Glycrite Nascent Iodine Detracors Response

WHITEPAPER – Rebuttal To ‘Glycerite’ of Nascent Iodine Dectractors
by L. Carl Robinson, MH,TT,CCHt 
© 2013 L. Carl Robinson – All Rights Reserved.

As the originator/lead co-developer of the Pureodine™ process for making the first ever “original” Glycerite of Nascent Iodine, that utilizes a proprietary trade secret process for making a liquid ‘nascent’ iodine that uses only glycerin and pure elemental iodine, and no alcohol, water or other ingredients in the manufacture, it is my intent to dispel the misinformation being espoused concerning the belief that glycerin cannot be used as an effective medium for making a liquid nascent iodine, and to present some hypothetical points of a highly scientific nature concerning this very unique form of nascent iodine.

(Note: The historical and scientific points presented in this whitepaper are now so well-known and established that they can be found on Wikipedia, to which a number of the points presented herein have been quoted verbatim from Wikipedia for accuracy of the subject matter presented and/or quoted.)

Historical Context of Liquid ‘Nascent’ Iodines

The first known producing of a liquid nascent iodine for consumer use is attributed to Edward Cayce (March 18, 1877 – January 3, 1945), a popular psychic known as ‘the Sleeping Prophet.’ The story has it that this simple individual would go into trances and ‘reveal’ knowledge of a number of subjects that were well beyond his education, training and experience. One of those trances resulted in his revealing how a novel iodine-based supplement was made, utilizing pure iodine crystals and chlorine gas and subjecting the mix to a weak electromagnetic fields, that in a finished alcohol/water medium put pure iodine crystals into suspension and rendered the solution of ‘nascent’ iodine less toxic than when in its pure crystal form. His product came to be, and is still marketed under the brand Atomidine.

Cayce used words such as ‘transformative’ and ‘detoxified’ to describe this process and its finished product with the term ‘Modified Detoxification Process’ being the settled on term for his process. Because his work concerning his ‘intuited’ discovery has not been properly subjected to acceptable scientific scrutiny and elucidated as to what is involved in the making of nascent iodine this unique form of iodine has never been taken seriously by either the scientific community or consumers at large.

Critics of Cayce claim that the chemistry behind the creation of Atomidine, and the alleged health benefits, are pseudoscience. (see: Robert Carroll, Skeptic's Dictionary: Cayce)

Current History of Nascent Iodine Products Developments.  

In the ensuing years since Cayce’s work on nascent iodine a number of break off endeavors have taken place in which other process methodologies and ingredient basis’ have been developed for making liquid nascent iodine. The most common denominators of these ‘revised’ methodologies for making nascent iodine has been the use of pure crystal iodine, alcohol (and water in some instances) and the subjecting of the mixed medium to an electromagnetic field to one degree or another, with a number of these manufacturers dispensing with the use of chlorine gas altogether.

Interestingly, concerning chlorine gas being used in making a nascent iodine, it not only appears counter-intuitive, since chlorine, being a halogen of the same elemental class as iodine, is a known goitrogen, that tightly binds to iodine rendering it inert, that may include blocking the uptake and utilization of iodine by the body’s tissues, that in classical chemistry does leave much to be explained regarding Cayce’s assertions for his nascent iodine.

For example, some, including myself, have surmised that this may be one of the reasons Cayce’s version of nascent iodine possessed ‘detoxified’ properties, that also includes, among other factors, the distinct possibility that Cayce’s nascent iodine version may actually render the iodine (and chlorine) inert with the overall effect of simply passing out of the body with little absorption or utilization. True, this may be an oversimplified point, but from a purely known chemical and physiology perspective this premise is the most plausible for Cayce’s nascent iodine version possessing its claimed for “detoxified” properties. Nothing magical or metaphysical here, just pure chemistry.

On the other hand, non-chlorine based nascent iodine products have been shown to possess a level of sublimating (liberating) of iodine the longer the product is on shelves, evidenced by breakdown and hardening/cracking of the rubber bulb on such products. This has been noted with some ‘Cayce revised’ non-chlorine based alcohol-based nascent iodine products taking place as quick as within 6 months from date of bottling.

