We all think that flow in the cardiovascular system is driven completely by the heart is
what I thought for many years, but it turns out there are a half dozen studies that demonstrate
that if you stop the heart, flow continues, it doesn't stop.
This is the true health report where critical appraisal fuels true freedom.
Hello everyone.
I am Dr. Andy Kaufman and today I have a returning guest, someone who has made major
contributions to what I might call the new science or the new biology and specifically
the new science around water.
It's none other than Dr. Gerald Pollack, the author of The Fourth Phase of Water.
He is releasing a new book called Charged, which we will discuss a bit today that's
available for pre-order.
Now, Dr. Pollack is really one of the main people who is going to be looked upon back in
time historically who has made very significant contributions to the physical and biological
sciences, even though it may not be as well known as it should be today.
I'm telling you that these new findings are extremely significant and important to
know about.
I feel very fortunate to have Gerald back today to discuss some more issues.
Welcome, Dr. Pollack.
Well, thank you, Andy.
Delighted, thrilled to be with you.
Well, it's not very often that I feel like I'm having a conversation with a living
legend.
I really appreciate that you're working with me on here.
Yes.
Well, it's because of your humility that I think even the contributions are more significant
because what you've done here has taken a subject that has really been taken for granted,
that water is just some background solvent that plays no active role.
It just provides a milieu for all of the chemistry and biology that goes on in the
natural world.
Now, we know that it is so much more than that, and even if we don't have nearly all
the answers yet, we know that it is far more important and active in our bodies than anyone
has ever suspected, and bringing that to the forefront is really crucial to deepen
our understanding of how organisms work.
That's what we're going to go into today.
Along those lines, I know a lot of my dedicated audience is very familiar with the
force phase of water, structured water, easy water that there are many terms applied to this,
but for some new listeners, maybe you could give a basic description of what
we're talking about here with the fourth phase of water.
Sure, happy to do that.
Well, it's been long recognized by scientists on whose shoulders I stand that the water inside
the cell was not like water in a glass. The idea was coined mainly by a guy named Gilbert
Ling, a legendary figure who is very controversial, and he said that water in the cell differs from
water in a glass, and he had a lot of evidence to suggest that that was the case.
He said it was so-called structured. Now, that's a kind of vague term. What it means is that the
water instead of liquid water, which is what the textbooks tell us, populates the cell,
liquid water basically consists of water molecules that are randomly arranged and
bouncing around a fierce number of times every second or even every femtosecond.
He said, no, no, inside the cell, the water molecules are kind of stacked,
like soldiers at attention. I don't know if he coined the phrase or somebody else,
but they're lined up, and you can imagine that the molecules would be lined up because
water molecules are often considered to be a dipole that is like a bean with plus at one end,
minus at the other end. You can imagine how these beans can stack upon one another,
and he espoused that idea for many years and wrote several books which are largely impenetrable
for those who can understand rather convincing, and that's where we started. I was so intrigued by
what he reported that we began studying the structure of water, and we found
we could confirm that he was right, that the water was not at all like water in a glass,
and it had structure to it. What we found, however, was that the structure differed
from what Gilbert was talking about, and the difference is significant because
it implies a lot of interesting material that are central for function.
I guess, without going into huge detail, I'll just mention a couple of the properties
of this kind of water. First of all, it's not H2O. The H2O undergoes a transition, a change,
to something that is actually H3O2, and has a somewhat different structure from ordinary
water molecules, and I guess one of the most significant properties of this water is that
it's negatively charged. Now, it kind of didn't make sense to us at the onset, because if you
start with ordinary water and it somehow undergoes a transition to the kind of water I've just
mentioned, if you start with neutral water, how do you get water with negative charge?
You can't simply create negativity out of nothing.
So, what we found is that situated adjacent to this negatively charged water, which we call
easy water, fourth phase water, sitting next to it is ordinary water containing excess positive
charge. So, you've got negative charge, next to positive charge, and the two of them add up
to zero, which kind of makes sense because that's what you started with.
Now, Gerald, before you go too much further, let me just sum up for people who are hearing this
for the first time and correct me if I make any errors. So, if we compare... So, we're talking
about what Gilbert Lynn Coins structured water, maybe ordered water might be a slightly more
accurate term based on your description, but it's a distinct form of water from regular
liquid water in a glass, which when we analyze it, we can observe evidence that water in a glass is a
bunch of particles of water molecules that are kind of energetic and moving around somewhat
chaotically and randomly and not forming any particular ordered structure, but of course
conforming to the shape of the glass and having other properties like finding its own
level and such that we already know about at length. Now, when we have structured water,
which could exist in the same container like a glass of water, then it's distinct because now
it forms a much more ordered structure. It's not a randomly moving particles in a chaotic
manner. It's now at least part of it, the structured part is going to be in an ordered
arrangement. And one way that you might understand that is because a water molecule, as you said,
has polarization that the charge distribution over the molecule is uneven. So, you have
some parts of it that have like a partial positive charge and some that are a negative charge.
And if we compare that, let's say to if you had a dozen bar magnets, you know that you could
put the North Pole from one against the South Pole of another and line them up in a row,
or you could put stack them by having the North, South and then reverse South, North on top of it,
right? And put them in different arrangements based on their magnetic properties,
which is similar to electrical charge properties in that opposites attract and like repel.
And you've learned some more specifics about the actual nature of the atoms in this structured
arrangement, that it takes on a different arrangement than the common H2O that we've
heard about. And that within the water, within like a container or a vessel of water, you can
actually have two forms of water that have opposite charges. And I think this is commonly
described in water dissociation, right where water becomes a negatively charged OH or hydroxyl
group and a proton and H plus. And whether that exactly is what happens, you could see it's similar,
but those then different charges would be separated. And of course, when we have charges separated
in space, we have an electrical potential or a voltage. And that has a whole lot of properties
that we could talk about that derive from it. And you haven't mentioned any other physical
properties yet, but there are other physical properties like viscosity that's different in this
structured water as compared to regular bulk water, I think is the term that you use in your book.
