|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: wheat grass... any science to this fad? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I've registered at that forum and have posted a few polite but critical posts. I'm nator there, too, if anybody wants to read.
Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
From the thread Why are there no scientific studies on the benefits of wheatgrass?:
Derek Stem writes: You can choose to focus on rigid scientific validation or you can choose a flexible open minded approach and make your own observations and contributions. We have chosen the latter. I'd respond, "Yes, we know you've chosen the latter, probably the most common approach of pseudoscientific health food marketing. Why does your website work hard at giving the impression that you've chosen the former, i.e., science, when you haven't?" In other words, the issue isn't that they're not doing science. The issue is the effort they exert to make people think they're doing science. This is all just shoveling sand into the ocean, though. Hospitals are now offering bogus treatments like therapeutic touch and aroma therapy, arguing that they should offer what their client-base wants, and I assume just wanting to get a slice of the pie. Legitimate drug companies are now some of the largest marketers of nutritional supplements and vitamins - it's an easy source of revenue, isn't subject to almost any testing requirements, and there are all kinds of stylistic ways to avoid the rules covering what health claims can be made. The FDA can only regulate what congress provides them a mandate for, and the AMA is very gunshy of tackling bogus health claims as a result of past legal entanglements. The American public are just lambs begging to be fleeced. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
See Message 7 of the Why are there no scientific studies on the benefits of wheatgrass? thread.
Good God, Derek's like a broken record. He seems to think the issue is whether or not wheatgrass works (whatever "works" means). That isn't the issue at all. We're not disputing whether wheatgrass works. I'm sure we both have our opinions (likely very similar), but they're beside the point. What Derek can't seem to wrap his brain around is that they're making every effort to give the appearance of science without actually doing any science. They're misrepresenting the nature of the actual scientific support of their claims for their product, which places their product claims firmly in the realm of pseudoscience. There (shoveling another shovelful of sand), take that, ocean! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
My replies over there have become shorter and shorter in order to see if I can actually get a response to my actual questions and points.
I am most interested in seeing if my question asking for an explanation of how "denatured" food is less nutritious will be answered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Is that "denatured" as in proteins, or is that "denatured" as contradistinguished from what?
If the former, then denatured food is defenitely easier, possibly more nutritious. Something tells me though that this is not what's meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DynamicGreens Junior Member (Idle past 451 days) Posts: 11 From: Toronto, ON Joined: |
The initial statement that I was responding to was this:
"Thanks everyone (esp bren) for debunking the wheatgrass thing. That'll save some money and not to mention save her from having to drink it (she says it tastes bad)."found in post http://EvC Forum: wheat grass... any science to this fad? -->EvC Forum: wheat grass... any science to this fad? So the post says I'll steer away from wheatgrass juice because it doesn't have any value according to the subjective opinions of people in this forum. This is something that I disagree with and just wanted to add some information. Posting that we were a "quack company" and suggesting that we are con-artists "feeding at the trough" kind of sets the wrong tone for the discussion. Taking the discussion to our website forum for the single purpose of attempting to discredit instead of discuss, kind of sets the wrong tone as well. I am a lover of science and commend everyone here for demanding scientific facts. In this case, scientifically validated facts that are completely documented, have human subjects and directly correlate to exact conditions are only partially available. For example, just because Dr. Chui Nan Lai states that "Applying low levels of the (wheatgrass) extract to mutagens diminished activity in them by up to 99%." doesn't mean that we understand the exact format, whether it can be packaged properly, productized, is effective short term, is effective long term or increases survival rates. It is just a statement and definitely pseudoscience. As the last few messages posted on our board have become shorter, of poorer taste and truly unproductive they have been disapproved. The reason being that they included: "My guess is that nobody at this company will touch this message with a ten foot pole."This was a posted response to a message someone asked about heart disease and seizures. That message has been there since March 25, 2007 in the hope of a meaningful response from someone wiser than us. They do not deserve such a response particularly as we have provided no response and this is a self evident fact. The existing messages which are on the board will remain and may provide someone with more information and more things to consider. Cheers. Edited by DynamicGreens, : More information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DynamicGreens Junior Member (Idle past 451 days) Posts: 11 From: Toronto, ON Joined: |
It is definition 1 (see below) which is "To change the nature or natural qualities of" specifically in in the context of food processing.
