Bionic Band review: Bionic bullcrap 266

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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

by me today

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yawn

Fact - I have contacted the FDA they confirdme it is a medical device, they did not use just one section of the rules but the rules in totality to make that judgement. Why has there been no further action, as a non US citizen I chose not pursue it, which was an option given to me by Ms Benson. If you like I can make a request for them to follow up on this.

Fact - I contacted the university listed by Bionic Bands as conducting the research, they acknowledged that researchers had thought about doing something, but decided not to. It seems that you labour under the delusion that simply not telling some one somethign about the band means it is blind, that is not teh case. Observer bias provides for expectation to cause greater performance. This is the exact reason that double blind randomised tests were introduced. I do not need experience of the band to know that the tests you conduct are flawed, you do not describe double blind randomised tests you describe a single product being tested at a sales point. The tests are thereofre completely invalid from an evidential point of view. You will of course refuse to believe that which shows you know next to nothing about science.

You say the metal peice was in for both tests, not waht was said at the time i posteed about it. However, I woudl love to see this research please let me know whetre it is publicly available.

The bit about the magentic force itn eh band is compelte hocum. The MRI requires the massive power constantly to be applied for it to work. The power is used up as the MRI works, it cannot maintain the chagre when teh power is turned off. Bionic band comes with no power source. Let me see, massive power to make it work for a couple fo seconds, or 20 hours and the massive charge (by the way at a level whic is dangerous for humans to be in conract with) stays forever. Hmmm, what's that I smell?

Fact - The ASA have decided to investigate the claims made by Bionic Band in the UK, which are of performance gains from the band, and will require proof (not anecdotal evidence) that it works.

I could nto give a crap about your honest experience of the band. Your experience is anecdotal, it provides absolutley no evidence of whether the band does anything itself or not. It is not evidecne that teh band works. This is why me trying on the band provides zero evidecne at all of the band working.

with regard to pain relief I suggest you try http://www.bionicband.com/Web/ww/en/painrelief.dhtml

"When you place the Bionic Band® on your body, you are creating that same balance and also opening up the energy pathways (circuits) by aligning the protons and creating that "cellular teamwork". All this without the needles of TCM!"

This is a claim that a physiological change occurs which gives pain relief. it is not merely some people get pain relief, it si purporting to be an explanation as to how Bionic Band makes a physical change in the body to relieve pain. I suggest you look a the FDA rules in light of the physiological change relieving pain.

As to not knowingf the procedure for conducting tests, EVERY time a salesman has explained how he or she did the tests, adn the paper put out by Bionic Band sayign how they have tested DID NOT show the tests conducted as double blind randomised placebo tests.

On the UWI info you provided, which one is it? You have written UWI numerous times but in the published response, Ms Tee twice states WIU? Are you sure you wrote to the correct place? You can't even tell the difference between Power Balance and Bionic Band as proven in your addmission one day ago.

As far as your response to my question about whether or not the ASA was relavent to your claim of bad advertising practices, you assumed that I may a statement about whether or not the ASA had authority. You need to read and comprehend, not just blow over text and jump to conclusions. I stated that is "appears", which is clearly an opinion rather than a fact. I actually allow for an alternate understanding of information. You continue to make statements of opinion as if they are factual. You have had no facts and continue to have none, only assumptions.

While Ms Benson may believe that the Bionic Band is a medical device, using the text directly from the FDA website "intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, ". What "disease or condition" does the Bionic Band claim to cure, mitigate, treat or prevent"? The text of the Bionic Band advertising clear states: "Some people wear the Bionic Band® because of reported pain relief." There is no claim of pain relief by Bionic Band, but they are addressing a reported claim from users of the Bionic Band.

it has been over 100 days since you reportedly contacted Ms. Benson at FDA. Any actions from the FDA? NOPE! Because upon further review, no action was neccesarry because none was warranted. So you have to continue your personal crusade you bash anyone who would believe in something you just can't fit in to your little box.

