197: The 4th Phase of Water: Storing Memory, Energy, and Healing Potential - with Dr. Gerald Pollack - ReversABLE

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Josh Dech - CHN (06:50.234)Dr. Gerald Pollock. Welcome to the show

(00:01):
Gerald Pollack (06:53.302)Yeah, sure.
Gerald Pollack (07:00.366)I understand. Okay.
Gerald Pollack (07:07.566)It's a pleasure to be here with you, Josh. Looking forward to our discussion.
Josh Dech - CHN (07:13.872)Honestly, Jerry, the pleasure is mine. You are an expert in your field and we're talking about something that most people don't even know exists. Now we're familiar with water, right? H2O, it flows, it's in everything. It makes up most of our body. It's in every river, every ocean, but water has phases, as you say. So I want to back this conversation up and start dialing in. First of all, what is water and why do we care?
Gerald Pollack (07:43.79)Well, what is water and why do we think it's No, no, the most interesting question, of course. So water's all over. Water appears to be, we don't know for sure, but appears to be a necessity for life. And it's a bit different from what the textbooks describe. If you read a textbook,
Josh Dech - CHN (07:47.78)It's kind of a dumb question, right? But it's so fascinating.
Gerald Pollack (08:11.186)a biology book, let's say, or biochemistry or something like this, it will tell you that every cell is filled with water, and that water is no different from this water, which I'm about to drink.
And it ain't true. It just isn't true. And what we found is that it's a different kind of water that fills the cell. we've been calling it fourth phase water because it's not a liquid, it's not a solid, and it's certainly not a vapor. It is different.
Okay, I'll tell you about that in a moment, but your question was a little bit different. Why should we care about water? Well, you know, it fills the planet. It's all over it. As you mentioned, it fills the oceans, it fills the rivers, and it's in the atmosphere. more and more people or scientists are finding it on distant planets.
Josh Dech - CHN (08:58.118)Yes.
Gerald Pollack (09:19.434)Considering that it's all over the place and considering that we are roughly two-thirds water by volume and I should say parenthetically that if you convert the volume to fraction of molecules, water molecules are very small. So to fill that two-thirds volume, you need a lot of them and the calculation by people has shown that we're talking about 99 % of our molecules. If you line up all the molecules in your body, 99 % of them are water molecules.
So, you'd think that 99 % of your molecules should count in some way. They're not irrelevant. And what we found... Well, yeah. We found that they count in a way that is absolutely fundamental. They're not just, as the textbooks describe, the background carrier of the more important molecules of life. It ain't so.
Josh Dech - CHN (09:56.691)I think that's a very fair yeah.
You
Josh Dech - CHN (10:18.723)Talk to me about these phases of water. We understand water to be wet. You have your liquid, have your solid when it's frozen and a gas when it's steamed or turned to vapor. Are these the three phases of water we understand and now you're telling me there's a fourth phase of water?
Gerald Pollack (10:33.55)There's a fourth phase of water, yeah. it had been suspected previously. Nobody called it the fourth phase of water, maybe it's not appropriate to call it the fourth phase of water, but it's different. It's completely different from the water that I've got in my glass here. Every property that we and others have mentioned, and we're talking maybe a dozen different
different properties. For every measurement, the result is that this fourth phase water differs in its properties from liquid water, and it's certainly not solid water. So I don't know whether that is enough to earn the distinction of fourth phase of water, but that's what we started to call it. when the name stuck, another...
Another name that we've given it to it, somebody suggested it's called exclusion zone water or EZ water. And it really works because it's easy to remember, easy to remember. It doesn't work in all countries where it's pronounced EZ. It doesn't exactly work when you say, it's EZ to remember.
Josh Dech - CHN (11:41.618)Hmm.
Josh Dech - CHN (11:48.54)You sure?
Josh Dech - CHN (11:54.449)You

(00:22):
Gerald Pollack (11:55.128)but we've been using it. And a colleague of mine recently suggested...
maybe this is the most appropriate, I don't know, he likes to call it liquid crystalline water because liquid crystals are well known in physics and chemistry, but not so much in biology. And it's like a crystal where molecules are very well organized, laid out in a regular array, but usually they're solid. And in this case, it's not solid, but it's a kind of viscous liquid, like a gel, or in fact, it is a gel.
So liquid crystalline water, LC water, that's another form of label. So I'm not sure what's the best, but EZ water is often used and so is fourth phase water.
Josh Dech - CHN (12:49.02)Gotcha. So we were just talking off air about water. You talk about how water can hold information. We talk about this fourth phase of water, like water is starting to sound very dynamic, like it's alive, not this H2O basic thing that just is wet and that we need, but it's something that is alive and well and operating in its own right almost. And maybe I'm misinterpreting it almost with its own intelligence. When you talk about
water storing information. What is what are we talking about here?
Gerald Pollack (13:25.326)The first question that you might have is, well, is there evidence that water stores information? And the second question, if so, if there is evidence, then what's the nature of this kind of storage?
And the answer to both questions, I would assert, is yes. Emphatically, yes. everything points to the storage in easy water. So let me maybe, this is, you might say, a kind of extensive answer, because who could believe that water could store information? This is absurd.
And one guy who was a friend of mine lost his career and ultimately his life cut short prematurely because he argued that he had evidence that water could store information. So let me just start with that because it's an interesting story. The guy's name was Jacques Benveniste and he was a French scientist, a scientist of some esteem.
I might say. He's French. He studied in the US and then went back to France and he was a distinguished Asian.
Josh Dech - CHN (14:40.663)sorry, Gerald, I don't mean to cut you off here. Is that a phone that's ringing in the background? Are you able to silence that for us?
Gerald Pollack (14:46.721)I have no phone that's ringing.
Josh Dech - CHN (14:48.418)I'm hearing like a brrr like something's trilling in the background. Are you hearing?
Gerald Pollack (14:52.184)Well, maybe some birds out there, but I don't, I hear nothing.
Josh Dech - CHN (14:55.468)odd. Okay. It almost sounded like a phone alarm, like a ring, like, but it wasn't a bird. That's right. If it comes up again, we'll note it. Do apologize there. So you're talking about this French scientist in the States of some esteem.
Gerald Pollack (15:08.822)Yeah, Jacques Benveniste. And he was doing an experiment. This was 26, 27 years ago in Paris in his laboratory, a laboratory of some 50 people, a really large operation. And he was dealing with a cell type called the basophil. And these basophils would secrete histamine. The details are not so important, but I just want to give you some context.
When specific antibodies...
were applied. So a very direct relationship, you had to apply only those antibodies. You apply the antibodies and the basophils would secrete histamine. And he was studying this phenomenon. Well, someone came to his laboratory and said, you know, I can produce the same result that you produce after I've diluted the antibodies and diluted and diluted and diluted to the point where
there really no antibodies left at least statistically speaking there's only water and it produces the same result.
And Jacques said, impossible, can't be, because this reaction is so specific that you need the antibodies. You can't apply water and get the same result. And the guy was saying, well, there may be some memory of the antibodies in this serially diluted water to give you the same result. Well, Jacques was skeptical. And he said, well, look, in the corner of the laboratory, there's a vacant spot on the bench. Why don't you?
Gerald Pollack (16:53.73)just demonstrate what you're talking about. And pretty soon all 50 people were hovering around that corner. And sure enough, it works. The guy could take the antibodies and dilute it to the point where, statistically speaking,

