is to talk about the toxic aspect of vaccines.” Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, Pediatrician and member of the American Board of Pediatricians: ” What I learned in medical school concerning vaccines is not consistent nor effective. As a number of vaccines have increased, we have also seen an increase in chronic illnesses in children.” “The Medical Mafia” by Dr. Lanctot Dr. Lanctot writes about the horrors arising from the vaccines: “In a drastic manner, vaccines decimate the population in third world countries and chronically in the industrialized ones. To this regard, Robert McMara, the ex-President of the World Bank, former Secretary of State of the United States who ordered the massive bombarding of Vietnam and member of the expansive Immunization Program, made some shocking statements. They were denounced in a French publication named “L’ai tout compris,” Here is what he said: “We must take Draconian measures in regards to the reduction of the population against the will of the people. It has been proven that reducing the birth rate is not working, or it is not enough, therefore we must increase the mortality rate. How? Through natural causes such as “famine and disease.”

    Seriously, she’s quoting the stark raving mad “Madame Ghis”?

  78. Harriet Hall says:

    @Tracy,

    Just as a hypothetical, what would happen if I took ASEA for 30 days and saw absolutely no kind of improvement, or even felt worse? Would you stop believing in it? No? Then why would you imagine that if I felt better I would become a believer?

  79. Narad says:

    Would you stop believing in it? No?

    Given that she’s convinced herself, per her truly depressing Twitter feed, that Mitt Romney uses ASEA, that she herself is “part of history,” and that “U will live SIGNIFICANTLY longer if drink ASEA,” which I’m pretty sure the FTC would frown upon, I’m guessing “no.”

  80. nybgrus says:

    Actually it rather more supports what I am saying -

    I have said it over and over again. There is a “real” placebo effect. It is just small and – here’s the key part – ephemeral and relies on the patient believing you. Which can, in cases like acupuncture, only be achieved through some form of deception. Hence why the article also specifically states that “talking up” an actual therapeutic modality to heighten expectancy and placebo effects presents an ethically justifiable way of using placebo. In other words – exactly what I have been saying from day 1.

    So yes, I have said that “placebo response rate in controlled clinical trials is not due to methodological artifacts, to disease history alone or to circumstantial characteristics of studies, but seems to reflect a genuine improvement.” You conveniently ignore that. You also ignore all the data showing that it is of small effect size, ephemeral, and generally not clinically relevant. You even now say “Those effects sizes themselves are highly arbitrary judgements,” to hand wave it away. First you keep going on and on about how impressive the effect sizes are and that justifies the utility of it because, hey even if it isn’t quite ethical the effect size is so big we can’t just ignore it. Now… it’s highly arbitrary. Oh, and anecdotes from CAM use make it seem profound too! Stop being ludicrous. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You know anecdotes from CAM use are worthless… unless you think we should seriously consider MMS or Burzynski because hey, they’ve got some killer anecdotes. And you can’t use the big effect size to justify pushing an ethically dubious (at best!) modality and then handwave it away as “highly arbitrary” when I demonstrate, yet again, that most of that effect size is artifact. That’s highly duplicitous, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest.

    But hey, at least you are starting to admit it is, on average, quite small. Even though that seems to “not phase you” since you’ve already concluded it is worth pursuing.

    And yes, I absolutely agree that even a small effect can be quite significant to an individual patient. But that cannot justify any sort of endorsement of an otherwise completely placebo therapy with its own intrinsic risks and the rest of the baggage that comes with it. This is not Dr. Oz’s medicine where it is all a religion and you have your facts and I have mine and people can do whatever because it doesn’t matter.

  81. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.

    We appear to part on this matter. You seem to be implying that deceptive or fake medicine (SCAMs) are worth pursuing because of their sometimes potent but unreliable placebo effects. I think that is a terrible idea. Instead, a meaningful and worthwhile effort for real medicine is the attempt to honestly deliver medicine and services in ways that are placebo-enhancing. You seem to be OK with lying to patients and hoping they get better. I would not want that in a doctor.

    Also, once you accept that placebo responses exist at all, you have to deal with the fact that we can have no idea how strong they can be under very favorable conditions

    Sure, placebo effects may have very favourable effects on symptoms, which is why they should be enhanced whenever possible – while undertaking treatments that improve the underlying condition. Which SCAMs do not. The relationship to real and alternative medicine is tremendously asymetrical – the best real medicine can learn from SCAMs is how to reclaim placebo effects that were lost when doctors started being honest rather than patronizing and paternalistic with patients. SCAMs meanwhile, have to learn biology, chemistry, physcis, research methods, ethics, logic and their limitations (the latter being their complete inability to genuinely treat anything).

