"Well the SECRET'S out on ASG"...
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:10 am

Here are my critiques:

(1) This does not appear to be a legitimate scientific journal. It is not available on PubMed and it does not have an impact factor.

(2) The process of imparting "subtle energy" via "the catalytic towers" is never described. One of the core principles of science and scientists is that all methods must be specified in enough detail that other scientists can repeat the experiments to confirm the results. If you read the article, there is no description of *anything*. A real scientific journal would not permit an article without a description of methods to be published.

(3) All this article reports is the presence of a contaminant with an absorption peak around 270 nm. Recall Jim said that he used both "subtle energies" and trace catalytic materials. Jim has always said that he uses "Trace Minerals catalyzed with niacin, capsicum, ho shou wu, helichrysum italicum.", but that these materials are not present in the final product. But it's impossible to have these materials touch the water used in ASG and then remove them completely from the water; there will always be trace contaminants. This is analogous to filtering tap water in that there is never a way to remove 100% of all contaminants. So the absorption peak must be do to the presence of one of these contaminants, which Jim claims he uses in the "subtle energy" process. This experiment is thus profoundly flawed because no one tested for the presence of these contaminants in the final product, even though Jim knews that the water gets in contact with these contaminants (this is a fatal flaw).

(4) Related to the reviewer's point "This inversion process resembled a re-suspension of light-scattering particles even though there were, apparently, no light-scattering solid particles physically added to the sealed sample...Centrifugation tests carried out on the commercial samples indicated that no solid particles had been added." Centrifugation is not a valid way to determine whether particles have been added to the water because this will only detect particles that are macroscopic in size. I think we all know that particles in skin care (except for exfoliating beads) are invisible to the naked eye. Again, if this were a real scientific journal, the reviewers should have caught this flaw in the experimental design. It makes me doubt that real scientists are reviewing this manuscript, as anyone who went to grad school in the biomedical sciences would know this. Alternatively, maybe they didn't do a good job reviewing this article.

(5) There are no error bars and no statistical tests performed. That is, they can't even claim that there is a difference between the treatments unless valid statistical tests are performed.

(6) The experiments showing a difference between the sprayed versus unsprayed ASG suggests that the some of the difference is probably due to the presence of bubbles.

(7) I agree with the reviewer who said "in the nephelometry experiments, the scattered light distribution should enable the size of the scattering identities to be determined. The scattered light should be polarised." This is a fundamental flaw that they didn't use polarized light...it's almost as if they didn't want the size of the particle to be determined because then they would be able to determine its identity.

(8.) Note that Jim and company says: "This is a good point. The unit that we use does not allow for a ratio of the side scatter and the front scatter, which would be an indication of the size of the particle." And they also say: "The marker at 270 nm is associated with ring type structures." Thus we catch Jim in the act of admitting that the peak at 270 nm is from a "particle" not a "subtle energy". Again this suggests a contaminant. By the way, dark energy does NOT have a wavelength at that energy.

(9) Phenol absorbs at 270 nm, so the data could suggest that the contaminant involves phenolic compounds. Also, protein generally absorbs around 260 nm and nucleotides (RNA/DNA) at 280 nm. Note that niacin peaks around 262 nm, capsicum peaks around 275 nm, and helichrysum italicum around 233 nm. Therefore, virtually all the calatylic ingredients that Jim uses in the catalytic process except the helichrysum italicum could explain the new absorption peak.

(10) Jim has originally claimed that his product contains (1) dark energy and (2) expands water. This article proves neither. All it demonstrates is that there is some new particle contaminant in the water.

In sum: The data suggest that they are the result of (1) an organic particle contaminant with an absorption peak around 270 nm and (2) the presence of bubbles, which arise from water falling down "the catalytic towers". This is consistent with the ASG product being like a hydrosol containing "trace Minerals catalyzed with niacin, capsicum, ho shou wu, helichrysum italicum."

Sorry but this is not good science.

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:44 am

kasz wrote:

Hi CM,
Thank you for your post.

Quote:

Some of the scientists who are on the review panel are some of the great scientists of our time. Have you looked at the list of scientists associated with this journal? You are insulting some very great scientists.

All scientists know that critiquing others' work is part of the peer review process. They should have no problem with my critique or any other person's critique; speaking as a scientist, we are trained not to take any critique of our science personally.

