EFTA00775168

From: To: Jeevacation Epstein <jeevacation®gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Snake Oil Response Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 19:31:12 +0000 Attachments: quack_watches.doc Dear Jeffrey It has been shown that for every alternative (non-drug) health solution there is counter argument or a "debunker". There are "pros and cons" on the Internet for everything from supplementation to crystals to chiropractic care and other "natural therapies". Water ionizers are no exception; there are many sites that praise the benefits and sites that say it is "snake oil on tar. The primary debunking site for alkaline water and ionizers is http:l/www.cheml.com/CO/ionbunk.html This site has been on the web for at least three years. It was written by a man named Steven Lower who is a retired chemistry professor from Simon Fraser University in BC. It employs what looks to be at first glance a very compelling and scientific-looking argument to "debunk" our product, the technology and the benefits. He has some very basic flaws in his argument. First and foremost, he claims to be a scientist and protector of the scientific method, but by his own admission has never seen or tested an ionizer. Scientists are objective and interested in validating outcomes rather than taking positions. He has taken a position; and done so without testing anything. So, his argument is purely theoretical. If he tested a unit and the water it produced he would immediately see repeatable and verifiable results. Bottom line is that the alteration in the water is measurable (using scientifically accepted methods) and he would find that to be true - if he bothered to test our equipment. I have actually spoken to the Mr. Lower and we had a most unsatisfactory and short conversation. It was during this conversation that he admitted that he had never seen or tested ionized water and never seen an ionizer. He got very gruff when I suggested he test his hypothesis in a truly scientific manner by actually performing some experiments using one of our units to see that we are able to alter the pH and ORP. lonLife and a few other importers have all offered to provide him an ionizer FOR FREE. To date he has refused to experiment with one. Not really very scientific. Further he exploits sound science in an egregious attempt to prove something that is not related to our technology. Because he has not investigated our technology, he is not aware that there is a membrane in the water cell in the ionizer. We have had the opportunity to work on the Tennant Company's "ech2o Project" www.tennantco.com "ech2o" is featured right on the home page. The Tennant Co. in conjunction with one of the top scientific consulting firms in the world compiled the first substantial body of western scientific research on our technology and the water it produces. Their work has already been peer reviewed by Cambridge University and will enter the public domain shortly now that the "ech2o" product has actually launched. One of the lead scientists on the "ech2o" project is a well published chemistry PhD with a specialty in water. When I asked him about the snake oil site he told me: "It is obvious the guy doesn't understand your technology — he doesn't know there is a membrane inside the water cell. If he researched your technology he would know that - and he would have to change his argument. He is also not a scientist in the true sense, because scientists are objective, not emotional. He clearly has some sort of axe to grind." Not only does he not understand our technology, his arguments are flawed in some very basic ways. One glaring example is that he states "you can not perform electrolysis on pure water". We do not say we can; our machines do not purify water, they filter impurities and chemicals from tap water and leave healthy minerals behind for the ionizer to perform its work. There is nothing in the water to create a pathway for electrolysis in pure water. He says ordinary tap water does not have conductivity to be receptive to electrolysis. Again I would invite him to test our unit on his tap water! His other primary argument is based on "stomach acid". See: http://ionizers.orgialkalife3.htrnl Once you look past his formula and bluster you can begin to see his site only looks convincing and in reality is only peppered with accurate science where convenient — other than that it is mostly a bunch of drivel. There are plenty of rebuttals of our good friend the chemistry professor tumed snake-oil-debunker such as: EFTA00775168 http://www.detoxifynow.com/snake oil.html or http://www.watershed.net/debunker rebuttal.htm Or, sites that expose the debunkers in general (a few years ago the chiropractic industry won a huge judgment against its primary debunker): http://www.quackpotwatch.orgt or http://www.mnwelldir.org/docsfhistory/quackery.htm A lot of people also read the references to ionization on Wikipedia which is more of a blog than an actual objective scientific site. Reference Wikipedia's own explanation of itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiMilikipedia:Introduction From that page: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers. It is a special type of website, called a "wiki" which makes collaboration easy. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing. If you add new material to Wikipedia please provide references. Facts that are unreferenced are routinely removed from the encyclopedia." We have watched the shifting sands of Wikipedia change considerably. When the entry first appeared it was written exclusively by Steve Lower — the guy behind the "snake oil" web page. The page used to say (based on Lower's input) that you cannot even ionize water. Now they say you can. As we beef up the science in the western world (much exists in Asia) it is certain to change many more times. We could go on and on — but it would be more productive to turn our energy to the people who are interested in trying this wonderful ionization technology. To succinctly sum up my own take on the debunkers: A lot of people thought the world was flat. Their uninformed belief did not make the effect different when Columbus sailed "off the edge of the horizon" to discover a new world. Similarly, the skeptics and their uninformed beliefs will not change the effects the water produces once consumed. Hope this helps! enjoy the water of life: www.ionways.comfieslie EFTA00775169