Denature - definition of denature by The Free Dictionary de·na·ture (d-nchr)tr.v. de·na·tured, de·na·tur·ing, de·na·tures 1. To change the nature or natural qualities of. 2. To render unfit to eat or drink without destroying usefulness in other applications, especially to add methanol to (ethyl alcohol). 3. Biochemistry a. To cause the tertiary structure of (a protein) to unfold, as with heat, alkali, or acid, so that some of its original properties, especially its biological activity, are diminished or eliminated. b. To cause the paired strands of (double-stranded DNA) to separate into individual single strands. 4. Physics To add nonfissionable matter to (fissionable material) so as to prevent use in an atomic weapon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But that is not the implication you suggest on your website when you then describe "denatured" food as not being nutritious. Then the implication is that your menaing is closer to definition #2, which is: "To render unfit to eat or drink without destroying usefulness in other applications" As I pointed out, "denaturing" tomatoes and carrots by cooking them actually improves the bioavailability of their antioxidant properties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There is nothing in the membership agreement about it being a no-no to criticize the company. To quote:
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. Nothing I have written even remotely approaches the above. Of course, you also state that you have the right to censor anything on your site.
So now we understand what you really mean when you wrote, "Quite frankly, we don't want to make any claims, rather, we want to enable people to use their first amendment right to free speach to tell their story. This is what the Health Experiences Forum provides. What you really mean by that is that you want to give customers who love and promote your product and company a voice, but people who are critical are not especially welcome. So much for "first amendment rights", eh Derek? When it comes right down to it, you can't let valid criticism get in the way of business. No where have I written that you were con-artists. I suggested that the fact that you declaim any suggestion that you are using the appearence of scientific support for the claims you make about your product without there existing any actual scientific support made it appear as though you were misleading people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Derek,
You seem to be missing the nature of the objection. It isn't a question of whether wheatgrass juice works or not. The issue is that your website goes to great lengths to give the impression that the benefits of wheatgrass juice have been scientifically established when they have not. Now allow me to address some specifics:
As the last few messages posted on our board have become shorter, of poorer taste and truly unproductive they have been disapproved. Disapproved is a euphemism for deleted, I see. You quoted this claim from one of the deleted messages:
nator writes: My guess is that nobody at this company will touch this message with a ten foot pole. Well, I guess Nator was wrong about that, because you not only touched the message, you obliterated it. Just as Nator predicted back in Message 55 of this thread:
nator writes: I wonder what would happen if I posted polite but skeptical criticisms of the website on your message forum? Would I be censored? Would my messages be deleted? Where would my free speech rights be if I started pointing out that you make unsupported claims and use scientific-sounding jargon that is actually meaningless? Nator was pretty much spot on, wasn't she. Here at EvC Forum we never delete messages because we're open and honest. The software is carefully designed so that if a message *is* ever deleted, that fact can't be hidden because the missing message numbers don't go away. But you use vBulletin, and when messages are deleted at vBulletin they go away completely leaving not so much as a ripple on the placid surface.