Quote:

There many things that you have wrong. This article reports the discovery of a new kind of energy that is like the Life Energy. It also says I have a method to infuse it into liquids. This energy can be detected because it changes the structure of water. The two ways it is measured is by the absorbance peak at 270 nm and the scattering of light.

No, this article does not prove that. It proves that you have at least one particle contaminant with an absorption peak at 270 nm. Also, you should know that particles scatter light; this is a basic principle of chemistry. Also, you have not proved ANY changes to the structure of water because you did not even measure the structure of water in your experiments.

In order to prove that you have some new unidentified "energy", you have to do at least two things: (1) measure its energy spectrum (you have done something like this), and (2) prove that its energy spectrum is not due to something already known, i.e., that there are no particle contaminants that can explain the spectrum (you have not done this). Since you have not performed the second critical step, you cannot claim to have discovered anything new.

To fulfill the second criteria, please know that use of centrifugation is not a valid way to test for the presence of contaminants.

Instead, you should look into methods like tandem MS (which would tell you the presence of all compounds in the solution) or high-performance liquid chromotagraphy.

Quote:

You have said that my process is not described in detail. That is not important.

No, that is critically important. The reason that it is critically important is because if you don't describe your process, then other scientists can't repeat your experiments and verify that your work is legit.

Quote:

The data shows an amount of scattering that indicates some kind of particle has mysteriously formed in the water, even though the bottles were never opened!

The article, however, says that catalytic towers were used.

Quote:

Very importantly the report says [b]I will energize water samples for any lab that wants to send me samples for testing.

Quote:

Another important point regarding light scattering is that light will only be scattered if the particles are insoluble. It is a test used for water quality to measure stuff suspended in the water. You missed this!

My Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist has no particles added to it, but it measures like there are particles suspended in it.

Actually, this is incorrect. Both soluble and insoluble particles can scatter light.

Quote:

My Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist has no particles added to it, but it measures like there are particles suspended in it.

Yes, I understand that very well, and that is exactly my point: that it measures like there are particles suspended in it.

That is precisely why you need to have all the compounds in ASG measured. Any scientist would not take your word for it; instead they would need to see proof by seeing the data from an experiment where all compounds in ASG were measured. So what you need to do instead is to go get this measured.

Quote:

The structure can be studied by using UV absorbance measurements, which the Tiller Labs did extensively. Do you think the Tiller Labs are fools?

If you are asking whether you are using good scientific methods here to prove that you are "changing the structure of water", then my answer is NO.

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:54 pm

As a non-scientist, I was interested to learn more about the peer-reviewed journal process.

Here is the review process that Elsevier uses:

About Elsevier (they sound like a top notch operation and serious about their journals):

Quote:

Elsevier is a world-leading provider of information solutions that enhance the performance of science, health, and technology professionals, empowering them to make better decisions, deliver better care, and sometimes make groundbreaking discoveries, that advance the boundaries of knowledge and human progress. Elsevier provides web-based, digital solutions — among them ScienceDirect, Scopus, Elsevier Research Intelligence, and ClinicalKey — and publishes nearly 2,200 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and over 25,000 book titles, including a number of iconic reference works.

The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC, a world leading provider of professional information solutions in the Science, Medical, Legal and Risk and Business sectors, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam), REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).

Their process for peer reviewing journals:
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines#youve-been-asked-to-review

Their guidelines for conducting a review....much of what CM5597 mentioned is listed here.
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines#conducting-a-review

Here are the requirements for Water's submissions...they let you pick your own reviewers. I also saw that Water required complete details on the methodology, but it looks like they overlooked that requirement in this case.

http://www.waterjournal.org/submissions

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:21 pm

Thank you, Bethany. This is what I was getting at in terms of peer review and what info needs to be in a valid scientific article, and you spelled it out even more clearly.

