Let's Talk: Hydrogen.

February 26, 2019 43 min read 1 Comment

Watch this incredible interview with Tyler LeBaron, director of the Molecular Hydrogen Institute. 
Tyler is a prestige leading hydrogen researcher, and is involved in various hydrogen organizations across Europe and Asia. 



Alex: My name is Alex Tarnava. I am the founder and CEO of Drink HRW. We have the IP and I am the primary inventor of the open cup molecular hydrogen tablet. Today, I have a special guest, Tyler LeBaron. Tyler is the executive director of the Molecular Hydrogen Institute. He's involved in various hydrogen organizations across Europe and Asia. From my perspective, he's the leading hydrogen researcher here in North America. Welcome, Tyler.

Tyler: Thank you. Nice to be here.

Alex: All right. Tyler, first off, I just want to thank you for being so skeptical of what we were doing in the early days a few years ago. Without you questioning us, and second guessing us, we wouldn't have been pushed to attempt to falsify everything we were doing so extensively, replicate it so extensively. In that process of trying to keep our credibility, we actually understood the process a lot better, and we're able to make a better product. Your skepticism really drove a lot of our R&D.

Tyler: Yeah. When you first came to me, what is it, several years ago, saying that you can get this 10 PPM, 10 milligrams per liter, when of course, the saturation of hydrogen gas at SATP is only 1.6 milligrams per liter, 0.8 millimolar, and you're getting three and four times this concentration, and without the pressure, that's ... Yeah, it's still difficult to believe. I don't know that we really understand why, but I guess ... We can measure it. That's the thing, as scientists, we can say, okay, we can actually measure gas evolution.

Tyler: When I was in Beijing at the university, they were doing research collaboration, published some articles together. You use a tablet, and put it in there, and we'd test the concentration, and sure enough, it's very high. We can see this. Of course, it makes sense [inaudible 00:02:13], but I think as I've taught before, when we try to understand the micro and nano bubbles, and this quasi bubble formation in the water.

Alex: Of course, because our cloud of hydrogen gas above ... And actually, interestingly, as you've observed, maybe something about the cloud increases the internal pressure because our actual reading of dissolved is higher than 1.6 when we measure it. Then, the cloud isn't quite dissolved. It's something in between. It's quasi dissolved nano bubbles, so they tend to linger in suspension. They're not dissipating, but they're not dissolving with the accompanying pressure. That's actually something that we've been able to do is when we pressurize the cloud, it saturates. That was one of the replications and the attempts to falsify that we did when Tyler was really pressing us.

Tyler: I asked you, I said, okay, if you really have something, then do these experiments. Then you did them, and I still didn't believe it. It was like, okay, send me a tablet, and I'm going to do the experiments, because I want to see. Tyler: You're right, when you look at ... It doesn't contradict Henry's Law. Henry's Law is very much well-involved in how the bubbles work. You have the [Plus A 00:03:32] equation, and you have different ways of understanding nano bubble. The Ostwald ripening phenomena, and how the gases will ... The internal pressure of these bubbles can get hundreds of PSI. There's going to be an equilibrium diffusion gradient. They're either going to be growing and shrinking, or coalescing, and that's going on.

Tyler: Anyway, it's just, it's really interesting. We need to do some more laser bat scattering analysis or something to understand what the phenomena is.

Alex: We have done that, and we know the first burst, and the second burst, and how small these nano bubbles are, and how much it plays a role as a nano bubble 

Tyler: I did see the data on the nano bubbles, with the laser. That was interesting. That was helped to clarify and elucidate what's going on.

Alex: Yeah. Great. Now, when I got into this, I got into it for my own health, as you and I have talked about. Myself and my founding partner, Dr. Holland, who's a medicinal chemist, we wanted to get this out there to the population.

Tyler: Isn't he in the pharmaceutical industry?

Alex: Yeah. It's in creativity, he creates molecules for drug candidates in the pharmaceutical industry. He's pretty heavily involved. When I met him, the project he was working on, that I believe it is now going down the drug pipeline, was a cure for hepatitis B through various small molecules. A few of them in conjunction. That's what he does. He deals with small molecules. It doesn't get smaller than hydrogen.

Tyler: Smallest molecule in the universe.

Alex: Exactly. At first, I was just hiring him to review everything I was doing to make sure it was safe, and then he actually came to me and wanted to get involved, as he was reviewing the research and the literature. He went from being more skeptical than you were about our tablets, about hydrogen in general, to wanting to be a partner and get involved to get this out there for people.

Tyler: I was going to say, if he understands molecular biology and pharmaceuticals and understanding, it's a big thing. When you look at science, we typically understand there's one drug, there's one target, there's one disease, this one organ. Here, we're talking about hydrogen that's pleiotropic. All these different organs, all these different effects, all these different targets, oh, but we don't know what the actual target is. Yeah, that's a pretty big program when it comes to this type of science.

Alex: And a huge red flag, for scientists

Tyler: I'm surprised that he even got involved, because that's kind of cool.

Alex: Typically, when anything proposes to be a panacea, it's a huge red flag. I was skeptical of hydrogen, that's actually how I got interested in, I had a lot of my former staff who were selling a certain brand of water ionizers, that weer claiming miracles. It-


Tyler: Wasn't that why you contacted me in the first place?

Alex: It is. I was debunking a lot of what they were doing. Then we started talking about the hydrogen. I'd already read a bit about hydrogen at that point from a few years back, if you recall, from our early discussions.

Tyler: Okay, it's coming back. That's funny.

Alex: I was becoming more and more interested in hydrogen. That's how I went down that path. Of course, I bought an ionizer, but then upon testing, there was no hydrogen being dissolved in the water.

Tyler: Right. You didn't have the right source of water to get the hydrogen.

Alex: There's two points I want to talk about from what we're talking about. First, when that happened, and I found I wasn't getting hydrogen from the ionizers, I started looking to the best methods to create hydrogen. Magnesium kept on popping up in the research. Now, from my understanding, upwards of 80% of North Americans are deficient in magnesium. Our reaction is leaving free magnesium ions, which we have from the water chemistry that we've done, which are highly bio-available, better than most salts, but yet, there's certain parties, there's a ready to drink company, there's certain companies in Japan which attack magnesium and say that it's not good to put it in the water.

Alex: Now, do you have any thoughts on that, because we want to have the best product out there for the consumers, and it doesn't make any sense to me why magnesium would be dangerous to consume in the water. It doesn't make any sense to Dr. Holland, but you've been involved in this a long longer than we have.

