Bionic Band review: Bionic bullcrap 266

And again you repeat the same babble starting with your "yawn" like you are bored with the subject but in fact you have spent over the last 162 days trying prove your preconceived point stated at the very onset without any information. I poop on here from time to time to see where any new comments are going an to provide real answers to real questions with real documented (IN WRITING) proof.

Your first fact, is unverifiable because it was only between you and a supposed email conversation with Ms Benson. And using your standard of proof, I can say you are full of BS, because it is no fact at all.

Your second fact, is also unverifiable for the exact same reason. You are such a hypocrit! Telling people that what they are reporting is false and scam because they did not provide you with any written proof but want everyone on this forum to believe the great and powerful Fangio OZ because he says it is true! It is not going to happen. You can't keep the band you are talking about right. You can't keep the university you are talking about straight. Really? We are going to follow you? And to clarify, the observers DID NOT KNOW which band was which. Again read and comprehend before you start on your spew.

To clarify again, it is NOT a magnetic force in the band. Read and comprehend. You has stated that you needed large amounts of energy to create a MAGNET, not specifically and MRI. A magnet is small piece of metal that has been treated to hold a magnetic charge and it requires not additional energy source. (definiton included for your edification) The Bionic Band is treated with to hold "imprinted" charge and will hold it and "discharge" it in close range similar to MAGNET.

I know you couldn't give a crap about what anybody has stated here because you believe you are clearly smarter than the rest of the world. This is the typical arogant UK way. That is what got your butts kicked in 1776 and again in WWII we bailed you out. Many of these people have given their honest real world experience with the Bionic Band and you can only look down your nose at them and scoff. The best thing going here is anyone can read your post and understand your distain for any person that dare have a differing opinion then yours.

Here is the link to the white paper produced by Dr. Gordon Pederson on the effects of imprinted metal versus non-imprinted metal. It clearly states the double blind, placebo controlled study and the effects. Not unlike any other double blind, placebo controlled study (which my son participated in for a medication, so I have first hand knowledge of how they are conducted. Do you?) The observers DO NOT know which is which.
http://www.partband.com/PDF/PWS_Brownian_Motor_Theory_with_test.pdf

Regarding Ms Benson, if you want to you can go check with the FDA they are online, they can be contacted. It is clearly verifiable.

Regarding teh universtiy, again this is verfiable, just contact the university as I did to verify it, again they are online and have a contact us section and you have the name of the contact to use, so completely verifiable.

The garbage about me neediong to check whther the observers knew which band, I have clearly stated htat MY comments were in regard to the numerous occasions on here that peopel have said htey did studies. In every case there was observer bias. In your case you said that you had done numerous tests on elderly people, you clearly did know in those tests. Therefore those tests are completely invalid, you knew when you put them on. What is it that you do not understand about that?

I cna keep which university straight, I can't type straight. I made one error with the Power Balnce being teted by John Moores, not the Bionic Band, thing is they both give exactly the same evidecne for their claims, anecdotal and non double blind randomised studies.

I am aware of what a magnet is, however the magnetic force required to align the protons is in the region of 20 tonnes, and then it only aligns a few percent, the magnets need to be cooled with liquid nitrogen, you cannot take metal anywhere near them and the ONLY magents that can do it are electro magents.

The frequency argument has been putforward previously, and as I say Dr Pedersen has said that it is from Einstein's demosntration that a frequency from a peice of metal cna be passed to a body of liquid water. Nowhere has it ever been demonstrated (and if you htink Einstein didn't try it you are wrong) that the frequency could be passed to a non-liquid. it has failed every single time. So the frequency arguemtn is complete and utter bunkum.

As to Dr Pedersen's "paper" is massively flawed. He is ignoring the fact hat Einstein's Crownian Motor ony worked with direct contact with liquids. It is more of a marketing docuemtn than a paper as it relies upon just stating that hings are true. Einstein's theory is quoted liberally, but never shown to actually apply to the use on non-liquids, nor is there any evidence provided that any protons are actually aligned, nor that doing so would increase strength or balance.

Dr Pedersen then decribes the imprinting as givign "magentic energy potential" which as discussed earlier is a complete irrelevance as the required magentic energy woudl eb in excess of the 20Tonens that only partially aligns the protons.

Then we get to the tests, they are testing strenght and balance. So why not use tests that provide impirecal data as to exactlyt eh strength and balance of the subject? Why use 1890's parlour tricks? Simple, if you use 1890's parlour tricks the data is easier to manipulate, especially if you are not measuring strenght or balance, but merely the subjects perception of wha their strenght and balance are. It is possible to measure strength and balance, with impirecal data, the fac tthey didn't speaks volumes.

Then there is the non-randomised nature of the tests. Randomisation is viatl to establish whether the efect is merely pacebo in such tests. The fact that every subject had the active one first and the non-active second invlidates teh study. The mere fact that every subject had one real and one fake is a further problem. There need to be cases where peopel did nto have the real one both times, and did not have the fake one both times for the study to haev any validity.

The fact that it was the same band for everyone in round 1 and 2 makes it very easy justto run the same study on 2 groups and only publish the group where the results fit the preconception.

So the study is a complete put up job (as can be seen by the assumtpion that it works int eh introduction and methodology. It was set up to prove it works not to see if it worked.

