Redox Signalling - Asea - Discussion

The exercises & techniques to keep your body healthy for footbag.
User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 17 May 2011 20:50

Here's a pretty comprehensive debunking of this product (and similar, since it turns out there are literally hundreds of similar products available).

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html

I'm sure everybody is still looking forward to the first peer reviewed control experiment involving this substance.

User avatar
C-Fan
Rekordy Polski
Posts: 11366
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 23:51
Location: Denver
Contact:

Post by C-Fan » 18 May 2011 06:45

That's a very good article; I encourage everybody to read it.

I still like Danny Petrick's post the most though.

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

Post by Jeremy » 18 May 2011 16:52

This list of pseudoscientific water products was pretty impressive too;

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/gallery.html

User avatar
KRyan
Shredalicious
Posts: 88
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:33
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by KRyan » 19 May 2011 18:52

Unfortunately I have to agree with Jeremy on this one. :wink:
ROS are part of intracellular signalling and yes they are thought to
increase kinase activity, i.e - ERK, JNK etc, and decrease phosphatase
activity via signalling pathways.
ROS signalling in skeletal muscle, at least, has only been researched
enough to illustrate potential sources of ROS.

S.K. Powers et al. Exp. Physiol. 95, 2010
(can't be bothered linking it sorry)

But even so, ROS is part of an intricate and very complex signalling
pathway that diverges and compounds its information to cause an affect. To claim that ROS alone could provide a substantial difference seems a bit of a stretch.
Furthermore, the actual degree of contribution of the many intracellular
signalling agents is relatively unknown. Without a larger sample and more power, the ASEA product really can't be proven to be beneficial for exercise, preventing diseases etc at this present time.
Foster Malmed, chiropractor at Putnam Hospital in NY who has been using Asea with 26 of his patients
I hate to say this but with such a small sample, the data has to be much more significant. 26 is no where near enough, you got to be looking at thousands to be conclusive.
You've got a hundred years to live, but probably not footbag. Better get Shredding!

User avatar
C-Fan
Rekordy Polski
Posts: 11366
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 23:51
Location: Denver
Contact:

Post by C-Fan » 20 May 2011 12:05

That doctor has a pretty unique name, so I googled him. Half the hits are ads for ASEA, and the guy's own website is over half dedicated to singing the praises of ASEA. It's straight advertising copy. My favorite lead-in for one of his advertisement posts starts: "I've been informed that the FTC won't let me make claims about ASEA..." before going into the advertisting boilerplate. If that's not a red flag I don't know what is.

If one of the sources cited to legitimize this product is this doctor, who is clearly a quack, then I'm far from convinced.

User avatar
Zac Miley
Post Master General
Posts: 5953
Joined: 04 Jun 2006 12:11
Location: Kansas City, MO
Contact:

Post by Zac Miley » 20 May 2011 16:55

I wonder if Honza drinks Hunza water
Jay (8:06:01 PM): Bu-bu-buu-buug--Looks up, and the feeling goes away like a sneeze-bu-buuuh-BULLLSHITTT
Jay (8:06:14 PM): *wipes bellybutton*

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

Post by Jeremy » 22 May 2011 15:15

Thanks Ryan.

I think the main evidence against this product is the fact that it's just made up from electrolysed salt water, and that the products it contains are hypochlorous acid (used as disinfectant) and laundry bleach.

In general, if somebody came up to you and tried to sell you product of dilute disinfectant and bleach, and said it would make you perform better at sport, improve your health, reverse the aging process etc. I'm sure we'd all be very sceptical. It's only because the ingredients and the end products are so well hidden that this isn't the case. Note that in none of the literature provided in favour of this product are the ingredients discussed, except in the patent for the machine that produces the material, which only claims the machine is good for producing those chemicals, without any mention of consumption or health benefits. Clearly the marketers are aware that they have a much harder sell if they're saying; "this is just salt water that we've turned in to disinfectant and bleach" and so they're avoiding any mention of it, and are just talking about "redox signalling molecules."