free skin care · Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:51 am

I do use filtered tap water in my house and I also use our family's water brand that we sell for private use, such as municipal water sources, infusions,alcohol distilling and so on. But I do not promote it nor will I EVER here. It is for private commercial use only. A few of you here know that about me and it is not the first time I have mentioned it so it is not a secret.
Because of this, I understand the process of energizing water "or lack of" EXTREMELY well. We don't lay on hands or pray over it and I am a minister. It is natural from the source. We spend thousands upon thousands in samples,testing and water control. I see enormous amounts of data so I am aware although not active in the business.
That's what makes this all the more of interest since I have knowledge of the industry. None that I shove down anyone's throat.
When I rinse my face, it does temporarily plump up and stays that way for several hours.
Back to my point. That is fine if the product worked for you, it did not for me. PERIOD. I am stating my result.
That's what propels me to buy and promote a product. Results, customer service, and honest reviews. And that goes for any product or procedure, not just this one. This isn't the first product that didn't work, yet I also give reviews on those that have.
If the "science" actually held water,that would be different. I have never insulted the person, I have only questioned the product. Not once. For that, the same courtesy should be given.

free skin care · Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:33 am

icebreaker wrote:

It is not the scientific results that matter.

Actually, it is the scientific results that matter.

I heart science! Smile

free skin care · Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:26 pm

kasz wrote:

Here is the video showing for the first time that Life Energy can structure water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uvkaIp_XKM

Thanks for sharing the video. I enjoyed it, but was left pondering a couple of things.

1.) I remember a while back on one of the ASG threads that were pulled, that your findings suggested that 'younger folks' showed the best results in their ability to energize water. So I'm wondering why the young adult male in the video, showed the least amount of energy potential when his vial was tested?

2.) If it is as simple to *energize* water, as the video seems to indicate, then why would anybody find it necessary to continue to buy your $$$ product? (Did I miss something important?)

Thank you kindly in advance.. Smile

free skin care · Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:54 am

Maybe I am reading something different than you Aprile, but Jim's posts are indicating clear scientific statements which are under the impression of being factual, but from what Cm and others have posted are clearly not factual. Estee Lauder and Lancôme can be misleading in their adverts but I've never heard them claim to have found a new energy. Likewise CMs point about Dr Pollack I think is very valid.

Jim actually said about the "discovery" being so huge in relation to when he talked about his own product, so I don't understand why you feel the need to defend and attack anyone who asks questions based solely on that. You are a fan of the product and have good results from it we all get, but you can't jump up and down and have a tantrum when people ask Jim about his own words that he has used to describe the product or point out why he is using them wrongly?

aprile wrote:

Right Keliu, As currently understood. But to me as far as the eye can see, no matter what Jim details about his process, it will ALWAYS be disputed. Can we check and compare to see who has the biggest diploma on the wall? That's the real crux of the matter here.

free skin care · Sun May 04, 2014 8:02 am

aprile wrote:

Keliu wrote:

Aprile - your contention that one should have a certain level of expertise on a subject to be able to ask a question on it is ludicrous. Asking questions is the basis of education. However, CM has stated previously that she works in the field of Quantum Physics so I very much appreciate her input into this debate. But I do agree with you that it's a pity we don't have more members who are scientists to contribute. Here, though, is Barefaced Truth's opinion on ASG (Dr.J did used to post here, in order to sell his own product, of course!):

Quote:

Doesn’t deserve a review. Psychoenergetics is quackery from way back. Dark energy? Oh come now. Obvious complete nonsense. Ask any high school kid who has taken physics. First off, dark energy isn’t a “thing” its a theory to try to explain how the universe can expand, given gravity. Its the “cosmological constant” (fudge factor) Einstein used. Its a property of empty space. Obviously someone has taken empty space and is trying to empty your wallet by tricking you with scientific sounding terms. They clearly haven’t a clue what it really is. I could go on and rant and rave (as I often do) about charlatans and evil villains of cosmetic land. But this time I am going to chide the online forums that give these folks a platform to hoodwink the public. And let me chide you denizens of these forums as well to practice a little wise discernment. Do these people look like astrophysicists? Do they have advanced degrees? Yeah, hope in a bottle is very seductive. But please, please don’t be fooled. It makes my heart ache, and irks me to no end, that these people are freely engaging in cheating, lying, stealing your money.
http://barefacedtruth.com/2012/02/19/suggestion-box-for-new-topics/

No I am merely stating that we cannot validate CM's credentials whereas we CAN validate Jim Kaszyk's credentials. His profile is readily available for all to view and as such, to me he is credible. Fruther, I do believe that many members with their preconceived notions about the product have taken CM's side in this debate. That is pretty obvious, and that to me makes no sense.

