➡ Dr. Andy Kaufman interviews Dr. Gerald Pollack, a significant contributor to the new science around water. Dr. Pollack, author of “The Fourth Phase of Water” and the upcoming book “Charged,” discusses his research on the structure of water inside cells, which differs from regular water. He explains that this structured water, also known as fourth phase water, is negatively charged and plays a crucial role in our bodies, acting like a battery that supplies energy. This discovery deepens our understanding of how organisms function.
➡ Cells are filled with negative charges, which create potential energy. When a cell becomes active, this energy is converted to drive the cell’s activities. This energy also helps drive the flow in our cardiovascular system, not just the heart as previously thought. The energy comes from light, particularly red and infrared light, similar to how plants use light in photosynthesis.
➡ The text discusses the creation of structured water, also known as EZ water, which can be formed through exposure to infrared light, a hydrophilic surface, and negative charge electrons. The process involves the build-up of negatively charged EZ water next to a positively charged zone, which surprisingly do not recombine instantly. The text also suggests that softer substances are more effective in building EZ water due to their charge distribution. Lastly, it mentions the challenges of funding for research that goes against mainstream thinking.
➡ The text discusses the potential health benefits of structured water, which is created using strong magnetic fields. The author is not interested in commercializing this research but suggests that profits from such could fund future studies. They also mention that while there are impressive health outcomes in animal studies, human studies are yet to show objective benefits. The author also discusses the possibility that magnetic fields may be the same as electric fields, a theory that will be explored in their upcoming book.
➡ The text discusses the concept of pH and its relation to charge in substances, with alkaline substances having a net negative charge and acidic ones having a net positive charge. It also explores the idea of water being able to hold a net charge, which is not a common belief. The text further delves into the measurement of ‘easy water’ or ‘fourth phase water’, which can be done using a UV vis spectrometer, and how this can indicate the health of cells. The text concludes by suggesting more research is needed to fully understand these concepts and their implications for health.
➡ The article discusses the importance of a cell’s electrical potential, which is typically negative in healthy cells. This potential is not created by membrane pumps and channels as traditionally thought, but by negatively charged EZ water within the cell. The presence of EZ water is crucial for the cell’s proper functioning and its absence can lead to diseases. The article also questions the role of ATP as the main energy source, suggesting that electrical energy could be a significant or even primary source of energy for our bodies.
➡ The discussion revolves around the importance of negative charge for our health and survival, despite the term ‘negative’ often being associated with bad things. The speakers also discuss the idea of renaming charges to avoid judgmental connotations. They delve into various phenomena that we think we understand, like gravity and weather, but which have anomalies that are often ignored. The speaker, Gerald, has written a book that attempts to bring new understanding to these phenomena based on charge forces. The conversation ends with a mention of a detox protocol to help clear out toxins from the body.

We all think that flow in the cardiovascular system is driven completely by the heart. It’s 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, major contributions to what I might call the new science or the new biology, and specifically the new science around water. And it’s none other than Dr.

Gerald Pollack, the author of the Fourth Phase of Water. And he is releasing a new book called 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. So I feel very fortunate to have Gerald back today to discuss some more issues.

So welcome, Dr. Pollack. Well, thank you, Andy. Delighted. Thrilled to be with you. Well, it’s, you know, not very often that I feel like I’m having a conversation with a living legend, so I really appreciate you overestimate me here. Yeah, well, you know, it’s because of your humility that I think even this, the contributions are more significant because, you know, what you’ve done here is taken a subject that has really been taken for granted. Right. 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.

And 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 that bringing that to the forefront is really crucial to deepen our understanding of how organisms work. So that’s what we’re going to go into today. And along those lines, I know a lot of my dedicated audience is very familiar with the fourth phase of water. Structured water, easy water. 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 was very controversial. And he said that water in the cell, it differs from water in a Gl. 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 could 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 could stack upon one another.