Of course this means that there's no evidence presented attempting to link the specific chemicals present in the water to any health benefits. The actual link between "redox signalling molecules" and the product is entirely ignored. Even if drinking dilute disinfectant and bleach did improve your health, what evidence is there that this benefit has anything to do with any part of any biological redox processes?

Attacking "big pharma" is a popular past time, and perhaps in many cases justified as well. If you read through the literature for this product, and especially look at the comments, many people are making that same justification. And yet "big pharama" is forced to spend millions of dollars on each product rigorously testing it and demonstrating that it works without serious side effects. It typically takes years from the first development of a product until it's commercially available. Although sometimes the science can be wrong or misleading, the process is transparent enough that if you take any "big pharama" product, you can find some kind of "justifying" science published, usually in peer-review literature.

For alternative "medicines" there often aren't any of these kinds of regulations or expectations. Here we have dilute chemicals that we know can cause serious harm if consumed when concentrated being sold as a health remedy with no scientific evidence being presented that they actually provide a health benefit. We're even told that this is "new science" and that much of the testing hasn't been done yet.

Do you really want to pay money to drink bleach and disinfectant when there isn't even evidence to show it will help any aspect of your life?

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

Post by abstract » 06 Jun 2011 10:51

i have edited the title of the original post to change this to a discussion, as i wouldn't want anyone to use something they are not comfortable with, & it's clear that as a whole on this forum there is no comfortability with the science currently available.

jeremy's link at the top of this page is a great read, but asea does not claim to be an ionized water product. it does not claim to be a low-pH or high-pH product, it claims to be a pH-7 balanced product.

that does not change the fact that you are correct in the assertion that there are no peer reviewed articles at this time which support asea's claims--there is only anecdotal evidence via testimonial at this time.
KRyan wrote:Unfortunately I have to agree with Jeremy on this one.
ROS are part of intracellular signalling and yes they are thought to
increase kinase activity, i.e - ERK, JNK etc, and decrease phosphatase
activity via signalling pathways.
ROS signalling in skeletal muscle, at least, has only been researched
enough to illustrate potential sources of ROS.

S.K. Powers et al. Exp. Physiol. 95, 2010
(can't be bothered linking it sorry)

But even so, ROS is part of an intricate and very complex signalling
pathway that diverges and compounds its information to cause an affect. To claim that ROS alone could provide a substantial difference seems a bit of a stretch.

Furthermore, the actual degree of contribution of the many intracellular
signalling agents is relatively unknown. Without a larger sample and more power, the ASEA product really can't be proven to be beneficial for exercise, preventing diseases etc at this present time.
thank you, Ryan, for bringing the discussion to the science of ROS. i would like to read the information you quoted in more detail at some point, if you can find a source. i could not find it online.

the reason why i provided the research article in the first post, is because it best represents, in a peer reviewed paper, what Asea is claiming to be capable of--without any reference to the product. there is a wealth of reference material at the end of that article which explores the effects of these signalling molecules in everything from wound healing to cancer to diabetes. you will find that, what is perceived to be relatively unknown by your quoted material, is being explored further every day by research groups across the planet. this body of on-going research is what i refer to when i discuss in terms of "new science". you will find research pertaining to ROS / RS most frequently in groups which are focused on free radical cellular processes.

for ken, here is an interview regarding the FDA's process: http://www.naturalnews.com/011401.html

we must comprehend the system which products go through in order to be able to "attach claims" to them. people feel like they need an FDA tag to be able to trust a product, but the fact is that the FDA has broken the trust of the people on many occasions by allowing very dangerous products to go to market. as a result, many products that go to market do not go through the FDA's process, but this does not change the nature of whether the product is of quality or not.

what malmed is saying on his site, is that the product is not FDA approved, so he cannot "make claims" regarding to the "treatment" of specific "illnesses". i would take a look at his testimonial section & re-read his statements, because he is not "spewing boilerplate", he is dancing around FDA regulation to be able to speak about his experiences with the product.

