"Well the SECRET'S out on ASG"...
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:59 pm

Jim Kaszyk - the inventor and innovator of Ageless Secret Gold - the energetic cosmetic many of us have used for several years; has just published a 10-page scholarly article detailing his discovery in the peer reviewed scientific journal, WATER.

Below is a synopsis of the important points of the actual lab report and outcomes. The full article will be out in publication on March 25th.
A press release is due this week.

As seen in the peer reviewed scientific journal, WATER... Here are some key phrases from this 10 page report detailing that Ageless Secret has been infused with ENERGY and this Energy can structure water. Two things that are major scientific breakthroughs…
“Kaszyk created a process using proprietary catalytic towers that work energetically to interact with matter when it is coupled with the subtle energy field. The result is Kaszyk, unknowingly concentrated a new form of subtle energy…”
“At this point we realized that the Kaszyk treatment process does significantly affect our sealed control waters…”
“Kaszyk’s commercial product, Sun Lovers Mist (SLM), is Arrowhead Spring Water after Kaszyk’s proprietary treatment has been performed.”
“… Sun Lovers Mist was sprayed onto the side of the sample cell. The sprayed fluid tightly coated the wall and drained down the side of the cell… The fluid had a visual appearance that was unusual. Its viscosity when it runs down the walls appeared greater than normal water, almost oily.”
“The absorbance values for the sprayed sample are higher over the whole wavelength range…”
“Some kind of extraordinary water structure has been revealed in the bulk water treated remotely using subtle energy…”
“It (the spray experiment) has led us to consider additional experiments to show that the Subtle Energy in the sample causes the formation of a new kind of droplet…”
Prior to Kaszyk’s bottling the elusive energy, researchers who were trying to prove that Subtle Energy existed used the human body to generate it or test for it. This always led to frustration because critics would say how can you tell your results are not wishful thinking or due to the placebo effect?
Kaszyk and the co-authors Walter E. Dibble, PhD and William A. Tiller, PhD discovered a way to indirectly measure the new organizing energy independent of humans. Finally, after more than 40 years of scientists trying to prove Organizing Energy is real, science now has a way to conclusively prove the existence of it and measure it.
The reason why the new discovery was published in the journal “Water” is that the new energy has the amazing ability to structure water. This structuring occurs because the new energy is an organizing energy. This is important because this organizing energy creates the same kind of water, which Gerald Pollack, PhD of the University of WA and author of “The Fourth Phase of Water” says is in the human body. In the body, Kaszyk has shown that Life Energy, also called Chi or Subtle Energy, is the organizing energy that creates this type of water in us. Now we have a new organizing energy that mimics Life Energy. An organizing energy is also an Anti-Aging Energy and has tremendous implications for health and beauty.

free skin care · Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:03 am

Hello EDS and my fellow Skincare lovers. Sis here.
For those of us who enjoy the science of products: Below is the link to the article on Ageless Secret Gold which explains more about the lab research and energy outcomes of this amazing product.

http://www.waterjournal.org/volume-6/dibble

As I understand it, there are other research/articles in the pipeline. I am glad ASG is getting the scientific validation it deserves. It was one of the very busy booths at the Las Vegas anti-aging conference in December and a must-have for me.

free skin care · Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:10 am

Here are my critiques:

(1) This does not appear to be a legitimate scientific journal. It is not available on PubMed and it does not have an impact factor.

(2) The process of imparting "subtle energy" via "the catalytic towers" is never described. One of the core principles of science and scientists is that all methods must be specified in enough detail that other scientists can repeat the experiments to confirm the results. If you read the article, there is no description of *anything*. A real scientific journal would not permit an article without a description of methods to be published.