Tyler: I can understand the concern, because first off, it's not really approved by the Japanese government, as a food additive. When I was in Japan doing research, that's one of the things that we talked about. It's also not approved by the FDA, or in Europe, or anywhere else.

Alex: The FDA doesn't approve any products. We're actually the only company in hydrogen who's filed our NDIN, which is a new dietary ingredient notification. We're actually the only company in the industry that's selling hydrogen products as a supplement, that's met our legal obligation with the FDA.

Tyler: Oh, interesting.

Alex: We're going through the grass process right now, we've filed class threes in Canada, we've filed in Europe. We're trying to do things. My partner is from the pharmaceutical industry, everything is to the regulatory book that we're trying to do. All of my consultants say, this is incredibly safe, the safety data on this is well-beyond what's needed. Yet, you get some people, say in the ready to drink industry, or Japan, that make these claims.


Tyler: It's part of because of these policies. Yeah, people misunderstand, okay, like you said, the FDA doesn't really approve any supplements, that's not what they do. It's food and drugs. Because it's not approved, Japanese has the same laws, Europe has the same laws. This is very common.

Tyler: I can understand some concerns, because you're talking about magnesium metal. That can get people concerned, hey, this is going to be a metal. I think it's important to consider that when the magnesium does react, and you produce magnesium ions and hydrogen gas, which, magnesium ions are the only atom or the only element that is going to be bio-available to use in the body, as an ion.

Alex: For our users, what this means is, when you take in a magnesium supplement, you take in magnesium oxide, what your stomach acid, your gastric acid first has to do is it has to break the bond between the magnesium and the oxide. Without doing this, it's just a laxative, it just goes right through your system. Now, in vivo studies, in person studies, have shown the average person can only take in about 4% of magnesium oxide. The rest just passes right through your system, because it's such a strong bond.

Alex: Now, magnesium oxide is by a landslide the most common form of supplementation. When we're delivering these magnesium ions, which is what our body actually needs and the only thing it can take in

Tyler: Yeah, absorb and use, yeah.

Alex: Our 80 milligrams, theoretically, are 25 times more potent than the magnesium oxide. Our 80 milligrams could be like taking a couple grams of magnesium oxide, without the heavy laxative effect.

Tyler: Yeah. It's a good way to put it. Going to your question though, as far as the concern, I think first off, the fact is that people get confused between policy and science. They think that there's an issue there. Safety-wise, yeah, magnesium, this form of magnesium has been used in studies back in the 1980s, even, where they administered several 100 milligrams of the magnesium

Alex: Measure hydrogen gas.

Tyler: Yeah, to measure hydrogen gas

Alex: Gastric acid.

Tyler: Yeah, for hydrochloric acid production. Very safe. It's actually been used for implants, biomedical implants, and alloys, and bolts, and screws, and different places. It's interesting, this is one of the really neat things, they've been doing this for a century, but when you look through the research, and they'll talk about the benefits of using these magnesium, the same magnesium you're using in your tablet, but they'll put this alloy and they'll put it inside of the body, and then they'll be surprised, because there's such a low amount of inflammation, and there's all these benefits, they're like wow, this really is accepted by the body so well, I wonder why that is.

Tyler: Now, decades later, we're finding that hydrogen gas has these anti-inflammatory and antioxidant-like effects that could explain why these magnesium alloys that were directly put inside of the body, were so safe and had no problems, no kidney issues, no, it doesn't form some sort of salts, or cause any problems like that.


Tyler: Anyway, I think that does also help with just the concern that maybe taking these tablets or taking the magnesium, whatever form, because there's magnesium sticks, there's other ways to do it. I think the only legitimate concern that I would have is, is the purity of the magnesium. I think some people, oh, we'll just get it from whichever place. Maybe it's not ... You can probably speak better to that than I can.

Alex: That's one thing. We spent a year sourcing the magnesium we're using, getting the exact particle shapes and sizes needed for it

Tyler: What is the concern?

Alex: Absolutely. There's only a few sources of magnesium in the world, to get this elemental magnesium. A lot of the countries that produce it have incredibly high levels of heavy metals. That would automatically fail the product. We've tested other products that aren't ours, on the market, and have data seeing that they're in direction violation with the state of California prop 65, because the source of magnesium is a concern, the purity is a concern for the heavy metals that could be in. It's something we're keenly aware of.

Alex: We track. We don't just test the heavy metals. We test all trace metals in our magnesium. We're very aware. It's part of the safety data, we need, before submitting things to the FDA, our new dietary ingredient notification, which we're the only company that produces these open cap tablets. We produce the open cap tablets. We're the only ones who have filed our new dietary ingredient notification, which is the legal obligation in the United States.

Alex: This is part of the safety that we need to ensure.

Tyler: Yeah. Scientifically, there just doesn't make any sense that it would cause any problem for the body, and this has been demonstrated for over 100 years. The amount of magnesium is very low. Your tablets, you said, 80, there's 60 [crosstalk 00:14:25] less than 100 milligrams, and most supplements probably contain more magnesium than that. Tyler: I think the only legitimate concern would be the safety. Or, sorry, the purity of the magnesium, where people get it at.

Alex: Exactly. Now, you mentioned antioxidant-like effects, and anti-inflammatory-like effects. I want to touch base on this, and I want to circle back to what we said, that, a red flag for skeptics, for true scientists, everything, is when something claims to be a panacea. Now, hydrogen, if I'm understanding this correct, it's not actually an anti-inflammatory at all. It's not actually an antioxidant. Rather, it affects our gene expression, and it regulates production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, it regulates via our nerve II pathway production, of our endogenous antioxidants like glutathione, superoxide dismutase catalase.

Alex: Along with a lot of other benefits, what this makes hydrogen is, I don't like using the word, because usually people using the word are claiming a lot of miracle benefits, but it really seems to be an adaptogen-type substance. I know that there's data when you put a hydrogen-rich medium on a healthy cell, nothing happens. Nothing changes. Then you artificially damage the cell and you see the markers going will. Can you expand on this?

Tyler: Yeah. Okay. Couple things. First, it's in our definitions. An antioxidant from a chemistry definition, we could say, that is something that donates an electron or gives itself, it sacrifices itself for a radical donation. There's an actual oxidation reduction reaction, and that will be the definition of an antioxidant. From a chemical perspective. It's really not a very good definition for physiology, for what really matters in biology.