And he espoused that for idea for many years and wrote several books which are largely impenetrable for those who can understand. Rather convincing. And that’s where we. 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. 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 to. 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 the 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. Well, 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 Lane coined, 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, you know, particles of water molecules that are kind of energetic and moving around somewhat chaotically and randomly and not forming any particular ordered structure. Right. 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’s a 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. A 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. And batteries can supply energy. And we have evidence that this kind of electrical energy is actually used by the body. And that’s why I was beginning to allude to that property, because it’s quite important. Right. And I think if we combine some of your work with Gilbert Ling’s work, we can, you know, 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.

That could do electrical work. Yep, absolutely. And if I may interject, you know, you can think of it as, in a simple way, the cell is full of negative charges. And the negative charges, I argue, come from the EZ 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. And that’s how it delivers energy. That potential energy gets converted into energy that drives the activity of the cell or 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, like, 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.

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. 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’s gotta 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 the 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, nine for sure, maybe yours too, 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, we have two other things that are relevant. So one is that, you know, 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.

Right. 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, 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 nafion 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, you know, 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 you even have doctors, cardiologists at UCLA talking about this. And of course, there’s 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 through 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, 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. 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. Full of particles. And he was observing that. I don’t know. He was either bored or curious. He found the 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 and I finally, 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, minus and H. That’s just what we found, you see. So there is precedent for what we found. It’s not really so tarcane at all. It’s actually rather common in nature. So we found its 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, Gerald, 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, you know, 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, you know, 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, you know, what is the. The recipe for structured water? It sounds like it is water, a hydrophilic surface and infrared light exposure. Right. Which is ubiquitous. Right. You’d have to actively block that, but you could, of course, optimize it with artificial sources of infrared light.

Is that. Am I correct? You’re. You’re partially correct. There’s something else that, that we found experimentally that builds easy water, and that is negative charge electrons. So if you, if you have an electrode that emits current or electrons, you start with ordinary liquid water. And that liquid water actually transitions into EZ water, fourth phase water. And we experimental evidence for that. So that’s. Now, is this when you 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 EZ 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, 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 goodly 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. Well, I 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 femtoseconds 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 that experiment? No, no, I’m, I’m thinking we, we, we have done some experiments and I’m trying to think back now. This probably would be 10 or 15 years ago. I mean, proteins do that. Proteins are, have charged surfaces and they tend to be mostly negative. And I, 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, I guess I need to think about that. Too. Now Gerald, those negatively charged surfaces are also hydrophilic. They are. 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, 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. Correct. 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, 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 be, 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 it’s the charge distribution on the surface that really is critical for the buildup of EZ 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 man made? 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 nafion 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, you know, 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 zones. 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, 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, no. I mean, you know, that’s an interesting thing. I mean, I’m not a big fan of having AI generate original creative material, but.

Yeah, but it could, you know, improve your productivity doing it that way. But. But I’m talking about flesh and blood individuals. Okay, well, perhaps I’ll accept your. 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. 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 I spend a good deal of my time grubbing for money. And we have reasonable amount, but not enough to run the lab in a really vibrant way that’s characterized the lab for so many years.

Um, 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 any, 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 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 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 the, what they call structured water. Now, that’s different from what you described as the ways to structured 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. 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 immerse the magnet. We found that next to the North Pole, an EZ forms and next to the South Pole, another EZ forms. And we’re pretty confident of that result. We just haven’t had time to pursue it further. So if, 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 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. They. 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, you know, 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, the central factor is the existence of a magnetic field. Exactly how you create the magnetic field might be. Well, but there’s no surface like you described. Next to the surface of the north pole would you’d 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, you know, I really can’t say any more about it because we haven’t pursued it. And you know, I know it’s been traditional that people wear magnetic bracelets and whatever, thinking that it’s good for health.

And, you know, it goes along with, 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. 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, 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 nafion inside of a vessel of water, that the EZ water will only form adjacent to that surface. Whereas you describe that if you put 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 of the glass being positive and half being negative, roughly. So is that the big difference? That using that method, 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 nafion tube or other tubes that we’ve, many other tubes that we, we’ve used. Well, but even if you don’t use a tubular piece. Right. The, like you, let’s say the, you know, 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. Right. It’s going to be bulk water. Yes. The structure will build up, you know, until it sort of peters out, so to speak.