however, ken brings up something that i, too, have a big problem with regarding asea--which is the MLM structure. the problem is that once someone becomes convinced that the product provides some benefit, they become a distributor for the company & are grouped into being "one of those guys" due to providing advertising for the parent company.

i want to be clear that i have no interest in being "one of those guys", i have a genuine goal of helping people. i have not sold a single bottle of this product myself yet, i have only provided product for free to select individuals motivated to test. i will continue to follow the research as it is presented & provide more information here.

for jeremy, hypochlorous acid itself is not a bleach / disinfectant, it only is when bound with sodium or calcium. the form claimed to be used in this product is HOCl, without Na bound to it.

HOCl is generated inside neutrophils ( white blood cells ), & contributes to the destruction of bacteria.

source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/176150
source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/217834
source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6264434
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 » 06 Jun 2011 15:40

1. If you read the article about ionised water, you'll see that it's produced in the same manner as this product. Indeed the article at one point specifically talks about electrolysed salt water. Are you really claiming that criticisms of electrolysed salt water don't apply to your product of electrolysed salt water?

2. Here's the abstracts of your "sources."
Source 1 wrote:Two methods were utilized to demonstrate the peroxidation of chloride ion to a free species (HOCl or Cl2) by myeloperoxidase. The peroxidase caused the volatilization of radioactivity from soultions containing hydrogen peroxide and [36Cl]NaCl, and catalyzed the formation of HOCl when solutions contianing these components were passed through a Millipore filter to which the peroxidase was adsorbed. In this flow system, 90 mug of canine myeloperoxidase generated 80 muM HOCl in the presence of 200 muM H2O2 at a rate corresponding to a turnover of 100 min-1. Under these conditions, o-tolidine, whose oxidation can be coupled to Cl- peroxidation in free solution, did not accelerate turnover. In contrast to chloroperoxidase and horseradish peroxidase, myeloperoxidase does not utilize chlorite for chlorination reactions. This oxidant inactivates the enzyme. At low pH, chloride ion suppresses the oxidation of myeloperoxidase (to the stable compound II) by both hydrogen peroxide and hypochlorite. Acceptor chlorination is therefore not a rate-controlling reaction in the myeloperoxidase mechanism, and the potential of the functional peroxidase couple is higher than the HOCl/Cl- couple under chlorinating conditions. The product-forming step may be a reverse of compound I formation at the expense of HOCl, rather than the chlorination of Cl- by a chloroperoxidase-like chlorinating intermediate.
source2 wrote:n the presence of Escherichia coli, myeloperoxidase-catalyzed oxidation of chloride ion resulted in formation of long-lived chloramine and/or chloramide derivatives of bacterial components. The same amount of these nitrogen-chlorine (N-Cl) derivatives was obtained with either hypochlorous acid (HOCl) or the myeloperoxidase system, indicating that myeloperoxidase catalyzed the oxidation of chloride to HOCl. Identical killing was obtained with HOCl or the myeloperoxidase system. About 30 to 50% of the oxidizing equivalents of HOCl were detected as N-Cl derivatives of peptides or peptide fragments that were released from the bacteria. The apparent molecular weight distribution of the peptides decreased with increasing amounts of HOCl, suggesting that peptides were fragmented by oxidative cleavage of chloramide derivatives of peptide bonds. The remaining 50 to 70% of the oxidizing equivalents of HOCl were rapidly consumed in peptide bond cleavage or the oxidation of other bacterial components. There was a close correspondence between the oxidation of bacterial sulfhydryls and bactericidal action. The N-Cl derivatives were lost and the oxidation of bacterial sulfhydryls increased over a period of several h at 37 degrees C. These changes were accompanied by increased killing. The increase in sulfhydryl oxidation and killing could be prevented by washing the bacteria to remove the N-Cl derivatives. Therefore, the N-Cl derivatives could oxidize bacterial components long after the myeloperoxidase-catalyzed oxidation of chloride was complete.
Source 3 wrote:Oxidative degradation of biological substrates by hypochlorous acid has been examined under reaction conditions similar to those found in active phagosomes. Iron sulfur proteins are bleached extremely rapidly, followed in decreasing order by beta-carotene, nucleotides, porphyrins, and heme proteins. Enzymes containing essential cysteine molecules are inactivated with an effectiveness that roughly parallels the nucleophilic reactivities of their sulfhydryl groups. Other compounds, including glucosamines, quinones, riboflavin, and, except for N-chlorination, phospholipids, are unreactive. Rapid irreversible oxidation of cytochromes, adenine nucleotides, and carotene pigments occurs when bacterial cells are exposed to exogenous hypochlorous acid; with Escherichia coli, titrimetric oxidation of cytochrome was found to coincide with loss of aerobic respiration. The occurrence of these cellular reactions implicates hypochlorous acid as a primary microbicide in myeloperoxidase-containing leukocytes; the reactivity patterns observed are consistent with the view that bactericidal action results primarily from loss of energy-linked respiration due to destruction of cellular electron transport chains and the adenine nucleotide pool.
It would be great if you could explain how the first one relates to your claims at all. It looks to me like you just picked a random bunch of papers you didn't understand, that contained some googled key word, and posted them as "sources" so you can pretend to have some kind of credibility. If you don't want to be "that guy" trying to make money profiting from selling a dodgy product, at least try to demonstrate some degree of integrity. It would also be great if you could explain how something can not be a "disinfectant" but also be a substance that kills bacteria. Wouldn't you agree that an acceptable definition of "disinfectant" is something that kills bacteria?

