Comprehensive coverage

The analysis of the studies on which the Bioguard X company, the manufacturer of the bracelet that it claims protects against radiation, is based

Erez Gerti, PhD student in the Department of Biological Chemistry at the Weizmann Institute of Science and editor of the site Davidson Online  Analyzes the studies appearing on the company's website and points to methodological problems. Prof. Moshe Iron responds: "Throughout the advertising and marketing processes I emphasized that this is a technology from the field of complementary medicine and they never claimed otherwise."

Yesterday The Ministry of Health announced that the bracelet should not be attributed to Bioguard X Any medicinal properties.

From the advertisement video of the company Bioguard X on YouTube
From the advertisement video of the company Bioguard X on YouTube

Study #1:

The company claims that the product reduces damage caused by cellular damage. Unfortunately, they chose not to back up the argument with a link to a scientific publication, but I will try to deal with this argument anyway. "The research showed that the formula inhibits the negative effects of electromagnetic radiation on human cells" What negative effects? How does he delay? closed sentence "In addition, the study showed that the formula reduced and prevented the over-phosphorylation of the protein in the cells, a negative phenomenon that may cause the development of cancerous cells" Ok, so we understand that electromagnetic radiation causes over-phosphorylation of a certain protein, and that the substance inhibits the over-phosphorylation. I know quite a few deadly poisons that do the same thing.

Study No. 2:
The company claims that the active substance resulted in a significant delay in the development of several types of cancer cells. They gave a link to an article in which they took several cultures of cancer cells and tested the effect of the miracle formula on their growth, and found that the formula inhibited the growth of the cells. Just one little thing I'm missing here... criticism. Does the same miracle formula also inhibit the growth of healthy cells? If so, that means we're throwing out the bathwater with the baby. inhibit the growth of both cancerous and healthy cells.

Let's assume for a moment that it's okay, this substance affects cell cultures, that is, cells that have "not seen a body" for many generations. Such cells are often used in the laboratory as a model for various systems, but this is really not enough to verify any therapeutic substance. The company also states that one of the cultures is a model for kidney cancer (293HEK) what they don't mention is that that culture is not cancerous at all but kidney embryonic stem cells.

Study #3:
The company claims that the active ingredient results in a significant acceleration of growth hormone activity. EGF. They present an experiment that measures the phosphorylation of a protein called ERK, which is a key player in many intracellular processes, including growth and survival. They tested the effect of the formula on the protein phosphorylation in the cells when it is added directly and when it is placed in a silicone package around the plates with the cells (by the way, the same control was also done in the previous experiment). Scanning the results of the experiment is very blurry, and an important thing that stands out in its brilliance is a positive review. How do we know that there was no problem in the experiment and that is why there was no increase in activity? In every scientific experiment, a positive review is required - one example where the result is always positive, in order to show that the experimental system works properly.

However, let's assume that everything is done correctly and that the results are reliable. The company claims that a plant extract is used. Is this a cleaned material? Or in a raw extract that also contains chlorophyll and all kinds of other pigments that have the potential to filter radiation? And what about criticizing the silicon? For example, empty silicone tubes or with the essence of the substance after it has been boiled?

Let's assume for a moment that the material does protect against radiation as the authors claim, this was tested on cells in culture. What about a whole physiological system like a laboratory animal? It is not a very complicated experiment and for such a pretentious product it is a necessary experiment. And if we are talking about the growth hormone - EGF, certain types of cancer exhibit overactivity of growth processes mediated by EGF, so that a limited molecular experiment on cell culture is difficult to extrapolate to effects on a living system.

