Thread: Trey White's Evolv Water vs. World Renowned MD Anderson Cancer Center

Thanks ALA

Saw the video back in the spring. Thanks.

Since then, references to MDACC have been removed from the labeling on the bottles. I am waiting to hear the final outcome of the lawsuit. Hopefully News2Houston and Amy will report on the findings. I'm sure your integrity will be intact when you post it here and throw the eggs. My towel is ready.

Careful research would show that MDACC tested city water with Archaea Active, because that is what was submitted. It's the Archaea Active that is the key, not the delivery system (water, from whatever source...)

Karen

Originally Posted by Karen

thanks LRM...

ALA,

We're still waiting for you and SBM's research and posts on the inventors.
Post what you find. There are patents, boards, awards, take your pick. Prove they are liars... Should be easy pickins...
Show us what what cha got.

Karen

The question is, after fifteen years in development, where are the double blind studies, the university studies, the positive coverage by mainstream media, the pursuit by big pharma etc.??? The product developers handed this sutff to the first buffoon that took any interest it appears and allowed this supposed miracle product to get put on the market MLM style.

I can't think of a single nutraceutical product marketed by an MLM that turned out to be anything other than overhyped, overpriced garbage. I can't recall one MLM nutraceutical that ended up being tested by the FDA and getting used for a legitimate medical purpose or that even made it on store shelves in the real world and succeeded.

You madam are selling the product and should have the science to back up all the lofty claims being made. It is no mystery to most folks why it is being hawked MLM style.

Soapboxmom

Perhaps someone would like to take a few minutes to point out to 'Karen" exactly what holding a patent actually means.

To someone whose only exposure to the term "patented" comes from advertising and TV, holding a patent may sound impressive.

The reality, however, is quite different.

Here are some of my favourites:

3150831_small.jpg Birthday Cake Candle Extinguisher (U.S. Patent No. 3,150,831)

4805654_small.jpgSun Shield for Automobiles (U.S. Patent No. 4,805,654)

Levitationarium for Air Flotation of Humans (U.S. Patent No. 4,457,509)

Force-Sensitive Sound-Playing Condom (U.S. Patent No. 5,163,447)

There ya go, Karen, one day maybe you, too, can be all grown up and hold a patent of your very own and be, very, very important.

I've never had jet lag. Does that mean I was born with evolv in me? It must right?

Queen for a day... and now madam from SBM
Thank you!

The technology is Archaea Active, which has been used in bioremediation. This is what has been around, not Evolv per se.

It is my understanding that further studies are ongoing, as I've said.
(For those who call others "capitalist pigs", I'm still rather surprised at the demand for pursuit by big pharma.)

Patents - yes. Absolutely correct! So, since you obviously know how to look them up, why not show the patents these inventors hold instead of the fun, albeit possibly frivolous ones from others?

And I still say y'all would have pooh-poohed mouldy bread and cantaloupe. No double blind studies for decades, even centuries!

Karen

Err,

what a strange person.

SHE is the one posting an endless stream of press releases claiming the existence of patents and SHE is the one claiming there is a product called Archaea Active and SHE is the one claiming research into "archaea" is referring to the product called "Archae Active" and SHE is the one claiming the supposed inventors hold patents and SHE is the one who came here defending Evolv.

Now she wants everyone else to find the "proof" of her assertions, when all the evidence she has provided thus far has consisted of press releases issued by, or on behalf of the company under discussion.

Maybe it's just me or maybe it's an American thing, but in my world a press release is NOT proof of anything and a holding a patent only means the holder is protected from having his or her idea stolen.

Hehehehehe, as if anyone, other than another fraudulent MLM operator would want to steal "Archaea Active"

It's the clemheineydoylemlm defense. 'Prove we're not'. It's all they have to try and baffle the masses.

Originally Posted by evolvtroll

And I still say y'all would have pooh-poohed mouldy bread and cantaloupe. No double blind studies for decades, even centuries!

No purveyors of these items are trying to bullshit the human race to believe that they have some mythical healing powers. Certainly an Amega wand is in your future if you didn't buy in to that tripe already.