Tyler: A better definition would be, something that improves a redox status of the cell. By this case, exercise could be considered an antioxidant. Typically, most antioxidants and things that are good for us to ... That's how they work. Not by directly scavenging and directly ... They can neutralize and react with radicals, yes, but it's really improving the redox status of the cell.

Tyler: If we use that as our definition of antioxidant, then yes, hydrogen is a great antioxidant. Typically, you see these diagrams of free radicals, missing an electron, and then an antioxidant has an election, and then there's this electron donation. That's really not very accurate. It's a very rare case that that actually happens. Many free radicals have too many electrons. A superoxide anion radical, for example, is not an oxidant, it's a very powerful reductant.

Tyler: That has an extra electron, which makes it extremely reactive. It's an unpaired. That's the definition of free radical, is an unpaired electron. Oxygen gas that we breathe is also, it's a radical, it's a diradical, has two electrons, and we don't need to go into that.

Tyler: I'm just saying that, there's an oversimplification. When we look at hydrogen gas, same thing with anti-inflammatory, we can give some different definitions of that. I like to say, antioxidant-like effects and anti-inflammatory-like effects, because I don't want

Alex: Only if they're dysregulated, correct? If someone doesn't have access in inflammation, it's not a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, or corticosteroids that just blocks it.

Tyler: That just blocks it.


Alex: Exactly. It seems to regulate production of our pro-inflammatory cytokines, which is what leads to inflammation. If you take a healthy population, it's not going to have an anti-inflammatory-like effect, typically, at least not statistically significant.

Tyler: Yeah. Not compared to say a stronger pharmaceutical agent. I want to talk about, when you give hydrogen gas to healthy cell, I often do say the same thing, but yeah, you really don't see anything. It depends on the cell. Sometimes, hepatocytes, they're seemingly more sensitive to hydrogen. You do see changes. You can see changes in gene expression, your microarray analysis, you can see actually, there's really interesting changes we just found out, but I won't talk about it now.

Tyler: We can see some things, but often, you do need to have some sort of assault, to bring it out of homeostasis

Alex: Some damage.

Tyler: ... you need to perturb it out of homeostasis, and that's when you see the resting effect. You see the up-regulation of say a glutathione level.

Tyler: Probably a good example. Glutathione, of course, your body's endogenous antioxidant, that's one of the primary ones, you need to have it at a certain level. If it goes too high, then that's reductive stress. You can have reductive stress. This has been demonstrated many times.

Alex: In fact, one of the biggest negative claims against antioxidant therapy that's been prevalent for 20 years, was that taking too much exogenous antioxidants, actually had an opposite effect, and it blunted production of our endogenous from within, antioxidants. We went off balance again. It's about balancing our redox, if I'm understanding it correct, rather than ...

Tyler: I just submitted a paper on this. I don't know that we understand all the real reasons why the clinical studies have shown that ingestion of high levels of exogenant antioxidants, whether it be beta-keratin, vitamin E or vitamin C, or whatever it is, essentially led to an increased mortality, and people were getting cancer and dying faster. They actually stopped the clinical studies.

Tyler: Probably has something to do with, it does not help improve the redox conversation. In fact, it can actually exacerbate it. We don't know exactly why or how that's working, but we just see the reasons for that. Now, we could go into a discussion, yeah, but all those supplements they were using, they were already oxidized, or they weren't in this natural form. Be that as it may, the fact is, they were actually

Alex: Damaging. They were harmful.

Tyler: ... damaging. Yeah, they were harmful, and they were still considered reductive molecules. Therefore, they still had those effects. We can't begrudge the observation either, and we can't do this post-hoc logical fallacies.


Alex: This is why I don't like calling hydrogen an antioxidant, because of the common definition, lumping it in with these other antioxidants. Hydrogen really doesn't work in the same way that

Tyler: It's more like exercise. If anything, my personal opinion, it's more a pro-oxidant. Actually, there's some data that hydrogen actually acts as a [mitochromedic 00:21:03] effector. In other words, in the mitochondria, that's the powerhouse of the cell, and a lot of ways, the brains of the cell, even more than the nucleus and the DNA. The mitochondria, they were very important. Hydrogen gas can translate, increase low amounts of superoxide production, which, not enough to harm the cell, not enough to hurt it, but just enough to drive it into stronger production of glutathione levels that activates the phase II enzymes, [inaudible 00:21:34] O2 pathway, which regulates over 200 cytoprotective proteins. It's very beneficial.

Tyler: We have this transient, small increase, then we have this increase in all these cytoprotective proteins. That's exactly what exercise does. In fact, we just published another paper where inhalation of hydrogen gas, we actually, this is really interesting, but in this case, hydrogen actually increased markers of oxidative stress, just a little bit, about, I think it was 16%, which is comparable to say a normal bout of exercise. Which, when you look at diseases, typically, the increase is 300, 400%.

Alex: It's like exercise mimetic then, in a way.

Tyler: Yeah. That's what my paper was positioned. Based on the biomedical and clinical effects of molecular hydrogen, yeah, it seems that hydrogen has this exercise mimetic, because not only can it preserve and perhaps potentiate the benefits of exercise, but perhaps, it can actually activate some of the same transcription factors that exercise alone does anyways.

Alex: For our viewers, we do have some easy pages and analogies on what we're talking about. There's a video on redox, and we've got some scales going, showing that it's about balancing. Hydrogen has shown to both increase oxidative stress, and decrease

Tyler: Although, balance is not a good word, either.

Alex: I'm trying to be simple 

Tyler: I know. I'm just saying, because balance, homeostasis is where we need to be, which is not ... Anyway. Go on, I don't want to ...

Alex: My understanding the same thing, for regulating our inflammatory system, and for our viewers, we need inflammation. Inflammation is

Tyler: It's the same thing as free radicals. They mediate ... When you get sick, it's inflammation, it's everything that gets you

Alex: It's our protection


Tyler: ... to recover. Wound healing. It mediates the benefits.

Alex: Exactly. It's when it's dysregulated, when it's out of homeostasis, that's

Tyler: Dis-homeostasis.

Alex: Yeah, that's when the issue is. Now, for viewers who aren't aware, Tyler knows a lot about sport science. On top of being a world leading researcher in hydrogen, he actually got his master's in exercise and sport science.

Tyler: I like exercise.

