Accused of Lying about ASEA: Not Guilty

I wrote about ASEA in August, 2012. To quote the company’s website, “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.” Molecules that supposedly have all kinds of antioxidant benefits for health and for athletic performance through “redox signalling.” They claim it is “a mixture of 16 chemically recombined products of salt and water with completely new chemical properties.” But they never specify exactly which molecules those are, what they mean by balanced, or how they can determine that they remain stable. The product label only lists salt and water. If those 16 recombined molecules are really in the product, the FDA can and should act against them for false labeling.

An ASEA distributor (part of the company’s multi-level marketing cadre) recently wrote an e-mail, not to me, and not to the editors of SBM, but to an assistant editor, to demand that my article be taken down, or that at least the comments for that article be re-opened. Since the e-mail was not sent to me, and I don’t have the writer’s permission, I won’t name him or quote him directly but will paraphrase what he said. He said my article had prevented thousands of people from benefitting from the health effects of ASEA. Thousands? I don’t think I’m that influential; I only wish I were! Anyway, it has not been established that ASEA offers any health benefits. He complains that I don’t have any evidence that ASEA doesn’t work, and of course I don’t. The burden of proof is not on me to prove it doesn’t work, but on those making the claims to prove it does.

He says there is real scientific evidence showing that it does work. My article said there was nothing about ASEA listed in PubMed, and he countered that there are 102 mentions. I was skeptical, so I checked for myself. What I found left me rolling on the floor in paroxysms of laughter.

There are indeed 102 citations on PubMed when you search for “ASEA”:

  • 84 of them were listed because they were written by an author whose last name was Asea!
  • 2 were about alfalfa extracts
  • 1 about acoustics
  • 1 about nuclear power plants
  • 1 about percutaneous coronary intervention for heart attacks
  • 1 about the response of Bacillus subtilis to metal ion stress
  • 1 about radiotherapy for glioma
  • 1 about coronary angiograms
  • 1 about training surgeons
  • 1 about ceramics to repair skull bone defects in a rabbit
  • 1 about another kind of “ASEA”: Alkaline soluble Trypanosoma cruzi epimastigote antigen
  • 1 about balancing corporate power
  • 1 about industrial robots
  • 1 about the driver’s cab in the Rc5 engine
  • 1 about electromyography
  • 1 about industrial robots
  • 1 about an enzyme in the white bloods cells of cattle
  • 1 about back disorders
  • 0 (that’s ZERO) about the product ASEA or even with any remote connection to redox signaling

And the dates of these articles go back to the 1950’s. According to the company’s website, ASEA wasn’t invented until 6 years ago.

I am still flabbergasted. What was he thinking? Did he even bother looking to see what the articles were about, or did he simply stop reading after he located the number of citations? Did he think we would take his word for it without looking? Does he think the number of citations for a search word means anything about the efficacy of his product? Apparently he does, since he goes on to cite the 11,121 mentions of “redox signaling” on PubMed. So what? There are 20,292 citations for homeopathy. There are 1,665,853 citations for “bacteria;” perhaps he imagines that citing those numbers would be sufficient to prove that any new antibiotic was effective.

One controlled human study

The company website brags about a 2012 study done in the Appalachian State Human Performance Laboratory in North Carolina. The e-mail writer emphasizes that the laboratory and the researchers were reputable, and that the company agreed to publish the results of the tests regardless of whether the findings were favorable. I don’t question any of that. I do question the results and significance.

It was a double blind crossover study of 20 cyclists. Athletes drank either 4 oz of ASEA or a placebo daily for a week. They measured VO2Max, body composition, and 43 metabolites before and after strenuous exercise. Compared to those on placebo, the group taking ASEA had higher levels of myristic acid, palmitic acid, oleic acid, stearic acid, palmitelaidic acid, capric acid, glycerol, lower levels of 7 amino acids, higher levels of fumarate, citrate, and malate, lower levels of ascorbic acid, fructose and threonic acid, and increases in aminomalonic acid, serum creatinine and urea. These are all reported as “least square mean area” (why?) and no measure of significance is provided (why not?).

They found that ASEA did not cause any changes in creatinine, BUN, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, AST and ALT; these are reported in mg/dl and “treatment x time p-values” are provided, ranging from 0.7717 to 0.9971. You will notice that creatinine is listed as both higher and as unchanged: it was higher by least square mean area but not by mg/dl.

The study was not published except in the form of slides and videos on the company website. I don’t know whether it was ever even submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication; but if it was, I think any reviewer worth his salt would have sent it back for significant revision. They said they knew they could not publish without first analyzing ASEA to see what was in it, and they said their analysis found “signaling molecules,” one of which was a superoxide. They don’t tell us which superoxide or what the other molecules were. I doubt if that would be enough to satisfy any journal editor. At any rate, before we can say anything about such a study it must be published so other experts can review it and offer comments and criticisms and can attempt to replicate the study if they are interested; that’s how science works. The information that they provide online is insufficient to judge the quality of the study. They don’t describe their methods in the detail expected for a published study, and we don’t know whether subjects could distinguish ASEA from placebo by taste, or what their previous experience and beliefs about ASEA were.

What does it mean?