What I'd like to know is what difference would it make if, by some strange chance, the inventors DID hold 12 patents ???

1) anyone with a few bucks can register a patent
2) the patents could be for anything. Flying machines, snail killer or birthday cake candle extinguishers
3) Archaea is a bacteria, which cannot be patented
4) "Archaea Active" is a trade name, not a patent
5) As well as the fact MDACC has denied the study produced the results being claimed by Evolv. The "studies" carried out by MDACC were carried out "in vitro" NOT "ex vitro" and NOT on humans IOW, in a test tube.
6) If it's the process by which "Archaea Active" is manufactured that has a patent, what the hell does that mean ??? No one knows what "Archaea Active" is, other than what the press releases tell us.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Err,

what a strange person.

SHE is the one posting an endless stream of press releases claiming the existence of patents and SHE is the one claiming there is a product called Archaea Active and SHE is the one claiming research into "archaea" is referring to the product called "Archae Active" and SHE is the one claiming the supposed inventors hold patents and SHE is the one who came here defending Evolv.

Now she wants everyone else to find the "proof" of her assertions, when all the evidence she has provided thus far has consisted of press releases issued by, or on behalf of the company under discussion.

Maybe it's just me or maybe it's an American thing, but in my world a press release is NOT proof of anything and a holding a patent only means the holder is protected from having his or her idea stolen.

Hehehehehe, as if anyone, other than another fraudulent MLM operator would want to steal "Archaea Active"

I have pointed this out to Karen the shill several times now. She just does what she always does......lies, deflects, spins, tries to turn the argument back on the other person, feigns ignorance and bullshits. There is no sound legit medical research or studies on any of this crap and she knows it. Hell, we all know it. So she just keeps flapping her lips and basically saying nothing of any meaning, value, fact or truth. It's the MLM recruiter way.

I have no idea why she keeps embarrassing herself and making herself look like the moron that she is and proving over and over again that Evovl is nothing but a b.s. product with no proven beneficial effects whatsoever. It's pathetic behavior, but hey, if this is how she wants to present herself and Evolv on the internet to millions, I say great! A lot less people will be bilked and lied to because of her now. She's certainly not the brightest bulb in the box is she? lmao

Originally Posted by A Life Aloft

She's certainly not the brightest bulb in the box is she? lmao

Does that men the same as the old Oz saying "she has kangaroos loose in the top paddock"

Originally Posted by Karen

Queen for a day... and now madam from SBM
Thank you!

The technology is Archaea Active, which has been used in bioremediation. This is what has been around, not Evolv per se.

It is my understanding that further studies are ongoing, as I've said.
(For those who call others "capitalist pigs", I'm still rather surprised at the demand for pursuit by big pharma.)

Patents - yes. Absolutely correct! So, since you obviously know how to look them up, why not show the patents these inventors hold instead of the fun, albeit possibly frivolous ones from others?

And I still say y'all would have pooh-poohed mouldy bread and cantaloupe. No double blind studies for decades, even centuries!

Karen

Bioremediation can be defined as any process that uses microorganisms, fungi, green plants or their enzymes to return the natural environment altered by contaminants to its original condition. Bioremediation may be employed to attack specific soil contaminants, such as degradation of chlorinated hydrocarbons by bacteria. An example of a more general approach is the cleanup of oil spills by the addition of nitrate and/or sulfate fertilisers to facilitate the decomposition of crude oil by indigenous or exogenous bacteria.

Naturally occurring bioremediation and phytoremediation have been used for centuries. For example, desalination of agricultural land by phytoextraction has a long tradition. Bioremediation technology using microorganisms was invented by George M. Robinson. He was the assistant county petroleum engineer for Santa Maria, California. During the 1960s, he spent his spare time experimenting with dirty jars and various mixes of microbes.

