Notes on the main 3rd-party comparison studies provided by Rik Deitsch of Waioa used for some of the data above.
Comparative Study 1
Spirit of Sunshine (SOS) ZNatural - 2 bottles (15ml each)
Trilogy Essentials (TE) ZNatural - 2 bottles (15ml each)
Waiora Natural Cellular Defense (NCD) - 2 bottles (15ml each)
Comparative Study 2
ACZnano - 2 bottles (120ml total)
Waiora NCD - 7 bottles (105ml total)
This first study, a compilation of data from 4 independent 3rd-party analytical laboratories — Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc., Watson Analytical Services LLC, Microbac Laboratories Inc., and AnalytiKem Services Inc. — was completed in April 2008, and was undertaken to compare and contrast 3 liquid zeolite brands: NCD, SOS and TE.
The second study, a compilation of data from 3 independent 3rd-party analytical laboratories — Watson Analytical Services LLC, Microserv Laboratories Inc., and AnalytiKem Services Inc. — was completed in February 2009, and was undertaken to compare and contrast NCD and ACZnano liquid zeolites.
Analyses conducted were particle size analysis, elemental analysis, powder diffraction analysis, measurement of serum concentration of product after ingestion and trace metal analysis by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) and INductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS).
Microbial analysis was also conducted on the products to evaluate the presence of contaminants.
Blood Plasma Concentrations:
The plasma was collected from blood samples of patients utilizing one of the three products tested. Everything larger than 5 microns (cellular debris, etc.) was filtered out and then each sample was split in two.
Several extractions (proteins and lipids, etc) were performed on one half of each sample. These were compared with averaged readings from the same analysis on pooled plasma from seven non-NCD consuming individuals (waste plasma from the blood bank) to give a control.
The second half of all four samples (3 liquid zeolite samples and the control) were then analysed by ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy) for the presence of silicon and aluminium. The control plasma readings were then subtracted out so that a serum zeolite concentration could be determined.
NCD gave a plasma reading of 1.03 picograms/dL, however, no additional Si or Al were observed in patients using either of the Znatural brands.
As no long-term consumer was available for ACZnano, the data remains unavailable.
Powder Diffraction Analysis:
Powder diffraction graph for NCD, proving conclusively that it contains clinoptilolite, 4.1 micron mean particle size. There is no powder diffraction graph for either of the ZNatural formulas due to their 'below detectable limits' zeolite content (you can't analyse what you can't see).
The green line in the above graph represents a tracing of authentic clinoptilolite (the safe form of zeolite used in health supplements). The yellow line represents a sample of NCD attained by filter removal of the liquid phase of the product. The reader can see that the chemical profile or fingerprint almost exactly matches, proving that the NCD liquid zeolite actually contains this form of zeolite. Where the fingerprint does not match — at the beginning of the graph below 10.00 (around 5) where there seems to be a loss of signal — is due to the NCD processing which removes heavy metals from the raw product.
Trace metals and Minerals:
This analysis of the sub-micron fraction of all three products. All products were filtered to remove all larger particles. What remains in the NCD batch still fits the standard for Clinoptilolite taking loose ions into account, while the ions present in the SOS and TE products do not match the chemical formula for the component identified as present: 4,5 di-cyclo, disilico, dimagnesium, dialumino, oxyo, trihydrate, identified as a "Magnesium alumionosilicate". This nomenclature would require a 1:1:1 ration of Si:Mg:Al. SOS has a ration of approximately 10:5:1 while TE has a ratio of approximately 1:3:1. (We disagree with the ratio test as we have been told by a zeolite academic that it assumes that zeolite suspensions are just water and pure zeolite with no dissociated ions. And of course this does not apply to multi-ingredient products.)
The conclusion is that neither the TE nor the SOS ZNatural actually contains clinoptilolite or the stated compound on the product label.