    @Tracey

    u kidding? That would be awesome, absolutely!!! Just send me your addresses (doesn’t have to be yours if you want to still be anonymous about it, put a work address or something but they won’t deliver to a P.O. box), whomever is willing to be objective: tracypowersking@gmail.com. And, if luck is on my side, you will BURN yourself (accidentally of course, and not seriously) at least once in the 30 day trial, or hopefully at least nick yourself shaving or get a paper-cut, and then you can test out that PLACEBO EFFECT! I could list some other things but I don’t want to be accused of making claims, be creative (children and pets included).

    Why on earth is it incumbent on us to do this testing for you? Why don’t you, or your corporate masters, do this testing? Spend two days reading a basic book on research methodologies. Or, hell and blood, watch Mythbusters. If you and your bosses were genuinely confident about ASEA’s magical abilities, you should be rushing to empirical testing. If the effects are as powerful as you claim, they will be easy to demonstrate. Your steps are this:

    Mix some salt water with the same concentration as ASEA.
    Get someone to put them in indistinguishable containers labeled “A” and “B”, and record which is salt water versus which is ASEA. Don’t watch them do this, and don’t talk to them until the end of the trial.
    Get 10 people, ideally with some condition ASEA claims it can treat (none, of course, just vague structure-function and FDA-quack miranda warning nonsense, but it’s better if you can get people with the same condition and even minor cuts would work).
    5 get water from container A, 5 from container B.
    Give each group the same instructions.
    Get someone to carefully and objectively as possible track their symptoms.
    Figure out which group appears to have improved more.
    Ask the “someone” in step 2 which bottle was salt water, and which was magical salt water.

    It’s not hard, and all you have to lose is your income.

  82. pmoran says:

    “Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.”

    We appear to part on this matter. You seem to be implying that deceptive or fake medicine (SCAMs) are worth pursuing because of their sometimes potent but unreliable placebo effects. I think that is a terrible idea. Instead, a meaningful and worthwhile effort for real medicine is the attempt to honestly deliver medicine and services in ways that are placebo-enhancing. You seem to be OK with lying to patients and hoping they get better. I would not want that in a doctor.

    That is a unfair, and not typical of you WLU, especially after I have just said elsewhere that I don’t forsee any need for conventional medical practice to change — also, just now —

    My present interest in placebo is purely as an aid to understanding CAM, why people use it, and what they might get out of it.

    Also lying to a patient about the probable effectiveness of a pharmaceutical if one of the complex placebos of CAM can perform as well or even better and with fewer side effects in controlled studies has dubious moral superiority.

    There are already studies suggesting that this will be so in certain populations and certain conditions. Are we, through our dismissiveness of any relevance of placebo and non-specific influences* for CAM, even if less so for the mainstream, and our acceptance of overly simplistic “it doesn’t work” pronouncements, leaving ourselves with nowhere to go if, as I think is very likely, we now see a flurry of such studies?

    Remember a lot of people believe acupuncture-based programs work, somehow or other. They are not going to sit quietly by and accept what this blog says about it.

    What will be your response to such studies?

  83. pmoran says:

    Formatting fixed — “Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.”

    We appear to part on this matter. You seem to be implying that deceptive or fake medicine (SCAMs) are worth pursuing because of their sometimes potent but unreliable placebo effects. I think that is a terrible idea. Instead, a meaningful and worthwhile effort for real medicine is the attempt to honestly deliver medicine and services in ways that are placebo-enhancing. You seem to be OK with lying to patients and hoping they get better. I would not want that in a doctor.

    That is unfair, and not typical of you WLU, especially after I have just said elsewhere that I don’t forsee any need for conventional medical practice to change — also, just now —

    My present interest in placebo is purely as an aid to understanding CAM, why people use it, and what they might get out of it.

    Also lying to a patient about the probable effectiveness of a pharmaceutical if one of the complex placebos of CAM can perform as well or even better and with fewer side effects in controlled studies has dubious moral superiority.

    There are already studies suggesting that this will be so in certain populations and certain conditions. Are we, through our dismissiveness of any relevance of placebo and non-specific influences* for CAM, even if less so for the mainstream, and our acceptance of overly simplistic “it doesn’t work” pronouncements, leaving ourselves with nowhere to go if, as I think is very likely, we now see a flurry of such studies?

