Venture Era - a defending point of view.
-
Originally posted by Hardcoreblizzard:
I totally agree with you. I had lots of doubts before my sessions with the managers. Especially after reading this forum. I asked questions like, "Are you sure this will work?", "What will happen if you realize that it's actually harmful to health one day?" and "Is it too expensive?"
I will have to say that I am convinced that their products are safe because they really have proofs to show. And the price isn't too expensive because it is regulated. There is a price ceiling and price floor for each product that they are selling. There is also installment packages to make the goods more affordable.
Indeed if the customers have more knowledge than the salesmen, something is seriously wrong and we should all be alert. I was worried when I first saw the defenders of VE here. They seem to be bullcrapping and were at a loss of words when challenged. But the managers at VE were different.
What proof? Publications in approved scientific journals?
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
What proof? Publications in approved scientific journals?
I'm not an expert in the products that they are selling. But they were able to produce a couple of certificates, articles and medals to support their claim. They really sounded convincing and they know their products very well. If all these are fake, I only have my luck to blame.
-
Any idea how to verify the authencity of the certificates?
-
Just get the names of the foundations who gave the certificates and medals, as well as which scientific journals the scientific articles are published.
Or just post the whole article out, along with the journal's name and the references made in the articles. There are many forumers with first-class honours, masters or doctorates lurking around who could verify and judge for themselves.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Just get the names of the foundations who gave the certificates and medals, as well as which scientific journals the scientific articles are published.
Or just post the whole article out, along with the journal's name and the references made in the articles. There are many forumers with first-class honours, masters or doctorates lurking around who could verify and judge for themselves.
ii duno y... but i got a feeling hardcore is a clone...
-
Hardcoreblizzard, are you another whitesoulreaper?
Where is the self proclaiming wanna sue pacer?
-
Originally posted by huzane89:
Hardcoreblizzard, are you another whitesoulreaper?
Where is the self proclaiming wanna sue pacer?
i also think so
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Just get the names of the foundations who gave the certificates and medals, as well as which scientific journals the scientific articles are published.
Or just post the whole article out, along with the journal's name and the references made in the articles. There are many forumers with first-class honours, masters or doctorates lurking around who could verify and judge for themselves.
There's a couple of articles by Straits Times on Magnetic Therapy but not on Venture Era. There's plenty of information on Magnetic Therapy, from articles and books. But none on the authencity of their products. Except for a magazine praising them, some certs to verify their product quality and some medals from U.S and Taiwan as a recognisation to the company for their aid in the 911 attack and SARS in Taiwan.
-
Originally posted by huzane89:
Hardcoreblizzard, are you another whitesoulreaper?
Where is the self proclaiming wanna sue pacer?
That's not me.
-
Originally posted by Hardcoreblizzard:
There's a couple of articles by Straits Times on Magnetic Therapy but not on Venture Era. There's plenty of information on Magnetic Therapy, from articles and books. But none on the authencity of their products. Except for a magazine praising them, some certs to verify their product quality and some medals from U.S and Taiwan as a recognisation to the company for their aid in the 911 attack and SARS in Taiwan.
Please la...
Articles from Straits Times and most magazines/books are not the same as those from scientific journals; they carry zero weight to the scientific community unless they based their source (or made references) to scientific articles from recognized scientific journals.
Good examples are articles from PubMed, Jstor, ScienceDirect, etc
-
Originally posted by Hardcoreblizzard:
There's a couple of articles by Straits Times on Magnetic Therapy but not on Venture Era. There's plenty of information on Magnetic Therapy, from articles and books. But none on the authencity of their products. Except for a magazine praising them, some certs to verify their product quality and some medals from U.S and Taiwan as a recognisation to the company for their aid in the 911 attack and SARS in Taiwan.
ST articles? Oh please, give me a break.....
As eagle has pointed out, they are effectively useless unless the articles are based on actual publications in approved scientific journals.
If it's about interviews of customers who have used magnetic therapy, then that counts only as anecdotal evidence and can never be used as scientific proof in itself.
Anecdotal evidence can only be used as an anecdote (hence the term) to pre-existing proof and to suggest at future hypotheses and areas of research.
-
Originally posted by elementalangel:
agree...
i guess he has just joined VE...like last week??
anyway to hardcoreblizzard,
fudgester is against VE, so there is nothing for you to agree with him... and for the lost for words part... you are the one who self pwned too many times...Let me just say this, I'm not pro-VE, and neither am I anti-VE.....
