CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Lifestyle › Health › Can't sleep!

Can't sleep!

Started by Sam Jackson29 · · 👁 6 views · 81 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Sam Jackson29Bradley Fisher20Tyler Lopez14Kenneth Hill37Drew Mitchell55placidrangerAlexander Parker69Gary Sanchezbrisknomad6stormylynx14placidjackal97copperridge912Lisa Kim85Karen White13northernheron9Bradley Bailey8rustybison12Daniel LopezBrian Moore2Jamie Clark74slydrifter39slycrane94Gary Jones10Casey Williams9 …
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#61 ·
Kyle Nelson2 said:Science fairs?
Yeah, I actually know a guy (I think his name was Ergo or something) who patented this tiny magnetized disc. You stick it on your forehead, and supposedly its magnetic field pulls oxygen-rich red blood cells toward your prefrontal cortex so you can study longer. He even snagged a gold or silver award at an Expo back in the 90s.
That all sounds great, but I’ve tried something similar, and frankly, it just doesn't work.

So, science fairs are good for showing off ideas, but they aren't exactly rigorous scientific testing grounds—at least from what I can tell.

I’ve seen the product you’re talking about (or one from a competitor), and they carry an ISO 9001 certification and a WIPO patent. Just a heads-up though: ISO 9001 doesn't mean the product actually works; it just means their manufacturing process is strictly documented and consistent. It doesn't even guarantee the tech isn't outdated. And honestly, getting a patent isn't the hurdle everyone thinks it is.

What I really want to know is: do you have any validation from actual research institutions like the Mayo Clinic, Max Planck, CERN, or something along those lines?

Even if you don't, I still have two questions:
- Can we actually get the product for testing? If I'm going to drop $2,000, I want to try it first rather than buying a pig in a poke. I'd be willing to pay a deposit or a fee for a trial period.

- Where did that $2,000 figure come from? Does that cover production, R&D, distribution, or what? To me, it feels like a price point calculated on the logic of "how much is your health worth?"

Look, there's a huge difference between just patenting an idea and actually manufacturing a product for 25 years and running a business with this program for 16 years right here in America. Try finding one other company in this niche that has stayed successful for that long. That should tell you something.

When you're operating in the US, we deal with certifications you’ve probably never even heard of.

And part of our program was developed by a researcher at the Rutger Bošković institute, and his patent is integrated into the entire system.

I really don't understand why you're hung up on that $2,000 mark. Where did you even get that number?

Once you look at the Mayo Clinic studies, you'll see that the effects happen gradually. First, sleep disturbances settle down, then your body naturally improves circulation and nutrient transport, leading to overall wellness. These studies were conducted over 3, 6, 9, and 12-month intervals because the results depend on your starting health, existing issues, and lifestyle. So, I'm not sure how you'd even go about "testing" this or for how long—it's not that simple.

The price is actually quite low when you consider you're investing in something you'll use for 6 to 8 hours every single day. We reinvest 5% of revenue back into further R&D, testing, and presentations... Honestly, try finding any other household item you'll rely on for a third of your life.
Kyle Nelson2 Kyle Nelson2 Regular
475 messages
joined Jun 2008
#62 ·
spavanje said:There's a massive difference between just patenting something and actually manufacturing it for 25 years—especially when you've been running that specific program in America for a full 16 years. Just try to find me one other company like this that’s stayed in business here for that long. That should tell you something, I guess.



I mean, sure, but honestly, the fact that a product has been around forever doesn't actually prove anything. It's a logical fallacy, maybe.
Is there such a company? Well, depends on what kind you mean. For instance, AMC has been around forever and they make their money off patents held by NASA.

When you're operating in Europe, there are certain certifications you'll barely even hear about.

Okay, then name them. Don't be all secretive about it. Maybe one of us actually knows something about that stuff.

And part of our program was actually developed by an employee at the Rutger Bošković Institute, so his patent is baked into the whole thing.

Fine, so which specific patent is he talking about within the whole setup?
Wouldn't he, being an institute employee, be restricted from patenting something that falls under the core business of his employer for a third party?
Wouldn't the institute automatically own it by law?

I really don't know why you guys are hung up on that $2,000 figure. Where did you even get that number?

You're the one who brought it up. But seriously, what does it actually cost?

Once you look at the Mayo Clinic studies, you'll see the effects happen gradually. First, sleep disturbances settle down, then the body naturally improves circulation and nutrient transport, leading to overall better health. You'll notice the tests were done at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months because results depend on your starting point, existing issues, and lifestyle. So, I don't know how you would even test that or for how long; it's just not possible.