What does all that data mean? I have no idea. The researchers themselves professed to be completely surprised by their results, which they did not expect from what they knew about the effects of the redox signaling molecules that they presumed were in the product. But of course that didn’t stop them from speculating about ASEA’s mechanism of action and its possible clinical benefits. When a study gives such unexpected results, it is prudent to question whether they might be spurious. There are any number of things that can go wrong in a study to generate false findings.

We need to hear from experts in the field who can comment on what these results might mean and whether the study methodology and statistical analyses were appropriate. This was an unpublished, small, preliminary “pilot” study; this kind of study is all too often followed by larger, better studies that reverse the findings. Studies like this are not sufficient to guide clinical practice; all we can do at this point is to suspend judgment and wait for further evidence. Customers who rely on this evidence might want to ask themselves whether they would want to take a prescription drug if the evidence from human trials consisted of a single trial with 20 patients.

I would want to ask those experts about some additional things. They found elevated levels of free fatty acids (FFAs). Is this a good thing? FFAs are elevated in obesity; they cause insulin resistance and may play a role in coronary atherosclerosis. Elevated levels suppress muscle glucose transport, leading to reduced muscle glycogen synthesis and glycolysis. Lowering FFAs should help treat obesity and type 2 diabetes. If this effect of ASEA is real, wouldn’t it be possibly harmful? How accurate are the measurements? I found one comment that “It is very easy to generate FFAs artefactually by faulty storage or extraction.”


My critic says they have “a boatload” of patents. I guess so, if you define a boatload as 4 (maybe it’s a small boat); but the existence of a patent says nothing about whether the product is effective. The company tells us that the foundational technology for ASEA is completely protected by US patents 5,507,932; 5,674,537; 6,007,686; and 6,117,285. It’s easy enough to look them up by number in the patent database. I did, and I found nothing about ASEA or about generating redox signaling molecules.

  • 5,507,932 This patent is for an apparatus for electrolyzing fluids, to produce disinfecting agents such as chlorine and ozone.
  • 5,674,537 Electrolyzed saline solution containing concentrated amounts of ozone and chlorine species for in vitro treatment of microbial infections.
  • 6,007,686 An apparatus for electrolyzing fluids to disinfect blood, dental drills, and other materials.
  • 6,117,285 A system for carrying out sterilization of equipment.

These patents say nothing about ASEA or about a unique proprietary method of producing redox signaling molecules. They simply show that the company has patents on a method of electrolysis that offers some advantages for the production of chlorine and ozone. Whoa! Those substances are toxic. There is no evidence to support their claims that the molecules in ASEA are the same ones as in the human body, that they have been somehow stabilized in solution (this would be very hard to do, since they are very reactive molecules), that the “clusters” described on their website exist, that the solution is “balanced” in any sense except in the trivial one that electrolysis necessarily produces equal numbers of positive and negative ions, that it produces “16 chemically recombined products of salt and water with completely new chemical properties,” or that it has any health benefits for humans.

Safety data

They claim that ASEA is “Safer than water” (?!) but they have no evidence to support that claim. They list the safety studies here. They are studies in cell culture of hamster ovary cells, bacterial cells, rabbits, several beagle dogs, and some mice. They have not studied safety in humans. If, as I suspect, ASEA amounts to nothing but salt water, adverse effects would not be expected unless large quantities were ingested. Again, I would ask customers if they would be willing to take a prescription drug that had not been shown toxic to animals but that had never been tested for safety in humans.

An analogy

This study attempted to show that there must be therapeutic molecules in ASEA because it “did something” to 43 metabolites. It reminded me of a study for Vitamin O. The product supposedly contained oxygen, but independent laboratory analysis found no oxygen in it. The company argued that there was so much oxygen in it that it didn’t register on the machines! So they did an experiment to show that there must be oxygen in vitamin O because vitamin O raised the abnormally low blood oxygen pressure (PaO2) of anemic patients (even though PaO2 is not abnormally low in anemia). The study was perhaps the most flawed one I have ever read. They got results that were not only “surprising” but impossible, given what we know about physiology.

More criticism

The e-mail writer goes on to use the fallacious argument from popularity (lots of happy customers) with no understanding of how people might come to believe an ineffective product is helping them. Apparently he doesn’t realize that water scams and quack remedies all have plenty of testimonials from grateful customers. He accuses SBM of being in the business of publishing lies, and he suggests we are doing it for the money (!?), which is pretty ironic given that he is the one selling ASEA to make money and SBM writers are not paid.


Did I lie? I don’t think so. I may have been guilty of a mis-statement in saying there were “no” placebo-controlled studies; but there certainly were no published placebo-controlled studies, which, for the purpose of scientific evidence, amounts to the same thing. I still have no reason to think ASEA is anything more than expensive water.

Now that I have written a new article, my critic and his fellow ASEA distributors and their customers are welcome to join in the comments. They may want to further demonstrate the level of ignorance that led him to cite the irrelevant 102 PubMed articles. I didn’t particularly want to write about ASEA again, but that was just too delicious not to share. I’m still laughing about it! It’s almost enough to make me wonder if ASEA causes brain damage…

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements

Leave a Comment (76) ↓

76 thoughts on “Accused of Lying about ASEA: Not Guilty

  1. Woo Fighter says:

    Will Tracy King dare return here to shill her magic salt water with YouTube videos and company press releases as “evidence”?

