Nope, didn't go to the talk on Biophotonic scanning and anti-oxidants. Given there are about 7-10 sessions at any given time during the day, you have to be _really_ picky about what you go to, and whatever it was that I went to would have been higher on my priority list than anti-oxidants (not to say that anti-oxidants aren't important, but that I've got research interests too). I did stop by their booth though.
Hey, I'm open to reading studies. I'll play in _your_ sandbox. But let's make one thing clear here. _You_ were the one who posted the topic. _You_ were the one making claims about product efficacy and inference about the moral value of endorsement. _You_ were the one who wrote these words:
Quote:
THE ABILITY TO MEASURE IS THE BASIS OF SCIENCE.
Science is HOW you back up your marketing claims. That is why there is ONLY ONE company that is endorsed by the U S Olympic Committee. Only ONE company that is ALLOWED to display the Olympic Logo on their products.
All nutritional companies can tell a STORY, but being able to back it up with scientific data on the completed products, thats where the rubber meets the road.
If you are interested in finding out about this company, send me an e-mail.
|
And yet, you didn't provide any evidence for us to examine, which prompted me to spend time out of my day searching for this company and returning to the forum to report my findings. Pharmanex doesn't have any references to any studies on their site. And I think my day is full enough not to have to get onto Medline to do a comprehensive search. I didn't see any rubber meeting any sort of road. If you're going to come here onto this forum making statements like the stuff above, you should at least have the courtesy to back up your statements.
By the way, if you're going to cite an abstract as "scientific evidence" (The FASEB abstract on Lifepak), don't bother. You know as well as I do that abstracts aren't peer-reviewed and are seldom of sufficient detail to determine study quality.