Comments for The Health Sleuth

Comment on Artificial vs. Natural Wars by HundredPercentNaturalDung

HundredPercentNaturalDung — Mon, 14 May 2012 09:48:02 +0000

Artifical additives are safer because they’re under “Strict Control”(TM)? LOL! Don’t make my sandals laugh! Those producers care *jack shit* about what they release, as long as its cheap to make, sells well, and generates revenue. And all those checks… with the right money, can be easily (shhhhh… don’t tell anyone) bypassed. (*wink*, *wink*) with *right* people. The best food is what you see and make yourself (that is, if you can prepare it well, and your hands grow out of the right place instead out of your ass).

Comment on The Scam of Skin Antioxidant Testing by George

George — Sat, 12 May 2012 01:36:58 +0000

One last thing before the vultures are set upon me…the PDR is a good source to find information about particular drugs/vitamins. However, companies pay to have their products listed in it. Saying your vitamin is listed in the PDR should in no way infer that it is of higher quality. You just paid the exorbitant fee to have it listed.

Comment on The Scam of Skin Antioxidant Testing by George

George — Sat, 12 May 2012 01:30:26 +0000

By the way don’t you think it’s funny that Luke posted on March 20, “I am done of this site.” Yet here he is posting little over a month later? The company shills are scouring the internet in search of bad reviews (heck, even neutral reviews) to counter with their pseudo scientific results. Didn’t it make you at least a little skeptical about the part of Mr. Krieger’s blog that states, “In 1997, they were fined by the Federal Trade Commission over claims they made about two supplements they sold.” Bottom line is that their scanner does what it says but so what? Antioxidants are important but how much do we need? Where’s the grade 1 research to correlate skin levels with the levels needed in tissues?

Comment on The Scam of Skin Antioxidant Testing by George

George — Sat, 12 May 2012 00:10:08 +0000

These positive replies are all a bunch of hooey. My guess is that Luke & Michele and several of the other people are one and the same. Please take a look at Peter’s response back on November 21 and check out the evidence cited. With 25 years as a medical researcher I can’t help but laugh at what these people are putting up as evidence. WAKE UP People. Doesn’t it make you wonder why a dentist and a couple of chiropractors are measuring your antioxidant levels. It’s not because they’re interested in your health but because they can charge you $20 for a simple test and then sell you their expensive vitamins. The scary part of this is that someone will end up buying one of these gadgets and end up thinking everything is fine (false sense of wellness) and not go get a check-up, and in the end, develop a cancer that could’ve been detected. Sad.

Comment on How To Spot Pseudoscience: Cobroxin and Conspiracies by Me5

Me5 — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:13:01 +0000

I tried Cobroxin one day out of the blue when I seen at Walgreens. I had seen a few science specials on the future of this kind of pain relief, so I was curious if it would work. I sit at a desk all day and have chronic neck pain and headaches from it, for about 10 years now. And my hands also hurt from various other office tasks and I since it runs in the family it is probably arthritis.
About a week after taking it, my neck pain and chronic headaches were gone, and my hands felt better. I was actually surprised it worked, I didn’t really think it would. My brother-in-law has 3 herniated disks in his back, and has big pain issues, so I got some for him. It didn’t take his back pain away, but his nerve pain in his legs that kept him up nights went away, and he felt a little better in general. I am sick of taking pills, I am thankful for this product, and it may not work for everyone, but the only people I know that have used it seem to love it!

Comment on The Scam of Skin Antioxidant Testing by Luke

Luke — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:22:16 +0000

Jamie,
Sorry to see you were ‘brow beaten’. I can only guess this was a newer operator and is still learning. What we do know is the higher the number the better someone’s overall nutritional level is. As Dr. Oz stated when he had the Scanner on his show, he called it…’The Ultimate Nutritional Lie Detector Test’. The score is a base line. The guarantee is… if someone takes Lifepak for 60 days, and their score does not go up, they get their money back. The goal for anyone is to get the highest number as possible.
I don’ t know what quality Vitamix is, but I know Lifepak is listed in the PDR, Physicians Desk Reference. That is another sign of the HIGH quality Lifepak has.
Do your homework and confirm what you take nutritionally.
Take Care.

