Skeptic Friends Network

Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
Home Fan Mail Quantum Age Water
Skeptic Forums
Skeptic Summary
The Kil Report
About Skepticism
Fan Mail
Rationally Speaking
Claims List
Skeptic Links
Book Reviews
Gift Shop

Server Time: 05:29:19
Your Local Time:

Fan Mail
skeptic,fan mail,letters to editor,correspondence
Printer Friendly Printer Friendly Version of this Article... Bookmark Bookmark This Article...

Quantum Age Water

By Beth Thomlinson
Posted on: 12/14/2008

All correspondence received by Skeptic Friends Network or its staff becomes the property of Skeptic Friends Network, and may be printed without the consent of the author.

Fun new "scientific" facts about water. Impress your family! Bilk your friends!

From: Beth Thomlinson
To:   David Glück (Kil), Sue
Date: October 11, 2008

Sue, you know what this is about.

David, you don’t.  It’s about a new device that Sue brought home,
called a Stirwand, from a company called Quantum Age Water
(  Stirring a glass of water with one of these
wands is supposed to change the properties of the water such that you
will be more hydrated by drinking it. I doubted it (anything that
includes as its advertising “Ancient future paradigm in water” tweaks
my suspicion-meter), and did some research this morning.  I thought I
would share it with you.  And perhaps you can add more to it.

First problem: I can find no information that says the specific
gravity of water varies by its source.  The specific gravity only
varies by temperature.  Furthermore, the definition of specific
gravity is the comparison of a substance’s density compared to water.
So they must be measuring a given water sample against pure water at
4 degrees C, or 60 degrees F (which is where the specific gravity of
water is defined as 1.0).

So there are four things they are saying.  None of these is mentioned
in any research I can find, other than research by their own

(1) The specific gravity of water is an important indicator of how
well your body can use the water, i.e., hydrate you.

(2) The specific gravity of samples of water varies with factors other
than temperature.

(3) The farther from 1.0 the specific gravity is, the worse it is for

(4) If the specific gravity of a sample of water is higher than 1.0,
that indicates the water has toxic elements.  

It would help me believe their information if they had cited research
that supports any of these assertions. Instead, they cite the original
Nobel Prize-winning research by two chemists who found that there is a
channel in our cells (aquaporin) that allows water molecules to enter
the cells, and another channel that allows various ions, such as
potassium, calcium, and sodium, to enter the cells.  For this they
were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2003.  This part is valid.
What I question is the leap they made from that research.

Second problem: Their outside validating research was done by Fenestra
Research labs.  Their only citation specific to their claims is to
Fenestra Research, Dr. Melonie Montgomery.  She is not a doctor,
because she has neither an MD nor a PhD in anything.  Her Website says
she is working toward a PhD.  She has a Masters Degree in Holistic
Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health, which is an online
company and is not an accredited education institution. In fact, in
Oregon, the Office of Degree Authorization reviewed several people
with Clayton degrees who applied for licensing in their state (not for
degree equivalency, but just for licensing, although it doesn’t say
what type of license they applied for).  They rejected all 4 diplomas
issued from Clayton.  (The man who founded the college, Lloyd Clayton,
also founded another diploma mill, the American Institute of Computer

At the bottom of this email is an excerpt of something I found out
about Fenestra relative to exposing another product (Lifewave) as a

Third problem: Fenestra’s peer review articles are by someone named
Lisa Tully, PhD.  The concept of a peer review is that you submit your
research to a journal or organization that has multiple unrelated,
uninvolved, therefore unbiased, people to review it. They review,
approve, and then the research can be published.  Dr. Tully’s PhD
seems valid, but she has an alternative medical/energy business and
sells these products.  Therefore, she is not unbiased.

What Fenestra is doing is asking Dr. Tully to comment on their
research, and she titles her article “Peer Review of…”  This is not a
peer review.  This is having a financially and philosophically
involved friend or co-worker, someone who has a stake in validating
your research, review your work.

More about Fenestra below.  It was Fenestra Research that “figured
out” that the specific gravity of water influenced hydration, and
all those other things.  Physics of Cells Certification course.
Cellular Bio-Chemistry Master Level.  Natural Nutrition and Wellness


Further investigation reveals that Fenestra Research apparently consists of ONE individual, Dr. Melonie Montgomery, who uses the “Bioanalyzer Technology” she has invented. This technology features the Optimal Wellness Test (a urine and saliva test): The OWT was able to identify and measure 34 clinical markers in human physiology to a very high degree of accuracy, and conclude the level of “wellness” exhibited by individual clients with specific recommendations for improving areas of concern. Dr. Montgomery received her education in “Holistic Medicine” from the Clayton College of Natural Health. She owns several Internet domains, including FENESTRARESEARCH.COM, OPTIMALWELLNESSTEST.COM, and EQUUSLAB.COM where she explains that: The Optimal Equine Analysis developed by “The World Leader In Wellness Technology” Fenestra Research Labs is the first of its kind to measure how close an individual horse is to wellness. Apparently, the “Optimal Wellness Test” she invented for humans works just as well on horses. Fenestra Research is not independent, is not impartial, and performs only one test of their own design which is judged by their own standards.

To:   Beth Thomlinson
From: David Glück (Kil)
Date: October 11, 2008
You have done a fantastic job of sizing up the product using critical thinking. The product site is full of false claims. This one is a doozy:

3. Our bodies are so toxic they can no longer chemically balance water and then absorb enough of it to provide therapeutic levels of hydration and oxygen. Yet water, restored to the natural chemical balance and energy it had years ago before we polluted and depleted it, has the ability to not only keep us alive but healthy and capable of optimal performance.
Water is water. If you’re concerned about contaminants, drink filtered water. The only way to get more useful oxygen into water is by adding another oxygen atom turning it into H2O2, or hydrogen peroxide. But then it’s not water anymore, and you wouldn’t want to drink it. Also, if we really did have too many toxins in us to absorb enough water, we would die or be severely dehydrated and sick all of the time. The claim is pure nonsense.

As a rule of thumb, a product with the word “quantum” in it should immediately set off alarms. Its very use is an appeal to scientific credibility and is most often used to promote pseudo-scientific ideas in support of bogus products. It’s sciency sounding but there is nothing “quantum” about molecules in a scientific sense.

Your researches into the products claims are more than commendable. And your take on what counts as peer review is spot on.

Read or Add Comments about this Article

Back to Fan Mail

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.

Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.05 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000