But I disagree. While credentials are not everything, I have to say this: his credentials are good enough to make a skin care product with healing ingredients like aloe and MSM; these are good ingredients that should improve many people's skin.

But his credentials are NOT good enough to have made the profound Nobel-prizing winning discoveries he claims. He has only an *undergraduate* degree in chemistry. In this day and age, with an undergraduate degree in chemistry, that would be enough not to be scientist in the full-blown sense but enough to be a research technician who works in the lab of a scientist. So this is not enough to support the grandiose claims.

Let me give you a sampler:

* On his website, he refers to slowing down aging by traveling close to the speed of light, as if Ageless Secret Gold does that

* He refers to stem cell technology in conjunction with ASG, but has never done any tests on this. http://agelesssecret.com/4-why-it-works/

* In early stages of this product, he referred to dark energy. As a physicist, I have repeatedly demonstrated these claims to be false.

* He claims that ASG expands water. The science experiment he did in the video he shared was not good enough to proof this. I talked a while ago how the methods he was using were not precise enough, and how his not taking into the account the exact density of water would falsely inflate his numbers.

* He literally claims on his website: "Even though this may seem small, some scientists say it may be one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of science." Give me a break! Who said this? Were they reputable (not fringe) scientists? Let's see names.

* He has said things that I KNOW are scientifically wrong or that I have looked up and turn out to be wrong. For instance, he said to me in this thread that soluble particles cannot scatter light. This is false. And you can verify this for yourself on the internet by doing a Google search yourself. In fact, I encourage every one to do Google searches on his claims, and you are more than welcome to do Google searches on any of my scientific statements as well.

So his claims of making a huge discovery in the history of science, of being as great as Einstein, of slowing down time by traveling close to the speed of light, of harnessing the power of stem powers, are misleading at best or megalomanical at worse.

As to my own credentials, I have a PhD in physics, as I've stated before. I absolutely have the credentials to refute all his claims on quantum physics, dark energy, and Einstein's theory of relativity. But I firmly believe that this shouldn't matter, as anyone has the right and should be given the good graces to ask questions or look at things with a critical eye.

aprile wrote:

Fruther, I do believe that many members with their preconceived notions about the product have taken CM's side in this debate.

But this is the problem, as TheresaMary has pointed out: you are not comfortable with people not agreeing with you and being skeptical of a product with grandiose claims. But you have to let things be as they are: people can have legitimate reasons for being skeptical of any product with crazy claims and never wanting to try it. I mean, for products or methods that have science behind them, many of us make judgements on whether to try a product or not based on that science. For example, think of aloe, vitamin C, copper peptides, LEDs, MSM, etc.

I think TheresaMary summed it up best:

TheresaMary wrote:

The trouble is when an answer comes out with terminology and an attempt at bending certain universal laws or trying to mold them to fit a theory is substantially different than presenting factual information for people.

That is exactly what is going on here.

A hydrosol-like product with aloe and MSM and perhaps also niacin and herbs sounds lovely to me. So he doesn't have to make these outlandish claims to sell the product, but unfortunately, that's what going on here. That's what I find so troubling about this product.

free skin care · Mon May 05, 2014 4:03 pm

aprile wrote:

I don't really want to rehash this whole mess. But, let's just suffice it to say that the comment I made was comparing Jim's credentials and expertise to CM's. Again, we have no way to validate CM's expertise and I think that's pretty fair to say since CM has not revealed his/her real self. Correct? In that same vain, CM could have 5 years experience in the field, while Jim has over 30. That is the point I was trying to make... which also follows suit with the audiologist comment. Sometimes experience in the field of expertise is worth far more than the diploma on the wall.

If this is your line of reasoning then you need to make known your own credentials and expertise in order to continue your defense of the science.