Study #4:
The company claims that the active ingredient improves the motility of damaged sperm cells. In Badik Hasham presents, they did an experiment in which they exposed a sample of human sperm cells (it is not clear what sperm cells were in the sample) to the miracle formula and saw an improvement in their motility. The purpose of the experiment was to make sure the substance was non-toxic, and to the researchers' surprise there was a 1.94-fold improvement (let's be precise with the numbers) in motility. But I'm missing something here and that's statistics. How many samples were tested? What is the difference in the example? Does it stand a statistical test? Because we are dealing with biology, we must perform several independent repetitions in order to make sure that it is not a statistical error (something that happens a lot), present the standard deviation and show that it meets a statistical test. By the way, it is interesting to know whether the improvement repeats itself even when the cells are surrounded by silicone, and to what extent the miracle formula protects sperm cells from radiation. In order to show that the product is not toxic, it is mandatory to do experiments in the market. I know it's not pretty and not popular, but these are necessary requirements. What happens if the bracelet tears and the material comes into contact with the skin? What happens if the child who received a special bracelet for children bites it and swallows part of the material? Every material that is used must pass a test on the EB, and since it is a new material, all the more so.

On the website they state that they are planning developments to improve sperm movement based on this material. Will we soon see bracelets to improve the penis?

Study #5:
The company claims that the active substance resulted in a decrease in the activity of the P53 enzyme. Also in this experiment, similar to the previous experiments, cell culture was used, the effect of radiation on the activity of the transcription factor P53 was tested, in the presence of the miracle formula with and without silicon. I repeat, tissue culture is still not enough.

Bioguard X commercial video

Study #6:
In their advertisement video, a person is shown being tested by a BIM device which tests electrical conductivity in the skin. It is not clear to me how any result obtained from this device indicates anything about electromagnetic radiation damage, but let's go with it. In the video, the tester measures the conductivity in the subject's hand with and without a phone and with and without a bracelet. The changes are immediate, but note that all checks are in the same hand. Both the phone, the measurement and the bracelet. Is it just me that looks suspicious? And what will happen if they put the bracelet on the other hand? After all, the bracelet claims to protect the whole body and not just the palm.

Another thing that is surprising to me is the immediacy of the effect. The company claims that the active ingredient affects intracellular signal transduction. We saw this in the four studies they conducted. Let's assume that this is indeed a miracle formula that is able to affect the transmission of the signal through the bracelet (which in my humble opinion is completely delusional but I will not argue with the reliability of their studies), the speed with which the electrical conductivity is affected is very suspicious. They show an effect over a range of minutes to hours on cells with direct exposure, and in an experiment on the person wearing the bracelet, the response is within seconds. Why this gap? How does a process that takes place over minutes in cells, take place in seconds without direct contact with humans? Why didn't they publish the results of this very simple experiment in the paper like the previous experiments? When conducting an experiment on humans, it is customary to conduct a review using a placebo, that is, a product that looks like the original product, only that it does not contain the active ingredient, and without the subject's knowledge - an empty bracelet. The company does not present a placebo experiment, neither in the video nor in any of the studies (the molecular experiments do not show results with the silicone alone or with the material after boiling).

Study #7:
In the article that appeared on Ynet It is claimed that a clinical trial was conducted on 35 people who wore the bracelet for two months and 85% of them had increased antioxidant levels. I wouldn't mind seeing the results of the study, and the way it was carried out (and especially how the antioxidant levels were measured) since they don't appear on their website. The manner in which the experiment was carried out has significant consequences for its results, what is more, since it is a relatively simple experiment, why stop at 35? Allow 100 or 1000 and thus establish the statistics well. The company claims that an organized clinical trial costs a million dollars, and I ask if it is serious to release a product to the market before it has been thoroughly tested?


Prof. Moshe Iron's response
"After 30 years of working as an internist, including in hospitals, and after more than a decade of complementary medicine treatment, I do not accept the researcher's claims. I invite him to one-on-one professional litigation."

"From my extensive experience with the SR-18 formula, which was tested in a laboratory and moreover applied in the treatment of patients, I believe in the benefits of the formula, which is a therapeutic technology from the field of complementary medicine. Throughout the advertising and marketing processes I emphasized that this is a technology from the field of complementary medicine and they never claimed otherwise."