Finally I agree that hypochlorous acid is found in cells, and our bodies. But the same can be said for hundreds of potentially poisonous and toxic substances. We also have small amounts of arsenic, cyanide, and ammonia in our bodies. If you're suggesting that because it's found in us, that ingesting more of it will improve our health, I'll be convinced when you test that out with those substances. I'd love to see any evidence that our levels of hypochlorous acid are lower than ideal and ingesting more of it will make us healthier. The only evidence you've presented doesn't contradict my statement at all, and supports the fact that it's a disinfectant.

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

Post by Jeremy » 06 Jun 2011 15:59

abstract wrote: for jeremy, hypochlorous acid itself is not a bleach / disinfectant, it only is when bound with sodium or calcium. the form claimed to be used in this product is HOCl, without Na bound to it.

HOCl is generated inside neutrophils ( white blood cells ), & contributes to the destruction of bacteria.
I can only find one source on the internet of the existence of NaHOCl. That source is hardly credible;

http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/ ... 22299.shtm

However it claims that NaHOCl reacts with water to produce NaOH and HOCl, which is not consistent with your claims.

I would love to see your source that HOCl is bound to sodium in bleach (as opposed to, say, NaClO). I also find this claim interesting because surely you'd agree that your product is in solution, and so surely if there is an ionic bond between sodium and something else, the bounds will break and you'll have sodium ions and some other ions. So NaHOCl solution would contain separate Na ions and HOCl ions. Your product is made from H2O and NaCl. Surely therefore there are free Na ions, and you've admitted free HOCl. What exactly are you claiming? How much normal (non naturopathic) chemistry have you studied?

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

Post by Jeremy » 06 Jun 2011 16:12

abstract wrote:it's clear that as a whole on this forum there is no comfortability with the science currently available.
It's nothing to do with being comfortable with the science, but rather, the fact that you haven't presented any actual science that supports your claims. When you can provide a double blind placebo controlled peer reviewed study with over 25 participants and a recorded drop out rate, published in a high quality journal, that shows that this product improves any aspect of people's lives, or you can provide evidence for why the particular chemical composition for this product would be theoretically beneficial - as opposed to the same thing with more salt, or less salt, or longer electrolysis, or shorter electrolysis, then there will be some science for people to be comfortable or uncomfortable with. At the moment you haven't offered us any actual science that is actually evidence that this product works.

