Dr. Gerald Pollack: Diving into the Mysteries of Water's Fourth Phase and its Revolutionary Health Implications

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to the podcast Medicine Untold and come
with me on a journey to theunexplored side of medicine,
where we speak with rebeldoctors, radical herbalists,
unorthodox healers and patientswho have healed themselves.
Explore the intersectionbetween science and spirituality
and discover the power withinyou.

(00:26):
I'm your host, dr MichelleBirkland, licensed naturopathic
doctor, botanical alchemist andpracticing physician.

Dr. Michele Burklund (00:36):
Hello everyone Today.
I am Dr Michelle Birkland andtoday we have Dr Gerald Pollack
with us today.
So thank you so much forjoining us.
My pleasure and I'm going tointroduce you to our audience.
So I'll read a little bit aboutyour background so they can get
a feel for what we will betalking about today.

(00:57):
So Dr Gerald Pollack maintainsan active laboratory at the
University of Washington inSeattle.
He is the foundingeditor-in-chief of Water, a
multidisciplinary researchSeattle.
He is the foundingeditor-in-chief of Water, a
multidisciplinary researchjournal.
He is the executive director ofthe Institute for Venture
Science, the co-founder for theFourth Phase Inc.
And the founder for the annualconference on the physics,

(01:17):
chemistry and biology of water.
Dr Pollack has receivednumerous honors, including the
Prigogine I think I pronouncedthat right the Prigogine Medal
of Thermodynamics, theUniversity of Washington Annual
Faculty Lecture, the NIHDirector's Transformative
Research Award and the first DrEmoto Peace Prize.

(01:39):
He is recognizedinternationally as an
accomplished speaker and authorwhose passion lies in searching
the depths of natural truth.
Dr Pollack's award-winningbooks include the Fourth Phase
of Water and Cells, gels and theEngines of Life Welcome today.

Dr. Gerald Pollack (02:02):
Well, thank you, Michelle, I'm really happy
to be here with you and happy totalk about all this stuff which
really moves me.
So thank you.

Yeah, I can tell, and as a naturopathic
physician, water is such a hugepart of what we teach our
patients, and I mean it's thecore of life, so I think this is
going to be a really powerfulinterview today too.

Well, thank you, I fully agree with you.
You know it's been.
If you read any cell biologybook or biochemistry book or
anything of the ilk, usually thebook opens by stating pretty
much what you stated about waterbeing really important, and
then the rest of the bookcompletely ignores it.
And the mechanisms that aredescribed are based on the

(02:51):
presumption that water doesn'texist or water does nothing.
It's merely a backgroundcarrier of the more important
molecules of life, like proteinsand the nucleic acids and such
of life like proteins and thenucleic acids and such.
So we get the impression thatall the water does is it's just
a solvent.

(03:11):
That's all.
It doesn't do anything.
But what we found challengesthat notion in a big way.

Right, it really does.
So, kind of moving on to thefirst question is how did you
begin studying water?
How did you find that path?

oh well, um, uh, where where to start?
Well, we had been, we had beenengaged in studying the
molecular mechanism of musclecontraction and, um, and, and
the mechanism that everybody haslearned, everybody knows about,
was put forth by a famous,ultra-famous Nobel laureate, sir

(03:56):
Andrew Huxley, who was he hadevery distinction not only a
member of the famous Huxleyfamily, but also president of
the Royal Society, master ofTrinity College, cambridge,
knighted by the Queen, etc.
Etc.
And when he walked into theroom there was a hush.
It was like God has entered theroom, and the work that we were

(04:19):
doing challenged his theorybecause the results didn't fit.
And so at that point I didlearn a little bit about the
process of doing science and howpaying homage to distinguished
people carried a lot of weight,because we had the evidence that

(04:43):
theory didn't work.
And, um, but, but the people inthe field, um, there was a
tendency to cling to, uh, to theideas that that he was
espousing, because he was, youknow, he was this distinguished
man.
So so I, I was sort of open.
I became open to um,alternative ideas and, and one

(05:05):
day, um, as we were studying themuscle contraction, a colleague
, I just picked him up from theairport and I was driving him
and his wife from the airport tomy home where they were going
to stay until they could find aplace to live in Seattle.
This Hungarian guy, he tells me,you know, you should go to
Hungary.

(05:26):
There's going to be a symposiumin Hungary and the symposium
was dedicated to the memory of aguy named a biophysicist, named
Ernst.
And he was telling me Ernst hadtwo passions One was muscle
contraction and the other waswater.

(05:46):
And his ideas on musclecontraction pretty much
conformed to yours, he wastelling me.
He was convinced that Huxley'stheory was all wet, it was just
absolutely wrong.
And he said, why don't you go?
And you can represent muscle.
At the same time, his interestswere also in water and there's

(06:07):
a group of people coming to theconference to talk about water.
So I say, why not?
I like Hungary.
I'll take a trip to Hungary.
And I hadn't realized what kindof impact my trip would make,
because there I met a guy namedGilbert Ling, l-i-n-g and a

(06:29):
bunch of people who were goingto present ideas that supported
the views of Gilbert Ling.
So who's Gilbert Ling?
You've probably never heard ofGilbert Ling.
So Gilbert Ling came from china.
He was chosen in the firstcohort of people um throughout

(06:51):
all of china to come after worldwar ii it was 1948, by the way.
He passed recently at age 100um.
So they looked all around chinaand they looked for one person
in physics, one chemistry andone biology throughout all of
China.
So you can imagine these weretop-level people who had already

(07:13):
achieved something and weregoing to be sent to the US to
study in famous laboratories.
And one of them, the physicistCN Yang, won a Nobel Prize in
physics.
And actually he became evenmore famous, for when he was in
his 80s he married his30-year-old translator and so it

(07:39):
was a lot of stuff that wentaround the press in China.
But anyway he won a nobel prize.
The chemist was distinguishedand one of my chinese students
said he also won a nobel prize.
I'm not sure.
And gilbert ling should havewon at least two nobel prizes,
like the others um, because ofwhat he was presenting.
So his idea, which moved me,which had a big impact on me.

(08:04):
The question was how did I getinvolved with water?
He said that water in the cellwas not the same as water in the
glass.
So water in the glass, you know, the molecules are dancing
around, randomly oriented,dancing at a furious rate.
And the gilbert ling said, no,no, in the cell the water is
different.

(08:24):
He said the molecules areactually lined up like soldiers
at attention, they're organized.
He called it structured,structured water and he
presented evidence that reallyuh, that was that was really
convincing to me, and he'dalready written three or four
books, uh on on the subject.
And then other people came andpresented evidence that were

(08:47):
consistent with his point ofview.
And you know I'm thinking aboutit and I consider myself a
little bit naive and sometimesI'm deluded by fancy
presentations and such.
I was really mesmerized by thisstuff and in order to check
myself out, I took one of hisbooks and I gave it to a few of

(09:09):
my students and I said, hey,what do you think of this stuff?
For me it was so compellingthat I had this urge to get into
the subject myself.
And they came back to me andthey all had the same opinion
yeah, this looks not only likeit has the ring of truth to it,

(09:30):
but it's profound, because ifit's right, everything else is
wrong.
Everything else in biology, inother words, if the molecules
were lined up.
He was saying that they werelined up like each water
molecule is a dipole, like abean, with plus at one end,
minus at one end, and so you canimagine that they could stack

(09:51):
minus next to plus.
And Gilbert argued that theycould stack for long distances
and the evidence presented, notonly by him but by others, was
really compelling.
So when my students reaffirmedwhat I believed, I said to

(10:12):
myself I got to do somethingabout this.
We've been studying musclecontraction, trying to make
headway, and we made some, butmostly the Huxley name was so
dominant that it was justimpossible to break through that
barrier.
Which was okay because I didlearn something about doing

(10:33):
science and what matters andwhat doesn't matter and the
human aspects of it.
So I decided to get in.
We had no money to study water,we had some money to study
muscles and so I decided thefirst thing I was going to do is
write a book, and I did.
It's called Sales Gels and theEngines of Life, published in
2001.

(10:54):
And the book made an attempt todescribe Gilbert Ling's idea and
evidence in a way that wasapproachable to non-experts,
because Gilbert Ling had a habitI'm not sure if this is exactly
accurate, but I think he'd sitdown at the word processor or at

(11:16):
a typewriter before that, he'dbat out something and he'd send
it to the publisher and thepublisher would publish it and
Gilbert Ling could understand it.
But other people had a devil ofa time figuring out what he was
trying to say and I I came to asort of a conclusion that maybe
in China, in the Chineselanguage, maybe, the word
editing is absent.

(11:36):
I'm not sure, but I don't thinkhe ever, he ever put his stuff
through an editor.
You, you, you really had toscratch your head as you were
pouring through it to get it.
Anyway, I'm not sure I got itall, but I made an attempt and
the book it was how I sort ofbroke into it and the book got

(11:57):
mixed reviews.
Some reviews said, oh, pay noattention to this book because
it's just more of Gilbert Ling.
Reviews said, oh, pay noattention to this book because
it's just more of Gilbert Ling.
And everybody knows that GilbertLing is a crackpot because he's
saying that the water in thecell is a different kind of
water.
It's more like a crystal or aliquid crystal or something.
It makes no sense.
Therefore, forget this book.

(12:19):
On the other hand, there weresome really positive reviews,
and one guy from Harvard, awell-known cell biologist, wrote
that quote.
This is a 304-page preface tothe future of cell biology.
I like that one better.

(12:44):
So anyway, eventually, or soonto.
What I've said is that all alongI thought something not only
was wrong with the acceptedmodel about how muscles contract
, the Huxley model, but therewas something that I had an
Israeli guy in the lab.
His name was Reuven Tiroch andhe kept telling me water is

(13:08):
important, water is important.
Looks at the mechanism ofmuscle contraction that you
could read in textbooks.
Water is not mentioned.

(13:32):
So it's as though the proteinsthat undergo conformational
changes to produce thecontraction, they work in a
vacuum.
They don't work in water, butthey do work in water, and so
there's a disconnect betweenwhat's proposed and reality,
because if something works inwater it's not the same as
working in a vacuum.

(13:53):
Um, and so this guy tirosh, um,I, he, he made an impression of
me and I had back of my mindthat water must be important in
muscle contraction and probablyin everything that the cell does
.
So I got interested in, I mean,I was particularly open to the
idea when I went to Hungary, tothis conference, that yeah,

(14:16):
water is really important, and Iwas totally moved by Gilbert
Ling and by various colleagueswho supported it, totally moved
by Gilbert Ling and by variouscolleagues who supported it.
And so eventually we starteddoing experiments and what we
found to some extent confirmedGilbert Ling's ideas about the
structure of water that's in thecell, but in other ways didn't

(14:37):
confirm.
We found some, we had someobservations that differed from
what he was talking about, andthey're really important, very
important, and so so there weare, that's how I.
I'm sorry for the longdiscourse, but you asked and so
I answered.