However, I am pro-science. I have nothing but contempt for people for make all sorts of wild and grandiose scientific claims without a shred of (acceptable) evidence to back up anything they say.
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
ST articles? Oh please, give me a break.....
As eagle has pointed out, they are effectively useless unless the articles are based on actual publications in approved scientific journals.
If it's about interviews of customers who have used magnetic therapy, then that counts only as anecdotal evidence and can never be used as scientific proof in itself.
Anecdotal evidence can only be used as an anecdote (hence the term) to pre-existing proof and to suggest at future hypotheses and areas of research.
Well I was just telling you what I was shown. There's also books on Magnetic Therapy which proves the beneficial effects on health. I'm totally convinced about the effects of magnetic therapy. But not so much as to whether VE's products are of genuine quality. My biggest doubt is still in their reputation. If it was established enough, I wouldn't have been so skeptical.
-
Originally posted by Hardcoreblizzard:
Well I was just telling you what I was shown. There's also books on Magnetic Therapy which proves the beneficial effects on health. I'm totally convinced about the effects of magnetic therapy. But not so much as to whether VE's products are of genuine quality. My biggest doubt is still in their reputation. If it was established enough, I wouldn't have been so skeptical.
Who wrote those articles?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_therapy
In the United States, for example, U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations prohibit marketing any magnet therapy product using medical claims, as such claims are unfounded.
Efficacy
Several studies have been conducted in recent years to investigate what, if any, role static magnetic fields may play in health and healing. Unbiased studies of magnetic therapy are problematic, since magnetisation can be easily detected, for instance, by the attraction forces on ferrous (iron-containing) objects; because of this, effective blinding of studies (where neither patients nor assessors know who is receiving treatment versus placebo) is difficult.[7] Incomplete or insufficient blinding tends to exaggerate treatment effects, particularly where any such effects are small.[8]
- A trial of magnetic therapy for the treatment of wrist pain from carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic low back pain did not find any health benefits above placebo.[10][11]
- A 2003 Cochrane Review of carpal tunnel syndrome treatments found no improvement in symptoms over placebo or control.[12]
- A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of 101 adults diagnosed with plantar heel pain carried out in year 2003 found no significant difference in outcome between use of active vs. sham magnets.[13]
- A randomized controlled trial found a statistically significant effect using non-magnetic and weak magnetic bracelets as controls against strong magnets in the management of pain from osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. The study could not conclude whether the response was due to non-specific placebo effects.[14]
- A 2007 study suggested that application of 10 or 70, but not 400 mT, static magnetic fields reduced histamine-induced edema formation in rats.[15]
[edit] Criticism
A 2002 U.S. National Science Foundation report on public attitudes and understanding of science noted that magnet therapy is "not at all scientific."[16] A number of vendors make unsupported claims about magnet therapy by using pseudoscientific and new-age language. Such claims are unsupported by the results of scientific and clinical studies.[17] Most criticisms include:
- The typical magnet used produces insufficient magnetic field to have any effect on muscle tissue, bones, blood vessels, or organs.[1]
- Some manufacturers claim that the magnets help to circulate the blood by interacting with the iron in hemoglobin, a major component of red blood cells. There is no indication that circulatory benefits would result even if some blood component were to couple strongly to magnetic fields.
- Others claim that the magnets can restore the body's theorized "electromagnetic energy balance", but no such balance is medically recognized.
- Even in the many times stronger magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, none of the claimed effects are observed.[18]
- There are claims that the south pole of a magnet acts differently on the body than the north pole.[19]
- Many of the websites that promote the benefits of magnetic therapy belong to individuals and companies that profit from the sale of magnetic therapy products.
-
NOoooOoooo.
How can we believe wiki?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
NOoooOoooo.
How can we believe wiki?
Not believe wiki
believe the journals they take the info from, i.e. for the following conclusion
A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of 101 adults diagnosed with plantar heel pain carried out in year 2003 found no significant difference in outcome between use of active vs. sham magnets.
It is from the Journal of the American Medical Association
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Not believe wiki
believe the journals they take the info from, i.e. for the following conclusion
It is from the Journal of the American Medical Association
NOooooOoooooo.