Alex: This guy runs a 2:30 marathon. He's huge into fitness. One of my initial concerns with hydrogen and exercise, because exercise was my life, competition was my life, and it is still the biggest concern of most of my friends, is antioxidants usually aren't to be used in conjunction with exercise, for blunting effects. Now, what we've talked about on how hydrogen acts a little different than most antioxidants, and as we've talked about just now, is a exercise mimetic. What is hydrogen's relationship with exercise, because there's quite a number of clinical trials showing improvement, including ones on our tablets.

Tyler: Yeah. I think it's an important point. When we look at the research on just conventional antioxidants, they're equivocal. Sometimes there's a blunting effect, sometimes there's no effect. I guess sometimes, there is a positive effect, but sometimes the antioxidants they're using, they're not just no more radical scavengers, they actually exist in the cell as effectors of signal transduction, and there's sensors and modulates redox homeostasis, like Resveratrol, it's not just a, just go in there and kick out the bad guys.

Alex: There's one study I read from Russia, hypothesizing that Resveratrol works by creating H2 inside the mitochondria.

Tyler: Yeah, I saw that in the American Chemical Society posted an article, that there's a postulation that it's in the mitochondria, Resveratrol, two electron dissociation attachment, produces hydrogen gas, and hydrogen gas then mediates the benefits of Resveratrol. Very interesting. I don't know if I believe it.

Tyler: It's

Alex: I thought I'd bring it up when you mentioned Resveratrol.

Tyler: Yeah. It is kind of interesting. We don't want to go into that. Going back to the main question, how does hydrogen gas then differ as this antioxidant effects, compared to say other antioxidants, do we run the risk of potentially blunting the effects. I think it goes part to our conversation that, unless there's a real stress there, that's toxic, hydrogen gas isn't going to do very much.


Tyler: Hydrogen gas helps keep things in the hormedic response. It'll diminish an excess amount of stress, but not just negate it, so that you still get this hormedic ... Do you know hormesis?

Alex: Yeah. It's exposing yourself to a toxin for a beneficial result. Even it's used by practitioners now with, say, nut allergies. If your child has a nut allergy and you start by touching them, with the nut they're allergic to, over time you're no longer allergic.

Tyler: Okay. I'm not familiar with ... Same thing, just small amounts of stress less to an induction of cytoprotective proteins, and you canAlex: Which is what exercise is. It is damage.

Tyler: It's hormesis.

Alex: Interestingly, exercise and cold exposure, extreme cold exposure, both

Tyler: And heat exposure.

Alex: ... release Irisin, which, what drives a lot of the benefits.

Tyler: Heat shock proteins. In fact, hydrogen gas can also induce a heat shock proteins, and also induces MTPO, which is mitochondrial trifunctional protein response. Again, this is potentially part of the hormesis effect of a lack of hydrogen. Yeah, hydrogen's going to have some of these benefits that are more similar to exercise, in activating some of these same transcription factors, which is why we can say as an exercise mimetic, and really doesn't run the risk of blunting the benefits of exercise, but perhaps potentiating them.

Alex: There was a good study that was published out of Brazil, it wasn't on humans, it was on mice, I believe

Tyler: The inhalation of hydrogen gas, yeah.

Alex: I felt that it talked about some of this stuff a little bit better than some of the human studies. Have you [crosstalk 00:27:36]

Tyler: Because they did some really well controls. Yeah, it was a very interesting study. They actually inhaled hydrogen gas while they were exercising. Yeah, it showed that it actually potentiated the increase in superoxide dismutase, that's very important antioxidant in the body, but it didn't blunt, impair exercise performance at all which is good, but it did help to attenuate very high levels of inflammation. There's a faster recovery, for example.

Tyler: That's what we're seeing similar things in the human studies as well. The study that I did recently, that's just published on actually, using your tablets, thank you again for donating that.


Alex: No problem.

Tyler: Yeah. We didn't have the opportunity actually to measure various biomarkers, to do biopsy or things. We just did a very short single pilot study as a double blinded randomized placebo controlled trial.

Alex: Crossover.

Tyler: It was a crossover. Just so the viewers understand, we had 20 patients, 20 people, subjects, healthy individuals, and it turned out to only be 19 when we did the study, because something happened to one of them. Then, we all got their baseline, figured out where they were at, what their VO2 max was at. They went through the whole protocol, they got familiar with everything, and they, just so there was no learning effect and everything. Did that first. Then, we just randomized them and half of them took hydrogen, and the other half did not. Then the next week, we tested them again.

Alex: For the viewers, the placebo was actually a magnesium supplement, to account for any effect that magnesium could've had on it.

Tyler: Right. It was very well controlled. In fact, the researchers, myself, as well as those who helped me do, we didn't know which ones until after we compared the two, did all the statistical analysis and everything, and then we asked okay, which one was one and which one was two.

Alex: Yeah. You guys actually found an interesting result. It's something that I've noticed on myself when I go to do cardio and I take a high dose of hydrogen, that I can't actually get into my cardio zone, it takes a lot more work, it lowers my heart rate. That's what you guys found in the study.

Tyler: We found that there was a decrease in submaximal exercising heart rate. It didn't blunt the maximal heart rate, people could still, everyone still reached their maximal heart rate. We were doing the Borg's rate of perceived exertion, but through some ... We weren't able to collect enough data, but there was, it did look like people, it was easier for them to exercise, they wanted to push themselves harder and things as well.

Tyler: We did see that hey, during these submaximal levels, their heart rates were on average five beats lower. Which could be significant. We needed more research to understand the practical significance, but as a runner myself

Alex: I was just going to ask. As an endurance athlete, that's what struck me the most, is that endurance athletes would probably see a benefit here. Maybe even people who do higher intensity interval that have to go round after round, like boxers

Tyler: Yeah, repeated bouts.

Alex: ... mixed martial artists, et cetera, even crossfit competitors. Lower heart rate might help you be calmer.


Tyler: Yeah. That's why I wanted to do my study, so we can understand where hydrogen gas would be more beneficial. We were looking at a maximal, we did a full VO2 max. They ran until they could not run anymore. They had to have this heart rate, they had to have a total plateau on oxygen consumption. We had the gas mask on, we were measuring O2 consumption and everything. They had to reach all these criteria for them to know that they reached that.

Tyler: Yeah, when we look at the data, I think it makes more sense for these extended repeated bouts of exercise. Again, we didn't do chronic supplementation. This wasn't

Alex: It was acute too.

Tyler: It was acute. They just took it the day before, and the day of the test. Now, we just did another study, 159 subjects, out of Japan, and they also did acute, but they drank the hydrogen rich water, right before exercise. I think that could even be important ... I don't know.