Look at the conclusions and you get more bunkum, "This also suggests that this improvement in strength and balance comes from improved cellular communication resulting in improved coordination probably due to improved mitochondrial function which incorporates greater inter-cellular communication." Exactly how does it suggest that, the mitochondria are not observed, nothgin physiological is observed, no conclusion about the casue of any perceived (not even necessarily genuine just perceived) benfits can be drawn whatsoever, no suggestions made form this test. Is preposterous.

The whole paper is pure unadulterated psuedoscience, it is certianly not credible research to anyone with even a basic understanding of science.

I am not surprised by your [censor]ized evaluation of the white paper.
And of course you once again, want to simply push aside the paper written by a PHD because you know more than all others.
What exactly is your professional quailifications to evaluate testing procedures?

Many of the conclusions stated by Dr. Pederson is bases on the testing done on double blind, placebo controlled study also included credits of many other papers. You need to read those as well, which I know you not simply by looking at the small amount of time you took to respond. You also incorrectly stated that the paper "only published the group where the results fit the preconception". Untrue because both groups were tested and results were published side by side.

Mitochondria can not be observed under any circumstance. That is not possible at this time in science, but if we use your misunderstanding of what is possible in testing, many scientific studies are "bunkum" because you don't see the phyiscal change of the body, but only see the resulting alteration of the bodies reaction.
So in your world, you don't believe that Tylenol does what is says because they have NEVER shown the actual cell in a human body reduce irriation and swelling. Even though the pain is reduced and the size of an injured body part decreases, you would consider is psudoscience.

What's preposterous is you spouting your beliefs and preconceived opinions.
I remember not too long ago when MD's and mainstream medicine said Chinese Acupuncture and Chiropractic Medicine was pseudoscience.
Small minds think in small ways, trying to make everything fit into their small world.

Oh dear, you really are clueless.

What did the test observe?

10 people's perception of having more or less strength and balance.

What did it not observe

People actually having measurable increase in strength or balance
Brownian motors acting to align protons
Mitochondria in any way

So Dr Pedersen drawing conslusions that any of the unobserved things were involved is preposterous. The conlusions simply cannot be drawn from teh experiment. The quoting of other science which is not ony unrelated to anything that was observed, but also have a massive gap between what they say and what Dr Pedersen applies them to is pretty much the definition of psuedoscience.

If he did not observe the proton alignment, the test demonstrates nothign about proton alignemtn.

If he did not observe mitochondira the tests says nothign about mitochondria.

If he did not observe frquencies actign upon the body, the test says nothign about frequencies on teh body.

I don't care whether Dr Pedersen has a PHD or not, drawing conclusions liek he does based on zero evidecne from the tests is really poor science.

There is nothign preconceived about that, I actually bothered to read the sciecne bit right at the start of looking at Bionic Bands and my opinions came from the total abuse of scientific language that is demonstrated by Dr Pedersen.

Your comparison with Tylenol is of course completely laughable. You can obsserve the reduction in the swelling. It is not an opinion as to whether it is reduced, it is measureable, and has been measured. You can observe the chemical reactions and they have been observed. The effects are not anecdotal they are not perception, they actually happen, they are not spsuedoscience. How does that compare with the sciecne offered by Bionic Band, no observed proton alignment, no measured strenght or balance gains, just perception and anecdote. Hmm, let me see which one do I think actually has some proof?

I am not small minded i read up on things, and I would love to read up oin the science behind Bionic Bands unfortuantley no science is offered, well none that has ever been tested in any way whatsoever for the purpose that it is being sold.

If you ahev an actual double blind randomised test please post it, if you are relying on a non-randomised study of 10 people it remains completely and utterly unevidecned garbage that distorts the science of Einstein to pretend that it works.

You just don't get it. That must be it. Youhave never been involved in testing so you ask for unrealistic "observations". You CAN NOT so anybody a mitochoindria! It is NOT visible. You can not see a proton! It is NOT visible!

There is nothing more that can be done to help you. You asked for the report that was provided and you want to sluff it off.
When you are requested to provide the same proof, you can not provide it. No email addresses, no documents proofing your point or alleged conversations.
I will use your own words to you. I gave you the info, now go get the rest yourself.

Since you have never produced anything documenting your conversations with anybody, then we will just have to consider you a liar, end of story.
Our info is on the web free to be reviewed by anyone. Where is your documentation? It only exist within your anecdotal pecseption and no where else.

Time for me to move on to a better use of my time.

I have given yo the names and the organsiataions, You can go check, they are available to contact online. They are verifiable, and I have quoted directly. You can go check it out, or check it out yourself, you know where to find it.

You posted the report up. You say that is evidence, I have pointed outthat the claims are simply made up.

You say you cannot observe mitochondira, or protons. Interesting, so now your excuse for the crap science is that no one can observe it. How convenient that you say that the very basis of the science is completely and utterly unobservable. yet Dr Pedersen's report says that this is what happended in the case of using the band. No ecvidecne exists anywhere that this is the case and the theories he quotes do nt support his particular case. He has not observed any passing on of frequncies no alignemtn of protons, no improvements in mitochondria etc, yet says this is what is happening. it is completely made up. That is the strength of the evidence a non randomise trial on 10 people and then a load of psuedoscience, claimgin that unobserved events as the conclusion of the experiment (well actually he also claims them in the intorduction whihc is about as unscientific as you can get) . Did he get this "paper " peer reviwed in a scientific journal, of course not it would be laughed out of town.