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

Post by abstract » 07 Jun 2011 11:29

It would be great if you could explain how the first one relates to your claims at all.
a few terms to comprehend with respect to the first abstract:

peroxidation, which is the act of oxidative stress / free radical damage, usually described with respect to the substance which is being oxidized.

myeloperoxidase, which is a peroxidase enzyme located within neutrophils ( white blood cells ).

the first sentence of the abstract is the most important:

"Two methods were utilized to demonstrate the peroxidation of chloride ion to a free species (HOCl or Cl2) by myeloperoxidase."

basically, the first link supports the concept that hypochlorous acid is created within our bodies via the myeloperoxidase enzyme in our white blood cells.

the following links support the concept that hypochlorous acid contributes to the elimination of bacteria within the body. From the 3rd abstract:

"The occurrence of these cellular reactions implicates hypochlorous acid as a primary microbicide in myeloperoxidase-containing leukocytes;"
It looks to me like you just picked a random bunch of papers you didn't understand
just becuase you don't understand it, doesn't mean that i don't.
Jeremy wrote:WTF are you talking about? Oxygen isn't alive. It doesn't come in "species."
while this is a few posts back, this is indicative that you didn't even make it through the abstract of the originating article, which i will post again:

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

i would hazard to guess that if people were dosing with 8+ ounces of bleach on a daily basis, they wouldn't be breaking world records. ( James Lawrence ran 22 half-ironman triathlons in 30 weeks on Asea. The previous record was 16 in a year. )

again, this is anecdotal. but how much anecdotal evidence do you require before you begin to question yourself? you'd think if this product was actually a health hazard, there would have been some consumer blowback in its 2 years on the market so far. instead, it is simply a growing mass of anecdotal testimonial that supports the hypothesis of the original article.
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 » 07 Jun 2011 21:47

Your claim wasn't merely that hypochlorous acid is naturally occurring, but that it's different to the hypochlorous acid used in bleach. The sources you've provided are entirely consistent with my position. Nobody has denied that it's naturally occurring. The part of your claims that require sources are the parts that contradict what I'm saying, and in that respect, can you explain how your sources are relevant.

A typical strategy of people peddling pseudoscientific medicine is to use real science as a kind of Trojan Horse to make their claims sound believable. We especially see that in the "Science of ASEA" video, but also in what you're doing now. You're putting forward real science along with pseudoscientific claims. The real science doesn't contradict any of the claims made against this product, and doesn't support the pseudoscientific claims. Instead of using science to bring clarity to the case, you're bringing confusion. The first article is particularly notable in this light. Your interpretation has no bearing on whether or not ASEA works, but not only that, but clearly 99%+ of people reading this topic won't understand it. Somebody who genuinely wants to convince people of their position obviously tries to be as understandable as possible, but if you want to hide a lack of serious content or a logical deficient argument then obfuscation is a common strategy.

Regarding your anecdote.
Firstly you've put forward an obvious exaggeration. ASEA is mainly water, not bleach. It's salt water that's been electrolysed in a limiting manner, so the amount of HCl, HOCl, and other toxic products is probably not present in very meaningful qualities. We also have no evidence of what quantity of these products are ingested, rather than being excreted, but we can imagine that a significant percentage of them are excreted both directly, and indirectly. Therefore to suggest that my position is that people taking ASEA are ingesting 8 or more ounces of bleach every day is clearly a strawman, and not my position. I suspect that the net outcome of this product is minimal - either positive or negative.

Secondly, if you look at any pseudoscientific treatment, you'll find countless pieces of anecdotal evidence supporting the claims. For example there have been a series of experiments in recent years that showed very clearly that you can get the same results from actual acupuncture as from randomly inserted "sham acupuncture" that didn't actually insert anything under the skin, and that these results were completely consistent with the placebo effect. Meta anaylsis of studies on acupuncture shows very clearly that it's just a placebo treatment. However, it's really, really easy to find people offering amazing anecdotal evidence for how well it works.

