Redox Signalling - Asea - Discussion

The exercises & techniques to keep your body healthy for footbag.
User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Redox Signalling - Asea - Discussion

Post by abstract » 29 Dec 2010 11:11

Some of you may have heard of this product by now, it is exploding at the moment in the United States & Canada. It is called, "Asea".

http://www.teamasea.com/

This product represents NEW SCIENCE. At the present time, Asea is the only product on the planet that provides your body with Redox Signalling molecules & is patent protected for a significant time to come.

The following is an extremely in-depth scientific explanation of what Redox Signalling means:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783918/

Abstract:

[quote]The cellular oxidation and reduction (redox) environment is influenced by the production and removal of reactive oxygen species (ROS). In recent years, several reports support the hypothesis that cellular ROS levels could function as “second messengersâ€
Last edited by abstract on 06 Jun 2011 08:21, edited 1 time in total.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 31 Dec 2010 23:38

Hi, so I've read the entire article and I'm curious.

You say this is "new science." Is there any published science about this product you're promoting, as opposed to about redox control? Also the scientific article you posted offers no suggestion that manipulated redox control would be of any use in cells other than ones that are defective. In whatway does the scientific paper you've presented support the claim that any substance can improve "peak athletic performance?"

I further watched the video, which was presented by a number of GPs, a naturopath, a registered nurse, and bizarrely an atomic physicist. None of these people have training in medical science - are there any scientists working on this substance and if so, who and where? Further to that they present no science as to how this substance actually works. The process and chemistry of redox is well understood. The mechanism that this substance makes it way to our cells and changes the way mitochondria work is completely unexplained. Is this substance digested? If so how does it survive the process?

I did a google scholar search as well as an academic search from my university database and neither came up with any science about this.

Some further google research tells me that "Asea" is actually a "multilevel marketing company." What this means, apparently, is that it's a company with a business plan similar to Amway, which indeed also sells lots of nutrients etc. of scientifically demonstrated dubious impact.

From what I can gather from the video this product is some kind of antioxidant. The scientific evidence for antioxidants actually shows that they correspond to lower (not higher) levels of sporting performance, to less fitness benefit in response to exercise. This is pretty obvious as they are called antioxidants because they essentially combine to oxygen ions (hence the name). Oxygen is a critical part of our metabolism and the redox cycle, and anything that results in less oxygen being present in the cycle will obviously decrease efficiency. There's been two major studies of antioxidants published in highly credible peer reviewed science journals in recent years. Here are some quotes from both;

The first was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2007. It was a meta study reviewing a total of 180,000 people. One of the authors, Christian Glaud (Copenhagen University Hospital) said this;

"The harmful effects of antioxidant supplements are not confined to vitamin A. Our analysis also demonstrated rather convincingly that beta-carotene and vitamin E lead to increased mortality rate compared to placebo."

The other study was on exercise and antioxidants and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in May, 2009. Lead author Michael Ristow (University of Jena) had this to say;

"If you promote health, you shouldn't take large amounts of antioxidants." Antioxidants in general... inhibit otherwise positive effects of exercise, dieting and other interventions."


So here is my current opinion of this. Of course because I actually follow the scientific method, rather than claiming to in order to make money, I will definitely change my mind if evidence is presented.

There is no scientific evidence that this product works, or scientific evidence demonstrating that it hypothetically could work. Evoking the name of science to sell a product that is not shown by science to work is obviously dishonest and unethical. The company marketing the product is a pyramid scheme marketer, and should be viewed with scepticism accordingly.

If you can provide a peer reviewed published study where the testing was double blind, placebo controlled, has a drop out rate of less than 25% (and records the drop out rate in the study, obviously) and was published in a reputable journal, and this study shows that the product works, then I'll accept that. Until then I'll consider it a bogus product - a scam - and urge everybody else on modified to not buy it because the science shows that such products increase your chance of death, decrease the benefits of exercise and are a waste of your money.

Of course there are plenty of people claiming it works. There are still plenty of people claiming that "Power Balance" works, even though it's an obvious scam. Without scientific evidence, we should dismiss such anecdotes (especially considering past research and the lack of a known mechanism for it work).

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 31 Dec 2010 23:50

Some more research apparently shows that the only ingredients of "Asea" (perhaps that should be (a sea :lol: ) are "distilled water" and "sodium chloride."

