THE ZEOLITE ‘CHELATION’ AND BODILY CLEANSING CONUNDRUM;
Questions Demanding Answers:
Much has been recently said about the ability of zeolite to rid the body of toxins. How true is this?
Zeolite is a naturally-occurring mineral. It is found in some soils and in deposits all over the world. As a MSc. in soil science and a practicing field agronomist for 45 years, I have dealt extensively with zeolite for over three decades, and I believe that I can safely say that I know what it can and cannot do.
I have a well-founded background in biology and chemistry and always took interest in medical, health and wellness issues. I am therefore familiar with scientific literature from both medical as well as naturopathic perspectives, and I know how scientific data and conclusions can and should be presented.
Moreover, in the last 2 to 3 years, with all the talk about graphene, all the contrasting reports, misinformation and disinformation flying around from all sides, I had to use my own scientific knowledge to delve into the myths and facts and listened to the words of the experts in that field.
In this article however, I am not going to discuss whether or not graphene has been insidiously pushed into our bodies. I will restrict my comments to whether or not zeolite is able to remove graphene in any given situation as a starting point.
I am backing up my argument(s) herein with easy-to-check references using Wikipedia. And even though this is a technical discussion, my argument is written in a manner that is easy to comprehend even by those of little or no science background.
I am writing this because I have come across a video that promotes a ‘protocol’ using zeolite to ‘pull out graphene’ and other nasty chemicals from human bodies: "Masterpeace test removing foreign substance from blood with Dr. Carrie Madej"
At face value, the video alleges to offer a masterpiece solution (hence the name Masterpeace) to allay the fears of very concerned people who have lost trust in much of what was dished out to them. However, I feel rather uncomfortable with the manner is which data figures were presented and many conclusions drawn from the studies done.
On the above bases, and after watching the 33 min video, I felt that it didn’t provide satisfactory information and that it presented more questions than answers. This is why I decided to give the podcasters the chance to explain themselves and hopefully allay my concerns. This is why I am asking the promoters of this ‘protocol’ the following questions:
a. What procedure have you followed to conclusively detect and measure the level of graphene in blood when eminent scientists in the field proclaim that no such tests are available? I am asking for the specific names of both quantitative and qualitative tests.
b. Why are you withholding the name of the lab that has done the tests? The reason you gave does not seem rational. By revealing the name of the lab, you can add much credibility to your claim all the while put the onus of explaining how the figures were obtained on the lab instead of yourselves.
c. Even at face value, the data sheets presented are questionable to say the least. To be begin with, the tables are not itemised in a manner that clearly explains what is what. Secondly, figures presented on a separate table on the right side are very obscure. I had to work out that they are the individual figures before they were averaged. However, it is still unclear to me if they are based on analytical data collected from the same person over a period of time, or otherwise data collected from different people. But this is not all because in either case, many of the readings you reported are identical to the fifth significant figure. Anyone who has passed
Biology or Chemistry 101 with a D knows that this is a virtual impossibility. Presented below is one of many tables with highlighted 7 colour-coded pairs of exact figures.
I have consulted with a friend with a much more superior medical knowledge and experience to mine, and she assured me that if one gives two blood samples from two different veins the results will not be identical to such level of accuracy. Such identical figures are not restricted to the table above. They are present in all of your data.
What is your explanation?
d. Where did you get the standards for the levels of the items you have analysed in the blood in a manner that can accurately describe them as ‘tolerable’, ‘borderline’ ‘high’ and ‘very high’?
e. Zeolite is one of many naturally-existing aluminosilicate minerals that adsorb cations (ie positively charged particles) by virtue of its Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC). Are you familiar with this term? The reason I ask is because you did not make any reference to it even though it is central to the properties of zeolite.
f. Zeolite has a high CEC because of its hollow 3D structure giving it a higher surface area than say muscovite, montmorillonite and other sheet-type aluminosilicates. This brings into question the physical size of the 3D frame. This is an essential determinant that decides what particles it is able to hold within its frame and what particles it cannot. Your presentation did not make any reference to this.
g. To sum up points e & f, zeolite is capable of adsorbing certain positively charged entities by a process called ‘Cationic Exchange’.
h. Zeolite therefore is not a chelating agent as referred to in your presentation. On what basis was it referred to as such?
i. Chelation and Cationic Exchange are two different things. How can you explain that your presentation did not seem to understand the difference? Do you know the difference?
j. But even if one uses a real chelating agent such as EDTA, DTPA or anything else, such molecules electrostatically attracts all positively charged ionic particles (i.e cations). This includes cations of the essential elements calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, potassium, manganese and copper. In other words, if they can indeed chelate out toxic substances, they will equally lead to electrolyte depletion. Have you monitored the levels of electrolytes in your patients’ serum and if you haven’t, can you explain why? Admittedly, there is a mention of iron levels, but no discussion or explanation was given.
Can you explain why?
k. What is the underlying electrostatic explanation of the alleged ability of zeolite to bind and remove polyethylene and polypropylene from the body given that they are not positively charged particles?
l. Your data refer to graphene oxide in terms of moles; nanomoles to be specific. How do you define what is a graphene mole? Is it in reference to a single carbon atom or a benzene ring? I need to know so I can make further calculations to your many claims and ask you more questions.
m. How do you administer zeolite? It can’t ‘purify’ blood unless it is the blood stream. In such case, it will need to be taken intravenously. It seems however that your ‘Masterpeace’ product is oral. How does it get absorbed
into the villi of the intestine when it is such a huge molecule?
n. Your presentation made an astonishing representation that the zeolite in the ‘Masterpeace’ product can be in particles as small as 1nanometer (nm) and as big as a whole cell. In reality, according to Wikipedia, ‘zeolites have microporous structures with a typical diameter of 0.3–0.8 nm’.
Zeolite - Wikipedia
This size is only that of the pore. It doesn’t include the silica and alumina around it that create it. A whole unit would be at least 3 times the size but I wasn’t able to find confirmation for this that I can quote. However, it must be kept in mind that single units of this complex chemical structure don’t exist naturally and cannot be created artificially. Physically-speaking therefore, a zeolite nano-particle cannot be as small as 1 nm. Your claim lacks scientific foundation and credibility.
On the other extreme of the size equation, a cell-size zeolite particle is too big for the intestine to absorb. Your argument falls down on both counts unless you can explain. Can you?
o. In your presentation, it was suggested that the nasty components removed by zeolite eventually get excreted in the urine. If the whole idea of the alleged chelation is about physically trapping harmful chemicals and removing them from the blood serum by binding them virtually irreversibly to the zeolite particle, how do they end up in solution? Does the zeolite release its load in the kidneys? Doesn’t this put the load back into the serum and defeat the purpose Can you please explain how do they end up in the urine?
p. The final point is about particle size. Graphene is comprised of sheets of many benzene rings each of which is about the size of the hollow inside the zeolite structure. A single benzene ring therefore is theoretically an entity that can be trapped by zeolite. But graphene is made up of many of those entities. There is no limit as to how many of those rings can exist in the molecular structure of graphene, a hundred, two hundred, a thousand? There is really no limit as such. In reality, one needs at least a couple of dozens of those rings in a cluster before it can even be called graphene; after all, a single ring is benzene, a double ring is naphthalene, a triple
ring anthracene and so forth. There is a hoard of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with multitudes of benzene rings and they still do not qualify to be referred to as graphene. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon -Wikipedia. A graphene nano-particle is expected to have 100-300 nm in size, i.e 100-300 the size of the pore space within zeolite that is alleged to have the capacity to trap it. Am I correct in saying that this would be like trying to catch elephants using mouse traps?
q. At the surface, your presentation seems to be designed to appeal to people who have lost confidence in many aspects of what has been dished out to them. Feeling vulnerable, they ended up deeply concerned about how to help themselves and their loved ones. You seem to be representing yourselves in a manner that offers solutions, but you are not making a proper scientific representation of your claims anymore than you are explaining to your audience what your ‘protocol’ is all about and how much does it cost. Do you have any comments to make here?
2 comments:
I had been thinking that the claims for zeolite in the MasterPeace solution seemed too good to be true, but I have been away from chemistry for a while and it would take time to get back up to speed to work out the details. You have presented this logically with a sense of honesty and fairness, especially for those who are wondering what we need to do to protect ourselves, if anything. At this point, it is beginning to feel like there's an invisible boogeyman (graphene) and a snake oil solution (MasterPeace). Unless better information comes to light to answer some of the questions you pose or refute some of the conclusions, I'll pass, thanks to you and your diligence. Bravo!
Thank you for this article!! I am a naturopathic nutritionist and this stuff is being promoted everywhere which makes me very wary.
I contacted the retailers of another similar product asking for proof of excretion of the zeolite from the body but was ignored. I am no expert on zeolite however what I have seen in the medical literature is enough for me to ask some serious questions about what happens in the kidneys.
Post a Comment