If you want to carry on pretending that that report is valid go ahead, if you want to pretend the tests are valid, g ahead, if you want to pretend that protons are aligned go ahead, if you want to pretend there is science behind the product go ahead, if you don't want to bother verifying the information for yourslef having been told the source because you are too lazy to do it despite self verification being the best verification go ahead. However if you want to sell your product for money based upon yor delusions please stop until you actually have some proper evidecne tha tthe product actually is not just a placebo or tha the test results are not just based upon expectation. The massively flawed Dr Pedersen marketing document (let's stop calling it a paper it woudl fail as evidence even at high school level) is not evidence, otherwise he would submit it for peer review, or alternatively for the nobel prize having managed to align the protons of the human body with a silicne band.

BTW, you can not only observe but also isolate mitochondria these day http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/mitochondria/questions.html

I don't have to carry on that the report is valid because it is. It is easily more valid than your made up, uneducated evaluation of a published report. You have no experience, license, degree of any kind, whether a doctor or physicist, nor any other expert knowledge but want us to believe your evaluation of a report.

Anybody can get the organizations and contact names of people working there. Big deal. Here are a few more people at the FDA that I can list names: Alicia Witters, Bonnie Alderton, Carol Clayton, Carole Manny, Chester Reynolds, Connie Daly, Cynthia Garris. Just because you can pull a name off of a website doesn’t make anything you said true. You will continue to be a liar until you prove otherwise.

The science is real and you have provided NOTHING to PROVE otherwise. You have spouted conjecture, and preconceived babble without credible information or substance. You can't even keep your babble straight. Is it Power Balance or Bionic Band? Is it UWI or WIU?

BTW, the observation of mitochondria as stated in the information you supplied it requires the PREPARATION of mitochondria FROM fresh liver tissue, see the attached quote: “Our study will require that we prepare isolated mitochondria from fresh liver tissue.” which takes it from the living body! In case this does escape your mental ability, thus the mitochondria are no longer working and communication with the body in its natural state, thus [censor]izing the normal function. DUH!

Publihsed report? When you use the phrase published report can you tell me where it has been published, i.e. whcih journal it is published in?

You have no knowledge of my qualificaions at all, nor my profession.

Your insistance that the report is sciencitfically valids is [censor]ic, it is patently true that it quotes other papaers without establishing any link between the obsevations and any of the other papaers. Not one thing.

The sciecne has NO BASIS to work, your claim that it is real just because Dr Pedersen says so is laughable.

Tell you what why don't you show me where Eitnstien's work on Brownian Motors extended to contact with non liquids? You see I can't show you because it doesn't.

As for pullign names off a website, tell you what go check witht hem, that is the verification I did. When Bionic band claimed that a university was researchng I did not just take their word for it, I actually contacted them. If you wnat to check my claims you can do the same, I have given you the name of the person to contact and their position in the university so off you go and verify it. It is easily verifiable, and I am not lying. In calling me a liar it is you who are lying.

My reference for mitochondria is in reference to your untrue statement that mitochondria cannot be observed, clearly they can.

Seems to me you want to carry on pretending that science which you say cannot be observed (and therefore you think does nto have to be proven), which no one apart from Dr Pedersen has ever suggested can be true, sold by tests which DO NOT REQUIRE ANY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE OTHER THAN PLACEBO AND EXPECTATION, is honest. Seems to me that if the protons are actually aligned it, and if it is true (again zero evidence offered at all) that alignment would increase strength and balance, it would work ever single time. Of course it doesn't. Let me see, still looks and quacks like a duck.

Anyway we will see what happens when they actually have to provide proof rather than just psuedosciecne to the ASA. I wonder do they actually have something genuinely to back their claims or will they have to remove tehm form the adverts? Any guesses?

So show your quailifcations. Show SOMETHING! Something other than your tired babble! You make statements without any backup.

Using your own standard, you go find the journal it was published in!1 When you produce any piece of evidence disputing the validity of the report, I will produce the journal.

Until that time I will make it simple for you, either put up or shut up! Take your lies elsewhere!

Yes, you do quack like a duck, thus you must be a duck! All quack with NO SUBSTANCE.

If you can confirm that you are saying that Dr Pedersen was silly enought ot actually publish this paper in a journal, and it is online (i.e. like the contact details for both organsiatin you seem to have aproblem contacting) I'll go look for it. if it is offline, tell me th elocation of it. I have givne you names, you can lok them up. You have just siad here is a paper, not even that it has been published for peer review. I certianly do no think that it woudl eb published in anythign appproaching a scientific journal he simply would not be stupid enough to put that paper into the swcienctific communtiy as he owudl be alaughing stock.

You want to know my qualifications, tough. How about you just show where Dr Pedersen has actually shown any link at all between teh band and improvements in performance. There is nothign at all int he paper, adn the papers he quotes do not show any links either, it's plain psuedosciecne. There are no links at all demonstrated by his tests or the paper, there is nothgin about that which is a lie, the fact that your lack of intellectual rigour means you are incapable fo actually reading what has been said and seeing the gaping holes in the conclusions, but prefer instead just to call me a liar for pointing out some fo the more obvious gaps is really interesting.

There has never been any evidecne that brownian motors as per Einstein work with anytihgin other than liquids, and Dr pedersen presents nothign to demonstrate this. You call that all quack, I call that an obvious gaping hole int eh science presented and you have absolutely nothign but your own gullibility to fill that hole.

BTW have you contacted hte university yet to confirm that htey HAVE NOT undertaken any research whatsoever on the Bionic Band. You can verify it, so pelase go ahead and do so. I am stateing here and now that nothign has been udnertaken, I have confirmed it and provided you with details wnough to verify it yourself fairly simply. Either go get the verification or stop calling me a liar.

