Here's the illegal demonstration; they've used it to sign up all their marketers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT8TU99AKJY

I've contacted several people in the company as well as a few lead marketers with the following details. Nonetheless they are launching the product in the USA on April 30 2010 using the same deceptive practise.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Gino, no problem with measuring TDS as part of the demo; that part's OK and I use a Hannah TDS meter in my own office for the colloidal silver and also in hydroponic solutions.

In the "precipitator" experiment, however, it's mainly not precipitation that colours the water. To explain this point more clearly, the electrode leaves some of whatever it's made of, aluminum in this case, in the water, and aluminum salts and electrocolloidal aluminum are primarily what's colouring the water, much the same as when I make colloidal silver using silver electrodes. I told you I know the work ;) The aluminum salts carry by far the weight of the colour as you'll see if you get the resulting muck analysed.

Moving on, not telling people that it's primarily the aluminum electrode that results in the colour makes that part of the demo misleading. It's so misleading that it's tantamount to fraud, and I'm sure I won't be the only one to point it out in the next few months if you keep doing it.

Truth be told, unless you're using a resistant metal such as gold or platinum class electrodes, you'll always get the same misleading result, and that should have not got past your scientific advisory panel, so my inclination is to believe that this is where the fraud began or you need real scientists to create a better demo.

This is very serious; you should figure it out, lay the blame, and work fast and furious to correct the problem before your next seminar and certainly before launch at the end of the month. If I was in your company, and I'm not just yet because now I'm not so sure about company ethics, I'd expect one of two things, either immediately replacing the electrodes with gold wires or rods for the precipitation experiment, or not using that demo at all for the time being.

FYI I think you 'might' get visible results with the competitor's water without using perishable electrodes, but I really doubt there will be 'any' visible precipitate without seeding the batch like you have.

All told you should thank me; a fraud left uncorrected after you've learned about it would leave a stain that would severely hurt your company. Not so good for a fresh launch, so I would think you'll fix it. Then I'd be happy to demo the product with good valid demos, not misleading ones ;) as anybody with decent ethics would. The product line can stand on its own without shenanigans IMO.

I'll copy this to Rob and Don because they have the background to appreciate the accuracy of this post, and I think after verifying these points around the scientific community you will agree.

OK, with regard to the fulvic acid, I'd still need an analysis as well as a general geographic location of the ore. Fulvic acid is available from a number of sources as you know, and some have more contaminants than others. I'd have a big problem with selling something as a health product that has the degree of contamination that some humic shale or fulvic acid deposits do. If I get behind a product I personally have to have the conviction that it won't harm my own credibility, and I think that's a reasonable point to make clear.

I'd love to continue with Beyond Yours, and I could do a lot of good with good products, but the two questions on the fulvic and the fiasco of a precipitation experiment have to be addressed to keep me interested.

Sunday's fine for the talk; I work much of the day but I'm near the phone.

all good,


Duncan

---------------------------------------------