(3) All this article reports is the presence of a contaminant with an absorption peak around 270 nm. Recall Jim said that he used both "subtle energies" and trace catalytic materials. Jim has always said that he uses "Trace Minerals catalyzed with niacin, capsicum, ho shou wu, helichrysum italicum.", but that these materials are not present in the final product. But it's impossible to have these materials touch the water used in ASG and then remove them completely from the water; there will always be trace contaminants. This is analogous to filtering tap water in that there is never a way to remove 100% of all contaminants. So the absorption peak must be do to the presence of one of these contaminants, which Jim claims he uses in the "subtle energy" process. This experiment is thus profoundly flawed because no one tested for the presence of these contaminants in the final product, even though Jim knews that the water gets in contact with these contaminants (this is a fatal flaw).

(4) Related to the reviewer's point "This inversion process resembled a re-suspension of light-scattering particles even though there were, apparently, no light-scattering solid particles physically added to the sealed sample...Centrifugation tests carried out on the commercial samples indicated that no solid particles had been added." Centrifugation is not a valid way to determine whether particles have been added to the water because this will only detect particles that are macroscopic in size. I think we all know that particles in skin care (except for exfoliating beads) are invisible to the naked eye. Again, if this were a real scientific journal, the reviewers should have caught this flaw in the experimental design. It makes me doubt that real scientists are reviewing this manuscript, as anyone who went to grad school in the biomedical sciences would know this. Alternatively, maybe they didn't do a good job reviewing this article.

(5) There are no error bars and no statistical tests performed. That is, they can't even claim that there is a difference between the treatments unless valid statistical tests are performed.

(6) The experiments showing a difference between the sprayed versus unsprayed ASG suggests that the some of the difference is probably due to the presence of bubbles.

(7) I agree with the reviewer who said "in the nephelometry experiments, the scattered light distribution should enable the size of the scattering identities to be determined. The scattered light should be polarised." This is a fundamental flaw that they didn't use polarized light...it's almost as if they didn't want the size of the particle to be determined because then they would be able to determine its identity.

(8.) Note that Jim and company says: "This is a good point. The unit that we use does not allow for a ratio of the side scatter and the front scatter, which would be an indication of the size of the particle." And they also say: "The marker at 270 nm is associated with ring type structures." Thus we catch Jim in the act of admitting that the peak at 270 nm is from a "particle" not a "subtle energy". Again this suggests a contaminant. By the way, dark energy does NOT have a wavelength at that energy.

(9) Phenol absorbs at 270 nm, so the data could suggest that the contaminant involves phenolic compounds. Also, protein generally absorbs around 260 nm and nucleotides (RNA/DNA) at 280 nm. Note that niacin peaks around 262 nm, capsicum peaks around 275 nm, and helichrysum italicum around 233 nm. Therefore, virtually all the calatylic ingredients that Jim uses in the catalytic process except the helichrysum italicum could explain the new absorption peak.

(10) Jim has originally claimed that his product contains (1) dark energy and (2) expands water. This article proves neither. All it demonstrates is that there is some new particle contaminant in the water.

In sum: The data suggest that they are the result of (1) an organic particle contaminant with an absorption peak around 270 nm and (2) the presence of bubbles, which arise from water falling down "the catalytic towers". This is consistent with the ASG product being like a hydrosol containing "trace Minerals catalyzed with niacin, capsicum, ho shou wu, helichrysum italicum."

Sorry but this is not good science.

Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:35 pm

Hi CM,
Thank you for your post.
Some of the scientists who are on the review panel are some of the great scientists of our time. Have you looked at the list of scientists associated with this journal? You are insulting some very great scientists. There many things that you have wrong. This article reports the discovery of a new kind of energy that is like the Life Energy. It also says I have a method to infuse it into liquids. This energy can be detected because it changes the structure of water. The two ways it is measured is by the absorbance peak at 270 nm and the scattering of light.

You have said that my process is not described in detail. That is not important. What is important is that in the report, it is stated that the Tiller Labs sent me water in sealed bottles for me to energize. The report states this water was first carefully studied by them before sending it to me and a baseline of its ability to scatter light was established. These bottles were then sealed with wax. When the wax hardened, they marked the bottles with ink to create a way to tell if I opened the bottles. I treated their sealed bottled with my energizing process and returned the unopened bottles to them. They carefully examined the sealed bottled after they received them. When they were satisfied they had not been tampered with they measured the water. The data shows an amount of scattering that indicates some kind of particle has mysteriously formed in the water, even though the bottles were never opened!

Very importantly the report says I will energize water samples for any lab that wants to send me samples for testing.

Another important point regarding light scattering is that light will only be scattered if the particles are insoluble. It is a test used for water quality to measure stuff suspended in the water. You missed this! My Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist has no particles added to it, but it measures like there are particles suspended in it. The Tiller Labs thought how can that be? The machine measures scattering of light ONLY for insoluble suspended particles. A centrifuge should have no problem removing insoluble suspended particles. But when Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist is centrifuged the effect does not go away. That means this new form of Subtle Energy, that the water has been exposed to, has created a new kind of extraordinary structure in the water.

The structure can be studied by using UV absorbance measurements, which the Tiller Labs did extensively. Do you think the Tiller Labs are fools? They spent two years trying to prove that these observations were NOT coming from a special new kind of structure in the water.

free skin care · Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:28 pm

Please. Are you implying you have anything in common with Eistein?? Laughing

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:44 am

kasz wrote:

Hi CM,
Thank you for your post.

Quote:

Some of the scientists who are on the review panel are some of the great scientists of our time. Have you looked at the list of scientists associated with this journal? You are insulting some very great scientists.

All scientists know that critiquing others' work is part of the peer review process. They should have no problem with my critique or any other person's critique; speaking as a scientist, we are trained not to take any critique of our science personally.

Quote:

There many things that you have wrong. This article reports the discovery of a new kind of energy that is like the Life Energy. It also says I have a method to infuse it into liquids. This energy can be detected because it changes the structure of water. The two ways it is measured is by the absorbance peak at 270 nm and the scattering of light.

No, this article does not prove that. It proves that you have at least one particle contaminant with an absorption peak at 270 nm. Also, you should know that particles scatter light; this is a basic principle of chemistry. Also, you have not proved ANY changes to the structure of water because you did not even measure the structure of water in your experiments.

In order to prove that you have some new unidentified "energy", you have to do at least two things: (1) measure its energy spectrum (you have done something like this), and (2) prove that its energy spectrum is not due to something already known, i.e., that there are no particle contaminants that can explain the spectrum (you have not done this). Since you have not performed the second critical step, you cannot claim to have discovered anything new.

To fulfill the second criteria, please know that use of centrifugation is not a valid way to test for the presence of contaminants.

Instead, you should look into methods like tandem MS (which would tell you the presence of all compounds in the solution) or high-performance liquid chromotagraphy.

Quote:

You have said that my process is not described in detail. That is not important.

No, that is critically important. The reason that it is critically important is because if you don't describe your process, then other scientists can't repeat your experiments and verify that your work is legit.

Quote:

The data shows an amount of scattering that indicates some kind of particle has mysteriously formed in the water, even though the bottles were never opened!

The article, however, says that catalytic towers were used.

Quote:

Very importantly the report says [b]I will energize water samples for any lab that wants to send me samples for testing.

Quote:

Another important point regarding light scattering is that light will only be scattered if the particles are insoluble. It is a test used for water quality to measure stuff suspended in the water. You missed this!

My Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist has no particles added to it, but it measures like there are particles suspended in it.

Actually, this is incorrect. Both soluble and insoluble particles can scatter light.

Quote:

My Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist has no particles added to it, but it measures like there are particles suspended in it.

Yes, I understand that very well, and that is exactly my point: that it measures like there are particles suspended in it.

That is precisely why you need to have all the compounds in ASG measured. Any scientist would not take your word for it; instead they would need to see proof by seeing the data from an experiment where all compounds in ASG were measured. So what you need to do instead is to go get this measured.

Quote:

The structure can be studied by using UV absorbance measurements, which the Tiller Labs did extensively. Do you think the Tiller Labs are fools?

If you are asking whether you are using good scientific methods here to prove that you are "changing the structure of water", then my answer is NO.

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:46 am

P.S. Also bubbles scatter light as well. As a third component of this research, you should also be able to prove that there is no bubbles introduced into the water that was "energized" at a difference. Again, you can't just claim that no bubbles exist, you would have to do experiments to prove it.

I know that you have said that you are willing to submit ASG to any kind of testing, so if you sincerely mean this, it would be good to get the tests that I mention performed on ASG.

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:54 pm

As a non-scientist, I was interested to learn more about the peer-reviewed journal process.

Here is the review process that Elsevier uses:

About Elsevier (they sound like a top notch operation and serious about their journals):

Quote:

Elsevier is a world-leading provider of information solutions that enhance the performance of science, health, and technology professionals, empowering them to make better decisions, deliver better care, and sometimes make groundbreaking discoveries, that advance the boundaries of knowledge and human progress. Elsevier provides web-based, digital solutions — among them ScienceDirect, Scopus, Elsevier Research Intelligence, and ClinicalKey — and publishes nearly 2,200 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and over 25,000 book titles, including a number of iconic reference works.

The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC, a world leading provider of professional information solutions in the Science, Medical, Legal and Risk and Business sectors, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam), REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).

Their process for peer reviewing journals:
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines#youve-been-asked-to-review

Their guidelines for conducting a review....much of what CM5597 mentioned is listed here.
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines#conducting-a-review

Here are the requirements for Water's submissions...they let you pick your own reviewers. I also saw that Water required complete details on the methodology, but it looks like they overlooked that requirement in this case.

http://www.waterjournal.org/submissions

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:21 pm

Thank you, Bethany. This is what I was getting at in terms of peer review and what info needs to be in a valid scientific article, and you spelled it out even more clearly.

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:29 pm

cm5597 wrote:

Thank you, Bethany. This is what I was getting at in terms of peer review and what info needs to be in a valid scientific article, and you spelled it out even more clearly.

You're welcome, though your explanation was certainly very well laid out. I was a bit concerned after Jim's initial post (which has since been edited), and wondered if there were different levels of rigor for peer reviewed journal publications, and it appears that is the case.

I know we have a number of people on EDS that think very highly of AGS, and the above certainly doesn't change that at all. This might not be quite the level of scientific validation that some of us had hoped to see, but hopefully your guidance will help him to get to the next level of testing and publication. After all, we all love a great success story!

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:15 pm

Sounds like homeopathy. I've never had luck with homeopathic medicine myself but I know it works for some.

I might believe the rave reviews if people put it only on one side of their face so we could compare. That is the only test that works, in my opinion.

The film What the Bleep Do We Know? has a segment about a Japanese scientist taping words on bottles of water -- love, hate and others -- and showed it changed the structure. I've had labels on my refillable water bottles like "financial abundance" and "love" and I am still single and poor!

free skin care · Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:10 pm

Homeopathy can be ruled out as Kaszyk himself states that his discovery may be the most important scientific discovery made since those of Einstein.

What I find most confusing is there appears to be two different methods of "energising" water. Kaszyk states that Ageless Secret is energised using catalyst chemistry but that the Sun Lovers Mist is "energised" using "a proprietary agent remotely". The term "remotely" is used because the bottles of Arrowhead Spring Water are unopened whilst being "energised".

Further, according to the video made by Kaszyk and Dibble, it is attempted to show that water can be "energised" through the laying on of hands - so this may be considered as a third method. I'm disappointed that the exact methodology for "energising" the water was not divulged in the article as, surely, this would be a very pertinent topic for discussion and would enable others to replicate the experiment.

If ASG and Sun Lovers Mist are "energised" using two completely different methods, does their "energy" display the same characteristics?