The price is actually pretty low considering you're investing in something you use every single day, for 6 to 8 hours. About 5% of revenue goes back into further research, testing, and presentations... I mean, can you think of any other household item you'll be using for a third of your life?

Man, listen... this is starting to sound exactly like Zepter and all that junk...
My parents have had a TV they've used for 15 years and it works great... and they didn't pay $5,000 for it back in the day.

Anyway, if this has been in production for 25 years, they must have gathered a ton of different certifications by now...
It seems unlikely that www.bion.si is the only institute that ever conducted this kind of research (I tried to visit that "institute" site again today and just got "Connection failed - 110 Connection timed out").
Kyle Nelson2 Kyle Nelson2 Regular
475 messages
joined Jun 2008
#63 ·
spavanje said:The price is actually pretty low when you consider you're investing in something you use every single day, like 6 to 8 hours. About 5% of revenue goes back into R&D, testing, and presentations... I mean, just find one other thing in your house that you’ll be using for a third of your entire life.

okay... look, I bought myself a queen-sized bed with a high-end mattress and some quality coils underneath. I figure I'll probably get at least 15 years out of it, which is roughly 25% of my life.

I paid $0.83
I even bought a toilet, paid $50... and hey, I'm hoping I'll be sitting on that thing for at least 10 years. 🙂)))

(ugh... the cynic in me just woke up)
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#64 ·
Kyle Nelson2 said:Alright... look, I went ahead and bought a queen-sized bed with a high-end mattress and some solid support underneath. My plan is to make this thing last at least 15 years—which, let's be honest, is only about a quarter of my life.

I dropped $0.83
on it. I even picked up a toilet, paid $50 for it... and hey, I’m hoping I’ll still be sitting on that thing in about 10 years. 🙂)))

(Ugh... excuse me, my inner cynic just woke up.)

The reality is, if you're using a standard spring and foam mattress, you're looking at maybe 5 years tops. If it's latex, you might get 10. Honestly, if we all thought about mattresses the way we're talking right now, our backs, humidity issues, arthritis, and allergies wouldn't be half as bad as they are today.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#65 ·
Kyle Nelson2 said:Exactly. Just because something has been around forever doesn't mean it's actually good. That's a total logical fallacy.
Does a company like that actually exist? It really depends on what sector you're looking at. For instance, AMC has been around forever and pulls in massive revenue by leveraging products patented by NASA.

Come on, just lay it out there—don't be so secretive. Who are we talking about? Maybe one of us actually knows their way around this kind of stuff.

So, what exactly is the patent he’s holding within that framework?
Wouldn't he be restricted from patenting something for a third party if it directly overlaps with the core business of the company he works for?
Wouldn't the institute automatically own that by default under labor laws?

You actually brought that up earlier. So, what are we looking at in terms of the price tag?

Man, I’m telling you... this is starting to feel exactly like those old Zepter door-to-door sales pitches.
My parents have this TV they’ve been using for 15 years now, and honestly? It still works like a charm. They really lucked out—back then, it would've cost them a small fortune, maybe $800 or something, but they snagged it for a steal.

I mean, come on—if they’ve been producing this stuff for 25 years, they would have had to pull together a whole mountain of certifications by now...
It just doesn't seem right. www.mayoclinic.org They’re the only institute that actually conducted a study like that—though I tried to look up their website again today and just kept getting a "Connection timed out" error. It's basically a dead link at this point.

This is getting exhausting. I provided a working link, yet they keep redesigning the pages anyway.
Look, we’ve got plenty of accolades to show for our work—certificates, degrees, and awards that we pick up year after year at innovation expos both here in the States and internationally. We even run a medical supervision program out of our Seattle facility to ensure everything stays on track. But honestly? None of those certificates, research papers, or data points can top the most important fact: there are thousands of Americans actively using this program. Some people have been with us for over 12 years. They’ve felt the real-world improvements firsthand, proving that the functionality and longevity of this product are truly unmatched.

I’m talking about a specific type of firm—one that's officially registered to handle radiation research, detection, and environmental remediation. You can go ahead and check the registry to verify.

International collaboration between institutes is just standard practice. It’s perfectly normal to share knowledge, swap data, and even file joint patents together.