(00:43):
Gerald Pollack (17:08.258)There can't be any more antibodies. It's diluted and diluted and diluted and then diluted way beyond even that and still it produced the same reaction as the completely undiluted antibodies.
So of course Jacques being curious and highly intelligent scientist began to take up this observation and the whole lab was suddenly devoted to demonstrating that you could take a substance and dilute it, dilute it, and dilute it and that serially diluted substance would produce or could produce the same effect as the undiluted. And he made the mistake, he shared with me that
that it was too. He called it water memory. It had the memory even after diluted homeopathically, even after being serially diluted, shaken after each dilution, just the way the homeopaths do.
It could produce the same result. So he said somehow the water is remembering information from the antibodies and he told me he said this was my big mistake because the word water memory is too provocative and You know when you deal with something provocative you get a reflexive response that is not necessarily One that's supportive so he did experiments he submitted his paper
Gerald Pollack (18:43.312)and the experiments through nature right across the English Channel. And he got a quick response from the editor, John Maddox. And Maddox said, I'm not sending this out to review because it's impossible. It can't be true. Water.
can't have such a property. Because in water that's like this, the molecules are bouncing around furiously, and they're randomly oriented. How is it possible that a solution like that, or a liquid like that, could store information? It's preposterous. It doesn't make any sense at all.
So Jacques was furious at that response because, like most scientists, he expects to get a fair hearing.
Josh Dech - CHN (19:33.202)Mm-hmm.
Gerald Pollack (19:34.07)He didn't expect to get a response saying, this is impossible, therefore I'm not even going to pay attention to it. So being a Cani fellow, he asked some colleagues of his from different countries to repeat the experiments, repeat the protocols exactly the way he did it. They got the same result. They collaborated. They submitted once again the paper to Nature, to the journal Nature, know, the distinguished
journal, Nature, and the response was similar. The response and all of this you can read in the literature what I'm telling you all of this communication and such. The editor said, I don't care how many people repeat it, it just can't be true. You know, a highly scientific kind of response. Well, we're not arguing about that, you know.
Josh Dech - CHN (20:22.406)That's not science. Yeah, of course.
Gerald Pollack (20:30.126)When the editor, John Maddox, died, it became clear he didn't have too many friends. It's not like the Pope dying, you know?
Josh Dech - CHN (20:41.618)Sure.
Gerald Pollack (20:43.182)And it turned out that his response was the same in many different fields. As someone coming up with a finding that didn't agree with convention or was too far from convention, he would reject, wouldn't even send it out to review. So he was not a popular guy, although I suppose among some he was popular. So anyway, when Jacques got the second response,
Josh Dech - CHN (20:59.922)Wow.
Gerald Pollack (21:13.136)The second response was, you know, don't bother me again, pretty much. But then, you know, in Paris there are a lot of homeopaths and the procedure that he was using is the same as the procedure that's used by the homeopaths. So the homeopaths started to wave the flag and say, hey, you know, we've been criticized, but this guy, this famous scientist showed that it's true. What we do is effective.
And so nature felt huge pressure right across the channel. It was in Le Monde, a French newspaper and such. So Jacques, when I was visiting him in his lab...
in Paris, told me, John Maddox, the editor, called me on that phone right there and he said, I'll make a deal with you. Deal? What kind of deal? He said, I will publish it. Maddox was feeling pressure because he was accused of being unfair.
I'll publish it next week, next week's edition of Nature, and if you agree that I will send a committee of peers to Paris, I'll choose the committee, we'll look over your shoulders and see what you're doing and then report back to our readers in Nature. So Jacques agreed, you know, thinking that the world is full of honest, well-meaning people, some with more bias.
than others, but you thought, you know, we'll show them because this works. And in the manuscript he said this works almost all the time, but not all the time. Parenthetically, he told me that sometimes if there's somebody in the laboratory who's a non-believer, just their very presence in the laboratory makes it likely that it won't work, or at least it won't work the same way. And you can't publish that sort of thing, but...