Again with the your assumption and the acknowledgment that you have never been physically present for a test of the Bionic Band at all. You assume that the test "it could be placebo or expectation, " but don't know the procedure for conducting the test other than the video on the website. You have never seen a live demonstration. I talk about experience because I have performed hundreds of test with the Bionic Band without telling people a thing other than "let me show you something".
I have had family and friends perform test on each other without me touching either party, so my supposed "conman" skills could not be used. I have handed these people "imprinted" and "non-imprinted" bands without them know which is which and have seen only the people with the "imprinted" Bionic Band have improved body balance and strength reaction.
I have seen adult children bring the elderly parents to my booth and ask to put one on their parent; without telling the parent anything, we have them walk away from the booth so we can visually see the general gate of the parent and then walk back. We put a Bionic Band on the parent who asked "what is this", we answered, nothing just walk, and the adult child and everybody else can visually see the gate and walk improve. We take the Bionic Band off and have them walk again and the gate and walk go bad again. The parent had no idea or expectation because we didn’t tell them ANYTHING.

The above are just a few of my experiences with the Bionic Band. Admittedly, you have none, just your preconceived belief system.

I have read your many posts on here. You started out by telling people that they were experiencing a placebo effect without having ever met or spoken with them. You don’t know what they have experienced but want to put them down.
Next you want to call the purchase of the Bionic Band “for pain relief” as illegal, which it is not. When you truly read the words of the information on “Pain Relief”, it is explaining the belief of why people have “reported pain relief”. Nothing is promised. I have people all the time ask if it will relieve their pain and I openly, freely and honestly tell them that I DO NOT KNOW. I am not a doctor, did not examine them, nor did I diagnose them. Many users report that they experience pain relief and some do not. That is why they get the 30 day money back guarantee. And before you say it, they get my full contact information and I send them an email after the purchase so they can reply or request refund if need be.
I know you want to think that this is a con and that is your right, but bashing good people who have provided their honest experience with the Bionic Band is not right.

You said: “Tests shoud be double blind, and independent and on a large number of subjects, unfortunately Bionic Band don't thinkn that is a good idea.” with absolutely no knowledge. You had never even seen any research or documentation that has since been provided, but were already labeling people as “stop scam artists exploiting people”. Another of your early assumptions was “however since there is no evidence” but since you received the testing, you have understandably stuck to your original preconceived belief.
You said about the double blind test: “visible difference between the two bands “…..(which tere is if the metal peice which is visible is missing)” and again were wrong. The double blind testing was conducted with identical looking bands, both sets with identical looking metal pieces. Only half of the samples had been “imprinted” with the frequency and half had not. The testers do not have knowledge of which was which, but only had bands A and bands B. So you assumed that the testing was flawed because you have no first hand knowledge.
You said: “as the company DO NOT provide identical uncahrged models that woudl be necessary for a proper double blind test.” and again you are stating an assumption as fact with no first hand knowledge. The double blond testing was explained above.
You replied to my statement about the creation of magnets with: “The power required to get a magent to align protons is massive.” Which is correct but you assume that the Bionic Band does not require “massive” power to imprint the metal, but in fact requires 20 hours of treatment within the machine. No, we will not tell you how it is done because that is a trade secret and whether you like it or not, that does not have to be disclosed to anyone, similar any other trade secrets by Coke, Pepsi, Ipad, etc.

Cynthia Benson of the FDA wrote to me that

"Your interest in contacting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through your recent email is appreciated.

After looking at the website whose link you provided and seeing the claims of pain relief and more, it appears that the Bionic Band would qualify as a medical device under the regulatory authority of the FDA. You can read more about this authority at the FDA medical device website of http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/ucm051512.htm ."

Angela Tee at UWI wrote back saying

"I received the message below requiring your inquiry about Bionic Band research taking place at WIU. I oversee our human subjects research at the University. To the best of my knowledge, we do not have researchers at WIU studying the Bionic Bands." She later confirmed that some researchers had thoguht about doping it but had decided not to, certainly no research ever took place, it was never started.