No, I think that's great and it's
interesting how you kind ofbegan your career in research.
It was like it was a blessingin a way for you to confront
these issues very early on ofhey, this might not be the way
for this route, and questioningHuxley, because I think that
gave you so much insight intothinking differently too and

(15:14):
understanding all the flaws andscience and biases and different
things on how to navigate thatkind of early on too.

I did absolutely, and I got to tell
you an anecdote.
I'm sorry, I'm not strictlyadhering to questions.
You know, we, we, we.
Early on in my career, I hadsome really brilliant people in
my lab and we did experience.
We had three differentexperiments that didn't agree
with Huxley's theory, and I'dnever met Huxley before I just

(15:43):
heard you know he's a legend andI thought, okay, I got to meet
the guy.
And so I went to London and Idistinctly remember I had an
appointment in the morning and Iarrived 30 minutes early.
So I sat on the bench outsidethinking what am I going to say
to this you know legendary guy?
Who am I?
Young scientist, you know,freshly minted, and we have some

(16:09):
evidence.
But how am I going to treatthis famous guy?
And I was a bit intimidated, Imust admit.
So I went and I met him and hetreated me in a cordial way.
And I met him and he treated mein a cordial way.
And so sit down, please Tell meabout your experiments.

(16:33):
I understand you have some datathat doesn't agree with the
theory that I proposed, and so Iwent through and he asked
numerous questions about thedata.
How did you do this?
How did you get this, you know,et cetera, et cetera, et cetera
, genuine questions.
And then after three hours ofthat and it was really serious

(16:53):
and he was really into it hereally wanted to know what we
found and he would never quiteadmit that, yeah, my theory
doesn't, or your evidencedoesn't fit my theory.
He never quite said that, butit was all over in three hours.
He.
He turned, turned around in hischair and reached into a
cabinet just behind him and hepulled out a bottle of sherry,

(17:17):
he poured glasses of sherry andwe had a drink together.
And it was then that I realizedthat this poor guy, this poor
famous guy sort of like thebritish monarchy, you know,
sitting, uh, sitting in an ivorytower and he's so important
that nobody would ever challengehim.
I challenged him, he loved itbecause the guy was an

(17:42):
intellectual, even even though I, you know, we, we had evidence
that his theory didn't makesense.
I mean, I still think it's anon-starter, it just simply
doesn't work for various reasonsthat we don't need to get into
right now.
But the poor guy I felt thepoor guy was so isolated.
When you're like the king,nobody, nobody goes to you and

(18:06):
challenges you, right, becauseyou're the king or the queen or
whatever, and and he was in suchan exalted position that his
position was not so differentfrom being a member of royalty.
In, in essence, he was, he wasroyalty.
So, um, so I I learnedsomething from that experience.
I learned that some of thosepeople who are elevated, you

(18:30):
know, they pee in the same potand they eat the same food and
they make love in the same way.
They're just humans, and thatpoor guy was so isolated from
the world.
So there you go.
Yeah, that was great that youhad that opportunity, too, to
sit down and and go through itit was great and we, we sort of

(18:52):
maintained a friendship, if youwill, throughout his, his life
or as long as I was in themuscle contraction field.
His wife even sent christmascards to my wife, and you know,
and we'd meet at meetings andthe truth is, I would avoid him.
I just, you know, I just didn'tknow what to say to the guy.
And we attended a lot of thesame conferences and he even

(19:15):
came to Seattle for a visit andI, you know, I didn't know how
am I going to entertain this guy.
And somehow I managed.
You know, I arranged cocktailparties and stuff like that, and
he told me before he arrived,he said I've got lots of
cocktail parties in london, Idon't need more cocktail parties
, I want to discuss science.

(19:35):
And it was, it was real, he did, and so so I rearranged the uh,
what we were planning to do, uh, uh, his wishes.
You know, a nice man.
It's just that I had nothing tosay to the guy.

Yeah.

You know, it's like Republicans and
Democrats getting together today.
They don't know what to say toone another.

Right, I mean he appreciated that and
respected that from you.

so well, I'm not.
I think he did, I I'm not sure,but there was always.
There was always kind of amodicum of respect that I could
sense that he had for what, whatwe were about and what we were
doing.
But anyway, that's that's how Ium.
I mean, I started in thecontraction of muscles and right
now that's ancient history forme and we moved into water big

(20:31):
time.
So that's how I started.

Okay, I'll ask the next question, because
I bet our listeners really kindof want to understand this.
For the people watching thispodcast and haven't researched
your work, can you explain tothem, like kind of on a
simplistic level, what is thefourth phase of water and the
easy zone?

Yeah, sure, everything I do is simplistic,
so I don't have any problem withthat.
Sophistication is usuallybeyond me.
I keep it simple, okay, so it'sbest to talk about this sort of
chronologically, to get theessence of what we've

(21:14):
accomplished, what it might mean.
So at first I took my cues fromGilbert Ling.
He said the molecules were alllined up and the water molecules
, and so it's like a crystal.
And when you build a crystal,the crystal starts with some

(21:36):
material that eventually becomesa crystal, and that material
may not be pure, it may haveimpurities in it, and so in
order to build a pure crystal,somehow the impurities need to
be excluded.
And so in trying to follow upGilbert Ling's ideas is where we

(21:56):
started.
I'm thinking that what we shouldlook for is some region of
water that tends to exclude,because in order to build up
this liquid crystal, theoriginal water has to exclude
stuff.
So we set up a situation wherewe put stuff that ought to be

(22:18):
excluded if it was building thisstructured water.
So we started with we had alittle chamber and in the
chamber we filled it with waterand little particles that we we
hope might be excluded.
And there are little spherescalled microspheres, and they're
widely used in science and intothe chamber we plunked a piece

(22:40):
of gel, um, um, and you know,just like, um, like uh, jello or
something, yeah, um, and, butwe didn't use that.
It was a polyvinyl alcohol gel,but it doesn't doesn't matter
and we put it in.
And so we looked to see what,whether somehow in this system,

(23:01):
uh, there was some water thatwould tend to exclude, and we
found it quickly.
So next to every surface of thegel was originally water to
start with, but we looked in themicroscope it was water with
the particles suspended.
We looked in the microscope andwe could see that the particles
were being excluded from thewater region next to the gel,

(23:23):
were being excluded from thewater region next to the gel and
after five or 10 minutes thiszone of exclusion, which had no
microspheres and everything else, had filled with microspheres.
But that region, abouttwo-tenths of a millimeter, you
could see it with your naked eye.
Profound exclusion, it wasclear, and the rest of it had

(23:46):
lots of microspheres.
So that's when we began callingit the exclusion zone, because
it excluded.
And that was convenient,because exclusion zone easy,
easy to remember, but it doesn'twork in Europe because it's
dead and other places.
But later we realized that's aninappropriate definition but

(24:12):
it's so easy, so to speak, thatwe hung on to it.
But later we found that thiszone of water had properties
vastly different from ordinaryliquid water.
Every property we tried andsucceeded in measuring and a few
other people too, theproperties differed and so

(24:34):
because it appeared to be adifferent phase of water and we
thought at the time, yes, itdoes involve some kind of water
ordering, so we called, wecalled it looked like an ordered
phase of water and we called itthe fourth phase of water
because none of the three phaseshad any properties that
resemble that and and yet we hadlots of experimental evidence

(24:57):
that this was somethingdifferent.
So so far we're in agreementwith g Lane.
Where we diverged from his pointof view, and I think in a
really important way, was whenwe started using electrodes.
You know, I did myundergraduate work in electrical

(25:20):
engineering, so electrodes andmeasuring electrical stuff was
really important.
I can't remember why we decidedto do that, but we decided to
measure to see if anythinginteresting occurred in this
exclusion Zone.
And we use electrodes that that, the glass electrodes that come

(25:41):
to a very fine tip and it'sfilled with a solution of three
molar, kcl, potassium chloride,and invented, by the way, by the
same Gilbert Ling who used it.
And we use it too to penetratecells, to look at the cell's
electrical potential.
So we had lots of experiencedoing it, as did many, many

(26:04):
people half a century ago and wedecided to use them to poke
into the exclusion zone and seeif we found something
interesting.
We were shocked, so to speak,with the electrical measurements
and we were shocked to findthat the electrical potential
was not zero, which would becharacteristic of ordinary water

(26:28):
, but had negative electricalpotential up to a couple of
hundred millivolts.
And we were shocked becausethis didn't make sense to us,
because the whole system startedwith water, which is neutral.
So how do you start withneutral water and you get a zone
that has negative electricalcharge?

(26:48):
The only way that that couldhappen is if there's another
zone with positive charge right,because the two have to add up
to give you what you startedwith, which was zero, neutral
right.
And we quickly found it.
So we found the exclusion zoneis negatively charged.
So you've got a gel sittinghere and next to the gel was an
exclusion zone that wasnegatively charged, and beyond

(27:10):
that zone was water, the waterthat you started with.
But we measured turned out thathad positive charge.
The positive charges wereessentially dissolved in the
water and the positive chargethat would come from the
original water would be protonsH+, just like in acids.
But it's well known that assoon as a proton is created, if

(27:34):
it's in water, the proton willjoin a water molecule to give
you a so-called hydronium ion.
So those positive charges, thepositive charges, were not bare
protons, they were all hydroniumions.
So you've got negative chargein ez and you've got hydronium
ions outside.

(27:55):
So what is that?
It's a battery, um, so we foundthat, um, that you, you, you
know that you started with purewater and in the right
circumstance you get a battery.
And batteries are capable ofdelivering energy.
That's what they do for aliving they generate electrical
energy.
So there we were, and not longafter one of the students

(28:21):
actually two different studentsthey stuck electrodes in the
positive and the negative andthe positive, and they could get
electrical current, enoughcurrent to light an LED lamp,
and so that was proof ofprinciple that we really do have
this battery here, and thebattery contained energy that

(28:43):
was deliverable.
So that was cool.
But it raised the question whicha lot of people, especially in
the field of photosynthesis andI don't want to deviate too far
from the main theme, but thequestion see the first step of

(29:08):
photosynthesis.
Let me defer that for later.
Okay, but here's the question.
If you got negative in EZ andyou got positive outside, you
know it's sort of like man andwoman.
They want to come togetherright, plus and minus.
Sort of like man and woman.

