"Very small amounts of Al are needed to produce neurotoxicity and this criterion is satisfied through dietary Al intake"
-This is great DIY, amazing really.
-I wonder, can you get a Corona shot vial and test the elements in that? You need to get a nurse who works in a place they give vaxes to take a used vial out of the waste can with pinchers, there is always some fluid left in used vials.
Thank you, you put a massive amount of work into this and that is greatly appreciated.
In my opinion this is a great representation of the hijack of the supplement industry. And industrial contamination of toxic metals in air, water, food, products and of course... supplements :)
Thanks for doing these experiments. I got caught in the vitamin scam for awhile because my naturopath convinced me they were necessary and 'safe'. But it never felt right. Better to stick to real food!
The poisoning has been going on for several decades, and it resembles a symphony that has many instruments playing. "Vitamins" are certainly one of them. What many people don't understand is that all the sources add up and can enhance the impact of one another...
Based on my first-hand experience in the last four years in sick-care, I am concerned that during this period, toxins have been placed on steroids, and the symptoms suggest that this is a countdown:
If you want to talk to people who know a lot about what should go into vitamin capsules ( or not) call on Dr Ted Broer at Health Masters in Auburndale, FL. He does a daily podcast that includes much health info on supplements . Check his website.
Mike Adams ( the Health Ranger)
In Texas has a full spec lab to analyze all of the foods he sells.
He could offer a lot of advice on
Your project and may charge less than you expect?
Mike was the first to analyze the blood clots being found from the
Hi Ralph, out of the elements present in the ingredients (vit B 1,6,9 and 12)- only those 3 were in the list of tested elements. Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Sulphur were not among the long list of elements tested for.
But you can see from the long form of the results that many elements were tested for.
Because those tests are expensive and we wanted to do a cheap test first to see whether there would unexpected things in the pills.
These were preliminary tests - as the heading of the article states - to make sure more expensive tests would be worth it. We are planning to do more tests, including the ones you describe - as we have stated in the article.
The element test does in a round about way test for the active ingredient - all the samples had B12 which was the particular vitamin we were keeping track of.
So for example you can see the presence of cobalt and phosphorus in samples 2 and 4 which indicates that there is definitely vit b 12 in those samples - cobalt and phosphorus being elements present in vit b 12 - but you can't really see traces of these elements in sample 3 which according to the listed ingredients should have those elements.
So sample 2 and 4, have the ingredients they are supposed to but then they also have all these extras - we will then look into these extras. Sample 3 on the other hand doesn't show traces of what it should have nor does it show anything else really - indicating sample 3 is probably just a sugar pill and not worth testing again.
Same thing with the high level of calcium in sample 2 - which indicates that there is definitely calcium pantethonate in the sample as listed.
Heavy metal contamination is common now because of bad air. Heavy metals are in smog and a completely pristine air filter in a factory complex is unlikely
You clearly have not appreciated what I set out in the first part of my last comment to you. Nor what is said in the article - I think you are struggling to get your head around what the test result do show. You clearly have an idea in your mind that you can't set aside long enough to understand the way we did go around doing our preliminary tests.
Re the calcium - Where do you think the high level of calcium came from in the results of sample 2 given the ingredients listed in the bottle?
The formula for calcium pantothenate is C18H32CaN2O10, the only element that would feature in the results is the calcium - as has been explained to you numerous times already.
I see why it is a bit confusing. I'll try and word it better tomorrow. Based on what should be present in the Vitamins we only tested for those 3 elements (only based on what's expected to be in the Vitamins) but we did and elemental test on all those elements listed in the raw data section. That's why we picked up even more things that should not be there.
I appreciate the response, but I am still puzzled why you now say you tested for all the "extras" but didn't test for what should have been present. If you had a limited budget I would have thought it prudent to test for what SHOULD be present rather than go fishing for things which shouldn't have been.
If you didn't have a limited budget, you should have tested for every element which should have been present as well as the "extras".
In short we tested for what was claimed to be in the Vitamins as well as all the other elements listed in the raw data... Not sure how to better describe this but based on what the test gives we didn't leave anything out.
In short, you didn't test for what was claimed to be in the vitamins. In your own words, you specifically did not do so.
Maybe you need to rewrite the whole piece because you are now suddenly claiming to have done something you originally specifically stated you did not (for an unfathomable reason) do.
I'm just trying to understand the rationale, and it's not getting any easier.
What we were expecting is that if these things were harmless very little should have showed up in the test. In principle we only expected to see elevated levels of those 3 elements cobalt, calcium and phosphorus and nothing else. But that is not what the tests showed as you can see for yourself.
My comments add to the article, other readers may have similar concerns to you and I am addressing them as best I can for that reason.