Pricing really depends on the specifics. We can’t give you an accurate quote until we get eyes on the situation to see exactly what needs to be fixed and how to approach it. Since our product is sold as a complete bed set, I wouldn't want to guess which individual parts might actually work for your needs.

Zepter and AMC have absolutely nothing to do with radiation.

Comparing something that’s objectively harmful, like watching too much TV, to something that actually improves and strengthens your health is just laughable. It’s a non-starter.
Casey Palmer5 Casey Palmer5 Regular
470 messages
joined Jan 2016
#66 ·
spavanje kaže:
We’ve picked up gold at the Brussels Eureka fair in '94, gold and silver from Innova in '96, gold from ExxonMobil in '00, and both silver from Geneva and Nautica in '03. Beyond those innovation awards, we had our functional testing done by the Mayo Clinic, and if you happened to swing by the Medicine and Tech expo last week, you could have seen the testing performed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are plenty of other quality control reports out there too.


American Academy of Pediatrics 😂 😂

Wait, are these the same people who hand out those "Doctor of Energy Medicine" titles???

I mean, what kind of testing did they actually use to issue you guys a certificate???
Jamie Clark74 Jamie Clark74 Regular
278 messages
joined Sep 2004
#67 ·
Casey Palmer5 says:
Sleepy said:They won gold at Brussels Eureka in '94, gold and silver from Innova in '96, gold from ExxonMobil in '00, and silver from both Geneva and Nautica in '03. Beyond those innovation awards, they had functional testing done by the Mayo Clinic, and if you caught the Medicine and Tech expo last week, you could have seen the testing by the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are other quality control papers out there too.


The American Academy of Pediatrics 😂 😂

Are those the people who grant titles like "Dr. of energy medicine"???

What kind of testing did they actually use to issue that certificate?


Casey Palmer5, you're always just one step—maybe five minutes—ahead of me...😁
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#68 ·
Casey Palmer5 says:
spavanje said:They won the Eureka gold in Brussels back in '94, followed by gold and silver from Innova in '96, gold from ExxonMobil in '00, and silver from both Geneva and Nautica in '03. Beyond those innovation fair awards, they’ve had functional testing done by the Mayo Clinic, and if you’d swung by the Medicine and Tech expo last week, you could have seen the testing performed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are plenty of other quality assurance papers out there too.


The American Academy of Pediatrics 😂 😂

Are those the same people who hand out those "Dr. of Alternative Medicine" titles???

And what kind of testing did they actually use to issue you guys a certificate???

This is just classic. People read without actually processing the words, just hunting for an excuse to tear something down. If innovation fairs aren't enough for you—well, what can I say? But if you’re actually curious about the process, the required documentation, or how things get tested, all that info is online. Go ahead and look it up.
The American Academy of Pediatrics acts as an umbrella organization for alternative groups, so they do conduct product testing. Why wouldn't they offer their perspective?

Since you're so obsessed with paperwork, maybe explain why you give your kids pills that haven't even been tested for side effects in children? Oh right, you do it without asking for certificates or proof. Just so you know, about 80% of drugs currently used in the US haven't been specifically tested for pediatric side effects. So if a full dose is fine for an adult, I guess you'll just give them half? A child isn't just a small adult.
And honestly, you should probably spend more time reading the WHO website; it’s where the most important global health updates are posted. Or, if you want something even easier, check the daily news on NBC.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#69 ·
Re: Re: I can't sleep!

quote:
Sleepyhead says:
Sleep issues have become one of the most common struggles in modern life. Even though we get an average of 6 to 8 hours, it feels like a blink of an eye, and we rarely stop to think about what our bodies actually need. We head to bed because we have to—our bodies are exhausted, and we're dealing with all sorts of daily pressures, from weather changes to general nerves, basically just stress. Then we lie down on a mattress that keeps stressing us out instead of letting us find peace and relaxation. The culprits? Foam mattresses (moisture issues), spring mattresses (static electricity), lack of spinal support, or even exposure to radiation while sleeping (power lines, radio waves, natural radiation). Instead of giving our bodies the quiet they need for rest, relaxation, cell regeneration, and immune support, they keep fighting through these stressors. That’s when disruptions and health problems start creeping in. Fix your sleep setup so your body gets what it needs, and those issues will start to fade away.

