In Defense of Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and Structured Water: When Saying “Might” Is a Crime

They didn’t attack Joe Ladapo because he was reckless. They attacked him because a calm, credible authority suggested water quality matters, threatening an entire business model built on sickness.

I. The Ladapo “Scandal”

The absolute best Surgeon General in any state’s history is Dr. Joseph Ladapo, and there isn’t even a close second (though, in fairness, only six states have Surgeon Generals, and the position itself is barely two decades old).

Given we live an hour apart, Lisa and I have gotten to know both Joe and Brianna (and their three little rascals) and consider them both friends. Joe possesses an impressive combination of personality traits, a rare mix of kindness, intelligence, objectivity, courage, and determination. He’s one of the most impressive people I have encountered during my Covid journey. And with those traits, it should surprise no one that he was, and remains, one of the most publicly attacked and denigrated figures of the era.

There’s a quote commonly credited to George Orwell, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” If that line ever needed a modern case study, Joe Ladapo is it.

Now, although I run a fairly popular Substack, as much as I would want to, if I had to write a post every time one of my “brothers in arms” was targeted by corporatized, government-captured media propaganda, I’d be posting every single day (and probably twice a day).

Imagine trying to respond to the daily fusillade aimed at my friend Bobby Kennedy over the past twenty years, now supercharged since he became Secretary of HHS. The pharma-media attacks began only when he shifted his focus from keeping mercury out of fish to keeping it out of children. I love that line about him: nobody ever called him anti-fish, but the moment he tried to protect kids, he was branded anti-vax. It’s a label he’s carried with the same resolve and grace as the parallel nonsense hurled at Dr. Ladapo.

To mount real-time, daily defenses of people like Joe or Bobby (or Robert Malone), I’d need a staff of writers and a media conglomerate larger than my Substack.

And it would still be pointless, because any rebuttal of mine would never reach the same eyeballs as the hit pieces pumped through NYT, Washington Post, Gizmodo, Yahoo, Fox, and the rest of the narrative-enforcement apparatus.

But the latest attack on Joe made me both furious and laugh out loud.

This time, they went after him for talking about water.

II. The “Crime”: Saying “Might”

I’m a structured water guy now, and it seems Joe might be one too. So I figured I’d defend both. Check out this clown-show of an article that a friend sent me:

It’s funny how even the most obvious propaganda headline still “gets” you for a split second. That’s what propaganda is designed to do: insert thoughts into your head before reason catches up.

Embarrassingly, my first reaction was, holy cow, is Joe selling a structured water product like I am? Then I thought maybe, kindly, that he’d heard about Aurmina and mentioned it positively. I dug in. Nothing. No mention of me or my product.

Totally cool with me but I was instead shocked to learn that Joe’s high crime was a single sentence in a tweet:

“Drinking structured water might offer more advantages.”

Might. That’s it. No product, no claims, no prescriptions, no certainty.

Just a cautious statement acknowledging biological plausibility. Apparently, that now qualifies as “peddling.”

But here’s where the article crossed from laughable into enraging: the author didn’t just attack Joe. He attacked the very idea that water can be structured, or that it might have biological effects. My rage turned from what they were doing to Joe to what they were doing to upstream physiology.

The position the Gizmodo journalist was tasked with presenting was not skepticism. It was deliberately feigned ignorance.

III. Why This Attack On Upstream Physiology Matters

And that is exactly why I could never spend my days hurling truth at the lies embedded in propaganda; that kind of work requires no insight, no rigor, and no curiosity. It would render me intellectually anesthetized.

But for this one time, and because it defends my company, Aurmina, I will make an exception. So let’s do it.

Water organizing itself into structure is not a fringe belief. It is documented across physical chemistry, membrane biology, biophysics, and agricultural physiology. Interfacial water, hydration layers, charge separation, and non-random molecular organization near mineral and biological surfaces are taught concepts, not mysticism.