You are implying that our results demonstrate nothing and I am trying to explain why that's not true. If we had gone your way and tested for only the active ingredients vit b 1, 5,6, 9 and 12 it is unlikely we would have discovered all these other elements that we did. Which has all the added advantages I have already explained to you more than once.
I'm not sure why some governments idea of safe drinking water should provide a baseline for toxicity of vitamins. The expectation with drinking water is that many glasses can be drunk per day, it can be bathed in, and used to wash and cook food.
We could add something entirely healthy to water and the addition would make it no longer meet many standards for clean drinking water.
As is stated in the article - "As such, this analysis is not necessarily determining toxicity, but it is a good screening method to establish what is actually in the samples. Once we know which elements are elevated, we can further look at the potential toxicity due to the chemicals involved. "
The test was to see what was in the vitamins not to establish whether it was toxic - the test is unable to do so. We included that information re the drinking water for perspective.
"Very small amounts of Al are needed to produce neurotoxicity and this criterion is satisfied through dietary Al intake"
-This is great DIY, amazing really.
-I wonder, can you get a Corona shot vial and test the elements in that? You need to get a nurse who works in a place they give vaxes to take a used vial out of the waste can with pinchers, there is always some fluid left in used vials.
Do you think we could get enough from a used vial to provide meaningful results?
Good point, IDK, but if you get enough vials it could add up I guess? You'd have to ask the analyt lab.
Getting more than one vial is probably the way to go - could be very interesting.
Excellent as always, and thank you for having me help out a bit! Vitamins are a fantastic example of big pharma false dichotomy.
Thanks Kristen
Thank you, you put a massive amount of work into this and that is greatly appreciated.
In my opinion this is a great representation of the hijack of the supplement industry. And industrial contamination of toxic metals in air, water, food, products and of course... supplements :)
Thanks Zac,
We'll just keep on keeping on man.
Thanks for doing these experiments. I got caught in the vitamin scam for awhile because my naturopath convinced me they were necessary and 'safe'. But it never felt right. Better to stick to real food!
Thorough and informative, as always.
The poisoning has been going on for several decades, and it resembles a symphony that has many instruments playing. "Vitamins" are certainly one of them. What many people don't understand is that all the sources add up and can enhance the impact of one another...
Based on my first-hand experience in the last four years in sick-care, I am concerned that during this period, toxins have been placed on steroids, and the symptoms suggest that this is a countdown:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-final-countdown
If you want to talk to people who know a lot about what should go into vitamin capsules ( or not) call on Dr Ted Broer at Health Masters in Auburndale, FL. He does a daily podcast that includes much health info on supplements . Check his website.
Mike Adams ( the Health Ranger)
In Texas has a full spec lab to analyze all of the foods he sells.
He could offer a lot of advice on
Your project and may charge less than you expect?
Mike was the first to analyze the blood clots being found from the
Covid shots that showed at embalmers mortuaries.
Fantastic work as usual, my friend.
Thanks Omar
Next step up is actually what we are looking for but that's close to 10 times the price 🤦♂️
Doc Malik posted a great study on Leatril, B 17, outlawed, based on the healing powers of the Apricot seed against cancer.
Just got some.
Getting all my nutrients from food after following your initial reports, like how do you put Vitamin D from the sun into a pill.
Thanks for the wakeup call.
If you only tested for three elements, as stated in your "methodology", how did you arrive at the plethora of different elements in your results?
The three elements, cobalt, phosphorus and calcium were tested for. You should only be able to comment on the results of those three.
Or have I misunderstood?
Hi Ralph, out of the elements present in the ingredients (vit B 1,6,9 and 12)- only those 3 were in the list of tested elements. Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Sulphur were not among the long list of elements tested for.
But you can see from the long form of the results that many elements were tested for.
Hi Mia, which is what I'm asking. Why not test for what should be there instead of testing for what shouldn't be there?
For all we know, none of the products contained any of the supposedly active ingredients on the labels.
I consider identification of the active ingredients to be essential in assessing product quality.
Because those tests are expensive and we wanted to do a cheap test first to see whether there would unexpected things in the pills.
These were preliminary tests - as the heading of the article states - to make sure more expensive tests would be worth it. We are planning to do more tests, including the ones you describe - as we have stated in the article.
The element test does in a round about way test for the active ingredient - all the samples had B12 which was the particular vitamin we were keeping track of.
So for example you can see the presence of cobalt and phosphorus in samples 2 and 4 which indicates that there is definitely vit b 12 in those samples - cobalt and phosphorus being elements present in vit b 12 - but you can't really see traces of these elements in sample 3 which according to the listed ingredients should have those elements.