Alex: I find a dramatic difference for myself, and this is just completely anecdotal. For myself, I find a very high dose immediately before exercise, within five, 10 minutes, has a much better effect.

Tyler: Which is, that almost seems to be what these other studies shows also. Now, it's difficult to understand the mechanism, because single transduction takes half an hour or more. When we look at cell culture. There's something going on that is very interesting.

Alex: Which is part of the issues in hydrogen research, in my understanding, is, it's proving to be so complicated, and a lot of the results don't make sense from what the last result made. It's just over time, there's tons of research teams across the world in universities, all getting these positive benefits, and we're slowly learning and as we're learning, we're actually disproving previous beliefs, as our knowledge is expanding, which is how science is supposed to work.

Tyler: That's how science works. To be honest, sometimes, when I look at our research that we're doing, or others, I just sometimes I get these bouts of skepticism, do I believe any of this stuff. I'm just like, this is ridiculous. I think, people ask me, what is the best evidence that you have on proving that hydrogen works. I'm like, okay, first off, that [crosstalk 00:33:30]

Alex: Believe something works.

Tyler: Yeah, that belies the very definition of science.

Alex: Basically, in science, you can never prove something works. Science's job is to falsify claims

Tyler: Yeah, prove it false.


Alex: ... and if you cannot prove it false

Tyler: It increases the probability that it's probably, that it might be true. At least, that's how science works. Everyone has a different subjective ... I was visiting with some researchers the other day at one of the universities here in California, which is why I came down here, which is neat that we were able to connect. I was talking with them. They're biochemistry, molecular biology researchers, and they're finding results in the lab on molecular hydrogen. They're like, it works. It works actually as well as what we normally use. Together, it works even better. They're pretty surprised.

Tyler: We're talking about this, and we were going on, and they're like, okay, we need to look at what are the clinical effects of hydrogen gas. See, if we can prove again, I use the word prove, but if we can
Alex: I was going to stop you.

Tyler: I know, please do. If we can show that there are some effects in the clinical studies of hydrogen, then we can try to figure out okay, how is this working on the cellular level, because clinical effects and how something works in vivo, in the human body, is very different to how it works in the cell and cell culture, and cell tissues.

Alex: Even, what is it, 1% of molecules that work really well in smaller mammals like rodents, transfer those benefits to humans. It's why you always see in the news, a study comes out that mice have been cured of aging or cured of this, or cured of thatTyler: We've cured mice of pretty much every disease.

Alex: Exactly. Then, a few years later, you find it just has fallen flat on humans. That's one of the interesting things.

Tyler: Or, you don't hear about in humans.

Alex: Exactly. That's a big problem in not publishing studies. There's actually a movement going on, all trials, I encourage everyone to search up all trials campaign and sign it. It should be illegal for research teams to not publish

Tyler: To register, and then not

Alex: Exactly. Especially if we're throwing away all the studies without publication, they we don't know what works, because we're only doing half the data. That's actually what I want to talk to you

Tyler: Or they only publish the studies that do work, and then we get this false impression that some therapy or

Alex: What if a team changes a goalpost 10 times? They run a study 10 times, to find a positive result. Realistically, that's nine times it didn't work, and they had to skew the data and everything involved in it, to get it to work. That tells us that that doesn't work. That's why I have been partnering with public teams, I don't have any agreements to not publish data on any of the trials we're doing, because I want

Tyler: Yeah, that was our [crosstalk 00:36:37]

Alex: I want to know what works and how it works. That's what science's purpose is. I got into this, I'm passionate about science, that's why I'm telling, everyone go to all trials campaign. Sign the petition, because we need to know what works. We can't have companies doing these private studies and distorting the data. It gets into my next question, because this can distort data quite a bit also.

Alex: Now, when distributing millions of tablets, tens of millions of tablets across the world, I'm noticing, and it's not exactly scientific, but I'm seeing a trend in responder versus non-responder. Some people seem to be responding a lot better than others. For instance, in a responder versus non-responder sense, what could be incredibly significant to half the people, even 70% of the people, when you put in 30% of people who don't respond, the results can be insignificant. We saw that in that mild cognitive impairment study, I believe it was the APO34 gene

Tyler: Yeah, those APOE4 genotype, they were

Alex: Wasn't it non-significant for the whole study, but people with that gene, it was incredibly significant?

Tyler: Yeah. Alex: Mild cognitive impairment is right before Alzheimer's, dementia. Can you talk at all about, have you seen anything on responders, non-responders? Do you have any thoughts? I know I'm asking you to stretch from research and just a hunch or anything.

Tyler: I don't know. My initial thought, if you were to ask me, I guess which you are, is I'd want to say, some people are more susceptible to the placebo effect than others. It does seem that some people ... Okay. You mentioned people get head rushes sometimes.

Alex: Yes. It's something I wanted to ask you about, because there doesn't seem to be any published literature on this boost in energy, but over and over again, the biggest responses we get from people is they tried their first tablet, maybe after work on a day, and they got a head rush, their head tingled, and they got a burst of energy, and redid their day.

Alex: To me, that's placebo, but I experience it myself every time I change my dosing protocol. Myself, we still need to know a lot about proper dosing, when to take hydrogen, how to take it, and what I do just to play around is, every few months I do a few day washout, and then I change my dosing. I take tablets at different times of the day, in different quantities of water-


Tyler: Say you want your customers to stop taking the tablet.

Alex: I'm trying it myself, just for a few days. It's interesting, and every time I change my dosing protocolTyler: [crosstalk 00:39:21]

Alex: ... I do get a head rush. I know that even though I'm aware of the placebo effect and I always talk about it, I can still be susceptible of it, to it, when I'm aware of it.

Tyler: Yeah. It's interesting when it's, the repeatability is very high. I have noticed people do get, some people're just more susceptible or benefit, to the benefits to hydrogen. At the symposium, let's see, it was in 2015 or '16, in Japan, it was all in Japanese, so I could only ... I didn't understand all of it. One of them talked about somewhat of this effect, that some people, and maybe it's more common, I don't know if you've heard this very much, but some people when they drink hydrogen water, they get a flushing in the face, and just this peripheral vasodilation or something, that happens.

Tyler: This is, and it happens I guess, what they felt, more people in Japan, they tried this water, the hydrogen water, and they'd get this effect, and they'd reported on some of the increase in endothelial nitric oxide synthase and just some of the different effects, that some people would get, which would account for some of this flushing effect.

Alex: For our viewers, one of the reasons that there hasn't been a lot of study on responders versus non-responders, is these are large undertakings in science.