(01:04):
Gerald Pollack (23:12.898)But I've heard this from others in other laboratories dealing with water and some properties of water. That there are some features that are not easily explainable in the usual terms, but that really play a role. Anyway, the committee was formed, the committee came. The committee consisted of three people. These are peers, mind you. The first is John Maddox, who...
stopped as a graduate student in physics, no biological experience, and worked his way up to become the editor of the journal Nature. The second guy was Walter Stewart. Walter Stewart worked at NIH in the department of, what was it called exactly, Scientific Integrity.
So you can imagine people working in that group are, if you're doing an experiment, Josh, and you've got some white rabbits, and you claim that whatever procedure you did produced black spots on the white rabbits, and someone caught you coming in at 4 a.m. to the laboratory with a bottle of black paint and painting black spots on, they're the people who will review that.
So this guy worked. So he was, you might say, a scientific detective. the third one was the amazing Randy. That's James Randy, world's most famous magician, who was able to debunk the tricks of other magicians. So they came and...
When the French scientists did the dilutions, everything worked just the same way as they said. And the second day, they did the dilutions again. And there were some intervening processes by the committee. But still, everything worked. And the third day, I'm not sure if it's successive days, but...
Gerald Pollack (25:25.186)But the delusions were done by the second guy I mentioned, Walter Stewart. And it didn't work the way they had reported. Mind you, they said it doesn't always work, but easily statistically significant. So they huddled in their hotel room, and they came to the conclusion that when the French did it, it worked. And when the visitors did it, it didn't work. And therefore, there must be some kind of trick. But they couldn't figure out the trick.
So they attributed the whole thing to sloppy experimentation. Well, you know, it's easy to assign that critique. Okay, and then so next week in Nature appeared the title, Water Memory is a Delusion. Basically a trick. And the career of Benvenist went down.
Josh Dech - CHN (26:05.532)Sure.
Gerald Pollack (26:23.276)like step function down because everybody knew that if nature says the whole thing is a trick and you expect it's a trick anyway because you can't believe it's true. So it's a trick. Okay, I don't want to harp on this anymore. This story continues about his early death and how Jacques was despondent. But what I want to bring out is this was a
major study that has now been confirmed. Results have been confirmed in many groups. And each year in our annual conference on the physics, chemistry, and biology of water.
This is I think the 18th year coming up. I invite people to present and each year there are typically two or three different groups that report that information is stored in water. So this is not a fantasy of some sort, it's real. Including the latest one was the late Luc Montagnier who was a Nobel Prize winner and he was a friend of
of Jacques. And he was studying water and came and presented each year for a whole decade at our conference. And he found that he could take two containers sitting next to each other, near each other, sealed containers so there's no possible chemical exchange of the two. And the first one is sitting DNA in water, an aqueous buffer. And then the other one is pure water.
sealed. And what he found is that merely putting the two near each other, that information from the sequence of the DNA was transferred to the water because he could then take the water and use it in the PCR relation, which basically builds
Gerald Pollack (28:28.014)DNA and you can measure the sequence of the newly built DNA and have the same sequence as the DNA that was sitting next to the water. So those are, you might say, two extremes of evidence for water memory. There are many more experiments, including experiments by Imoto, the Japanese spiritualist, who show that you could project your intention on water and the water
if you freeze the water and look at ice crystals that form, if your intention was positive toward the water, you know, you're beautiful or thinking about peace or something like this, you get beautiful crystals. And if you think negative thoughts like, I hate you or you're ugly or something like this, you get ugly crystals. And...
and many others. So there is the phenomenon that water does somehow store information. Now you'd think it's impossible for this water to store information because the molecules are bouncing around all the time and are randomly oriented. However, it's not true of the water that the fourth phase are easy water because it's like a crystal, as I said, like a liquid crystal. And as such,
The molecules are well organized. And if you think about a computer memory, if you think about how it works, like a thumb drive or something, it's basically a planer sheet of transistors. And they're laid out in a rectilinear grid, one, one, one.
next row and another and so on. And each one has the capability of being a zero or a one or on or off or whatever. And it's the distributions.
Gerald Pollack (30:25.33)distribution of zeros and ones among all of those transistors that constitutes the memory. Well, easy water is pretty much the same, the water that I'm talking about. It's not a rectilinear array, it's a hexagonal array, but in the array are oxygens and hydrogens, and the oxygens have multiple states, the so-called oxidation states. This is standard chemistry. Typically we learn about minus two, which
It's called the valence, but there's also minus one, zero, plus one, plus two. So the bottom line is that easy water has pretty much the same capability as a computer memory. I guess the final thing I want to say about this, there is water memory. There's lots of evidence for it. It's widely accepted among

(01:25):
among a lot of open-minded people who know a lot about water. They know the evidence, accept the evidence. And while it doesn't seem possible that ordinary liquid water can store information, easy water is very well equipped to store information. So I don't want to go on and give a lecture. I'm sorry, I'm blah, blah, blah, blah.
Gerald Pollack (31:50.102)But I just wanted to present an outline of what I believe is the evidence.
Josh Dech - CHN (31:56.882)Mm-hmm.
Josh Dech - CHN (32:00.754)So what we're looking at here is this sort of gel-like almost crystalline or this liquid crystalline structure of water and that can hold memory but so can a liquid form like water in a glass can seem to hold some kind of memory. Now if we take like water from the ocean or water from the tap are these going to present differently in terms of what they can do as far as memory or electric charge or the benefits to the body?
Gerald Pollack (32:10.274)Yeah.
Josh Dech - CHN (32:29.19)Now minus, I'm talking of course, minus the fluoride and the pharmaceuticals in city tap water versus a mountain spring. But is there a difference in these structures of water and how they impact our body biologically?
Gerald Pollack (32:42.806)Okay, but that's different from the question about memory. Memory may be involved, but I think your question is different. Am I right?
Josh Dech - CHN (32:47.173)Yes, that's fair.
Josh Dech - CHN (32:52.227)I think I kind of went on a tangent to ask two different questions at the same time. So my first question is its ability to hold memory different from a tap water versus a mountain spring and what do they do in your body that's the same or different?
Gerald Pollack (32:55.9)I thought...
Gerald Pollack (33:05.57)Well, that's two questions. OK. OK. I'm not good at answering two questions at once. I usually forget the second one by the time I answer the first one.
Josh Dech - CHN (33:06.95)Yes it is. there we go. Break it down.
Josh Dech - CHN (33:12.976)Let's go with one at a time. Let's talk about the memory.
Josh Dech - CHN (33:18.406)That's fair. So let's go to memory, tap water versus mountain water.
Gerald Pollack (33:22.991)and
Nobody has checked that, I can't say with any certainty. However, we have some evidence that when you apply information to the water, ordinary water may actually change into easy water, especially if the memory has something to do with electromagnetic waves. Because we know that we have direct evidence that
that if you put electricity or electrons in ordinary liquid water, that water will turn to easy water.
the EZ water is actually typically is negatively charged. direct evidence from 15 years ago that you put an electrode passing current or electrons into that liquid water and it progressively turns into EZ water. it may be that you can start with
liquid water or start with a combination of liquid water containing some easy water or start with almost all easy water and it doesn't make a difference. Any one of them will store information.
Gerald Pollack (34:39.958)Now, we don't have abundant evidence for that, but we have some evidence for that. So ultimately, if you start with tap water, it should still hold information. And apparently it does, because some experiments are done, some experiments demonstrating memory, start with tap water. I should say.