Absolutely correct. You can be my agent.
Yeah, well, I mean, so this forms the separation of charges is really important because it
creates it's a battery essentially in batteries, you know, can supply energy. And we have evidence
that that this this kind of electrical energy is actually used by the body.
And that's why I was I was beginning to to allude to to that property because it's it's quite
important. Right. And I think if we combine some of your work with Gilbert Ling's work,
we can draw some conclusions at least about some of the applications of that energy like
in terms of establishing and maintaining the resting membrane potential,
which is like the cellular batteries that could do electrical work.
Yep, absolutely. And if I may interject, you know, you can think of it in a simple way.
And so it's full of negative charges. And the negative charges, I argue, come from the
water that or fourth phase water that that fills the cell. And when you stick a lot of negative
charges together, all they want to do is repel, they want to get away from each other as much as
possible. And that amounts to potential energy. And when the cell becomes active, the electrical
potential goes from negative to zero, it's called action potential. But it's actually
deeply ingrained in a phase transition that I argue occurs when the cell becomes activated. But
either way, anyway, the cell goes from a state in which it's got a lot of negative charges packed
to a state where those charges are not packed anymore anymore. And that's how it delivers
energy, that potential energy gets converted into energy that drives the activity of the cell,
the action of the cell. And so more specifically, what processes of the cell
utilize the energy from that excessive negative charge? And I mean, are we talking about reactions
in the electron transport chain, for example, that may consume some of the reagents with
those charges? Or are we talking about transduction into other forms of energy? What
are the ways that the cells utilize this electrical potential?
In ways that we haven't fully explored yet, but we've explored at least one of them. And that is
flow. There are numerous flows inside the cell, inside the body. And we demonstrated, first of
all, in the laboratory that if you take a tube that looks like a section of a blood vessel,
for example, but a tube made of material that's hydrophilic, water-loving, and you simply immerse
the tube in the water and horizontally place it at the bottom of the chamber.
You don't expect anything, but we found something. We found that the flow occurs through the tube,
like through a straw, perpetually, essentially perpetually. So some energy has got to drive
it because you can't achieve flow without energy. And we found that it's this battery-like potential.
I need to describe a bit more of it, but essentially this electrical potential is used
to drive the flow. And we found later that this energy is used in the cardiovascular system to
help perpetuate flow. We all think that flow in the cardiovascular system is driven completely
by the heart, is what I thought for many years. But it turns out there are a half dozen studies
that demonstrate that if you stop the heart, flow continues. It doesn't stop. And I was as
surprised as you are, I think, or were to find out about this. And we could confirm it in
the laboratory. Same thing. So it means that it's not just the heart. There must be
something else that's working along with the heart. And we found indeed that it is experimentally
confirmed that it is this flow phenomenon that I just mentioned that's actually responsible.
And so what we confirmed is that in our cardiovascular system, mine for sure, maybe yours
do. It's not just the heart that's doing the work. It's the vessels as well. So the energy
we're talking about, this battery-like energy, which there's so much for me to say, to describe
in order to make this sound more realistic, is at work. So that's just one example that we
know of in which the battery-like energy is getting used.
Well, now I want to just emphasize the importance of this discovery because we have two other things
that are relevant. So one is that it was not very believable that the heart would be able to pump
the blood all the way to the most distal capillaries, where the diameter of those capillaries
is smaller than the diameter of the red blood cells that are supposed to pass through them.
So having another source of flow and one where the actual exclusion zone may actually
create room in those capillaries for the blood cells to get through, and we know red blood cells
are charged on their surface as well, and that may contribute to the motion.
But now we have something that actually is believable. And the experiment you mentioned,
where you put a naffion tube inside of a beaker of water and flow just starts and never stops,
I mean, that's it's one of the most fascinating things because if you didn't
know the results of your additional experiments, like namely where the energy input is coming
from, you would think it was a perpetual motion machine. But this is a realistic explanation
for capillary blood flow at a minimum, I'm sure that it explains all the blood flow.
And also in parallel, we have this new research on the heart that the heart is most likely not even
a pump primarily, like it may have some pumping action, it may actually be a vortex generator more
than a pump, but the whole structure of the heart is not what it is in the textbooks,
that it actually can be unraveled in a helical structure, and that the contractions of the
muscle clearly would create vortices. And this has become fairly mainstream, even have doctors,
cardiologists at UCLA talking about this. And of course, there are some doctors in Spain and
elsewhere who have championed this idea. So this definitely fits with what we now know about
water's ability to flow spontaneously. And I think you've also shown other ways this
energy can be utilized, but perhaps you could educate the audience on where does the energy
come from that allows water or what are the necessary ingredients for water to adopt
this energetic structure? Sure. Yeah, you can't create energy from nothing.
You can't create it or destroy it. All you can do is transform it from one form to the other.
And I got to admit we couldn't figure out for quite a long time where the input energy was coming
from. And it was an undergraduate student that perhaps 18 years old with no experience at all
playing around who discovered where the energy was coming from, or at least one source of energy.
And he was playing around with a chamber sitting on a bench, and he was observing,
we could observe this fourth phase or exclusion zone as distinct from the rest of the water with
a particular setup in which we put particles in the water. And this zone, a pure liquid
crystalline kind of zone, would exclude these particles. So it was a clear zone
next to a zone full of particles. And he was observing that, I don't know,
he was either bored or curious. He found a gooseneck lamp right next to him, and he lifted it and
exposed the light to the chamber. And the region that was exposed to the light grew.