Stop talking about it and just tell us you're selling mattresses for $2,000 so our lives can finally improve...
=============================================

Just wanted to remind you what you wrote earlier, so we can clear up my claim about you mentioning a price.
Kyle Nelson2 Kyle Nelson2 Regular
475 messages
joined Jun 2008
#70 ·
spavanje said:This is just so typical. People read things without actually thinking about what’s being said, they just look for an excuse to spit venom. If you think innovation fairs are some kind of joke, fine, whatever. But if you’re actually curious about how someone gets there, what paperwork is needed, or how testing works, all that info is online. Just go find it.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is a major umbrella organization, so they test all sorts of products. Why wouldn't they offer their opinion?

And since you guys are so obsessed with paperwork, maybe explain why you give your kids medications that haven't even been tested for side effects in children? Oh wait, you probably do that without asking for a single certificate or proof. In case you didn't know, about 80% of the drugs currently used in the US haven't been fully tested for pediatric side effects. So, if a dose is fine for an adult, I guess you just give them half. But a child isn't just half an adult.
And honestly, I think people should spend more time reading the WHO website first, because that's where all the actual global health updates are posted. Or, if you want something easier to access, check the teletext on NBC 579

Whoops... easy there... maybe there are some of us here who actually understand pharmacology. One reason drugs are so expensive isn't the manufacturing—which is actually pretty cheap—it's the research and development. That involves testing on all kinds of groups, from kids and the elderly to pregnant women, kidney patients, or people with liver issues, etc.

The reason we give different dosages to kids versus adults is simply because medication is based on body mass. That’s why there's this thing called DDD, which acts as a universal standard to determine dosages for other age groups.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#71 ·
Kyle Nelson2 said:Whoa, easy there... let’s not be too quick to judge. Some of us actually know a thing or two about pharmacology. One big reason why medications aren't cheap isn't the actual manufacturing—which is incredibly inexpensive—it's the research and development. That covers massive testing across all kinds of demographics, from kids and seniors to pregnant women or people dealing with kidney and liver issues.

The reason dosage varies between kids and adults is simply because it's based on body mass. There's actually a standard called DDD (Defined Daily Dose) that serves as a universal benchmark to calculate doses for different age groups.

I brought up those examples specifically for the people who are constantly hunting for certifications; I wasn't trying to gatekeep medical knowledge. My point was broader—looking at the sheer volume of over-the-counter drugs available in pharmacies. It's common knowledge that people here go through an insane amount of those products. Unlike in the USA, only a tiny percentage of medications in the rest of the Western world have been thoroughly tested for side effects in children.
Kyle Nelson2 Kyle Nelson2 Regular
475 messages
joined Jun 2008
#72 ·
spavanje said:I was just giving an example regarding people who are obsessed with chasing certificates; I’m not even trying to get into who actually knows their stuff when it comes to pharmacology. I meant it in a general sense—all those drugs and supplements you can just grab off the shelf at a pharmacy. It’s common knowledge that we go through a massive amount of that stuff here. Unlike the USA, in the EU, only a tiny percentage of medications are actually tested for side effects in children.

If you look at a pharmacy, you basically have three categories:
- prescription drugs (from a GP or a specialist)
- what they call OTC products—basically anything you don't need a script for
- supplemental stuff, like beet juice or whatever else lies around.

Each one of these requires a different level of oversight. Supplements barely get any scrutiny (just basic hygiene or ingredient checks), but then again, everyone knows buying that is pretty much the same as picking up some blackcurrant juice at Walmart.

OTC products can be advertised and bought whenever you want; honestly, that’s the only real difference between them and actual prescription meds (like Normabel or whatever).

Generally speaking, medication consumption here is way lower than it is abroad, especially compared to the USA. Americans go through mountains of vitamins, antioxidants, and God knows what else, but I guess they also have better overall health stats (depending on which metrics you look at).

Eh, well... we could dive into a whole debate about what clinical versus preclinical research actually entails, but the standards are the same here as they are everywhere else.
I think maybe people should actually stop and think for a second before throwing out such sweeping statements....

I mean, we aren't exactly in Afghanistan, and we are closer to the EU.
Casey Palmer5 Casey Palmer5 Regular
470 messages
joined Jan 2016
#73 ·
spavanje said:Unlike in the US, only a tiny fraction of drugs in the EU have actually been tested for side effects in children.

Do you really think we have one set of medications and Americans have another? Not at all. We're using the exact same stuff on both sides of the Atlantic; it's just that some drugs aren't registered in the EU while others aren't approved in the US. Most medications overlap heavily and are used everywhere... even generics are identical, they just go by different brand names.

