Ionized Water

“Is ionized water a scam?”

In my opinion, “ionized water”—as it’s being marketed by the health food industry—is a scam.

In essence, “ionized water” is water that has been exposed to an electric current, supposedly to separate the positive ions from the negative ions. This is supposed to give you two types of water—one that is alkaline and one that is acidic. The alkaline water is the “good” water you’re supposed to drink and the “acidic” water is the “bad” stuff you’re supposed to avoid.

Unfortunately, what the hawkers of this miracle water won’t tell you is that pure water has very few ions in the first place so the entire process is pretty much useless. You can’t really ionize something that has few ions to begin with. They also don’t tell you that much of this country’s water is already alkaline—natually. If alkaline water was really the health panacea it’s claimed to be, wouldn’t people who live in areas where tap water tends toward the alkaline side be healthier than people whose drinking water tends more toward the acidic side?

And they also won’t tell you that your body has a very sophisticated system in place to maintain the pH of your body in a very narrow range. There’s simply no proof that you can manipulate this balance just by drinking water.

Regular readers of this will know that we’ve taken a lot of criticism for our opinion of “ionized” water but the truth is, in preparation for both this and our original article on ionized water, I could not find even one single legitimate, credentialed health professional—“natural” or mainstream—who thought you needed a $3000 machine to get good drinking water.

Regular readers will also remember that I challenged anyone with scientific proof to send it to me. I promised I would print legitimate, certified lab results and I meant it. To date, I’ve received none.

Look, alkaline water is nothing new and there’s nothing magical about it. Don’t let someone using fancy-sounding chemistry-doublespeak talk you into spending a fortune on something not supported by science. And you don’t have to take my word for it, either. Ask any legitimate medical professional if he (or she) thinks ionized water is a scam.

Copper Bracelets

“Do copper bracelets work for arthritis or are they a scam?”

Well, I’m not ready to pronounce them a complete scam but, in my opinion, copper bracelets probably do not work for arthritis. They are certainly not the miracle cures some “natural” writers would have us believe.

In 1976 there was a very interesting study that looked at 300 arthritis patients who wore either copper bracelets or “placebo” bracelets made to look like copper. Researchers found that a “significant” number of the bracelet wearers felt the copper bands helped them.

This study also seemed to suggest that the body can absorb copper through the skin. In this particular study, each bracelet lost about 40-45 milligrams of copper over the 50 or so days it was worn. This was true whether the bracelet was worn on the ankle or wrist. The amount of copper excreted in the wearers’ perspiration also increased.

And unfortunately, that’s about as far as studies on copper bracelets for arthritis go. There’s no real scientific evidence that they work and no good explanation for how they would, even if they did. In fact, a survey of 199 patients with rheumatoid arthritis actually found faith healing more effective than the bracelets in a 1983 study.

Another Thing To Think About With Copper Bracelets

One reason why I believe that copper bracelets probably won’t work for arthritis is this: The birth control devices known as IUDs, or intrauterine devices, are wrapped in copper. Millions of women around the world have used IUDs for decades. If copper really helped arthritis, wouldn’t we have already seen this effect in at least some of these women?

As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence that wearing any kind of copper jewelry can help arthritis. But don’t just take my word for it. For the information that’s right for you, talk to the only person who’s truly qualified to give you medical advice—your own doctor.

References:

Walker, W., et al. (1976.) An investigation of the therapeutic value of the ‘copper bracelet’-dermal assimilation of copper in arthritic/rheumatoid conditions. Agents and Actions.

Struthers, G., et al. (1983). The use of ‘alternative treatments’ by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology International.

Supple

“I saw this new drink called Supple and I was wondering what you thought of it.”

With the Larry-King-like set and their puppy-dog-eyed presenters, it would be easy to dismiss Supple® as just another late-night scam. But let’s look past those things and take a look some of the claims made. Here are Lisa’s thoughts on this new miracle cure for arthritis:

Supple claims to be a shellfish-free source of glucosamine and a high-quality source of chondroitin sulfate. And, indeed, these 2 dietary supplements have shown a great deal of promise in the fight against one form of arthritis—osteoarthritis. Glucosamine, in particular, is of interest because it is a precursor to glycosaminoglycans. (Glycosaminoglycans are a major component of your body’s cartilage.)

What The Supple® Informercial & Site Won’t Tell You

There are over 100 different types of arthritis and these different types have very different causes. Some arthritis is caused simply by wear-and-tear, some forms are caused by injuries or infections and some are directly tied to immune disorders like lupus and psoriasis. We tend to think of arthritis as something that affects the hands, knees and hips but it can also affect the spine. There’s even a type of arthritis that mainly affects the big toe.

And not all arthritis is caused by a loss of cartilage. Scleroderma, for example, affects the connective tissue and is thought to be caused by an overproduction of the body’s collagen. Fibromyalgia is another form of joint pain that is caused by something other than cartilage loss. It’s actually a disorder thought to be rooted in the way the muscles of the body attach to the bones.

So ask yourself this one question—if arthritis can be caused by so many different things, and affect so many different parts of the body, is it really possible for one supplement to really treat all forms of it?

Where’s This “25 Years of Clinical Evidence”?

Supple® claims to have “25 years of clinical evidence” behind it but nowhere on the product’s site, supplebodies.com, could we find even a single study proving that it had been tested for safety or effectiveness. Nor could we find that Supple® had been the subject of any clinical studies published in any medical journal.

Supple® Criticizes Other Supplements But It’s A Supplement, Too

Finally, we have one really big beef with Supple® with the way it’s being marketed. The product infomercial and website are highly critical of other dietary supplements calling them the “everything else” sold to fight arthritis. Supple® claims that no other supplement has been proven to rebuild cartilage or has been proven safe. This is simply not true. The supplement known as SAM-e, or S-adenosylmethionine, is just one example of an over-the-counter product showing great promise for arthritis. While it has not yet been proven to rebuild cartilage in humans, animal studies prove that SAM-e can arrest cartilage loss and suggest that this supplement may, in fact, even help some arthritis sufferers replace lost cartilage.

Finally, we find it a bit absurd that the makers of Supple® go out of their way to criticize herbal and nutritional supplements when they themselves take the “herbal exemption”, as evidenced by the FDA-mandated disclaimer and the lack of a drug panel on the box. If Supple was really the miracle it claims to be, why wasn’t it subjected to scientific testing? Why does it hide behind an FDA loophole and market itself as the very thing it criticizes—a nutritional supplement?

Does this prove that Supple® is a scam? Certainly not. But now you have the information to make an informed decision.

References:

(2009). Retrieved from supplebodies.com, June 23, 2009.

Caruso, I., et al. (1987). Italian double-blind multicenter study comparing S-adenosylmethionine, naproxen, and placebo in the treatment of degenerative joint disease. American Journal of Medicine.

Kalbhen, D., et al. (1990). Pharmacologic studies on the antidegenerative effect of ademetionine in experimental arthritis in animals. Arzneimittel-Forschung.