(29:29):
They want to come togetherright, plus and minus.
But if you have a battery likethis, something prevents the two
from coming together right,because otherwise they want to
immediately recombine butthey're not recombining.
So what is that?
And that took a bit of headscratching to figure out.

(29:50):
So we wound up with a realunderstanding of what's going on
and what's absolutely necessary, and that is when the EZ forms.
It has a structure that's sodense that it doesn't allow
those hydronium ions topenetrate back.
The positive hydronium ionswant desperately to recombine

(30:11):
with the negative EZ, but thenegative EZ resists because its
structure is too dense.
Its structure, we found we wereable to deduce, consists of it
starts at the surface of the gelor polymer or whatever is
nucleating the growth and yougot the first sheet layer and

(30:31):
that sheet nucleates the growthof the second sheet and the
third sheet and the sheets keepgrowing, giving you that, as I
said, to start with two tenthsof a millimeter, but we've been
able to find up to a millimeter,even beyond in certain
circumstances.
So in each sheet, the structureof each sheet is a honeycomb,

(30:52):
so it's got hexagons.
Now in order to penetrate intothe EZ you have to go through
those hexagons, through theopenings in the hexagons.
Those openings are very smalland also successive sheets are
shifted by half of the hexagons.
Those openings are very smalland also successive sheets are
shifted by half of the hexagondimension, so it makes the
actual opening even smaller thanthat.

(31:13):
Meanwhile you've got hydroniumions here which are much bigger
than protons and they simply aretoo big to enter into that easy
lattice.
So they remain separated.
And for any system likephotosynthesis, for example, the

(31:33):
first step involves theseparation of charge and water,
just like I'm talking about.
And what hasn't been addressedis how they remain separated.
They need to remain separatedin order for all the subsequent
steps to take place, but there'sbeen no discussion of how

(31:54):
they're kept separated andtherefore I think that mechanism
is maybe a special case of whatwe've found in the laboratory.
And there's one point, onefurther point, an important one,
that links the two even better.
So you know, photosynthesis isrun by light Light, first step

(32:16):
of photosynthesis.
Light separates water into Hplus, oh minus, I think it
separates them into EZ and thepositive region beyond the EZ.
But in photosynthesis, it'slight that's responsible for
supplying the energy.
And so if we put that aside forthe moment, and what about the

(32:39):
EZ?
Creating a battery you can'tcreate a battery without energy.
The battery contains potentialenergy which can be delivered,
as I mentioned before, but youcan't create that kind of energy
from nothing.
The only way you can createthat kind of energy is to start

(33:00):
with another kind of energy andthen convert it to a different
kind of energy.
It's a fundamental law ofphysics.
Uh, I I'm not fond of acceptinglaws and physics until they're
really sure they're right, butthis is one that really does
make sense.
So, um, so you need anotherkind of energy to separate the

(33:20):
charges easy and beyond.
And and we found that that islight.
It was a student who found that,who was setting up a chamber,
and I guess he was bored orsomething, or curious.
He took a gooseneck lamp thatwas sitting next to his setup
and he shined the gooseneck lampand he saw the exclusion zone

(33:43):
and the region that wasilluminated.
He saw the exclusion zonegrowing and he ran into my
office.
He called me.
Hey, I found somethinginteresting and I saw it.
And then we started doing realexperiments because we were
wondering, if, you know, itdidn't take a rocket scientist
to figure out that light,photons, energy, is being put in

(34:06):
and that's the energy that'screating the battery, it's
charging the battery becauseobviously the EZ was growing.
So we checked to see whichwavelengths were important and
we studied wavelengths rangingat the short end, ultravioletet,
and then longer into thevisible spectral range and then

(34:27):
longer to to the infrared range,and we found that that the
first two didn't matter at all,pretty much only infrared range.
We say infrared light.
It's, it's pretty much the sameas the same as visible light,
except a longer wavelength thatour eyes can't detect, you know,
but the same ilk so.

(34:49):
And we found that it hasextreme power, that even a very
tiny weak LED lamp can expandthe exclusion zone we found up
to 10 times.
So you needed only a little bitof infrared light to give you a
lot of energy to charge thisbattery.
And I think it's kind of thesame for photosynthesis.

(35:12):
People talk about a couple ofvisible wavelengths that are
important in photosynthesis, butif you bear in mind that it's
the springtime, it's now thatphotosynthesis begins in earnest
.
The weather's getting warmer.
The weather gets warmer, itmeans there's more infrared
energy, because infrared andwarmth are pretty much closely

(35:36):
correlated.
They're not exactly the same,but pretty much it's like if you
put down the toaster and youlook at the coils glowing.
They produce heat and they'reglowing, you say infrared energy
is coming out, infraredradiation.
Physicists will say infraredlight, and that's when
photosynthesis gets going inearnest.

(35:57):
In the springtime, that's whenthe leaves come out, that's when
things begin happening.
So photosynthesis, the firststep.
It must be sensitive toinfrared light, just like we
found in other systems that groweasy.
It's the infrared light that isprimarily responsible.

(36:21):
So the bottom line is, I think,photosynthesis, the first step
of photosynthesis.
All of agriculture basicallyfollows the same paradigm that
we found in photosynthesis.
First step might be nature'sway, nature's version of what we

(36:42):
found more generically.
And of course, nature does itin the most effective and
efficient way.
So it uses not only infraredlight but also other members of
the spectrum to power it.
So okay to summarize I'm sorryI've gone on and on and on, but

(37:06):
word, you want to use the growthof EZ and the positive charge

(37:28):
beyond.
That creates a battery fromwhich you can get energy.
And what charges that batteryis infrared light.
So I'm sorry again.
Long answer to a short question.

That wasn't really a short question,
so I think that was a greatanswer.
So, okay, so we, we kind ofhave a foundation now for what
easy is and since we are made ofwater and we have it in all of
ourselves, so how does thataffect us?
How does is, how is easy in ourcells versus regular water, and

(38:01):
how does that affect us?

Yeah, in a profound way okay, I know that's
a tough question to ask, but II think it'll help tie it in too
oh I, that's the right questionto ask, of course, um, yeah, so
so what does this water have todo with the cell?
And uh, the short answer andI'll expound on that in a moment

(38:24):
the short answer is that thecell is filled with easy water,
um and um, uh, as you, as youknow, if you stick an electrode
into a cell, you'll measurenegative electrical potential.
Somehow the cell is negativelycharged.
That's an assertion on my partthat the cell is filled with EZ

(38:52):
water and if I'm right andthere's a lot of evidence that
actually supports that point ofview you'll think well, if the
cell is filled with negativelycharged EZ water, it must be
negatively charged.
If you stick an electrode inthe cell, you'll measure
negative charge, right?

(39:12):
I mean, you take a paper bagand you fill it with negatively
charged stuff and you stick anelectrode in it.
Of course you measure negativecharge.
That's not the way cellbiologists look at it.
Cell biologists look at it adifferent way.
That's, I must admit, far morecomplicated, and I'll deal with

(39:38):
that complication now becauseit's really, really important.
So the idea arose more than 50years ago and continuing on and
accepted by almost every cellbiologist to this day, that the
reason this cell has negativeelectrical charge has nothing to
do with EZ water, becausenobody knew about EZ water at
the time these ideas came intobeing.
But they did measure negativecharge.

(40:01):
And so what's responsible forthe negative charge?
That people at the time, 50years ago, knew that outside the
cell was high sodium, insidethe cell was high potassium, and
so the idea arose well, theremust be a pump in the membrane

(40:24):
that pumps the sodium out andpumps the potassium in, and that
must be how it works, thepotassium in.
And that must be how it works.
And there was a lot of researchwhose results seemed compatible
with that idea.
And the idea has expanded tothe point where now the number
of pumps that are needed toexplain what's inside and what's

(40:46):
outside, if you look onWikipedia, I think it says more
than 200.
If you ask a former studentwho's in that field, it's over a
thousand.
Now, what's the problem withthat?
Well, the problem is you can'tsee it.
On electron micrographs youexpect to see these membrane
gadgets strewn all about, butall you find is a continuous

(41:08):
membrane that has nothing.
You can't see this.
That's the first problem.
The second problem approachedby Gilbert Ling was you know,
pumps need energy for pumping,and Gilbert Ling did experiments
and found that, in the mostgenerous conditions, allowing
everything in favor of thepumping people, that the cell

(41:30):
simply didn't have nearly enoughenergy to pump the sodium out.
And now there are a thousandpumps, or some large number, and
so the amount of energy thatwould be needed is simply
extraordinary.
So that's for pumps.
And then not only pumps, butchannels.
Ion-selective channels wereinvoked, invented, thought to be

(41:55):
, and they also thought topopulate the membrane, and the
reason for them is there werecertain other ions or substances
that were more inside the cellthan outside, or more outside
than inside.
So how did they get there?
Well, and the idea of ionselective channels came into
being.
Um, and some of the sameproblems exist with those, those

(42:17):
channels, but I'll just citeone of them, because there are
many.
I've written about this.
Uh, uh, the idea is you, youhave an ion selective channel,
and the channel pops open and itlets a certain ion through and
nothing else, only that ion, andthen it closes again, and if
you measure the current thatgoes from outside to inside the

(42:38):
cell, you can see a pulse, andthen another pulse, and another
pulse, and it seems.
That seemed to be reallycompelling evidence that there
was a channel and the channelwas popping open and closed,
open and closed, closed, givingyou those pulses.
A problem with that is you cantake a synthetic membrane with

(42:58):
no pumps, no channels, nothing,and you get the same result
repeated by half dozen differentlaboratories.
That's only one of numerousissues that befall this theory.
So I think the theory is wrong,although it's believed and

(43:20):
accepted by probably close to100% of cell biologists.
I think it's wrong and a simplerexplanation is that you don't
have these numerous pumps andnumerous, equally numerous
channels in the membrane.
You know, you discover achannel, you get a Nobel Prize,
so there's a lot of incentive todiscover a new pump or a new

(43:42):
channel, you know, and thenumber piles up.
So a simpler idea is that thereason the cell has negative
charges, ez water has negativecharge and the cell is filled
with EZ water, very simple.
So that's the tangent and thedeviation that I wanted to make.

(44:27):
It's one example of goingfunding that way for your
research and if you challengethat, then you have real
obstacles because often thepeople who will review your
application for money are thepeople you're challenging.
So the system doesn't work inthat sense.
So anyway, back to EZ and whatit does Now.

(44:51):
So you've got the cell isfilled with EZ water.
Now, ez water is structured,it's organized.
It seems that it can't doanything.
It's sort of like ice, but it'snot ice.
The structure is actually notso different from ice, but it's

(45:16):
not ice, and it's sort ofgel-like.
And you can intuit the gel-likeconsistency in a couple of ways
.
One way if you're brave enough,you take a razor blade and take
your forearm and cut.
So what comes out?
Well, blood comes out,obviously.
But you'd expect, if the cell isfilled with liquid water, that
the water would come pouring outlike it does.

(45:38):
It would from a breached waterpipe, but it doesn't come out.
And even deep in your body I'vegot some surgeon friends and
they tell me you take a scalpeland you cut through the belly of
a muscle and if the musclecontained liquid water, the
water would come pouring out.
But they never see water comepouring out.
So it's more it it's.

(46:00):
It's not a liquid.
And and uh, the fact that it's agel.
It has been well known foralmost a hundred years.
Um, uh, and you coulddemonstrate that to yourself.
You just take a raw egg.
And you've done that, you'vecracked open a raw egg and the
egg white is a cytoplasm of theegg cell, right.

(46:20):
And it's not a liquid, it's agel, right.
And so this gel, the gel-likeconsistency, is exactly what you
expect from easy water, andthat's why, if you cut the cell,
the gel-like consistency is oneit's going to say it won't come

(46:41):
pouring out because it sticksto the surface.
The egg white tends to besomewhat sticky, and so so the
interior of the cell is muchdifferent from from what the
cell biologist biology schoolteaches us, simply, simply
doesn't fit.

(47:02):
And so, so what?
What about that?
How, how can things happeninside the cell?
Well, the way things happen,and this is discussed in detail
in my first book.
We haven't talked about thesecond book.
We'll get to it the FourthPhase of Water, which is
actually really popular, but,excuse me, in the first book.
And so the second half of thefirst book the first half talks

(47:29):
about Gilbert Ling and his ideas.
Half of the first book thefirst half talks about Gilbert
Ling and his ideas.
The second half talks about howthe cell might function, with
the idea that the water isstructured, even though we
didn't know at that time all thedetails that I've divulged to
you and described elsewhere.
So we made an attempt, or I madean attempt to do that and I

(47:53):
brought forth from theliterature evidence that what
happens in the cell is when thecell is in the so-called
inactivated condition, like ifyou have a muscle cell, it's not
contracting.
If you have a secretory cell,it's not secreting.
If you have a nerve cell, it'snot conducting, it's the
intervening phase and that phaseis filled with structured or we

(48:16):
say easy or fourth phase water.
Everything is organized and notmuch can happen because the
cell, it's like it's filled withice, you know, and if you want
action to occur, there's notmuch action that occurs in ice.
But what happens as soon as thecell is activated to do what
it's designed to do, so to speak, it undergoes a transition.

(48:37):
It's called a phase transition.
It's well known in physicalchemistry but not so much in
biology and everything in thecell changes.
The water changes.
It goes from EZ or fourth phasewater at the time I use the
term structured water goes toordinary liquid water and that's
when the action happens.

(48:58):
The transition is to liquidwater and also, as soon as it
changes to liquid water, all theproteins can undergo their
necessary conformational changeto produce what the cell is
designed to produce or designedto do.
To produce what the cell isdesigned to produce or designed
to do.
And then, when it's all over,it reverts back to the
structured state, to easy water,to proteins that are returned

(49:22):
from their conformationallychanged structure back to their
original extended structure.
That's the cycle, and I adducedevidence to support the idea
that, or the view that thatoccurred in a half dozen of the
most common cells that exist andand presumably in other cells
too, that we there was notenough evidence, or we didn't

(49:44):
have a chance to to to explore.
So it's during this transitionphase that the cell, that the
cell is, the water in the cellis ordinary water, that
diffusion can occur, things canmove around, uh, hormones can
enter the cell, waste productscan be expelled from the cell
and and what have you?

(50:05):
So?
And then it returns again, andthe return, the return is the
energy requiringiring state,because the buildup of easy
water requires energy.
You see, and that's where, forexample, infrared energy comes
into play, because infraredenergy is not coming only from

(50:25):
your toaster or your electricoven, it's everywhere.
And the way you can.
You can demonstrate that is isum, um.
You can, in your room, whereyou are now with the tulips.
I think they are behind you, um, is that where they are?
um we have them growing here toonow, um, this time of year, but

(50:47):
you turn off all the lights andso we see nothing.
You can see nothing with youreye and your trusty cell phone
camera can't record anything.
It's like pitch black.
But if you take out an infraredcamera, that is just like your
regular camera, but the sensor,instead of being sensitive to
visible light, it's sensitive toinfrared light.
It'll record everything.

(51:08):
I'd be able to see those, thosetulips behind you and the vase,
and uh, what's hanging on yourwall and the throw pillows on on
your sofa and all and and,because I can see them with the
infrared camera.
It means they must be generatinginfrared light or releasing
infrared light or infraredenergy, and so you've got

(51:30):
infrared all around you.
It's coming from everywhere.
Of course, the sun is the mostpowerful, but it's coming from
everywhere and um and and and.
So it means it means that theenergy that you need to build
easy water is.
It exists all around.
And, by the way, that's why themilitary uses it for a night

(51:52):
light.
They want to see the enemy'stanks.
It's dark, it's nighttime.
They whip out their infraredtelescope or camera, or whatever
they use, and they can see what, what you ordinarily can't see.
So everything is generatinginfrared light or energy, and
and so the cell makes use ofthat when it returns, needs to
return to the initial state, thestructured state, which means

(52:15):
build up, rebuilding easy water.
And because the infrared lightis all around us and it's also
coming from the core of ourbodies, because metabolism is
occurring, it generates heat,and the heat is essentially the
same as infrared.
So you've got energy, you havecoming from outside and coming
from inside to restore whatneeds to occur.

(52:37):
And the last point, that is forsale action.
Um, you need this easy waterbecause if it's really true what
I I believe is true from whatwe've explored and written in
this, in that book, um, thenthen, in order to undergo this
phase transition easy to liquidwater and back to easy, easy

(53:00):
must must be there.
And if you don't have enougheasy, uh, then the full
transformation can't take placeand your cells are dysfunctional
.
And if you want to befunctional again, what you need
to do is restore the content ofEZ.
And there are various ways todo that.
I can talk about them if youlike.

(53:23):
There are simple expedientsthat require not much in the way
of almost anything, andevidence has shown that these
expedients really do restorehealth, and I think the way they
restore health is by buildingEZ.
So maybe I'll stop there andwait for further questions.

I think that's the most powerful
statement for everyone listeningthat basically what you're
saying is EZ is where the energycomes from in the cell, and a
healthy cell has more EZ in itso it can operate optimally.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying Thank
you for reading.
Yeah, that is criticallyimportant, yeah.

So I guess yeah.
The question is, if EZ is kindof the core of our health and
the core of the cellular healththat we have, how do, how can we
generate it in our own bodies?

okay.
So, uh, I'll tell you briefly ahalf half dozen different ways
um that, um that, if I canremember them, uh, half dozen
different ways.
So, um, uh, one of them is bydrinking water drinking.
Drinking a lot of water, whichI don't do because I like to
drink coffee too much, but itdoes contain water.

(54:37):
If you imbibe water andeverybody knows we need to be
hydrated, but people don'tunderstand exactly what is
hydration.
So we take in water and we peeout water also, but some of the
water that we drink goes intohydration and what happens is

(54:58):
some of the water, not all of it.
Some of the water getsconverted by our body in the
presence of infrared energy,gets converted into easy water.
So, drink a lot of water buildseasy water in ourselves and
we're healthier, and we knowthat.
You know, if you play tworounds of tennis, two matches,
you're dead to the world.
You sit down, you drink a literof water and you're feeling

(55:21):
better already.
Ok, so that's one firstexpedient.
I'll let you keep track.
There are at least six that Ican think.
Another one is to do uh foryour hydration, to do juicing
and to go.
Go to your backyard and yourgarden, uh, pick some leaves,

(55:42):
squeeze the hell out of them andyou're basically squeezing out
the water.
And what is that liquid thatyou're squeezing out?
Well, the liquid is theinterior of the plant cells, and
these are freshly grown plants.
They're full of EZ water.
The inside of the plant cell isjust like our cells should be.
It's filled with EZ water andyou're squeezing out EZ water.

(56:03):
So when you drink this stuff,if you can tolerate it, it
doesn't taste great, but you canadd a few things to it to make
it palatable and you drink it.
You're drinking directly,drinking easy water, and so in
some way, that easy water isthen, well, in some way it

(56:25):
contains negative charge and thenegative charge.
I believe negative charge andthe negative charge I believe
negative charge can flow veryeasily from the water that you
drink, can flow very easilythroughout your body, seeking
regions that are less negativelycharged, or you might say more
positively charged, becausenegative always wants to go to
positive.
So any of your cells that areinsufficiently negative that

(56:51):
negative charge will flow in.
And we found in the laboratoryyou simply add negative charge
to water and it converts it intoEZ water.
There's another way to build EZwater, so I've gone through a
long explanation, but basicallydrinking the stuff from your
garden, the water from yourgarden, the water from your
garden, getting rid of the bulkystuff so your stomach doesn't

(57:15):
get very full very quickly andyou don't stop and you drink
this water.
It provides the electrons thatare necessary for the buildup of
easy water in your cells.
And I've heard I'm not surewhat your experience is, but
I've heard from various healthpractitioners one sort or
another that this seems to belike the best expedient for

(57:37):
improving your health.
So, okay, that's two.
Another one is sunshine, sogoing out in the sun.
So, you know, mostly we thinkof the sun as giving light, and
of course it does.
But roughly 50% of the sun'senergy is in the infrared region

(57:59):
.
That's why it feels warm in thesun.
It gives off infrared energy toit.
You know, then we can receivethat massive amount of infrared
energy.
And so in Seattle, where I liveand not where you live, but

(58:21):
it's cloudy a lot in thewintertime, you know, and when
the sun pokes through the cloudsyou can see smiles on people's
faces.
So why is that?
Well, so the usual reason givenis suddenly the light appears,
we feel good, it's apsychological effect, and it may
well be, but I think it's alsoa physical effect, because when
the sun comes out, you know, andshines on us in one way or

(58:43):
another it provides massiveamounts of infrared energy and
that infrared energy canpenetrate to our brain.
The evidence for that is, youcan take an infrared source and
put it here.
It passes through the skull,gets scattered by your brain and
then some of it goes backthrough the skull.
It's picked up by a sensor.
You can image the brain thatway.

(59:03):
So if you can image the brain,it means the energy, original
energy must be getting throughyour skull twice actually.
So that's another expedient oranother way that you feel good,

(59:25):
because the cells in your brain,the nerve cells, I guess, in
your brain, might have beendeficient of easy water, and the
fact that the sun comes out itmeans they're going to build
easy water and your cells returnto their, shall we say, default
state.
That is feeling good.
We're designed to feel good,not to feel down and sad and

(59:48):
depressed.
So the sun comes out, we feelgood.
I, I think that could becontributing.
So that's that's, I guess.
A third, fourth one is the sauna, or, as the Finns say, sauna.
Um, so I, I had experiencesboth in in Finland and also in
Russia, where they call it banya, and, and it's a little bit

(01:00:09):
different, but but.
But, the main features of asauna are heat, and heat, as I
mentioned, is associated withinfrared.
So you're receiving massiveamounts of infrared energy and
you go into the sauna, um and orbanya, and you come out and you
feel like a million dollars,right, um, or at least much of

(01:00:32):
the time, or most of the time.
And I I had that experiencemyself.
Uh, I was in finland giving atalk and, um, it was terrible
jet lag.
And they said there's a partywe're having outside the town or
a city, and they took us to theparty and there was
entertainment and music, and allI wanted to do was put my head

(01:00:53):
on my pillow and sleep.
And, uh, at 10 pm, the host gotup to the microphone andi
thought, for sure, he'sannouncing, okay, it's time to
get back on the bus and we'regoing to take you back to your
hotel.
But that's not what he said.
He said, okay, it's time forthe sauna now, and he was, um,

(01:01:13):
he was describing threedifferent kinds one is dry, one
is wet and there was anotherkind and he said after it's over
, you're free to jump into thewater cold water and get
refreshed.
I didn't do that, but I I wentto one of the saunas and I was
just feeling so tired and when Icame out, after a shower and
such, it was like the beginning.

(01:01:34):
I had had eight hours sleep andI was ready to go again even
though 30 minutes before that,all I wanted to do was sleep.
So I had that kind of experienceand and the same in russia.
Um, the russian ones are alittle bit different.
After you get maybe you've hadthe experience they beat you

(01:01:55):
with the leaves of a birch tree.
You've had that experience.
Yeah, okay, anyway, that waspretty exciting.
So, yeah, anyway, so that's thefourth experience.
Um, yeah, anyway, so that'sthat's the fourth expedience.

(01:02:16):
Uh, expedient sauna, and, as,as you know better than I know,
you can get portable, uh,electrical, uh saunas, uh, just
infrared lights.
Basically, that do I guess much, much the same thing.
But it's nice to, it's nice toenjoy the original okay that
that's four um, fifth, one, um,fifth, expedient, and and
promoting health, and all all ofthese are really simple, uh, um

(01:02:38):
is uh, to eat the right kind ofherbs spices.
What have you and and um, youknow, starting, starting back
from ayurvedic times 5,000,10,000 years ago.
Of course, people were equallyinterested in their health as
they are today, and it becameclear that certain herbs were

(01:03:02):
good for health, and one of them, for example, is turmeric,
which is widely advertised now.
And with modern allopathicmedicine, we've forgotten that
some of these substances can begood for health.
And so we began wondering whyturmeric, basil, so-called holy

(01:03:23):
basil ghee, why are all these sogood for health?
And you know, you could imagineif you were oriented toward
allopathic medicine, orthodoxthinking, you might say that, oh
, there are receptors for gheeor whatever turmeric all over

(01:03:44):
your body.
You know, you've got receptorsin your heart and you've got
receptors in your liver andyou've got receptors and
receptors to the receptors, andthat's one, and that that one is
a possibility, though it's abit complicated.
Simpler one is is that thewater that's in every one of
your cells is is subject to theinfluence of of these special

(01:04:09):
herbs.
And so we started thinking well, maybe the reason that turmeric
is so good for so manydifferent issues that may impact
you, the reason that's the caseis it builds easy water, and
easy water is all over, and somaybe that's it.
And we tested it and wepublished the result, and the

(01:04:32):
result was uniform that all halfdozen or so of the herbs and
other substances that we testthat are known to be good for
almost no matter what ails you,they build easy water and that's
why.
That's why they're good for you.
So the conclusion conclusion isif you want to remain healthy,

(01:04:54):
we published all this stuff.
It's good to take moderatedoses, if you will, or amounts
of some of these herbs.
They really do work becausethey build easy water and easy
water is critical for health andfunction.
So that's another really easyexpedient that I don't myself

(01:05:14):
don't do enough of, but I should, uh, okay, sixth one um.
The sixth one is is umgrounding or earthing so we?
we don't.
As a rule we don't connectourselves to the earth because
we wear shoes all the time.
The shoes have leather which isinsulating.

(01:05:35):
But it's become well known thatif you take off your shoes and
connect yourself electrically tothe earth, you feel better.
And there are all kinds oftheories because it's known now
that it really works.
And there are all kinds oftheories because it's known now
that it really works.
You can either walk on wetgrass, or you can hug a tree, or
you can walk on sand near theocean, damp sand, or you can

(01:05:58):
bathe yourself in a mud bath orwhatever.
In all these cases you'reconnecting yourself to the earth
.
So why should that work?
Well, so the reason I thinkthat it works is actually quite
simple, excuse me and that isthe earth is negatively charged

(01:06:21):
and if you connect yourselfelectrically you pull in this
negative charge.
Now I must admit that I waseducated in electrical
engineering.
Never, ever, did any professoreven hint to me that the earth
might be negatively charged.
We were taught that if you gota plug, a three-prong plug, you

(01:06:42):
know you have that extra roundplug and you plug into a
receptacle, you're connectingyourself to a bland sea of
neutrality.
That's ground.
That's what we learned and Inever heard even a hint to the
opposite.
But I found out that's not true.
I found out the earth isnegatively charged.
And I found out from a Russianguy who was working in my

(01:07:06):
laboratory and this guy was fullof ideas and sometimes I didn't
have the patience to listen toall of his ideas, but the day he
was leaving he starts tellingme, expounding on the electric
field of the earth.
I said, andre, you meanmagnetic field?
Right, I never heard ofelectric field, and I was.
I was schooled in electricalengineering.

(01:07:27):
He he said oh, you didn't knowthat the earth has an electric
field.
I said what are you talkingabout?
You're nuts.
He said no, I mean theionosphere is positive and the
earth is negative and it's likeplates of a capacitor and in
between those you've gotelectric field lines running

(01:07:49):
perpendicular to those surfacesand um and and the bottom
electrode is the earth.
It's negatively charged.
I said I never heard of such athing.
You're crazy.
And andre said I promise you,every middle school student in
russia knows that the earth isnegatively charged.
Um, I found out later that thatis actually true because I know

(01:08:11):
some senior scientists who comefrom Russia and they said, yeah
, they learned that in middleschool.
So he said there must besomething deficient with the
educational system in yourcountry and I said well, yeah, I
agree with that.
So I went home with my headspinning.
Is he right?
Is it possible that he's right?
Next morning, one of mystudents, who was overhearing

(01:08:35):
the conversation, brought to methe famous lectures of Richard
Feynman.
Feynman, you know, was a Nobelphysicist who many people think
of as the Einstein of the secondhalf of the last century and
half of the last century.
And um, he, he brings to me andit opens, volume two, chapter
nine, and it's all aboutevidence for the negative charge

(01:08:56):
of the earth.
And after I read that I wasconvinced, because there was
ample evidence.
It's just that, you know, wedon't teach it, we don't.
People don't understand thatthe earth has a net negative
charge charge.
To this day it's.
It's not taught, but I, I to me.
It turns out some of thesubsequent work that I've been

(01:09:17):
doing that not only is thenegative charge of the earth
interesting, but it's criticallyimportant for so many different
phenomena, and if we don'trecognize that it exists, we're
going to go off.
We on the wrong foundation.
Uh, because so?
So now, so closing the loop,what happens if you connect

(01:09:38):
yourself to to the earthelectrically?
What what happens is, um, allthose negative charges that are
in there, um will sweep intoyour body in any regions that
are short or deficient of EZ,will get filled with electrons
and build EZ.
And that's why if you earthyourself or ground yourself, you

(01:10:01):
feel better.
I think that's the explanation.
There are many explanationsyou'll find throughout the
literature.
I think this is the one thatmakes a lot of sense to me.
So those are six expedientsthat are not difficult to do and
can improve your health.
And just before I stop, there'sa sixth one that I need to

(01:10:24):
mention.
I guess I don't put it in thecategory of the simplest, but
it's really important and thatis hyperbaric oxygen therapy,
which I've had in my late life,had various reasons.
And what is that?
So it's a kind of chamber wherethere's higher than usual

(01:10:46):
pressure and higher than usualoxygen usual pressure and higher
than usual oxygen, hyperbarichigh pressure.
So you're breathing almost pureoxygen and at high pressure.
And again we wondered why it hassuch positive effects on so
many different syndromes, and weindeed found and published a

(01:11:07):
paper showing that high pressurebuilds EZ and high oxygen
builds EZ.
So you put the two together andit's a powerful builder of EZ.
So I hesitate to mention itbecause it's not so easy to get
one of these chambers, you haveto go to a medical practitioner
who has the chamber, and thereare many of them around, but

(01:11:29):
they're really effective.
So, anyway, I hope I'veanswered your questions about
how you can build easy water inyour cells and your body and
thereby improve health, right?

Dr. Michele Burklund (01:11:42):
No, you did a perfect job.
And it's so interesting becauseso many of the things I
recommend to patients fromhyperbaric to infrared sauna,
juicing and everything elseright.
But this really explains on adeeper level what's really going
on inside their body and insidetheir cells and why they're
feeling good, too, during thistime.

Dr. Gerald Pollack (01:12:02):
I'm pleased, but not surprised, that you
recommend all that, because itdoes seem to work.

And so.

I bet your clients are really happy dealing
with you.

So I have an interesting question, though,
with the spices though.
So if they're dried spiceswithout water and you take them
into your body, or let's say,like tea dried herbs, does it
have the same effect as like afresh plant on your cells?

to make easy , I uh, I'm not sure of that I'm
trying to think through, youknow, the herb itself.
If you put it in water, either,some of them will dissolve,

(01:12:56):
some of them don't dissolve, butif it doesn't dissolve it
builds easy water around it.
So I guess I'm not really surewhich one would be more potent.
Maybe you have some idea aboutyour patients and which ones,

(01:13:17):
what they actually take, andwhich ones are best for them and
which ones not.
As good Do you do you know that?

I'm not sure.
I mean, I always look at tea as, like you know, a more to
subtle form to give nutrientsversus different extracts or
things like that, and so maybeit's a more subtle way as it
dissolves in water, versus likethe whole plant or juicing the
plant and taking the freshnutrients.
I don't know.
I don't know, it's interesting.