Being a Master Herbalist with a specialty in botanical pharmacognosy & pharmacology and fluid manufacture and formulation for over 30 years, that included studies and a working background in nutritional science with an emphasis on mineral deficiencies, some years ago when I was first introduced to liquid nascent iodine products one of the first things I noted was that while I found most brands of nascent iodine to possess acceptable dietary supplement safety when taken as directed, the rapid decay of the rubber bulb caught my attention.

After considerable observation and research I concluded that the range of nascent iodine brands available in the marketplace had this problem due to the fact that the fluid medium of these products might not be stable enough (due to the iodine not being rendered inert by chlorine binding) to deal with non-chlorine bound iodine’s aggressive proclivity to sublimate/liberate from the fluid medium.

Further thinking on my part concerning this little observed or noted problem presented me with the premise that another medium might be more conducive to stabilizing this aspect of nascent iodine. The problem was that all the literature on nascent iodine clearly specified that only alcohol would work with iodine in making a non-chlorine based nascent iodine. Then I recalled that some years prior, while studying glycerin’s properties and uses for liquid herbal manufacturing, there was reference to glycerin and iodine having a well established chemical affinity for each other. My re-researching this information showed indeed that glycerin and iodine do have a chemical affinity for each other. The question now to be answered was not ‘if’ but ‘how’ to bring glycerin and iodine together as a stable glycerite of nascent iodine.

I brought together a team of talented individuals who each possessed knowledge and background in respective fields concerning each aspect of the general premise of making liquid nascent iodine. With what I shared with this team concerning the glycerin and iodine affinity factor it was determined we would successfully pursue and develop a processing technology for nascent iodine based on the use of glycerin as the processing and holding medium for iodine that concentrated iodine in solution with better stability of a nascent iodine than had previously been done.

Developing a ‘Glycerite’ of Nascent Iodine

One of the first things ascertained concerning glycerin regarding iodine is that a totally different processing approach to combining glycerin with iodine would be required. Based on my readings, one of the reasons alcohol has been deemed the most acceptable solvent for making nascent iodine is because alcohol being a diatomic compound is seen as most conducive to breaking the bonds of iodine’s diatomic structure. Glycerin, on the other hand, is a triatomic compound, and in many circles is seen as not being conducive to breaking the bonds of iodine’s diatomic structure. While detractors of the glycerite of nascent iodine premise are correct as to the ‘passive’ utilization of alcohol for making nascent iodine, they have completely missed the ‘active’ utilization (i.e. ‘how’ utilized) of glycerin for making nascent iodine. In other words, the intrinsic chemical makeup of a solvent is only a small part of the equation regarding the use of glycerin, as how glycerin is utilized in making nascent iodine appears to play an even larger role in its being used for making a glycerite of nascent iodine. Even so, the glycerite of nascent iodine detractors seem to have also missed the well established scientific fact that glycerin and iodine nevertheless have an intrinsic affinity for each other, which was a solid basis to pursue this project.

Out of the R&D for making a stable glycerin made nascent iodine emerged what came to be known as the Pureodine™ process. Interestingly, this process has also been utilized to make a genuine colloidal suspension of zeolite minerals that remain in indefinite suspension, a previous unattainable attribute in dietary supplement based products. (Zeolites are the aluminosilicate members of the family of microporous solids known as "molecular sieves.")

Summarizing this development. The Pureodine™ process goes beyond the Cayce method by not only utilizing glycerin as the fluid solvent base, but is a multi-step processing technology that utilizes specialized equipment, manufacture standardized methodology protocols and an advanced ground-breaking electromagnetic field technology that we call an IHMVAS (Integrated Hydro Molecular Vortex Agitation System) accelerator. It’s actually a patentable development we chose to keep a proprietary trade secret. Our research has clearly shown that all steps and aspects of the Pureodine™ process must be utilized, in a specific process standardized fashion, to attain the unique attributes a Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine possesses.