    Remember a lot of people believe acupuncture-based programs work, somehow or other. They are not going to sit quietly by and accept what this blog says about it.

    What will be your response to such studies?

  84. eNOS says:

    At his point I’m starting to wonder if Tracey’s spamming of these worthless videos isn’t part of some marketing quota her ASEA overlords require for all their minions. Although I wouldn’t imagine this would fit their “target market” very well…

  85. Harriet Hall says:

    I think Tracy really believes these videos are so convincing that if we will just watch them we will be converted. She doesn’t begin to understand what is wrong with them.

  86. TracyKing says:

    @WLU, really? As if that would prove anything at all to anyone? I think the tests done to date by MDI-P, and all the worldwide universities and independent labs, and the Human Performance Laboratory on the North Carolina Research Campus by the VP of the ACSM, the published abstract and press releases, the patents, the Hippocrates Health Institute’s year-long double-blind study, the independent review by Road Bike Action magazine by their regular monthly product reviewer, the testing by Dr. James Clagett and WADA, the animal safety studies, etc, and all the different equipment tests like mass spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, electron spin resonance, NMR, and standardized testing regarding safety, efficacy, reactive molecules verification, etc, are far beyond your suggested recommendation for elementary 3rd grade level testing. I sincerely am taken aback at your lack of sophistication for what has already been performed, it’s as if you think they are “playing around” – this is a multi-million dollar venture already underway, it’s much farther along than you must realize given your extremely short-sighted comments.

    @ Harriet, videos? Seriously? Company videos is ALL I’m using to initiate discussions with you and your ilk? I’m not “convinced” by videos, I’ve obviously done much more due diligence beyond watching videos. That’s laughable and an insult given the amount of communication and information shared to date. I guess you are of the mind that if you say something enough times then it will be true? I tried earnestly to have frank and open discussions with you but it was rebuked repeatedly and disparagingly.

    I will re-post when there is a published study in a mid-tier journal — scheduled for the 2nd quarter of this year. No matter what it is, one thing is certain, you will find fault with it. Your past experience and evaluation of network marketing products, in general, is obviously skewing your ability to even make room for the possibility that there is anything of ANY value here. I can understand skepticism but pessimism is a wasted sentiment for which I have no tolerance. Do more homework, make some calls, other countries/governments/organizations are performing their own testing with phenomenal results. Change doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a long, hard-won process, and there will be winners and losers, consequences for action and inaction. I’m up for the challenge, thanks for giving me some clarity, it’s been fun. May each of you have all the success that you deserve.

  87. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    @WLU, really? As if that would prove anything at all to anyone? I think the tests done to date by MDI-P, and all the worldwide universities and independent labs, and the Human Performance Laboratory on the North Carolina Research Campus by the VP of the ACSM, the published abstract and press releases, the patents, the Hippocrates Health Institute’s year-long double-blind study, the independent review by Road Bike Action magazine by their regular monthly product reviewer, the testing by Dr. James Clagett and WADA, the animal safety studies, etc, and all the different equipment tests like mass spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, electron spin resonance, NMR, and standardized testing regarding safety, efficacy, reactive molecules verification, etc, are far beyond your suggested recommendation for elementary 3rd grade level testing. I sincerely am taken aback at your lack of sophistication for what has already been performed, it’s as if you think they are “playing around” – this is a multi-million dollar venture already underway, it’s much farther along than you must realize given your extremely short-sighted comments.

    Actually Tracy, yes, that would prove something. I am also missing one final step – publish in a peer-reviewed journal. The lack of all those steps is why nobody here gives your claims any credibility. I have described, in brief, one of the two trials you would need to do to get FDA approval (though you’d probably need more patients in each group, or perhaps not depending on how significant the result). THAT is why all your other nonsense is worthless. Your youtube videos, your press releases, your unsubstantiated claims, your animal safety studies, your magazine articles, your in vitro testing – all are missing one or more of the crucial steps I listed above. They lack blinding, they lack randomization, they are not in human subjects, or they are not published in a meaningful outlet. All of those steps are necessary to make medical claims. Getting FDA approval, proving a product works is deliberately difficult so quacks and scam artists can’t release damaging or worthless products. The fact that you mock them means you don’t understand them – each step is undertaken for a reason. Read Snake Oil Science for a basic understanding of why each one is important, Bausell does an excellent job of explaining the necessities of a clinical trial for the layperson. Testing salt water in a multi-million dollar machine does no indicate effectiveness in humans. A single person testing a product without a placebo does not indicate effectiveness in humans. Animal testing does not indicate effectiveness in humans. What I am describing is indeed unsophisticated, but is more accurately described as fundamental. Each step is a link in a chain, and if any link fails, the chain does not serve its purpose. In fields like this, extraordinarily simple tests can be extremely revealing. Do you know who Emily Rosa is? You should find out, it would be illuminating.

