1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Bulletproof Podcast Follow Up - 5 Months Later albeit

Discussion in 'Redox Rx' started by Jennie, Sep 30, 2014.

  1. Jennie

    Jennie Gold

  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Yes when I get to the hydrogen bonding blog...........Dr. Simpson will be quite embarrassed.
     
  3. Harvey Cheyne Jr.

    Harvey Cheyne Jr. New Member

    Specifically what in

    https://www.jackkruse.com/quantum-biology-5-coherent-water/

    should embarrass Dr. Simpson?

    Here are what I think are Simpson's objections and what (if I understand Jack's reasoning) might be Jack's explanations, if I understand him correctly.



    Simpson seems to be objecting to the lack of peer review for Pollack's work (if Pollack's right, he's right so we don't care about peer review necessarily).

    Pushing electrons around is easy but protons are a different story....." ( is Jack saying that Simpson is unaware of/doesn't understand tunneling ?)

    "Equating a piece of metal in a microwave oven to the effect wifi EMF has on a protein-complexed transition metal is a significant leap " (Jack was not equating, he was making an analogy?)

    "it is my understanding that the frequencies you are referring to are only in the realm of the rotational/vibrational modes and not able to excite electrons to higher valence states" (would Jack say that the quantum level electron events of the biological process are happening anyway, and the EMF is just interfering with what was happening already? I.e., speeding up the rate of giving electrons to or taking electrons from one place to another, or affecting electrons' rotation/vibration )

    And then Simpson tees up the ball on Pollack's nose and hits his drive:

    "Pollack claims that EZ water is something new and mysterious. H3O2 is not new as Pollack claims. A simple search of H3O2 provides numerous academic papers on the subject showing how its coordination chemistry. " (would Jack say that if Pollack was not aware of H3O2 in the same manner as any academic chemist would be, it is because he's not an academic chemist but it doesn't mean his conclusions about it's significance are wrong)

    "-If the entire cell was negatively charged, our cells would repel each other and our bodies would fall apart. (High school physics, Coloumbs Law). Further our cells would not work. There are many processes in the cell that are dependent on very small charge differences." ( I don't have an answer to this; I can only ask, was Pollack right or wrong about that, and if wrong, does it negate the rest of what Pollack said, or what Jack has said? Or is it that there are relative levels of negativity depending on the number of electrons at any given time, such that at any given time, some cells or organelles are relatively more negative than or relatively more positive than their neighbors?
    And this creates a current which then powers other processes? And/or the cell is negative and the liquid crystals of the collagen or lymph are positive ?)



    - Proteins have both electrophilic and nucleophilic (read somewhat positively charged and somewhat negatively charged). To have an entire solvation shell that is negatively charged does not make sense (True? Are they balanced by neighboring positively charged shells?)

    - Even if the solvation shell was negatively charged with "EZ water" alone, how this suddenly makes the entire cell negatively charged is beyond me.
    First off, what happened to the balancing positive charge shell? It magically disappeared? Secondly, the size of a protein and the size of the cell are of the order of magnitudes different. The localised structure around a protein does not translate to the entire cell. It's tiny in comparison to the cell. (Is this a good point? Or is it just that the electrons are moving all through the cell and its organelles so that various parts are always relatively more or less negative than their neighbor depending on what the electrons are doing in the whole cell or in any part of it at that moment? )

    - Solvation shells are extremely transient. They change on the level of pico seconds. So "EZ water" structure would not last for more than pico seconds should you manage to magically ingest it. (So, Jack said "researchers at Max Born Institute and the University of Toronto discovered that ultrafast resonant energy transfer takes place in water via dipole coupling in the H-bonded network." I.e., yes, it happens quickly, and it happens all the time, in fact, continuously, and it's that constant motion that interacts with the energy from outside the system, such as the frequency of the nnEMF coming into your body's cells from your smartphone, etc. and your state of health depends on how many electrons you have available to power all these processes)

    - Solvation shells have many layers, not just 1 layer (or "charge countering layer" as Pollack mentions and then conveniently forgets about) ( I don't have an answer to this; I can only ask, was Pollack right or wrong about that, and if wrong, does it negate the rest of what Pollack said, or what Jack has said?)

    - Yes water does behave interestingly at interfaces whether it's the border of a bottle or sounding [sic] a protein [did he mean 'surrounding a protein'?]. This is very well known and not some mysterious process as claimed by Pollack. But these can only be investigated using complicated molecular calculations. In fact because Pollack claims quantum mechanical processes are at work here the only way to studies these effects would be through QM/MM or QM/MD calculations such as Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics. (See http://scitation.aip.org/conte... as an example). Modelling an entire protein and its solvation shells at this level is beyond our current computational power for all but the smallest proteins."
    (the Optimal Model does not model at that level, because the ability to observe and measure and compute these QM events doesn't exist for in vitro situations, but their presence is suggested by QM and revealed [or implied] by larger scale biological events we can see and measure.)