This is a long video, and not immediately on topic, but actually a great example of what I'm talking about;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYjgeayfYPI[/youtube]

Note how much amazing anecdotal evidence of people being cured of illnesses can be generated by something where we absolutely know that the mechanism is false, and people are just experiencing either a placebo or nothing at all. Another good example is those "power bracelets." Plenty of anecdotes, all actual meaningful evidence says that they're rubbish.

So to answer your question; "how much anecdotal evidence do you require before you begin to question yourself?"

The answer is that I've been questioning myself for this entire debate. All you'd need to present is a single strong scientific study and I'd be convinced that there could be some value to this product. You've framed this question in a manner that distorts my position. You're suggesting that I don't question my position, but of course I do. On the other hand, I don't accept anecdotes as credible evidence, so no matter how many you present, I won't be convinced, because you need to actually link the particular product to real evidence, instead of presenting real evidence that doesn't actually support the value of your particular product.


Finally I'm disappointed that, with your amazing knowledge of chemistry, you haven't responded to my claim that this product must have the same ions in solution as you'd expect from NaHOCl, so there would be no chemical difference, even if NaHOCl is used as bleach, rather than just HOCl.

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

Post by Jeremy » 07 Jun 2011 22:44

It's worth noting though, that all these questions about bleach and chemistry are irrelevant - even if I am wrong on these points, and Greg is right, it has no bearing on whether ASEA works or has any value or not.

The key points are these.

1. There is no scientific evidence linking ASEA to any change in redox signalling.

2. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that ASEA has the ideal amount of these chemicals, compared with what I'd get if I electrolysed salt water myself at home and drunk that.

3. There is no scientific evidence linking ASEA to any improvements in health, or prevention of any ailments.


This lack of evidence means that we have no reason to think ASEA works, but also no reason to think that if it did work, it was working because of anything to do with redox signalling.

Those three key points are what any debate should address, and until robust peer reviewed placebo controlled double blind scientific evidence is presented, it is obviously most reasonable to remain skeptical of the product, especially since it's claiming to improve basically every aspect of people's health, including reversing the aging process. As Carl Sagan says - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," or as Christopher Hitchens says; "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

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

Post by Jeremy » 08 Jun 2011 06:08

I was curious about the claims Greg was making about HOCl, mainly because it's not mentioned in any of the literature he's provided, except for the patent. None of the ASEA websites or literature mention it, or antibacterial effects of ASEA (although the patent does).

It's worth mentioning that I didn't claim that HOCl was bleach, but in fact claimed it was a disinfectant, and said that ASEA contains HOCl and bleach. The bleach I was referring to was NaClO. The patent clearly states that both these chemicals are present in ASEA, as well as Cl2 (toxic), H2O2 (toxic, and used as bleach) and a few other substances.

I didn't actually read the patent to suggest these chemicals were in ASEA originally, but did read about it in this link that I posted before;

http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html

It's interesting that Greg is claiming that this link isn't relevant to ASEA and yet it correctly identifies the substances found in ASEA. It's also interesting that Greg misunderstood my comment about those two substances and then wrote and referenced so much based on that single line, even though it actually has no bearing on whether ASEA works or not.

There's something else I wanted to quote from that article, because it hasn't really been commented on, but seems relevant. Here's Greg first;
I am highly motivated to help anybody interested in this product or program, purely based on the results I have felt from my testing to date.

Our clinic has 20 years of experience in the health industry & we have never seen a product giving results like this.

The commission structure is also very lucrative for anybody looking to build a business, & we can help you in this regard as well. We are working hard to make this program work & you will have support if you choose to learn more.

This is a great opportunity for health, recovery, performance & if you choose, your pocketbook.
Here's that article I posted;
What most of these outfits actually sell are grossly overpriced electrical devices that purport to produce "ionized" and alkaline water by the process of electrolysis. Many of these "water ionizers" appear to have their origins in Japan and Korea, two countries whose populations seem to be particularly susceptible to being taken in by pseudoscientific water-treatment schemes. In North America, distribution of these dubious devices has depended largely on multi-level marketing schemes that enroll science-ignorant dealers to exploit even-more-vulnerable consumers while enabling the manufacturer to maintain a low profile to regulatory agencies such as the FTC.
And here's the ASEA patent Greg posted again;

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

What's it a patent for? Not the actual multi-level marketing scheme product of ASEA that we're being sold, but a "method and apparatus for... electrolyzed saline solution."