    @ Harriet, videos? Seriously? Company videos is ALL I’m using to initiate discussions with you and your ilk? I’m not “convinced” by videos, I’ve obviously done much more due diligence beyond watching videos.

    And like so many of your assertions, you show no evidence.

    I guess you are of the mind that if you say something enough times then it will be true?

    I’m not usually one to quote the Bible, but Matthew 7:5 just blew milk out of its nose.

    I tried earnestly to have frank and open discussions with you but it was rebuked repeatedly and disparagingly.

    Yes, because you have repeatedly posted empty assertions, failed to provide any meaningful evidence, had this pointed out to you repeatedly and just kept on going. How many times do we have to say “we want peer reviewed evidence, not youtube videos and press releases” before you will stop providing youtube videos and press releases and start providing journal citations?

    I will re-post when there is a published study in a mid-tier journal — scheduled for the 2nd quarter of this year. No matter what it is, one thing is certain, you will find fault with it. Your past experience and evaluation of network marketing products, in general, is obviously skewing your ability to even make room for the possibility that there is anything of ANY value here.

    Almost certainly fault will be found, for two reasons:
    1) No study can definitively prove a point, it always builds on a body of literature and will have flaws that preclude conclusion; the scientific literature is meant to be taken as a whole.
    2) There is considerable evidence that ASEA’s parent company is trying to snow both their own representatives and the general public through empty social media, half-truths, unconvincing or unverifiable claims, startling claims, assertions that ASEA is “too important” to test, claims that contradict basic science, the quack miranda warning and doubtless others.

    But at least we’ll have something to talk about. Incidentally, when does the company’s fiscal year start? You originally said April I believe, which is second quarter if the FY starts in January.

    I can understand skepticism but pessimism is a wasted sentiment for which I have no tolerance.

    We are skeptical of your claims, and pessimistic of your ability to understand why.

    You are free to leave by the way, but that might interfere with your relentless efforts to promote your magic salt water. Up to you, I know you have an income to defend. Not to mention the horrible embarrassment of having to admit how much money, time and effort you have wasted. But I will still recommend you read this article as someone who realized their error and undertook some genuine education.

    Do more homework, make some calls, other countries/governments/organizations are performing their own testing with phenomenal results.

    But I’m sure there is some spurious reason they can’t release the results, or can’t publish them in a peer reviewed journal. I look forward, with amusement, to hearing it.

    Change doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a long, hard-won process, and there will be winners and losers, consequences for action and inaction. I’m up for the challenge, thanks for giving me some clarity, it’s been fun. May each of you have all the success that you deserve.

    Agreed, change does not happen overnight. Which is why it is so curious you think that we should change our minds about your extraordinary claims on such shoddy evidence. I mean, it’s not like we’re refusing to assess your assertions or hiding our reasoning. We’ve pointed out why your evidence doesn’t support ASEA being a miracle treatment. Yet somehow you fail to grasp our reasoning. I suggest reading up on some of the basics CAM skepticism. I’ve already mentioned Snake Oil Science, but Trick or Treatment is another good one, as is Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science.

  88. PernilleN says:

    Tracy, I’d like a sample, but I live in Norway. Can you convince one of the Norwegian distributors to give me a bottle? I’ve asked several of them, but no luck so far.

    I hope those of you who live in US take up on her offer and try it, and post their reports here. And send off a little to a lab to have it independently tested.

    Pernille Nylehn

  89. Narad says:

    independent review by Road Bike Action magazine

    I sincerely am taken aback at your lack of sophistication

    This is one of the occasions upon which I wish I still had neighbors who routinely smoke grass.

  90. Chris says:

    Hasn’t this article past the sixty day comment period? Isn’t it time to shut this down, and let Tres Sea find another place to ply her salt water wares?