And the real-world data are even harder to dismiss because I literally just published a post compiling veterinary and agricultural studies showing improved outcomes like growth, fertility, metabolic efficiency, stress tolerance (even sperm production), when animals drink structured or modified water. Not humans. Animals. Where variables are controlled, and outcomes are measured directly.

Animals don’t placebo. They don’t comply. They don’t read Twitter. They just respond. Which is exactly why that literature is so threatening.

IV. Credentialism as a Weapon

The article sneers:

“2026 is already looking to be filled with plenty of crank science.”

“Structured water isn’t something that really exists, according to actual scientists.”

Clever! Inferring that Joe is not an “actual scientist.”

Let’s pause.

Joe Ladapo is an MD from Harvard Medical School, holds a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard, served as an FDA staff fellow, is Florida’s Surgeon General, and is a full Professor at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

MD.

PhD.

FDA.

Professor.

But not an “actual scientist,” apparently. That was the funniest part.

It gets better. To make Joe look foolish, the journalist had to reach across the planet to find a suitably credentialed critic, pulling in a chemist from New South Wales to dismiss structured water as “nebulous.”

Even that quote accidentally concedes the point:

“…at its most scientifically plausible, it describes unusual properties of water near an interface.”

That is structured water.

V. Pattern Recognition: The Kory Scale

The article then recycled Joe’s previous COVID positions, positions that were cautious, evidence-based, and repeatedly vindicated by time, and closed with the now mandatory flourish: anti-science zealot.

This is how modern propaganda works. You don’t debate the claim. You delegitimize the messenger, collapse nuance, and warn readers not to think.

But why attack something as banal-sounding as water?

That really stumped me at first. But then I remembered The Kory Scale and, through that lens, what was behind this seemingly stupid article hit me, and it was glorious (for Aurmina and me).

“They” aren’t just threatened by Joe and the profoundly “inconvenient” work he’s been doing, things like rolling back vaccine mandates, challenging reckless Covid vaccine recommendations, surfacing data on the lethality of Covid vaccines, and pushing research into cancer treatments using off-patent drugs (my man!).

Now it seems they’re also threatened by… structured water? Truly terrifying stuff.

To understand what was really behind that article, it is imperative that we revisit the central thesis of the Kory Scale (one of my most popular posts, actually);

The conceptual underpinning of the Kory Scale is that the efficacy of any proposed therapy should be scored in direct proportion to the degree, breadth, and viciousness of the attacks generated from pharma-media and the “medical establishment.”

Once I remembered my own damn (unquestioningly brilliant) theory, I got excited. They are scared of structured water!

Not because it’s silly, but because it’s upstream of all illness.

VI. The Vitamin D Parallel

My long-time readers know this, but for those who joined more recently, know that my initial entry into the study of modern “disinformation” techniques occurred in early March of 2021, four months after I had unwittingly become globally known as an “ivermectin advocate” (thanks, Ron!)

I woke up one day, coffee in hand, cruising through my inbox, when I stumbled upon an email from someone I did not know, a Professor by the name of William B. Grant, who I later learned was one of the most published researchers in Vitamin D science. It read:

“Dear Dr. Kory, what they are doing to ivermectin, they have been doing to Vitamin D for decades.”

That was it. Actually, no, that wasn’t it, because he also included a link to an article called “The Disinformation Playbook,” written by an organization called “Union of Concerned Scientists.”

Not-so-fun fact: that very same organization refused my request to include images from the article in my book, “The War on Ivermectin,” because I was “too controversial.” Whatever.

Anyway, that article literally changed my life as it finally allowed me to understand what was happening to me, to my partner Professor Paul Marik, to our careers, to our non-profit organization, etc.). It explained ivermectin. It explained Vitamin D. It explained Covid. And now, it explains the threat of structured, mineral-balanced water.

Tell me if you think I am over-reaching here, but my interpretation of this stupid Ladapo hit-job article became, “Holy cow, is structured water presenting as much of a threat as Vitamin D?