I gave you the web link for the white paper. The paper has his name on it. What have you provided? Nothing, nadda. You want more, using your own words TOO BAD. You continue to quack without substance.
You can't provide any evidence of your position, nor any prove of your supposed conversations.

Do we believe you, an anonymous person on the web who is either unwilling or unable to provide any kind of qualifications or credentials that can substantiate your evaluation or claims? Or do we believe and highly educated and certified professional doctor, all verifiable, who has years of experience in research and development.

Why should I do all your work? You have made statements. You back them up! If not, like I have said before, stop quacking duckman.

Oh, and until you provide YOUR proof, you will continue to be a liar.

No, I have given you the ability to check the information for yourself, wich is the most valid form of verification anyone can do. Unless you check it calling me a lair is just a tatic you are using.

I have checked Dr Pedersen's report, it si massively flawed. He is lying.

The proof is that his report has absolutley no links between his product and the "results" and that the results are not measured they are perception. As such it is not evidence. My proof of this, there are no links. Simple.

If you want to rely on that report as your strongest evidcen of actual changes or the method by which Bionic Bands work then it is clear that you are selling a product despite having nothign to show that it does a damn thing. This depsite it being possible for Bionic Bands to actually do some tests.

My proof that they are sellign a product with no scientific basis for working and certainlyno credibel scientific tests to back it up is tha there are no tests or evidence and the basis quoted has never had any links demonstrated. Since I am saying that he evidence does nto exist I cannto point you in the direction of it, it simply isn't there. Nothing any of he supporters of Bionic Band have ever posted up has ever evidenced that it actually works.

My evidence that the FDA would consider it a medical device is to quote directly from an FDA officer, and provide her name so that anyone who wants to check that I am tellign th truth does nto have to take my word for it, but can check it themselves.

My evidence that no research has been udnertaken is to quote directly from the person who oversees such experiemtns athte university, and to again provide the information for peopel tp check it idf they want to.

If you want to cvall me a liar you actually need to do the checks.

You are being an idiot about the paper, You are just agreeing witht eh conclusions without reading what it actually tests. It is a massively deficient paper. I gues you knowledge of research is not that great. When someone refers to published papers they are referring to paper that have been published in a scientific journal, where they are perr reviewed to ensure that they are not complete bollocks. If papers are not "published" then they are just ramblings. Dr pedersen would be aware that for it to be a scientific paper rather than just a sales tool (you are aware that most of his wokring life is as a salesman not a Dr, and that he has far more awards as a salesman than a Dr) he needs to publish it in a scientific journal for peer review. Yet he has not published it for peer review, instead he has given it to a bunch of non-scientists he is trying to get to sell his product and relied ont hem thinking "he's a Dr so he muc be right, I don't actually need to read this crap that he has mde up I can just assume it's true even if the report is complete and utter bollocks with more holes tan a fishing net". In your case it has compeltely worked, you refuse to actually read it, you refuse to read it in the light of anyone pointin gou the gaps. Oh well there is no helping some.

If you want to belive that I, when providing you witht eh ability to check things yourself, am ling, and Dr Pedersen when just telling you things which he provides no evidence for and no ability for you to check yourself is tellign th truth I can't help you. But it si celar to anyoen who can read tha the report is bollocks, the tests used to sell the product can be done without a band and therfore are placebo and expectation, that the claims that research is being undertaken by the university they state is untrue, that this band was not tested prior to being sold by Bionic Band in a scientifically valid way and on more than 10 people. That no tests have ever been shown that demonstrate that a particular frequencey actually helps more or less, no tests have ever been shown that demonstrate that the process fo aligning protons give benefits for strength and balance, and that no tests have been shown ever that Einsteins theory can be used on non-liquids.

They are sellign a procut with no actual evidence, this is known as a con, it is up tothem to provide the evidence, and in the UK the ASA require not only evidence but proof, so the anecdotal garbage used to sell it will not count. Since I will get to see the ASA response I will et you know if the ASA get anthing that is actually proof from Bionic Bands.

You continue along the same tired babble. You make judgments of a professional paper written by a PHD and you have ZERO credentials. Unless you justify yourself with professional credentials, than you will not be taken serious.

The only con here is you putting yourself out there as an all knowing expert about science, scientific white papers, how studies are conducted, scientific testing or the demonstrations and testing done with the Bionic Band.

You have repeatedly stated that you don't care what anyone else has said here in support of their personal experience. you will continue to disbelieve the Bionic Band. Than you want the forum to believe everything you say, all the while showing either incorrect "evidence" of another product or no evidence at all.

You say that the Bionic Band is bring sold "with no actual evidence" which is a total complete lie, thus making you a LIAR! Just because you don't agree with or accept the evidence, does not make it as you say, "no actual evidence". It is evidence period. You have provided NOTHING to dispute it. You have NO (or have not provided any) professional credentials.

My knowledge of white papers far exceeds yours. Part of my professional career involves reviewing, study and applying the standards into the real world.

Furthermore, I am not an anonymous name on a website spewing babble such as you have done since Nov 20th. Dr. Pederson has his information including professional credentials and photo. My name and contact info are readily available on my website listed. Many of the others supporting the Bionic Band have either supplied their info and it can be found on their websites. Conmen? Easily reachable or contactable people do not fit into the conman world. On the other hand, someone that does their thing behind the scenes, in the anonymous world fits into the conman box.