    And whatever happened to that “peer-reviewed” study she promised us was about to be published in a recognized journal all the way back in April 2013 (almost an entire year ago)? Y’know, the one she said would prove us all wrong with real science and stuff to back up her ludicrous claims?

    1. eNOS says:

      Oh please. I’ve been waiting so long for her return. I can’t wait to hear her earth-shattering evidence!

  2. Bo says:

    Have any of the critics tryed ASEA???
    I don’t think so…
    I have a disc between 4. and 5. vertebra
    Before ASEA – I was on all kinds of “normal” medications – and still in Pain.
    Then came ASEA.
    After just 7 days of use – I didn’t have any pain at all.
    I trapped out of the “normal” medication and after a month or so I had no pain at all.

    Then I tryed on my Brother WHO has a very serious Health issue called Epilepsia.
    After my Brother had used ASEA for just 6 months – he went from 100% “normal” medication for his Health issue. Today he’s just taking 10% of his original medicin – and tops it of with ASEA.
    I haven’t heard a single man or woman that started with ASEA, that do not see the benefits it gives to the body.
    Therefor I believe that the ASEA product will be here, even though you critics don’t believe in it. You will in time, I say.

    1. windriven says:


      Thank you for your testimonial. I will include it in my letter to FDA asking them to investigate ASEA as an unlicensed drug of unknown safety and efficacy.

    2. weing says:

      “I have a disc between 4. and 5. vertebra”
      Most of us do too. Unless we’ve had it removed.

      1. Elizabeth says:

        hahhahahaha…that is all ty

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Why do the MLM drones always have such poor spelling and random capitalization?

      Bo, you rather miss the point. “Trying something” guarantees nothing – biology is mutable and unpredictable. A single person “trying something” proves nothing. What one needs is a large number of people trying “something” and “nothing” (i.e. a placebo). This is a proper scientific test. Now, if ASEA is as miraculous as you say it is, as miraculous as your corporate overlords claim it to be, it would be easy to show this effect in even a small clinical trial. That’s why there is emphasis on clinical trials in medicine. The single clinical trial showed some minor shifts in metabolites, which demonstrates nothing regarding clinically-significant effects. If you really want your corporate overlords to prove ASEA is some sort of miracle, they need to pick an objective outcome for a significant disease process and test it for that alone, not a bunch of weird proxy measures. And hey – if they succeed, they can revolutionize our understanding of microbiology!

      I haven’t heard a single man or woman that started with ASEA, that do not see the benefits it gives to the body.

      Yeah…what if everyone who didn’t see benefits just stopped talking about it because they were embarassed at spending $4/oz on salt water? I suppose then you wouldn’t hear from them, would you?

      I actually remember looking this up a while back, and was amused/saddened by the references, since they make it quite obvious that ASEA was originally intended to be used as a sterilization solution. How it got repurposed into a multi-level marketing scheme, I’m not sure.

      1. windriven says:

        I too was struck by the spelling. Then it occurred to me that Bo might be German and English a second language. The Germans, as I recall, capitalize most nouns.

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Some of the last batch of ASEA nutters were German, they must have a sattelite office there.

    4. Harriet Hall says:


      Perhaps you should read my article again. You seem to have missed what I said about the writer using
      “the fallacious argument from popularity (lots of happy customers) with no understanding of how people might come to believe an ineffective product is helping them.”

      Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? Do you understand how people (yes, even you!) might come to believe that a bogus remedy works? Apparently not. Are you an ASEA distributor? Does your brother know that stopping an anti-epilepsy medication without a doctor’s supervision is one of the major causes of recurrent seizures in a patient who has been seizure-free? Does his neurologist know what he is doing?

  3. windriven says:

    ” Is this a good thing?”

    In my estimation, that is the best and most important question Dr. Hall asks in this post. Cast aside all the well-founded skepticism about the actual composition of the stuff and ask: what does it do? Does it promote superhuman performance in bicyclists? Does it interfere with glycogen metabolism? Does it raise IQ by 50 points? Does it predispose to early onset Alzheimers?

    As Dr. Hall pointed out early in the post, if ASEA in fact a solution of 16 molecules with powerful biological effects, why wouldn’t this fall under the purview of FDA and be regulated as a drug? There are issues of labeling, safety and efficacy. Are any of these molecules teratogenic? Carcinogenic? Is there a safe dose for children?

    It is difficult to imagine how this product would qualify as a dietary supplement if it is processed electrochemically to produce 16 novel molecules. So … if it isn’t a supplement then it is either a drug … or a scam. So from which would the makers of ASEA like the full cavity search, FDA or FTC?

  4. BillyJoe says:

    WARNING: this is off topic…

    The AVN – the Australian Vaccination Network, better known as the Anti Vaccination Network – has been required to change its name to more clearly reflect its views.
    They propose to change their name to the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network!

  5. David Gorski says:

    Since the e-mail was not sent to me, and I don’t have the writer’s permission, I won’t name him or quote him directly but will paraphrase what he said. He said my article had prevented thousands of people from benefitting from the health effects of ASEA.

    Well, I’m the editor, and, after I get out of the OR later, I’d be happy to append the text to this person’s e-mail to your post. It was sent to the blog; there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy. :-)

    And, for fun, one of us should send a link to your response to our errant ASEA booster.