So it doesn't involve any antioxidants. It is literally just salt water!!!

:lol:

edit;

If you go to this part of their website and rotate the bottle around you can just make out the ingredients for yourself.

http://www.teamasea.com/product.aspx


I look forward to the day "dihydrogen monoxide" is marketed as a health supplement.

Corey
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 810
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 15:31
Location: New Jersey

Post by Corey » 01 Jan 2011 16:00

Jeremy wrote:I look forward to the day "dihydrogen monoxide" is marketed as a health supplement.
Somebody will take too much of it and then get it banned.

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 05 Jan 2011 09:13

i was looking forward to your response, jeremy. :)

i appreciate that you maintain an outlook that can be receptive to more information.

i will address a few points, & a colleague of mine will soon provide more illumination as well.

http://teamasea.com/pdf/WhitePaperVT.pdf

the above is a research paper concerning ventilatory thresholds in athletes. while this is not in itself a placebo-based, double blind study, the results call for such a study to be the next logical step based on these initial results.

as this product is new as of 2010, i'm sure you can appreciate that this research takes time to develop.

regarding the ingredients label:

the saline solution present in Asea undergoes a three day electrolysis process to create redox signalling molecules. this process cannot be quantified on an ingredients label.

however, it can be explained in a patent:

http://www.google.ca/patents?id=isDGAAA ... &q&f=false

more to come. thanks for your time. keep your questions coming, we will try our best to provide answers.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 05 Jan 2011 20:11

When I posted about this on facebook, people thought it was hoax or a joke. Surely you realise that running electricity through salt water does not create a miracle substance that stops ageing and make every aspect of your physiology better? Do you realise how ludicrous this sounds?

edit; Lol - you're presenting me with an experiment with a total of either 17 or 18 people (the number seems to change). That means about 8.5 per group...

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 06 Jan 2011 12:55

Ok so before I go into specific details of those two new pieces of information presented about this I wanted to expand on two points.


1. To discuss the relevance of the small sample size in the "white paper" (it's clearly not a "white paper," but pseudoscientists often use incorrect by technical sounding terms either out of ignorance or in order to make their product sound more authoritative). This can be best demonstrated with an experiment.

Get a 6 sided die and throw it 8 times, recording the result each time (you could use a coin instead, but a die would be better for demonstrating the point being made). Now throw the die again 8 times, but this time before each throw do your best chicken impression. Compare both totals (or if you like, average them). It's very likely that you'll get two different results (even if you don't, I think it's reasonably to accept this likelihood, but I can show you the maths to prove it if you really like). In fact the difference between the two numbers could be fairly large.

When I did it I got 29 the first time and 37 the second. The second number here is 27% larger than the first. Now if we look at the "white paper" where we had two groups of about this same size (ignore the graph that is "fig 1." because we have no idea where that data is from, and it tells us that it is a "typical data set," rather than a presentation of the actual data) we see that the variation between these two groups ranges on the 13 criteria from 0% to 12%.

We can take two conclusions from our own experiment. We can conclude that impersonating chickens changes the results of dice throws (by 27% in my experiment!!) or we can see that with such tiny sample sizes we should expect a large amount of variation just by chance. Hence the "white paper" experiment doesn't tell us anything meaningful.

In fact in that experiment they've helpfully calculated the probabilities of their results occurring by random chance. Of their 13 measurements, 9 are so similar they didn't provide p values, but are presumably insignificant differences. Of the 3 that they did provide we have p values of 0.34, 0.08, and 0.006. In science a p value greater than 0.05 is considered "insignificant." So we have 13 criteria tested and 12 that are "insignificant." I will address the specific significant criteria when I discuss the details, but the point here is that because the data is so small, the results are meaningless. We expect variation between any two sets of observations, even (or especially) when they are controlled by chance. Further we know a placebo effect exists and we expect the placebo results to be higher than the non placebo results. So these results reflect what we expect to occur if this substance had no real impact on physiology.