(01:46):
something about spring water because not all spring waters are alike. We made measurements and have seen measurements on different spring waters and what interests us most is does the spring water contain a fraction of easy water.
or not. And we have a way of measuring to see whether a sample has a lot of easy water or a small amount or none. It's a semi-quantitative measure, not a quantitative measure, and it's a spectroscopic measure, which I can discuss if you ask me, but it's slightly off topic. So bottom line is that some spring waters contain huge amounts, huge
fractions I should say of EZ water in them and others contain apparently zero or almost zero.
Josh Dech - CHN (36:01.01)Let's simplify this a little bit here. Say I'm going to drink a glass of water and in one for the last three days I've been telling this glass of water, I hate you, you're ugly, you're gross, you're dirty. And then the other glass of water I've been saying, I love you, you're wonderful, you're nourishing, you're clean. Is there a difference in how my body responds to me drinking either glass of water?
Gerald Pollack (36:25.006)That experiment, as far as I know, as far as I can recollect, has not been done. there was an experiment almost...
similar having to do with rice and it was not in Japan and it was done by many many people with similar results and So you take some rice you cook the rice and you take the rice and store it in three different containers I can't remember if the containers are have lids on them or don't have lids on them and one container You you you address it with positive comments and positive thoughts
container you just leave alone and another container you say negative comments and and the one that to which you said negative remarks spoils quickly
And the one to which you've addressed positive comments persists. It doesn't get rotten or whatever rice does, even after many, many weeks, just sitting on the counter. And kind of surprisingly, the one that you leave alone, pay no attention to, is the one that becomes rotten quickest. It doesn't like to be ignored, I guess.
So, and I've heard from so many people in Japan who've done this that it really works. you know, so I don't know that anybody has done a scientific study. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has because it's a popular experiment. Now, that would, if information is involved in that negative information, positive information,
Gerald Pollack (38:21.038)Then you you you you you kind of guess that the information persists for some length of time and has long lasting effects I the experiment really needs to be done exactly as you've You've described it
It's not so easy because, you know, many of these experiments, any experiment you do needs people to carry them out. And to get people to carry them out needs money. They need to eat. And it's really hard to get money to support something like this. I can't resist another...
It's not what you asked, but something that took place in my own life just last week. I'm not sure if you're aware of the telepathy tapes. Do you know about them?
Josh Dech - CHN (39:19.589)I'm not, no.
Gerald Pollack (39:20.974)Well, it's someone an academic who left academia because she wanted to study telepathy thinking that this is something real and And and so she started producing these podcasts Called the telepathy tapes and they become pretty popular someone suggested a watch them. So I watched telepathy tapes
or I listen to it, should say. And sure enough, last week, someone contacted me, and usually the people who are studied are mostly autistic kids, some of whom can't speak.
And but they can they can be understood telepathically by some people, typically their mothers. So even though they don't say a word, the mothers, the mothers know what they're thinking and the mothers can articulate what they're thinking to other people. And some of these kids are very sophisticated. So I I came into contact myself with one of these kids. Now he's not a kid anymore. I think he's looks like he's in his 20s.
And someone who interprets, someone who's local lives right near the Seattle area. And we set up in my home, and there was a Zoom, and this young adult, his name is Noah, was on Zoom. And he wanted to tell me about EZ Water, because apparently he's thought a lot about EZ Water. And this woman who's local has been
and his partner or interpreter, even though she's 1500 miles or 2000 miles away, she can understand telepathically what he's saying. So we all three sat down together and he was telling me about his interpretation of easy water. He was telling her and...
Gerald Pollack (41:24.928)although he couldn't articulate it by voice. And she was drawing diagrams, and I would ask a question, and she would get back to him, and he would communicate the answer telepathically to her.
The reason I'm mentioning this is this is another one of those phenomena that it's almost impossible to believe. Yet, if you listen to telepathy tapes, you'll see the experiments that were done to demonstrate that this is real. And I think the same is true with water memory. There's now so much evidence that anybody who is interested in checking the evidence
comes away with a feeling that this is undeniable. I think I better stop here because I think you've got some other questions.

(02:07):
I do actually. There's an interesting anecdotal story, whether it was a study or anthropologists who did it, I'm not sure where it came about. But as the story goes, there are a bunch of monkeys living on this island and there were two islands next to each other, but enough of a water gap that no monkey could have gone from one island to the other without drowning. So these communities were entirely separate. And what happened is a bunch of anthropologists dropped a bunch of sweet potatoes on an island number one.
And all the monkeys kind of came around, looked at them, tried to maybe eat a couple, but they realized they were covered in sand. It took them a little bit of time after something like the hundredth monkey decided to wash the sweet potato in the ocean. And then the sand was gone, they ate it they were happy. And all the other monkeys started seeing this and then they also started washing the sweet potatoes. Well, they went to the other island and they dropped the sweet potatoes down and the monkeys right away just knew.
to wash the sand off, they didn't have to go through the 100 monkey experiment. And the idea is that there's this collective consciousness, they call it, that once enough of a critical mass starts to understand something, that the rest somehow, collectively through collective consciousness, can also pick up the same thoughts and ideation. And so what you're telling me about the telepathy tapes and water memory, I do wonder.
If you can take two glasses of water, like you mentioned, with DNA, for example, or memory in one, and put it near the other that it can transfer, then maybe there is something scientifically measurable, either now or when we have the technology, to this concept of collective consciousness, where that either moves through the cells of the monkeys, into the ocean, to the other island, or between people in a room. Is this hypothesis far off base, or is there some merit to this, do you think?
Gerald Pollack (44:02.542)I've heard about I've heard about the hundredth monkey Rupert Sheldrake and talks about that particular experiment and I'm not I'm not sure if you know about his theory or him His theory is morphic resonance and
And that is that all the information out there sits out there. Anything that's ever been done or observed or whatever is somewhere out there. And he doesn't know where it could be out there, but it's there. And our brains are really merely transducers, sort of like a TV set. The information doesn't come from the TV set. It comes from elsewhere. And a TV set transduces that information into something that we can see and understand.
and he regards the brain as something akin to the TV set doing that job of interpreting with the information out there and the hundredth monkey experiment is similar to, he argues, what's observed for example with crystal formation that you try to find, try to form a crystal out of some protein and you have a hard time doing it, nobody's done it before, you don't
know exactly how to do it. And finally you figure out how to do it. And once it's done, someone else tries to do it and they can do it much more quickly. Same as the hundredth monkey. So if that's true and you know he has Rupert Sheldrake has ample evidence to support it, then there's something to that theory. And it's just that we don't understand that
that idea, how the transduction occurs.
Gerald Pollack (45:55.054)We don't understand how telepathy occurs. And I guess really when you get down to it, we don't understand how water memory works, but it's possible that water memory is kind of the basis for a lot of this because there's water, water's all over. It's not just in my drinking glass and in the lake that I'm looking at from where I sit and in the atmosphere full of water vapor. It's just all over. So it is possible that water can be the
the key ingredient in all of this. But it's really hard to know and hard to understand because until someone comes up with a viable hypothesis for how all of this happens, it seems mysterious.
Josh Dech - CHN (46:44.882)is an interesting concept I'm sure you're familiar with called the ether. And this is something that's been looked at for conducting electricity. For example, when you take a drone with a wire and you fly it up 100 feet, 300 feet, 500 feet up in the air, that you can actually generate an electrical charge from the atmosphere. Now, water, obviously being a conductor of electricity and our bodies being full of water and electricity, we are in a way, like you said, we're
transducers. Our brain is interpreting the information around us, whether it's the stored water memory, whether it's things traveling through electricity and atmospheric water, from me to you, there is a very real anecdotally notable collective consciousness like we're talking about, but exactly how or where it comes from seems to be the lingering mystery.
That's something for the scientists to sort of figure out over the years to conduct the experiments to be able to prove and of course reproduce this to say conclusively here are the results and here's how we know how to get them. But even without that anecdotally speaking we know it exists we can see it right we don't I don't need a scientist to tell me why the sky is blue we just know that it is and everybody agrees on that so we can move forward with taking action to ensure whether it's health
for ourselves, for whatever we need. So considering that we have this information, again, scientifically proven or not, we know it exists. How does this translate to a day-to-day life of somebody who wants to be healthier, who wants to be happier, who wants to make a better impact on the world? Is it simple as thinking positively? Is there things they can do to their drinking water at home to be healthier? Like, what is the actual tangible manifestation of this research in the day-to-day life of anybody listening?
Gerald Pollack (48:33.56)You've touched on a few items. One is the collective consciousness. It brings to mind the book which you may have seen called The Power of Eight by, sorry, I forget her name. It's something or other. She did experiments. She was interested in, well,
consciousness, collective consciousness. And she started by saying that it's well known that if a group of people are meditating together or praying together and they focus on someone who's ill, that could have a positive effect on the person who's ill.
And she did an experiment because she wondered, you know, how many people do you need praying at the same time or meditating at the same time? A few hundred or a thousand or whatever. And the answer she found in her experiments was eight. That's all you need. So if you have eight people or more meditating together,
you know, let's say you're a cancer patient or something and eight people every Tuesday morning, this actually happened to my wife, eight people are now focusing on you and the idea is that they think about you doing something positive that you like and they do it on a regular basis every week, say,
And she found that it had a positive effect on your health.

