Liquid Zeolite Brands

These different brands of liquid zeolite vary considerably in price and marketing strategy, and it can be tempting to go for the least expensive. After all, liquid zeolite is liquid zeolite. Right? Well actually, that is very far from the truth. The different brands of liquid zeolite on the market are so different in their composition and manufacture, that they may as well be completely different products. So our advice when health is at stake is not to choose on price or marketing hype, but to choose on clinical studies and third-party lab analysis.

Firstly, from a safety (see our safety section) and efficacious point of view, it is probably best to eliminate liquid zeolites based in humic acid. This is because, not only is there a danger of bacterial and fungal contamination (two companies selling humic acid varieties have been closed down in the last few years due to this problem), but the zeolite itself is not cleaned and activated during manufacture as it is with NCD and ZNatural. This means that the product could well still be carrying the toxins naturally found in zeolite. There is also no clinical data that we are aware of that specifically involves humic acid versions of liquid zeolite. So our advice is to leave humic acid brands off your shopping list. (If you must have it, at least insist on third-party heavy metal, bacterial and fungal analysis.)

So this leaves us with three leading brands — NCD, UK ZNatural and US ZNatural, all of which claim to contain zeolite that is cleaned and activated, which means toxins naturally found in the mineral are removed and the zeolite cages are filled with light and healthy metal ions like sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium etc. The reason we refer to the US and UK versions of ZNatural separately is that compositional analysis has shown them to be different products manufactured in different ways. The only thing they seem to share is the ZNatural brand name (and their non-detectable zeolite content).

We have been trying to find third-party lab analysis for these leading liquid zeolite products for a couple of years now because we were tired of just relying for this information on the marketing machine of the two respective companies. To be fair, Waiora did release 3-party analysis of their NCD brand in June 2006, so we knew it was safe, but the report they issued was not detailed enough. (As far as we are aware, no other major brands have issued even this sort of basic safety report.)

So you can imagine our delight when Rik Deitsch, biochemist and CEO of Nutra Pharma Corp., sent us the following report which has been compiled from four different 3rd-party labs: Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc., Watson Analytical Services LLC, Microbac Laboratories Inc., and AnalytiKem Services Inc. We are aware that Deitsch is the scientific adviser for Waiora and their NCD brand, but as these results were undertaken by 3rd-party labs we feel that they carry weight. (Labs are not doing to risk their reputations by fiddling data.) Also, similar comparative data was key in having Lifelinks' court case against Waiora dismissed (Lifelink accused Waiora of copying their manufacturing process) as it clearly showed huge disparity between the products. This adds to the data's credibility.

LIQUID ZEOLITE BRAND COMPARISON STUDY

Materials Provided:

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)

Description:

This study, a compilation of data from 4 independent 3rd-party analytical laboratories — Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc., Watson Analyitical Services LLC, Microbac Laboratories Inc., and AnalytiKem Services Inc. — was completed in April 2008, and was undertaken to compare and contrast 3 detoxification supplement products, NCD, SOS and TE.

Analyses conducted were particle size analysis, elemental analysis, powder diffraction analysis, measurement of serum concentration of product after ingestion and trace metal analysis by Antomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) and INductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS).

Microbal analysis was also conducted on the products to evaluate the presence of contaminants.

Results:

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.

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.

The conclusion is that neither the TE nor the SOS contains clinoptilolite or the stated compound on the product label.

Conclusions:

It would seem from this Nutra Pharma data that both SOS and TE ZNatural liquid zeolite brands should be avoided as there is no evidence for their clinoptilolite content. 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.

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 from Lifelink, the manufacturer of ZNatural, has stated that in his manufacturing processes the clinoptilolite is broken down further into sub-components ("nano-zeolite") that are novel molecules and not zeolite at all. This could be why there is no detectable zeolite in their products. However, there is no scientific evidence for this novel ion-exchange molecule and it has been dismissed by other researchers. In the analysis above, ion ratios do not support this explanation (both in their values and inconsistency), nor does ICP-MS analysis of blood plasma — 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 even zeolite sub-components are just not there in detectable concentrations.

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 still push their product on the back of standard clinoptilolite information, status and research. So more explanations and some scientific data are needed from Lifelink to clear up this confusion, and to prove that this mysterious "nano-zeolite" exists at all, that it is safe, and that it is present in the blood serum of those that take ZNatural.

Based on the above, we have to conclude that the safest and most effective brand of liquid zeolite is currently Waiora's NCD. We do, however, remain open to new data, and will continue to modify this section to keep it up-to-date.