Could you please just let Kasz answer the questions which are put to him without denigrating the people who are asking them.

free skin care · Thu May 08, 2014 5:21 pm

Aprile wrote:

Well okay CM - I will counter with this. My friend who is an audiologist only has a masters in her field, yet she has 30 years experience. At the time she graduated, a PhD was not the requirement, yet it is today. Will these new graduates with a PhD under their belt and no experience in the field be superior to her in their knowledge or application? I think you can guess the answer to that. So while in one sentence you are saying that credentials aren't that important, out the other side of your mouth comes a comment that it's extremely important, rendering Jim to a mere technician who could work under a scientist in the lab. In my mind, there's something very wrong with how you are expressing yourself or how you really feel. Fwiw, some of Jim's colleagues have double PhD's despite the fact that you have chosen to minimize their credibility stating that they are lowly "fringe" scientists. I find the way you have presented your case very demeaning and insulting to Jim Kaszyk and don't feel your comments are warranted. As previously stated on the old thread, new discoveries are made all the time that defy old theories. Many of those discoveries are made by individuals of various credentials. That's just the way it is. And as far as TM or your comments about what I feel other members should believe. Far be it from me to say anyone should purchase any particular product. But I will remind everyone that if they choose to, and they don't feel the product is or them, there is always the money-back guarantee. ~ Aprile

Aprile:

A couple points:

* This is the field of chemistry, not audiology. They gave PhD's in chemistry back then. I also see that Jim has no papers published on PubMed.

* I think you missed my point about credentials. I said that while I don't think credentials are everything, Jim does *not* have the credentials to be producing Nobel Prize-winning science on dark energy or stem cells. This is *not* a contradiction in terms. This is equivalent to saying that I think credentials are important, but they are not everything. Yes, there are people with less than stellar credentials that are doing important mainstream and non-mainstream research. BUT these people are doing research on the topics that they make claims about. And Jim has *never* done any legitimate research on dark energy or stem cells, so credentials and past background are definitely a concern here. Does this better explain things?

And why is it okay for Jim to make claims about general relativity (slowing down time by traveling close to the speed of light), dark energy, and stem cells...ALL THINGS THAT JIM HAS NO PROOF ON....and yet, you attack me for questioning Jim's credentials and refuting this when I know more far more than the two of you combined on the first 2 topics!

You really need to calm down and stop attacking me just because I am questioning key parts of Jim's scientific claims. It's just not okay.

free skin care · Thu May 08, 2014 8:52 pm

Keliu wrote:

aprile wrote:

Btw, as I'm sure you know Bill Gates only had an undergrad degree, yet he created the Microsoft empire. Was he qualified or credentialed enough to do that? I think you get my point. ~ Aprile

Then stop asking for the credentials of the people who are asking the questions!!

I think it's important to get this discussion back on track - this discussion is about the science behind ASG. I would still like to know how the ingredients are added to ASG if the water is energised remotely. And I would also like to know what Kasz believes the energy is in other energised water products and if he believes his energy is different and why.

free skin care · Fri May 09, 2014 3:20 am

Also I think its also important to point out that the questions that caused this were actually about the science behind ASG and statements made about it!

Keliu wrote:

aprile wrote:

Btw, as I'm sure you know Bill Gates only had an undergrad degree, yet he created the Microsoft empire. Was he qualified or credentialed enough to do that? I think you get my point. ~ Aprile

Then stop asking for the credentials of the people who are asking the questions!!

free skin care · Fri May 09, 2014 3:32 am

TheresaMary wrote:

Also I think its also important to point out that the questions that caused this were actually about the science behind ASG and statements made about it!

Correct! Whilst Bill Gates may have revolutionised our technological world, as far as I'm aware, he has never claimed to have rewritten our Universal Laws.

free skin care · Sat May 10, 2014 6:57 am

Aprile wrote:

Which makes me realize despite what Jim Kaszyk says, you will continue to discredit the reports and findings, unless it gets published in Pubmed.

Actually, I will continue to discredit the findings as long as they are *clearly* scientifically wrong... where *clearly wrong* is the key concept.

Like I said, Jim has said statements that are clearly scientifically wrong--like he said that soluble particles can't scatter light--and you can look that up online to find out that it's true. And that is not controversial. The fact is that Jim doesn't know what he is talking about.

And the problem is that most people including yourself don't have the scientific background to evaluate Jim's claims, which is why I am trying to help out.

Sun May 11, 2014 7:11 pm

Aprile wrote:

Which makes me realize despite what Jim Kaszyk says, you will continue to discredit the reports and findings, unless it gets published in Pubmed.

If any scientist/manufacturer claims a scientific breakthrough yet maintains their methodology is a secret, it's surely natural for statements to be scrutinised for credibility (the point CM makes on soluble particles scattering light being a prime example) as an indicator of the credibility of undisclosed methods.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.