And generally that’s on the order of like millimeters, right? No, it’s centimeters. Half a half a millimeter is half a millimeter. We’ve seen up to a millimeter. And under special conditions, like a long meter long tube, you could see the structure extending like a dendrite, extending all the way to the end of the tube and sometimes branching, sometimes reverting back when it reaches the end of the tube. So, so yeah, that, that’s an extreme situation because I’m Thinking if you want to, you know, so many people want to drink water that’s structured. Yes. And it would, you know, seem to me more optimal if you’re drinking a glass of water.

If every, you know, 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. Glass the structure. Correct. So then using the electrodes would be the way to achieve that, practically speaking. Well, you know, the alkaline water machines effectively do that. I mean, by supplying negative charge to the water and raising the ph through 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. 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. The cost of anything, it would seem that there must be some degree of effectiveness. Well, don’t forget the government covered Covid shots. Oh, 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 you don’t. 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. You know, 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 pH9 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 has negative charge. So it proved my point, namely that nobody knows.

Well, if you have, 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 that 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 8, 9, 10 or something, it really has excess of electrons in it. And I know a lot of People think, well, 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, well, it creates, 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. It’s like a bright flash occurs between these two containers of water. So there’s no doubt that water can contain net charge. 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, you know, deserves 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. Right. Because the body can be too alkaline and that causes the same kinds of problems as when it’s too acidic, for example. And you know, some, some compartments in the body are highly acidic and some are slightly alkaline. Sure. And some different ones in between. And so how does that all fit with, you know, the structured water situation? And of course also there are charged particles that are not engaged in acid based 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 you know, this kind of thinking these ideas out and, you know, trying to get at what would be, you know, the best thing to do for our health is not an easy question to answer. And you know, 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 is these machines are doing, you know, to the water or to the body. Are there any standardized ways of measuring if you’ve produced easy water? And have these been, you know, 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 is easy water. It’s not quantitative, it’s only semi quantitative. So if you find an absorption peak at 270nm 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 DeMaio, whose name you might know. Yeah, I know James. I knew James. Yeah, yeah. And 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. Wow. It was really amazing. So this is not quantitative, but only semi quantitative. 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, okay, yeah. And what about, 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, 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. Maybe the regions of easy water may be scattered throughout the entire volume of water, in which case it would be more difficult to be a lot harder to evaluate what you’re looking at with the distribution particles. Right, sure. 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 spectrum photometry 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 Analemma do. I know the people at Analemma, and I guess I, I haven’t, haven’t seen how that can do it in a quantitative way.

We don’t spend a lot of time studying various devices that, that exist. I know we should, but, you know, in, in Seattle, the day has 24 hours. Maybe where you, where you thrive is, hey, I don’t have, 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 is there any standardized effects on biological systems that could be used as 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 UV vis spectroscopy? And can you, you know, can, 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, the Hydration foundation, run by Gina Brea. She has the capacity to make this kind of measurement and she doesn’t particularly relish 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 bio 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, is that easy water four Phase water has a higher density than ordinary water, and so the refractive index is, 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 to? Like what. 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 EZ 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. 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, because that probably could be another marker for the degree of structuring of the water in that cell.

Well, you, you, you actually are alluding to a paper that we’re writing right now about that very issue. And I think if you were to read the paper, it’s, it’s in process right now. You might have a, you might have some criticism of it, but yes, absolutely. You know, and, and I’ll just say a couple of words. The electrical potential of the cell, we all know it’s negative. And in 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 know, you can take a gel 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, your experiment 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. And when he did his experiments, the assumption was that it was only one pump, called the sodium pump. Now there are hundreds, if not thousands. So you don’t have enough energy. To run one pump. It’s hard to argue that you’ve got an enough energy to run hundreds of them. So I think it’s that idea is run. So the question is, well, why. Why does the cell have a negative electrical potential if not for pumps and channels? It’s simply filled with easy water, negatively charged EZ water. And 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’t function as well as it can with a full complement of EZ water. And the electrical potential will be more modest. It won’t be as large in magnitude as if you have a lot of EZ water. It’s a, you know, I think as simple as that. And 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.