    So, *how does https://www.jackkruse.com/quantum-biology-5-coherent-water/ embarrass Dr. Simpson?* Am I on the right track here?

    thanks in advance for the explanation, whoever can chime in here.

    Harv



    =======================

    Simpson's comments, copied from the podcast comments so you don't have to look them up:


    https://blog.bulletproof.com/87-how...ith-dr-jack-kruse-podcast/#comment-1380701710

    An interesting podcast but some of this seems a bit of a stretch. Can you provide peer reviewed scientific journal articles for some of the topics mentioned (books don't count as a book doesn't necessarily go through the same rigorous scientific review process)? Particularly entropy causing inflation? I don't understand that jump.

    Secondly the change in water density with the change in electrical current when Dave put a battery to his foot? Sounded to me like you didn't even have a closed circuit so it wouldn't have done anything. But how this would lead to a change in water density is beyond me. Density is a function of temperature volume and pressure. I don't see any of these variables changing with a change in a miniscule amount of current if that circuit was closed. Perhaps I misheard, I was driving at the time.

    Further, some of the comments on the movement of electrons and protons around the body were made as if they're almost equivalent in nature, just oppositely charged. Pushing electrons around is easy but protons are a different story.....

    And then there's the conversation about transition metals. Equating a piece of metal in a microwave oven to the effect wifi EMF has on a protein-complexed transition metal is a significant leap .... if you want to talk about quantum mechanics, then the quantum environment of a bonded transition metal is significantly different to that of an alloy. At any rate, the sparking in a microwave is caused by the dielectric breakdown of air in the microwave due to the metal reflecting the microwaves and charge build up at the edges of the metal and not a direct effect of something within the metal itself. Further quantum mechanics is exactly that, for an electron of an atom to be effected it needs a specific quanta (read frequencies) of electromagnetic radiation. What is the frequency of the EMF that you are referring to because it is my understanding that the frequencies you are referring to are only in the realm of the rotational/vibrational modes and not able to excite electrons to higher valence states (like Xrays)?

    Not claiming to be an expert and very happy to be pointed out where my understanding is incorrect or simply misheard but with a Ph.D. in computational chemistry I found some of this just too much of a very long stretch to believe. Some academic papers would be most grateful. Thanks

    ==


    https://blog.bulletproof.com/87-how...ith-dr-jack-kruse-podcast/#comment-1382480417

    Following on from my previous comment, I listened to an interview with Gerald Pollack. This is complete and utter pseudoscience and both Gerald Pollack and Jack Kruse show a lack of the basic understandings of quantum mechanics and solvation of solutes

    How Jack Kruse can pontificate about EMF and the effects of microwave radiation and yet show clearly no understanding of how a microwave oven works is beyond me. Then preaching Gerald Pollack's work again shows no understanding of basic chemistry and physics.

    Gerald Pollack claims that EZ water is something new and mysterious. H3O2 is not new as Pollack claims. A simple search of H3O2 provides numerous academic papers on the subject showing how its coordination chemistry. Here're a few papers (there are a plethora available):
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
    http://scitation.aip.org/conte...
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...

    Gerald Pollack's research is hardly peer reviewed. Publishing your research in a book or in your own journal (he's the founder and editor of the journal Water) does not meet the basics of the peer review process. Why has he not published his "revolutionary" work in prestigious journals with huge impact values which would give far greater impact of his work reach the masses in journals such as Nature, PNAS, or any of the other leading scientific journals if it is able to stand up to the scrutiny of the peer review process?

    Looking at what Pollack's states about EZ water: He states the EZ water forms solvation shells around a solute and that there is balancing positive charge around this negative solvation shell. And from there suddenly leaps to the fact that cells are negatively charged and the entire body has a negative charge. Here's a brief summary of what is wrong with Pollack's claims:

    - Any first year chemistry student knows that there are more than 3 phases of water without Pollack's new phase which immediate shows Pollack's lack of knowledge of chemistry.

    -If the entire cell was negatively charged, our cells would repel each other and our bodies would fall apart. (High school physics, Coloumbs Law). Further our cells would not work. There are many processes in the cell that are dependent on very small charge differences.