The Decades Long Disinformation Campaign Against Vitamin D

Quick refresher on the Disinformation campaign on Vitamin D, something Professor Grant has been fighting for decades.

Vitamin D is literally the conductor of the orchestra that is our immune system (and other systems). Vitamin D supplementation (and K2 and magnesium), at the right doses and frequency, tuned to achieve optimal levels, is one of the best defenses against literally any disease. “They” know this.

Thus, their decades-long injection of studies into the medical literature aimed at showing that Vitamin D has zero efficacy in treating or preventing any disease. For every positive study that manages to get published, they will then inject two, larger, “more rigorous” (yeah, right, how about more “rigorously” manipulated) studies of low-dose, short-term, infrequently delivered Vitamin D that contradict any “positive” findings.

“They” then buy the professional medical societies, allowing “them” control of the treatment guideline committees, lowering what is considered a “normal” level to the absolute lowest possible level without causing friggin rickets.

I used to be afraid to say this, for fear of sounding like a tin-hat conspiracy theorist, but, based on now 5 years of fighting the pharmaceutical industry, I will state objectively, and fully; “they” do this to keep us as unhealthy and/or sick as possible, so that we become more voracious consumers of pharmaceuticals and sophisticated, immensely expensive health treatments. Period.

Just one example; if the population were to achieve and maintain truly optimal Vitamin D levels (at least 50, I like mine over 100), the biggest bear of them all, the cancer industry, would undergo a massive downturn. And that’s just cancer; the markets for literally every disease and specialty would be affected.

Know that in human antiquity, vitamin D levels were far higher than what is considered “normal” today. Multiple lines of evidence, from studies of modern hunter-gatherer populations living traditional outdoor lifestyles, to physiologic modeling of sun exposure at equatorial and temperate latitudes, consistently place ancestral serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the range of 40–70 ng/mL, with many individuals likely spending substantial portions of the year above 60 ng/mL.

These levels were achieved naturally through daily, full-body sun exposure without sunscreen, indoor confinement, or seasonal light deprivation imposed by modern living.

By contrast, contemporary populations in industrialized societies cluster around 15–30 ng/mL, with anything above 20 ng/mL now labeled “sufficient” solely because it prevents overt rickets, not because it reflects optimal immune, metabolic, or endocrine function. In other words, modern “normal” vitamin D levels are not a biological baseline; they are a deficiency threshold rebranded as adequacy.

VII. Are They Doing It Again? Structured Water as the Next Threat

So am I really leaping to conclusions, or just stating the obvious, by wondering whether my recent work on minerals and structured water, and the launch of Aurmina, a historically unique mineral solution that structures drinking water and has seen extraordinary adoption and customer satisfaction, is starting to worry them because they somehow believe that it might threaten demand for their therapies?

I asked AI if there were any other mainstream media articles in the recent past that tried to critique or dismiss the idea that structured water might be good for your health.

The list totaled 6 articles, but I cut them down for you. Still, buckle up, buttercup, let’s start with the increasingly pervasive propaganda tool, a “Fact Check” article, from Australia, no less:

1) AAP FactCheck — Structured Water Health Claims Are False

A fact-check from the Australian Associated Press states that claims about “structured” or “hexagonal” water having superior health benefits are false, noting “there’s no such thing as structured water” according to expert chemists.

Quote:

“Structured water… has far superior health benefits than regular water… This is false. There’s no such thing as structured water.” — AAP FactCheck, quoting chemistry experts.

---

---

3) Vitarx — Marketing Myth and Lack of Evidence

The Vitarx health site calls structured water (including “H₃O₂”) a marketing myth, stating that bulk water isn’t a stable form you can buy, and that any purported health benefits lack strong human evidence.

Quote:

“Structured water or ‘H₃O₂’ is not a real, stable form of water — this concept is a marketing myth, not science… Most chemists and biologists say there’s insufficient evidence to prove structured water offers any special health benefits.” — Vitarx.