    1. Definitely. He sent it to me, for some reason, but it was clearly meant for SBM’s editorial staff, if not Dr. Hall specifically. His failure to use a more relevant email address is amusing. If he thinks an assistant editor has the authority to respond to a demand to remove a post here, it’s just another sign that he’s not playing with a full deck.

  6. goodnightirene says:

    Between your post and Windriven’s comment, I’m having a rather raucous morning!

    Your emailer reminds me of some pathetic person who once tried to sell me an “ozone air cleaner”. I asked her if there were any studies to support her claims for her little magic box (that was going to cure my asthma!). She brought over a pile of paper she had printed out from the web which consisted of about 20 studies done, mostly in the Soviet Union in the 50’s and 60’s. While some of them had something to do with ozone, none had anything at all to do with her machine.

    She seemed shocked that her “evidence” didn’t impress me. (I realize that ozone is used in sterilization and I use an ozone-treated pool at the local JCC, but that is not what this machine was.)

    1. LDoBe says:

      She brought over a pile of paper she had printed out from the web which consisted of about 20 studies done, mostly in the Soviet Union in the 50’s and 60’s.

      Lysenkoism… “Let’s make the Soviet Union look like it’s making revolutionary scientific breakthroughs, no matter how much outright lying it takes.”

  7. Stella B says:

    I was first lured into the world of on-line arguing about alternative medicine 20 years ago by the partisans of colloidal silver. They loved to point to the many studies available via Medline that directly address CS. What they always chose to ignore was that those studies indicated a favorable outcome for CS used as a stain for the microscopic examination of neural tissue — a bit different from their prefered use as an antibiotic.

    1. windriven says:

      “the partisans of colloidal silver.”

      At least they’re easy to spot, what with that healthy blue skin tone ;-)

    2. Elizabeth says:

      Someone tried to tell me to put colloidal silver in my son’s eye once. I was like “Are you insane? Are you fucking…insane? How stupid are you? Forgive me Lord. How stupid..are you?”

      I just had to comment. I mean my kid was not even 2 at the time and they were asking me to put that stuff in there. I said “I will take him to his doctor, no thanks” Holy smokes people are bonkers.

      Sorry for that/end rant.

  8. Frederick says:

    Good read, and a funny one. It just gave me a Idea to make money: I’ll create a new woo product and call it PLACEBO ( imagine a voice with reverb when you read it). And i could say there is over 170 000 reference in pubmed :-). It MUST be effective!

    Marketing gimmick, I hope one day nobody will be able to sell stupid health product or exercise machine without any real studies.
    So much money wasted. I hope they go bankrupt , company like this deserve it for screwing peoples.
    Thank for this good post.

    1. Too Old for This says:

      Not only would you turn up a gazzillion references that your woo PLACEBO is well-grounded in PubMed (if this is the standard for what “works”), you could cite thousands of studies where PLACEBO achieved a therapeutic effect!

    2. Sean Duggan says:

      That brings back memories of high school health class where we received an assignment to make up a fictional drug and write out dosage, side effects, etc in the given format. Mine was “Obecalp”, a revolutionary drug which was extremely effective at improving the health of users when taken with a balanced diet and vigorous exercise (much to my chagrin, I later learned that the cereal claims of “contains full nutrition for the day with a full balanced breakfast” predated me). My second suggestion of “Alarm Clock sleeping pills” involving a timed release stimulant coated with a soporific was slightly more realistic, but reflected my lack of understanding of what happens when you mix uppers and downers.

    3. JimR says:

      Maybe NOCEBO can be marketed to cure the side effects of regular meds

      1. Frederick says:

        Oh man… We gonna be rich!

  9. Thor says:

    There are two issues here: one is the product itself—the unfounded claims made for it, lack of plausibility and evidence—and the other is MLM. So we have a scam of a product foisted upon the public by a scam of a business model. Double whammy—a pseudo-product marketed by a pseudo-economic system. In MLM, two things are ALWAYS being sold: the product(s) and the business itself. The insidiousness of MLM is apparent to all who have been exposed to it, combining the worst qualities of two worlds: selling questionable products and an equally questionable business model. It is no wonder that CAM finds a perfect partner in MLM.

    1. Iron man says:

      have u tried the product ? to be able to comment on it ? and if not u label it a scam ? and the same with MLM. ? explain why these are scams ?

      1. Chris says:

        Have you tried to learn English grammar and spelling? Did you actually read the article?

        1. Windriven says:

          His, ahem, grammar and spelling are just symptoms of profound intellectual sloth.

          Is there any evidence that steroid abuse shrinks the brain as well as the testicles?

  10. Ken Hamer says:

    You should ask them if they can prove that ASEA doesn’t kill over 3000 people per year.

  11. RobRN says:

    I’ve never delved into “ASEA” before – REALLY slick web site! This particular page really caught my eye:

    With the web page entitled “BELIEVE, BELONG, BECOME”, they’ve liberally applied Maslow’s heirarchy to draw people into the classic MLM scam!

    1. weing says:

      They put the lie in believe.

      1. windriven says:

        :-) !