And so he called me in and I saw it and I finally, you know, you've answered the question
that's been lingering for a long time. Where does the energy come from? It comes from light.
And it's not a surprise if you think about it, because that's exactly what plants do.
The first step in the photosynthetic process is light impinges on the leaves of the plant,
and what it does is effectively, it takes water and separates the water into OH- and H+. It's
just what we found. You see, so there's precedent for what we found. It's not really so arcane
at all. It's actually rather common in nature. So we found it's light. And of course,
after the student did his experiments, we did a lot of additional experiments to
check out what wavelengths are important. And we found that red is important, but infrared,
that is beyond wavelength, slightly longer than red, is profoundly able to build the
exclusion zone. So the answer, at least one source of energy is light. So it means
if this is working within our bodies, it means that in some sense we act like plants. We wouldn't
think so. But we have more in common with plants than we might think. Light is important,
infrared light particularly is important, and red light. And it's been used therapeutically
now fairly widely, red light therapy and infrared light therapy. But mostly it's used
in a way that many of the people who use it don't really understand why it works as well
as it works for so many syndromes. So Darrell, I actually did put out a video on this very topic,
and that's exactly what I said, is that nobody has made the connection as to structuring water
with these red light devices. And furthermore, the specific wavelengths that the devices
are using are not the optimal wavelengths to maximize this property. And I've actually
tried to advise some companies that you want to consider using the peak absorption wavelength
of structured water for this, because the results of the clinical trials at these
inferior wavelengths is promising but it's not super impressive. It doesn't blow you away.
But I have the intuition telling me that it could blow you away if you tuned it to your
discovery. So hopefully someone out there or maybe someone in your lab will take that upon
themselves and conduct some clinical studies to see if we can really optimize that device.
But let me just back to basics. So if we were to say, what is the recipe for structured water?
It sounds like it is water, a hydrophilic surface, and infrared light exposure, which is ubiquitous.
You'd have to actively block that. But you could, of course, optimize it with
artificial sources of infrared light. Am I correct?
You're partially correct. There's something else that we found experimentally that builds
easy water and that is negative charge electrons. So if you have an electrode that emits current or
electrons, you start with ordinary liquid water and that liquid water actually transitions
into easy water, fourth phase water, and we have experimental evidence for that.
Is this also when you have a hydrophilic surface?
No, you don't need a hydrophilic surface. You just start with ordinary liquid water.
The experiment, in fact, is to put two electrodes in water because if you put
one electrode in water, you can't really produce current. And next to the negative
electrode, easy, negatively charged easy water builds. Next to the positive electrode,
there is another species called positive easy water, which is unusual, but it does occur.
And so we don't talk about it a whole lot because it's unusual and it tends to build
next to metal surfaces. So these two species build and you find a negatively charged zone
next to a positively charged zone because these zones keep building up until they pretty much
intersect one another. And when they intersect one another, they don't recombine.
They remain independent of one another for a good lead length of time. Now that's a kind of
surprise because when you put negative next to positive, we all know that the two will
recombine instantly. They don't like to be... Well, but what if you turn off the electricity?
Does it recombine then? It persists for experimentally hours before they eventually
recombine. Everything runs down. And so this runs down as well. But we're talking about
hours now instead of microseconds or tempteroseconds, plus and minus, they attract one another
and they should instantly recombine. But that doesn't happen.
Now, Gerald, what if you had an object that was statically charged negative and inserted it
in a glass of water? So in other words, there's no flow of electricity, but you have a negatively
charged object. Would that create an easy water around that object?
Or have you not done an experiment? No, no. I'm thinking we have done some experiments and
I'm trying to think back now. This probably would be 10 or 15 years ago.
So I mean, proteins do that. Proteins have charged surfaces and they tend to be
mostly negative. And the evidence is suggesting that it's the negatively charged surfaces
of those proteins that build easy water. And that's why the cell is filled with
easy water. So I'd like to say yes, but I guess I need to think about that too.
Now, Gerald, those negatively charged surfaces are also hydrophilic.
And there's also infrared light that penetrates into the cells, right?
There is. Yeah.
So could it be that actually it's both energy inputs that contribute to the easy structure?
Could be. Yeah, it could be. I mean, we know that both of those do it and whether
I think what you're alluding to is that it might not be negative charge alone.
It may be the combination of negative charge and infrared energy. And that's a possibility.
Very fascinating. And are there... Now, I know that not every single hydrophilic surface
will work for this. Do you, right? Because you've tested a number of different surfaces.
And what surfaces are not functioning in this way? And do you have any conclusions or patterns that
you've observed? Yes, we're doing experiments right now. And it seems that... Let me just
tell you the experiment. So we take a substance that's hydrophilic and that does generate
exclusion zone. And then we add cross-links to it so the surface becomes... Or the substance
becomes harder. And it turns out that the softer the substance is, the easier it is to build
exclusion zones. And we think the reason for that is that the way the exclusion zone builds
is sheet by sheet. The sheets pile upon one another. Now, the first sheet has a particular
characteristic charge distribution. And in order for the surface to nucleate the growth of that
first sheet, the charges on the surface have to match oppositely to the charges that
exist on the first layer. Then the match is perfect or the match is good and the growth
can begin. But if you have a hard substance and the charges don't match exactly what they need to be
to serve as a template, it doesn't work. And so therefore, we think... It's not published yet.
The studies are ongoing. That is the charge distribution on the surface that really is
critical for the buildup of easy water. And then the first layer nucleates the growth of
the second layer and so on and so on. And they'll grow typically a million layers,
million sheets. And are any of the materials that you found that do not allow easy formation?