Tyler: Oh yeah.

Alex: It could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a responder versus non-responders study.

Tyler: Yeah, it could be more than that, to do a real ...

Alex: We've been working with public teams to study what they want to see, and often, they don't have the funding to do a responder versus non-responder. When I've talked to some of these professors, they say, it does appear that it works better in some people than others, even in the data, but we need to do a lot bigger study to find that

Tyler: Yeah, or else it looks like you're just cherry picking the data or something.

Alex: Exactly.

Tyler: You have to be very careful when we do [crosstalk 00:41:13]

Alex: That's why I asked you about the MCI, mild cognitive impairment study, because that was the first one where they isolated the gene that responded a lot better. 


Tyler: I don't know what that really means. Another study with dementia, with hydrogen gas, in this case, they inhaled hydrogen gas, they didn't, I don't think they looked at the gene markers, but everybody had major benefits.

Alex: Overall, there was a statistical significance. That's why I mentioned, even say things in systematic reviews on omega 3, when they're including studies, in the healthy population, that doesn't work

Tyler: Oh yeah, that's just ridiculous.

Alex: ... within an unhealthy population. All of the sudden, it's not statistically significant. Because you're combining data.

Tyler: That's why I said, oh, vitamin C isn't significant, because it doesn't benefit. Okay, if you were to have vitamin C, you're not going to get [crosstalk 00:42:04] or something.

Alex: Exactly. It's one of the logical fallacies that I really detest in the supplement industry, is they'll prey on data, and they'll be like, vitamin D deficiency causes brittle bones and hair loss and all these things, so supplementing in 10 times the dose will improve your bones and your hair and all this stuff, and that's just not true. A deficiency can cause an issue with something, but an increase doesn't always [crosstalk 00:42:34]

Tyler: Doesn't really cause

Alex: A benefit. Same thing. Actually, there's a lot of cases where the opposite is true, where a deficiency causes something to go awry, and then over-consumption causes the same thing to deteriorate.

Tyler: Yeah. That's absolutely true. Of course, you have to careful, because sometimes when you look at the RDA or the DRI, that's a statistical population. Some people may need higher amounts than what the DRI says, because again, this is the statistical, when you look at nutrition, that's how it works. People use that understanding, that very, have a very small amount of understanding of that, and somehow extrapolate that to taking hundreds and hundreds of times the megadoses and IV. This is what we need.

Tyler: That can be, especially done long-term, can certainly be damaging.

Alex: Absolutely. I want to ask you from my perspective, there's I think 61, 62 now, published human trials, there's only a couple where there was no benefit shown. One was that recently Parkinson's study, and when I bought the study and read it, the placebo group was actually drinking hydrogen water too. It seems they messed up a little bit.

Tyler: Oh, I thought you meant ours. Because we just published one too, we didn't see any benefit in Parkinson's. That was a very short ... Ours, it was inhalation of hydrogen gas, and it was very short, we were trying to mimic the effects of ...


Alex: That's interesting, because the rodent study showed that in Parkinson's disease, that continuous inhalation didn't work, where water did work, correct?

Tyler: That one, hydrogen water was the most effective. Continuous exposureAlex: Was not effective at all.

Tyler: ... was not effective at all. Which we have seen in other ... A lot of that data's not even published. We just know that continuous exposure of hydrogen isn't very effective. Anyway. [inaudible 00:44:26] cell culture, but that's a different story.

Tyler: Okay. Then, they did intermittent exposure of hydrogenAlex: Which was a little bit effective, but not as good as water.

Tyler: That was effective.

Alex: [crosstalk 00:44:35]

Tyler: We tried to mimic the pharmacokinetic profile of hydrogen through inhalation of hydrogen gas. They only inhaled a very small amount of hydrogen gas, for just 10 minutes twice a day. It was a short study, it was four weeks. It was double blinded, placebo controlled, crossover, and everything. They may have seen some benefits with the larger study, with maybe ... It was small sample size, and also maybe we do need to have a little bit higher concentration, so we can get the second messenger effect, with [inaudible 00:45:12], because that can potentiallyAlex: Which only seems to happen in water, correct? Not so much inhalation.

Tyler: That probably depends on the dose and how, the profile, the concentration. Anyway, [inaudible 00:45:24]. Going to your question, yes, about the other study, because the first study that was done in 2013-

Alex: The larger, it was ... Was 52 weeks

Tyler: [crosstalk 00:45:32]. Yeah, that one shows some great benefits on Parkinson's disease, and decreased the unified disease, Parkinson's disease rating score. There's that, great

Alex: We'll do a larger one over 80 weeks, which is actually how science is supposed to progress. What I was asking Tyler is, it seemed the placebo group was taking hydrogen, so there was actually a smaller amount, there was no difference between placebo and the hydrogen group, but both groups saw a huge improvement over other studies in loss of Parkinson's disease score over the same period, which to me is very concerning. That should've never been published.

Alex: What are your thoughts?


Tyler: I have a lot of thoughts. There's some things I'd rather not say, because I know that some of the details of that, and there's a lot of issues behind it. I think that it is very unfortunate, what happened. I think I'll just say that if we consider that the placebo group, they did have hydrogen, and actually, we've done some other work, and sometimes the placebo water actually had a much higher concentration

Alex: Of hydrogen than the

Tyler: That was [crosstalk 00:46:49]. That's the range. It could've even had two or three times higher concentration. If you think about it, you're getting these bottles, and every other day, they're getting maybe a high concentration of hydrogen, very intermittent-like effect, and

Alex: Sorry, it seems the bottles were mixed up?

Tyler: ... now ...

Alex: Or, something happened?

Tyler: Something happened. Anyways. What we'd look at though is, there was no difference between the hydrogen group and the placebo group, and at the end of the study, yes, there was a decrease, but compared to other studies, the decrease was

Alex: 10 points less or something.

Tyler: Yeah. Alex: It was incredibly significant compared to other studies of the same duration, and both groups were actually taking hydrogen.

Tyler: Right. That study, we could say, especially when we know more of the inner details, we cannot say that hydrogen does not work for Parkinson's disease, but we also cannot say that hydrogen does work for Parkinson's disease.

Alex: We need to do the study again properly.

Tyler: And more of them. Actually, in science ... Can you ever say this works for this disease? You really can't ever get to that point.