Greg says that ASEA doesn't claim to be an ionised water product. While this is true, it uses the same method as ionised water products, and produces water containing ions... The only difference between ASEA and ionised water products is the argument about the mechanism for how spending $45 per 32 oz (for non Americans, that's $45 USD per litre) of electrolysed salt water will benefit your health.

User avatar
C-Fan
Rekordy Polski
Posts: 11366
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 23:51
Location: Denver
Contact:

Post by C-Fan » 13 Jun 2011 11:25

For people who don't want to read through all the words Jeremy wrote in the last three posts, this paragraph sums up his key argument nicely.
Jeremy wrote:A typical strategy of people peddling pseudoscientific medicine is to use real science as a kind of Trojan Horse to make their claims sound believable. We especially see that in the "Science of ASEA" video, but also in what you're doing now. You're putting forward real science along with pseudoscientific claims. The real science doesn't contradict any of the claims made against this product, and doesn't support the pseudoscientific claims. Instead of using science to bring clarity to the case, you're bringing confusion. The first article is particularly notable in this light. Your interpretation has no bearing on whether or not ASEA works, but not only that, but clearly 99%+ of people reading this topic won't understand it. Somebody who genuinely wants to convince people of their position obviously tries to be as understandable as possible, but if you want to hide a lack of serious content or a logical deficient argument then obfuscation is a common strategy.
Unrelated to the above, but in response to the FDA discussion:

I trust the FDA more than I trust anecdotal testimonials for a product that isn't backed up by any peer-reviewed science. Especially if I'm supposed to ingest said product.

User avatar
Dio
BSOS Beast
Posts: 424
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 13:58
Location: Stratford, Ontario

Post by Dio » 23 Jun 2011 19:31

My theory with stuff like this is that you can't knock it 'til you try it. 8) You can argue about the science for eternity but drug science can be highly subjective.

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

Post by Jeremy » 27 Jun 2011 05:21

This isn't a drug, it's normal table salt and water being sold for $45 per 32 oz.

User avatar
KRyan
Shredalicious
Posts: 88
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:33
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by KRyan » 28 Jun 2011 04:44

hmmm, this is quite interesting so far. I have two questions of the product itself. I don't know how extensive they have actually studied it but, as we know high levels of of reactive oxygen species/H202 specifically are precursors to natural degrading enzyme production as was specified before.
peroxidation, which is the act of oxidative stress / free radical damage, usually described with respect to the substance which is being oxidized
However, it doesn't cause oxidative stress, it damages the target cell via oxidation. They damage membranes, proteins and DNA due to free radicals being extremely reactive and usually steal a H atom from the nearest available molecule. Furthermore, free radicals either initiate or accelerate necrosis. They have also been linked to sarcopenia, although probably not a major cause, and are important in muscle degeneration via proteases. They don't promote regeneration in this case, they promote breakdown. This may only be a scientific point of view, i.e - we may not understand what truly is happening, but to me it seems like excess free radicals in the body would be a bad thing either short term or long term.

My two questions are:
Are you sure there are no side effects, like 100% sure, that the body taking up an excess amount of free radicals won't cause cellular damage and affect the regeneration phase of recovery?
Can you guarantee that this product doesn't actually cause any problems later on in life, say around 60 when sarcopenia is generally starting to occur?

