InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 132
Posts 30425
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/10/2006

Re: lazyfaire post# 164524

Monday, 07/27/2009 11:17:16 AM

Monday, July 27, 2009 11:17:16 AM

Post# of 192567
Also important to know who sponsored the study. Results are often spun the way the sponsor would like in the end.

Fortunately, current trends favor companies like EESO. Toxicity seeps in every aspect of our daily modern lives. Pesticides and genetically altered foods, air pollution, aluminum and chlorine in water supplies, cleaning chemicals, etc...

Science typically concludes safety based on parts-per-million levels. But typically, the conclusion assumes the agent in question is the only one at play. Add in all the vectors of toxicity each day, and the "safe" levels should be much lower.

Consumers are slowly realizing this and becoming more and more paranoid. Uninformed paranoia is rarely good, but in this case, might inspire more self-education, label-reading, and conscious product selection at the market.

Some near-term events may bring environmental health into even sharper focus. eg: Potential for world fisheries to collapse within the next 5-10 years.

As both consumers and governments demand more and more truly safe products, the market for those products will rise rapidly.

The only question is whether EESO can position and market themselves well enough to gain a piece of the growing pie.

History has shown that the best technology does not always win. Vis the Beta vs VHS war, won by VHS via slick marketing and porn distribution.

For my part, with the huge potential upside, I'm willing to roll the dice and risk the total loss.

99.99% of all pinks are scams. Best to assume the other 0.01% are as well.