Comment on The Scam of Skin Antioxidant Testing by Jaime Espiritu

Jaime Espiritu — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:08:22 +0000

Thank you so much for this information. I thought it was a weird thing when I went to a demo. After doing a demo, I felt I was getting the “brow beaten” you need these supplements sales pitch. I didn’ t for it because I use Vitamix everyday. The sales tactic is that they make you worry and feel guilty about it. I don’ t like the sales approach. They don’t really ask you what problems you are experiencing to address the needs. It’s more like you need this because you need it. Case closed.

Comment on Cobroxin: Pain Reliever or Placebo? by Zachariah

Zachariah — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:43:33 +0000

Thanks a bunch, James. The information seemed to be from a non-biased approach, very well written.

Comment on The Scam of Skin Antioxidant Testing by Greg Comlish

Greg Comlish — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:33:09 +0000

You’ve been on a starvation diet for 3 weeks and you’re wondering why your score is still bad? Sorry to break it to you, but it’s going to take a while longer than 3 weeks to change the levels of antioxidents in your body even if you were taking in the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables which you are definitely not doing since you’re getting only 500 cals/day (and even that small number includes meat).

To me, this example demonstrates exactly why the scanner is so important. Too many people like Suz delude themselves into thinking that they are making healthy choices. Suz managed to eat a few tomatoes and carrots in the past few weeks so she can’t imagine how her score could be anything but excellent. The biophotonic scanner cuts through the bullshit and gets right to the unpleasant truth: Like many of her fellow Americans, Suz’s body is under oxidative stress and she is at risk for disease and premature aging. Not everybody can swallow the truth. Some people are going to lash out at NuSkin and make misinformed allegations. But others are going to make serious changes to their diet and lifestyle.

Do we need a scanner to tell us how many fruits and vegetables we are eating? No, but in America today people have such a skewed idea of what a “normal” diet is. People think they are eating plenty of vegetables just because they sometimes get the onion rings instead of the fries. The scanner gives us some desperately needed perspective.

Comment on The Scam of Skin Antioxidant Testing by Greg Comlish

Greg Comlish — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:01:57 +0000

The fundamentals for the biophotonic scanner have been published in Nature, the most renowned and competitive scientific journal in the world:

http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v115/n3/abs/5600819a.html

Abstract
Summary

Carotenoids are thought to play a significant part in the skin’s anti-oxidant defense system, and may help prevent malignancy. Inability to measure skin carotenoid content readily has, however, made it difficult to establish the relationship between carotenoid concentration and the occurrence of cutaneous malignancy. We have measured in vivo carotenoid concentration using a noninvasive optical method, Raman spectroscopy. To validate our instrumentation, abdominoplasty skin was evaluated by both Raman spectroscopy and high-performance liquid chromatography determination for carotenoid content. Evaluation of the Raman signal in specific carotenoid solutions was also performed. Precision of Raman measurements within skin sites, within subjects, and between subjects was measured. Sensitivity of the method was evaluated as a function of anatomical region and the distribution of carotenoids within the stratum corneum. Lastly, we evaluated the Raman signal in actinic keratosis and basal cell carcinoma lesions and perilesional skin and compared this with region-matched sites in healthy subjects. Our results indicate that the Raman scattering method reflects the presence of carotenoids in human skin and is highly reproducible. Evaluation of five anatomical regions demonstrated significant differences in carotenoid concentration by body region with the highest carotenoid concentration noted in the palm. Comparison of carotenoid concentrations in basal cell carcinomas, actinic keratosis, and their perilesional skin demonstrate a significantly lower carotenoid concentration than in region-matched skin of healthy subjects. These results represent the first evidence that carotenoid concentration in the skin correlate with the presence or absence of skin cancer and precancerous lesions.