Rik: We haven’t looked at AIDS yet per se, although I have talked to several HIV patients who have been taking it. As a clinician, I have to say it is very hard to prove in a population like that that your product is causing benefits because the average HIV patient is taking no fewer than 10 different medications. That’s why, when we approached a virus, we decided to approach hepatitis C, because most hepatitis C patients are un-medicated and they keep very stable viral loads. If their viral loads go down, you know it’s because your product had an effect, which is what we’ve seen with the hepatitis C study that we’re doing.  I have been invited to conduct an HIV trial on failed patients. These are patients that failed all of their medication, that have been on medications for such a long time that their particular virus has mutated to the point that the medications they’re on are no longer effective. These patients are looking for some sort of stop gap, something that can keep their viral loads down while new drugs are being invented. So I’ve been invited to do a study with liquid zeolite and that population, and we’ll probably do that this summer.  

Question: Testimonials have stated that cases of herpes zoster seem to have cleared up after people started taking liquid zeolite. Is there anything more scientific that you have on herpes zoster?

Rik: We haven’t looked clinically at shingles or any other virus other than hepatitis C. But we have received two or three dozen shingles testimonials, and there is one published study on this particular zeolite, clinoptilolite, and herpes. There are actually two published studies on viruses –one on herpes and one on entroviruses. That is what encouraged us to do a viral study.  I have been invited to do two different studies in Japan. One would be on shingles, and the other would be on Sjögren’s syndrome, which is believed to be an auto-immune disease, where people have dry eyes and dry mouth due to inflammation of the lachrymal and salivary glands. We’re going to start both of those studies no later than the beginning of June.   

Question: This is a question about one of the studies that has already been conducted and completed with the 65 stage-3 or -4 cancer patients. I’m wondering if there are any further developments on the publication or possibility of publication of that study.  

Rik: I have said this before. There are a lot of problems with that study. It was very limited in its scope, it was an uncontrolled study, and it was conducted by the pharmaceutical company that created the product [liquid zeolite], which is always a no-no. You want to do a study with a completely outside clinical research group or hospital. There was no control as to which patients were taken. Any cancer patient that wanted to be part of the study was accepted. Then there was no control as to what drugs they were taking, or what other protocols they were on.  So every patient basically answered an ad in the paper that said, “If your doctor has given up on you, come to us.” That’s why we got mostly people who had completely end-stage cancer, whose doctors had sent them home to get their affairs in order. Of those 65 patients, eight died during the 14-month study, 51 are considered to be clinically in remission, and the six remaining patients at the end of 14 months were undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, or some other treatment.  Understand, throughout the study, many patients used some sort of adjunctive treatment. For example, a lung cancer patient was told to go home and get his affairs in order. After three months on zeolite, he was feeling much better. He went back to his oncologist, who said, “You’re doing so well, you strong enough now to undergo more chemotherapy and radiation.” So he stayed on the liquid zeolite, but he also went on chemo and radiation at that point. So it becomes a statistical nightmare trying to figure out what effect this particular product had.  Certainly, because of the limitations of the study, there’s no way we’re going to publish in any decent tier-one or tier-two journal. But I have been speaking to the experimental biology journals, and they’re interested in writing this up as some sort of complementary therapy with standard care therapy and the treatment of cancer. They’re looking at this as if we just added a vitamin into their protocol, and certainly didn’t couch this as something for the treatment of end-stage cancer. That’s how we’re writing it up. We’re scrapping most of the statistics, and just taking some of the high ends—who were the patients, how were they treated, and what were their final results.   

Question: On an earlier call, I remember you spoke about using liquid zeolite with people who have hemochromatosis. Could you please explain how liquid zeolite interacts with excess iron stores? 

Rik: In a nutshell, hemochromatosis patients basically cannot waste iron fast enough, so they store their iron, and it doesn’t turn over. The only real treatment for this disease is phlebotomy, to give blood usually every week or every couple of weeks. The two patients I was talking about were giving a pint of blood every two to three weeks to measure their iron scores. Since they started taking liquid zeolite, they no longer have to donate iron or donate blood.  When we looked at the atomic-absorption spectroscopy studies, iron was very very low on the affinity scale, and very few patients lost any iron at all. This is where concentration matters. Zeolite is only going to draw off iron when a patient has an excess of it. In that population, Liquid zeolite could be an amazing product by stabilizing the iron stores – if not completely eliminating the need for phlebotomy, then it might reduce that need greatly.  

Question: Does liquid zeolite remove depleted uranium from our bodies? Our concern is about all the service men who will be returning after being exposed to our armaments that are now being laced with depleted uranium?  

Rik: I have no data on that. Depleted uranium is positively charged and should have an affinity for zeolite, but I don’t have any direct evidence of that. You have been kind enough and several distributors have been kind enough to send me tons of information about depleted uranium. As an academic, until I can do a study on that population and be able to somehow measure uranium that comes off the body, I’m not going to be able to give a definitive yes or no.  I will say that normal excretion of radioactive compounds has been shown to be up-regulated with zeolite. In fact, there were three published studies right after Chernobyl that didn’t measure uranium but that did measure radioactive strontium and cesium in goats and sheep that were fed this particular zeolite – clinoptilolite. Their excretion increased anywhere from 15 to 20 times over normal excretion just by adding clinoptilolite to their diet.  

Question: Are dentists, dental assistants, and hygienists exposed to mercury poisoning from the mercury vapor when drilling an amalgam? 

Rik: I’ve seen so many journal articles for and against the mercury amalgams, for and against the dangers of working with the mercury amalgams. Certainly they do put out mercury vapor. How much and how active that vapor is, is so much in the air.  I will say that there is no good mercury in the body. And so as far as I’m concerned, you shouldn’t use anything that contains mercury. Even the old blocking chemicals that hat makers used to use were mercury chemicals, where the mercury was not free, but the mercury vapors were such that – you know how they said “mad as a hatter.” Remember the mad hatter in Alice in Wonderland? The mercury compounds that hat makers used to block hats would drive them insane. They caused insanity and mental breakdown.  Certainly I would say that any exposure to mercury is a bad thing. Liquid zeolite has been shown to pull mercury out of the body, and that’s a good thing. Mercury and cadmium are right on top of the list. They kind of compete for the highest affinity. Mercury comes out very efficiently right away.  I can’t say yes or no one way or another whether dentists are in more or less danger because they’re working with these mercury amalgams. The jury is still out on that.