For example, take Sumamed—I believe that’s called Azithromycin, Zithromax, or something similar over there...
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#74 ·
Casey Palmer5 said:Why would you think we have one set of drugs and Americans have another? We're using the exact same stuff; it's just that some medications aren't registered in the US while others aren't registered in the EU. Most of the medicine used here overlaps perfectly with what they use across the pond. Even generics are identical; it’s just the brand names that change.

Take something like Sumamed—if I recall correctly, over there it goes by Azithromycin, Zithromax, or Zitromax.

About 80% of the drugs used in the EU haven't been fully tested for side effects in children. A huge chunk of those are antibiotics...
It was even featured on the news.
So, let's not overcomplicate things. We tend to take so much for granted that when we hear a headline contradicting what we thought we knew, we immediately jump to conclusions.
Kyle Nelson2 Kyle Nelson2 Regular
475 messages
joined Jun 2008
#75 ·
Casey Palmer5
About 80% of the drugs used in the EU haven't even been tested for side effects in kids. That includes a huge chunk of antibiotics......
It was even on the news.
So, honestly, let's not overcomplicate this. We take so much for granted, and then the second we hear something that contradicts what we thought we knew, we just lose it.


I mean.... if I actually pointed out how much nonsense you're spewing, the admins would have their hands full.
The last major case involving untested drugs went back to the 1950s with Thalomid. It caused massive issues for pregnant women, leading to babies being born without limbs—those "Thalomid babies."
Obviously, there were lawsuits flying everywhere and massive settlements.
No pharmaceutical company would ever touch a disaster like that again.
Recently, Bayer pulled a drug from the US market—I think it was Lipitor (for triglycerides)—just because some idiot decided to take twice the prescribed dose and ended up with side effects.
That’s how careful they are...

Look, I'm not out here defending Big Pharma, but it's just stupid to trash companies that, say, sink $300 million into R&D for a single drug. Especially when it's coming from someone selling some overpriced product without even a single legitimate certification.
bljak:

Hey, maybe try a little less hypocrisy?
Kyle Nelson2 Kyle Nelson2 Regular
475 messages
joined Jun 2008
#76 ·
Man, my blood pressure is actually spiking right now... I really hope the admin doesn't ban me, because I’m just telling it like it is...

So, you've got this guy over at Medicare, Czaba Dohoczky. He’s basically the one calling the shots on drug registrations, so maybe he can explain how the whole process actually works.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#77 ·
FDA Regulation. (Federal Register, No. L 159, June 27, 2003, pp. 46-94)
EC.03.068
The aforementioned Directive from November 6, 2001 (refer to IDHL, 2001, 52, EC 01.126) has been updated, notably through a revised Annex I (Analytical, pharmacotoxicological, and clinical standards and protocols regarding medicinal product testing), which includes the following sections: I. Standardized marketing authorization dossier requirements; II. Specific marketing authorization dossiers and requirements; III. Particular medicinal products; and IV. Advanced therapy medicinal products.

European Community. Regulation (EC) No 1647/2003 of June 18, 2003, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, which outlines FDA procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishes the FDA. (Federal Register, No. L 245, September 29, 2003, pp. 19-21)

Kyle Nelson2 said:man, that really got my blood pressure up... I hope the admin doesn't ban me, I'm just telling it like it is...

If you look at Medicare, there's this guy, Czaba Dohoczky. He's basically the head honcho for drug registration, so why don't you ask him to explain how the whole process actually works?
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#78 ·
Kyle Nelson2 said:trying to access that "institute" site, but I keep getting a Connection failed - 110 Connection timed out error.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#79 ·
The Bion Institute was established back in 1990, and by 1992, it officially earned its status as a research institute from the US Department of Education. They eventually branched out into three specific areas of research and operations:

Why the quotation marks?

The link works just fine!
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#80 ·
BlackRock said:Look, I’m not out here defending Big Pharma, but it’s just plain stupid to trash companies that sink, say, $300 million into R&D for a single drug—especially when you're coming from someone selling products at insane markups without even holding a legitimate certification.
Gross:

Honestly, could we dial back the hypocrisy just a little bit?

And why am I the target here? If you want to throw shade, go after the people who actually released the data officially. That’s where the hypocrisy lies. It’s the same deal with claiming prices are "abnormally high" without actually saying what they are. Or acting like trade shows and biomedical institutes are somehow the pinnacle of innovation. It's funny how people love to make a claim, get called out on it, and then suddenly find themselves very, very quiet.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads