Optimizing H2O: Structured water, primary water, dna water, etc

[KHashmi317]

First ... a huge shout out to Alex Jones for inspiring my last topical thread in "General ...'" sub-forum .. the one on Vaccine injury ...

Staying on the fringes of quackery and pseudoscience -- or science fiction, if you prefer -- lets kick off this lesson with a video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/POmLgxSe7YVZ/

The video channel is owned by the same Thomas Cowan as noted here:

https://calmatters.org/health/2021/02/conspiracy-theory-doctor-surrenders-medical-license/

Quote

Thomas Cowan, a purveyor of debunked theories, can no longer practice medicine in California. He plans to become an “unlicensed health coach.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cowan_(alternative_medicine_practitioner)

Edited September 10, 2021 by KHashmi317

[KHashmi317]

STRUCTURED water (aka Hexagonal water) ... some published research:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33640985/

Review J Anim Sci 
. 2021 May 1;99(5):skab063. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab063.
Structured water: effects on animals

[KHashmi317]

"Your Body's Many Cries For Water"  by Dr. Batmanghelidj, M.D. .. that was a "best selling" book on the topic or water and human health. The late Dr. Batmanghelidj summarized some main points here in 2004:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fereydoon_Batmanghelidj

https://quackwatch.org/11ind/batman/

[Saul]

Hi Khurram!

Why are you so fascinated with Quaks?

  --  Saul

[KHashmi316]

2 hours ago, Saul said:

Hi Khurram!

Why are you so fascinated with Quaks?

  --  Saul

Good question!!

They think outside the box. I recall some dude called Roy Walford had some radical ideas 😉

Mainstream science still questions the efficacy of CR in humans… in spite of all the animal data, Okinawans , etc.

[Mike41]

19 hours ago, KHashmi316 said:

Good question!!

They think outside the box. I recall some dude called Roy Walford had some radical ideas 😉

Mainstream science still questions the efficacy of CR in humans… in spite of all the animal data, Okinawans , etc.

I tend to agree Khurram. Science is like a club and the members tend to think in scientism ways. Almost like a religion. The whole spooky quantum thing and the overwhelming evidence for paranormal experiences like NDEs and OBE’s is quite compelling and challenges the scientific reductionist materialist position on the mind/brain/consciousness phenomenon. Thankfully there are scientists out there who are quite respectable who are investigating these things and willing to take the heat and think outside the scientism box. However I do have a problem with some of your sources and on that I’m with Saul!
 

 

[Dean Pomerleau]

On 9/10/2021 at 8:47 PM, KHashmi316 said:

Good question!!

They think outside the box. I recall some dude called Roy Walford had some radical ideas 😉

Mainstream science still questions the efficacy of CR in humans… in spite of all the animal data, Okinawans , etc.

It isn't "mainstream science" that questions the efficacy of CR in humans, it is the scientific evidence that has piled up since Roy's untimely death (discussed at length here), including the disappointing results of the CR monkey trials and the inconsistency of CR benefits even in rodents of different strains (including non-f*cked up wild-type mice) that has undermined the idea that CR is will dramatically extend human longevity. 

[On related side note - do you find it ironic that the only good evidence for CR longevity benefits come from studies of lab mice, which your buddy and fellow iconoclast Bret Weinstein calls "genetic freaks" and who likes to blather on about how bad they are as a model for human disease and aging? Because mainstream science has heavily relied on evidence from studies of messed up lab mice, the one thing Bret agrees with Aubrey de Grey on is that CR won't significantly extend human lifespan (pdf) ] 

Roy was a true scientist. I like to think he would have come to the same conclusion as other longevity researchers when the evidence became clear that lifelong severe CR will at best add a few years to human lifespan relative to a healthy, obesity-avoiding diet and lifestyle (e.g. that of the mostly-vegetarian, normal-weight Adventists) and distanced himself from the hype he wrote in Beyond the 120-Year Diet shortly before he died, like:

"... [T]he CRON diet will retard your rate of aging and extend lifespan (up to perhaps 150 to 160 years depending on when you start and how thoroughly you hold to it)...

It does Roy's memory and his body of work a serious disservice to make an analogy between him and the cadre of conspiracy theorists, discredited MDs and "health coaches" who promote the ideas and treatments you've been sharing lately. I think his daughter Lisa would feel the same way. I was heartened to see from her blog that she is following the science - her newly-reopened yoga center requires both masks and proof of vaccination for all participants.

Her co-author on The Longevity Diet, Roy's friend and founding member and President(?) of the CR Society, Brian Delaney is also following the science. He admits at 16:00 of this 2019 video that Roy's extremely bold predictions about the benefits of CR for humans were "almost certainly a mistake" (citing the studies of CR in non-human primates) but modestly and honestly says the evidence suggests "[CR] will almost certainly slow aging at least a bit." Lately he's been working on covid challenge trials and open source vaccines.

--Dean

[Saul]

1 hour ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

I think his daughter Lisa would feel the same way. I was heartened to see from her blog that she is following the science - her newly-reopened yoga center requires both masks and proof of vaccination for all participants.

 

I'm glad to hear that Lisa Walford is back to being active, and that she has re-opened her yoga center.

However, I, like Michael Rae and Khurram Hashimi, am more optimistic about the potential life-extension possibilities of serious CR.

  --  Saul

[KHashmi316]

45 minutes ago, Saul said:

 

However, I, like Michael Rae and Khurram Hashimi, am more optimistic about the potential life-extension possibilities of serious CR.

  --  Saul

Yes… and CR improves everyday life, too: sense of well being, etc.

About serious/hard core CR… well, as I noted on the List waaaaaaay back when… my panels (lipids, wbc, etc.) did not change / improve significantly until my weight went below 120 lbs. I’m about 6’1” so … yeah… heavy duty CR all the way, baby 😉

 

[AlanPater]

3 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Brian Delaney is also following the science. He admits at 16:00 of this 2019 video that Roy's extremely bold predictions about the benefits of CR for humans were "almost certainly a mistake" (citing the studies of CR in non-human primates) but modestly and honestly says the evidence suggests "[CR] will almost certainly slow aging at least a bit."

I agree that human CR producing a 150 years' lifespan is wrong but carefully done CR will provide significantly more than "a few years"' extra lifespan.  Just look at the lab and clinical results of CR Society members.

Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans.
Fontana L, et al.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004. PMID: 15096581 Free PMC article.

[Dean Pomerleau]

8 hours ago, AlanPater said:

I agree that human CR producing a 150 years' lifespan is wrong but carefully done CR will provide significantly more than "a few years"' extra lifespan.  Just look at the lab and clinical results of CR Society members.

Compared with what? Definitely more than a few years compared to the standard western diet and lifestyle, as shown by the Wisconsin monkey trial. But very likely only a few years (if that) when compared to a healthy obesity-avoiding diet and lifestyle like practiced by the Adventists, as illustrated by the NIA monkey trial. 

--Dean 

[Dean Pomerleau]

9 hours ago, KHashmi316 said:

my panels (lipids, wbc, etc.) did not change / improve significantly until my weight went below 120 lbs. I’m about 6’1” so … yeah… heavy duty CR all the way, baby 😉

Maybe that's because too much of your diet consists of highly-processed, pig-fat-laden Purina monkey chow with too much protein and added methionine. 

I know you also eat a lot of veggies, but maybe your blood work would improve without the need for such severe CR if you ditched the monkey chow and started eating a wider variety of healthy whole plant foods like legumes, nuts, seeds, avocados, fruits and whole grains.

-Dean 

[Saul]

4 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Maybe that's because too much of your diet consists of highly-processed, pig-fat-laden Purina monkey chow with too much protein and added methionine. 

Dean,

As Michael Rae note in a post,  the "Monkey Chow" is just a small supplement to Khurram''s diet:  He eats almost exclusively raw vegetables.

  --  Saul

 

[Saul]

16 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

including the disappointing results of the CR monkey trials

Hi Dean!

In one of the last meetings of the CR Society -- which we both attended -- one of the invited speakers addressed this, when asked about it (I think by you).  The monkey trial conducted by the NIA, which showed "little benefit" to a CR diet, was, in fact, deeply flawed.  As it turned out, the invited speaker who had been involved in observing the study, noted that the researchers conducting the study found that they didn't have enough monkeys -- so they obtained additional monkeys, not of the same geographic area, and of different breeds.  These were not balanced between the CR group and the control group; not in race, country of origin, or gender.

Result:  This study waa of little, if, any worth.

  --  Saul

[KHashmi316]

31 minutes ago, Saul said:

Dean,

As Michael Rae note in a post,  the "Monkey Chow" is just a small supplement to Khurram''s diet:  He eats almost exclusively raw vegetables.

  --  Saul

 

Right!!

And more importantly, those panels were done over 12 years BEFORE I began using chow. And my daily protein then — whey, etc. — was at least 15% higher than in the last 10 years. 

Even if protein restriction had some LE bennies — ??? —- most accounts on carnivore or Atkins diets note that people feel better on ‘em.

”Calories, calories, calories.” 

Duh!!

[Saul]

😀

[KHashmi316]

The full May 2021 paper (Journal of Animal Science) on the benefits of SW:

https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/99/5/skab063/6152506

Quote

Conclusions

Magnetic field strengths used to treat water vary from 500 to 32,400 G, with duration of treatment ranging from seconds (magnetic flow-through systems using several high field strength magnets) to 72 hr using small volumes with static, low field strength magnets. Inadequate water treatment results in no or minimal biological effect, whereas excessive treatment may be associated with adverse effects (see below). Based on the results of the studies presented below, a magnetic field strength of 1,000 to 3,000 G is required to generate water capable of exerting beneficial effects, while waters treated with field strengths greater than 5,000 G may result in detrimental effects. Future studies need to provide detailed methodology and some key physico-chemical properties that are changed by the structuring process, and the duration of structural stability. Future research needs to determine the water treatment conditions that optimize for specific biological outcomes and the researchers must measure and report several key indicators that demonstrate water structuring. The latter, in particularly, would be most helpful in performing comparison between studies. The animal research conducted to date consistently demonstrated beneficial effects of SW consumption. Additional research is needed to demonstrate how these effects occur, and if these types of SWs are safe to consume and use over the long term.

There have been various marketed SW devices out for quite some time. They tend to be pricey ... Google "structured water" and you may encounter devices that look like:

Quote

Structured water, sometimes called magnetized or hexagonal water, refers to water with a structure that has supposedly been altered to form a hexagonal cluster. ... According to structured water proponents, this type of water exists naturally in mountain springs, glacier melt, and other untouched sources.

 

[Saul]

Sounds like bullshit to me.

  --  Saul