Derek Stem aka DynamicGreens writes: Taking the discussion to our website forum for the single purpose of attempting to discredit instead of discuss, kind of sets the wrong tone as well. This is one of the few responses left open to those caught in a lie for which there is no defense, isn't it: "I don't like your tone." And no one was trying to discredit you, unless by discredit you mean tell the truth about you. Calling attention to this isn't discrediting you, it's just pointing out to those with little scientific background how you're discrediting yourself. You're making scientific claims that aren't true, right? And Nator pointed that out, right? And you ignored her point, right? Then when she became more insistent you deleted her messages, right? The "tone" you object to would never have happened if you had responded forthrightly, but you ignored the expressed concerns about your website's claims of scientific support for the benefits of wheatgrass and instead responded with marketing, personal anecdotes and testimonials. So when you to on to say:
This was a posted response to a message someone asked about heart disease and seizures. That message has been there since March 25, 2007 in the hope of a meaningful response from someone wiser than us. They do not deserve such a response particularly as we have provided no response and this is a self evident fact. How do we know there were no other posts, Derek? Your bulletin board leaves no indication about deleted messages, so how do we know you didn't delete other messages? All we have is your word, the word of Mr. DeleteItIfIDoNotLikeIt, right? To your credit, you're a lot more honest here than you are at your website, but there's a good reason for that. Your website is a marketing tool for selling a product. To that end it uses misrepresentation, which you freely admit when you say things like, "It is just a statement and definitely pseudoscience." But that's not the impression your website leaves in people's minds, is it, Derek? Your website gives the impression to people unfamiliar with science, which is most people, that the benefits of wheatgrass juice have been scientifically established when they have not. In essence, you're lying to sell a product, make a buck. Wheatgrass juice is your livelihood and your company's livelihood, so I don't blame you at all for deleting messages and doing whatever else is necessary to continue the fiction, but let's not kid ourselves about what you're doing, okay? And the next time you come to a science board and post nonsense, don't be surprised when you're called on it. Oh, and a brief suggestion: when you delete messages, post a note that you've done so. You'll sleep better at night. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
"My guess is that nobody at this company will touch this message with a ten foot pole." quote: The thing is, Derek, what DynamicGreens should have done with that poor person is answered them right away with an honest reply, which is that you have no idea if wheatgrass juice would help or interfere with medications. You would be foolish to give medical advise to someone with such serious problems and who is on medication. However, in reading the forum I have noticed when someone with arthritis or low energy or allergies or some other less serious problem asks a question, you are right there with suggestions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DynamicGreens Junior Member (Idle past 451 days) Posts: 11 From: Toronto, ON Joined: |
That person sent an email that we responded to immediately saying "we have no idea, your situation sounds very complicated and you need to consult your physician for advice". The post which was completely separate remained in the forum in case any browser had something to contribute.
It may be hard to imagine in this day and age, but we really live by the golden rule of "do under others as you would have them do unto you." Not from a religious perspective, just a general operating principal that we think creates harmonious relationships and serves everyone best over time. Edited by DynamicGreens, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Derek Stem aka DynamicGreens writes: For some it is hard to imagine, but we really live by the golden rule of "do under others as you would have them do unto you." Not from a religious perspective, just a general operating principal that we think creates harmonious relationships and serves everyone best over time. You're just not going to address the fact that you're lying to the public, are you? I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the longer you put off addressing this issue, which we originally introduced in very polite terms, the more blunt we're going to become. Look, Derek, the whole health food/nutritional supplement industry is mostly a scam, and your company with it's touting of wheatgrass as beneficial for a whole host of maladies for which there's no scientific evidence is in it up to its neck. Your objection to being called on this appears to be, "I don't like your tone and you're not being very nice." One of the most horrible and egregious effects of your industry is to cause people to think they're addressing problems when they're not. I don't know what Nator said specifically in the message you deleted, but the message she was replying to was prime evidence that the mere presence of the bunk promoted by your industry causes people to delay or forgo seeking treatment for truly serious diseases, cancer and heart disease certainly among them. It's despicable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DynamicGreens Junior Member (Idle past 451 days) Posts: 11 From: Toronto, ON Joined: |
The approach to the postings was like throwing something in a pond.
- first a peeble- then a rock - then a brick - then a stick of dynamite When I read post 55, it was pretty clear to me that the poster intended to escalate until this happended. I'm sure you knew the same thing. I think the real disappointment for them was that this didn't happen right away. As a result, they had to step up and try to incite. The posts were just stopped at the "brick" stage when a post that was completely out of context, with clear angy tones was directed at a customer instead of me. If the intent was truly to enter discussion where all interested parties could see and participate, it would never have left this forum. The behaviour moderated on our forum is behaviour that is also contradictory to the rules of etiquette here at EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DynamicGreens Junior Member (Idle past 451 days) Posts: 11 From: Toronto, ON Joined: |
The fact is that we do not lie to the public.
Edited by DynamicGreens, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024