18 תגובות

  1. It's amazing that the guy writes about HELA cells that haven't seen a body in years.
    This is true, so why apparently also the Weizmann Institute uses HELA cells for cancer research?
    Why are these cells used in other parts of the world?
    People here are commenting, all against, but interestingly, no one has seen the studies in the product field.
    Quite a few studies were done both at Bar Ilan and in independent places and the body's reaction to the product was revealed to be a real reaction that strengthens the immune system.
    The fact that you don't think that EMF radiation is harmful, and therefore write everything against products that help against this type of radiation, is understandable, but why get dirty about a product that you have no real idea of ​​what and how it works?

  2. well said. But in addition to that - why would we want to increase EGF activity in the cell at all, raising growth hormone levels is typical for cancer cells... and p53 is a tumor repressor gene very important for repairing DNA damage, why would we want to decrease its activity? All their "research" is upside down...

  3. If the bracelet minimizes the effects of LM radiation, then it also filters light rays because these are also LM waves? It can be dangerous, vitamin D deficiency

  4. Another thing I noticed about the "proofs"
    A quick check on the net shows that the laboratories where these partial and non-exhaustive tests were conducted do not really exist, the only test whose value is documented is related to the miracle bracelet or that Dr. Iron's name appears on their website

  5. Prof. Iron,
    Be honored and enlighten our eyes. We will be happy to witness such professional litigation between you, above the pages of the website, for the benefit of all. Perhaps there are those among us who can contribute something to such a discussion. Why "one on one"?

  6. Erez, if you read my words carefully, I did not claim anything against Prof. Iron and not against his abilities as a healer. The product that the company markets is wrapped in a scientific envelope, but the science they use does not meet the standards of scientific research. A lot of reviews are missing, there are not enough statistics, and worst of all there is no controlled experiment on humans or for that matter on any other animal. And selling a product, especially at such prices, and making promises that do not have adequate scientific backing is problematic.

  7. I loved all the catechists, researchers of all kinds and skeptics.
    Not one of them bothered to speak if even one patient of Prof. Moshe Iron.
    The same researchers and eminent professionals are the ones who encourage treatment with radiation and chemotherapy, which as of today and until targeted treatments are approved at all levels, destroy every good part that is still found in the patient. The pharmaceutical companies, with the encouragement of most doctors, create a situation that continues to underestimate the importance of methods from the East as complementary and alternative methods that work in various hospitals around the world. There is no doubt that trauma cases are an outrage in conventional medicine, but only an idiot would not improve his systems with alternative means.
    I am not a partner in the professor's business and wish him only success and thank him for his courage.
    I am a patient of his for back issues (acupuncture), and for anti-aging (supplements from Chinese medicine) and I am full of appreciation for the results. I know other patients of his in the field of diabetes who with his help have done wonders for their condition (nutrition and supplements) and see many others who see results, so vomit in the present and wait for the authorities that depend on the pharmaceutical companies

  8. gullible

    I call the same trait that exists in about 9 billion people the belief effect, something that survived from herd life.

    For our purposes, take the thousands and thousands of products openly advertised by the manufacturers in the fields of skin, teeth, energy, thinking, aging, sex, and to that you will add the types of non-medical drugs along with card-reading prophets and more and more.

    And you will discover that in fact the majority of the world's population lives most of the time in an illusion, and we are no less than them, in that we think we can get out of it. from the one that burned us.

    And this is because it is the senses and the emotions that determine and decide, not some analytical analysis and genius thought. After they make a decision, we try, by mistake, of course, to associate the decision with some imaginary thing called logic.

  9. Polish. Nevertheless, there is one difference between the two products of the company you gave in the example, negative energy does not exist while electromagnetic energy does exist, and this without referring to the question of whether the product fulfills its function or not.