And if you have, if you have less easy water in the cell, the cell can’t function as well and the electrical potential will not, be, the magnitude will not be as large. That, that’s some of the essence of what we’re working on right now. Well, it doesn’t sound like I’m, I’m going to disagree with this paper, Gerald, but let me let you know there we. 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, you know, chemical poisons have a deleterious effect on easy and probably on the, the membrane potential and are 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, that doesn’t have strong empirical evidence to support it. In your opinion, what is the main source of energy for our bodily function? Like for. That’s a great question and a really important question.

And you allude to the fact that the evidence that it’s all ATP is compromised. You know, so the study, the classical study by lippincott I think 1941 indicated that, that that ATP has a high energy phosphate bond which is the supplier of the energy. Well, there have been several papers that challenge that, including, including a paper by Morales and Podolsky several decades later, two guys who I knew pretty well because they were in my former field, which is muscle contraction. So these are very competent people and they found there is no, no high energy phosphate in ATP.

And there are several other papers that came after that that again challenged the idea of ATP. So 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. So 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.

And we don’t have the bandwidth to discuss all of that at the moment. Well, no, Gerald, I mean 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? Right, because you mentioned the negative charge of proteins may be driving the structured water inside the cell. So do you, do you have ideas like, like that the primary source. Well, you mentioned two of them and 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, 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. So it’s abundant, it’s there all the time, which means that easy water is there all the time because that appears to be the main, main, but not only a source of energy. So 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 related to this. I Want to ask? Because when you were talking about charge, I thought about, you know, the ground, because we have. Right. The earth is negatively charged and the atmosphere is positively charged. Right. And I believe we have an electrical gradient. Yeah. So if you take, you know, a tank of water or a vessel of water and put it underground, will it become structured due to that charge? And, you know, also, like, 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’ve 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. And the queen, who stays underneath this great big pile of earth lives for 40 or 50 years. And the other termites who go out, do their thing, they live for a few months.

And I found since then, other species. Now, this is an area of scientific study. I hadn’t known about it. It’s so distant that the ones who live in caves underground live much longer. And so 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 you 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 and the advantage, the 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. And so we’re compromised by bullets of cosmic energy that are impacting our lives. So it may be that these factors, charge essentially could be really, really important in longevity. So now, Gerald, that 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, but, but here’s something maybe a little bit more esoteric. Negative charge is what we need to thrive and survive. Yet the word negative, right, which is, I mean, you know, negative charge is really, it’s not negative or positive in the lay meaning of the word. Right. It’s just there are two different charges, right. And, and they interact with each other as opposites. But we need negative charge for health. Yet if we’re negative, right, that has connotations of, of bad things. And 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, I mean. Well, you know, the, 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 any significance to that decision. But maybe it would be good to rename 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.

Oh, you’re so right, Andy, you’re brilliant. Yeah, I think you should be, 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, weather. 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, we don’t really think about 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 a cloud float to begin with? It’s water and we know that water.

If you take a Pail of water, 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 charge forces. To the extent that I’m successful is for the reader to judge. If I didn’t think I was successful, I wouldn’t publish it. So it’s. Now, does this include the fact that the observation of gravity could be explained by electrical gradients? Yes. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. It’s an electrical. Electrical effect. I argue and, you know, you have to see whether.

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. How hover? Yeah. How does this. I can’t do that, Gerald. I think, Andy, that you’re more talented than you give yourself credit. No, no, I’ll get thrown around by that water. Well, so, I mean, sailing, for example, I gotta 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 here in Scandinavia.

So you know about them. Well, they can go into the wind, into the apparent wind 5 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 3 degrees straight into the wind. Really? And. And that’s actually your fastest sailing angle. Yeah. The ice boats go 100 miles an hour.

But I mean, if you. 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 force. Absolutely doesn’t make sense. And I try to explain what doesn’t make sense. 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 fourth phase of water.

Oh, 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 Morley 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 could 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 charge. 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 we hope 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 truhealth report.
[tr:tra].

See more of Andrew Kaufman, M.D. on their Public Channel and the MPN Andrew Kaufman, M.D. channel.