Iknovate

Senior Member
Messages
121
Likes
159
This was the title on a diagram for a podcast I watched on Wednesday with guest Darren Schmidt (registration required to view https://microbeformulas.com/blogs/live-qa/episode-152).

He added (or fine-tuned) all sorts of phrases in my arsenal as I circle the drain to move to another dimension of knowledge and outsmart the doctors.

For years I've insisted that I don't have fibromyalgia ('those people' reported too many neurological symptoms - I had none). I began to insist on the term myalgia. But more recently, as I've begun to understand the behavior of Mitochondria and the Krebs Cycle that I was certain what I really was dealing with was Lactic Acidosis.

Darren's presentation confirmed that, and gave me the ammunition needed to defend it. He mentioned Krebs Cycle failure, leading to anaerobic conditions that generate high waste products - specifically, lactate.

In the attached research it not only suggests that Lyme causes metabolic dysfunction, it point blank states "the symptoms seen in Lyme borreliosis are a result of the host inflammatory response against the pathogen rather than mediated by the pathogen itself."

It goes further to suggest that the spirochetes intentionally create anaerobic glycolysis (producing lactate), because they use lactate for their survival.

But there were a few things Darren mentioned that I wasn't ready to embrace and found further evidence to support my hesitation. Even on discussion here there is support for hyperbaric treatments. This research shows that "even in the presence of sufficient levels of oxygen" this anaerobic glycolysis will occur.

Darren did debunk the use of baking soda in attempts to somehow neutralize the acidic conditions. It's an election transfer chain problem. It's physics, not chemistry.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877959X19302389
 
Last edited:

Iknovate

Senior Member
Messages
121
Likes
159
I do believe there is still some support for salt for ionization properties, but not sure where that also fits with increasing free negative ions via grounding. I know my pain issues are grossly minimized with a grounding mattress cover.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
4,080
Likes
7,386
Location
Alberta
From 'what is earthing":

"The earth is negatively charged, emitting negative ions and electrons."

That statement is misleading. The earth does have a negative charge with respect to the upper atmosphere. I don't think it's actively emitting negative ions and electrons, except during thunderstorms, and then mostly at conductive high points. The electric field needs to be very strong (on the order of tens of thousands of volts per inch) in order to ionize air, and that's not the normal state of affairs on most parts of the earth, so it's not 'emitting negative ions' in most places that people are grounding themselves.

"These negatively charged ions and electrons help detoxify our bodies from free radicals, heavy metals, air pollution, etc."

Now that statement is really misleading. Any ions breathed in would only have a chance of affecting molecules in the lungs. I can't see them having a chance of doing anything for heavy metals in the body. To me it reads like they chose some marketing 'hot words' (detoxify, heavy metals) and made some unsupported claims based on misapplying physics and chemistry.

Any electrons added to the body just sit on the skin; that's basic electrostatic physics. They do not enter the body to engage in chemical reactions. If changing the body's electrical charge affected our inner workings, then getting a few hundred thousand volts of charge from a Van de Graaff generator (or other source) would cause noticeable physiological effects. Instead, it just makes your hairs stand up. Grounding has no theoretical basis for altering the interior of a body.

That's not to say that grounding can't have noticeable effects. Human can detect static charges, by feeling our hairs stand up, so it's at least possible that carrying a significant charge (maybe by sliding between synthetic sheets) would be sensed and make the person anxious. Maybe there are other possible explanations. Grounding by standing barefoot on a beach or in some other pleasant natural setting would have psychological benefits completely aside from any charge alteration. 'Detoxifying free radicals in our bodies' is just not theoretically possible from grounding, AFAIK.
 

Iknovate

Senior Member
Messages
121
Likes
159
Our blood systems rely on free negative electrons. The physics of the healing process is one that uses negative electrons. A flood of negative electrons minimizes inflammation.

When there are insufficient free electrons to support healing processes, the system cooperates. Red blood cells start sharing negative ions and clump together. Increase this repeatedly and blood thickens.

When the balance of electron sharing gets tipped a bit (or maybe it's a matter of availability by proximity), electrons are grabbed from the calcium in our bones.

Absolutely, negative ions are critical to the entire cellular-level physics of the way our body operates.

Please take a look at the Earthing Movie.

Most of our increasing epidemics of inflammatory diseases (heart, diabetes, MS, Parkinson's, dementia, even anxiety and depression), can be directly linked to our modern society where we no longer spend much of our time connected to the earth (walking, sleeping, working).

Clint Ober does weekly podcasts where he goes into greater detail about the mechanics of the effect of negative ions on our health.
https://youtube.com/user/EarthingOriginal
 
Messages
13,130
Likes
30,088
Location
Second star to the right ...
When there are insufficient free electrons to support healing processes, the system cooperates. Red blood cells start sharing negative ions and clump together. Increase this repeatedly and blood thickens.
The first study you cited above says just the opposite:

"Conclusions: Grounding increases the surface charge on RBCs and thereby reduces blood viscosity and clumping. Grounding appears to be one of the simplest and yet most profound
interventions for helping reduce cardiovascular risk and cardiovascular events."

But I also believe that there are more mysteries in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies, so I find this really challenging and interesting ....
 