Alex: This is a call to any public researchers, there's a reason why we've only been on the market two and a half years, we have two published clinical trials, we have two more going through review that I want to talk with you about next, and four more underway. These are all public teams. What we do is, we will donate all the product, placebo and hydrogen, and depending on the study, we might even donate extra funds for extra markers. We don't want to pay private teams to do these studies, but we want to know how this works, why it works, when it should work.


Alex: Contact us, we'd love to work with you. We want to understand hydrogen better. If any of you want to study any of these things we've talked about or anything else, reach out to us.

Tyler: Yeah. That's great. I appreciate you willing to work with our team, and the other groups that we're working with, and the fact that, you have no influence or call, no contact or whatever, on whether or not the study is published, or say in the results or whatever. Yeah, that's important. I hope that we can continue working with more researchers like this, and hopefully other companies will want to support this kind of research as well, in the way that you are, so that we can just understand how it works.

Alex: I understand if you can't talk much about then, because I do understand the peer review process, but you were invited to be one of the authors on our third and fourth clinical trials. I know, I've seen the data, you've seen the data, it's pretty interesting to me, and I can't talk about it yet, because they're both ...

Tyler: Are you talking about the non-alcoholic fattyAlex: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the metabolic syndrome.

Tyler: Yeah. That one is kind of cool for me. We just published a study before, where, what we've found, we did diet induced, bad diet, died induced fatty liver disease, fatty acid liver disease, in animals. We found that hydrogen, that drinking hydrogen water was very effective at basically improving the symptoms and preventing the damage and things.

Tyler: In 2013, these researchers, they were trying to find benefits using alkaline ionized water. They contacted me, they're in the middle of doing their study, and they're like, hey, we just found out about you, we'd love for you to help. We started talking, and they showed me what they were doing, they had this water ionizing machine, they had very negative ORP, this negative oxidation reduction potential, as alkaline water, all the properties.

Tyler: I was like, great, what's the hydrogen gas concentration? They're like, what? Why would I do that? I was like, okay, let's discuss this. Let's just finish out the study, because you can't just change the protocol right in the middle of doing ... They're almost done with the study.

Tyler: I continued working with them, we checked all the controls, we finished the study, and lo and behold, there was no benefit, no effect between the regular water and the alkaline ionized water. I was like, okay, that's what I expected, but I wasn't so sure, because we didn't know how high the concentration of hydrogen gas was. The ORP was -500, -600 or something.

Alex: ORP is not a proper measurement. Tyler: [crosstalk 00:51:23] yeah, exactly.



Alex: [crosstalk 00:51:26] if there is any amount of hydrogen in it, but you can get a -600 ORP, and have .03 PPM of hydrogen, which is not even measurable, unless you significantly increase hydration methods. It's one of the things that drives me mad when I'm reading the research, is how poorly some of the studies are written. I know that's a big criticism, often with new sciences.

Alex: We need to remember when science is green, this is how it starts off. Small teams, that maybe don't understand it properly, doing research, but then it advances over time. Hydrogen is new in a body of research growing. There is about 61, 62 published human trials, and what, 1200 publications. I've seen a study, that one study on, I think it was the newer one out of China, on chemotherapy, the researchers indicated that you can't go beyond .8 PPM of hydrogen. They're just completely off base.

Tyler: Yeah. I think there was probably some confusion with ... Anyway. There's some missing details on that one. You're right, unfortunately, with some of these green sciences, you get some articles that come in that aren't, that have some quirky thoughts. You get that even with well-established sciences. I want to point out, that although hydrogen has some of these things in there, especially going to the electralyzed, ionized water stuff, that research, lots of problems.

Tyler: The research on hydrogen gas, the average impact factor ... The credibility of a journal is often correlated by its impact factor. Scimago rating is better. The average impact factor of the journals is around three for hydrogen, which is actually really good, because typically, if you're below one, you're not, probably not a very good journal. You're probably some predatory open access journal or something.

Tyler: If you're one, two, two is a good journal. That's a stellar journal. Anything above that is really good. Nature Medicine is 27, and that was the first article that hydrogen gas published in.

Tyler: I don't want to

Alex: In this era, the first big one was in Science.

Tyler: That's right, yeah. From Baylor University, and then Texas A&M.

Alex: Texas A&M.

Tyler: Okay. This study, go back to this fatty liver disease. We finally developed a method with the titration. We got them the ability so they could do that. They measured the concentration, and it was .1 or .2 PPM or something. It was just too low. We repeated the same study, but we did a low concentration of hydrogen, it was I think .2 or .3 PPM, pretty much the same concentration as what was in the alkaline ionized water, and also alkaline pH. Negative ORP, and everything the same. Then, just a higher concentration. Which is not even that much higher, but it was, .8 or .9 PPM. Did the study, and the same study, and at the end, there was no benefit with the low concentration, compared to just normal drinking water, there was no difference, but the higher concentration, obvious clear benefits.

Alex: This is my understanding too, is, we don't fully know the dose dependent response of hydrogen yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in many cases, you need a higher dose for hydrogen to work, and in no case as a higher dose worked less.

Tyler: Okay. That would be true. I don't know if in many cases, a higher dose is needed. I'd have to think about how do we define that, because ... It's probably true, because the last part of the statement is, I think is very demonstrably true, even in cell culture, tissue, organs and animals, humans, so on, that a higher concentration is never less effective than a lower concentration. The idea amongst researchers is, there is likely a higher probability that a higher concentration is going to be more effective.

Tyler: Let's go higher concentration. Now, the reason why most of the studies are between, around 1, 1.6 PPM, is because at the time, that's as high as they could get. It was so difficult to get ... You come up with this pseudoscience garbage you're selling, but you call it [inaudible 00:56:03] making such a high concentration, that's opened up a new way to ...

Alex: I'm sure Tyler was joking.

Tyler: Yeah. Sometimes, I'm like, that's so ridiculous, let me measure that again. Anyway.

Alex: Like we've said 10 PPM, in actual dissolved hydrogen is impossible, and that's what makes our [crosstalk 00:56:26] so easy.

Tyler: Yeah, don't confuse it, it's actually not 10 PPM dissolved hydrogen. I think when we measured it, the concentration was around just over two and a half, actually, dissolved concentration, and the rest

Alex: Which is still actually beyond, that's what I was saying, the cloud could create more [crosstalk 00:56:41]

Tyler: Yeah. Because you have the high pressure. It followed Henry's law, and then you can have a high supersaturation that way, and then you have all the quasi bubbles. That's why, as you tell people, drink it while the Cloud is present. Alex: Exactly.