Are any of them biological materials or are they all handmade? No, we've never seen a biological
material that fails to nucleate the growth. I think that's practically the definition of
biological materials, the ability to nucleate the growth of easy water.
So if you, for example, in that experiment you described earlier with the naffion tube,
if you used an arterial graft, you'd have the same results, right?
We actually found that result very early on. We opened up some vessels, blood vessels, to see
whether it was known, it has been known for more than 50 years, that there's a zone
inside the vessel, a kind of annular zone where the red blood cells don't want to go.
An exclusion zone. Well, exclusion zone. It wasn't called that when it was observed,
but now we know that's what it is, right? That's what it is. And the thought was that
it has something to do with hydrodynamics, with the flow. And there were theoreticians who
worked on that. And that's the thinking. I thought it had to do with formation of
exclusion zone. So we took some vessels and we opened them up and exposed them to red blood cells.
And we indeed found that there was an exclusion zone next to the endothelial
surface that kept the red blood cells away. We never published it. We should have, but
it was done by a student and students leave, they graduate. And so no opportunity to write up
the results of the studies. Well, listen, if you're ever in that position, I can find you
someone to write it up. I know some writers that maybe don't do their own studies, but
they could definitely write up a good paper. You mean AI? No, no, no, no. I mean,
that's an interesting thing. I mean, I'm not a big fan of having AI generate original creative
material, but it could improve your productivity that way. But I'm talking about flesh and
blood individuals. Okay, well, perhaps I'll accept your offer. The main limitation, in fact,
in our lab is funding. It's really hard, as you know, to get funding for work that runs
against mainstream thinking. We're working on it. So, you know, in order to have the people
in the lab, you need to pay them because they eat and they need a place to live. And that's
I spend a good deal of my time grumbling for money. And, you know, we have reasonable amount that
but not enough to run the lab in a really vibrant way that's characterized the lab for so many years.
Well, that's life. So, well, it's, you know, it's definitely a challenge. And I think this
is really a problem with the way science is funded. You know, I didn't expect to talk
about this today, but really, I mean, almost all of the major research funding comes from government,
and they only fund projects that are within their own policy directives. And anything that threatens
some of the medical industrial complex, for example, in this area of research, or if it
threatens other major industries that are in cahoots with government, right, they don't want
to fund it. And same thing with private funding, you know, mostly it's from
for-profit organizations. There are some, of course, charitable foundations, but they're few and far
between and difficult to access. So anyone out there who, you know, is interested in funding
important research for the future, or maybe the way that really this could be funded is by
developing a commercial product based on this technology that can, you know, the profits can
fund future research instead of just making you a wealthy man. No, I have no interest in becoming
a wealthy man. In fact, we don't do anything that touches on anything commercial. I have a
seriously deep interest in fundamental science. And I think, much like you, I have come to
the conclusion that many of the ideas, theorems, concepts that we read about in the textbooks
are dead wrong. And that's what I, that's exactly what I want to do for the rest of my life. And
we've contributed some, there's a lot more that's going on, and a lot more ideas that
I have that I want to pursue that are fundamental. Commercialism is not interesting
for me. I'm sorry, there's a lot that comes out of our work that could be commercialized,
but I don't want to be the one to do it. Of course, no, you need like some kind of partner who would
do that and then funnel the profits back to you for funding future research projects or
something like that. That's an interesting idea. Sure. Yeah. And because, you know, and I
did want to actually talk about the commercial space related to this science and technology,
because I'm confronted all the time being, you know, a health educator and a consultant that
people are interested in this devices. And, you know, we can actually find some interesting
research from animal studies where they describe making structured water. I'm going to ask you
exactly what they're making in a moment, but they do have some very impressive health outcomes in
animal studies. Now, I don't think there are really any human studies that have objective
outcomes showing a benefit, but I think that they're coming in the future. But the animal
studies that show these results, they all use strong magnetic fields to generate what they
call structured water. Now, that's different from what you described as the ways to
structure water. So are you familiar with this research and what exactly is the nature of the
water that they're using in these experiments? We haven't explored them. There are so many
products. And if we spent our time investigating them and determining the extent to which they
produce easy water, we'd have no time left to do the fundamental experiments. So as a blanket
rule, we don't investigate any of these devices. So I really don't have a lot to say except
that you mentioned magnetic fields. And we did some experiments. We published the results
recently and we found that if we put a magnet in water, we immersed the magnet, we found that
next to the north pole and easy forms and next to the south pole, another easy forms. And
we're pretty confident of that result. We just haven't had time to pursue it further. So if
the idea is that a magnetic field is being applied and the effect of the magnetic field is a positive
one, and we could understand that at least in a preliminary way that that the positive effect
could be the result of easy water forming. Now, just to clarify, these research papers
that I'm mentioning, they're not using any commercially available products. And they also,
they don't submerge any magnets in the water. They use an external magnetic field. So a common
thing would be to put an array of neodymium magnets on the outside of a pipe and then
have the water flow through that pipe into a vessel. And then that's how they create the drinking
water. Or they have an electromagnet that they put the water inside the field of the strong
electromagnet. And that's how they generate this water. So I hear the important that the
central factor is the existence of a magnetic field. Exactly. How do you create the magnetic
field might be? But there's no surface like you described next to the surface of the north
pole, would you find an exclusion zone? In this case, the water doesn't have an interface surface
with the magnet, right? It's in the magnetic field. So it's a little bit distinct.
Yeah. And I really can't say any more about it because we haven't pursued it. And I know
it's been traditional that people wear magnetic bracelets and whatever, thinking that
that it's good for health. And it goes along with our finding and the findings that you're
talking about that magnetic fields really have an impact in the book that is just coming out.
