Epilogue — Movement I: Observation Before Explanation
Before I could explain what I was seeing, I had to trust the pattern. FVTV began not as a theory, but as an observation—one that kept surviving every explanation I built around it.
There is something true about From Volcanoes to Vitality (FVTV) that matters more than any individual mechanism laid out in that book: I did not reason my way into it. I observed my way into it.
My clinical observations came first, and they never changed. What changed, over and over again, were the explanations I tried to build around them. The initial draft of FVTV, which in retrospect I prematurely published on my Substack and began offering for preorder, was a book on mineral science centered on what I now think of as Theory 1.0: the idea that Shimanishi’s mineral extract replenished major and trace minerals that many people were no longer getting in their diets. But every time I tried to complete a final pass, I found myself pulling on another thread. MB would raise some new question about minerals, water, or mechanism, and my understanding would deepen again.
Then came Theory 2.0, which I called the Mineral Spectrum Collapse Theory. I began to suspect that the as-yet-unstudied ultratrace and rare-earth elements in soils might play critical roles in the large proportion of enzymes that have yet to be identified or studied, and that these rare minerals had suffered a disproportionate decline, leaving modern nutrition even more impoverished than we had understood. Shimanishi’s extract, in that framing, looked like an unusually bioavailable source of the rarest minerals capable of restoring hypofunctioning or dormant enzymes.
Then, as I dug further into agricultural science, I arrived at yet another model: Theory 3.0, the Carbon Collapse Theory, in which mineral-water dynamics in soil altered carbon availability to plants through complex biochemical pathways.
As I tried to finish that, several insights aligned, and MB and I arrived at what became the Geohydrological Shift Theory. Then, during my sustained study of ancient texts, a few previously unconnected observations clicked, and we arrived at the Rock–Water Circuit Theory. The fact that the latter theory had emerged, in part, from insights recorded in texts from antiquity told me that it did not belong inside FVTV and needed to become its own book.
The point of that progression is simple: each time I replaced a theory, it was not because the observation failed. It was because the explanation did. The thing I was seeing—in biology, in plants, in water, and in the lived results of the mineral protocols I was using—never stopped being real. What kept changing was my language for it and the scientific frame I was trying to place around it.
That is why these books took months longer than they should have. Not because I did not know what worked, but because I refused to put something into the world that I could not explain in terms the people I was trying to teach could trust. I already knew the outcome. What I was doing, sometimes obsessively, was trying to understand why it worked and how to defend that understanding in the language of modern science.
I never doubted what I was seeing. I doubted only my explanations for it.
That distinction matters. I was trusting outcomes, not mechanisms—outcomes that were consistent, repeatable, and held over time. When the same relationships recur, when inputs, behaviors, and outcomes align in ways that can be anticipated, you begin to recognize that there is an ordered structure in play.
That is what defines expertise. I used to tell my trainees that the only real difference between us was pattern recognition. We had all read the same books and could cite the big studies. But after years at the bedside, you recognize patterns of presentations and trajectories across thousands of patients. You know what is likely to happen, what is not, and—most importantly—when something does not fit. When a pattern breaks, you know you are missing something, and you dig until you find it.
Looking back, that posture was shaped long before this project began. The adults I grew up around were serious people, immigrants who had lived through war. They knew what it looked like when systems began to fail, stability started to disappear, and the consequences arrived. Growing up around that leaves a mark. It teaches you that order is functional.
My training in mathematics sharpened that instinct further. When a proof is correct, the structure closes cleanly. When it is not, something refuses to settle. You learn to look for internal consistency, coherence, and closure. That way of thinking carried directly into medicine, and later into everything else I studied.
That same habit shaped how I moved through science. I spent my career around colleagues who were brilliant at explaining mechanisms—people who could tell you exactly how something should work. But I watched, repeatedly, those same mechanisms get treated as if they mattered more than what was actually happening in front of us.
Therapies that looked good on paper were studied endlessly, even when they did very little in practice. I was the opposite. I started with outcomes. If something worked, and kept working across contexts, that was what I trusted. Then I went back and tried to understand the mechanism, often with difficulty—not to justify it, but to make sense of it.
My ability to see such patterns surfaced repeatedly in my own career long before this project began. In the prologue to From Volcanoes to Vitality, I described a series of therapies and ideas that had marked different stretches of my professional life, each one drawing my attention years before it gained wider popularity, with many still not having done so. They defined two-, three-, and five-year periods in which I became an early advocate, a national expert, or both, leaving behind papers, lectures, and conference presentations in their wake: therapeutic hypothermia, ICU ultrasonography, intravenous vitamin C in sepsis, ivermectin and combination therapy in Covid, DMSO, chlorine dioxide, sublingual low-dose ketamine—and now, of all things, mineral water.
None was widely recommended or accepted at the time. What drew me to them was something simpler: the mechanisms, the inputs, and the outcomes lined up with unusual clarity. The pieces fit. The behavior matched the theory. The outcomes followed the structure they revealed. When that happens, you feel it before you can fully explain it.
But there was another habit at work in me too, and it mattered just as much. I have never been the originator of radically new ideas. My role has more often been recognition: seeing what others had already identified, sensing its significance more than most, and then helping carry that knowledge outward into wider practice. That too had marked my career long before these books.
In that sense, these books arose from two related instincts working together: the instinct to trust outcomes before explanations are complete, and the instinct to recognize overlooked truths and help bring them into the open. What once felt like a professional instinct now feels closer to a calling.
And looking back now, I can see that neither of those instincts began with this book. Both had been forming in me for years, shaped by mathematics, medicine, suffering, and the kind of life that teaches you to look at what actually holds.
That life is the next thing I have to account for.
*If you value the late nights and deep dives into all the “rabbit holes” I write about (or the Op-Eds and lectures I generate for the public), your support is greatly appreciated.
From Research to Practice - Links Below Image