(02:28):
Gerald Pollack (50:20.142)The surprise was that not only did it have a positive effect on the patient or the person, focal point person's health and well-being, but also the healers themselves. If they had medical problems, those medical problems would ameliorate. And so it benefits everybody, not just the healer, but the healers. So yes.
You know, well known for eons that prayers or meditation have positive effects. And we tend to forget that, and modern medicine completely ignores it. know, lately you hear something about having a positive outlook. But the positive outlook could be a really important factor.
in keeping you healthy or maintaining health if something is afflicting you. I'm not sure what to say beyond that except that it's known for many, many generations there was a lot of wisdom back there, especially in Ayurvedic times, 5,000, 10,000 years ago in India.
We've forgotten it. We've more or less forgotten it. And it needs to come back because many of us these days are pretty depressed because of political issues and other issues, financial issues. And we're losing touch with...
with social contacts, know, we were more and more isolated. So we don't get the kind of support that we need from the community. Those are really powerful factors.
Gerald Pollack (52:09.742)that we've largely forgotten about, but it's coming back. Many people are beginning to realize that those factors are really important in your health. It's not just the pills that you take, which in theory should help you, but not always. But your well-being, your sense of well-being, your sense of leading a meaningful life.
Josh Dech - CHN (52:28.583)you
Gerald Pollack (52:36.352)and having social contacts and feeling fulfilled is really important. Many of us, go ahead. No, I was saying many of us are injured in our youth and we spend a lot of time recovering from the ravages of those injuries. But please, go on.
Josh Dech - CHN (52:41.104)Yeah, this print... So go ahead.
Josh Dech - CHN (52:53.82)Yes. Well, this brings a whole new light to the placebo effect. We know on so many levels. I'll back it up for a minute. Talking about your immune system, there are many, many layers to your immune system. If your immune system overreacts, you can develop immune-mediated conditions, is hyperinflammation, chronic disease, or even autoimmune disease. There are checks and balances in your body to make sure that doesn't happen. If any of your cells should attack your own body,
You have cells designed to kill those cells so that your body can't attack itself. There's probably 200 checks and balances inside of your body to ensure your immune system stays in place. You have your genetic coding and DNA. You have microbes and bacteria that communicate with your immune system, with your body, with the nerves, with your gut. They're always in communication with each other. And so in the same way, it sounds like we have so many things working for us or against us. Let's take, for example, the placebo effect.
That's why they do these trials. know the power of the mind and positive thought actually influences genetics. We've seen studies through epigenetics. We know that traumas can be carried down and it sounds like it's not only memory stored in water, also memory in tissue, also memory in cells, in mitochondria, also, also, also, that all these things are connected and it sounds like water is really this underlying thing across all of nature.
from trees to earth to humans to each other, that is sort of a segue for communication. Part of the placebo effect is storing those positive vibrations or those words or that memory, so to speak, in the water, which then has its own check and balance throughout your system to trigger certain microbes or to trigger genetics or to trigger a cellular response or a hormonal chemical response. And I just think it's so interesting. We've even seen studying tears.
Happy tears and sad tears have different chemical compositions, not just hormonal, but there's other layers to it. Yeah, it's so very different. And we talk about frequency and vibrational, sounds kind of hippie, but we know the water and all these other factors can carry it. There's an interesting study that was done on mice and the smell of cherry blossoms. Have you heard of that one, Jerry? So what they had done is they took mice and they put them in a cage.
Gerald Pollack (54:54.414)Is that right? I didn't realize that. Yeah.
Gerald Pollack (55:13.111)No.
Josh Dech - CHN (55:17.528)and they put the scent of cherry blossom through the cage and every time they smell it, they'd electrify the mice. The bottom of the cage was a grid and they get a little shock. And after enough times, of course, they condition the mice to be afraid of the smell of cherry blossoms. What ended up happening now is the next set of mice, which were their babies, also had the smell of cherry blossoms but never got shocked. They exhibited a fear response and that happened all the way to their great grandbabies, that these mice having never been shocked.
Gerald Pollack (55:44.876)Wow.
Josh Dech - CHN (55:47.153)just by smelling cherry blossoms exhibited a fear response because that was a conditioned response passed down through the epigenetics. And I'm wondering through our conversations how much of this has to do with water or the ether or the atmosphere. And I know I'm getting a little bit sort of almost too broad in the conversation, but it is to say I think nature or the design of nature is so fascinating.
that water can be a medium among many other things to really show how intelligent our world is, how intelligent nature is and how it's all connected.
Gerald Pollack (56:22.38)Yeah, I'm with you on all of that. I think, you know...

