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

free skin care · Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:52 am

So hold on, are you saying that you don't believe studies proving pharmaceuticals efficacy are part of the problem? Which part don't you agree about? This is a three pronged problem. First the scientists who skew the studies to support Big Pharma, and next the doctors who continue to prescribe according to the skewed studies. How is this not all connected? You like to tout PubMed as the holy grail yet you don't take issue with skewed studies? Hell even statistics can be skewed. How can we really trust? Have you never seen interviews where scientists divulge that studies were skewed to get the desired results? Come-on now. I've seen more than a few interveiws on 60 Minutes or 20-20. I think you are being a little naive to believe that the problem is minimal when we are speaking about a multi-billion dollar industry. Again, where there is substantial finanacial gain, there is always going to be vast corruption. And since Keliu mentioned Jim's study not being worthy enough to be published in a recognized source like PubMed, I thought it was fair to mention PubMed corruption. As to your comment about no industry being immune, I agree with you on that, however the gain would be no where near that of pharmaceuticals, not even close. However, I believe the pharmaceutical industry has tainted their own bloody industry. The problem is larger than life. ~ Aprile

Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:54 am

Hi all,

Please continue the debate on Pharma elsewhere and move back on topic as suggested.

Thank you.

Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:56 pm

Hi Keliu,
Thank you for your question about the ring structure present in water. I can appreciate your amazement. I agree it would at first seem impossible since there are no carbon atoms to form the structure that causes the delocalization of the electrons that form the “donut” which is detected as the 270nm peak.

When I first saw it in the literature about water I was skeptical. But when Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist was scanned in the UV spectrum there it was, even though Sun Lovers Mist is bottled spring water. Clearly the new energy has the ability to form this special structure. And it is stable, lasting for years!

Here is a link to some of the scientists who are studying this kind of structured water. Some of them on the list are the most advanced thinkers of our time: http://www.waterjournal.org/editors

free skin care · Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:26 pm

That article is way over MY head. All I want to say is that everything is energy. So it would work, I guess. I don't know. Its just an illusion. Until main stream accepts it, and publishes the findings, than I'll remain neutral on this product.

Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:28 pm

Hi SusieQ,
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your candidness.

Here is link where you can learn about the energies of the universe. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

You will see the current theory, called the Standard Model, is incomplete. I trust others on this thread will find this link of value too:

free skin care · Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:55 pm

Jim,

Water structure has nothing to do with the standard model of physics. Water structure is an issue of chemistry, not of the fundamental forces and energies we study in physics.

Also, I read a couple things on "the fourth phase of water". Basically, the idea is that water can cluster with a weak force like a Van der Waals force near "interfaces"...such as near the boundaries of other liquids and solids.

Also, Dr. Pollack says that "The energy responsible for building this charged, low entropy zone comes from light. We found that incident radiant energy including UV, visible, and near-infrared wavelengths induce exclusion-zone growth in a spectrally sensitive manner"

Can you clarify: Do you treat ASG with light, electricity, mechanical forces, etc.?

Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:10 pm

Hi Cm5597,
Thank you for your post. You are right this energy can structure water in ways that are exceptions to our laws of chemistry and physics. It is therefore is NOT one of the energies from the Standard Model and so it falls into the realm of unseen Subtle Energies.

That is what makes this discovery so huge. It is part of the missing energy that is predicted to exist, but has never been found. The only reason I found it is that it just happens to make skin look and feel great.

The energies you listed to create Ageless Secret GOLD are all from the Standard Model. I use every one of the Energies from the Standard Model at various times, but that is not the key to what makes the product unique.

The key is that I “accidentally” invented ways to bring in Subtle Energy into the formula. It was done because I was trying to work with the unified field theory of matter or The Theory of Everything,TOE. As you know TOE is supposed to be impossible to prove because of the random fluctuations. However, I believe in a Creator and that there is organization to the universe at all levels. I felt that what appeared to be random was really an underlying pattern that was too complicated for us to understand with our present knowledge. If one worked patiently one could learn how to work with the matter when it became energy in the field and then improve its properties.

free skin care · Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:36 am

kasz wrote:

Hi Cm5597,
Thank you for your post. You are right this energy can structure water in ways that are exceptions to our laws of chemistry and physics. It is therefore is NOT one of the energies from the Standard Model and so it falls into the realm of unseen Subtle Energies. That is what makes this discovery so huge. It is part of the missing energy that is predicted to exist, but has never been found.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Standard Model, dark energy, dark matter, etc. has to do with PHYSICS, but the presence of altered absorption spectra IN WATER IN THE WAVELENGTH RANGE OF 270 NANOMETERS has to do with CHEMISTRY.

