ASEA is a diet supplement described as a “life-changing” health aid that can benefit everyone.
“ASEA is trillions of stable, perfectly balanced Redox Signaling Molecules suspended in a pristine saline solution—the same molecules that exist in the cells of the human body. Redox signaling is a function that is central to all life. Signaling molecules are created within every cell in the body. After the age of 12, our cells make fewer and fewer of these molecules. ASEA is the world’s only source for replenishing them.”
- Promotes enhanced immune function
- Supports the vital activity of cellular communication
- Provides superior “support” to athletes
- Boosts efficiency of the body’s own antioxidants by 500%
- Protects against free radical damage
ASEA doesn’t (can’t legally) claim to be effective for any disease, but since a number of diseases are related to immune function, free radical damage, etc., it’s only natural to assume that ASEA would benefit a host of conditions. The claims are deliberately vague, and there is the usual disclaimer that it has not been evaluated by the FDA and is not intended to treat or prevent any disease; but testimonials and innuendo suggest all kinds of specific benefits ranging from better sleep to cancer.
What’s in this miracle product? The ingredients are listed on the label: water and salt.
One issue that keeps coming up time and time again for me is the issue of screening for cancer. Because I’m primarily a breast cancer surgeon in my clinical life, that means mammography, although many of the same issues come up time and time again in discussions of using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. Over time, my position regarding how to screen and when to screen has vacillated—er, um, evolved, yeah, that’s it—in response to new evidence, although the core, including my conclusion that women should definitely be screened beginning at age 50 and that it’s probably also a good idea to begin at age 40 but less frequently during that decade, has never changed. What does change is how strongly I feel about screening before 50.
My changes in emphasis and conclusions regarding screening mammography derive from my reading of the latest scientific and clinical evidence, but it’s more than just evidence that is in play here. Mammography, perhaps more than screening for any disease, is affected by more than just science. Policies regarding mammographic screening are also based on value judgments, politics, and awareness and advocacy campaigns going back decades. To some extent, this is true of many common diseases (i.e., that whether and how to screen for them are about more than just science), but in breast cancer arguably these issues are more intense. Add to that the seemingly eternal conflict between science and medicine communication, in which a simple message, repeated over and over, is required to get through, versus the messy science that tells us that the benefits of mammography are confounded by issues such as lead time and length bias that make it difficult indeed to tell if mammography—or any screening test for cancer, for that matter—saves lives and, if it does, how many. Part of the problem is that mammography tends to detect preferentially the very tumors that are less likely to be deadly, and it’s not surprising that periodically what I like to call the “mammography wars” heat up. This is not a new issue, but rather a controversy that flares up periodically. Usually this is a good thing.
And these wars just just heated up a little bit again late last week.
My science writing covers diverse topics but increasingly concerns two intertwined themes in cancer and psychology. First, I bring evidence to bear against an exaggerated role for psychological factors in cancer, as well as against claims that the cancer experience is a mental health issue for which many patients require specialty mental health interventions. Second, I explore unnoticed social and organizational influences and publishing practices, which limit evaluation of the best evidence for theories and practices claiming to be evidence based, especially those recommended (and even mandated) by professional organizations and accrediting bodies.
I benefit from a great set of international collaborators, and my colleagues and I have repeatedly debunked claims that psychological interventions increase the survival time of cancer patients by improving their immune systems. Wally Sampson and Bernie Fox provided important inspiration for these efforts. A key source of such claims is the classic Lancet study by David Spiegel, which I will dissect in a later post for ScienceBasedMedicine.org (for now, see our published critique of Spiegel).
Do you have any skeptical blind spots? I’ve had a skeptical perspective for a long time (my teenage cynicism wasn’t just a phase) but the framework for my thinking has developed over years. Professionally, the blind spot that the pharmacy profession has towards supplements and alternatives to medicine was only clear after I spent some time working in a pharmacy with thriving homeopathy sales. In looking for some credible evidence to guide my recommendations, I discovered there was quite literally nothing to homeopathy. Once I discovered blogs like Respectful Insolence, the critical thinking process, and scientific skepticism, took off. (more…)
My book Women Aren’t Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon is now available as a Kindle file for $3.99. If you don’t have a Kindle device, there is a free download so you can play Kindle files on your computer or iPad.
Some readers may remember my mentioning it on SBM 4 years ago in the context of an article on women in medicine. A lot of people prefer to read books electronically these days, so I thought I’d let you know.
There is a movement in the US to oppose a public health measure that is backed by impressive evidence showing it is safe and effective, as well as highly cost effective. For as long as the government has supported this health measure, there have been those opposed to it, claiming (against the evidence) that it is unsafe, ineffective, and represents a violation of personal freedom and the right to refuse an unwanted medical intervention. I could be talking about vaccines and the anti-vaccine movement, but in this case I am talking about the fluoridation of public water supplies and the antifluoridation movement.
This social debate (there isn’t much of a scientific debate) crops up in the news every now and then – mostly prompted by an antifluoridation activist or group making noise, or by a local referendum to block fluoridation in a community. Recently there has been a Harvard study making the rounds of social media, Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The actual findings of the study do not show that there is any risk to public water fluoridation (if anything, they show that it is safe), but the study was seized upon by antifluoridation activists and distorted for their propaganda purposes. Unfortunately, the internet is now fertile ground for the spreading of propaganda.
The NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation put out a press release distorting the findings of the study. Their press release (“Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ – Published in Federal Gov’t Journal”) was then printed as a science news item by many online news outlets. Reprinting press releases, without any editorial filter, is a cheap and easy way to add news-like content to your website. The Sacramento Bee, for example, published the press release under their “News” tab. Near the top of the page, in small print, they did put a disclaimer (which is better than most sites):
This section contains unedited press releases distributed by PR Newswire. These releases reflect the views of the issuing entity and are not reviewed or edited by the Sacramento Bee staff. More information on PR Newswire can be found on their web site.
That’s better than nothing, but I wonder how many people reading the press release will notice and read the disclaimer. In my opinion, a news outlet should not reprint press releases sent out from advocacy organizations clearly intended to promote an agenda. They especially should not print them under the banner of “News.” The disclaimer is not adequate. The spreading of this “news item” around Facebook and other social media demonstrates this.