(02:49):
Once you understand that water is not simply a bunch of H2O molecules that are kind of dumped together, the water has structure to it. It undergoes transition from one state to another state and can store information. Then, you know, it's a whole different ballgame. Water then becomes open as a really important medium of life. And we found that actually water
source energy. We didn't have time to talk about that. What happens, I guess we really haven't talked about the nature of easy water. Let me just tell you because
Josh Dech - CHN (57:04.077)I've got the time if you've got the time, Jerry.
Gerald Pollack (57:23.784)And then after I describe it, you'll have to remind me to come back to the phenomenon you're talking about and how actually sophisticated the water can be. And I want to get to the point in demonstrating that it supplies energy. So the experiment that we did, the kind of critical experiment to begin with, we took...
We took water and we put it into a chamber and we added little particles called microspheres. They're the one micron particles that are suspended throughout the water. And we were looking for a region of coherence, you might say, a region where a crystal is formed because we'd heard, I'd heard from earlier investigators that this should be the case. And we found it. We found a region, if we took the
chamber with suspension of particles in water and we immersed a piece of gel in the chamber. So we found that next to every surface of the gel, all the particles got excluded.
and what we saw seemed like pure water because all the rest of the water contained these microspheres which made it look cloudy, but we found this clear region. That's what we call easy water or fourth phase water because when we subsequently measure the properties of its properties, every property we measured was different from ordinary water. So we went on to measure properties of this fourth phase or easy water, which
excluded particles and molecules.
Gerald Pollack (59:12.978)And then it became like a liquid crystal. And we found out, to our surprise, that this region is negatively charged. We didn't expect it because it started from pure water, which is neutral. And then we find that after a short bit, maybe five minutes or so, next to the gel surface or most any, not every hydrophilic water-loving surface that we would put in the chamber, right next to it,
grew this EZ water or fourth phase water and it was pretty extensive. Many molecular layers sometimes up to a million of them or even more than a million. So when we stuck an electrode in and found that it was negatively charged typically it was a real surprise. And because it didn't make sense how do you start with something neutral and wind up with something negative? We figured there's got to be a positive region somewhere.
So it turned out that although this EZ region was negatively charged, the region just beyond it was positively charged. Now, when you've got negative next to positive, you have a battery. So we have a battery. Can this battery deliver current as ordinary as your cell phone battery does? The answer is yes. We have proof of principle. We stick two electrodes, one in the negative, one in the positive, and connect it to a load like for
example, an LED lamp and it lights the LED lamp. So it means that this battery, this water battery, can deliver electrical energy. So...
So delivers water now, it delivers energy. And you might ask, well, how is this possible? Because batteries, you can't get something out of nothing. You start with plain old water, and you're telling me that this water under the right conditions becomes a battery? In order for it to become a battery, it needs, just like your cell phone, it needs to be plugged in. You need energy that you have to put in to create energy of the battery.
Gerald Pollack (01:01:25.844)And we found that that's light. what you need in order to turn ordinary water into easy water, battery-like easy water, is the energy of light, particularly infrared light, but in essence, light. And that's not a surprise, because in photosynthesis, it's the same. The energy ultimately comes from light. And the first step...
in the sequence of steps of photosynthesis is that light separates, breaks up the water molecule into H plus and minus. That's step one of, I think, 20 steps in photosynthesis. So there's precedent for what we found. well, bottom line is that in general, is that under the right circumstances, with the right energy input, water becomes a battery.
And nature doesn't throw away energy usually. So you'd think that the energy is actually used and we've identified some circumstances where we can prove or demonstrate that this energy is actually used in biology. So now why did I bring up this question? It was...
Josh Dech - CHN (01:02:47.218)We're talking about easy water and you were connecting it to the phenomenon of what I was talking about with the connection and the ether and how sophisticated it can be.
Gerald Pollack (01:02:58.156)Yeah, well, so there you have sophistication because this energy that I just told you about is used. And it's used in ways that you and others might never have thought of.
And it leads to what seems sophisticated because you don't have easy understanding of what's going on. But actually the answer is pretty simple if you take into account that you can get energy from water, electrical energy from water. Which means also that...
You don't necessarily get all your energy from chemistry, from chemical energy. Those of us who learn from the textbook, we learn that one molecule called ATP has a high energy phosphate bond. And that bond delivers energy. And that energy is what gives us energy. And that might be true. But apparently, there's another kind of energy, and that is electrical energy. And in fact, if you...
that may contribute as well or maybe even instead of because what most people don't realize is that when the idea of ATP and the chemical bond