---

Sorry guys, but anytime I read an article that includes the term “insufficient evidence” as above, it triggers me to share, yet again, the one tattoo that I stupidly submitted to (or sought in anger) during the “War on Ivermectin”

6) Wikipedia on Hexagonal Water — Marketing Scam

Wikipedia’s entry on hexagonal water (another term for structured water) describes it explicitly as a marketing scam, not a scientifically substantiated health product.

Quote:

“Hexagonal water… is a term used in a marketing scam that claims the ability to create a certain configuration of water that is better for the body… the hoax… despite the reality that this compound is neither water nor stable.” — Wikipedia.

---

My favorite was the last one from Wikipedia, err, I mean “Wiki-media.”

VIII. What “Structured Water” Actually Is (and Isn’t)

Although I will give them some credit for identifying that, aside from water containing Shimanishi’s mineral complex, every other method can only create a transiently “structured state” of water. Now you know why I have invested my life into Aurmina. If you add Shimanishi’s mineral complex, your water will remain structured and mineral-balanced… forever.

The importance of understanding the “stability” of water structured via a unique composition of a broad palette of minerals cannot be overemphasized for you to understand that I am discussing structured water in a ”scientific sense,” not a symbolic, experiential, or pseudoscientific one.

Major Problem: The concept of structured water is poorly understood in wellness circles and in science, and the many claims supporting devices or methods that supposedly structure water lack published supporting evidence.

Based on the work of Gerald Pollack at the University of Washington, a man considered to be the world's expert in the study of structured water (a term for which he uses “Exclusion Zone” water), there is only one validated test that can determine if water is truly “structured,” and that is an Ultraviolet Absorption analysis using a UV spectrometer.

• EZ water in Pollack’s framework is associated with an optical absorption peak near ~270 nm in UV–Vis spectroscopy.

• This peak is considered a marker of altered water structure at hydrophilic interfaces, unlike that of ordinary bulk water.

• The absolute magnitude of the absorbance peak can vary with conditions and is not a fixed number, but its presence and reproducibility are the relevant finding

UV Spectrometer Analysis Of Aurmina-Treated Water

Below are the results of such a test conducted on water treated with a product identical in composition to Aurmina, with the absorption compared to both regular tap water and “laboratory” water, which is completely de-ionized (zero mineral content).

The full PDF test report is below. Note that in the Methods section, a critical detail is that the treated water sat in the lab for 6 days prior to the test.

Uv Absorption Test Report

698KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In the above, you can see the long “hold” where UV absorption is occurring in the 6-day-old mineral-treated water, still with 95% absorption at 270 nm, compared to the 15% absorption in tap water, shown in more detail in the tables below the graph:

IX. The Field Correction: Structure → Coherence

With over four months of obsessive research and writing on water and minerals, and the founding of a company with a “water structuring and purification” product, I suppose you could say I am now fully immersed in what people loosely call the “Structured Water Health Space.”

I want to say this as humbly as possible. Not because I think I’m smarter than anyone, and certainly not because I’m all-knowing. Any clarity I have here is simply the result of being mentored by someone I consider the leading expert on Shimanishi’s mineral extract and the physics underlying what is often referred to as “structured water.”

What has become painfully clear to me, embarrassingly late, and only after months of using the term myself, is that almost no one who talks about “structured water” actually understands what they mean. I certainly didn’t. I don’t say this to mock anyone. I say it because the language is wrong, the concepts are blurred, and until we fix that, the entire subject will remain vulnerable to ridicule rather than understanding.

Some people may feel exposed by what I’m about to explain, especially those making money atop genuine confusion. But ignorance isn’t a crime. In many cases, it’s simply the price paid on the way to understanding.

Energy Medicine, Wellness Culture, and Structured Water Claims

Many advocate for and practice various forms of energy healing and believe water can hold memory or act as a therapeutic medium. What I appreciate about these practitioners is that they are absolutely correct in treating water as a source of life and vitality.