You continue to provide nothing. No susbtance. No credentials. Give something that proves your position! If not, crwal back into the shadows.

I say NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT TEH BAND DOES ANYTHING. please read that statement again. Now try to understnad it. People saying that they thoguth they were stronger or more balanced IS NOT evidence the the band is doing anything at all. Within the "paper" from Dr Pedersen there is NO EVIDENCE OF THE BAND DOING ANYTHING AT ALL. Not one thing that has been offered is evidenc efo the band doing anything.

The professional credentials argument seems to be becuase you are relying on the Dr being right becuase he is a Dr. Well, I think if you look bakc up YOU said that peopel should not just trust doctors and take tablets etc, but apparently we should ignore the gaping holes in the Pedersen "paper" because he is a Dr. Simply put here are holes, and you cannot show me how his papaer or research fills these holes but instead choose to ignore them becuase they don't fit your desire to make money off this scam.

After the threats of physical violence I got from intially questioning the science behind this product I am sorry to say I do not feel that I want to post up my personal details on this or any other site.

Ok here's my proof, again for the hard of understanding, the product relies upon Einsteins theory on Brownian Motors which categorically ONLY works for direct contact between the metal with the frequency and A LIQUID. Categorically the science cannot work if it relies upon non-liquids being in contact.

There is zero evidecne provided by Dr Pedersen or anyone else that protons can be aligned in this fashion, when a room sized MRI needs to exert 20T to partially align them.

There is zero evidence at all provided that aligning protons can give strength or balance gains.

There is zzero evidence at all that one particular frequency is better (or indeed has any effect) than any other.

There is plenty of evidence that the same balance and strength tests have been used for decades to sell things ( you do know about applied kineisiology (not to be confused with kineisiology)) and that the same were used in the Music Halls of the 1890's with no band required to achieve the results shown.

A critical analysis of the Dr Pedersen "papaer" shows it is massively slawed, and that the tests are simply not valid.

Of course it all comes down to this, it is the makers responsibility to proove it works BEFORE making advertising claims. If the best evidence offered is a non-randomised study of 10 subjects using tests that can be dupliated with placebo and expectation as they have been for decades by Applied Kineisiologists I will state categorically that ther si no proof whatsoever that the band does anythign. Bionic Band have provided zero proof and are relyign on the gullibility of people who do not udnerstadn that their tests do not demonstrate a link between PERCEIVED strength and balance gains and the band doing a damned thing.

So if you are goign to tell me the badn works, show me where it fills in teh gaping holes in the science. If you really are paid to review stdies I think you shoudl eb sacked as incompetent, the holes are clear but you are refusing to see them.

My job also involves reading papers, and also writing them, it also involves designing and conducting experiments to test hypothesis. Let me say categorically if the hypothesis was "the band itself gives strenght and balance gains" the tests do not do that, and if it was (and given the conclusion that I can only assume Dr Pedersen wrote before he did the tests because they have absolutely nothing to do with the content of what was tested) to test wheterh brownina motors work with contact with non-liquids and whether mitochondria are stimulated the whole paper is a complee joke.

I have said where the holes are, I have asked for the evidecen, the evidence is complete BS and the hoels remain. But hey, go on selling your con to people and deluding yourself that Dr PEdersen has provided you with evidence.

And again you obviously miss understand that skin is made up of 70% water. Just because Einstein was limited in his research and understanding, oh and by the way was thought crazy during his time. Dr. Pederson saw that the theory that Einstein developed can be and has been expanded.

A supposed critical analysis by a nobody with no experience, training or professional accreditations is stupid. You are speaking for a place of either ignorance or stupidity, PERIOD.

When I spoke of my distrust of doctors, that was clearly for the elitist group that do nothing to truly solve your problem but simple push pills.

You lack of evidence and analysis continues to be simple babble with no substance. You want to call the observations as "perceived" but if that is the case, than any and all research that has included the observations by the staff is now longer valid and pseudoscience! Good luck with that.

And just because the Brownian Motor theory was only previously test with direct contact to liquid water, doesn't mean that it cannot be test with or work on something other than liquid water.

And couldn't give a care what you think about whether or not I should be reviewing studies. You have no credibility in judging what I do or my abilities. The only thing incompetent is your attempt to criticize a product you have no direct experience on contact with. You have not seen or reviewed the test data, not just the published white paper that summarizes the results.

You have not even be able to produce a new thought. Everything you have presented as an argument has been someoneelses thought.
Provide your proof or shut up.

Hilarious, not one attempt to cover the gaps.

That you actually belive that Einstien limited himsef to liquids is funny on it's own, that you then just beleive Dr Pedersen iwht absolutley no evidence provided that is works for no liquids is a demonstration of you complete lack of intellectual rigour in analysing the "paper".

As to analysing the "data". The tests ONLY tested the perception of whether peopel had greater strength or balance. NOTHING in the methodology listed, or the results shown indicates one jot of data as to the "increases" having been measured. The only "data" indicated as being collected are the opinions shown in the tables within the report.

Quite simply I put up a few things tha the product relies upon but has never evidenced, and you put up zero evidecne for them. These are flaws with both th research and the "science" used to sell the product. It is clear that there is no evidecne whatsoever that the band has any effect, it si also clear that rather than provide evidecne all you will do is shoot the messenger. I guess that shows that you and Bionic Band have no honest evidence to back the supposed function of the product. With zero actual evidence that the band does anything it is a con. Going around pretending to have used the science of Einstein (and quoting it in relation to liquids then using the "bodyis 70% water" so it works witht e body with absolutely no evidecne whatsoever that tht is true) is psuedoscience. It might convince idiots who don't actually look at the sciecne and read what is actually writtein the "papers" but it is clearly a con.