I speculate that magnetic fields may in fact be the same as electric fields.
And I don't want to go into the argument right now. But magnetic fields have been
known for thousands of years that the Chinese used them hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Little slivers of magnetite to point north. So they knew where north was. Electric fields
are only a couple hundred years old, or at least the understanding of electric fields.
And there was no reason or any attempt to think that the two might be one and the same.
Many of the properties are similar. Many of the properties of the two. And so
anybody who wants to take the trouble to read the new book will hear my arguments on that theme.
Now, that makes me think of all those right hand and left hand rules you have in engineering
and such for the direction of the various fields. And you could see how they're almost the
same just one key vector difference in many of these situations. So what you're saying
certainly deserves more thought. So when we're talking about these different ways to structure
water, it seems to me that if you have a hydrophilic surface like a piece of biological tissue,
a piece of wood, or a piece of naphyan inside of a vessel of water, that the
easy water will only form adjacent to that surface. Whereas you describe that if you put
a positive and negative electrodes and turn on the flow into a vessel of water, that the entire
vessel of water will become charged with charge separation, like half being half of the glass
being positive and half being negative roughly. So is that the big difference that using that
method that all the water in the vessel has achieved this different phase, whereas it's
localized in the example with a hydrophilic surface? Well, if I understand your question,
I'm not sure I do, but let me explain what happens inside the vessel, inside the tube,
either a naphyan tube or other tubes that we've many other tubes that we've used.
But even if you don't use a tubular piece, let's say the glass is this tall
and there's a piece of hydrophilic material here, the water up at the top of the glass
is not going to be structured. It's going to be bulk water.
Yes, the structure will build up until it sort of peters out, so to speak.
And generally, that's on the order of millimeters, right?
No, it's typically half a millimeter.
We've seen up to a millimeter and under special conditions like a meter long tube,
you can see the structure extending like a dendrite extending all the way to the end of
the tube and sometimes branching and sometimes reverting back when it reaches the end of the
tube. So, yeah, that's an extreme situation.
Because I'm thinking if you want to, so many people want to drink water, that's structured.
Yes.
And it would seem to me more optimal if you're drinking a glass of water, if every
bit of water in that glass is in a structured state, it would likely be of more potential
benefit than only if 10% of the water in that glass is structured.
Correct.
So then using the electrodes would be the way to achieve that, practically speaking?
Well, the alkaline water machines effectively do that. I mean, by supplying negative charge
to the water and raising the pH to pH 9 or 10 or something like that,
it would seem that that's what those machines would do.
And I know in Japan, those machines are widely used. In fact, maybe you're aware,
but I've heard from people who research this stuff that in Japan, if you walk into a clinic with
any kind of issue ranging from your mouth to your anus, they will supply you with
alkaline water. I'm not sure in what way, whether it's bottled or they give you a machine,
and the government pays for it. And for governments to cover any, because of anything,
it would seem that there must be some degree of effectiveness.
Well, don't forget the government covered COVID shots.
Okay, I'm with you.
I would say if the government has their hand in it, it's probably not good.
This may be an exception, but the water doesn't have to be alkaline to be structured,
though. It can have a slightly acidic or neutral pH.
I'm not so sure about that. We studied what does it mean to be alkaline?
So people came to my office and I began asking them one after another after another.
If you have high pH like pH nine or something like that,
does the water contain net negative charge or is it neutral?
Roughly half said it's neutral. The other half said it has negative charge.
So it proved my point, namely that nobody knows.
Well, if you have a, like you can have something that's very strongly alkaline
with a counter ion that's a neutral, right? Like sodium hydroxide.
Well, let me just tell you the second half of the story. We did experiments
to determine indeed whether something that's alkaline has a net negative charge
and something that's acidic has a net positive charge.
And the correlation was like 100%.
And therefore we drew the conclusion that if indeed you have something with
pH eight, nine, 10 or something, it really has excess of electrons in it.
And I know a lot of people think, wow, it's impossible. How can water or essentially
aqueous solution contain a net charge? Wouldn't it be immediately neutralized?
And the answer is no. If you think of the Kelvin water dropper machine,
which you probably know about, but I'm not sure everybody knows, it's a way of creating
two vessels with water in a certain way that imparts negative charge to one,
positive charge to the other. If you bring them near one another, they discharge.
You know, it's like a bright flash occurs between these two containers of water.
So there's no doubt that water can contain net charge. It's just not so common, but water can contain
net charge. So when I think of pH, it's a really convenient measure. And what it's doing when you
think of a pH probe, it's measuring a potential difference. The probe itself,
potential difference between water and a standard is really a measure of charge
or charge separation. So there's nothing complicated or unusual about that. It's just that we don't
think in those terms. So anyway, I just wanted to mention that it's some more food for thought.
That is interesting. And definitely deserve some more thought because there are some
other things about pH in the body and in different compartments, too, that would
cause some of that. There must be more detail to it because the body can be too alkaline and
that causes the same kinds of problems as when it's too acidic, for example. And some
compartments in the body are highly acidic and some are slightly alkaline and some different
ones in between. And so how does that all fit with the structured water situation? And of
course, also, there are charged particles that are not engaged in acid-base chemistry
that could affect the overall charge of a substance without affecting the pH as well.
I'm not suggesting that all questions are answered.
Right, right. No, of course, of course. But this kind of thinking these ideas out and
trying to get at what would be the best thing to do for our health
is not an easy question to answer. And my concern is that a lot of people are
doing things and perhaps spending quite a pretty penny in the process on various devices and
not really knowing what the outcome is going to be or even what these machines are doing
to the water or to the body. Are there any standardized ways of measuring
if you've produced easy water? And have these been adopted as standards? Or are we still
too premature to have accepted standards? Well, yeah, I think there are methods
or there is a method. It has not been adopted as a standard. It's not a complicated method.