      2. Elizabeth says:

        :D bahaha

  12. Angora Rabbit says:

    “We need to hear from experts in the field who can comment on what these results might mean and whether the study methodology and statistical analyses were appropriate. ”

    Since you kindly asked.. :)

    “Compared to those on placebo, the group taking ASEA had higher levels of myristic acid, palmitic acid, oleic acid, stearic acid, palmitelaidic acid, capric acid, glycerol”

    Well, these are not only free fatty acids (plus their glycerol backbone), they are largely saturated fatty acids or their omega-9 derivatives. They are produced by endogenous synthesis, rather than from dietary sources (the lack of omega-6/3 FAs is a dead giveaway). The marketer might be hoping to claim that ASEA mobilizes triglyceride energy, but this actually shows the opposite. It suggests that ASEA increases endogenous fat synthesis! Whoops! Don’t take this if you are diabetic, overweight, or have heart disease.

    “lower levels of 7 amino acids,”
    Who knows what this means b/c they don’t tell us which AAs. It would be nice to know if they are essential or non-essential.

    “higher levels of fumarate, citrate, and malate,”
    These are components of the mitochondrial TCA cycle. Frankly, I’d be worried if these were elevated in the blood. It suggests that the ability to burn fatty acid energy might be impaired, which would be bad. It’s consistent with the elevated FAs. It also suggests that ASEA reduced the liver/kidney ability to clear organic acids, which would be very bad.

    “lower levels of ascorbic acid…and threonic acid”
    This would be bad. Smokers have reduced serum ascorbate (aka Vit C). This is because smoking generates lots of free radicals that use up the VitC. VC requirements are actually set higher for smokers than for non-smokers. Threonic acid just just a VC metabolite and consistent with the VC losses. If you are worried about oxidative stress, this would be a great product for making it worse.

    “increases in aminomalonic acid” Best guess is this is a oxidative derivative of amino acid / protein. It could be a marker of increased oxidative stress. This would be bad.

    “…serum creatinine and urea.” Both amino acid and protein breakdown products. In an athlete, I
    wouldn’t want to see excessive losses.

    I also suspect marketing typoed and didn’t know there was a spelling difference between creatine and creatinine.

    Bottom line – this stuff is crap and is causing metabolic changes in bloodstream that I wouldn’t want to find in my body. At least they are consistent – elevated markers of oxidative stress. Now the marketers just have to decide if that’s a good witch or a bad witch.

    1. windriven says:

      “Who knows what this means b/c they don’t tell us which AAs. It would be nice to know if they are essential or non-essential.”

      The absence of identification suggests the answer.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:


    3. Thor says:

      Excellent! Thanks for answering Dr. Hall’s request. Just goes to emphasize one of SBM’s tenets that scientific verification and oversight are needed in regulating all substances with claims for medical viability. But nooo, supplements can skirt the rules and walk through the door completely unchecked. My what a good congressman can accomplish with motive, money, and backing (DSHEA). I’m hopeful that as the stats keep pouring in about potential (and real) harms of common vitamin supplements things will change. Documentation of harm needs to be statistically convincing to lawmakers and the public.

    4. Harriet Hall says:

      Thanks very much! I wonder how the ASEA salesmen would react to these revelations about the study they tout so highly.
      Now I hope a statistician will comment on the way the data were reported.

  13. Mark Hanna says:

    When I confronted an advertiser of a “Quantum Magnetic Analyser Report” here in New Zealand, they gave a similar response, quoting the number of results that showed up when they plugged the name of their product into Google. I still have no idea how they could have thought that would amount to convincing evidence…

    1. mmcwatters says:

      Oh, man. I’ve always wanted to get my Quantum Magnets analyzed!

  14. Angora Rabbit says:

    This is a cool game! I just discovered that Angora Rabbit has 38 publications on PubMed. And I didn’t have to lift a paw to write them.

    If I search on my real name I have over 1700. Golly. Let’s all do this and see how talented we really are.

    Y’all can kiss the ring. :)

    1. windriven says:


      Huh. I entered Stephen S Rodrigues and didn’t get a single hit. Maybe I misspelled it.

      When I entered my real name I got 894 (not a single one actually written by windriven’s alter ego).

      1. BillyJoe says:

        My name gets 605,000 hits.
        That’s really surprising.

        I get the first two hits and four of the first ten.
        I don’t think this is could be a random selection.
        It must be targeted to the googler.

        Others included in the first ten links are a theologian and a pastor…
        …and two orbituaries.

    2. StrangerInAStrangeLand says:

      Stupid game, my name is unusual enough to only show the papers I really wrote. Guess I have to change my name to John Smith or something like it.

  15. Richard Spink says:

    Are your readers aware that this product contains dangerous amounts of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

    The damaging and often lethal effects of this substance on the human body and the environment in general has been well documented.

    The details of this can be found here

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Not just dihydrogen monoxide, the existence of elemental sodium and chlorine, expolsive and caustic respectively, for which the presence of dihydrogen monoxide is a necessary agent, renders the product absurdly dangerous. I mean, you’re basically swallowing battery acid mixed with nitroglycerine!

  16. Peter H Proctor, PhD,MD says:

    As much as anybody, I and my colleagues originated the scientific concept now dubbed “redox signaling”. That is, that reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the like modulate cellular function. These days, a Liebert journal title {“Antioxidants and Redox Signaling”) and the subject of thousands of research papers.

