Liquid Zeolite Brands

The original brand of liquid zeolite as a detox supplement was produced by a company called Waiora called Natural Cellular Defense (NCD) and was originally formulated by inventor Harvey Kaufman. Subsequently, Waiora and Kaufman parted company, after which Kaufman took Waiora to court accusing them of non-payment of royalties. The case was settled out of court and Kaufman subsequently started his own brand of liquid zeolite which is now called ZNatural.

Around this time, other companies started producing their own brands of liquid zeolite, so that now there are a number of brands on the market. This is a good thing as the competition forces companies to update and upgrade their products.

As a generic, non-commerical zeolite information site, liquidzeolite.org tries desperately to be impartial to branding. However, there is such a massive difference between the different brands of liquid zeolite that to give each one equal billing would not be in the public interest. We are aware that there are many very sick people who are looking to use these detox products as an integral part of their treatment programs, often for life-and-death medical conditions, and it is important for us to be as objective as possible in reviewing each brand.

The basic problem with liquid zeolite is that the raw ingredients can be cheap to buy. Zeolite is a mineral rock and micronized (finely powdered) zeolite is readily available (some powders, though, have more involved processing than others so can be more expensive). Therefore, the whole cost of liquid zeolite health supplements is in the processing. So two different companies can have similar ingredients — say zeolite and water — but one has a very involved scientific processing that produces a very pure and effective suspension, whereas another might simply shake up powderd zeolite in water and stick a label on (in which case you may as well just buy powdered or encapsulated zeolite and swig it down with some water). So two different brands of liquid zeolite can be of very different quality and have a different effect in the body.

We have witnessed, first-hand, one long-standing American liquid zeolite "expert" who masqueraded as a doctor and was actually recommending treatment programs to people with cancer, but who was finally forced to admit that the title was bogus, offering the excuse that he was merely using a long-standing nickname. We have checked his work with a UK university biochemistry professor, a retired UK research doctor, a US cell biologist, a leading US chemist, and a Croatian zeolite academic, all of whom dismiss his scientific claims as bogus. This American zeolite "expert" even gives a molecular schematic of a "soluble nano-zeolite" for which he offers no scientific peer-reviewed scientific justification or proof whatsoever. Even the product he makes has been shown to be basically mineral water, and yet, he continues to be promoted and his product continues to be sold, often to very sick people. This, in our opinion, is unethical and dangerous, and we have seen the consequences. If one makes a claim for a novel molecule, one must back it up with some scientific evidence for both its existence and its safety. (This expert's patent is not evidence of existence of nano-zeolites or their safety, but rather one for non-oral application — the injection of liquid zeolite directly into tumors of mice to shrink the tumors. This can hardly be used as an endorsement for oral administration in humans with cancer!)

There are companies out there selling products that have not been cleaned properly, one of which even boasts that their natural source of zeolite is so clean already that this process is unnecessary! (All natural deposits of zeolite are "dirty".) There are products that claim to have nano-sized particles, when in fact their particles size is large enough for the products to be ineffective. There are products that have high mould and bacteria content, but you wouldn't know this as they avoid having 3rd party analysis. We have seen companies steal other companies' literature and clinical research, despite have a product that is qualitatively different. And there are people out on the internet offering "impartial" liquid zeolite information as a guise to growing their network marketing business for one particular brand.

So the liquid zeolite industry is a confusing mess at the moment, with no agreed-upon standards. That is why it is important to review the brands available before you make a choice which one to buy.

Our advice, therefore, to anybody interested in using liquid zeolite is the following:

1. Ask for a full 3rd party specification sheet (must be done by independent lab — not in-house) giving full elemental analysis (including any impurities), particle size analysis, micro analysis (bacterial and fungal content), and VOC (volatile organic compound) content. If any of this information is missing for a particular brand, don't buy it.
2. Ask for proof of zeolite content and quantity. This can take many different forms and might include powder diffraction analysis. As there are liquid zeolite products with no detectable zeolite in them this is very important.
3. Avoid companies making unsubstantiated claims. Check out all claims made by a company, and if they cannot or will not substantiate them, the company should be avoided.

Your health is too important to risk buying scientifically unsubstantiated products, even if they compensate for their lack of analysis with colourful websites and pseudo-scientific brochures.

Below is a comparative table on some of the leading liquid zeolite brands. Some of the info was taken from the court case notes of Lifelink Pharmaceuticals vs Waiora; some of it is provided by Waiora, although it has been analyzed by 3rd-party labs; and some of it from information distributed by the manufacturers themselves. (We are assuming that 3rd party analysis and label information put out by manufacturers is not bogus.)

If you would like your own brand of liquid zeolite reviewed here, then please email us the information.

*                    *                    *

LIQUID ZEOLITE BRAND COMPARISON TABLE

Notes on the main 3rd-party comparison studies provided by Rik Deitsch of Waioa used for some of the data above.

Materials Provided:

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)

Description:

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.

Conclusions:

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.