It requires only a spectrometer, a UV-Vis spectrometer, which exists in every chemistry
laboratory. It's a standard piece of equipment. And we found that if you scan with light at
wavelengths in the ultraviolet and visible range, if the water absorbs at the wavelength,
it's in the ultraviolet, in the UV, 270 nanometers, that's an indication that there's easy water.
It's not quantitative. It's only semi-quantitative. So if you find an absorption peak at 270
nanometers, and it's just a little bump, it means you've got a modest amount of easy water.
And if it's a sharp peak, which I've seen in some waters, spring waters, not all, but some,
actually, it was demonstrated to me by the late James DeMeo, whose name you might know.
I knew James. He sent me some scans of water, spring water taken from near his laboratory in
the mountains. And the peak looked like the Empire State Building. It was really amazing.
So this is not quantitative, but only semi-quantitative. It would be nice to find another method,
but this is the method that we use on a regular basis.
And so with bulk water, you'd have no peak at all, and it was at 280 nanometers, right?
Well, 270, 280, something like that, right.
And what about the infrared absorption spectra?
Yeah, that will be different, but that's usually more complicated to carry out. And so
we found no reason. Again, no time. There are so many things we're doing, so many things to do that
we haven't pursued that, but that would be possible. Yeah. And there may be other ways to do it too.
Well, what about just using suspended particles
to visualize the exclusion zone?
Well, it depends on the distribution of exclusion zone water. If it's concentrated in one area,
yeah, then you could do it. But in order to be concentrated in one area, you have to set up
something particularly designed to produce easy water concentrated in one area. In a beaker of
water or a glass of water, that may not be the case. The regions of easy water may be scattered
throughout the entire volume of water, in which case it would be more difficult to...
It'd be a lot harder to evaluate what you're looking at with the distribution particles,
right? Yeah, that definitely makes sense. When you have it adjacent to a surface or in a tubular
surface, obviously it's much simpler because you know exactly where to look for the exclusion zone.
Right. Okay. So it sounds like really doing the UV visible light spectrophotometry or absorption
spectrophotometry is the way to go in terms of an easy and universally available reference standard.
I think so. Yeah. And more needs to be done on that particular method. I would hope that one day
we could make it quantitative. We're not there yet.
Are you familiar with any biological assays being used to assess easy water, like using
biophoton output, for example, like the people at Anilema do?
I know the people at Anilema. And I guess I haven't seen how that can do it in a quantitative way.
We don't spend a lot of time studying various devices that exist. I know we should, but
you know, in Seattle the day has 24 hours, maybe where you thrive.
Hey, I don't have enough time to do everything I want to do either. But I wasn't really thinking
so much as evaluating their machines more of, you know, is there any standardized effects on
biological systems that could be used as like a functional assay to
show easy water? But of course, measuring biophotons is technically challenging,
so it wouldn't be practical as a universal reference standard for that reason.
But I want to also be able to tell people, like if you want to evaluate a device that you're using
or that you invested money in or you're thinking about, one is you could ask, did they
test the output of their device with UVVIS spectroscopy and can you see it?
Or would you, you know, would it be important enough to people that you could send out a sample?
Because this is not an expensive test. You could, I'm sure, send it out to a lab
and pay a modest fee for them to do it on some of your samples.
Yeah, there is a sort of a service, a hydration foundation run by Jean Abria.
She has the capacity to make this kind of measurement. And she doesn't particularly
rather doing it for commercial enterprises, but for research work and such, she can actually
do this kind of experiment. But in response to the point that you brought up just a moment ago,
are there any biological markers that can be used? And actually, there is one. There's a guy,
a Russian, who I met briefly. He's passed since 10 years ago. He's using the refractive
index of a cell. And he demonstrated that the more easy water you have, the higher the refractive
index. And I guess the reason for that is that easy water, four-phase water, has a higher density than
ordinary water. And so the refractive index is higher. And he could actually demonstrate that
healthy cells versus unhealthy cells, there's a difference in refractive index. So that would
be another approach. What was he using as the reference to compare that? How did he know which
cell had more easy water? Well, he took cells that were healthy cells and others that were
struggling in some way. I can't remember the issue that was plaguing those cells,
but they were definitely not healthy cells. He measured the refractive index of the two of
them. He found the difference. And he actually referred to easy water or fourth phase water.
He called it, quote, fourth water. And I'm really sad that he's not around anymore to
continue those experiments because they looked really promising. So that would be another,
tentatively, another approach. He was an expert. Right. And that's similar to the
research on resting membrane potentials that show that the magnitude of that potential is diminished
in certain disease states of the cell. Right. Because that probably could be another marker for
the degree of structuring of the water in that cell. Well, you actually are alluding to the
paper that we're writing right now about that very issue. And I think if you were to read the
paper, it's in process right now. You might have some criticism of it. But yes, absolutely.
And I'll just say a couple of words. The electrical potential of the cell, we all know
it's negative and healthy cells, it's typically between 50 and 100 millivolts negative,
which means that the cell has an excess of negative charges. Now, the conventional view
is these negative charges are brought about by membrane pumps and channels. And I've argued
in several venues that it's simply wrong for many, many reasons that idea is wrong. You
can take a jail just like the inside of the cell, no membrane, no pumps, no channels.
It has the same electrical potential as the cell. We've measured it, others have measured it.
Just like, listen, you're experimenting using the algae cell walls
and establishing the membrane potentials also. I'm always referencing that with respect to this
issue because we don't need ATP as the source of energy. In fact, there's not enough ATP
to drive this process. Correct. That's what Gilbert Ling found. There's not enough energy.