Care to explain this:

Sowers

The Archaea, Bacteria and Eucarya represent the three primary phylogenetic lineages that diverged and evolved from a common progenote. The controlled expression of gene products involved in methanogenesis is essential for complete biomass conversion and bioremediation in anaerobic sediments, however, the mechanisms of catabolic gene regulation in the third lineage, the Archaea, is not yet known. The goal of this project is use genetic approaches combined with genomics and proteomics to determine whether gene expression in the Archaea functions by mechanisms that are analogous to the other two lineages, Bacteria and Eucarya, or by mechanisms that are unique to this phylogenetic line. Regardless of which mechanism(s) is revealed by this investigation, the results will provide further insight into the global molecular strategies of gene regulation. This research is divided into three projects: 1) mechanisms of gene transcription; 2) global regulatory pathways for methanogenesis; 3) bioprocess scale-up of archaeal proteins.

No mention of the founders of Evolv in all the sources which are quite lengthy that are listed either and they range from 2005 to 2010.

Archaea Active bioremediation papers containing research and studies were already published and presented for example in 1994 at the Tokyo Workshop in 1994. Care to explain that? Nothing again to do with the founders of Evolv.

In fact on every scientific site and in all the papers published and in all the studies on this type of bioremediation, not one peep about the "Inventors" or "Founders" of Evolv.
Care to explain that as well?

In fact, I can find no company involved in this process that includes the founders or inventors that you call them of this process anywhere on the net except on Evolv websites. No published research no published studies nada zippo. But scad by other entities, interestingly enough.

Care to expalin this? Domain Archaea
The greatest difference between Oppenheimer products and those of our competitors is that our
products are not made of “bacteria” but a more primitive microbe group called “Archaea”. Both are
microorganisms and formerly were lumped in the same group, but these microbes have since been
given their own separate id. Bacteria usually work under narrow conditions and will only work on
one specific contaminant. Archaea are primitive and can tolerate much harsher environmental
conditions and degrade a variety of hydrocarbons. It goes on:

http://www.obio.com/docs/domainarchaea.pdf

And according to their website, that is their own formula which they developed.

I see just scads of research and papers from everyone but your buddies. Why is that? No mention of them at all except by Evolv.

I call bullshit, smoke and mirrors and backpeddling.

Originally Posted by Karen

It is my understanding that further studies are ongoing, as I've said.
Karen

You keep saying this yet you give no evidence to this whatsoever! NONE! Where are these studies being conducted, by whom and what exactly are the studies? When did they start? You keep demanding proof from others, yet you refuse to provide any yourself. You just make bullshit statements over and over again. Why is that Miss Shill? You "understand" this why, exactly? Is the same bullshit as you "believe"? lmao Who told you this and what did they tell you? Ask them for the details and post them here, honey! We are waiting. Quit posting unsubstantiated bullshit, your opinions and what you believe, already. Post some facts and the truth.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Does that men the same as the old Oz saying "she has kangaroos loose in the top paddock"

Pretty much! ROTFL!

Originally Posted by Karen

And I still say y'all would have pooh-poohed mouldy bread and cantaloupe.
Karen

WTF do cantaloupes and mouldy bread have to do with anything? ROTFL! You keep mentioning this like it has some significance. How long exactly have you been off your meds and on the water now? lol

Originally Posted by A Life Aloft

WTF do cantaloupes and mouldy bread have to do with anything? ROTFL! You keep mentioning this like it has some significance.

I think "Karen" is referring to the often used, but totally untrue modern myth which says that Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin based on the presence of mould on stale bread.

It appears she is trying to imply that posters on http://www.realscam.com/ pointing out the obvious, WRT "Evolv" and "Trey White" somehow indicates they would have scoffed at Alexander Fleming.

As with most "facts" associated with fraudulent MLM scams, there is only a small amount of truth and an even smaller amount of relevance to the current discussion.

It's pretty telling when even Wikipedia page is closer to the "truth" than a shill trying to sell high priced tapwater, and Wikipedia doesn't stand to make a cent: History of penicillin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought she might have meant that, but I tried to give her the benefit of a doubt in thinking she couldn't possibly be that stupid. Hell, I guess I was wrong. So WTF is the cantaloupe reference about? Can't wait for that revelation from her. Too bad she has done nothing but waste everyone's time thus far. Even the personal testamonies from animals was at least entertaining besides being just asinine.

Miss me yet?