The Hypothetical Theory Underlying The Pureodine™ Process

Because a glycerite of nascent iodine is a totally new concept in the world of nascent iodines, the Pureodine™ research team looked carefully at the process and its outcomes and has offered a hypothetical explanation of some of the factors that may be part of making glycerite of nascent iodine and its properties. The following factors are presented as possible determinates, either individually or collectively, that contribute to or are the outcome of Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine.

Again, these are hypothetical premises, not ‘proven’ facts. However, given the premise and nature of the Pureodine™ process, any one or combination of these factors are deemed to factor into the overall and/or specific premises presented.



Dispersion (usually named after Fritz London), which is the attractive interaction between any pair of molecules, including non-polar atoms, arising from the interactions of instantaneous multipoles.

[Dispersion is one of the basic concepts embedded in ‘colloidal’ physics, and is involved in nano-particle ‘paring’ interactions. LCR]

Electric (Electromagnetic) Fields

The electric susceptibility χe of a dielectric material is a measure of how easily it polarizes in response to an electric field. This, in turn, determines the electric permittivity of the material and thus influences many other phenomena in that medium, from the capacitance of capacitors to the speed of light.

[This is indicative of a dielectric material’s broad range of phenomenon that crosses a large range of possibilities and outcomes. LCR]

Intermolecular Forces

Intermolecular forces have four major contributions:
1. A repulsive component resulting from the Pauli exclusion principle that prevents the collapse of molecules.
2. Attractive or repulsive electrostatic interactions between permanent charges (in the case of molecular ions), dipoles (in the case of molecules without inversion center), quadrupoles (all molecules with symmetry lower than cubic), and in general between permanent multipoles. The electrostatic interaction is sometimes called the Keesom interaction or Keesom force after Willem Hendrik Keesom.
3. Induction (also known as polarization), which is the attractive interaction between a permanent multipole on one molecule with an induced multipole on another. This interaction is sometimes called Debye force after Peter J.W. Debye.

[Points 2 and/or 3 may play a role in the Pureodine™ process. LCR]

Van der Waals Interactions

Definition of Van der Waals interactions

Van der Waals forces include attractions and repulsions between atoms, molecules, and surfaces, as well as other intermolecular forces. They differ from covalent and ionic bonding in that they are caused by correlations in the fluctuating polarizations of nearby particles (a consequence of quantum dynamics (see: A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov, I.E. Dzyaloshinsky (1963–1975). Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-63228-8. Chapter 6 Electromagnetic Radiation in an Absorbing Medium)).

Covalent bonds versus Van der Waals interactions – In 2012, the first direct measurements of the strength of the van der Waals' force for a single organic molecule bound to a metal surface was made via atomic force microscopy and corroborated with density functional calculations. (see:

[Note the 2012 measurements that references a ‘single organic molecule bound to a metal surface’ due to ‘polarizations’ interactions of nearby particles. LCR]

The Casimir Effect

In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. They are named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir.

The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. (see: Cyriaque Genet, Francesco Intravaia, Astrid Lambrecht and Serge Reynaud (2004) "Electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations, Casimir and Van der Waals forces" [see attached PDF doc.) When this field is instead studied using the QED vacuum of quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force (see: The Force of Empty Space, Physical Review Focus, 3 December 1998)—either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect captured formally by second quantization. (see: A. Lambrecht, The Casimir effect: a force from nothing, Physics World, September 2002. And: American Institute of Physics News Note 1996) However, the treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations has led to some controversy. In fact "Casimir's original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules" of the metallic plates. Thus it can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual particles of quantum fields. (see: Jaffe, R. (2005). "Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum". Physical Review D 72 (2): 021301. arXiv:hep-th/0503158. Bibcode:2005PhRvD..72b1301J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.021301.)

Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder at Philips Research Labs proposed the existence of a force between two polarizable atoms and between such an atom and a conducting plate in 1947, and, after a conversation with Niels Bohr who suggested it had something to do with zero-point energy, Casimir alone formulated the theory predicting a force between neutral conducting plates in 1948; the former is called the Casimir–Polder force while the latter is the Casimir effect in the narrow sense. Predictions of the force were later extended to finite-conductivity metals and dielectrics by Lifshitz and his students, and recent calculations have considered more general geometries. It was not until 1997, however, that a direct experiment, by S. Lamoreaux, described above, quantitatively measured the force (to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory), although previous work [e.g. van Blockland and Overbeek (1978)] had observed the force qualitatively, and indirect validation of the predicted Casimir energy had been made by measuring the thickness of liquid helium films by Sabisky and Anderson in 1972. Subsequent experiments approach an accuracy of a few percent.

Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is measurable only when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicron scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom—the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.325 kPa, 1.01325 bar, 14.69595 psi), the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors. (see: "The Casimir effect: a force from nothing". 1 September 2002. Retrieved 17 July 2009.)

In modern theoretical physics, the Casimir effect plays an important role in the chiral bag model of the nucleon; and in applied physics, it is significant in some aspects of emerging microtechnologies and nanotechnologies. (see: Astrid Lambrecht,Serge Reynaud and Cyriaque Genet" Casimir In The Nanoworld" [see attached PDF doc.)
Any medium supporting oscillations has an analogue of the Casimir effect. For example, beads on a string (see: Griffiths, D. J.; Ho, E. (2001). "Classical Casimir effect for beads on a string". American Journal of Physics 69 (11): 1173. doi:10.1119/1.1396620. And: Cooke, J. H. (1998). "Casimir force on a loaded string". American Journal of Physics 66 (7): 569–561. doi:10.1119/1.18907.) as well as plates submerged in noisy water (see: Denardo, B. C.; Puda, J. J.; Larraza, A. S. (2009). "A water wave analog of the Casimir effect". American Journal of Physics 77 (12): 1095. doi:10.1119/1.3211416) or gas (see: Larraza, A. S.; Denardo, B. (1998). "An acoustic Casimir effect". Physics Letters A 248 (2–4): 151. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00652-5.) exhibit the Casimir force.

[Note that The Casimir effect is listed as, “in applied physics, it is significant in some aspects of emerging microtechnologies and nanotechnologies.” The Pureodine™ process is considered by some to possess many nanotechnological aspects. LCR]

Concerning Dielectric Fields

The study of dielectric properties concerns storage and dissipation of electric and magnetic energy in materials. (see: Arthur R. von Hippel, in his seminal work, Dielectric Materials and Applications, stated: "Dielectrics... are not a narrow class of so-called insulators, but the broad expanse of nonmetals considered from the standpoint of their interaction with electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields. Thus we are concerned with gases as well as with liquids and solids, and with the storage of electric and magnetic energy as well as its dissipation." (Technology Press of MIT and John Wiley, NY, 1954).)

A dielectric material (‘dielectric’ for short) is an electrical insulator that can be polarized by an applied electric field. When a dielectric is placed in an electric field, electric charges do not flow through the material as they do in a conductor, but only slightly shift from their average equilibrium positions causing dielectric polarization. Because of dielectric polarization, positive charges are displaced toward the field and negative charges shift in the opposite direction. This creates an internal electric field that reduces the overall field within the dielectric itself. If a dielectric is composed of weakly bonded molecules, those molecules not only become polarized, but also reorient so that their symmetry axis aligns to the field. (see: Quote from Encycloedia Britannica: "Dielectric, insulating material or a very poor conductor of electric current. When dielectrics are placed in an electric field, practically no current flows in them because, unlike metals, they have no loosely bound, or free, electrons that may drift through the material." And: "Dielectrics (physics)". Britannica. 2009. p. 1. Retrieved 2009-08-12.)