    - Proteins have both electrophilic and nucleophilic (read somewhat positively charged and somewhat negatively charged). To have an entire solvation shell that is negatively charged does not make sense

    - Even if the solvation shell was negatively charged with "EZ water" alone, how this suddenly makes the entire cell negatively charged is beyond me. First off, what happened to the balancing positive charge shell? It magically disappeared? Secondly, the size of a protein and the size of the cell are of the order of magnitudes different. The localised structure around a protein does not translate to the entire cell. It's tiny in comparison to the cell.

    - Solvation shells are extremely transient. They change on the level of pico seconds. So "EZ water" structure would not last for more than pico seconds should you manage to magically ingest it.

    - Solvation shells have many layers, not just 1 layer (or "charge countering layer" as Pollack mentions and then conveniently forgets about)

    - Yes water does behave interestingly at interfaces whether it's the border of a bottle or sounding a protein. This is very well known and not some mysterious process as claimed by Pollack. But these can only be investigated using complicated molecular calculations. In fact because Pollack claims quantum mechanical processes are at work here the only way to studies these effects would be through QM/MM or QM/MD calculations such as Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics. (See http://scitation.aip.org/conte... as an example). Modelling an entire protein and its solvation shells at this level is beyond our current computational power for all but the smallest proteins.

    I could go on at length at the other nonsense I heard Pollack pontificate. He makes wild claims but does not substantiate them other than saying "it must be" or "it's likely". This is not fact based science, this is on the same level as the homeopathy water memory nonsense.

    The fact that Jack Kruse recommends Pollacks work shows his equal lack of understanding of the fundamental processes at work.

    To qualify my response here: I have read a Ph.D. in computational chemistry studying the solvation effects of polymers in solution, so I offer a qualified comment in this space. I am not associated with any academic or pharmaceutical or chemical institution in any way.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2016
  4. shah78

    shah78 Gold

    So does this mean these guys are not buying a QUANTLET? :)
     
    lohd2015 likes this.
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  6. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    You might want to look up DelGuidice and Martin Chaplin.......they confirmed Pollacks work. Your degree is nice, but competence is a function of individuals not degrees. I've got two doctoral degrees and what Chaplin, Ling, and DelGuidice found Pollack's work confirmed. I'm not interested in degrees just data from real experiments that have been reproduced to show how the first step in photosynthesis builds the entire food web to fully explain mitochondrial function.
     
  7. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  8. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  9. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    The synthesis............it misses some pieces because she does not know that solar experiments have already proven sulfhydryl groups are made by full spectrum sunlight. eNOS decision is a quantum one just like what occurs in an exciton in chloropyll.
     
    Scompy and kyrakitty like this.
  10. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Harvey this one I hop eyou read: More than 50 years ago, Nobel Laureate and father of SOLID STATE biochemistry, Albert Szent-Györgyi, had already suggested that water at interfaces is the key to life and proposed that water at interfaces, such as membranes, is in the excited state (electrons by sunlight), requiring considerably less energy to split than water in the ground state. You and I learned chemistry from a solution based perspective. That was and is why you have your perspective. I gave it up 12 years ago because of what I learned since my training.

    A sign of the excited water is that a voltage should appear at the boundary between interfacial water and bulk water, which was indeed observed not long after Szent-Györgyi made his prediction in 1941. Most, if not all, water in living organisms is interfacial water, as it is almost never more than a small fraction of a micron away from surfaces, such as membranes or macromolecules. Water at the interface is a coherent domain generated by the interaction of the electromagnetic field and water and stabilized by the interface, as Del Giudice and colleagues suggested. Ling, Chaplin and Pollack's experiments have all proved it now with reproduction of experiments as well. Montagnier has also proven it indirectly with his water experiments in Nature magazine.
    Unexpected support for the theory came from a field study on aerosols generated at five water falls in the Austrian Alps carried out by Pierre Madl at Salzburg University in Austria with Del Giudice and other collaborators around the world. The aerosols showed a bimodal size distribution with small clusters a few nanometers in diameter consisting of a few hundred water molecules and larger aggregates about 100–200 nm in diameter with millions of water molecules. Whereas the small clusters disappear very rapidly with distance from the falls, the larger aggregates are able to propagate for hundreds of meters. The aggregates detected, both large and small, are electrically charged with negative charge predominating for 85% of aggregates. The existence of the surface electrical charge and unusual size distribution of the aggregates are both predictions of the quantum electrodynamics theory of water; although, the precise details have yet to be worked out. http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/16/9/4874/htm
     
    lohd2015 likes this.
  11. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    lohd2015 and Joe Gavin like this.
  12. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  13. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Put Jack kruse and Grotthuss mechanism in a google box and see what pops up from long ago.

    BOOM.
     
  14. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  15. nonchalant

    nonchalant Silver

    That was so long ago that you first talked about nanotubes squeezing water in the brain white matter... OSF3?

     

Share This Page