(03:10):
was first discovered, identified by Lippincott in 1941, almost 100 years ago. Another group, equally prominent group, said, he's got it wrong. He made a simple arithmetic error. There is no such thing as a high-energy phosphate bond. And that was followed up by various people, several different groups, one of whom I know very well. There was Podolsky and
Gerald Pollack (01:04:50.328)Morales published in the 1950s, I think it was. And they found that there was no special energy coming from a high-energy phosphate bond.
And most people just ignored it because, you know, they already knew that all the energy comes from ATP. you know, why pay attention to these guys who are apparently skeptics? but...
You know, objectively speaking, it kind of depends who's right. Was the original finding of Lippincott correct? Were the findings of the people who came after Lippincott challenging his conclusion? Are they right? And still we don't know. So there is a possibility that our energy, which we presume comes from ATP. I learned this, you learned it, everybody learned it. It might be dead wrong. And if it's wrong,
There is a backup hypothesis and that that that energy could come from electrical energy from the phenomenon that we're talking about, which is water, water-based. It might be only part of the energy, but could be all of the energy. It needs to be studied.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:06:12.016)Wow, it's really interesting to me. How would you get this water, if I were to take a glass of water and turn it into a battery, you mentioned infrared charges it up. Can I simply, I mean, this might sound like a ridiculous question, but just to break it down, can I take water out of my tap, put it in a glass, leave it out in the sun, and then plug my phone into
Gerald Pollack (01:06:36.01)Under the right circumstances, yes. Yeah. Under the right circumstances. Now, nobody's ever, as far as I know, nobody's ever done it. But the proof of principle is there. We know if you...
Josh Dech - CHN (01:06:39.089)Really?
Gerald Pollack (01:06:56.376)take water under the right circumstances and you put the two electrodes in, connect it to a load, the load can be driven by electrical current in the same way that electrical current can provide energy for any load. So why not your cell phone? But...
What we've been able to demonstrate is a low level of energy. But we just attempted to obtain proof of principle. We didn't make any attempt to scale it up so that you could actually, I mean, we're thinking that it is possible in the long run to scale this up so that you could power a city from water and
ambient energy, infrared energy, is around all the time all over. so, excuse me. It's kind of normal to sneeze, especially in the springtime. And so this is exciting, you know, the prospect of
Josh Dech - CHN (01:07:58.931)you're all right. We'll cut that part out. Keep going.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:08:05.852)Yes, it is.
Gerald Pollack (01:08:15.68)of getting energy from the environment this way, a very straightforward way, just involving water. So right now, solar cells...
They require rare earth elements and once the earth is depleted of these rare earth elements, then we've got to look somewhere else and the earth is getting rapidly depleted. But water is all over the place, so water could be used in this way. I want to stress that we have proof of principle. It's just the only thing we don't know is can this be scaled up?
Josh Dech - CHN (01:08:55.37)There was a really neat little study that was done. You might be familiar with this. It's sort of along the same vein. There was a fella, Prahlad Jani, if I'm pronouncing his name right, an Indian yogi. And he said he lived for over 70 years without any food or water, which in conventional we say, well, that's going to kill you. But he attributed his sustenance to spiritual energies, what they define as prana or coming from the ether.
He said through meditation and yoga practices, he absorbed his sustenance from the atmosphere. And they actually did a study in 2010. It was the Indian Defense Institute of Physiology, that's right, Allied Sciences. And they did a 15-day study on him. And throughout this whole period, again, they said they did not consume any food or water, didn't pass any urine or stool, and the medical tests they had done showed no changes in his health that you'd normally observe in somebody like yourself or me.
And so the concept is, obviously, it's skeptics, but it's along the same lines and what we're talking about, which is the ether, the atmosphere, the energy, how a body could theoretically be sustained and how maybe our modern world has evolved so far past the point of our biology, we're no longer compatible, which is why we see so much illness and disease minus the chemicals and toxins. Perhaps it's a disconnect from water or the atmosphere as a whole.
Gerald Pollack (01:10:17.944)Well, yeah, I know about Prahlad Jani, who passed a few years ago. The guy who was in charge of the medical study that you cite for 15 days presented at our water conference, our annual water conference, and he almost sent his daughter to my laboratory. And this was a pretty comprehensive study. He put Prahlad Jani in a hospital
Josh Dech - CHN (01:10:38.033)Yeah
Gerald Pollack (01:10:48.627)And he had like 15 different physicians, a urologist, a pulmonologist, a cardiologist, every ologist you can think of. And then he told me when the study was over and this guy was certified with video cameras and all that he didn't eat, he didn't drink anything. And for 15 days, then this doctor wanted to speak to him, wanted to interview him.

(03:31):
Usually the hospital beds are on the first, second floor of the hospital, low down, but the offices are up at the top. And I can't remember whether he said the elevators weren't working or there were no elevators. I'm not sure what. But he invited Prahlad Jani to go up to his office so they could have a discussion. So he told me that this guy ran up the stairs after 15 days of no food, no drink, 15 days, faster than he could run.
run up the stairs. that was the amusing part. know, may be, so it may be infrared energy may be partly responsible.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:11:48.658)Wow.
Gerald Pollack (01:12:04.942)You know, it may be that the energy that some of these meditators are aware of or absorb could be stored, could be from infrared energy. And it could be that professional meditators or people like Prahlad
Johnny have a more of a or a higher capacity to absorb this kind of energy than the rest of us do and that could be the reason why you know the energy has to come from somewhere and there are lots of people who don't eat
I heard from somebody from Australia who seems to be the dean, so to speak, of people who don't eat, the so-called Bredarians. And I asked her, it was an interview, I asked her how many people in the world do this? And she said her best estimate is 200,000. So this is not completely rare. And they've got to get their energy from somewhere.
Gerald Pollack (01:13:14.56)And so possibility is they're somehow, because they're more spiritual, they're maybe more adept at getting their energy from infrared, which builds easy water, which builds electrical energy, and they get their energy from, in that way. Not sure, but this needs to be studied. The problem is that, know, most or many people say, it's impossible. can't, you know, if you
Josh Dech - CHN (01:13:14.727)Sure.
Gerald Pollack (01:13:44.464)If you go a few days without any you'll die, but obviously that's not true. So yeah, I'm glad you brought that up because it's a really interesting topic.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:13:56.901)Is it ever? Well, Jerry, I know our time together is winding down. I appreciate the extra time you spent here with us today. I want to throw the ball back in your court here. And if there's nothing else, there's nothing else. But oftentimes as a podcast host, you know, I lead the conversation and ask a bunch of questions. But oftentimes, because I'm not the expert, things get left out. So is there anything that you want to share? Words of wisdom, final thoughts, topics or anything we haven't discussed that you feel is just
Everybody listening to this right now should know.
Gerald Pollack (01:14:31.534)Josh Dech - CHN (01:14:32.338) Follow up and mic.
Gerald Pollack (01:14:34.602)Well, I'm thinking there are many. I'm just trying to think of people doing revolutionary science. Some people think it's great. Other people think it must be a crackpot. To do the experiments, to keep doing the experiments is…
it requires money because you have to hire people to do the experiment and they have to eat, you have to pay them. And getting money from, for example, the National Institutes of Health,
on subjects that are not mainstream, almost impossible. We've been especially lucky in the past at getting funds, and I'm not sure why, but I've been luckier than almost anybody I can think of whose ideas are non-mainstream. And the reason that it's difficult to get money is that if you propose, suppose you propose that the earth is round and everybody knows that the earth
is flat, let's say. Okay. And you decide that you want to study this because it's really important and you have some idea, so-called preliminary evidence that the earth is round. So you put it into a grant application. You talk about your preliminary evidence and then you submit it to the agency and then the gatekeeper receives it and says, this is...
This is really a radical idea, you know, and proposed by Josh Dech. And I never heard of the guy, but, you know, I don't know, is this guy for real or is he a crackpot? I'd do my job and hire the most experienced and most knowledgeable reviewers that I can think of to review. So who are those reviewers going to be? They're the experts in flat earth.
Gerald Pollack (01:16:39.19)you're proposing to challenge them and they're reviewing your application. know, it's like the revolutionaries going to the king in France and the French revolution and saying, we have a bone to pick with you. They're not going to be so well received, you know. So it's really difficult to get money and you have to kind of depend on private money.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:16:59.847)Sure.