As afore stated, any one or a combination of the afore stated points appear to have an effect on the manufacture of and finished properties of Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine. In fact, it can be confidently stated that given the nature and aspects of the Pureodine™ process any one or a combination of those points may influence the process and outcome of Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine. However, this is a ‘hypothetical’ perspective, not yet a proven scientific fact as to actually what is occurring specifically since that will take focused study and testing of a highly scientific nature to ascertain and elucidate. Even so, the few example possibilities influencing the Pureodine™ process presented in this whitepaper is more of a possible explanation of what may be involved in the making and outcome of a nascent iodine product than other producers of nascent iodine products have offered to date.

Responses To A Detractor’s Statements Concerning Glycerite of Nascent Iodine

Statement 1: Health Ranger branded ‘Original Nascent Iodine’ created using the original, divinely-inspired Edgar Cayce method and delivering 80% more potency than popular glycerin-based formulas.

Response: The 80% more is not accurate due to the fact that no actual verifiable head-to-head analysis, of a consistent scientific basis, has been performed comparing non-glycerin made to glycerin made nascent iodine. Fact is, currently no scientifically accepted ‘consistent results based’ analytical method exists for quantity analysis of a glycerite of nascent iodine. The accepted separation/analysis methodologies and their instrumentation are spoofed by glycerin. Why? Because not previous need for analyzing a glycerite based dietary supplement has existed until now. The makers of Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine are currently seeking and/or working to develop a scientifically standardized and accepted quantity-based analytical methodology that ‘consistently’ and accurately analyzes for iodine concentration in a glycerite of nascent iodine. Even so, the makers of Pureodine™ glycerite of nascent iodine utilize highly sensitive micro-balance scales that weigh in grams and micrograms, the ‘exact’ amount of raw iodine going into the product. This is the same exact methodology some of the other makers of nascent iodine products utilize for measuring their iodine content and upon which they list their iodine concentration on their product labels.

Statement 2: Our nascent iodine contains 485 mg of total elemental iodine, which is 80% more than the amount found in popular glycerin formulas (and it's the highest we've seen so far in a 1 oz. bottle)

Response: Somewhat of a redundancy of the prior statement but with one important additional point. They are obviously referring to an inaccurate outputting analytical methodology for ascertaining the iodine concentration in a Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine (see 1st Statement Response). One additional point to this response has to do with the lab technicians who had previously attempted to analyze iodine content quantity of Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine has been that, they see, through a color refractometer, the difference between straight glycerin compared to Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine. These lab technicians have been provided with samples of varying concentration and note the differences when seen through a color refractometer, evidencing the differing concentrations of iodine in the different potency samples. Now consider this. When two different independent 3rd party labs each performed 3 separate tests, utilizing the same exact scientific accepted standard separation/absorption (quantifying) analytical protocols, they got 3 completely different analytical results – on the same exact sample! The conclusion? Though the lab technicians clearly acknowledged that the iodine was not only present, but appeared to be so in high concentrations, the scientifically accepted content quantification testing standard does NOT work for a glycerite of nascent iodine, and they know of no analytical test for consistent accurate results for this type of material. Hence the need for developing what appears to be a totally new analytical quantifying protocol for glycerite of nascent iodine. One of the lab technicians even posited that because a standard separation protocol for separating the glycerin from the iodine appears to not be possible for these test it’s possible that there may in fact be some kind of heretofore unknown glycerin-to-iodine bonding involved that is unique to the Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine, which would be a first ever for a nascent iodine product.

Statement 2: Some iodine labels claim to provide higher potency, but in our own testing we've found that the "400 mcg per drop" frequently stated on iodine products is usually not accurate

Response: What is implied by “… in OUR own testing…?” Only two possibilities exist, if this is referring to an ‘in-house’ testing protocol. One is the utilization of a separation/absorption based instrument, like the independent 3rd party labs used in trying to analyze the Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine, which we’ve already ascertained do not work, or the other is a simple dehydration/separation based protocol, where the fluid medium is evaporated/removed from the solids leaving only the solid iodine to be weighed. While either of these approaches may work for a non-glycerin based product, neither will work for an accurate quantification analysis of a glycerin based product.

