I just love how all the claims on ASEA's site are vague enough that you can turn them pretty much the way you want if
someone says 'yeah right, that's BS'...

When I read the sentence you just posted, it reminds me of the 'automatic paper generator' created at MIT (using something called
context-free grammars, FTR)...Actually...it's computer science stuff, but let's run it here:

http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/...wman.DonkeyKong.html

I added slowman as a co-author because he provided the infrastructure to 'write' our paper. And DonkeyKong, as a reference to anyone who
wants to believe in the ASEA claims.

Thanks, this is the first time that I get to of my fav sites, Science based medicine and Slowtitch, combined.

bwwahahaahhahaahahahahahah....oh that was good!

this test was for biomarkers of inflamation and oxidative stress, you need to see the vo2 specifics testing, this was a test by 1 third party that was paid for by reoxcyn. its 1 of hundreds of tests reoxcyn paid for, and varying results.

Absolutely not. As a matter of fact 97% were quite conclusive. I can msg Tue original documentation if needed. There were many of these tests done by third party. Most of them had great results and then % error leaves room for people who didn't follow the instructions, or mixed up the control group, etc. It ctually happened to Asea a couple times. But 97% consistent anyway

actually, legaly speaking asea has made no claims whatsoever as to the effects of asea except what the FDA allows them to say based on evidence provided to them regaurding antioxidants and how signaling between cells is improved. all the claims of cures, remissions, and such are made by people who use it. the proof is in the pudding, they say 20% of people are as much effected by the placebo effect. well 3 out of 5 people that use asea on a trial basis admit to its positive effects and would recommend it. hence MLM. id say that around 60%. people here say personal testamonies dont count because there is no scientific evidence. you show me a clinical test of 5 hour energy that is more specific then the asea test results and you have a case. and as far as (it just sounds sciency to rip people off) well maybe if you knew a thing or two you would understand half the stuff theyre talking about, and realize "hey these words actually mean somthing...huh". bottom line, no matter what your phd is in or how smart you are, you have no more right to say "it cant work" or "it doesnt work" than the people who say it does work. you show me your findings in your experament to prove asea doesnt have positive effects on the body. show me your evidence. cuz so far asea is winning in the prove it game. your a con for saying it doesnt work. why should anyone believe you. you have no proof.

Absolutely no problem. Will do first thing tmr morn.

I was originally skeptical of ASEA Water but then I tried it and 2 weeks later my doctor ran a tricorder scan on me and noticed a 75% increase in my metachlorian count!

I was originally skeptical of ASEA Water but then I tried it and 2 weeks later my doctor ran a tricorder scan on me and noticed a 75% increase in my metachlorian count!

Absolutely no problem. Will do first thing tmr morn.

See my other post linking the article from the science-based medicine blog. It discusses precisely that...lack of control groups,
from internal studies, lack of protocols, etc...as non scientific as can be. But I'm sure some folks are making money doing this...