Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   wheat grass... any science to this fad?
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 101 (416258)
08-14-2007 11:12 PM


Well, I'm in for now
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 08-15-2007 8:33 AM nator has not replied
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 08-15-2007 1:29 PM nator has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 62 of 101 (416322)
08-15-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
08-14-2007 11:12 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 08-14-2007 11:12 PM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 63 of 101 (416374)
08-15-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
08-14-2007 11:12 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 08-14-2007 11:12 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 08-15-2007 10:06 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 66 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-15-2007 10:37 PM Percy has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 101 (416476)
08-15-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
08-15-2007 1:29 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 08-15-2007 1:29 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 10:26 PM nator has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2503 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 65 of 101 (416483)
08-15-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
08-15-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 08-15-2007 10:06 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-15-2007 11:15 PM kuresu has not replied

  
DynamicGreens
Junior Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 11
From: Toronto, ON
Joined: 08-12-2007


Message 66 of 101 (416485)
08-15-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
08-15-2007 1:29 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 08-15-2007 1:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 08-16-2007 8:46 AM DynamicGreens has not replied
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 08-16-2007 8:59 AM DynamicGreens has replied
 Message 71 by nator, posted 08-16-2007 9:21 AM DynamicGreens has replied

  
DynamicGreens
Junior Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 11
From: Toronto, ON
Joined: 08-12-2007


Message 67 of 101 (416488)
08-15-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by kuresu
08-15-2007 10:26 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by kuresu, posted 08-15-2007 10:26 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 08-16-2007 8:35 AM DynamicGreens has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 101 (416515)
08-16-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by DynamicGreens
08-15-2007 11:15 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
quote:
It is definition 1 (see below) which is "To change the nature or natural qualities of" specifically in in the context of food processing.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-15-2007 11:15 PM DynamicGreens has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 69 of 101 (416516)
08-16-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by DynamicGreens
08-15-2007 10:37 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-15-2007 10:37 PM DynamicGreens has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 70 of 101 (416517)
08-16-2007 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by DynamicGreens
08-15-2007 10:37 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-15-2007 10:37 PM DynamicGreens has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-16-2007 12:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 101 (416520)
08-16-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by DynamicGreens
08-15-2007 10:37 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
"My guess is that nobody at this company will touch this message with a ten foot pole."
quote:
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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-15-2007 10:37 PM DynamicGreens has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-16-2007 12:20 PM nator has not replied

  
DynamicGreens
Junior Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 11
From: Toronto, ON
Joined: 08-12-2007


Message 72 of 101 (416528)
08-16-2007 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
08-16-2007 9:21 AM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 08-16-2007 9:21 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 08-16-2007 12:40 PM DynamicGreens has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 73 of 101 (416531)
08-16-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by DynamicGreens
08-16-2007 12:20 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-16-2007 12:20 PM DynamicGreens has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by DynamicGreens, posted 08-16-2007 12:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
DynamicGreens
Junior Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 11
From: Toronto, ON
Joined: 08-12-2007


Message 74 of 101 (416532)
08-16-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
08-16-2007 8:59 AM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 08-16-2007 8:59 AM Percy has not replied

  
DynamicGreens
Junior Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 11
From: Toronto, ON
Joined: 08-12-2007


Message 75 of 101 (416533)
08-16-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
08-16-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Well, I'm in for now
The fact is that we do not lie to the public.
Edited by DynamicGreens, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 08-16-2007 12:40 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 08-16-2007 1:08 PM DynamicGreens has replied
 Message 80 by nator, posted 08-16-2007 9:04 PM DynamicGreens has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024