    For details see . Seeing the future, I bought the domain name years ago. Tells ya something.

    Redox signaling is now thought fundamental in, e.g., modulation of cell growth and apoptosis in cancer (Dr. Gorski’s field), as well as other diseases. E.g., BRCAs, p53, etc. are all redox-modulated. In fact, pick any cancer gene, apoptosis factor, etc. and search it on pubmed against “superoxide” and you will likely come back with papers. Fantasticially druggable.

    While Dr. Gorski and I do have certain disagreements, I am with him on this one. What ASEA refers to by “redox signaling” has nothing to do with scientists mean. Still, great marketing.

  17. Adair says:

    I was one of those people who used this product….for almost a year. A total waste of my money. Having a serious autoimmune condition, I’m always on the look out for something “new”. A trusted source recommended ASEA, as he had great results. Where it not for the endorsement I would never have spent that much money on a supplement. I do my do diligence and use reputable products, I was so believing they hype, I stupidly went with it. So, with all that said, I have 8 bottles of this crap that I wouldn’t give to an enemy. I have a question for Harriet Hall: Are you aware of anything I can use this stuff for, i.e., getting mustard stains out of my favorite white tee, killing weeds in my flower bed, or possibly rust of ANYTHING? Just a thought. I thank you for putting this out there for what it really is not!

  18. Peter H Proctor, PhD,MD says:

    Real “redox-signaling”

    511 “EGFR-initated NADPH oxidase activity regulates Fyn expression in glioblastoma multiforme” AACR meeting abstract, Sunday, Apr 06, 2014, Blake Johnson, et al, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

    “….Taken together, our results suggest that EGFRvIII increases NOX-2 generated ROS through p47phox, enhancing the proliferative capacity of GBM, in part, via increased Fyn expression, suggesting that targeting redox alterations may prove beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in GBM.”

    From MD Anderson, where the concept originated….

  19. Peter H Proctor, PhD,MD says:

    Example of “real” redox signaling from the NIH
    “Hypoxia-mediated ROS enhances HGF-induced cancer cell invasion and suppresses cell cycle progression”, AACR abstract, Apr 06, 2014, Young H. et al, NIH, Bethesda, MD

    “..Cells under hypoxic conditions accumulated high levels of ROS, which in turn sensitized the Erk pathway to enhance HGF-driven invasion. ROS accumulation was also associated with suppression of MAPK phosphatase DUSP2 mRNA. The other prevalent arm of Met mediated signaling, the PI3K/Akt pathway, normally drives cell survival and proliferation. In hypoxic conditions, however, Akt activation is suppressed by ROS mediated PP2a activation. This is accompanied by metabolic shift towards autophagy and decreased cell cycle progression.”

    “ROS”= “reactive oxygen species” Note how many cellular signaling factors they mediate.

  20. David Reina says:

    Dr. Hall,

    What treatment(s) in medicine have you seen to actually work the way it is reported to work with high probablity of positive long term outcome in a research study of superior quality?

    Respectfully submitte,

    David Reina

    1. Chris says:

      Haven just recently suffered from a urinary tract infection, I give high marks to the antibiotic I was prescribed!

      If you have a better solution for UTIs, please submit.

    2. Windriven says:

      “What treatment(s) in medicine have you seen to actually work the way it is reported to work with high probablity of positive long term outcome in a research study of superior quality?”

      Appendectomy, HAART, insulin management of diabetes are three that roll right off my tongue. Diuretics plus ACE inhibitors for management of hypertension.

      Do you have a point? What is it? or are you just JAQing around?

      1. Woo Fighter says:

        I believe Mr. Reina is a chiropractor:

        1. Windriven says:

          Did you check the testimonials prominent on Reina’s webpage? Compare and contrast Reina’s webpage and Dr. Gorski’s webpage>/a> from Wayne State.

        2. Windriven says:

          And nice job tracking down the possible link!

        3. Chris says:

          So perhaps he will claim to be able to fix the pain from a UTI. Though I am not sure how an adjustment would deal with the blood in the urine.

          And perhaps he thinks he can also fix a genetic anatomic anomaly with an adjustment. Of course, there is this whole thing about that extra muscle blocking blood from going through the aortic valve.

    3. Chris says:

      Also, in our family we are big fans of septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. No more calls to 911 and ambulance trips to the emergency department.

      So, really, Mr. Reina, what is your point?

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Basically anything with actual evidence behind it that isn’t proprietary information kept from public scrutiny and out of the peer-reviewed discussion, which shows over a series of studies convergence evidence of benefit that is commensurate with the risks of getting, and not getting treatment.

      I mean, there’s a lot out there that fills these criteria. It’s called “medicine”.

  21. Bobby Martin says:

    Check out this link:

    I believe this would qualify as peer-reviewed ppublication…right?

    1. Windriven says:

      “I believe this would qualify as peer-reviewed ppublication…right?”

      Yes. Low impact but peer reviewed. So what’s your point?

    2. Harriet Hall says:

      The journal may be peer reviewed, but that item was not peer-reviewed. It was a meeting abstract, and meeting abstracts are not peer reviewed.
      Also, it’s a study in mice. How many of your ASEA customers are mice?