When he did his experiments, the assumption was that it was only one pump called the sodium pump.
Now, there are hundreds of thousands. So you don't have enough energy to run one pump. It's
hard to argue that you've got enough energy to run hundreds of them. So I think that idea
is wrong. So the question is, well, why does the cell have a negative electrical potential
if not for pumps and channels? It's simply filled with easy water, negatively charged easy water.
In order for the cell to function properly, the cell needs to be filled with easy water.
If it's not filled with easy water, it can function as well as it can with a full complement
of easy water. The electrical potential will be more modest. It won't be as large in magnitude
as if you have a lot of easy water. I think it's simple as that. So the argument that I
put forth is a little more extensive than that, but it's based essentially on that health corresponds
to a full complement of easy water, robust negative electrical potential, which the two are the same,
more or less. One is a reflection of the other. If you have less easy water in the cell,
the cell can function as well, and the electrical potential will not be, the magnitude will not
be as large. That's some of the essence of what we're working on right now.
Doesn't sound like I'm going to disagree with this paper, Gerald. But we're a little bit limited
on time, so I want to get to wrapping up. But for me, there are two major things to
consider here. One is, we know from other work that you've done experimentally that many of the
modern chemical poisons have a deleterious effect on easy and probably on the membrane potential,
and probably that's one of the central causes of much of the illness. I don't want to explore
that further other than to say that, but the other question I think is a little bit more
philosophically interesting and also something that I've raised many times in my own content,
which is that if we don't need ATP for energy, and in fact, all of the theory around the high
energy phosphate bond and all that is really just a story that doesn't have strong empirical
evidence to support it. In your opinion, what is the main source of energy for our bodily function?
That's a great question and a really important question. You allude to the fact that
the evidence that is all ATP is compromised. The classical study by Lippincott, I think,
1941 indicated that ATP has a high energy phosphate bond, which is the supplier of the
energy. Well, there have been several papers that challenged that, including a paper by
Morales and Podolski several decades later, two guys who I knew pretty well because they were
in my former field, which is muscle contraction. These are very competent people and they found
there is no high energy phosphate in ATP. There were several other papers that came after that
that again challenged the idea of ATP. They've not been followed up for reasons that I could
speculate on, but it raises a question. Who's right? Is Lippincott correct in his assessment
or are the challenges correct in their assessment? There are two points of
view that are contrasting with one another and we don't know which one is correct. They desperately
need follow-up to find out. Now, we're proposing another source of energy, electrical energy.
We don't know the extent to which electrical energy applies, although I mentioned earlier,
there is one system in the cardiovascular system where we're pretty confident it does
apply and probably it may apply in more situations than just that. We don't have the bandwidth to
discuss all of that at the moment. Gerald, I think this is where I would also think that you
would go, but this electrical energy that you're speaking of, does it come from the infrared
light irradiation? Does it come from the chemical electrical energy in food, like in proteins?
You mentioned the negative charge of proteins may be driving the structured water inside the
cell. Do you have ideas like that, the primary source? Well, you mentioned two of them.
One of them is certainly infrared energy because we have so much evidence that
infrared energy, which is freely abundant all around us. The original source is the sun,
but everything is generating infrared energy. You can demonstrate that in a dark room. You
can't see anything and you whip out an infrared camera, which is like a regular camera, but the
sensor is sensitive to infrared wavelengths and you get a beautiful picture of everything around
you in the dark, which means that everything around you is generating infrared energy. It's
is there all the time because that appears to be the main, but not only a source of energy.
It could be that we get a modest amount of our useful energy from electricity, or it could be
that we get all of our energy from that source. We don't know yet, but both are possible.
Now, one more thing about related to this I want to ask because
when you were talking about charge, I thought about the ground because we have the earth is
negatively charged and the atmosphere is positively charged. I believe we have an
electrical gradient. If you take a tank of water or a vessel of water and put it
underground, will it become structured due to that charge? Also, what if we lived or slept
underground? I'm not sure if you're aware of some very interesting research about species of
animals and insects that are very similar to each other, but one variety lives underground,
one lives above ground, and the underground living variety lives much, much longer.
I'm well aware of it. In fact, I already wrote a chapter in a forthcoming book. I got three books
waiting for my son, the artist, who have enough time to illustrate them.
Yeah, it's fascinating. Fascinating. Absolutely. I was exposed to that when I saw
termite mounds in South Africa on a safari, not knowing what they were. I asked the driver,
the guide, and he was astonished that I didn't know that those are termite mounds. The queen,
who stays underneath this great big pile of earth, lives for 40 or 50 years.
The other termites who go out do their thing, they live for a few months. I found since then
other species. Now, this is an area of scientific study. I had known about it so
that the ones who live in caves underground live much longer. If you think about why is this
the case? Well, there are two possible reasons. One reason is that the earth is negatively charged,
and if we live underneath, you're getting a constant infusion of negative charge from the
earth, and that negative charge builds easy water, keeps you healthy, keeps your cells
functioning. The other disadvantage of living above the earth, like we live, is that we're exposed
all the time to cosmic energy, which consists of alpha particles and protons, which are positively
charged. We're bombarded perpetually by positive charge, and positive charge is
anathema for us. We're negative, basically, if you pardon the expression. We can't just
reverse polarity, huh? Yeah, we can't reverse polarity. We got to remain negative. We're
compromised by bullets of cosmic energy that are impacting our lives. It may be that these
factors charge, essentially, could be really important in longevity. Now, Gerald, this is
fascinating. Of course, when I first heard you talk about this, I was trying to plan out,
how could I dig myself an underground bedroom to live in connected to the rest of my house?