Statement 4: Most iodine products we've tested actually deliver anywhere from 250 - 380 mcg of iodine per drop, not 400, because the drop sizes are smaller than what many manufacturers have calculated.

Response: This is an accurate assessment of the industry as a whole, due in part that different manufacturers of droppers often have differing opening diameters on their droppers, and differing viscosity of the different products influence per drop size. However, the makers of Pureodine™ glycerite of nascent iodine base their per drop dose basis on a very simple procedure. The actual raw iodine weight used per milligram in making a batch of glycerite of nascent iodine is first ascertained, then the specific droppers we use are subjected to a number of drops per 1 ounce bottle test to ascertain how many drops are in the bottle, to which those drops are divided against the previously weighed total iodine content in the 1 ounce bottle giving the exact micrograms of iodine per drop.

Statement 5: This is easily confirmed by weighing 10 drops of any iodine formula in a precision laboratory scale, then calculating 2% of the total weight, then dividing by ten to get the mcg of iodine per drop. If you do this in a lab, like I have done, you will get 250 - 380 mcg of iodine per drop when testing alcohol-based iodine liquids.

Response: Quoting this statement, “… when testing alcohol-based iodine liquids.” Please refer to Response to Statement 4 for clarification of ascertaining iodine micrograms per drop of Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine.

Statement 6: Alcohol, by the way, has smaller drop sizes than water, meaning it takes more alcohol drops to fill a volume of 1 ml vs. drops of water. Some iodine tinctures are made of a mixture of alcohol and water, giving them "medium" drop sizes.

Response: Glycerin has larger drop sizes than either alcohol, water or alcohol/water mixes. This is why we do our own in-house drops per bottle divided into the known total micrograms weight of iodine the bottle has. Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine determines the iodine content per drop based on dropper amount testing the actual product for which the micrograms count is ascertained. (Also see Response to Statement 4.)

Statement 7: Our Health Ranger Original Nascent Iodine contains 485 mg of total iodine and costs about $36. This comes out to about 7.4 cents per mg of iodine in the formula.
The formula for this is simple, and you can use it on any product:
X = No. of servings in a bottle
Y = mcg (micrograms) of iodine per serving
Z = Cost of the bottle in dollars
Cost per mg (milligram) of iodine = Z / (X * Y / 1000)

Response: There is no problem with this assertion or the formula presented. It is a standard formula used in the dietary supplements industry at large. However, this formula does not address effect/benefits factors, regardless of ‘numbers.’

Statement 8: For a typical glycerin-based iodine product, the cost comes out to 11.1 cents per mg as follows: $29.95 / (200 * 1347 mcg / 1000) = 11.1 cents / mg

Response: At first glance this appears plausible, except for one very important and conveniently ignored factor, glycerite of nascent iodine is not the same as alcohol-based nascent iodine. Here’s why. The makers of Pureodine™ glycerite of nascent iodine have had a number of clinicians/practitioners note that the Pureodine™ glycerite of nascent iodine appears to be more effective in the sought for benefits than any other nascent iodine product they’ve used over the years. This is of course evidentiary (i.e. anecdotal), however, clinicians/practitioners are especially practiced in ‘observing’ the results of a prophylactic to a degree that consumers don’t, and it’s a factor I have been aware of and noted in dosing considerations for a number of glycerin-based products I’ve developed over the years. From a value oriented perspective, especially for clinicians/practitioners, the proof is in the results and benefits noted, regardless of the ‘numbers’ touted.

Statement 9: The most popular glycerin formulas available today contain 269 mg of elemental iodine per bottle. While some people prefer glycerin because it tastes better (glycerin is sweet), glycerin products effectively require you to pay for more glycerin while getting less iodine.

Response: Again, at first glance this appears plausible, however, the Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine is the result of a much more involved multi-step process that includes unique technology applications to produce the most shelf stable nascent iodine available, and, because the iodine appears to be bound to the glycerin (as a result of the Pureodine™ process), this would mean that less iodine per dose is required as the compatibility with the body’s fluid systems and tissues would be of a higher value than appears with other non-glycerin based nascent iodine products. Again, even though ‘numbers’ may be a determinate of value, quality and effectiveness are the ultimate determiner of value, regardless of the numbers.