The mouldy cantaloupe reference came from here: Mary Bellis. "The History of Penicillin". Inventors. About.com. History of Penicillin - Alexander Fleming - John Sheehan - Andrew Moyer. Retrieved 2007-10-30.

The wiki article referencing Fleming talks about petri dishes not moulded bread, though apparently it was used in the middle ages and was presumably the same fungi.

And the point was of course, that moulded bread (or cantaloupe in 1943) having any possible conceivable use was discarded, ridiculed, etc... and yet, ended up being a great discovery years later. It worked all that time, helping many people but many ridiculed the notion.

Time will tell.

I'm telling you what I know. And, as I said, if I don't know, I won't fabricate merely to have something to say. I don't know what tests are ongoing right now. I know they are. When I find out, I'll let you know, okay?

My point in discussing the various awards and patents these inventors have is that they do what they say they are going to do, always have as far as I know. I notice no one posted the patents they hold here, though presumably you've read them. No one has posted any awards they have been presented, though presumably you know.

I would post them, but golly, it'd mean so much more if you would, don't cha think? You all focus so much on the negative and seem oblivious to the possiblility that someone might be telling the truth.

I've never said I'm "recruiting" and even if I did, I wouldn't on this site, regardless. Y'all are way too smart for me...

Karen
the stubborn shill

you said: Quit posting unsubstantiated bullshit, your opinions and what you believe, already.

What? And miss all the fun? I thought those were the rules of this game!!


Karen

I am glad you have chosen to carry on in the manner to which we have become accustomed, "Karen"

Unlike some others, I have implicit confidence in the ability of most readers to sort out the "wheat from the chaff" in these matters, given full information.

I also firmly believe the presence of shills in any debate make the stated aims of such forums as realscam.com much easier.

Originally Posted by Karen

you said: Quit posting unsubstantiated bullshit, your opinions and what you believe, already.

What? And miss all the fun? I thought those were the rules of this game!!


Karen

No, those of the rules for MLM recruiters, liars, conmen (in your case- conwomen) and dishonest thieves. We have posted facts and the truth. You??? Not so much! ROTFL!!!!

Originally Posted by Karen

I'm telling you what I know. And, as I said, if I don't know, I won't fabricate merely to have something to say. I don't know what tests are ongoing right now. I know they are. When I find out, I'll let you know, okay?

Meantime, why don't you post links to something showing they are doing the testing? "I know they are" doesn't cut the mustard.

Originally Posted by Karen

My point in discussing the various awards and patents these inventors have is that they do what they say they are going to do, always have as far as I know. I notice no one posted the patents they hold here, though presumably you've read them. No one has posted any awards they have been presented, though presumably you know.

I would post them, but golly, it'd mean so much more if you would, don't cha think? You all focus so much on the negative and seem oblivious to the possiblility that someone might be telling the truth.

Nope. You are the one who came here talking about it. Do a little more than talk. If you know so much, please enlighten us.

I challenged Karen to answer any one of three questions concerning the "product", and that I would go away. After careful consideration, I believe her answers sucked, and am back to lend an ear and a quip to this conversation. As a refresher, the three questions were:

1.) Do the "scientists" oversee the mixing at the Arkansas plant? Her answer: We are like Coca Cola.
2.) Has ANY mainstream media covered anything to do with the "science" behind Evolv?
Her answer: Media doesn't know anything about science.
3.) Did you and your friends inject yourselves and test your powers for the last 10 years. Her answer: We drank it, did not inject it.

My response to her responses: You aren't like Coca Cola. You are like MonAvie. Coke employees thousands and has millions of consumers. Some of the job descriptions at Coke include product tasters, quality control experts, and engineers. Evolv has none of those positions, because it is unnecessary to their operation. Evolv is bottled by a contract bottler in Arkansas. Evolv is just one of many products that bottler makes on any given day. There is no supervision or extra care put into the Evolv process.

Yes media covers science. If your family of "scientists" were noteworthy they would be covered by someone. I think I posted the difference between press releases and press some time ago.