Nothing alive can exist unless three material conditions are met: carbon, water, and minerals. Carbon provides the scaffolding of life, minerals provide coordination and regulation, and water is the medium that allows both to interact. Without water, carbon cannot assemble into living structures, and minerals cannot move, signal, or participate in biology. Access to water is not just essential to life; it is the condition that makes life possible at all.

More relevant to these “wellness” advocates, know that across virtually every ancient tradition, water has been described as having an essence and a restorative quality. Long before hydrogen bonding or electrical gradients were understood, civilizations recognized that different waters produced different effects on the body, the land, and the mind. Springs were distinguished from stagnant sources. Certain waters were sought for healing, fertility, and longevity. These traditions lacked modern chemistry, but they were observing something real: water is not biologically neutral.

Two simple facts make this unavoidable.

1. Water devoid of minerals is biologically inert.

2. Minerals delivered without water are biologically inert.

Water and minerals cannot be considered separate biological entities. The old habit of listing three material foundations of life, carbon, water, and minerals, is actually wrong. To be scientifically accurate, that list collapses to two: carbon and water, but only if the water is “real water,” meaning mineralized water.

In the experiment above comparing Aurmina-treated water to tap water and so-called “Ultrapure” water, it’s worth pausing on what that last term actually means.

“Ultrapure” water is nothing but H₂O molecules stripped of everything else, and no such water has ever existed anywhere in nature. Every natural water on Earth contains minerals. Always has. The only thing that varies is which minerals and in what balance.

My views on what that balance should look like are probably already clear from my writing (and my starting up of a friggin company). But the larger point is simpler and more important: water is not just a liquid. It only supports life when it functions as a medium, carrying minerals. Without them, water cannot coordinate chemistry, carry charge, or support living systems. It’s just wet.

So maybe we need a new word. Should we stop calling it water and start calling it “Minwater,” or“Watermin”? Because that’s what it really is.

I’m now imagining a future where a kid comes inside after playing ball, or, more realistically, after six straight hours of internet surfing, and says, “Hey Mom, I’m thirsty. Can I have a glass of Watermin?”

Love that future.

The only reason biologically inert water drinkers remain alive (hello R.O. and distilled-water enthusiasts) is that the moment water hits their lips, it begins pulling minerals from saliva, blood, bile acids, and tissues. Although these “robberies” are often subclinical, the published medical literature reveals myriad health problems that spike when demineralized water is suddenly introduced into human populations. When readers tell me they’ve drunk demineralized water for decades and “feel fine,” my response is simple: I smoked nearly two packs of cigarettes a day for almost thirty years and felt fine.

Jokes aside, this is where intuition gets mistaken for mechanism. The problem is not that these perspectives exist. The problem is that they are routinely conflated with scientific claims when they are not making scientific claims at all. When symbolic or experiential frameworks are presented as mechanistic explanations, the entire field becomes an easy target for dismissal and ridicule.

Properly understood, these traditions are observational and descriptive, not explanatory. They reflect a long-standing recognition that water behaves differently across contexts and that those differences matter biologically. The error arises when intuition is asked to substitute for mechanism, rather than point toward it.

The Water Structuring Device Industry

Most commercial devices claiming to “structure” water, whether through vortexing, magnets, ceramics, pipes, turbulence, or passive geometries, share a critical limitation: they provide no sustained mechanical or electrical energy input to maintain order once the water leaves the device.

Any water produced by such a device, even if it were briefly structured, would no longer be structured if sent to a lab for testing. The organizing influence is gone the moment the water leaves the device, and water does not carry that order with it.

Is There Such a Thing as “Naturally Structured Water”?

As Gerald Pollack has stated publicly, the only places on Earth where naturally persistent structured water has been observed are near hydrothermal vents and in natural sulfur-rich springs. There is only one meaningful commonality between those environments, and it is sulfur.