I don't want to publish their e-mail addresses on here, go find them yourself.

Exerience? Experience of what? You cannot say "from experience" that the band is doing something, it could be placeboe or expectation, becuase hte tests are completely falwed adn the anecdote is feeling not evidence. That you fail to understand this (or deliberately just go with feelings because you know absolutley no evidence of the band actually doing anythng at all.

The [censor]ization I refer to is the complete lie that the product is based on Einstein's theory regarding the passin g of frequencies, when Einsteins theory stopped at being able to do it to liquids and DID NOT extend to non liquids. That is a [censor]isation, it is completely made up, using the name of Einstein but lying about his science.

After a larger amopunt of research (just as with the FDA who I bothered to contact rather thn just making it up as you do) I found they regulate advertising including the advertising of medical products, and as of 1st March they regulate the all marketing claims on the internet in the UK. MHRA regulate licensing of products.

That is why the ASA stated that

"Your complaint

We have considered your complaint and we will take it up with the advertiser.

We intend to deal with your complaint under our formal investigations procedure, which means we will ask Bionic Band UK to comment on the complaint and send evidence to support the claims. We will then draft a recommendation and refer your complaint to the ASA Council for adjudication. You will have an opportunity to comment on the recommendation before it is considered by the Council. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.

If Bionic Band UK responds to your complaint by offering to change the advertising in a way that resolves your concerns, we may close the case without refering it to Council or publishing an adjudication. This has the advantage of resolving your complaint more quickly. However we resolve the complaint, we will let you know the outcome.

A copy of our complaints procedure is enclosed..."

I guess you are more of an expert than they are since they have already evaluatedx whether the case falls under their remit and needs investigating due tot eh claims made, seem to think it is under their remit and the claims need investigating, and you say it isn't. Either that or you have not got a clue what you are talking about.

Again you continue on your self serving statements that the Bionic Band does nothing with having no, none, zero experience. I speak from a place of knowledge vision and experience. You speak from a place of ignorance, assumptions and self servance.

Still waiting for the contact info for the person at the FDA and UWI that you claim you spoke with.

Again, you spout FDA, UWI, etc. You state that Bionic Band has [censor]ized this and that, but you have given NOTHING but your belief. Not one shread of evidence showing where anything has ever been proven against Bionic Band. You can't even tell the difference between Power Balance and Bionic Band because you have NO CLUE!

Now you spout about psuedoscience and want to put everything you can't and won't believe into the that box to make yourself feel better. Natural science and cures have been around far longer than the [censor]IZED UK Medical system. You keep going to your doctors as they continue to keep you full of drugs ans accept their science as truth.

I look forward to the conclusion of the investigation as well.

PS: After a minor amount of research, it doesn't apear that the ASA would even deal with what you claim to be false advertising since their website states: "Companies' trading practices, contractual matters, the quality of goods and services, claims on packaging and trade names are all dealt with by trading standards." And Medicines or Medical Devices as you claim Bionic Band should be considered would be covered by "Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency".

It is just a shame that you talk so much without having any substance.

Come offit. The tests use show zero effect of the band on the body. Not one effect at all, no evidecne that it is not all int eh mind whatsoever. I think you have a misconception of proof if you regard tests which cannot, by there very nature, show that the band is effecting the body are proof that the band does anything.

The poitn about the MRI is YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE EFFECT. Bionic Band offer nothing like that they show no physical effect whatsoever.

You sell the typical conman line of "so many things can't be proven". Well don't claim a method if you can't prove it. Why spout the BS about aligning protons if you cannot show this in any way at all. It's simply makign it up if it has not been observed.

I guess your idiotic oversimplistic "Magnets keep their magnetism" argument demonstrates your gullibility in beleiving in psuedoscience. The power required to get a magent to align protons is massive. Pretending that it can be achieved using frequncies is ridiculous.

I know the body is made of 70% "water. However, Einstiens theory was for DIRECT contact with LIQUID water. The [censor]isation of his theory ignoring the need for direct contact withte liquid demonstrates the deception here.