It's a really good question and it's
it's worthwhile studying.
We haven't gotten to that.
You know just so many thingsthat we can do in the lab the
very modest funding that we have.
It's really difficult to getmoney to study unorthodox stuff,
so that's another topic.
But rather than expounding onthat, I'd rather listen to your

(01:14:10):
questions to see how best I cananswer them, if I can.

So the next question I have kind of
moves into can you tell us moreabout how water can store
information and how we couldutilize this potential benefit
for our own healing?

Oh, that's a great question.
That's a great question.
So I've been intimate with thatsubject for quite a while and I
guess that the most famousperson in that field is Masaru
Emoto, who passed almost 10years ago and there's going to

(01:14:50):
be a memorial ceremony for himin which I'm going to be
speaking.
And for those of your listenerswho don't know his work, he was
a spiritualist.
People call him a scientist,but he was actually more of a
spiritualist and um, and hediscovered, uh, that if he he

(01:15:12):
would project his energy onwater, it would impact the water
.
So the way he did it is hewould project positive energy or
negative energy to contrast thetwo.
And if the energy was positivelike he would either say I love
you to the water or thinkpositive thoughts to the water,
then he would freeze the waterand he'd get beautiful crystals.

(01:15:32):
If he thought I hate you,you're ugly, or something like
this, he would freeze the water.
He got ugly crystals and thatmade a big hit with a lot of
people and his book soldmillions of copies, and I know
the emotive people very well.
But one of the problems thatscientists object to in that is

(01:15:58):
you know, it seemed that waterhas a kind of memory or it can
store information, but he would.
He would project the sameenergy to 50 different
containers of water and of the50, he'd look at them and he'd
pick out the one that bestillustrated what he wanted to
demonstrate.
Scientists don't do that.
They'll randomly choose threeor four from the 50 and let's

(01:16:21):
look at them and analyze them.
Um so um, people who are in theknow scientifically uniformly
reject his work, but otherpeople, um, really like his work
, and and I I must admit thatright right now there's a woman.

(01:16:43):
Her name is Veda Austin, andshe's gone on to produce work
that is not exactly the same asEmoto, but somewhat different.
She typically will ask you to,for example, to think about
something, and then puts thewater in the freezer, and she

(01:17:06):
did it actually in my home, butshe's since become very well
known with followers.
She puts it in the freezer for10 minutes, and so there's a
thin film of ice at the top, andin my case I was thinking about
a house and, and she pulled itout after 10, and I could see
the roof of a house on it.
And she demonstrates on herwebsite that she'll take some

(01:17:28):
water and she'll write thenumber four and place it either
on top or beneath the chamber.
It freezes the chamber and inthe thin layer of ice you can
see the number four.
That's written so amazing.
Four that's written so amazing.
And she'll be speaking at ourwater conference which, by the
way, anybody is welcome toattend.

(01:17:49):
It'll be held in lisbon inoctober, the middle of october
16th through the 19th.
If anybody is interested, it'scalled the url.
It's called WaterConf, nothingin between, for conference
waterconforg, not comwaterconforg, and we're happy to

(01:18:12):
see you there.
And so I mentioned that, notonly because she's going to be
there and demonstrating what shedoes, which is really
fascinating.
She does which is reallyfascinating, but also we used to
have Luc Montagnier, nobellaureate, discovered HIV.

(01:18:38):
He used to come.
He came every year for a decade.
Unfortunately he passed lastyear and he would present
evidence for water memory, andbefore him I'll tell you about
his experiments in a moment.
And before him was JacquesBenveniste, and he was perhaps
most famous for demonstratinginformation or memory in water,

(01:18:58):
and I'll just briefly tell youhis story because it shows what
happens when people deviate alot from the mainstream.
So Jacques, whom I knew he'spassed, he was studying the

(01:19:18):
effect of some antibodies onvarious cells, of some
antibodies on various cells.
What were the cells?
I forget for the moment, anyway, the cells.
He would expose the cells tothese antibodies and a very
specific reaction took place andthe cells would basophils, they

(01:19:43):
were called, called.
They would secrete, um, I thinkhistamine um, and he was doing
these experiments and he was awas a famous uh, scientist, high
level scientist, uh, in france,uh and um, and someone came
along and said well, I can, Ican achieve the same thing in
homeopathically dilutedantibodies.

(01:20:04):
So he'd take the antibodies, hewould dilute them by 10 times,
shake it the usual way and thendilute it again 10 times, and so
on, many, many times dilutionand therefore, according to
common belief, all you have leftis water.
And he said I can take thiswater, which has information, he

(01:20:26):
said, from the originalsolution or suspension, and I
can take that water instead ofwhat you use, and expose it,
pour it on those cells and thecells would secrete.
And he said it's impossible.
Water is not.
This is a very specificreaction water, no way to do it.
But uh, on the other hand, youknow, there's a empty space in

(01:20:49):
my laboratory parenthesescontaining 50 people,
approximately high level um,scientists, um, and demonstrated
, and before long everybody washuddled in that corner around
this guy because it worked.
He could show thathomeopathically diluted result
could achieve the same thing.
And the homeopaths were excitedabout that.

(01:21:10):
Because here was this famousscientist uh, you know who's
demonstrating?
Um, demonstrating that the homehomeopathy really does have
some meaning to it, uh, which alot of people, and even to this
day, are highly skeptical.
So Jacques Benveniste took thedemonstration and started doing

(01:21:33):
his own experiments and thensent it to the journal Nature to
publish.
And the editor of the journal,sir John Maddox, sent back a
letter.
All of this is publiclyavailable, all this what I'm
telling you about.
And he said I'm refusing topublish this article.

(01:21:55):
You're a distinguishedscientist, but I'm afraid you're
wrong.
You have to be wrong because ifyou're right then everybody
else is wrong, and I can'tbelieve that everybody else is
wrong.
So it seemed that Jacques wasdefeated.
But Jacques was not the kind ofguy who was easily defeated.
So he asked colleagues of his ahalf dozen colleagues from

(01:22:17):
around the world to repeat hisexperiments exactly and see what
they came up with.
And they all came up withpositive results.
They could get the same effectthat he saw.
And so they resubmitted thepaper and the response that came
back was pretty much the same.
I don't care how many peoplerepeat it, it can't be right.

(01:22:37):
And that you know, sir JohnMaddox, when he passed, finally,
they couldn't get too manypeople to speak favorably of him
at his funeral or at hismemorial service.
He was that kind of guy.
And then after that, thehomeopaths in Paris where he was

(01:22:57):
working, they objected because,hey, you know, this famous
scientist is demonstrating thatwhat we do really is real, it
makes sense, and nature islocated in London.
So, very quickly it got fromParis to London and they were
feeling under pressure.
So they sent a, they calledJacques and he told me he said

(01:23:20):
see that red phone over there.
I got a call from John Maddoxand Maddox said I'll make a deal
with you.
I'll publish your work in thenext issue of Nature, the most
prestigious science journal,nature and Science, and on the

(01:23:41):
one condition, and the conditionis we'll send a commission of
your peers to look over yourshoulder, see what you're doing,
and then we'll report back tothose readers a few weeks later.
Will you accept that?
And and being maybe, uh,beautifully naive, uh, jacques
said.
Of course he didn't realizethat this was a setup.

(01:24:04):
So and sorry, I'm telling youyou can read in many, many
different places.
But it's such an interestingstory, a sad story in a way.
So jacques said, sure, noproblem, he was confident, even
though he said in the paper thatfinally got published is that
this works, not every time, butalmost every time.

(01:24:24):
Enough to be easily to passstatistical significance, but
occasionally it doesn't work.
So they published the paper andthey set up a committee of
people to come and visit thelaboratory, the foreign visitors
.
And the committee consisted ofthree people Maddox himself, who
had, uh, uh, you know, an axeto grind, um um.

(01:24:48):
Next one was a guy named WalterStewart, and Walter Stewart, um
, was working in, uh, anAmerican working in the National
Institutes of Health.
They had just recently built aCenter for Scientific Integrity
and he was working there.
And the idea is, if you werecheating in some way, he would

(01:25:12):
go to investigate and find outif you were guilty or not guilty
, in theory an objective personand if you were guilty, then you
could never receive another NIHgrant or other more serious
consequences, because you knowpeople historically.
Someone will say hey, my rabbit,because of XYZ procedure.
There's a white rabbit that hasa black spot on it all the time

(01:25:35):
on its thigh.
So I'm coming in at 4 am andpainting black spots on the
rabbits.
So it didn't occur.
Naturally it was cheating andthey would come to investigate.
Anyway, this was the second guyand they were obviously

(01:25:58):
suspecting that there might besome cheating going on there,
because they were sure that itcouldn't be true.
So he was the second one, thatwas Walter Stewart, and the
third was James Randi, betterknown as the amazing randy, a
magician, um, and a famousmusician magician at that, not a
musician magician and and uh.
And he was famous for beingable able to uh, to uncover the

(01:26:19):
tricks of other magicians.
So very talented guy.
But, ethically speaking, hewound up offering a prize of a
million dollars for anybody whocould demonstrate water memory.
He would be the judge himself.

That's convenient.

Yeah, so you got three people who were
coming and it was like acommando group coming to your
laboratory, and so theyreproduced the experiment the
first day.
The first day, everythingworked exactly as reported.
The second day they changed theroutine a little bit,
everything worked exactly asreported.
And the third day it was WalterStewart the second one I

(01:27:02):
mentioned who did did theexperiment and it almost worked
but didn't work.
And they, they said thatsometimes it doesn't work and
parenthetically it was that whenthere's a disbeliever there who
does the experiment it doesn'twork.
There's more in that.
But but let that sit for thefor the moment.

(01:27:22):
So they huddled in their hotelroom and they said hey, it looks
like when the French scientistsdo the dilutions and the
experiment, that works.
When we do it it doesn't work.
That is N equals one, oneattempt.
And so they went home and theeditor wrote a piece that they
published and said water, memoryis a quote, delusion, a trick

(01:27:48):
and um.
And from then on, uh,benveniste's career took a
plunge, um, he was considerednon-serious and and there were
jokes.
Uh, you know, hey, you'rehaving trouble remembering.
Drink some of benveniste'swater.
It has memory to it.
So your memory will improve.
You know, hey, you're havingtrouble remembering, drink some
of benveniste water.
It has memory to it, so yourmemory will improve.
You know that sort of thing.
He became a scientific joke, he, he became depressed, um,

(01:28:12):
nobody would listen to him and,uh, he died prematurely,
unfortunately.
So I I know various other peoplewho are involved with that, so
that anyway, I'm saying thisbecause he was really the the
first, the first person um to doserious experiments on water
memory, um, and when he died hehad been a friend of luke

(01:28:35):
montagnier, the guy I mentionedwho came to the nobel laureate.
So he started taking upexperiments where jacques
Benveniste left off and hepresented his experiments and
when you hear from a Nobellaureate you kind of take it

(01:28:57):
seriously, even though JacquesBenveniste was perhaps equally
prominent.
So Luke would do theexperiments and he reported at
our conference and I'll justtell you briefly what he did
because it's so interesting.
He took two sealed containers.
He put them near each other.
The first one had DNA in anaqueous buffer.
That is water with some otheringredients.