Even if you have discovered some "new chemistry" with a peak at 270 nm, it has totally the wrong energy spectrum for dark energy (or dark matter). And your article says that your new finding behaves like a particle, not "subtle energies".

kasz wrote:

The only reason I found it is that it just happens to make skin look and feel great... It was done because I was trying to work with the unified field theory of matter or The Theory of Everything,TOE. As you know TOE is supposed to be impossible to prove because of the random fluctuations.

You didn't find a new energy. Nor did you find the solution to the Theory of Everything.

What you claim you found here and what your scientific article claims you found is entirely different. Your article claims that you have discovered a method to produce "Bulk Water with Exclusion Zone Water Characteristics". Assuming this is true, this is a chemical phenomenon by which water clusters near interfaces. And it was not you who discovered it: it was Dr. Pollack at the University of Washington. Why don't you ever give him credit or refer to him? I don't think that's fair, given that Dr. Pollack has devoted his career to studying and has pioneered this. Here is Dr. Pollack's website, for anyone who would like to read up on this:

http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/

Dr. Pollack's discovery was that water can cluster with weak bonding forces near it's edge...it's kind of like a surface tension-like energy. I've done some reading on this, and there are a lot of questions about how legitimate the research is anyways (i.e., what's really a new discovery? why has no one else replicated this? is he a quack?), though it is certainly possible that water can behave differently near interfaces. Here's a more accessible analysis with some good points here:

http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/5925/ez-water-fraud-or-breakthrough

Finally, Dr. Pollack says that EZ water can be created by irradiating water with light. Others have said that it can be done with water ionizers. Thus, Dr. Pollack already knew that you can create exclusion zone water without opening your bottles of Poland Spring water. He found that light would do it, but probably also mechanical forces would as well.

So I ask again: Do you treat ASG with light, ionizers, vortexers, electricity, mechanical forces, etc.?

free skin care · Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:10 am

CM - I would like to know how you expect Jim to answer you when he would have to give away trade secrets in order to do so? That just doesn't make any sense to me. I know you might have some valid questions that you'd like answered, but do you really think cosmetic giants like Estee Lauder or Lancome would be willing to do the same? Smh.

Aprile

free skin care · Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:40 pm

aprile wrote:

CM - I would like to know how you expect Jim to answer you when he would have to give away trade secrets in order to do so? That just doesn't make any sense to me. I know you might have some valid questions that you'd like answered, but do you really think cosmetic giants like Estee Lauder or Lancome would be willing to do the same? Smh.

Aprile

Actually, they do share their trade secrets in the form of patents.

free skin care · Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:59 pm

bethany wrote:

aprile wrote:

CM - I would like to know how you expect Jim to answer you when he would have to give away trade secrets in order to do so? That just doesn't make any sense to me. I know you might have some valid questions that you'd like answered, but do you really think cosmetic giants like Estee Lauder or Lancome would be willing to do the same? Smh.

Aprile

Actually, they do share their trade secrets in the form of patents.

Exactly!! However, Estee Lauder or Lancome aren't claiming they have reinvented the Laws of Physics. What is being discussed here isn't a manufacturing process, rather the principals of science and chemistry as currently understood.

I also wish to ask Jim about his claim that ASG is "stronger than gravity". How was this determined? And what data does he have to back up this claim?

free skin care · Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:41 am

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 · 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 · Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:36 am

The point is TM that we are all mere screen names here on these boards. No-one can dispute that. You as an EDS member are basically reading CM's posts to be the absolute truth. So how is it that can you be so certain that everything CM posts is correct? No-one REALLY knows who CM is or what CM's credentials are nor can we even check. Jim's credentials are available for the general public to see. As such, we know he is a truly a chemist. So I ask you WHY are CM's credentials more credible than Jims? I am not attacking anyone...I am merely stating the facts.

Also, can you explain HOW he is using the product wrongly? Are you referring to energizing your drinking water with the product? You do know that Dr. Pollack discusses the possible benefit of drinking structured water, correct? Again, not that Jim has ever suggested drinking the energized water directly from the ASG bottle. He talks about energizing your water with the ASG product. Smh.

Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:30 pm

Hi Everyone,
Thank you for your posts. I’m so glad that Dr. Pollack has been mentioned. I previously mentioned his book, “The Fourth Phase of Water”. Also I would like to give thanks to Dr. Pollack. It was his suggestion to me when I spoke with him by email a couple of years ago to have my energized water checked for the peak at 270nm. When I sent him the scan he was amazed. By the way, Dr. Pollack is referenced many times in the published report.

What some are confusing here is Dr. Pollack showed that this type of water can be formed at the interface of certain polymeric films. The amounts are small, but his discovery is huge. What has been proven in my report is that this type of water can be formed in bulk, meaning lots of it and it was done without having the water physically come in contact with any polymeric films. The clustering of the water was done without the use of a physical agent. If no physical agent was used to bring about the clustering of the water, what did it? Hint… it is not physical, meaning it is NOT something we can see or touch.

free skin care · Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:43 pm

kasz wrote:

The clustering of the water was done without the use of a physical agent. If no physical agent was used to bring about the clustering of the water, what did it? Hint… it is not physical, meaning it is NOT something we can see or touch.

This statement is what confuses me. Previously, here and on your website you have stated that ASG was energised using catalyst chemistry utilising the ingredients of MSM, Niacin, Ho Shu Wu etc. Now you seem to be saying that the physical ingredients aren't playing a part in this process - indeed, you have stated that the water is energised whilst in unopened bottles.

free skin care · Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:03 am

On the subject of structured water or the clustering of water molecules:

Quote:

What about "structured" waters?
One of the largest misconceptions about water is that it exists in some type of "structured" or "clustered" arrangement at the molecular level. We find it fascinating there are a number of different ideas about how many molecules make up one of these structured arrangements. Some web sites propose the ideal arrangement is 12 molecules to a cluster, others six molecules, and others claim 5 molecules is the ideal number to make water somehow more healthful.

Unfortunately, there is no critical scientific evidence to support any of these ideas. A water molecule is composed of an oxygen atom that has bonded with two hydrogen atoms. These molecules then form "polar" bonds to each other due to the distribution of the electrical charge on the molecule. (This is well explained on numerous other web sites or in any first year chemistry book.) While polar bonds do have measurable force at the molecular level, the bonds themselves form and are broken billions of times per second. Science does not recognize any force that might exist in pure water causing these bonds to maintain stability for any length of time.

There are people who propose these water "clusters" can be verified using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance or NMR equipment. Dr. Mu Shik Jhon supposedly verified the existence of water clusters using NMR technology. Most of the web sites mentioning clustered water will in some place mention NMR research as evidence clustered water actually exists. Sadly, it is extremely common to find people who will reference some piece of scientific research in support of their ideas (or products) without having any understanding of the research itself. Often, the people making the claims are unable to evaluate the research to determine if the conclusions will stand up to scientific scrutiny.

We would like to refer you to an article written by a Dr. Paul Shin who has over 18 years experience with NMR instrumentation. Here Dr. Shin reports using NMR technology to test several other fluids to see if they differed in any way from the "hexagonal" clustered water. Certainly if this idea of structured water has any real basis one would expect to find its NMR signature to be unique. Sadly, this was not the case and regular tap water, bottled water, and even urine were found to have NMR signatures almost identical to the "hexagonal" structured water. Either the NMR signature does not describe the existence of water molecules forming hexagonal structures, or the structures don't exist. In the first case, this would mean using NMR technology to verify structures of water molecules is an inadequate approach, or, in the second case, it is much more likely the data simply does not support the idea. If clusters exist and maintain their shape, then finding evidence of their existence would only be the first step towards a proof. This would have to be followed by a sound theoretical framework that would describe the forces at work holding these molecules together.

After reviewing the article by Dr. Shin, it should be obvious the evidence does not support the hypothesis water molecules exist in clusters. Further, since no theoretical body of work exists to suggest what might cause the molecules to maintain their supposed shape, we conclude structured water is an interesting idea but one without any scientific evidence to support it. Therefore, the health benefits of drinking "structured" water can probably be explained in other ways, and any benefits are most likely the result of the patient becoming well hydrated—as there does exist significant research to show hydration plays a fundamental and critical role in health and wellness.
http://www.waterfilterguide.net/

Jim - you are now referring to your "energy" as Kasz Energy. However, there are many other energised water products on the market - can you explain what type of "energy" they contain? If they don't contain Kasz Energy, that must mean that there are all kinds of different energies in these various waters.

free skin care · Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:27 am

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/

free skin care · Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:09 am

Sorry but you are jumping the gun (as usual) here.