In the third question I was being sarcastic. I can do that without the condescending use of emoticons. I pictured you and the twins adding a little egg-white and wheat germ to your water "the process", and testing to see if you could run faster. My brothers and I did something very similar by mixing the many flavors of Slurpee together at the 7-11. We perfected the ultimate flavor, which also made us jump higher. We didn't sell it to others and tell them how to sell it to their friends.

UB

POM-boozled: Do health drinks live up to their labels?



By Sarah Klein, Health.com
October 27, 2010 8:16 a.m. EDT


POM Wonderful pomegranate juice is just one beverage that's come under FTC scrutiny in the last few years.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Consumers shouldn't believe everything they read on labels
• The FTC and FDA have been cracking down on unsubstantiated health claims
• Though many health claims strain imagination, they still sell food and beverages
• These claims distract shoppers from the real nutritional information

RELATED TOPICS

• Consumer Protection
• Antioxidants
• Beverages
• Diet and Nutrition
• Food and Drug Administration

(Health.com) -- The makers of POM Wonderful pomegranate juice say that the drink improves blood flow and heart health, prevents and treats prostate cancer, and works 40 percent as well as Viagra (whatever that means). All for about four bucks a bottle.
Those impressive claims helped the company rack up $91 million in sales in 2009. They also earned the disapproval of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Last month, the agency sued POM Wonderful for making "false and unsubstantiated" health claims, and is asking the company to remove the claims from its ads.
A 100 percent juice drink that contains antioxidants (and no added sugar), POM is just one of many beverages that bill themselves as promoting better health. VitaminWater, kombucha tea, coconut water, and various brands of juice drinks made from acai, goji berry, and mangosteen have all used health claims in their marketing -- and some, like POM, have been the subject of scrutiny and legal action.
The FTC, along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has been cracking down on food and beverage makers for allegedly overselling the health benefits of their products. In 2009 alone, the FDA warned 17 companies that they were providing misleading nutritional information on their packaging or making overly specific health claims.
Health.com: 25 diet-busting foods you should never eat
Not all of the products were drinks, but "the beverage category stands out," says Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "At first blush it seems that beverage products are certainly a large proportion of food products that make bogus health-related claims."
Drinks such as POM have become increasingly popular with consumers in recent years, thanks in part to public health campaigns against soda that have been prompted by the obesity epidemic. "The trend is away from traditional soda pop [toward] products claiming to provide magical health benefits," Silverglade says.
Are the health claims true? Yes and no. The federal government doesn't require companies to vet health claims with the agency before plastering them on product packaging (as long as the claims are accompanied by a disclaimer about their uncertainty). But that doesn't mean the claims are invented -- most are based in research.
The research is often funded by the manufacturers, however, and industry-funded research can be prone to bias. A 2007 study found that research on health drinks that was funded entirely by beverage companies was between four and eight times more likely to find a favorable result than research with no industry support.
"If a cell phone company told you they tested all the models and their model came out the best, would you believe it? Probably not," says Dr. Lenard Lesser, M.D., one of the co-authors of that study and a researcher at UCLA. "The same is true with nutrition research, but the stakes are higher because we're putting our bodies at risk."
Where's the line between research and marketing?
Sounds great, hard to believe
However far-fetched the claims may sound, POM is standing behind them. (Two weeks before the FTC publicly announced its lawsuit, POM preemptively sued the FTC, claiming that preapproval of ads featuring health claims violates the company's right to free speech.)
But are shoppers really convinced that POM can unclog their arteries, cure cancer, and lead to hotter sex?
There seem to be more than a few believers out there. "
I started drinking POM after reading the studies two years ago, my triglycerides were almost 1000!," one of POM Wonderful's 12,000 fans breathlessly posted on Facebook after the FTC announced its lawsuit. "Working out everyday, drinking POM, and eating healthy, they are now less than 400. Forget what the Feds say! I believe!!!" (A triglycerides level of 400 is still nearly three times higher than what's considered normal.)