How can you believe the Journal of The American Medical Association?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
NOooooOoooooo.
How can you believe the Journal of The American Medical Association?
Because such journals are peer-reviewed by professionals in their area of specialisation.
Please give reasons on why you do not believe.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Because such journals are peer-reviewed by professionals in their area of specialisation.
Please give reasons on why you do not believe.
NOoooOoooooo.
You didn't get what I mean?
I must be losing my touch.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
NOoooOoooooo.
You didn't get what I mean?
I must be losing my touch.
Whatever. You are clearly evading or just joking around.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Whatever. You are clearly evading or just joking around.
He's just being sarcastic lah dey......
-
That's why say he's just joking around mah... :D
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Actually what you've provided here isn't really credible. Let's ignore that it's Wikipedia for a moment, because there may be some truth in it. So I've checked out the references stated in the Wikipedia and there's a large number of the links that lead to unavailable pages.
And then, I found this page that is linked from Wikipedia.
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/magnet.html
This person provided quite a good argument to the unproven medical evidence of magnetic therapy. But a number of his references are either not valid or have been removed. He has not been able to prove that magnetic therapy has no health effect also.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9365349?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12736891
These are sites that he quoted to explain the insufficient evidence of magnetic therapy. However, if you read carefully, these are actually valid experiments proving the positive effects of magnetic therapy.
And a large number of his argument were on the crimes of companies which claim to treat cancer, HIV, AIDS, asthma, arthritis, and rheumatism.
http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/AG/CA/ehc.html
http://news.therecord.com/article/300574
However, to my knowledge, Venture Era has been focusing on prevention instead of treatment.
Indeed there has been claims that magnetic therapy has no effect on human bodies. But there has been no sufficient evidence yet. As cited by the reference in Wikipedia in (http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_mr) to prove that "Even in the many times stronger magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, none of the claimed effects are observed", the website itself has no evidence of what was being claimed by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has low credibility, as seen from the random citing of references such as this http://www.magno-pulse.com/restless_legs.php#introduction to explain the effects of magnetic therapy. Firstly, the evidence proved that magnetic therapy has an effect. Secondly, it's a completely different field of study as it's on leg care and not on blood circulation.
My conclusion, I'm still confused! How can we ever find out if their products have been approved by the authorities in Singapore, or even as they have claimed, by the World Health Organisation?
-
Originally posted by Hardcoreblizzard:
Actually what you've provided here isn't really credible. Let's ignore that it's Wikipedia for a moment, because there may be some truth in it. So I've checked out the references stated in the Wikipedia and there's a large number of the links that lead to unavailable pages.
And then, I found this page that is linked from Wikipedia.
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/magnet.html
This person provided quite a good argument to the unproven medical evidence of magnetic therapy. But a number of his references are either not valid or have been removed. He has not been able to prove that magnetic therapy has no health effect also.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9365349?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12736891
These are sites that he quoted to explain the insufficient evidence of magnetic therapy. However, if you read carefully, these are actually valid experiments proving the positive effects of magnetic therapy.
And a large number of his argument were on the crimes of companies which claim to treat cancer, HIV, AIDS, asthma, arthritis, and rheumatism.
http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/AG/CA/ehc.html
http://news.therecord.com/article/300574
However, to my knowledge, Venture Era has been focusing on prevention instead of treatment.
Indeed there has been claims that magnetic therapy has no effect on human bodies. But there has been no sufficient evidence yet. As cited by the reference in Wikipedia in (http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_mr) to prove that "Even in the many times stronger magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, none of the claimed effects are observed", the website itself has no evidence of what was being claimed by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has low credibility, as seen from the random citing of references such as this http://www.magno-pulse.com/restless_legs.php#introduction to explain the effects of magnetic therapy. Firstly, the evidence proved that magnetic therapy has an effect. Secondly, it's a completely different field of study as it's on leg care and not on blood circulation.
My conclusion, I'm still confused! How can we ever find out if their products have been approved by the authorities in Singapore, or even as they have claimed, by the World Health Organisation?
Good! I'm starting to like your analysis on the credibility part :D
Do repeat what you have done and researched on wiki (which is actually what I think as well, I mean on the low credibility of wiki) on whatever product VE has before you decide.
If you are still confused about what they have to say to you, just post out the articles or books they said, and whatever certs and medals they have for us to take a look together ;)