I am not taking Cm’s posts to be absolute truth, and I am questioning everything, including that which CM writes, that which you write and Jim himself. What Cm has posted is names that can be researched and referenced, which is vastly different than when Jim claimed to have mad ea new discovery of a concept and energy. Big difference there – but then I suppose you would rather us believe Jim completely and no one else.

You are not stating facts, you are playing with statements to create a vastly different picture here than what is factual. Jim used the word “discovery”, “dark energy” etc and has mentioned energising food with the spray and did also say about drinking the ASG – I read it myself and was surprised but open minded enough to not discount it (and interestingly enough that thread has been removed so we cannot reference it). If water can be energised then I didn’t see why food couldn’t.

As to using the term “wrong” I meant in regards to the language he was using. Words like “discovery” etc when used in the contexts he has used them have a vastly different meaning.

aprile wrote:

The point is TM that we are all mere screen names here on these boards. No-one can dispute that. You as an EDS member are basically reading CM's posts to be the absolute truth. So how is it that can you be so certain that everything CM posts is correct? No-one REALLY knows who CM is or what CM's credentials are nor can we even check. Jim's credentials are available for the general public to see. As such, we know he is a truly a chemist. So I ask you WHY are CM's credentials more credible than Jims? I am not attacking anyone...I am merely stating the facts.

Also, can you explain HOW he is using the product wrongly? Are you referring to energizing your drinking water with the product? You do know that Dr. Pollack discusses the possible benefit of drinking structured water, correct? Again, not that Jim has ever suggested drinking the energized water directly from the ASG bottle. He talks about energizing your water with the ASG product. Smh.

free skin care · Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

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.

free skin care · Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:24 am

I agree we cannot verify or validate CM’s credentials, but then you have to admit that CM isn’t selling a product that she is labelling as an “amazing discovery” nor one that changes the laws of chemistry, physics and biology.

Furthermore the fact that you are seeing “sides” in this discussion is what comes across in your posts. People are asking valid questions over statements that Jim has made. As they would do with any manfacturer who made similar claims. When scientific terminology is used, of course people who are familiar with it will ask valid questions and to me that should be encouraged. CM your right we don’t know her credentials but she’s asking questions that sound logical and make sense to me. It was Cm who mentioned Dr Pollack as an external source, and I see Jim has since credited him with some comments but that wasn’t there previously was it.

aprile wrote:

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.

free skin care · Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:34 am

Jim has spoken about Dr. Pollack before I believe on one of the threads that was taken down. Trust me, he's well aware of Dr. Pollack. Its fine for people to question Jim on this forum. No doubt about that. BUT, when he gives an answer that he knows to be the truth, and he has his report to back it up, I don't understand why others without validated credentials try to discredit what he's said over and over again. Seriously?

free skin care · Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:25 am

Well that’s a lot different than what is being presented here, and I wasn’t aware that Jim had credited Dr Pollack so that’s good to know.

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.

aprile wrote:

Jim has spoken about Dr. Pollack before I believe on one of the threads that was taken down. Trust me, he's well aware of Dr. Pollack. Its fine for people to question Jim on this forum. No doubt about that. BUT, when he gives an answer that he knows to be the truth, and he has his report to back it up, I don't understand why others without validated credentials try to discredit what he's said over and over again. Seriously?

Thu May 01, 2014 4:19 pm

Hi Everyone,
Thank you for your posts. I see there is a still some confusion. I can appreciate how you feel. This discovery is so unusual, it challenges our beliefs. Fundamentally it says that there is a lot we don’t know about how the universe really works.

When the reviewers first looked at the scientific paper they refused to publish it until I had revealed more about the process. The information below was accepted and published in the report.

Materials and Methods
Treated Arrowhead Spring water is spring water obtained from a commercial source and treated remotely using a proprietary method. We shall, for convenience, label this commercial effect as a “subtle energy” effect. Kaszyk created a process using proprietary catalytic towers that work energetically to interact with matter when it is coupled with the subtle energy field. The result is that Kaszyk unknowingly concentrated a new form of subtle energy that can be infused into liquids remotely.

This is part of the section Material and Methods and can be seen in the Journal WATER: http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-6/dibble

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.

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.