Statement 10: But if you're looking for the best value on high-potency nascent iodine, an alcohol formula is clearly a better value. Alcohol formulas are more potent, too, meaning one bottle lasts considerably longer.

Response: This is a rhetorical highly subjective statement. It also ignores that quality and effectiveness are more important determiners of ‘better value.’ Also, if a bottle is dose measured and label listed to last the same time as a competitor the statement of one bottle lasting considerably longer is contradictory and un-genuine.

Statement 11: By the way, we tested many different sources of iodine in the Natural News Forensic Food Lab and found a vast range of surface tension across a multitude of products. Although our final testing isn't done yet, our own Original Nascent Iodine had the lowest surface tension we tested so far, measuring 64 drops per ml, meaning these drops are very small and therefore have lower surface tension.

Response: Hmmm… This statement is based more on hubris than relevancy. That said, a strong scientifically-based case can be made for the fact that a product with high surface tension (i.e. higher viscosity) would be more stable both as to suspension life of its components and shelf life and such a medium would be more capable of holding a greater concentration of iodine in suspension, along with the fact that if properly ‘worked’ such a fluid base would possess greater affinity to increase the mass and weight holding factor for heavy molecules, such as iodine, which alcohol, water or alcohol/water mixes do not possess to the same degree as glycerin. This fact has been borne out for decades with a well-known glycerite based botanical products company that utilizes glycerin in a proprietary alcohol-free glycerin based processing for making its products, as compared to the very low surface tension based alcohol/water based botanical products so prevalent in the marketplace.

Statement 12: Our product is more potent than glycerin-based iodine supplements, meaning it's more portable (more iodine carried in less weight and less required storage space).

Response: Again, a rhetorical statement meant to illicit an emotional response that ignores all the other value based factors previously addressed in the prior Responses to these Statements.

Statement 14: Our label is honest, and the claimed delivery of mcg of iodine has been tested and is accurate within a reasonable margin of error.

Response: This statement is un-genuine when all the other Response points to these Statements have been taken into consideration.

Responder’s Summary To Statements

While I and the team who developed the Pureodine™ process spent an immense amount of time investigating, studying, researching and getting the ‘facts’ then available concerning nascent iodine products and the manufacturing claims for said products, we have not seen in one instance the same kind of deep dive investigation, study, research and actual facts concerning even the basis of a Pureodine™ made glycerite of nascent iodine. The information that has been offered up by the detractors of Pureodine™ made glycerite of nascent iodine is unscientific, highly assumptive, and incongruent to the facts and in many instances rife with hubris.

That said, we simply request that before anyone makes outlandish and misinforming comments about a glycerite of nascent iodine they first prove to us and the audience they are speaking to that they themselves also have the decades of experience studying, researching and working with glycerin, as both an extractive and a holding and preserving medium, that I have over 30 years working with. True, there is more to be learned, but for the time being an SME (Subject Matter Expert) on glycerin, such as myself, and the developing expertise of the Pureodine™ team, should not be seen as having to take second seat to those who would feign claim expertise on a subject they not only appear to be poorly studied on but lack even less experience dealing with.

It is my intent that this whitepaper, with its responses to an individual’s statements, does two things. First, that it clarifies and brings to light some important points concerning the possible scientific ramifications and relevancy of a Pureodine™ processed glycerite of nascent iodine, and secondly, that it results in more intelligent questions being asked concerning the subject, resulting in sincere inquiry that is devoid of the proclivity to give off-the-cuff knee-jerk remarks based on rhetorical ignorance and hubris.

I close with the stated fact that glycerite of nascent iodine is less than a decade old, and with that said, can boldly state that it at least has more of a science based perspective hypothecated about it than all the other non-glycerin based nascent iodines have offered to date.


– PDF supporting documents accompany this whitepaper.