(01:29:20):
This is pure water.
Both are absolutely tightlysealed, sealed so there's no
possibility of chemicalcommunication.
And he said this short sequenceof dna, the, the sequence uh,
would be transmitted somehow tothis water.
Um, he didn't say how, but some, maybe an electromagnetic kind
of signal or some kind ofunknown energy.

(01:29:42):
And then he took this, threw itaway.
So he's got the water that hehypothesized has all the
information either from the DNA,from the sequence, or from the
water surrounding the DNA,because he often used dilute,
seriously diluted DNA, and hetested this with the PCR method,

(01:30:04):
the one that's used for COVID,and he found, indeed, that the
sequence of the DNA that wasproduced from this water and all
the precursors that you needwas the same as the original the
water had been sitting next to.
So hardly believed by anybody isthis is too astounding.

(01:30:26):
If true, on the other hand, youknow it's now been repeated and
published by three differentgroups and if if you're willing
to take a repetition byindependent scientists as a sign
of truth and it's a sign oftruth.
So so um luke was at ourconference.
He was very happy because welike like to hear interesting

(01:30:49):
stuff like this.
On the other hand, people beganto hate him for none of that,
but because of his politicalviews, anti-virus views, which
were not really anti-virus butcoming with the idea that if

(01:31:12):
there's a danger that you knowand he was a physician to start
with, and so he was one of theanti-virus movement, and so a
lot of people discredited himfor that and then, unfortunately
, he passed.
So I'm giving you thisinformation because you asked me

(01:31:35):
about water memory.
So Jacques Membiniste producedclear evidence of that.
That has in fact beenreproduced in many laboratories
since then and Lou Montagnier,nobel laureate, produced
evidence that has beenreproduced in other laboratories
.
And each year at this conferencewe have other people who come

(01:31:57):
and use different techniques anddemonstrate that water has the
capacity to store informationand has a memory.
And we ourselves are nowengaged in studying whether this
is the case or not.
We haven't serious results yetbut we're working on it.
We take water and we have ahealer who comes to the

(01:32:19):
laboratory, projects his or herenergy on the water and we
compare the physical chemicalproperties before and after to
see if there's some differencein the water.
So we have no serious resultsyet, but we were embarking on
that, so we'll see if that's thecase.

(01:32:40):
But in our conference Elizabethand I said this year almost
everybody who attends is open tothat point of view that water
may indeed have storedinformation or received the
energy from information-basedenergy in the water.

(01:33:00):
And of course the evidence isthere.
It's just that a lot of peopleare not willing to pay attention
to it.
But the reason I think it'spossible that the information is
stored in EZ water see,ordinary water has randomly

(01:33:22):
oriented molecules bouncingaround.
You wouldn't expect any kind ofinformation to be stored in the
system like that.
That's moving around, uh, and afemtosecond time scale, you
know, and randomly oriented.
But easy water is different.
It has structure to it and ifyou compare the structure of
easy water, where you haveregularly disposed oxygens and

(01:33:45):
hydrogens, forming thosehexagons, they're ordered in two
dimensions and those stacks areordered too, they're ordered in
three dimensions.
It's almost the same as acomputer memory.
If you think about how, ifyou've got a thumb drive that
you're using to storeinformation, you stick into your
laptop.

(01:34:06):
What is it?
Well, it's basically a planarstructure that has transistors
that are packed in it, regularlydisposed in two dimensions, and
each one of the transistors canbe on or off, or zero one, and
it's the array of zeros and onesthat stores the information.

(01:34:28):
Well, the EZ is much the same,except it's a three-dimensional
array, not a two-dimensional,which gives you another
dimension of information, and ithas oxygens and hydrogens, and
the oxygens are known to to havenot two but five different
oxidation states, or chargestates, uh, the, the one that we

(01:34:51):
think of most frequently, thatwe learn in in school, in high
school, I, I guess, minus two,that's the so-called valence.
But oxygen can be not onlyminus two, but it can be minus
one, zero, plus one or plus two,and you can read about that in
any chemistry textbook.
It's not arcane information,but it can have all of those

(01:35:13):
charge states.
So if you think about the EZarray, it's got entities and
regularly disposed entities, theoxygens that can take on
different states, not just twobut five, and you've got it in
three dimensions instead of two,and everything.
So it should have the capacityto store information.
It's very similar to thecomputer memory in that sense

(01:35:40):
and because the structures areat an atomic level rather than a
transistor level, it meansthey're really packed tightly
and we made a calculation if itreally, if the easy really works
the way we think it might work.
It's packed so tightly that theinformation density is
something I think we computedlike a billion times the density

(01:36:04):
that we have now.
So we now have a pretty smalldrive or thumb drive that we can
put in, but in the future, ifwe're right about this, then a
computer could be the size of apinhead.
Wow, yeah, so you asked a shortquestion, I gave a long answer

(01:36:28):
and, to summarize, the answer isthat there's a lot of
information, informationsupporting the idea that water
can store information.
Beyond Emoto and his stuff,which is so interesting, and the
principle of storage, I thinkit lies in the structure of easy

(01:36:50):
water.
So we're looking forward to inthe future.
One of the things that we wouldlike to develop if we ever get
money to support our work andpursuing this is to actually do
what's necessary to develop amemory system, a usable memory
system that's based on easywater, and we can imagine we can

(01:37:12):
now produce easy water that'sin gel form, in solid form
actually.
This was originally found by anItalian group, but we produced
their work, and so we can takeEZ water and convert it into a
solid.
You know you could powder andall you need is add water and
the EZ is restored.
So we can put that into thecomputer memory and that you

(01:37:35):
know you can imagine puttingpowder or something into a
device rather than a gel into adevice, so it may even be
practical.
Okay, I think I need to shut upand wait for your other
questions.

I think what you've explained to our
audience so far is prettyamazing of what water can do and
how to look at the substance,not just a substance that's in
our bodies and just part of usit's.
It has real healing power onall levels and the potentials
for what we can do, whether it'sinformation storage and
everything within us too, andutilizing that to heal ourselves

(01:38:14):
.
I think I think the potentialis endless if we get the
information out I'm I'm reallyexcited about it.

Uh, there's there.
There's so much more to be doneand the limiting factor
actually is funding.
It's really hard to get.
You know, you submit anapplication to a granting agency
and if the reviewers, first ofall, if they don't know about
easy water, they don't have thetime to like, read, read the

(01:38:45):
book or look in the literature,and so it's easy for them to put
that at the bottom of the pileand also the idea that if they
do know about it, they're beingchallenged.

Right.

They don't like to be challenged.
You know they don't like theirstoves.
Their toes are fragile.
Know they don't like theirstoves, their toes are fragile
they don't want to be stepped on, uh, and so the only way that
that we've been able recently toget money is through private
donors.
And you know, and we actuallywe had a donor who read my
fourth phase book, fourth phaseof water, uh, and he sent an

(01:39:20):
emissary, uh, to me to havelunch with me to find out if I
was an okay guy.
He liked the book, he liked thecontents, he loved the contents
, but he didn't know me.
So this guy it wasn't aninterview exactly, but we sat
down over lunch and we had a lotof discussions and we shared a
lot of the same visions and hereported back to the billionaire

(01:39:43):
guy.
He's OK and so soon after wegot very nice funding from him,
but unfortunately, after a fewyears he continued to love what
we were producing, but he saidhe ran into a financial problem
that his assets now were mostly,or almost exclusively, tied
into very large investments thathe couldn't easily convert into

(01:40:06):
cash, and so he had to.
He gave me a year's notice andhe had to stop.
And he's helping to look aroundfor people who might be able to
be in a position to fund us.
So we're really.
It's a statement about thescientific system, you know, and
it's pervaded history, if youdo something that challenges the

(01:40:27):
mainstream thinking, there areconsequences, and for us, main
consequences are trying to getfunding, and so our laboratory
is operating.
It's operating nicely, but notat full speed, and so we look
forward to finding people whohave done well and want to

(01:40:48):
contribute some way to sciencein a meaningful way, and so
we're trying to find suchsupporters.
Anyway, I thought I wouldmention that because it is a
limiting factor.
There are so many things andthe other things you mentioned
that we'd like to do, but youknow, if you don't have the
people to carry out theexperiments, you can't do them
right.

I think getting that information out
there is important too, becausethen the right people will find
it I, I think so, I hope so okay, I have one more question for
you, because I know, I knowwe're running out on time, and
this one's a little different,because I was reading somewhere,
listening, that your next bookis on the structure of the atom
and you come up with analternative model to that.

Yep.

Can you tell us a little bit about that,
as we're kind of questioningeverything that we think of as
kind of the foundation, whetherit's cell, energy or muscle the
subject is dear to my heart.

And, uh, and , as you're suggesting, if you,
you know, if you build on afoundation that's wrong, it's
got cracks in it.
Every structure that you buildon that foundation will be
erroneous.
Um and uh, I guess I really dofeel that way.
So, okay, so think about theatom.

(01:42:10):
This is not complicated stuff.
So what does the atom consistof?
It consists of a nucleus and itconsists of electrons, or
electron clouds that surroundthe nucleus.
And even though the model hasbeen amended again and again and
again by quantum mechanicalconsiderations, still that

(01:42:32):
essence remains.
There's still a nucleus andit's got neutrons and protons
and electrons in variousorbitals around it and they're
negatively charged.
And so the nucleus ispositively charged because it's
got neutrons, which are neutral.
It's got protons, which arepositive, and you know, protons

(01:42:53):
want to repel each other and ifyou put them very close to one
another, the repulsive forcebecomes huge.
The closer they get, the biggerthe force.
Uh, it's an inverse, squarerelationship.
So, you know, you try to takeit's like pushing two north
poles of two magnets together.
I don't want to, we don't wantto be that way.
So it's it.