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Well, that’s a mediocre very-first-step, but at least it’s a step. Now I would like to see it published in an actual peer-reviewed journal, the whole article, then replicated and extended to other mice, then other rodents, then perhaps another animal species. From there it could enter phase I clinical trials for safety in humans, followed by phase II for efficacy, then finally phase III for FDA licensing.

      Now, before you proclaim that this is unfair because it costs money, or because you have a miracle product, this is the exact process that drugs have to follow to be FDA-approved. Each step exists for a reason – to demonstrate first safety, then efficacy. If the drug has an effect, as Angora Rabbit says above – it stands to reason it has adverse effects as well, and those need to be identified.

      Everyone who thinks this paper is a slam-dunk for ASEA should ask themselves – would you let your child take a drug whose sole proof of efficacy was a single conference abstract reporting the results of 60 mice total? If not, why does ASEA get to be special (aside from the fact that you are probably selling it and desperate to turn a profit).

      If you want to claim drug-like effects and effectiveness, then suck it up and go through the drug approval process. Don’t pretend that animal work with a shitty publication record is enough.

      1. This last comment displayed more ignorance than many others. As I said in a previous comment, ASEA is not a drug. It is what it says it is. It is so simple, without any toxicity at all, and has no negative affects on plants, animals and humans. DON’t Take it! It is the same as Moses in the wilderness who put a snake on a pole and simply asked those in pain or smitten to just look on the serpent, and you will be healed” To simple for some. I submit that those who profess to be smart/intellectuals and claim to do do their “due diligence”, have not in the case of ASEA! I say, it is the greatest medical, scientific, health breakthrough, ever! Sorry you have to be a doubter. And? I make no money at this. ZERO! jp

  22. jeff parker says:

    Having done three years of research myself on the product ASEA, and previously thought as you did, have now had the opportunity to meet with several bio and atomic physists’, and looking at over a thousand pages of data which substantiate the science and the affects of the ASEA (Redox Signaling Molecules) and their 27 plus patents, having miraculous results. I feel bad that you either have chosen to remain ignorant of the facts/data/updated research findings (metabolites? see the studies), or you have a reason for doubting and or ignoring the total data. Just because others are finding results (this is what science is about), and refuse to acknowledge it, what can one determine from your refusal to look at all the data? Alterior motives? No faith? No due diligence? No vision? what is it. The testimonials are not just from subjective answers, but massive amounts of change in the data regarding metabolite movements in the cells following those “double-blind” studies.
    For all you reading, I have taken the product for almost four years now. I don’t make any money in the company, and because of the varying ways it has helped me in physical realities, I’ll keep taking it, thank you. The claims are small, the results are enormous. Do not remain ignorant of this major scientific, medical-health breakthrough. I believe it is the greatest breakthrough in our life times.
    Jeffrey L. Parker, M.Ed

  23. I have been around along time. This is my first time reading the “naysayers” about a product they know so little about. Of course there are those who spout off whatever they want, without the full battery of data. To all of the ignorant who want to save all of us who are so deluded in this belief and personal experience, I suggest that you quit wasting your time trying to save all of us alleged idiots from ourselves, and convince Pres. Barack Obama and his minions to quit lying to the American people, and tell him to obey the laws of our land, and quit trying to transform our country into a socialist government and socialized society. It has not worked anywhere in the world.

    For some of you psuedo-intellectuals needing to fill your egos in negativity and ignorance (by saying that MLM-ers can’t spell or put two words together), gosh, I wish I had your intelligence and income. The results and data are not complete, and never will be, because all the good ASEA is doing for some, will just get bigger. No one is forcing you to spend money or take a placebo, but those of us who have used the “RSM”-ASEA product have seen not just obvious results, but the blood ups I have taken over those 4 years, has shown not just “significant” results, but astronomical and exponentially greater changes at the cellular/metabolite level than anything my doctors have ever seen.

    Please, the FDA is a governmental entity, which garners it’s PHD’s from the work force, most of whom could not get a job in the “real world”. The scientific teams at ASEA, including Dr. Gary Samuelson PhD in Atomic Physics, have answered my question to him three yeas ago, when I asked him “have you run this ASEA product past the FDA?” His answer was, why would I do that? ASEA is not a drug. It has no toxicity at all, and has already proven to not have any adverse affects on animals or humans. Plus, this product is exactly what is already in our bodies, and the data is replete with studies which shows these “RDM’s” depleting in the body after about age 12. If you don’t believe the hundreds of studies available to this point (I have read hundreds of them), and I will not, I repeat NOT, give all the references to you, for I had to look them up all by myself, as you will, if you want to know the TRUTH. The opposite of science and faith, is doubt and ignorance. Do not remain this way. Please!

  24. DrMichael says:

    I am currently using this product as is my wife. I have heard many wonderful things about this product from trusted friends, and thought I would see if I noticed any difference after use. I am highly skeptical, especially after happening upon this page and others, but figure I might as well use the product we have purchased and observe any results or differences with use. We have have the product for 3 or 4 days now, and my wife claims greatly reduced pain in an injured extremity with increase in movement. FYI, she is recovering from surgery on a full thickness tear off her rotator cuff, and has had very little result from physical therapy or pain medication. She notes that her constipation has had relief. I myself suffer from a neck and shoulder injury which occurred just over 6 years ago. I am in constant pain, and most notably sustained damage in my cervical spine at c2 c3 and c6 c7. The only change I can note thus far personally is that my constipation of the last 6 years, undoubtedly caused by the medications I am on, seems to have found relief. I have had slightly less pain over the past couple of days, but that could be random at this point, as that does happen on occasion. if I see any significant changes, I will note them here.