Iknovate

Senior Member
Messages
121
Likes
159
@YippeeKi YOW !!
Actually, it confirms my statement. I said in the ABSENCE of sufficient negative electrons blood cell share electrons and clump. They confirmed that grounding, which increases free electrons, allows the cells to pick up their own electrons and stop sharing, thereby, improving viscosity.
 

pattismith

Senior Member
Messages
3,425
Likes
6,700
@pattismith
It's almost impossible to have a compromised Krebs Cycle (confirmed by testing) and not have Lactic Acidosis.

As well, I have none of the symptoms of hyperlactatemia, and most of the symptoms of lactic acidosis.
I'm sorry, I don't understand, did you have a blood lactate test?
 

Iknovate

Senior Member
Messages
121
Likes
159
@pattismith
I had an organic acids test and I have Lyme and 4 other retroviruses out of range. The latter is sufficient to put Mitochondria into anaerobic glycolysis. But the OAT confirmed disruption.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
4,080
Likes
7,386
Location
Alberta
With that in mind, let me introduce you to just some of the hard research.
Hard research? I checked those links and found only vague suggestions and claims. I followed one link ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793004/ ) which seems just plain flakey spiritualism to me, with no scientific support. That just shows that "www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles" does not guarantee 'scientific hardness'.

From one of your links:
"The most reasonable hypothesis to explain the beneficial effects of earthing is that a direct earth connection enables both diurnal electrical rhythms and free electrons to flow from the earth to the body. It is proposed that the earth's diurnal electrical rhythms set the biological clocks for hormones that regulate sleep and activity. It is also suggested that free electrons from the earth neutralize the positively charged free radicals that are the hallmark of chronic inflammation."

To me, that hypothesis is in no way reasonable, and certainly isn't proven by experiment. Note that the rest of it are claims that are merely 'proposed' and 'suggested', but not proven. I've seen no evidence that changing skin charge levels affects cellular chemistry (reducing oxidants or whatever). As I said earlier, if the hypothesis behind grounding is correct, that adding electrons to a body has biological effects, then charging up with a Van de Graaf generator should show even greater biological effects ... but it doesn't. Static charges on skin remain on the skin; they do not travel into the body to bind to undesirable oxidizing molecules.

There may be studies that show that sleeping while grounded improves sleep quality or alters cortisol levels. Whether they are correctly done studies is something I don't know. However, even if they are correctly done and show actual benefits, they don't prove that the 'proposals' and 'suggestions' are the valid explanations behind it, and they don't disprove the basic laws of electrostatics. None of the links I followed showed any evidence of electrons applied to the skin being involved in internal molecular interactions.
 

sb4

Senior Member
Messages
1,538
Likes
2,695
Location
United Kingdom
It makes sense to me that if there is benefit to be had by a free source of electrons then nature/evolution would try to find a way to use it. However that doesn't mean that it will find a way, if free electrons from earth can even be used.

I experimented with grounding a couple of years ago. I felt a little better in general from doing it, kind of like with meditation. Not really affecting symptoms but general well being. However I can't say this was from grounding as it could be from being outside in natural light, with fresh air, and smelling the subtle chemicals released by plants. It makes sense that from evolution your brain would find this kind of environment more relaxing than just being in your room.

@Wishful I remember reading somewhere an idea that the electrons can get in through your feet. Apparently feet are very good at absorbing salts, something to do with caveman walking in the sea hunting for shellfish. If the water can flow in through the feet maybe it can carry electrons with it??

With the Van de Graaf Generator perhaps they only measured short periods of time. Perhaps groundings effects are only noticeable once you've spend days grounding, like the electrons seep in at a very slow rate or something.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
4,080
Likes
7,386
Location
Alberta
@Wishful I remember reading somewhere an idea that the electrons can get in through your feet.
They can get in anywhere; our bodies are poor insulators, except for dense hair. Water won't 'carry' electrons in. If you charged up some water and stuck your feet into it, the electrons would just spread out on your skin. That's the main argument: that conductive objects maintain an electrically neutral interior.

like the electrons seep in at a very slow rate or something.
No, electrons don't seep slowly. They stay on the surface because electrons repel each other, so if there is a net charge, there's a force pushing electrons outwards from the center.

A better test for grounding would be to vary the voltage of the test subject and look for measurable quantities that correlate with the voltage. Is sleep worse with a +500V charge than with a -500V charge? Does blood viscosity or the level of oxidants vary with voltage? That would be a much better experiment.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
4,080
Likes
7,386
Location
Alberta
Okay, I bothered to read your example of 'hard science'. "Mushy pseudo-science" seems like a more appropriate term. There seemed to be no controls used. They took blood samples, put the test subjects in a comfy chair for two hours, and then took another blood sample. RBC viscosity was reduced in the second sample. Wow, absolute proof of whatever theory they wanted to claim was responsible. My guess is that if they used controls (not grounded), the controls would show the same change in RBCs.

They then use these 'amazing results' to make baseless claims such as: "As soil's electrons are conducted to the human body, the grounded body assumes favorable physiologic and electrophysiologic changes." Nope, sorry, the experiment does not provide evidence for that., and does not prove that electrons from grounding actually enter the body.

Maybe "slimey science" is more appropriate, since it seemed to have been done to provide an advantageous result for publishing?
 
Messages
13,130
Likes
30,088
Location
Second star to the right ...
Maybe "slimey science" is more appropriate, since it seemed to have been done to provide an advantageous result for publishing?
I refer back to my statement in another thread re Predatory 'Science' Publications, and the frightening warning that they've started invading previously real sources of scientific research, like PubMed et al ....