  91. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    Who needs ASEA?! Michael Shermer has found something even better: Starfire Water!

    http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/02/04/still-getting-hosed-starfire-water/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+skepticblog%2FcxSs+%28Skepticblog%29

    Make sure you go to the company website and look at the pictures of all the celebrities holding bottles of the stuff. I bet Tracy would trade one of her three kids to get that kind of exposure for her salt water.

    One of the comments on Shermer’s blog said at only $1.99 a bottle it’s way too cheap for real woo.

  92. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    Starfire Water:

    “Legend has it that the mystical “Starfire”was the liquid manna of the divine, used by the ancients for ultra-focus, extreme performance, and even enlightenment. In that vein, we introduce STARFIRE WATER, a propiratary (sic) alkaline performance, bio-holographic “living” water produced using breakthrough 21st century, quantum water technology.

    STARFIRE WATER is treated with ultraviolet, ozonation,infra-red stimulation and electromagnetism for a negative (-) ion charged water, as in nature, allowing deep cellular intake through your aquaporins, the floodgates to hydration.Vortex induced, using a solar -helix and pyramid-grid system. to give it a hexagonal structure, and infused with monatomic elements, we are able to achieve a water with cosmic healing energy.

    This water is amplified with psionic wave oscillation tuned to the Universe’s frequency, helping to synchronize you with the heartbeat of our Earth. STARFIRE WATER is treated with Sacred Sound Resonance Transmission to vibrationally transform you on the deepest molecular level. Altogether we’ve created the world’s first premium alkaline . performance, “living,”” hexagonal super-structured water.”

    Structured Water – Water is naturally structured, but water from the tap is not and neither is most water sold in the store. Unstructured water goes right through you, while structured water removes toxins from your body.

    Energized Water – Even structured water on the market, isn’t energized. When you taste our water, you’ll feel a tingle on the roof of the mouth. That’s the energized water. It gives you energy for life.

    Infused Water – Most water is just water. But we infuse our water with Etherium, a trace form of liquid gold, known to facilitate higher awareness.

    http://starfirewater.myshopify.com/

  93. PernilleN says:

    Tracy, when I confront other proponents of Asea with your list of ingredients, they say it isn’t true, and that it must come from someone who don’t know what they’re talking about. However, when I ask themwhat it really contains, they repeat the “16 redox signaling molecules in salt water”.
    I find more reason to believe in what you say, you seem to have looked into this properly, unlike most of the distributors, who just believe everything the Asea company says. And since Asea say their products is protected by the patent for MDI-P and other similar patents, it all makes sense.

    But, do you have any official statement from Asea confirming that the product contains what you say? I think that’s the only things that may convince them.

    Regards
    Pernille Nylehn

  94. PernilleN says:

    I just read rather a lot of the “information” on http://starfirewater.myshopify.com/pages/about-us. Now my brain is melting and seeping out from my ears. Heeeeelp!

  95. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    Tracy’s water has salt but Starfire water has GOLD!

    When Michael Shermer first posted the Starfire information almost everybody was convinced it was an elaborate hoax, maybe planted by some scientists or chemistry students to see just how supid people could be to believe their wild claims. Alas and alack, no, Starfire water is real.

    At $1.99 a bottle it’s cheap enough that people that might actually buy it. Celebrities are, by and large, gullible and susceptible to woo (look how many talk about their “detox” regimes on TV talk shows.) The Starfire people were smart. Based in Los Angeles, they went to public events and handed out cases of the stuff. I’m sure for some of the people in the photos, it was their first and last encounter with the water.

    Of course $1.99 a bottle for tap water is an outrageous price.