(03:52):
Gerald Pollack (01:17:05.998)And that that's not so easy from personal experience. So there are so many experiments many of which are ideas that you've been touching on That we can't do because we don't have a person able to do it So I I only wish that the system would change in such a way that that people challenging the mainstream idea have have more of an opportunity because I think then we'll start
having scientific revolutions and we have had almost no scientific revolutions for a good 50 years. We have plenty of technological revolutions, know, like Zoom and Riverside and such, but...
Can you think of a scientific revolution, something that's already achieved in touching your life in a major way, similar to like the genetic code that would be 65 years ago?
Josh Dech - CHN (01:18:06.834)The human genome project,
Gerald Pollack (01:18:09.964)Yeah, but I mean, the original finding was 65 years ago, and then splitting of the atom, that was 75 years ago. Can you think of anything of that magnitude? And so how come? scientists more stupid, or has everything been solved? And I think the reason is...
Josh Dech - CHN (01:18:13.49)Right.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:18:22.737)nothing?
Gerald Pollack (01:18:31.628)what I illustrated to you about round earth, flat earth, that experts are hired to do the review and the experts have an entrenched point of view and anybody who challenges that point of view is not going to be received so well. So that's point number one. Just one more point to close with. My own philosophy, I never started that way, but after many years of doing science,
If I read about something in the textbook, my first reaction, unless the theme, the idea, the principle, whatever, is so obvious and so clear, my first reaction is, I bet it's wrong. And I start with that premise and then...
And then I start thinking about it and how do I know it's right? Just because it's been around for a hundred years or 50 years, generation after generation, does that necessarily mean it's correct? And there are examples of that. And so I have wound up writing various books, some of...
some of which are, there's one that's at the printer right now, it's called Charged. Another one is about the structure of the atom, which is next in line. We all think we know the structure of the atom. It's got a nucleus that has protons and neutrons, and it's got electrons that run around. But if you were to ask me, how do we know that's true? My first response would be in the couple of chapters where
I raise questions that even middle school students would raise that don't make sense. I just give one, but there are many. Nucleus is positive. It's got protons, neutrons. Electrons are negative, and they're circling around. I learned in middle school that electrons and protons attract one another. Plus and minus attract. So how come all those electrons don't collapse onto the nucleus?
Gerald Pollack (01:20:46.704)coming to a point instead of feeling out a full atom? is simple question and I've yet to hear an explanation that makes sense. So even the most fundamental of ideas, if they don't make sense, they don't make sense. And then...
you know, it's necessary to go back and think, well, is it possible that there's interpretation that makes more sense? And that's what the whole book is about. So I leave with that idea of something that I've learned and something that I would hope others, just because you see it in the textbook, and even if it's been around for a few generations, that's not any indication that it's necessarily right.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:21:41.861)I like that and I really respect that point of view. It's very clear to me you're an academic and have been for a long time and you're not afraid to look objectively. And that's one of the things that gate keeps science the most, you know. In my specialty dealing with bowel diseases like Crohn's and colitis and irritable bowel syndrome, the communities themselves gate keep the information that's new because they already believe what they think they already know. And there are forums on websites like Reddit where I've been actively banned because I say, hey,
to answer someone's question. Here's the research. Here's my thoughts on this. Here's how I interpret this and what we're actually seeing some cool results from. What are your thoughts? And because the moderators of these communities disagree with the views because it's unconventional to what we understand to be true. I've been banned and I'm not allowed to speak in these places anymore. Yeah. It's exactly it. We gatekeep without realizing we're doing it and
Gerald Pollack (01:22:28.119)Yeah.
my goodness. Sounds like politics.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:22:39.94)in the very space where we're trying to help, the Crohn's colitis community, where all these people are there to try to help others with this disease, they're the very ones who are kneecapping them because they're not able to look into a different point of view. And I really appreciate you bringing that to the table as a scientist and an academic. Now, Jerry, it's been quite an amazing point of view here in a conversation. I want to thank you for your time, your expertise, and just for being here with us today.
Someone wants to learn more about you and your work. You have a TED Talk, which I'm not sure if you know, is up to 2.1 million views from about 10 years ago on the fourth phase of water. Yeah, 2.1 million views now.
Gerald Pollack (01:23:15.597)Really.

(04:13):
I'm not sure, there two TED Talks, I'm not sure which one.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:23:21.48)The fourth phase of water, I believe, was the one that was blown up.
Gerald Pollack (01:23:25.363)Okay, okay. Wow.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:23:26.416)Yeah, well, yeah, fourth phase of water. Dr. Gerald Pollock at TEDx Guelph University's 2.1 million views. Yeah.
Gerald Pollack (01:23:33.676)that one. Okay, yeah, that was the first one. There was another one in New York. I have no idea how many people watched that one.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:23:44.166)Well, I hope many. Yeah, huge, huge. I think your name is bigger than maybe you think it is. If someone wants to learn more about you and the work you're doing, obviously your book's coming out charged and the one to be the structure of the atom will keep an eye on those. Where else can people find you in your work?
Gerald Pollack (01:24:00.76)Well, PollockLab.org would be our website. We're in the process of updating, so if you look tomorrow or something, it may be somewhat obsolete. I just never have time to do those things, sort of like housekeeping. Who likes to do housekeeping? Some do, but I don't.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:24:18.236)course.
Gerald Pollack (01:24:26.124)Well, thanks for the opportunity. really appreciate that, Josh. thanks so much. Maybe next time I'm in Calgary, I'll drop by and we can have a coffee together or something.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:24:38.458)I would very much look forward to that as long as you book a good 90 minutes for the conversation. It'd be my pleasure.
Gerald Pollack (01:24:43.31)We'll order a tall coffee. Okay. Thank you. Bye bye.
Josh Dech - CHN (01:24:47.769)That sounds really good to me. Jerry, thanks so much for your time. I appreciate you.

All Episodes

197: The 4th Phase of Water: Storing Memory, Energy, and Healing Potential - with Dr. Gerald Pollack

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}197: The 4th Phase of Water: Storing Memory, Energy, and Healing Potential - with Dr. Gerald Pollack