Free Vitamin D with Purchase of $30+, Learn More Here >>

Home / Blog

News & Media

Powered by Drink HRW Tablets, the Basis of H2 Withstands Another Test of Scrutiny

Contributor Bio

Alex Tarnava is the CEO of Drink HRW, and the primary inventor of the open-cup hydrogen tablets. Alex runs the clinical outreach program for our company, working with over a dozen universities coordinating research. Alex has also published research of his own. You can find it on his ResearchGate. Additionally, he has been interviewed for many prominent publications, such as Entrepreneur and Forbes, and on many popular Podcasts. You can find all of his interviews and articles on his media page.

Powered by Drink HRW Tablets, the Basis of H2 Withstands Another Test of Scrutiny

Grant issued in entirety from Federal Government of Canada

Anyone who knows me or has followed my actions and those of my companies knows I do not run from challenge or scrutiny. In fact, I am the first to run towards it. If I cannot come out victorious with facts and logic, my position - and what I impart onto my corporate entities - is flawed and needs to be adjusted. This has been a trait I have weaved into every fiber of Drink HRW and our “private label granting” entity Natural Wellness Now, which any future successor who may take control would be hard pressed to extirpate from our modus operandi. 

From day 1 in our corporate history, when we observed H2 turning into gels and foams, and measured extraordinary levels of H2, we sent all available info off to skeptical third parties as we were unsure what was going on. We set out to falsify what was happening and could not. As we moved on to our accidental discovery of the “open cup tablets”, again spending months attempting to falsify the outcomes, we started earning the trust of some skeptical parties.

Still, we endure attacks from others in industry, particularly those in the alkaline ionizer segment, Japanese companies threatened by our technology, and a few others in direct competition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we seek ways to falsify what we are doing constantly in order to provide that evidence. We are anxiously awaiting the opening of H2 Analytics, the entity tasked with upholding the standards of the International Hydrogen Standards Association’s approved gas chromatography (GC) method. I have publicly and privately stated I will be first in line to subject my product to testing and validation.

Submitting our product to these tests is not required and (as always) risked disproving our hypothesis regarding our tablets. We have followed this willingness to risk being “shown as frauds” in the past, subjecting our product to tests and scrutiny from public researchers who conduct their own GC experiments. These include this NAFLD study here, the maker of H2Blue (H2 Sciences), who initially insisted on a gas evolution report as they believed our results were not accurate, and tests requested by Tyler LeBaron at the Molecular Hydrogen Institute. We conducted the tests and provided the producted so he could verify the results as he still didn’t believe us, at that time. Tyler and I talk about it in the very first section of our recorded conversation here.

Based on the advice of my attorney and accountants, I decided to apply for something called a Scientific Research and Experimental Design (SR&ED investment tax credit from the Federal Government of Canada). Without getting into the lower level details, it is like a cash refund and/or credit to use against taxes payable depending on company size and structure. The first question many will ask is “What exactly is SR&ED”. In my own interpretation, it is incentive to perform R&D, experimental development, and technological innovation on Canadian soil. From the Govt of Canada’s site, they list it as:

1.0 What is SR&ED?

Scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) is defined for income tax purposes in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act as follows:

"ʽscientific research and experimental developmentʼ means systematic investigation or search that is carried out in a field of science or technology by means of experiment or analysis and that is

(a) basic research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge without a specific practical application in view,

(b) applied research, namely, work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge with a specific practical application in view, or

(c) experimental development, namely, work undertaken for the purpose of achieving technological advancement for the purpose of creating new, or improving existing, materials, devices, products or processes, including incremental improvements thereto,

And in answering if it is SR&ED, these 5 considerations need to be addressed:”

The method to establish this involves answering the following five questions:

  1. Was there a scientific or a technological uncertainty?

  2. Did the effort involve formulating hypotheses specifically aimed at reducing or eliminating that uncertainty?

  3. Was the overall approach adopted consistent with a systematic investigation or search, including formulating and testing the hypotheses by means of experiment or analysis?

  4. Was the overall approach undertaken for the purpose of achieving a scientific or a technological advancement?

  5. Was a record of the hypotheses tested and the results kept as the work progressed?

I initially expected trying to apply for government grants to be a tremendous feat, fully anticipating extreme scrutiny greater than what I received in the public and from competitors.

In applying for the SR&ED grant (investment tax credit to use proper terms), a company can be audited both scientifically and financially, especially when applying for the first time as was our case. Any company trying to build up sales on deceit would be incredibly unwise to pursue something like SR&ED. The pre-submission application alone is a feat requiring technical knowledge that can be explained logically and coherently, in scientific terms with clear process, conclusions, and evidence to illustrate the work performed and expenses claimed.

In the audit, it addressed whether there was a legitimate purpose to adding hydrogen to water, if we were in fact adding hydrogen to water in ways not previously known, what the scientific uncertainty was with respect to what we were attempting, and if we had validated what we had done systematically. Our scientific auditor was a Ph.D. chemical engineer and her supervisor, a Ph.D. chemist formerly from the pharmaceutical industry. As expected, we needed to provide sufficient evidence showing what we were claiming was accurate.

In a process far more reasonable than the constantly shifting goal posts I’ve received from competitors in industry, our tax credit was accepted and issued in its entirety. In our case, we received a hefty refund of corporate income taxes we had already paid for the year being claimed. Every expense that we submitted as regarding our pursuit of scientific advancements (necessary to perform SR&ED) was accepted. I’ve often been critical of various bureaucratic and regulatory agencies; not because I am an anarchist or just want to whine about the government, but because I fully believe we can implement better systems and have a more productive society. My dealings with SR&ED culminated in every expense our company had applied for (as necessary to perform the SR&ED work) and I was left in awe of the program’s benefits. The auditors maintained an appropriate level of scrutiny for our business and evidence in support of our R&D. This is how thought and science are supposed to work. For any Canadian readers, I highly recommend pursuing SR&ED if you think that work or projects you have performed may qualify (it is not always black and white). When submitting an application, you have the ability to demonstrate and make your case as to why the work (and evidence supporting it) in your opinion is SR&ED.

I do not expect what I did with the hydrogen tablets or even the science on hydrogen water to be accepted over night. In fact, I fully expect years of scrutiny, attacks from peers and skeptics alike, and am fully prepared for a long war. Just read the comments we get on our Facebook ads, they’re incessant and do not stop. “Skeptics” launching full scale into “debunking pseudoscience”, which they automatically believe are based on no evidence, without troubling themselves to read any of the studies, acquaint themselves with our positions and historical behaviours, or do the very basic due diligence required to form a firm opinion.

Today I will take this positive confirmation of our work and hold a smile on my face. It is certainly not “proof”, and may not dramatically impact future skepticism, it is simply another example of what we are doing and the quality of work and evidence we stand for. It also helped restore some of my faith in bureaucratic processes and renewed me with a new sense of optimism.