  10. He went to see all kinds of system solutions from the industry
    There comes a company with serious even honest people who really believe in their product the product looks like
    Something out of a science fiction catalog amazing presentations
    The scientific explanations are impressive, but only in a deep analysis will it be possible to see the problems in the scientific context of the product itself
    In practice, everything looks amazing, shiny, and even appears in international catalogs
    But when it comes to the field for inspection, the business just doesn't work
    Then comes the stage of excuses, maybe you didn't install correctly, maybe the media you're using isn't suitable
    In the end, even the brilliant company disappears from the radar screen because it fails to sell

    But with humans in general there is something else and that is that a large part of us does not have logical skeptical thinking
    And sometimes there is an advantage in this because it prevents us all from thinking in the same direction if a mistake has already been made in logical thinking
    Or logical thinking does not have the ability to obtain the enormous amount of variables for the analysis of a certain product
    It can also be a political situation and its results or stocks for example, but in general the skeptical logical thinking gives us more tools for analyzing different situations that arise before us, on the other hand
    For those who act out of emotion, especially that it comes from wishful thinking, a very common thinking in the world
    And in the ZHT in particular, we receive a fertile ground for companies that sell all kinds of human health products
    Any connection between them and health is completely coincidental, which is amazing in this whole story that even people in their jobs
    They are loggers and skeptics all of a sudden in their life details they walk around with all kinds of threads rings bracelets
    And the other voodoo products for which the proof is illusory and hidden under alternative medicine

  11. There is no doubt that the bracelet greatly helps the bank account of the manufacturer, the marketer, and the patent holder, it is doubtful whether it helps the consumer, but the suckers have not disappeared from the world and many charlatans will make a good living from the bracelet.

  12. A waste of money. Sounds like pagan medicine, the supposed non-serious scientific support, in fact they are closer to fraud than proof. If someone enjoys peace of mind, it is possible that the bracelet will add peace of mind to him, this is the only benefit I see from wearing a bracelet.

    By the way, miracle bracelets are not a novelty. For decades they have been selling miracle bracelets that provide "protection" against all kinds of hazards. What changes in the matter of the bracelets are only the delusional theories that explain how the miracle bracelets protect the body and mind.

  13. To Oren - No, complementary medicine is a code name for a medicine that does not need to rely on the scientific method (yes, this is indeed a logical fallacy, to claim that there are studies and then to claim that they were not conducted properly, that they are not important anyway). This is an attempt to say that the rules that apply to evidence-based medical treatments do not apply (and should not apply, according to them) to complementary medicine...

  14. I am full of appreciation for Erez Gerti for the in-depth analysis of the claims found on the company's website. However, I must admit that I find it difficult to see, from a logical-scientific point of view, the point of continuing beyond section 1. As long as the purpose of the studies or the bracelet has not been well defined, it is not clear what needs to be investigated and why.
    I also do not understand the claim of the inventor that it is 'only' complementary medicine. What does that actually mean? Some very specific biomedical claims have been made. Either they are true or they are not. Is 'complementary medicine' a code name for a magic drug that solves everything?

  15. The spirit of the article - Yesterday the Ministry of Health announced that the Bioguard X bracelet should not be attributed any medical properties.

    First section - seems to be contrary to the spirit of the article, "The study showed that the formula reduced and prevented the over-phosphorylation of the protein in the cells, a negative phenomenon that may cause the development of cancer cells", "Electromagnetic radiation causes over-phosphorylation of protein",

    Section two - does not invalidate the manufacturer's words, but only claims that the facts on which he bases his claim are insufficient because in the manufacturer's research there are controversial points. "But this is really not enough to verify any therapeutic material".
    Section three - similar to the second section in the approach and in the unclear, non-sharp way. Indeterminacy

    In short, it is better to avoid responding in such a hesitant and unconvincing manner, and this from a person who does not know and is not
    I know neither the product nor the manufacturer nor the advertisement..

  16. When the distinguished professor says that this is a technology from the field of complementary medicine, what does he mean?
    Does he mean that she should not stand up to scientific experiments?
    Does he use the well-known (and in my opinion false) argument that science does not have the tools to test those alternative theories?
    If so, why pretend and hide behind a "scientific" acetala?
    Is there by any chance an attempt to grasp the stick at both ends?
    That is, on the one hand, to rely on the "scientific" prestige of the professor as an internist and to present "scientific" supporting documents, and at the same time, when the validity of the experiments is attacked, to shrug it off and say that it is an alternative, it does not need an experiment at all...

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.