Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Biophotonic Redux

The Journal of Investigative Dermatology weighs in on the Biophotonic Scanner. CLICK HERE

I rest my case!


HeartHawk

4 comments:

neil said...

Hi HH,

Just to continue about your previous post of Dr. Moon. Our system creates people like this; these doctors just learn how to play the game better...and a bit more obvious than most. And as this NY Times article points out, running a doctor's office along the lines with prevention slant loses money. There is no patient reimbursement for taking additional time with patients to educate them on diet, etc, procedures are the money makers. This is really sad.

Neil

http://tinyurl.com/2albgc

NY Times free registration required for link..

interestedinhealth said...

This is a response to the 2-21-07 posting by Heart Hawk wherein he refers to a 2003 opinion letter commenting on a BioPhotonic Scanner study done by the Univ. of Utah. This opinion letter was written by two psychology professors from Georgia and submitted to the Journal of Investigative Dermatology for publication as part of their peer-review process. Obviously, this was not written by the Journal as was implied with the comment "the Journal of Investigative Dermatology weighs in on the BioPhotonic Scanner", but was just the opinion of two psychologists from Georgia. This study was peer-reviewed prior to publication and the letter submitted to the Journal by the two psychologists was the only critical letter submitted which challenged the study’s validity.

Importantly, the letter that he sites was written over 4 years prior to this blog posting. Here is the URL to that letter: http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v122/n2/pdf/5602205a.pdf. To use a single opinion letter written by two psychology professors over 4 years ago as evidence, or as Heart Haqwk states ‘I rest my case!”, that this technology is perhaps invalid presents an extremely weak and unconvincing case. There have been numerous clinical studies conducted since 2003, by many different sources, which have continued to provide supporting evidence of the validity and importance of the measurement. Also, the device (BioPhotonic Scanner) that is used to provide the measurement has continued to be improved since 2003 to the extent that even the calibration is now automatically done without the need of a person to provide that step as it was when it was first introduced in 2003.

The authors of the published study that appeared in the Journal responded to the letter the two psychologists submitted which challenged the validity of their study on carotenoid measurements. Interestingly, their response was also published with the two psychologist's opinion letter in the same Journal issue, a fact that was not mentioned in the blog posting. Here is the URL to that letter: http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v122/n2/pdf/5602206a.pdf. I would recommend that everyone read the response by the study authors so they can form a more informed and objective opinion about the validity of the two psychcologist’s opinion letter. Even with the author's response letter my previous statement regarding the many new studies that have been conducted since 2003, as well as the data and understanding that now exists regarding the validity of the BioPhotonic Scanner measurement to determine overall antioxidant health, would give a much more complete picture regarding the validity of the BioPhotonic Scanner to Heart Hawk, the two psychology professors, and any other interested party in order to form their opinion. That is, of course, if there is an interest in the totality of the science and information about this measurement and not just opinions about it based on less than the large body of scientific data and information available. Which brings to mind a very appropriate quote from Hippocrates, recognized as the world’s first physician, “There are in fact two things, science and opinion, the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.”

Interested in Health

HeartHawk said...

Dear InterestedinHealth:

Thanks for the post. Good points! If you have better data please bring it to the table. If Biophotonics works, great. I have to reiterate the explanation of the mechanism of action for it seems weak (see my previous post on the subject) but I have been wrong before. However, you cannot just SAY there is better data. You and I are nothing but anonymous posters. You have to provide links to the data you cite and let the readers form their own conclusions.

Regards,


HeartHawk

interestedinhealth said...

Heart Hawk:
I would possibly be interested in putting in some additional effort to respond to you regarding the validity of the BioPhotonic Scanner and its measurement, however, you made some very strong and very opinionated comments in your 2-10-07 blog titled "Biophotonic BS Wins 'Lame Duck' Award". Some of your comments included "you bunch of pseudo-science scam artists", "fancy Rube Goldberg contraption", "This is not the first nor the last group of sheisters to pull this type of medical hoax", and last but not least "if your doc, supplement clerk, or nutritionist wants to "biophotonically" test you just tell them to shove a photon torpedo where the sun don't shine!".

The problem with your blog entry was that at the time of your entry there was extensive data available to you at numerous locations on the web including the web site of Pharmanex, the company that produces the BioPhotonic Scanner. Or it could have been provided to you if you had simply called the company. This available information, for the most part, would have addressed the majority of your criticisms and concerns. With that in mind, are you truly interested in informing people about science-based technologies that may provide a benefit to the public, or in bashing technologies that you haven't fully vetted, but nonetheless are willing to develop such strong negative opinions about and then share them without performing a more complete vetting process?

I hope you would agree that when you share your negative opinion about such a unique complex system you are also commenting on the years of work and effort that have been put in by very credible and hard working people at several universities, research facilities/labs and companies. And don't forget the individuals that worked on its development including numerous scientists, doctors, physicists, engineers and technicians. People that I don't believe are "scam artists" or "sheisters". I think people forget these things when they write such things.

In today's world with so much hype and claims being made by everyone it is only wise to investigate things prior to deciding the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of things. The problem is, very few people are really interested in investing the time necessary to do this and are willing to form opinions based on limited and sometimes false data, or even the opinions of others, including yours.

Let me know what you're interested in, and whether you would actually read all the information I could provide, and then put a new comment on your blog sharing any new information people should have an opportunity to see so they can judge for themselves what is credible and what is not. Much the same way you did for people on your 2-10-07 blog entry.

InterestedinHealth

 
Blog Directory - Blogged