    1. DrMichael says:

      Please forgive the occasional spelling or word error. Typing is difficult, and I use talk to text. I don’t always proofread as I should.

    2. Harriet Hall says:

      “if I see any significant changes, I will note them here.”

      Please don’t bother. There are already plenty of anecdotal reports of benefits from ASEA.
      One thing you might do that might be helpful: set up an informal N=1 double blind test to see whether you and/or your wife can distinguish between the effects of ASEA and the effects of water with a similar salt content.

  25. Woo Fighter says:

    Mr. Parker:

    IT’S JUST WATER. You are being ripped off. If you really believe it works for you, good for you. You can get the identical substance for free from your tap.

    If ASEA is not a drug, why are some of the MLM distributors like Tracy King claiming it can cure cancer? (See last year’s thread on ASEA on this blog where ASEA salespeople made ludicrous health claims for their brand of plain ol’ water.)

    And if you really have a Master’s degree in education, you’d know the difference between “effect” and “affect” and when to use “it’s” versus “its.”

    Your writing skills are on par with your medical research skills.

  26. Woo Fighter says:

    For any newcomers who may doubt that ASEA shills make ludicrous claims for their plain ol’ (salted) water, here’s what ASEA salesperson extraordinaire Tracy King says on her blog (spelling errors are hers, not mine):

    “I want to help people with health challenges such as fibromyalgia, cancer, MS, CF, MRSA, HIV, glaucoma, high blood pressure, autism, allergies, high cholesterol, blood sugar disorders, candida, cardiomyopathy, etc, who can benefit from bringing their bodies into balance with the aid of these healing balanced stabilized molecules. I’m also intersted in helping HEALTHY people maintain their good health by supplementing with ASEA, people who are skeptical of traditional medicine are open to hearing about how to heal their body naturally …”

    Blah blah blah, one insane health claim after another.

    Here’s the source:

    Interesting that part of her screed is not helping “cure” people but finding other suckers to sell the stuff for her on her downline to make more money for her. It’s a pyramid scheme selling plain ol’ salted water:

    “Ideally, however, I am looking for NETWORKERS such as direct sellers, real estate agents, insurance agents, salesmen, etc, since it is with THEIR help that the MOST people can benefit from hearing and learning about ASEA. I just want as many people as possible to realize their full health potential!”

  27. Woo Fighter says:

    By the way, it seems that Jeffrey Parker did indeed sell ASEA for almost a year, according to his LinkedIn page (unless there’s another Jeffrey Parker who shills for ASEA):

    San Diego, California
    May 2011 – January 2012 (9 months)
    Promote a product that is the greatest health technology EVER! “RSM”!

  28. Woo Fighter says:

    Here’s a comment from another ASEA shill trolling the comments at, (figuring, I suppose, that anyone reading that site is pre-qualified to buy into all kinds of pseudo-scientific garbage.

    This person is indirectly claiming ASEA cured brain cancer. (And why aren’t any of these ASEA shills able to spell, write correct sentences or use correct grammar? Maybe it’s a side effect of drinking too much plain ol’ salted water…)

    “My sister has stage III we found out just recently, she started drinking ASEA. Don’t know if you have heard of this product it has been on the market about three years. We have used it and seen results with other health problems(HBP, diabetes, poor circulation, High cholesteral) but we have heard others who know about ASEA say they have seen results with cancer patients. The product helps decrease unhealthy cells and help health cells multiply. One of our friends who had lots of headaches and found he had a brain tumor used the product and is now doing great and work after using a couple of cases headaches stopped. Again, we believe this will help and so she has started using and wanted to let you know so you can do your research. It is natural to your body and we were told that it can be use with medicines you currently use and may even help them be more effective. You can give the info to your doctor to check out if you want. More info at (link to their ASEA sales site redacted) it boast your energy level a lot also and can be use on your skin, eyes as a topical. After studying how salt houses were used years ago for healing method I can see kind of how this product works.”

    If you Google “ASEA + cancer” you’ll see all kinds of claims by the MLM/pyramid scheme shills for their expensive, salted water.

    1. Sawyer says:

      And why aren’t any of these ASEA shills able to spell, write correct sentences or use correct grammar?

      I’m always in awe at how these companies get off the ground in the first place with the level of piss poor communication skills employed by so many of their promoters. I’ve seen entrepreneurs agonize over single sentences of business plans knowing that a tiny mistake can spell the end of their company. Yet somehow in the world of quackery investing the rules are reversed, and these mistakes don’t matter one bit.

      I know science is hard, but 8th grade English is not difficult to master. Why other people do not employ this simple standard as a preliminary filter baffles me.

      1. weing says:

        “And why aren’t any of these ASEA shills able to spell, write correct sentences or use correct grammar?”
        My guess is that it filters out those who wouldn’t fall for their products. The same principle applies in email scams.

Comments are closed.