2. The other thing we know, is the products of electrolysis of salt water. This is a very old experiment that is also carried out in schools across the world. Wikipedia shows that this experiment was first carried out in 1800. On the assumption that you're using non-reactive electrodes (otherwise the Asea would be contaminated and you'd need to include more ingredients) then the products of salt water electrolysis are H2 gas, Cl2 gas, and NaOH. Therefore the claim that the final ingredients can't be quantified is clearly false - we've known what the chemicals produced by this process are for literally centuries. We know that they don't improve physiology. In fact Cl2 and NaOH are toxic in moderate to high concentrations. So our knowledge of high school chemistry shows that the process produces nothing useful (for improving our physiology), which is consistent with the white paper results.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 10 Jan 2011 03:06

Here's an interesting paper that has just been published in an actual scientific peer reviewed journal that found the exact opposite of the theory being claimed here - they found that slowing down mitochondrial activity in Caenorhabditis elegans (a nematode worm) increased life span. Of course they did it through genetic technologies, rather than just using salt water.

http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867410014340

User avatar
Swizzle
BSOS Beast
Posts: 395
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 18:03
Location: St. Louis, MO, usa

Post by Swizzle » 15 Jan 2011 19:42

So what we have learned is Jeremy is good friend to have.

- Jeremy should I do this?
(two hours later)

- No and here's why.

- 8O


edit: "this" is referring to anything - specifically not the situation above
Cory Allen
My Footblog

User avatar
Iron Clad Ben
Superior Precision Bionics
Posts: 2522
Joined: 08 Jan 2006 19:11
Location: La Habra, CA
Contact:

Post by Iron Clad Ben » 21 Jan 2011 12:39

Great read. Thanks Jeremy. Sorry Greg.

MathieuGM
Fearless
Posts: 681
Joined: 11 Jul 2008 18:09
Location: Montréal

Post by MathieuGM » 23 Jan 2011 14:54

Hey Greg. I was doing some research about it on internet, and the price seem to be pretty high? How much do you pay for every bottle?

Mat

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 25 Jan 2011 10:12

no need to be sorry, ben. :) this discussion is not yet over.

the following is a response to jeremy's initial post from my brother, Mark Raymond:
Hello Jeremy. I am sorry to take so long to respond. Greg notified me that you were interested in more information regarding Redox Signaling. Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed opinion from what Greg had presented.

I will begin a discussion touching on some of your questions that you brought up in your response.

"New Science" refers to the last 10 years in which scientific studies have been ongoing at every major university in North America to understand the cellular process in the both disease and healing. "New Science" can refer to a long time frame as in the past we promoted high levels of dietary fiber long before the science of fiber was well understood and accepted by Health Canada. We went through the same phase with essential fatty acids long before Vitamin F was accepted as a necessary ingredient to human health. Redox Signaling will continue to be a hot topic for those who are on the cutting edge of science and want to bring the truly great products to market before they are accepted as other main stream nutraceutical products have been before them.

The disease process revolves around understanding oxidative stress and the damage that is caused in our bodies when signaling molecules are out of balance. The healing process revolves around understanding our bodies mechanisms for protecting, repairing and replacing damaged cells. "Peak athletic performance" is complex and involves diet, exercise, rest and our bodies ability to heal and repair.

I do agree with you that the videos contain a lot of grade 8 fluff, but for a lot of people in todays fast paced society that is all that is required for someone to try a product or ask for more information.

I wish you would have asked for more information as the product, ASEA is NOT an anti-oxidant supplement. ASEA is a redox signaling product. It contains a balanced set of 8 reductants and 8 oxidants as found in every healthy cell in our bodies. The particle size is very tiny ( measured in nanometers ). The absorption of these tiny signaling molecules occurs on the skin surface, in the mouth through the sublingual glands, and best on an empty stomach as the signaling molecules do not need to be digested and rapidly pass the cell membrane in a similar fashion to how alcohol is quickly absorbed into the blood stream.

There are thousands of published scientific studies in accredited journals over the past 10 years that explore, hypothesize and demonstrate the effects of redox signaling in disease and health. What interested me in the article that Greg had linked in his original post was that these scientists from Radiation Oncology from the University of Iowa, USA had put forth a paper that "hypothesized that reestablishing the redox control of the cell cycle by manipulating the cellular redox environment could improve many aspects of the proliferative disorders" ( cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, lung & liver fibrosis, neurodegenerative disease... ). As you take the time to read through the paper all of these disorders take place in the body when our cells are out of balance in a state of "oxidative stress". When our cells are out of balance we degenerate as our natural healing process cannot work properly. This paper acted as a third party validation that unbalanced cells lead to disease in the body.

As most of the research in the above paper predated ASEA, they didn't have a product to test their hypothesis. We do! I needed to understand why when I took this product that I had extreme mental clarity, my energy levels increased, I dealt with stress better, several minor skin issues cleared up, the inflammation in my left knee (from a trampoline accident when I was younger) "went away" and I was able to exercise properly for the first time in over 5 years without my knee swelling up.

I don't need double blind placebo studies to show me that a product works. These types of studies are both expensive and time consuming. I work with clients who have already experienced terrific health benefits from using ASEA.

If I would have waited until this study below was done I would have lost over 20 years of helping clients with essential fatty acids. I didn't need the double blind study. I followed the research and made a decision based on the research and I am glad that I did! My favourite part about my job is knowing that someone was able to overcome their health challenge. I am sure that you have more questions and look forward to your response.

Mark


Omega-3 Supplementation in Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

29 June 2009

Reference:

Omega-3 Fatty Acid Treatment of Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder : A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Belanger, SA et al., Paediatr. Child Health , 14 : 89-98 , 2009

Dept. of Pediatrics , Research Ctr., CHU Ste-Justine ; Dept. of Nutrition, Univ. of Montreal; Dept. of Epidemiology, McGill Univ., Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Summary:

The purpose of the present clinical trial was to investigate the potential efficacy of supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids (as EPA plus DHA) on the core symptoms of French Canadian children with ADHD. Some but not all past trials in children with ADHD have indicated improvement in some symptoms with omega-3 supplementation. The present study also included blood plasma monitoring of the fatty acid, incl. omega-3 PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid ) , status of the children.

The children (average age of 9.2 yrs) were assigned to receive a placebo supplement or supplemental EPA/DHA (ratio of 2.5/1) daily which provided a total intake (EPA plus DHA) ranging from 700 mg (for lighter children) and up to 1400 mg (for heavier children) over a 8-week period. After this period, the placebo group was transferred to omega-3 supplementation for 8 weeks while the omega-3 (n-3) group stayed on omega-3 supplementation for an additional 8 weeks. A total of 26 children completed the 16 week study. Clinical measures of ADHD symptoms were assessed throughout via Conners’ questionnaires and other parameters.

Following 8 weeks of supplementation, the average levels of EPA plus DHA in the blood samples were 2.5 times higher in the children supplemented with omega-3 as compared to those receiving the placebo capsules. The results from the Conner’s questionnaire (parent version) showed a modest but statistically-significant improvement in some subscales at 8 weeks in the omega-3 group relative to the placebo (control) group. An overall 7-9 % improvement (relative to initial measures) was found for hyperactivity and hyperactive-impulsivity with omega-3 but not with placebo. Other measured parameters (incl. social problems, anxious-shyness, psychosomatic) did not show differences between the omega-3 and placebo groups.

The authors concluded that ‘a subgroup of children with ADHD maintain and achieve symptom control using dietary supplementation with n-3 PUFA ‘. They indicated also that their study supported the safety and tolerability of n-3 administration.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 26 Jan 2011 07:31

2. The other thing we know, is the products of electrolysis of salt water. This is a very old experiment that is also carried out in schools across the world. Wikipedia shows that this experiment was first carried out in 1800. On the assumption that you're using non-reactive electrodes (otherwise the Asea would be contaminated and you'd need to include more ingredients) then the products of salt water electrolysis are H2 gas, Cl2 gas, and NaOH. Therefore the claim that the final ingredients can't be quantified is clearly false - we've known what the chemicals produced by this process are for literally centuries.
The good thing is, you don't need to make assumptions! I have provided the patent for you to read.
When I posted about this on facebook, people thought it was hoax or a joke.
Please refrain from using frivolous statements like this, it does not add anything constructive to the conversation.
Here's an interesting paper that has just been published in an actual scientific peer reviewed journal that found the exact opposite of the theory being claimed here - they found that slowing down mitochondrial activity in Caenorhabditis elegans (a nematode worm) increased life span. Of course they did it through genetic technologies, rather than just using salt water.

http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867410014340
Redox signalling is not about accelerating mitochondrial activity--it is about maintaining balance of reactive oxygen species & reduced species inside the cell.
Hey Greg. I was doing some research about it on internet, and the price seem to be pretty high? How much do you pay for every bottle?

Mat
The price is $45 for a 32oz bottle, that is retail. The multi level marketing program allows you to purchase your product wholesale, however, & we are developing a program through which you can essentially get your product for free utilizing their commission structure.
The company marketing the product is a pyramid scheme marketer, and should be viewed with scepticism accordingly.
Here's an analogy I hope you folks can appreciate:

Calling a "Multi-Level Marketing Program" a "Pyramid Scheme", is like calling "Freestyle Footbag" by "Hacky Sack".

Wikipedia:

"A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment, services or ideals, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme or training them to take part, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public. Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud.[1][2]"

While a pyramid scheme has a similar structure to a multi-level marketing program, it is an entirely different beast, because a multi-level marketing program is built upon sound commerce & distribution of products & services.

There is nothing to fear from multi-level marketing, so long as you educate yourself accordingly about how the program works. Obviously we would never want someone to take part financially in a program which they do not understand.

The real power of MLM is that the distribution of the product is put into the hands of the people, as opposed to controlled from the top-down in a typical corporate structure. With a product of a humanitarian nature such as ASEA, utilizing the power of grass roots marketing has the potential to help a lot more people than if the rights to this product were purchased by a pharmaceutical company & taken off the shelves / rigorously controlled.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 28 Jan 2011 11:26

abstract wrote: The good thing is, you don't need to make assumptions! I have provided the patent for you to read.
I've read the patent and encourage other people to as well. It says nothing about the ingredients being unable to be listed correctly. They are just the elements you'd expect to find from sodium, chloride and water. It's interesting that the patent talks so much about the antibacterial properties produced, and that this is a cheaper way of producing antibacterial products, because, as it mentions, one of the main products is HCL, which is an industrial cleaner. I'm sure ingesting that would be good for you.
Please refrain from using frivolous statements like this, it does not add anything constructive to the conversation.
You're trying to sell people salt water, claiming that it's good for them...

Redox signalling is not about accelerating mitochondrial activity--it is about maintaining balance of reactive oxygen species & reduced species inside the cell.
WTF are you talking about? Oxygen isn't alive. It doesn't come in "species." You still haven't provided any evidence as to what the correct balance is, or how this product provides that balance. Even your pseudoscience papers failed to explain the connection between this specific product and the physiological impacts that you're claiming. Your statement now makes no sense. Surely the purpose of changing the balance would be to improve the function of mitochondria. Otherwise what is it? How does improving this balance help people's health? This is just ignorant gibberish.
With a product of a humanitarian nature such as ASEA, utilizing the power of grass roots marketing has the potential to help a lot more people than if the rights to this product were purchased by a pharmaceutical company & taken off the shelves / rigorously controlled.
In what way is this a "humanitarian" product? Aren't you just using corporate weasel words? It's salt water, and you're selling it in an effort to make money for yourself, not save children in the third world. It's just like selling Amway.

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 28 Jan 2011 15:06

Jeremy, I understand that your anger comes from a place that wishes to protect people. I can empathize with this.

I believe you may have missed my brother's response to your initial post, scroll up if this is the case.
WTF are you talking about? Oxygen isn't alive. It doesn't come in "species."
Please perform a Google search for "Reactive Oxygen Species".

As an additional entertaining exercise, try a Google search for "Redox Signalling", then add any single disorder on the planet to the search.

Here is one for "Heart Disease":

http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/conten ... a;44/3/248

"Parkinson's":

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10 ... 2005.7.685

"Cancer":

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10 ... 006.8.1249

"Obesity":

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v10/n ... 2131a.html

It goes on & on. There is a staggering amount of research taking place right now into how redox signalling affects every disorder we face, because we are talking about the cell's internal process for maintaining a healthy state.
You still haven't provided any evidence as to what the correct balance is, or how this product provides that balance.
Please read my brother's response, further up this page.

There are accredited doctors, nutritionists & scientific researchers that all support the validity of this product as delivering on its promises.

http://www.teamasea.com/council.aspx

To which I must ask, Jeremy, what are your credentials? Don't get me wrong, I am happy that you are challenging this product so that we may resolve any reservations.

Like I mentioned earlier, your stance with respect to protecting this community is admirable. Please know that I am a part of this community as well & I will never recommend something that I believe to be dangerous. The product has been proven to have zero toxicity & is comprised of the elements already existing inside your cell structure.

http://www.teamasea.com/pdf/Safety.pdf

Just recently, Asea received its Athletic Certification:

http://optimizecellularhealth.com/wp-co ... esting.pdf

There are literally ENDLESS testimonials being generated on a daily basis regarding the success stories of Asea.

http://athletics.redoxscience.com/2010/ ... etes-call/

http://www.teamreactive.com/testimonial ... timonials/

http://www.teamreactive.com/training/#audio-files

I'll be happy to provide further thoughts, information & responses for anybody interested.
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
dp
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1222
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 16:25
Location: ohio

Post by dp » 28 Jan 2011 21:28

Back off Jeremy. Redox Signalling is the Medical way of the future.

I feel kinda like a jerk but I can't endorse ASEA. It's just too expensive. That's why I've decided to sell my own redox signalling molecule oxygen specy to help oxidize the redoxs.

Instead of 45 dollars for 32oz. why not 15 dollars for a similar amount? Here's what you get with your order.

Image

My operation is completely transparent, you can see in teh picture ACTUAL ELECTRICITY being shot into the product.

Just PM me for orders.
Danny P.

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 31 Jan 2011 07:59

nice ) best of luck, good sir. don't forget to get your results tested for reactive molecular content. ;)

http://aseapro.teamasea.com/pdf/Reactiv ... cation.pdf

as more testing comes in, your faith will grow. or it won't, it is always your choice as a consumer. i'm not worried if you are not interested in buying the product, i'm more interested in sharing this information with a community of people that i care about.

my good friend Schopenhauer would like to remind you that:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

as mentioned previously, this is a very new product. developing these intensive studies is very time consuming, but it is happening.

this month alone, there were 120 new studies published regarding the benefits of RS in health & disease, each representing at least 3 months of research.
In fact in that experiment they've helpfully calculated the probabilities of their results occurring by random chance. Of their 13 measurements, 9 are so similar they didn't provide p values, but are presumably insignificant differences. Of the 3 that they did provide we have p values of 0.34, 0.08, and 0.006. In science a p value greater than 0.05 is considered "insignificant." So we have 13 criteria tested and 12 that are "insignificant."
thanks for telling us all exactly what is written in the report--
I will address the specific significant criteria when I discuss the details, but the point here is that because the data is so small, the results are meaningless.
here's the thing, the entire above sequence is an attempt at argument via omission, as you do not discuss the 13th criteria, which is the entire basis for the report.

you can't talk about your own perceived ( key word here ) negative connotations of the report, then turn around & say, "because the sample is so small, the positive test results are meaningless". you have set up a double standard in order to solidify your argument, that is all.

the 13th criteria is dealing with VO2Max testing, which had incredibly stable results in the test. regardless, you will sidestep this with an argument about sample size. but i wanted to clear up this argumentative misconception.

here is an independent review from Road Bike Action Magazine:

http://athletics.redoxscience.com/wp-co ... ly2010.pdf
Recently Richard Cunningham, Technical Editor for Road Bike Action Magazine agreed to conduct his own independent, unpaid review of ASEA with the conditions that if his results were not favorable he would publish those results.
in the article, his response to the VO2Max testing report is this:
“So, the ASEA folks spent some bucks for some independent tests on endurance athletes and discovered that athletes, on average, could push 10 percent longer at their maximum thresholds with high results in the 30-percent range and lows around 7 percent. After testing this stuff for three months, I’d have to agree with them. We could pedal harder and longer and recover from repeated, 100-percent efforts in ridiculously short intervals. The word “recoveryâ€
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 31 Jan 2011 15:55

abstract wrote:nice ) best of luck, good sir. don't forget to get your results tested for reactive molecular content. ;)

http://aseapro.teamasea.com/pdf/Reactiv ... cation.pdf
But the question is, where is your evidence that those molecules in the water find their way in to cells and improve them in any way?
as more testing comes in, your faith will grow. or it won't, it is always your choice as a consumer. i'm not worried if you are not interested in buying the product, i'm more interested in sharing this information with a community of people that i care about.
It looks awfully like you want to exploit a community you "love" by selling them salty water in order to make money to me.
my good friend Schopenhauer would like to remind you that:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I prefer David O'Briain;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8[/youtube]
as mentioned previously, this is a very new product. developing these intensive studies is very time consuming, but it is happening.
But how do you know what those future studies will find? You're already convinced it works without the evidence!!
this month alone, there were 120 new studies published regarding the benefits of RS in health & disease, each representing at least 3 months of research.
Nobody is denying that redox signalling exists. What is being disputed is that drinking electrolysed salt water will somehow cure every disease known, improve your fitness and make you look younger.
In fact in that experiment they've helpfully calculated the probabilities of their results occurring by random chance. Of their 13 measurements, 9 are so similar they didn't provide p values, but are presumably insignificant differences. Of the 3 that they did provide we have p values of 0.34, 0.08, and 0.006. In science a p value greater than 0.05 is considered "insignificant." So we have 13 criteria tested and 12 that are "insignificant."
thanks for telling us all exactly what is written in the report--
I will address the specific significant criteria when I discuss the details, but the point here is that because the data is so small, the results are meaningless.
here's the thing, the entire above sequence is an attempt at argument via omission, as you do not discuss the 13th criteria, which is the entire basis for the report.
The point being made, and I'm sorry you couldn't understand it, is that statistically the odds of getting one out of 13 statistically significant results when statistically significant is defined as 1 in 20 is pretty high just by random chance.
you can't talk about your own perceived ( key word here ) negative connotations of the report, then turn around & say, "because the sample is so small, the positive test results are meaningless". you have set up a double standard in order to solidify your argument, that is all.

the 13th criteria is dealing with VO2Max testing, which had incredibly stable results in the test. regardless, you will sidestep this with an argument about sample size. but i wanted to clear up this argumentative misconception.
Where is your evidence that the results were "incredibly stable?" The sample size is small, and we have no evidence that the study predicted that just that result would be significant. As far as we can see it was a fishing trip where a bunch of different measurements were taken, and as you would expect by random chance, one turned out to be "significant." The odds of this happening by random chance are well above 50% because we had so many different measurements. It hasn't been repeated in a large trial, we have no control, it hasn't been published in a reputable journal. In fact it exactly fits the definition of the fraudulent "science" that R. Bausell talks about in his excellent book Snake Oil Science.
here is an independent review from Road Bike Action Magazine:

http://athletics.redoxscience.com/wp-co ... ly2010.pdf
Recently Richard Cunningham, Technical Editor for Road Bike Action Magazine agreed to conduct his own independent, unpaid review of ASEA with the conditions that if his results were not favorable he would publish those results.
in the article, his response to the VO2Max testing report is this:
“So, the ASEA folks spent some bucks for some independent tests on endurance athletes and discovered that athletes, on average, could push 10 percent longer at their maximum thresholds with high results in the 30-percent range and lows around 7 percent. After testing this stuff for three months, I’d have to agree with them. We could pedal harder and longer and recover from repeated, 100-percent efforts in ridiculously short intervals. The word “recoveryâ€

User avatar
C-Fan
Rekordy Polski
Posts: 11201
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 23:51
Location: Denver
Contact:

Post by C-Fan » 08 Apr 2011 11:31

Danny Petrick wrote:Back off Jeremy. Redox Signalling is the Medical way of the future.

I feel kinda like a jerk but I can't endorse ASEA. It's just too expensive. That's why I've decided to sell my own redox signalling molecule oxygen specy to help oxidize the redoxs.

Instead of 45 dollars for 32oz. why not 15 dollars for a similar amount? Here's what you get with your order.

Image

My operation is completely transparent, you can see in teh picture ACTUAL ELECTRICITY being shot into the product.

Just PM me for orders.
Are you still taking orders Danny?

User avatar
abstract
Fearless
Posts: 722
Joined: 17 Mar 2004 12:47
Location: kingston

Post by abstract » 27 Apr 2011 06:14

heya, i've been a bit aggressive in these conversations in the past. everyone is fully entitled to their opinion & choice, & healthy skepticism is good.

i don't want to bombard folks with material, so i'll drop by every once in a while to leave a few links.

* * *

Foster Malmed, chiropractor at Putnam Hospital in NY who has been using Asea with 26 of his patients: http://www.fostermalmed.com/uncategoriz ... a-results/

Steve Ilg on training with Asea: http://on.fb.me/g4CEbI

Oona Mourier on RS & radiation: http://www.teamreactive.com/docs/Radiat ... %20PhD.pdf
greg raymond, kingston

FB: Rocker Holliday

"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey

Post Reply