With the ACZnano, the ion ratios were not consistent with that of clinoptilolite (although this could be because ions were added during manufacture). ACZnano also has no detectable sub-micron zeolite, which is a bit crazy as the "nano" in its name implies a sub-micron particle size. ACZ nano's larger particle size would mean less (if any) absorption into the blood. The company that manufacturers it has an impressive marketing material, but without backing up their claims with 3rd-party lab tests for both product specification and absorption into the body, we cannot take Results RNA's claims seriously. This approach of "heavy on marketing but light on research" is a little worrying.
What was even more worrying, however, was the results of these lab tests for the Spirit of Sunshine and Trilogy Essential brands of ZNatural. At least the ACZ nano product contained a solid (although there is no evidence that it is clinoptilolite zeolite) but the SOS and TE ZNatural brands did not seem to contain any solids at all — just ions floating around in solution! However, absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, and they possibly contain minute amounts below detection levels. However, their ion ratios are still worrying inconsistent (could be due to added ions) and do not support this. The manufacturer of SOS and TE ZNatural products has produced no 3rd party lab spec sheets or evidence of absorbancy into the blood.
We have heard of people getting results from ZNatural so we cannot dismiss it out of hand. Its effectiveness could be the result of non-detectable amounts of zeolite, new sub-components of zeolite (see next paragraph), the placebo effect and/or possibly some sort of homeopathic action. However, leaving placebo, novel molecules and homeopathic action aside, from a scientific ion-exchange point of view, if ZNatural is working at all due to non-detectable amounts of zeolite, it has to be less effective than any product with a detectable amount of zeolite.
Harvey Kaufman, a stakeholder in Lifelink Inc., the manufacturer of ZNatural (we understand that Kaufman might have recently left Lifelink), has stated that in his manufacturing process the clinoptilolite is broken down further into soluble sub-components which he labels "nano-zeolite" that he states are novel molecules and not actually zeolite at all. However, any chemist would dismiss even the possibility of his molecule existing as it does not comply to the basic laws of chemistry — for example he draws his nano-zeolite structure with an oxygen atom linked to 5 other atoms, an impossibility in standard chemistry as oxygen cannot have a 5-valency.
Although this novel zeolite sub-unit could explain why there is no detectable zeolite in their products, Kaufman has never supplied any scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of his "nano-zeolite", and it has been dismissed by academics. You will see from the analysis above that ion ratios do not support this novel molecule explanation (both in their values and inconsistency), nor does ICP-MS analysis of blood plasma. After all, even novel zeolite pieces must contain aluminium and silicon, the basic building blocks of zeolite, but there is no evidence of increase in levels of these elements in the blood serum of ZNatural users, showing that these zeolite sub-components are probably fictional.
Claiming that novel zeolite sub-components are present also raises some serious safety concerns because any new molecule is unlikely to share clinoptilolite's GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status and therefore needs to be fully researched before appearing in a food supplement. As far as we are aware, this research has not happened, and ZNatural promoters push their product on the back of standard clinoptilolite information, status safety and research. So more explanations and some scientific data are needed from Lifelink to clear up this confusion, and they need to publically release their evidence for this "nano-zeolite", safety data for it, and proof that it is present in the blood serum of those that take ZNatural. Not to do so is irresponsible as there are many sick people who rely and have relied on their product to detoxify.
* * *
We do remain open to new data, and will continue to modify this section to keep it up-to-date as new liquid zeolite brands emerge. We hope that liquid zeolite manufacturers will realize that manufacturing liquid zeolite is far more complex than just mixing zeolite in water (as many do), or trying to gain credibility by associating their product with a scientist/doctor, rather than doing actual science. Manufacturers bear a heavy responsibility to produce comprehensive 3rd-party specification data and research on their products as there are many very sick people who rely on liquid zeolite to remove the toxins that are suppressing their bodies' innate healing abilities. If products are based more on slick marketing and flashy websites than actual research, they could be doing more harm than good.
If you have any questions regarding the Pharma Corp data, please take it up with them. We have published this data in good faith for the public interest.