It is the lack of measurement which makes the increases perceived, there is no impirecal data to demonstrate any effect other than an effect on the belief of the subject. The is no attempt to do any measurement of strength or balance to provide such observations. The measurement of increases is what turns a perception into an observed occurance.

I guess you will conitnue to beleive Dr Pedersen because of your idiotic belief that you can judge a conclusion not by whether it has gaping holes in it, not by whether it is based on a rigourous experiment, but based purely on who says it. I guess you will continue to belive that the "paper" is valid despite it not being published for peer review. I guess you will conitnue to believe that Dr Pedersen has extended Eintein's research despite there being no evidence whatsoever that he has in any way tested the extension,

Your name calling just continues to show your lack of valid proof of your position. DO you just cut and paste your same argument for the last time posts you made? You call people idiots, [censor] and scammers with no proof or validation. You have nothing but preconceived prejudice towards not only a product but people that have seen results from it. You take exception to a scientific paper that has been published for review but state that it hasn't with no basis for your statement. You have no documented evidence to support your statements, yet continue to make the same statements as if they are facts. YOU ARE A LIAR!

You state that you have been threatened and thus chose to hide in the shadows rather than be open. I reviewed all of the past responses to your babble and NO ONE threatened you. They disagreed with your prejudice but never threatened you, thus I will say it again. YOU ARE A LIAR!

You have no credible experience or knowledge but continue on this track of "believe me" because I can spit out the same babble from my "hidden location". Just because you say the same thing 20 times, does not make it the truth. in fact, it makes it pathetic and pathalogical.

So you say that the Brownian Motor theory only works when in direct contact with liquid water? Proof that! Show me any documentation by any scientist you chose as legit. Provide something to back up your theory. If not, your preconceived babble will continue to be exposed for the garbage that it is.

By the way, aspirin was once thought to only help with pain, but now they even use it to help with heart attacks. Some sceintist actually try to think outside the box and use what has already be discovered in new and better ways.

Did I say the threats were made publicly on this forum? No I did not. If yoau re goign to call me a liar, show me where I lied.

I have to repeat as you are persistently ignoringthe gaping flaws, you don't provide anytign to bridge these gaps at all.

As I have said before, if someone is claiming that they have a product that does somthing in a particular fashion THEY shoudl provide the evidence that it works. Not one thing dr PEdersen has provided shows tha this prodct works int eh manner quoted.

Yes Aspirin was once use for pain relief only, then they PROVED that it worked for other things. Show me the proof that the bionic band actually does anythign at all itself. There is none.

It is total hypocrisy to call me highlighting the gaps in the !sciecne" used by Dr Pedersen babble, yet ignore the flaws in Dr Pedersen's ridiculous "paper". If he wants to claim that Einstein's work extends to non-liquids please show me his evidecne. Not one scientist has ever shown that frquencies can pass to non=liquids, including Pedersen, who actually ignores the fac that skin is not liquid in favour of just syaing the human body is 70% liquid. He appears (quite clearly) to have not boethered to do any experiments at all and to be making an assumption based upon the liquid content of the body.

As it stands if he has actually managed to align the protons of the human body using a silicone band he deserves the Nobel Prize, having generated the massive forces required from apeice of metal. Of course it's ewither that or he is just makign it up.

He makes the claims, let's see his evidence.

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” by Stuart Chase 1888

For those who are selling things in an honest fashion to make a profit, proof is what distinguishes them from conmen"

by me today

You have given many quotes with no proof. All as stupid as you are today!

It's not stupid, it's clear. If you are makign a claim that somethign works in a particular manner and seling it for profit, you need to prove it works. If you have nothign by which to prove it, you are a con man.

Dictionary definintnion of a con man "a swindler who exploits the confidence of his victim". As you say those who beleive (i.e. have confidence in the product) require no proof. That is what Bionic Band rely on, rather than providng proof.

Simple.

Bionic band proof has been provided but you simple don't agree with it.
You have proven nothing while I have provided proof.

Thus you are, by the definitions attached, a lair by telling lies of falsehoods and making inaccurate or false statements.
So either provide your proof or continue to be called a liar.
You have no proof that anyone is a conman or swindler having never been exposed to the demonatrations or the Bionic Band. Again, another lie with no proof or substance.

li·ar   /ˈlaɪər
–noun
a person who tells lies. (Fangio)

lie1    /laɪ/
noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

proof   /pruf/
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. (Where is your evidence?)
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? (PHD White paper provided supporting the Bionic Band.)
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. (PHD White paper provided supporting the Bionic Band.)

You have provided proof? When? What proof did you offer that teh badn did naythign? You aren't seriously saying that hte paper was proof, it's garbage.

The demonstration is, as i have statedwith reasoned arguemtn before, NOT a demonstration that the band does a damned thing.

You have provided a definition of truth. You have provided none. The "white papaer" you refer to is not in anyway evidence that establishes that a thing is true. It quite simply does nto do that. Even Dr PEdersen referes to his tests as rudimentary. tehs tests once again for the hard of udnerstanding, do nto proove the claims. Just usign a test then pretending that teh results actually mena somethign is not providing proof, you have to show a link between teh results and the conlusions, there is none int eh white paper.

I have foudn this definiton of "white paper" which more accurately reflects the CONtent of Dr Pedersens paper.