You can spout the "no promises just results" crap as much as you like, it does nto change the fact athat peopel do not return it wihtin 30 days if the placebo and expectation effects work temporarily for them, the band does absolutely nothign physical, as you claim it does. The manufacturers have provided absolutely zero evidence that they have observed a physical effect let alone the aligning of particles. They have provided zero evidence that Einstein's theory that they rely on, now does not require direct contact with a liquid. They provide no evidence that aligning protons increase strength and balance. Tehy provide nothing, and where they do make claims they are clealry BS.

You say people struggle to beleiv ethe science. Bionic Band publish no science they publish assertions with zero scientific backing or evidene, most of which is clearly incorrect. I fell sorry for you in a way int hat you beleive such things without thinking about it. They don't have any independent double blind randomised tests even to show it is not a placebo, let alone any evidence that it does what it says how it says.

No evidence except for tests that do not even require a physical placebo to replicate and a large charge for a band that costs less than $2 to make. They say if it loks like duck and quaks like a duck it's probably a duck, this looks like a scam and quacks like a scam.

I guess we will see whether the company have any proof of their claims when the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK get their reply about the claims of strength and balance increases from Bionic Bands UK. If no evidnece is offered and they have to remove their claims of any performance benfits I guess they will have no evidence, why else would they remove teh claims? I look forward to the conclusion of their investigation.

I guess the problem you are having comes from a total misunderstanding of proof. As stated and shown over and over, the effects the Bionic Band has on the body is the proof.
Medical studies do not and can not show the active workings of drugs, medical devices, vitamins, food, water or anything else on the body. All that can be measured is the bodies reaction or change to the sustance. They expose bodies to the testing material and than report the results. That is what has been done by Bionic Band and that is what has been provided.

You continue to spew the same assumptions with no substance. You now admit that you probably did read at least one of the papers on the effects of the Bionic Band and did not believe it. You also admit that you didn't read any other paper and won't beleive it anyway. So do you continue to ask for information when you clearly won't beleive anything anyway? You won"t even believe the people on here who have written about how it helped them personally.

Give this forum the contact info for the FDA rep you have "proof" that Bionic Band is in violation of the law. Provide the contact information from UWI that can verify your claim that they have never tested the Bionic Band.

There are so many things that effect the human body that can not be "proven" with "evidence" as you would want. Show me gravity. Not the effects that is has on the body or substance, but actual gravity. Show me air, not wind, not a tornado, but air. Hold it in your hand and show me. You can't. I bet you don't believe in magnetic fields either!
You speak about a large machine being used to align protons and that is the only way to produce the effects.
Where does a magnet get its "mysitcal" power and how can it keep it without being plugged in like an multi-million dollar MRI needs? The answer is simple, they take bare ferrous metal and using a machine, alter the metal to produce a magnetic reaction. Now this reaction you can not see or "proof", but it is there and you can see the effects on many different bodies.
By the way, you might want to check, but SKIN is made up of WATER! In fact the human body is about 70% plus WATER!

The Bionic Band is not a rubber or silicone band like what you assume. Granted, we have made silicone bands and treated them to hold the frequency, but they do not last as long as the Bionic Band Original or Bionic Band jewelry.

You believe that everybody is trying to con each other. I feel very sorry for you. I know that I am trying to help people and have done that with Bionic Band Family of Products. I know that people will struggle to believe the science and the product. I am okay with that. People have been taken. This isn't one of them but you won't believe anything anyway. The company and the distributors offer and 30 day money back money guarantee for the simple reason is, if it is not working for you, than we (and I) don't want you to pay for something that isn't helping you.

Again, no promises, just results.