Aurmina contains a broad and diverse palette of minerals that are all sulfated. That detail matters far more than most people discussing “structured water” realize.

Sulfur is required for water organization because water organizes around stable charge separation, and sulfur is biology’s primary element for managing protons, electrons, and interfacial charge without collapsing gradients. This is why sulfur-rich environments can support persistent electrical organization in water while most devices cannot.

This fact is virtually unmentioned by those making claims about structured water. The result is widespread confusion paired with confident but baseless assertions, leaving the field wide open to skepticism, ridicule, and journalistic attack. I am trying to change that.

One of my first steps is to advocate that we stop using the word “structure” altogether, because it hides what actually matters and misdirects attention toward the wrong thing.

The Core Insight - “Electrically Coherent Water”

It’s not about “structured water.” It’s about water maintaining electrical coherence through ionic mineral content.

Water cannot hold structure on its own. Hydrogen bonds form and break trillions of times per second. Any apparent ordering is temporary and collapses the moment the influence is removed. Water cannot store energy, hold charge, or maintain order independently. When people say “the water is structured,” what they usually mean is that something external briefly aligned the molecules. That is not structure, and it is not coherence.

Electrical coherence in water is about function: continuous ionic movement, stable charge exchange, and buffered electrical gradients. That only exists when mineral ions are present to support that exchange. This is what turns water from a passive solvent into an active conductive medium.

The crucial reversal is this: water does not remember. Minerals do. Minerals provide charge buffering, electron donors and acceptors, ion-exchange capacity, and continuous conductivity. Water simply transmits, responds, and participates. Without minerals, coherence collapses and biological function fails.

This is the missing logic in almost every discussion of water.

Why Natural Spring Water Works

Spring water moves through mineral strata, where it acquires ionic species, develops conductivity, and establishes redox balance. That is why it remains stable after bottling, behaves differently from reverse-osmosis or distilled water, and supports biological systems without devices. Nothing is “locking” the water into shape. The ions keep it coherent.

At this point, a terminology correction becomes necessary. The term “structured water” has become so overloaded and mechanistically vague that it now obscures more than it explains. What biology responds to is not structure as a static property, but water’s capacity to sustain electrical order through continuous ionic exchange. That capacity arises from mineral-supported coherence, not geometry, intention, magnets, or momentary alignment.

For that reason, I am deliberately going to stop using the phrase “structured water,” except when referring to how it is misused in popular discourse. It is not that nothing real is being observed. It is that the language used to describe it is wrong.

Water does not hold structure; it maintains electrical coherence only when ionic minerals support continuous charge exchange.

That single sentence reframes the entire conversation correctly.

Remember, I am (or was) an ICU specialist; “pattern recognition” was the unique, differentiating skill I gained after 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, 3 years of residency, 3 years of fellowship, and then over 15 years of running busy urban ICUs.

If you don’t see something in the pattern of journalism articles above, I will explain it to you. Why would repeated, varied publications take the time to “debunk” something without first deeply researching and presenting “both sides” of the existing data on an “uncertain” topic, thus allowing the reader themselves to ponder the relative significance of the supposedly contradicting data? Why would they instead simply target the goal of “telling you what to think?”

Weird right?

To be clear, I am not claiming that drinking mineralized, structured water is proven to maintain health or reverse disease (relax, FDA and FTC, I’m not that stupid). What I am asking is far more uncomfortable: was this hit piece on Joe commissioned because “they” believe, perhaps correctly, that structured water poses a genuine threat to a business model dependent on a vast, continuously sick or metabolically unwell population?

Conclusion

X. Ancient Water vs. Modern Water

How We Quietly Replaced a Living Medium with an Industrial Solvent

What I am trying to say is simple.

For most of human history, people drank water that moved slowly through rock, soil, and living systems before ever reaching the mouth.

Springs, seeps, rivers, and shallow wells delivered water that was mineral-bearing, microbially mediated, and conditioned by prolonged contact with stone, clay, and organic matter. Water chemistry was shaped jointly by geology and biology, not by industrial optimization. There was no chlorination, no aggressive filtration, no ion stripping (hello again to the R.O. and distilled-water enthusiasts), no plastic piping, and no mandate to prioritize sterility over physiology. That water was not “pure” by modern regulatory standards, but it was biologically legible.

Modern water is something else.

Today, water is engineered for distribution, shelf life, and liability reduction. Municipal treatment prioritizes pathogen elimination, corrosion control, and chemical stability across miles of pipe. Reverse osmosis, demineralization, aggressive filtration, and disinfectants strip water of dissolved minerals and disrupt natural ionic relationships. What reaches the tap is often chemically clean but biologically thin: low in calcium and magnesium, high in residual disinfectants, prone to inducing diuresis, and poorly buffered at the cellular level. The goal is uniformity and safety, not biological compatibility.

I am not claiming that ancient people didn’t get sick. They did. What I am arguing is that their baseline hydration occurred in a medium that supported electrolyte balance, intracellular hydration, and mineral retention rather than constantly working against it.

Just as humans in antiquity lived with higher baseline vitamin D levels because sun exposure was unavoidable, they also lived with higher-quality water because industrial stripping had not yet occurred. Modern humans are not deficient because biology changed. We are deficient because the environment did.

When something basic, upstream, and ubiquitous quietly disappears, the consequences do not announce themselves as a crisis. They show up as chronic inefficiency, fragility, and dependence.

Which raises an uncomfortable question.

Has structured, mineral-supported water wandered into the same forbidden territory as vitamin D, an upstream input so cheap, so basic, and so disruptive that it reliably triggers ridicule, dismissal, and coordinated propaganda rather than honest debate?

Remember the Kory Scale. If journalists simply wanted to attack Joe Ladapo, they had hundreds of his actions and statements to choose from. Instead, they went after a single, cautious sentence about the potential benefits of structured water. A word he chose carefully. A claim he did not overstate. A thought he did not close.

Joe is dangerous precisely because he’s careful. He didn’t claim certainty. He said might. And a cautious statement from a credible authority invites thought.

Thought is the one thing they don’t want you engaging in.

So yes, they invented a scandal around a Surgeon General acknowledging uncertainty. And in doing so, they revealed the real scandal: a media system so captured that it now mocks upstream physiology while calling itself “pro-science.”

I’ll end with a confession.

Especially for those of you who have followed my now four-plus-month deep dive into minerals, and into the historically unique extract derived from primordial biotite rock developed in 1977 by the Japanese engineer and chemist Asao Shimanishi.

Until about two weeks ago, I genuinely thought the book I’ve been writing, From Volcanoes to Vitality, was a book about minerals. It took the animal studies I referenced above, along with several recent insights, to finally force the realization:

The gravitational center of that book is not minerals. It’s water (which would have been useful to know earlier).

Gizmodo is trying to convince you that water doesn’t matter. And when the media mocks fundamentals, it’s not because they’re irrelevant.

It’s because they’re dangerous.

---

If you value the late nights and deep dives into all the “rabbit holes” I then write about (or the Op-Eds and lectures I try to get out to the public), supporting my work is greatly appreciated.

More Stuff: Aurmina and Book Publications

If you want to learn more about the water purifier we made from Shimanishi’s volcanic-mineral complex, go to Aurmina.com.

Upcoming Book Publications

Yup — not one, but two books are dropping from yours truly (at the same time? What?)

1. If, instead of (or in addition to) these Substack posted chapters, you prefer the feel of a real book, or the smell of paper, or like to give holiday gifts, pre-order From Volcanoes to Vitality, my grand mineral saga, shipping end of January.

2. And if you want to read (or gift) another chronicle of suppression, science, and survival, grab The War on Chlorine Dioxide—the sequel you didn’t see coming—shipping early to mid-January. On this one, I say: “Buy it before they ban it.” Hah!

---