But here's something maybe a little bit more esoteric. Negative charge is what we need to
thrive and survive, yet the word negative, which is negative charge, it's not negative
or positive in the lay meaning of the word. It's just there are two different charges,
and they interact with each other as opposites. But we need negative charge for health, yet
if we're negative, that has connotations of bad things. Positive is what would work against
our health, yet we want to have positive things in our life. Do you think there's any
significance to that kind of inversion, the way we look at it?
Well, the guilty party is Benjamin Franklin, who declared that electrons are negative.
If he said electrons are positive, we'd be in much better shape.
So I'll just point out that Benjamin Franklin was a high-level freemason, if that has
the different charges, as something more neutral and not judgmental, because I'm just
thinking if we want to attract negativity to us for our health, we don't want to attach the wrong
kind of negativity. You're so right, Andy. You're brilliant. I think you should be the one who
introduces that. All right. Well, I think I just did.
Gerald, before we wrap up, could you just tell the folks a little bit about your new book,
and we're going to have the link to pre-order the book below in the show notes as well?
Sure. Various phenomena we see every day. We think we understand them, like gravitation,
like how birds fly, how planes fly, whether we find anomalies in every one of our
understandings of these diverse phenomena. We sweep them under the carpet, thinking,
well, someone eventually is going to figure them out. We're not going to be bothered by them,
like gravitation, for example. Why is it that the gravitational force in the summer is stronger
than the winter? You may not have known that, but it's reported by a respectable group.
Why is there an oscillation in the gravitational force that has periodicity of a day and a month?
These don't make sense, but we don't really think about that very much. In terms of weather,
who's the person who turns on the cloud and drops the water? And why does the water drop
in little droplets? And why does the cloud float to begin with? It's water. We know that
if you take a pair of the water and turn it over, it falls to the ground, but the cloud doesn't
always. So these are phenomena not understood. Well, I try to bring new understanding,
and new understanding is based on charged forces. To the extent that I'm successful,
it's for the reader to judge. If I didn't think I was successful, I wouldn't publish it.
So does this include the fact that the observation of gravity could be explained by
electrical gradients? Yes, exactly. It's an electrical effect, I argue.
And you have to see whether you buy my arguments. And I deal with practical stuff. Also,
how do fish swim? Fish is scared, it's in the river, it darts upstream, not downstream,
with speed that's astonishing. It could sit in the stream facing upstream in a mighty current
that's going downstream without any obvious motion. Right, just hovering. Yeah, how does,
yeah, how does this- I can't do that, Gerald. I think, Andy, that you're more talented
than you give yourself credit to. No, I'll get thrown around by that water.
Well, so, I mean, sailing, for example, I got to mention that for those who are sailors,
you think you understand sailing, but they're a sailing boat called Ice Boat. And they're used
in northern climes if you're in Scandinavia, so you know about them. Well, they can go
into the wind, into the apparent wind, five degrees off the wind, which is essentially going directly
into the wind. It's like, if I take a fan and blow it on you, instead of moving backwards,
you move toward the fan. Yes, Gerald, I've always been like, I learned how to sail in college on
the Charles River in Boston. And I remember that there are some boats you can get even three
degrees straight into the wind. Really? And that's actually your fastest sailing angle.
Yeah, the ice boats go 100 miles an hour. But I mean, if you can sail with different angles,
right? Depending on if the wind's behind you in front of you. But that angle that you would think
would move you the opposite direction is actually the fastest way forward in some of these boats.
Well, you've got to explain it. It doesn't make sense, right, based on hydrostatic drag for it.
Absolutely doesn't make sense. And I try to explain what doesn't make sense.
So well, this is the kind of book that I'm going to really eat up and probably
read it in one sitting, just like the water. You're great, Andy, you're amazing.
Well, that's what mostly what what the book is about. And also, why doesn't the atmosphere
blow off? And what turns the earth? If it turns. Well, so you're alluding to flat earth. Well,
stationary earth like the Michelson Moorley experiment. But nevertheless, I mean, we,
you know, certainly the mainstream, whichever, you know, observation they claim, they don't
have explanations that add up for many of these things. And I can think of many other examples
that you didn't mention. And I bet some of them are even included in the book.
So remind us what's the title of the book?
Charged is the main title, colon, the unexpected role of electricity in the workings of nature.
Fantastic. Charged the unexpected workings of electricity in the workings of nature. Definitely
get excited about that book. And I'll be talking about it more once I take it in, I'm sure.
Gerald, it's been really a pleasure to have this discussion. I've learned a lot today. And of
course, many, many new questions have arisen as as we hope, you know, to move forward in the
future. Thank you, Andy. Thanks for the opportunity. It's been my great pleasure. And see you soon.
Even if you're doing your best to live clean, you're still being exposed from off gassing furniture
and plastics in your food to synthetic fibers, personal care products, and even medical imaging
procedures, especially fat soluble chemicals. These toxins don't respond to your average detox.
They settle deep in your tissues. And you need the right tools to clear them out. That's why
I created the ultimate detox protocol, a free 30 day roadmap that teaches you a serious
nature based detox using pine, targeted nutrition, and a focused daily plan. You'll choose the
cleansing diet that fits your needs, support your elimination pathways and take action against
the toxin load that's been holding you back. Many people who've done this protocol have
reported major improvements in energy, focus, digestion, and even long standing symptoms.
They thought they'd have to live with forever. Unfortunately, I can't share the full scope
of results people have experienced using this protocol, not on this platform. If I did,
the video would surely be taken down. But trust me, it is incredibly powerful.
Download it for free at the link in the show notes. Your health is your responsibility.
And this is the best place to start. Thanks for listening, and I'll see you in the next True
Health Report.