I understand that extensive research has been done already but, I feel that without answering these two questions, the possibilities of this product being reliable is seriously compromised.
the reason why i provided the research article in the first post, is because it best represents, in a peer reviewed paper, what Asea is claiming to be capable of--without any reference to the product. there is a wealth of reference material at the end of that article which explores the effects of these signalling molecules in everything from wound healing to cancer to diabetes. you will find that, what is perceived to be relatively unknown by your quoted material, is being explored further every day by research groups across the planet. this body of on-going research is what i refer to when i discuss in terms of "new science". you will find research pertaining to ROS / RS most frequently in groups which are focused on free radical cellular processes.
In case you are wondering where I get my info from, its not from the internet. I am about to finish my degree in physiology and a lot of this stuff has been researched as part of my studies. I am part of this 'new science' study, and have been extensively studying free radical cellular processes. And from a majority of the 'new science' on-going research on ROS, for starters it's not good outside of naturally occuring levels caused by the cellular pathways.

Edit: also I forgot to mention that free radicals are linked to neuronal stress as well, thought you should know :(
You've got a hundred years to live, but probably not footbag. Better get Shredding!

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

Post by abstract » 19 Jan 2012 10:16

i wish i had seen this ( KRyan's ) post 6 months ago, hehe...i had abandoned this thread to the sea of negativity at the time, it was weighing me down.
KRyan wrote:hmmm, this is quite interesting so far. I have two questions of the product itself. I don't know how extensive they have actually studied it but, as we know high levels of of reactive oxygen species/H202 specifically are precursors to natural degrading enzyme production as was specified before. [...] it damages the target cell via oxidation. They damage membranes, proteins and DNA due to free radicals being extremely reactive and usually steal a H atom from the nearest available molecule. Furthermore, free radicals either initiate or accelerate necrosis. They have also been linked to sarcopenia, although probably not a major cause, and are important in muscle degeneration via proteases. They don't promote regeneration in this case, they promote breakdown. This may only be a scientific point of view, i.e - we may not understand what truly is happening, but to me it seems like excess free radicals in the body would be a bad thing either short term or long term.
you may have to correct me, most of my knowledge comes from Gary Samuelson, an atomic & medical physicist who works with the company.

the full relationship, as i understand it, is 3 parts--oxidants, reductants, & antioxidants. ( "reductants" is a moniker used by Samuelson to reference the molecules that are created opposite an oxidant from a neutral solution ) as you say, the oxidants which are free radicals can cause a lot of damage. so can reductants, they will steal electrons away from other molecules. both are created within every cell from the salt water that resides therein--as all reductants & oxidants are comprised of variations of NA, Cl, H, O, N ( hence the ingredients label ).

antioxidants are the catalyst to dealing with both sides--the antioxidant lures in a reductant, which is electron-hungry, then lures an oxidant in, which will neutralize both. so while oxidants can be very dangerous, they are also essential to keeping reductants in check & vice versa.

the key is maintaining balance between these 3 parts. if either reductants or oxidants get out of balance, they can cause damage to the cell.
KRyan wrote:My two questions are:
Are you sure there are no side effects, like 100% sure, that the body taking up an excess amount of free radicals won't cause cellular damage and affect the regeneration phase of recovery?
if we were to provide the body an excess of free radicals, it would surely cause damage.

the solution contains precisely equal parts of oxidants & reductants, both of which act as cellular messengers inside the body. so long as these two parts are kept in balance, our antioxidants have everything they need to neutralize any harm. Asea can boost the performance of our most powerful native antioxidants ( Glutathione & Superoxide Dismutase ) by up to 500%, according to Samuelson.
KRyan wrote:Can you guarantee that this product doesn't actually cause any problems later on in life, say around 60 when sarcopenia is generally starting to occur?
the product is still only about 2 years old. that being said, there are countless elderly testimonials of Asea dramatically reversing their aging symptoms & improving health, not the other way around.

we also have measurable results in our local group with respect to blood sugar, blood pressure, lung oxygen capacity & heart rate.

thanks for writing, KRyan, let me know if any of my information is incorrect.

aseascience.blogspot.com has a lot of information on the science, that is gary samuelson's blog site.

Also, Lee Taft has taken up Asea & is using it with his athletes. He is a multi-directional speed training coach, who coaches Jimmy Fredette, the #1 point leader for college basketball last year ( who was also taking Asea for that entire season ).
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