I would also suggest that even if we accept the hypothesis of water being "energised" - what proof is there that it has the potential to biologically rejuvenate the skin?

Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:42 am

Hi Everyone,
The energy I infuse into Ageless Secret GOLD is the same for all my products, including Ageless Secret Sun Lovers Mist. The process is different in making them and that changes the amount of energy that the catalytic towers energetically send into them. The products never touch the towers, the energy is transmitted similar to the way magnets can act at a distance.

It has been suggested that it might be a good test to try the Ageless Secret GOLD on one side of the face and compare against the untreated side. We sometimes do that with skeptics in our office using the Far Infrared Mineral Lamp to enhance penetration, and wow in 20 minutes the results are dramatic.

We have also been testing a new way of showing the difference and that is to apply The Ageless Secret GOLD liberally to one hand and arm for a week and then compare against the untreated hand. This is working really great too.
It is not surprising that the one hand test would work great because according to dermatologists we get new skin on our hands every 24 hours. But that renewal weakens with age. It was my theory that the weakening occurs because the cells lack energy. Obviously this is Not the kind of energy we get from food, because we are eating food and it is still getting weaker. It is instead due to a lack of Life Energy. The energy infused into Ageless Secret is like Life Energy.

Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:44 am

I have a hard time reading some of these posts. You can critique every single product on the market and find fault with it. Mr Katz is a very ethical man and 100% believes in his products.
I honestly cannot understand why someone would want to completely tear apart everything said in the the report that he furnished. What purpose does that serve. You can pick apart every single thing the FDA does also. They say a product is good or bad due to tests. It all gets down to what actually works and is safe.

I have been extremely happy using the Gold product that Mr. Katz sells. I have used it 2 years with astonishing results. You can analyze it all you want. The products work. Better than many products I have tried in the past. It is not the scientific results that matter. What matters is that you can see positive changes to the skin. Before using the Gold product, I read many positive testimonials. That was the deciding factor in my using it. One of my girlfriends that uses the Gold told me about it. Her skin is so young looking and she is in her 50's. I started with Diamond and moved to Gold. I just feel it is important to give my opinion to this post.

Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:03 pm

Hi All,

Let's please leave this thread for those interested in discussing the proposed science related to this product. Those interested in sharing their personal experiences with ASG should participate here:

Ageless Secret Gold: Results Poll
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=42292

Please do not post any comments to the moderation itself.

Thank you.

free skin care · Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:58 am

Yes, and skin is going to look better just with an infusion of regular tap water on it so the trial of placing it on one side of the face versus the other with nothing doesn't "hold water" with me.

Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:27 pm

Hi AnnieR,
Thank you for your post.

Regarding the effect of tap water on skin, wouldn’t that be great if ladies could rub tap water into their skin and then it would feel silky smooth? But we all know that is NOT the way it is.

In fact, I encourage anyone to do a test with tap water as a control against Ageless Secret GOLD to show how awesomely smooth Ageless Secret GOLD leaves skin feeling. Also it makes skin look and feel great, not by coating it, but instead it works with a combination of the unique energy and the choice ingredients that leave no residue for water to wash away.

free skin care · Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:11 pm

Well it tried it on both sides of my face and it didn't do anything, so that was enough of a trial for me. It WAS like using tap water and it soaked right in, leaving no residual results or improvements. I still had to use a moisturizer.
Plus I did not get a refund! Sad

Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:49 pm

Hi AnnieR,
I’m sorry to learn you did not get results that made you happy. Not every product works for everyone. That is why we have a money back guarantee. Where and when did you purchase? Did you buy directly from us? All you have to do is let us know you are not happy. My attitude is if I have not pleased you, I don’t deserve your money. We send refunds and don’t ask people to return the product because refunds are not something that happens very often. Call or email me and let us take care of this.

free skin care · Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:16 am

It was several years ago and I did contact your customer service. In frustration I just gave up.
I gave the product a full trial and used it up, which was part of the problem according to your customer service.
I was not the only one here on the forum that had that issue and it was discussed on the threads before if they have not magically disappeared.
There have been many products thru the years that have not lived up to their hype and I am always proactive in voicing my opinion on them so as to spare another person having to needlessly part from their hard earned money. Not just yours. But this is one of the few products that when someone posts a negative comment (or a truthful one) concerning their experience, they have to have it debated.
That is why this one gets so heated.
Allow an opinion on the "science" or a user's experience to stand as is without the debate.
To me, the proof was in the use, not the hocus pocus.

Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:56 am

Hi AnnieR,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In the past, some people tried to email us through “contact us” on our web site and did NOT fill in the field for email or phone and the way it was set up we had no way to respond. That has been changed with a change to a new web site person, where now the email field is mandatory. So I apologize if that was the case.

I want to talk with you and anyone else who was not satisfied with our product. Here is my direct line: 760-341-2255. You can reach me 10a-6p Pacific Time Mon-Fri. If you get sent to voice mail, slowly leave your name and phone number and I will personally call you ASAP. Because you made me aware of this, not only will I give you a full refund, I will give you more product to try after our discussion, at no cost to you.

free skin care · Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:56 pm

AnnieR wrote:

Yes, and skin is going to look better just with an infusion of regular tap water on it so the trial of placing it on one side of the face versus the other with nothing doesn't "hold water" with me.

I know we're not supposed to discuss Ageless Secret products on this thread. So I'll respect that. However, I have to disagree about a regular infusion of tap water making the skin look better. How is that possible unless you have a special water filter that also energizes and softens the skin? Also, I don't know about you, but my tap water is purified with chlorine. Chlorine strips the skin of all moisture and can really do a number on the skin. Personally I find it very irritating. So again, unless you have some special filter that works magic, I don't see how you can possibly compare the two. It makes no sense to me. ~

And oh yeah Jim - I wanted to congratulate you on having your work acknowledged in the water journal. That is so awesome for you and a long time coming!! Best, Aprile

Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:31 am

You can tear apart anything you want about Ageless Secret Gold, but the fact remains that Mr. Jim Kaszyk has spent a lot of time and money to prove (or not) to all the devoted users of Ageless Secret Gold. Mr. Kaszyk could have "thrown in the towel" many times, but he believes in his product. Yes he is marketing his product to make money,(as WE ALL would) but he is also trying to help ALL (including myself) desperate women and men that are trying to find the fountain of youth! Kudos to you Jim Kaszyk for standing by your product. I for one am ready to give it another try!! Best wishes to Jim Kaszyk and the future of Ageless Secret Gold!

free skin care · Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:51 am

I do use filtered tap water in my house and I also use our family's water brand that we sell for private use, such as municipal water sources, infusions,alcohol distilling and so on. But I do not promote it nor will I EVER here. It is for private commercial use only. A few of you here know that about me and it is not the first time I have mentioned it so it is not a secret.
Because of this, I understand the process of energizing water "or lack of" EXTREMELY well. We don't lay on hands or pray over it and I am a minister. It is natural from the source. We spend thousands upon thousands in samples,testing and water control. I see enormous amounts of data so I am aware although not active in the business.
That's what makes this all the more of interest since I have knowledge of the industry. None that I shove down anyone's throat.
When I rinse my face, it does temporarily plump up and stays that way for several hours.
Back to my point. That is fine if the product worked for you, it did not for me. PERIOD. I am stating my result.
That's what propels me to buy and promote a product. Results, customer service, and honest reviews. And that goes for any product or procedure, not just this one. This isn't the first product that didn't work, yet I also give reviews on those that have.
If the "science" actually held water,that would be different. I have never insulted the person, I have only questioned the product. Not once. For that, the same courtesy should be given.

free skin care · Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:33 am

icebreaker wrote:

It is not the scientific results that matter.

Actually, it is the scientific results that matter.

I heart science! Smile

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.