(01:43:14):
It's like in spades in thenucleus because some of the
heavier atoms.
You're sticking togethernumerous protons right next to
one another, pretty much.
So when you think about it, what?
What do you expect to happen?
Well, the nucleus will explode,right.
But you can't have a stableatom when the nucleus explode.

(01:43:35):
And so the physicists actuallythought about that and they
invented something to remedy theproblem.
So what's the remedy?
Well, the remedy is somethingcalled the strong force.
So this, the physicist saidthere must be.
Since we know that that modelis correct, you know, all the
physicists were ready to acceptit there's got to be something

(01:43:58):
to hold together the nucleus.
And they invented somethingcalled the strong force.
As far as I've ever been ableto see, there's no independent
evidence of a strong force.
It's a kind of glue that doesnothing but hold the nucleus
together and thwarting itstendency to explode.
So this is one problem, butit's not the main problem.

(01:44:21):
You can't have nuclei exploding, otherwise it would be
so-called nuclear explosion, andokay.
Second problem I learned inmiddle school or it was called
junior high at the time and youlearned too, that positive
charge and negative chargeattract each other, right?
So think about it the nucleusis positive, but all those

(01:44:46):
electrons are negative, theyattract one another right, and
so you can imagine theconsequence of that.
That is, the atom will contractto nothing.
All these electrons wouldcoalesce on the nucleus and you

(01:45:06):
have no atom left.
You have just a spot left, atiny spot.
So you've got two basicproblems.
One is the problem of that thenucleus will want to explode
unless you invent something toprevent it, and the electrons
will want to collapse onto thenucleus and you've got no atom

(01:45:26):
left.
So the construct is unstable.
But there's more.
Suppose you're a random electronthat comes into an atom, and
first thing is you have tofigure out.
There are orbitals this is partof the theory.
The first one has two electrons, the next one has eight, and so
on, and you've got to figureout.

(01:45:47):
In theory you're supposed toland on one of these orbitals,
and you've got to figure outwhether the orbital has seven or
eight, because if it has seven,yeah, you want to land there,
or it says you should be landingthere, but if it has eight you
can't.
How are you going to figurethat out?
You're an electron and also,since you're an electron, you

(01:46:09):
repel other electrons, and thelast thing you want to do is
join one of those orbitals withother electron neighbors nearby
where you prefer to sit inbetween the orbitals.
But that's not allowed in themodel, so you've got a problem
there.
Finally, there are more, butmost atoms.

(01:46:29):
At room temperature they formsolids.
So my laptop sitting here is Ithink it's aluminum.
So you take two aluminum atomsin order to get a solid I should
say 90% of atoms in theperiodic table.
At room temperature they formsolids, which means the atoms

(01:46:50):
need to stick to one another,otherwise you can't get a solid,
right, um and so?
So I'm giving an aluminum as anexample, two aluminum atoms.
They need to have a a strongtendency to stick together to
form a solid.
Now think about it the outershell here is electrons and the

(01:47:11):
outer shell here is electrons.
You bring these two atomstogether.
They don't want to join oneanother, they want to repel each
other, and so how are theygoing to form a solid?
And the chemistry textbook sayssomething about sharing
electrons, but I could neverfigure out how sharing electrons
solves this problem.
So I mean it's a real problem.

(01:47:34):
So there's a multitude of verysimple problems that impact the
theory of this.
On the other hand, you hand themodel's been around for five or
six generations.
Five, yeah, well, it was early1900s and typically we think if
it's been in the textbooks forfive generations, there's no

(01:47:56):
question that it must be right,and we presume most of us
presume that it must be right.
But if it's right, you need toaddress these fundamental
problems and therefore I thinkit's not right and I think we've
been deluded into thinking thatit's right, and we've built so
much of science on the pretextor the presumption that it must

(01:48:20):
be right.
But it leads to mechanisms thatare very complicated, and
usually you know, if we takeOccam's razor principle, that
you've got two ideas and thesimpler one is likely to prevail
, and that's pervaded sciencefor ever since Newton thought it
was a good idea to take thistheological idea, originally

(01:48:42):
from Sir William of Ockham, andtranslate it into a scientific
paradigm or way of thinking.
Everybody believed it untilabout 100 years ago, with the
advent of quantum mechanics.
And quantum mechanics nobody canunderstand, because there's no
understanding, it's pureabstract mathematics.
And so if you're an expert inmathematics, you can deal with

(01:49:07):
quantum mechanics.
If you're not an expert, youhave to rely on all those smart
physicists who you presume theyknow what they're talking about.
They know what they're doingand they're dealing with the
intricacies of quantum mechanicsas amendments to the structure
of the atom.
And there are some observationsto speak for the positivity of

(01:49:29):
quantum mechanics, but there areothers that say no.
No, this is that Mother Naturedoesn't operate with abstract
mathematics.
Mother Nature operates onsimple principles and I guess
I'm a believer in the simpleprinciple idea.
So so the atom, even as amended, modified, still we have the

(01:49:54):
same basic construct of nucleusand electrons and for the
reasons I spoke to you andothers, doesn't work.
So something else has to work,and the book first of all
describes the problems and thenit describes something else, and
I think that something else isprimarily a cubic structure of

(01:50:16):
atom.
You know, if you have cubicstructures, you can put two of
them together nicely and jointhem without any intervening
space.
If you take two spheres, likethe current idea, and you try to
bring them together, they meetat one point.
The rest of it is open space.
What's in the open space?
Nobody has been talking aboutthe open space, but the cubic

(01:50:40):
model explains that.
It explains how you're able tostick two atoms together If you
have positive charge I'msimplifying positive charge on
this face negative charge.
They stick together very easilyand they'll maintain their
stickiness.
A few chapters describing howthis simple model can explain

(01:51:10):
many features of modern physicsand chemistry in very simple
ways.
And what I discovered this isthe final point, I'm sorry,
going on and on, but what wediscovered, what I discovered
after I'd written a draft ofthis book and like other books
that I'm in the process ofproducing and my son is the
artist, and he decided to takethree and a half years to
remodel his home because hisfamily is growing, which means I

(01:51:34):
have no artists for three and ahalf years, which means I can
draft books, you know, and it'sjust waiting in line.
So so, um, a book is coming outsoon about the effect of, uh,
electrical charge in nature.
Um, and then the adam book, isis the next one, but it's been.
It's been uh, wait, waitingthere and um, um, so some some,

(01:51:58):
he's a great artist and someillustrations need to be, but
you know, I think this is thisbook is is, um, uh, what I was
going to say is I discoveredafter the book was written that,
um, the same idea came from oneof the most famous chemists a
hundred years ago.

(01:52:18):
Um, I, I was actually notthinking that.
Oh, I'm just repeating whatthis guy did because I found it
independently.
I came to the same idea, but ifyou know the history, which
most people don't know, it wasthe era of physics and the

(01:52:39):
previous century was the era ofchemistry.
But with Einstein and NielsBohr and other Max Planckans who
came, it became to be the eraof physics, and so physics
dominated the scene.
And Niels Bohr, who was thearchitect of this structure, he
was ultra-famous anddistinguished.

(01:53:00):
And so, since it was the era ofphysics, the physicists liked
this particular idea, thisso-called solar system model,
and then they went on to modifyit with quantum mechanics.
But the chemists hated it.
And so the two most famouschemists of the day, gn Lewis

(01:53:21):
and Irving Langmuir, who arelegends in the field of
chemistry, and they said this isnonsense.
And I found something from Lewisin one of his notebooks.
It shows the structure ofdifferent atoms with cubical
shapes with electrons at thecorner.
It's not exactly the same asI'm suggesting, but the idea is

(01:53:46):
so similar that I found myselfextremely gratified to see that
among the most famous chemistsof the day, who rejected the
physics model, saying it justdoesn't explain the simplest of
chemical reactions you know.
So it can't be right.
So that gave me a boost ofenergy.
Anyway, I'm looking forward tothe publication.

(01:54:07):
I know that among physicists itwill not be well received, but
that's okay.
I have to put forth what Ithink is maybe close to the
truth.
So I'm sorry for my long-windedanswers to your short questions
.

Well, that was an intense question,
especially to end with, but Ithink everything you've given
today will help people questionthings, and question kind of
things that they might havetaken for granted or just
believed, because that was whatit was, rather than what really
science is, which is questioning, stepping back and not
attaching to what we know andsaying is this right, does this

(01:54:46):
make sense?
So I think you brought a lot ofgreat points too.

Well, thank you for that, and I fully agree
with you.
I think that's probably themost important take-home message
what you read in the textbookis not necessarily right.

Mm-hmm, yeah, so having the ability to
question it and the courage tospeak out or say something about
it, even though most peopledon't really want to hear the
other side.

That's the other thing, that's right yeah,
we feel comfortable in in thesort of a sphere of
understanding that we have, thatwe learned, that we thought
about.
If someone says, oh you, thatballoon has a hole in it, it
doesn't sit right mostly.
It's too bad, because you know Ithink that we need to change

(01:55:33):
the system.
The system needs serious changebecause you know it doesn't
produce scientific revolutions.
We need scientific revolutionsto improve our world.
The world has so many problemsand usually if you have a
scientific revolution, almostalways there's some new
technology that comes out of ityou could never even dream of
before that revolution, like,for example, discovering at Bell

(01:55:59):
Laboratories 80 or 90 years agosemiconductors.
Who would ever have thoughtthat semiconductors could lead
to laptops and zoomcommunications?
Uh, you know, but that's whathappened.
And uh, you know.
And and other similardiscoveries.
They they lead to technologicalapplications and those

(01:56:22):
applications can do a lot forour society, especially now that
we have so many societalproblems that need solution, and
some of them obviously will besolved through political,
hopefully solved throughpolitical means.
But other than that, scientificinput into that can solve some

(01:56:43):
of the more or even most seriousproblems, like getting getting
drinkable water, getting energythose are all into the realm of
science.
Yet you know there can be warsover water, and I think there
already are to some extentgetting getting water.
So, yes, the most importanttake-home message is, I think,

(01:57:04):
is retain an open mind.
If something doesn't make senseto you, it doesn't mean that
you're stupid.
It may mean that the ideadoesn't have any merit at all.
It's just humans that inventthese ideas.
And you know we all pee in thesame pot.
So there we go.

Exactly.

Okay, I hope that does it yes.

Thank you so much for coming on today and
sharing everything with ourreaders.

I greatly appreciate it my pleasure and
thanks for those great questions.

Okay, thank you, bye.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.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;}Dr. Gerald Pollack: Diving into the Mysteries of Water's Fourth Phase and its Revolutionary Health Implications

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Dr. Gerald Pollack: Diving into the Mysteries of Water's Fourth Phase and its Revolutionary Health Implications

Crime Junkie