Most health beverage drinkers aren't as enthusiastic as the realtor from Alaska who posted the above testimonial. Quinton Ma, a 22-year-old marketing coordinator at Gawker Media, in New York City, started to drink VitaminWater as a middle schooler because it seemed like a healthy alternative to soda.
"I figured that if they were selling something that I could get extra vitamins from, it couldn't hurt to drink," Ma says. "Once I learned they were really just cleverly marketed sugar waters, I stopped."
Health.com: You are what you drink
But the fact is, even when people don't buy the health claims they often still buy the beverage. That's the paradox of products such as POM, Silverglade says: The health claims on these products strain the imagination, yet studies have repeatedly shown that health claims sell food.
That's because these claims -- however improbable they may seem -- distract shoppers from the real nutritional information and hook consumers with buzzwords like "antioxidant."
This phenomenon is known as a "health halo," an aura of healthfulness attached to a product based on labels like "low-fat" "all-natural" or "made with whole grains" that seduces consumers into overeating. According to a study by the FTC, this halo effect can even lead people to overlook warning statements -- about the high sodium content of a product, for example.
"A healthy halo develops around products like these," says Frances Largeman-Roth, R.D., Health magazine's senior food and nutrition editor. "The health-conscious consumer incorporates them into their lifestyle, thinking that they're doing a world of good for themselves."
Health.com: Food label know-how: 5 mistakes even savvy shoppers make
Ceating a health halo
The makers of POM Wonderful have spent $34 million on scientific research on POM products and pomegranates. According to the FTC's complaint, the studies POM has funded do not substantiate the company's claims, and a closer look at the research seems to bear that out.
One of the most prominent claims, that POM can decrease arterial plaque by 30 percent, was taken from a single pilot study that included just 19 people and was funded by the makers of POM. Another claim, that POM drinkers experience a 17 percent improvement in blood flow, was taken from another POM-funded study that included just 45 people and only lasted for three months.
"These days it's possible for a food company to pay just about anybody to conduct a study," says Silverglade.
Michael Aviram, Ds.C., a cholesterol researcher at Rambam Medical Center, in Haifa, Israel, defended his studies on pomegranates -- many of them funded by POM -- by noting that they were published in "very prestigious peer reviewed journals," including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Atherosclerosis. Dr. Harley Liker, M.D., a physician at UCLA Medical Center who has also led research funded by POM, directed all inquiries to a POM spokesman.
"A grocery store is a designed marketing environment to get people to buy things," says Lesser. "Lots of products are going to try to use health claims from research, often from their own industry, [just] to sell a product."
Health.com: 14 health products you probably don't need
Iffy health claims don't mean that products like pomegranate juice should be avoided at all costs, says Keri Gans, R.D., a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. As long as consumers limit themselves to 8-ounce servings and products with no added sugar, juice can be an excellent source of vitamins and other nutrients, Gans says. But it's "not going to solve any of your health issues," she adds.
The bottom line is that consumers shouldn't believe everything they read on labels. "If they focus on consuming an overall well-balanced diet, they might not need to focus so much on finding a product that makes false promises," Gans says.
Enter to win a monthly Room Makeover Giveaway from MyHomeIdeas.com
Copyright Health Magazine 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the TreyBoozled out there. The suit with MD Anderson with its negative media and dedicated bloggers like myself will have the FTC and other authorities all over this thing. Just how magic will this "zero water" turn out to be???

Soapboxmom

Since we all know that Jack Weinzierl the Weasel has bailed, here is some additional information: http://www.realscam.com/f14/tim-darn...-143/#post4315

My opinion on Karen's life-cycle at Realscam.com:

She enters into the conversation last Friday downplaying her role as a distributor, which she has been since Evolv's inception, and asks the critics to try to separate the water from the business.

When challenged she becomes condescending to say the least, and implies that critics don't have jobs. I applaud her for not going to the "get a life" card.

When challenged again she goes all self-deprecating saying to SBM, "use little words, I'm stupid."

Then came the don't knock it if you haven't tried it sales pitch. I applaud the critics from refraining from the "I don't need to try gasoline..." retort.

In a last ditch effort to save face she goes with the baffle them with BS moves, which LRM quickly pointed out.

I'm sure Karen had visions of being a cult hero at the Evolv convention next weekend, when she meets Trey for the first time.

UB