So sample 2 and 4, have the ingredients they are supposed to but then they also have all these extras - we will then look into these extras. Sample 3 on the other hand doesn't show traces of what it should have nor does it show anything else really - indicating sample 3 is probably just a sugar pill and not worth testing again.
Same thing with the high level of calcium in sample 2 - which indicates that there is definitely calcium pantethonate in the sample as listed.
Heavy metal contamination is common now because of bad air. Heavy metals are in smog and a completely pristine air filter in a factory complex is unlikely
I'm not continuing this as there seems to be no rationality in your testing procedures or conclusions.
To take your last paragraph as just one example:
The presence of calcium in sample 2 does not indicate the presence of calcium pantothenate - it indicates the presence of calcium.
I'm not continuing this as there seems to be no rationality in your testing procedures or conclusions.
To take your last paragraph as just one example:
The presence of calcium in sample 2 does not indicate the presence of calcium pantothenate - it indicates the presence of calcium.
I'm not continuing this as there seems to be no rationality in your testing procedures or conclusions.
To take your last paragraph as just one example:
The presence of calcium in sample 2 does not indicate the presence of calcium pantothenate - it indicates the presence of calcium.
I'm not continuing this as there seems to be no rationality in your testing procedures or conclusions.
To take your last paragraph as just one example:
The presence of calcium in sample 2 does not indicate the presence of calcium pantothenate - it indicates the presence of calcium.
You clearly have not appreciated what I set out in the first part of my last comment to you. Nor what is said in the article - I think you are struggling to get your head around what the test result do show. You clearly have an idea in your mind that you can't set aside long enough to understand the way we did go around doing our preliminary tests.
Re the calcium - Where do you think the high level of calcium came from in the results of sample 2 given the ingredients listed in the bottle?
The formula for calcium pantothenate is C18H32CaN2O10, the only element that would feature in the results is the calcium - as has been explained to you numerous times already.
Finding Ca does NOT prove the presence of C18H32CaN2010.
End of.
Hi Ralph
I see why it is a bit confusing. I'll try and word it better tomorrow. Based on what should be present in the Vitamins we only tested for those 3 elements (only based on what's expected to be in the Vitamins) but we did and elemental test on all those elements listed in the raw data section. That's why we picked up even more things that should not be there.
I appreciate the response, but I am still puzzled why you now say you tested for all the "extras" but didn't test for what should have been present. If you had a limited budget I would have thought it prudent to test for what SHOULD be present rather than go fishing for things which shouldn't have been.
If you didn't have a limited budget, you should have tested for every element which should have been present as well as the "extras".
It hints at bias.
In short we tested for what was claimed to be in the Vitamins as well as all the other elements listed in the raw data... Not sure how to better describe this but based on what the test gives we didn't leave anything out.
In short, you didn't test for what was claimed to be in the vitamins. In your own words, you specifically did not do so.
Maybe you need to rewrite the whole piece because you are now suddenly claiming to have done something you originally specifically stated you did not (for an unfathomable reason) do.
I'm just trying to understand the rationale, and it's not getting any easier.
What we were expecting is that if these things were harmless very little should have showed up in the test. In principle we only expected to see elevated levels of those 3 elements cobalt, calcium and phosphorus and nothing else. But that is not what the tests showed as you can see for yourself.
I think you should reread the article.
Stupid/silly. Same difference.
Interesting you can be pedantic with words but not with your investigation protocols. Stop now. You just don't get it.
You dont get to tell me when to stop.
If you are done then stop replying.
My comments add to the article, other readers may have similar concerns to you and I am addressing them as best I can for that reason.
You are implying that our results demonstrate nothing and I am trying to explain why that's not true. If we had gone your way and tested for only the active ingredients vit b 1, 5,6, 9 and 12 it is unlikely we would have discovered all these other elements that we did. Which has all the added advantages I have already explained to you more than once.
Actually, I do get to tell you when to stop. You just don't get it. Or maybe you don't want to get it, which would be a lot worse.
I think it's clear from my responses that I have understood your concerns and addressed them.
It's clear from your replies that you have no response to my explanations and have now turned to trolling.
I'm not sure why some governments idea of safe drinking water should provide a baseline for toxicity of vitamins. The expectation with drinking water is that many glasses can be drunk per day, it can be bathed in, and used to wash and cook food.
We could add something entirely healthy to water and the addition would make it no longer meet many standards for clean drinking water.
As is stated in the article - "As such, this analysis is not necessarily determining toxicity, but it is a good screening method to establish what is actually in the samples. Once we know which elements are elevated, we can further look at the potential toxicity due to the chemicals involved. "
The test was to see what was in the vitamins not to establish whether it was toxic - the test is unable to do so. We included that information re the drinking water for perspective.