PPS It is entirely possible that I have read the paper. I was directed to a paper on a placebo test conducted on behalf of Bionic band by a distributor. Upon reading it it was clealry no an independent randomised double blnd study, which would have provided evidence as teh methodology included no randomising, and the blinding was not double blind. So maybe I have seen the paper, what I haven't seen is any paper that actually provides evidence that it works, I have only seen ones from Bionic Band which fudge the method and results to make it look like it works

PS It is very easy to say people are making assumptions and they should not comment if they haven't seen the evidence, it is a great defence for conmen, all they then have to do is steadfastly refuse to publish the evidence anywhere that critics may see it.

It is also easy to say, we have the evidence, when you do not.

It is also easy to say we have papers that prove it works, when the papaers do not, for example demonstrate that the band aligns the protons, or that Einstein's theory now (despite it not working for Einstein) works on contact with non liquids. IN fact when all you have is evidence that the parlour trick works for people.

All the time that this goes on you can then make claims about the product workign that coudl (and almost certainly do) rely entirely on placeboe and expectation using a test that has no validity for demonstrating the band itself having any effect and certainly no the effect climed re the aligning of protons.

It is a con, nothign has ever been published that demonstrates that it actually does anything. I put the claims that a papaer exists which demonstrates that it works alongside teh claim that UWI are doing testing.

VMD

Kineisiology is not mind over atter, APPLIED KINEISIOLOGY is, they are not the same thing.

Bionicbandonline

Apologies about LJM, You are right they tested another band that provides EXACTLY the same evidence, i.e. just the same anecdotal stuff and the same balance and strength tests.

On the FDA, they do nt need to request the infromation, it is an obligation for anyone selling a medical device to apply for a license. When claiming pain relief as a benefit the Bionic Band is clearly a medical device and yet Bionic Band refuse to apply for a license and provide the details.

Unfortunately the wholse debate about efficacy must be conducted based upon assumptions as Bionic Band publish zero credible evidence that they have managed to do things so far assumed to be impossible. The alignment of protons currently requires a room sized multi-million dollar MRI machine. All Bionic Band have published is a claim that they can do it with a silicone band. I assume they are completely incorrect becuase the science simply does not work, the forces required cannot be produced by a silicone (or neoprene) band.

They claim it is due to Einstein's theory re frequencies in metals passing to water when in contact. However, Einstein's theory extended only to liquids NOT to skin. So thatclaim is incorrect, and is pivotla to the product working.

They claim to have found the frequency at which it is most beneficial but appear to be guessing as again there is absolutley no evidence of testing.

Your claim that the FDA have not gone after Bionic Band is they make no promises is compeltely untrue. I checked with the FDA and have published contact details for the person I spoke to who stated categoricallythat the claims made by Bionic Band make it a medical device.

I can belevie that something other than a drug can work, but the [censor]isation of Eintein's theory as a central plank in teh method for the band working is completely makign up science. The claims about aligning the protons are unsubstantiated, the claims abotu fidning a particular frequency as most ebenfiticaial also. I have not read their paper supposedly backing up thier claim, and have asked for anyone to publish it, I hae asked for this and have asked for ANY evidence on this and one other forum, NOTHING apart from anecdotla evidecne has ever been provided. For over a year that has been the case.

Now we find that they claim that their band is being tested by UWI, yet UWI confirmed that absolutely no teting whatsoever is taking place. They are categorically lying about there being research, and refuse to publish any scientific evidence whatsoever.

My "assumptions" do outweigh the evidence of anecdote, simply because not a single anecdote ever put forward demonstrates this to eb anything other than a placebo. If they had something that actually worked they would not use tests which are completley useless for proving the band actually works, i.e. ones where you can get the same results without the band. If it gives increased strength then they could tests strength legitimately and balance using machine testing instead of an 1890's parlour trick.

Simply put, zero evidence of any credible sort has been provided to demonstrate that the band can achieve teh alignemtn of protons which woudl require an MRI to achieve it for even a fraction of a second, zero evidecne has been produced to demonstrate that obtainign the alignment at a set frequency is possible, zero evidence has been provided to show that this would benefit strength or balance and the principles they use are made up.

If Kinesiology is mind over matter than I have a worthless Masters degree! I have an MA in Kinesology. Ignorance is bliss!