  96. TracyKing says:

    @ PernilleN: I know your equivalent of our FDA there in Norway is doing their own independent testing, give them a call and inquire and report back here! I know people who have done that, they WILL answer your questions. Norway is actually an aggressive area for growth so I’m sure there are plenty of reputable people you could talk to there about results in particular. Samples are at the expense of distributors so I’m not surprised that people don’t just give it away. In my experience, it doesn’t help anyway, if people don’t want it to work, they won’t take it properly or regularly, and they attribute improvements to something else, etc. There’s a money-back guarantee here in the U.S. so there’s literally nothing to lose here, no risk, and 80% see positive results. Just have to set the right expectation so people don’t think it’ll cure all that ails them in one drink… despite my best efforts, that’s all these people keep reading into it, maybe they get confused since they are probably commenting on a multiple of scam products I guess, that’s all I can figure. And Lord knows, the scams ARE out there, I see them too! So it’s no wonder there’s such resistance, that’s fine, this isn’t a race, we’ll have the clinical results the laggards need eventually. The difference with this is that it’s patentable, the mushrooms and berries are not, plus those types of supplements are not NATIVE to the body, therefore people can see negative results and have drug interactions. ASEA is for MAINTAINING health though cellular repair and replace mechanisms, if people see “miracles” from that, it’s just their own body’s healing processes at work. It’s their body operating at greater cellular efficiency… like it did when it was younger, when it was faster to heal/respond. Results are more tangible and more obvious for some people vs. others which is the reason for the claims-making parade by some well-meaning people — which leads to the skepticism by the masses — which leads to unrealistic expectations when someone tries it and it doesn’t make them Superman… totally all expected, normal, ordinary hurdles considering the company just launched in Sept 2010 and considering redox biochemistry is a fairly new field (although cell signaling did win a Nobel last year!). Education is arduous, that’s why forums like this are so useful, and that’s why this product is being sold through word-of-mouth advertising vs. shelving it at Rite-Aid. It’s not easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

    Regarding my “time” wasted… some people like to play raquetball, some people like to quilt, I guess I like to talk about big ideas that could impact the world, and learn, and try to understand both sides. I thought it was helpful to ME to see that it’s not ASEA at all that keeps them from believing, they have no “smoking gun,” they just have their own belief systems about placebos, MLM, the lack of value in abstracts, the need for disease-related clinical trials… they are still caught up in “treatment mode” vs. “prevention mode.” I don’t expect this blog to be money-making for me, it’s funny someone would even think that. I just wanted to shake the bushes and see if anybody had anything “real” or of ANY value with which to argue — you know, something SCIENCE-BASED (lol!!!), they obviously DO NOT. Just their own paranoia at play, fascinating to get a bird’s eye view of it… I think I’ll be quicker now to recognize it in my prospects and be able to walk away, no amount of “proof” is ever going to be enough to convince a person like Harriet. None. Ever. And she will NEVER admit to being wrong, so it’s better to not let people get worked up to the point where there has to be a winner and a loser like what’s happened here. It’s just a shame she can influence so many since she has an international forum here, but I have faith that the people who are curious will keep questioning and will find the answers they seek. It’s too important. And people will believe their own sister or mother, and as more and more people all around the world become a front-seat witness to what ASEA can do, they won’t need Harriet’s stamp of approval. One thing I know FOR SURE, we will never get it.

    Per Dr. Samuelson regarding listing the ingredients: “I certainly can empathize with you. However, listing out the molecules without adequate explanation often creates more confusion than not. The components are known in scientific literature as reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reduced species (RS), they are produced by NADPH complexes and MPO in the cell. Ruma Banerjee’s book “Redox Biochemistry” is an excellent reference and lists the major ones and what they do in biological systems in her first two chapters. No there are no nitrogen compounds in ASEA. I wish you the best. As a side note, I have gone into great detail with scientists before and most will be interested but will require clinical studies. I often end up giving them product to sample. Many of these have seen the benefits first hand and are convinced not by the science alone, but by the results in their own bodies… go figure.”

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      @Tracy,

      “no amount of “proof” is ever going to be enough to convince a person like Harriet.”

      Nonsense! I just ask for the same kind of evidence I would require of any scientific claim. I don’t have a double standard.

      Your tune is changing. First you said you would gladly send us samples to try, and if we took it we would be convinced of its benefits. Now you say people shouldn’t be expected to give it away. And you say it wouldn’t do any good for us to try it for ourselves because it only works if people want it to work.

      As for scientists who “are convinced not by the science alone, but by the results in their own bodies” – if that is all it takes to convince them, they do not understand the many ways people can come to believe an ineffective treatment works and they do not deserve the name of scientist.

  97. PernilleN says:

    @Tracy King says: “80% see positive results. Just have to set the right expectation so people don’t think it’ll cure all that ails them in one drink… ”

    80% is good enough … if you can prove it. I’m sure you can, you wouldn’t just take that kind of numbers ut of the air, would you?

    Looking forward to your documentation.

    Pernille Nylehn

  98. Narad says:

    I know your equivalent of our FDA there in Norway is doing their own independent testing, give them a call and inquire and report back here! I know people who have done that, they WILL answer your questions.

    Provide a phone number, Tracy.

Comments are closed.