"The white paper can also be a marketing document meant to influence people’s opinions about an emerging technology, new chemicals or medications, or a new gadget. This second definition could be called a sales tactic in disguise. Though the white paper may read like a scientific report with lots of references and some high-toned language, it usually is meant to generate interest in a product or to promote investment or sales of a product. It takes skill to craft a document of this type because it is most successful when it doesn’t sound like a sales pitch. "

You keep saying PHD as if that means that Dr Pedersen can just put some letters after his name and that measn the content does nto have to makes sense and he can just put up pseudosciecne with gapign holes in it and YOU will beleive him. I bothered to read it, I bothered to read about Brownian Motors, and that is how I conclude tha the report is compelte garbage. i await Dr pedersen putting htis crap up for peer review in a scientific journal, and of course I await the evidence that Bionic band can supply to back theri assertion that their product enhances performance. I guess the independent panel at teh ASA will eb able to tell you how compeltely inept the report is and how it does nto constitiute evidence in any way shape or form that the band does anything.

I know you haev an income stream to defend, but the report is garbage the product is garbage and the whole thing is a massive con. To sell this product without any testing that it works in the way it suggests is a con pure and simple, and not one peice of evidence has ever been givent hat it does, let alone proof.

You continue to attempt to twist everything and name call anything that would have a differing opinion then yours and you scream for proof but lack the ability to provide proof of your side or opinion.

Here is a clear concise defintion of a white paper: "A white paper is an authoritative report or guide that helps solve a problem. White papers are used to educate readers and help people make decisions, and are often requested and used in politics, policy, business, and technical fields. In commercial use, the term has also come to refer to documents used by businesses as a marketing or sales tool. Policy makers frequently request white papers from universities or academic personnel to inform policy developments with expert opinions or relevant research."

Take notice of the word "authoritative report", Something that you continue to fail to either understand or just blatantly disregard in your deranged thoughts. While this definition does include reference to marketing and sales, it is a COMPLETE and concise definition of a white paper. Complete and concise are not any part of what you have ever brought to this discussion.

If you have any proof or “authoritative report”, please bring it forward. Do you possess any “authoritative” credentials? If so, bring it forward. If not, you are just continuing to call names and spread prejudice and conjecture without any relevant research or knowledge.

Your report is not authoritative, it has holes in it you coudl drive a bus through. I have to ask, have you actually read it, becasue I point ou the gaps and insterad of you quoting the report you just say Dr Pedersen has a PHD.

There are 3 definitons ther.

1 an authritative report
2 a marketing tool
3 an academic paper requested by policy makers.

The "paper" from Dr Pedersen is quite clearly number 2. Dr Pedersen clearly has not put together anythigin authoritiative, and certianly nothing that actually educates, it makes a load of assumptins and draws conclusions that simply cannot be drawn based upon any of the evidence either quoted or directly obtained from the "tests".

If youa re just goign to continue to say teh report is correct based purely on Dr PEdersen's credentials rath erhtna actually addresing the obbvious gaping deficiencies then I not only question your knowledge and reaserch but also you ability to read the paper for what it actually says.

Judge the report by what it says not who is sayign it and it looks like psuedoscience of the highest order, regardless of Dr Pedersn (who's CV is more abotu sales than science) credentials.

I do not intend to insult anybody but,
These sort of products with outrageous claims have been around as long as anybody remembers. The truth is, they don't work, because the claim contradict "laws of nature".
I accept, that we do not know everything there is to know (probably never will), but they contradict laws of nature which are accepted by every sane person for millenia.
I feel for the people who hope for a miracle, because no doctor can help them.
There is such a thing as "a positive attitude (hope) makes alot of good things happen", but it does not work as well as many people thing.

In a nutshell: Snakeoil is BS

Everyone,
The above posts by Fangio is his continuing complete guess work. He has never seen, held, tested, or experienced the Bionic Band.

He read an article and now considers himself to be the almighty expert of all things, with no education, training or experience. On other "complaint Board topics", he can't even tell the differece between Power Balance or Bionic Band. He has no credentials or professional knowledge, yet wants to trash the work of a PHD or other professionals.

He has zero evidence of his claims and but continues to belittle anyone who would speak of their personal and direct experiences with the Bionic Band. He is trying to be the squeaky wheel by attempting to drown out honest people with real experience.

(Fangio) "Believe me, believe me. I know what's best. I have no evidence and everyone else is a fake." That pot (Fangio) is calling the kettle black.

So because ice has not been certified by the FDA, you can't use it to help with pain? Xeno, contact the FDA and have all ice tested and certified!
A broken arm is medical condition but is not treated by a cast! It only holds the bones in place and the arm repairs the break. Buy Xeno, you go get all the casting material tested by the FDA! Or even get two sticks and string (often used to splint a break) and get those tested! Not everything fits into the little box that medical community has sold as the grand savior of all the ails you!

You are right in that this doesn't fit within the box created by the medical elitist. Many people believe a natural way is better.

Xeno,
If it make monkey gentials grow, you shold have grapefruit by now. Yes, I have copied and pasted a few things because you continue to spew the same old wornout babble with no substance. Crying that the Bionic Band has made unrealistic claims like giving you a brain will not contribute to your credibility.

Look through my previous post (do a little research) and you will find a link to the PHD white paper documenting the double blind study on the Bionic Band. You will also find that Fangio, our great British savior will call it names and use his prejudicial condemnation of all things that he doesn't say himself.

Horrible, Horrible, Horrible!

It actually made my back WORSE.

I'm going to sue these idiots.

Horrible! Horrible! Horrible!

This 'bionic band' made my back WORSE.

BEWARE OF THIS EVIL SCAM.

I see all JDH can do is cut and paste.

Justiceforall7, where did you purchase yours?

JDH, why don't you get real information instead of spitting out the same old wrong info.
Learn, and then comment.
Since you continue to cut and paste, I will reply in same. Try educating yourself.

The beautiful thing is that you can't even understand the difference between the Bionic Band and the cheap copies attempting to copy the technology!

Power Balance is a silicone/rubber band using a "hologram" (picture) on a plastic sticker, not a imprinted (tuned) stainless steel (Bionic Band)with a frequency.
Than you throw in Q-Link, yet another hologram.
The hologram is generated by a computer, just like the back of a credit card and is suject to the same failure that the magnetic strip of a credit card suffers.

Add the IRnew that even my 14 year old could see the cheating of the test. He knows the proper application of the tests because he has been trained.

As far as pasting, you so your ignorance by not understanding the differences in the products you have "pasted" together. Go and get information on Bionic Band and join the conversation with knowledge.
So go learn and come back with some sense, common would be good, but actual sense (knowledge) would be best.

Xeno,

So all studies are subjective? And not scientific?

Here is a link clarifing a "study" and "test" for you and I included the web page from where I got the quote for your review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

"Examples of controls"

In TESTING a drug, it is important to carefully verify that the supposed effects of the drug are produced only by the drug itself. Physicians achieve this with a double-blind STUDY in a clinical trial: two (statistically) identical groups of patients are compared, one of which receives the drug and one of which receives a placebo. The group receiving the placebo would be the control group, while the group receiving the drug would be the treatment group. Neither the patients nor the doctor know which group receives the real drug, which serves both to curb bias and to isolate the effects of the drug.

The defintion clearly shows that, yes, the study is a test.

The Original Frequency is the frequency the human body should naturally be at. At this frequency, the cells in the body are communicating with each other and the protons within the cell are working together in unison.

This frequency allows your body to return to its natural state of energy, strength,
and balance.

You asked what are the BENEFITS didn't you? Lets look back. Why yes you did! Did you ask what does IT DO? Why, no I don't see that in your question. Not dodging just answering your question.

But now that you asked, here you go:

Imagine you have trillions of protons in your body, and you are consistently being bombarded with thousands of different frequencies. These frequencies come from things such as cell phone towers, power lines, radio and TV stations, computers, and just about anything that you plug into the wall. These frequencies cause the protons in your body to resonate (vibrate) and mimic all of those external frequencies that cause you to become weaker and unbalanced.

Think of each one of those protons as a tiny little gyroscope. When they resonate at different frequencies this causes them to spin in all different directions. This means that they are unbalanced and fighting each other, which wastes a lot of energy. Balance is the first thing affected while wearing one of the many BionicBand® Family of Products. When you wear our products, a single frequency that over-rides all the other frequencies is introduced which makes your protons line up and work together as a team.

You can also read the white paper that describes the testing done.

Xeno,

I am not what else you need. Products have made claims for years and that is how is done. The white paper is a legitamate document that proves how the human body reacts when exposed to the Bionic Band.
I have clarified for you what a test and study include and don't include.
I have shown that the desire to see live interactions of is impossible at this stage of science as I pointed out with:

"Adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP) is the major energy currency of cells and is involved in many cellular processes. However, there is NO METHOD FOR REAL-TIME MONITORING of ATP levels inside individual living cells." http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15651.short

When the cells are removed for "viewing" in a microscope, they are no longer working in unison with the body and the Bionic Band.

That is why I as well as others do the demonstrations and test on people. I understand the skeptical responses, but the anger and name calling(labeling) without any exposure to the product or the people is truely sad.
I was just like most on here. A complete skeptic, than I tried one while competing at a martial arts tournament. My instructors came to me after my kata set and asked me what I had done different. They did not know I had a Bionic Band and had not been exposed to the demonstrations but saw a difference in my stances and movement. I know you could say it was psychosomatic on my part, but I really doubt it because I was only worried about the judges and nothing else.
I know that my son with ADHD has improved in school. I put it on him before the school year started and I quickly saw a difference, but like you will think, I wanted to see the good in my son just like any father would. He went to school and the teachers had NO idea that he was wearing anything. Two weeks into school was the open house and we went. My wife HATES going to these things because it is always negative because my son can't control himself in school. To our surprise, every teacher had good things to say about his behavior. Two teachers were even the same as the previous school year and asked what were we doing different with my son because he was so much better. Finally, his grades started coming in and every one of them was higher across the board. It has been two years now for him and he will not leave the house without his Bionic Band.
I know that to you that this is just another claim, but I can go on and on with people I have met who have received benefits be using the Bionic Band.

Let me ask you, if you found something that truely helps people, wouldn't you talk about it? Sell it? Use it? Defend It? Of course you would.

All I ask is for common courtesy is these discussions.

All that is available is what has been already provided.

That is why I have to fall back on:
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase 1888
There is never enough proof for some and sometimes we can make the proof good enough for all.

Lets remember...All that video shows is that someone can muniplilate the testing. I agree that the test can be faked. So because an expolsion can be faked on TV or in the movies, that all explosions are fake?

And you want to call my a scammer or fake because I sell a product and give a guarrantee? Take a look at the video producers website as he trying to sell his book and money making product.