Tyler: We've diverged a lot from the non-fatty acid liver disease. Non-alcoholic fatty acid liver disease.

Tyler: Okay. We found good benefits there. Then, yes, when you contacted me again and I was talking with the other group doing the research, we worked through this, and it's not published yet, so I don't want to ...


Alex: Absolutely. The other one that just finished, again, that was a bigger study, that we did. We're seeing a lot of benefits there, but it still has to be finished writing and go through

Tyler: That one, okay, first, with the NFLD study, that one looked good. There's a really neat method that we used to look at the results, and it's pretty clear that hydrogen was having a great benefit there. That'll be exciting when that comes out.

Tyler: Then the other study, what we see on the initial preliminary look at the data, clearly, there are some very important biomolecules that were either increased or decreased. That's important. Now, I want to just be more cautious talking about that one, only because we haven't completely gone through the statistical analysis with other correction statistics, just to make sure. It looks very favorable.

Tyler: I think we were talking about this. Didn't your partner say ...

Alex: I don't want to make that comment to get him in trouble. He was in shock.

Tyler: Yeah, he's like, whoa. Yeah, that how I feel. That's why I'm like, I want to redo the statistical analysis, and just confirm that this is what we found. Things are looking favorable, for sure.

Alex: Great. I want to ask you, because there is so much green science, there is so much flawed conclusions in the studies. I remember the first one that I read where, I almost burst out laughing, because it's so ridiculous, was that acute supplementation of hydrogen for vascular endothelial function, and they contributed the benefit to immediate direct scavenging of the [crosstalk 00:59:13]

Tyler: Oh yeah.

Alex: Serious scientists read some of these articles, and they're like, that's bullshit.

Tyler: Let's be careful. They're also serious scientists, but that's not ... Okay, if you know the researchers, they're Japanese, but a lot of these are clinicians. Medical doctors, practitioners, not biochemists, physicists, chemists. People looking at this. They see

Alex: That's a serious problem in science, by the way, is a lot of specialties can't really speak to each other properly. If you don't have the right specialist as part of the team, you can draw the wrong conclusions [crosstalk 00:59:52]

Tyler: Yeah. That's why we look at the results. Let's look at the results. Let's just not worry about what was said, that's just [inaudible 00:59:59] rhetoric, that's just their trying to make a story.

Alex: That's how they've written it, yeah.

Tyler: You look at the results, you look at the data, and then you can determine from the data, this is what happened. I can say the same thing. Look, oh, look, I see this great increase in superoxide dismutase, and I see this decrease, and these markers of cell death. And then be like, and that's because hydrogen has the quantum frequency that resonates with the sun's whatever. If somebody made that, you can't be so foolish as to throw out the valid data

Alex: Exactly.

Tyler: ... because of a fallacious conclusion, that was made.

Alex: It's the same thing. I apologize for saying serious researchers. What I meant to say is, experienced researchers on that exact subject. You talk to a specialist in one field, and then you get them to talk in a different field, and they can come off sounding foolish, because it's not their expertise.

Tyler: Right. It's ultracrepidarianism. We're all guilty of that. We basically talk outside of our areas of expertise, and we make these logical conclusions that for us, are very logical on the surface, but seem absolutely absurd and ludicrous is someone who's an expert in that field.

Alex: The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know when you're in the DunningKruger club. It basically just talks about confidence and ignorance, and stupidity. The less you know, the more confident you are that you know everything.

Tyler: Right. Yeah. Exactly. That's why, for scientists, mature scientists, I think, mature scientists that are also humble, they don't care so much what was written.

Alex: They care about the raw data.

Tyler: Let's just look at the data, and I can make my own decisions. It's not ... We can do that. That's how reviews are written, that's how we do things.

Alex: With all say, maybe small studies, all of these issues that people bring up about hydrogen, what is the most convincing to you, to spend your research on molecular hydrogen? What is driving your passion and interest? What do you see as the biggest sign that it's doing something?

Tyler: Yeah. Good question. I thought about this. Obviously. I don't know that I have the best answer for it, other than, I enjoy it. I like being on this research. Sometimes, like I said to you, sometimes I look at this data, and I'm like, what am I doing? This is ridiculous. Hydrogen? Having an effect? Then, I go to the lab, or I look at something, and it's just unequivocal. We see the observation, we see the biological effect of hydrogen, and then that's what really gets me excited is okay, how. What is the primary target of where does hydrogen bind. Hydrogen receptor, that's ludicrous to me.

Tyler: Somehow, hydrogen gas is having this effect, and I want to know how. That's one of my major drivers. I have two drivers. One is, how is it actually having these biological effects, because we do see in cell studies, tissues, organs, humans, animals, all sorts of different animal models, that hydrogen is having these biological effects, how is it doing it, and number one, it appears promising from these data, pre-clinical and clinical studies, that it actually can make a significant, an important, meaningful difference, in people's life.

Tyler: In your mother's life, your grandma's life, in my life, as an exercise enthusiast. I'm thinking, if I drink hydrogen water, I'm doing 80 miles a week right now in running, and lifting weights and things. Yeah, that's insane. I know, it's ridiculous.

Alex: It's 130 kilometers for our Canadian and Aussie and European and Asian viewers. Everywhere outside the United States, basically.

Tyler: [crosstalk 01:04:00]. I'm just saying, I think to myself, okay, the safety is very high, so okay, we can look at this. Okay, your question, what's the most convincing. Okay, one, we can see data in cell culture and different things, that are just really easy to be. You can repeat it. It's so easy to repeat, and you just do it again, you can see the biological effect. Okay, that gives me confidence.

Tyler: Then, when we see biological effects being reported from all over the world, all throughout Europe, all throughout Japan and Korea and China and then here in America, I talked about my conversation earlier with some of your professors here, researchers here, and we're seeing the effect. Probably, just this preponderance, okay, I'm using the word lightly, but this preponderance of different groups and organizations, and individuals, showing a biological effect, then yeah. That's probably to me, the most convincing, that something's going on.

Alex: Because hydrogen isn't one maverick expert, working on it. There are independent teams all over the world, who are researching hydrogen, from North America to Europe, to all across Asia, which is the bulk of the research right now. It's growing here domestically. It's growing in Europe. Typically, with a skewed topic, it's one or two groups with commercial interests that are driving publications. That really doesn't seem to be the case with hydrogen.

Tyler: Yeah. That's actually interesting. There's very little publicly, privately, company-driven, funded research on hydrogen. We just got a $250,000 grant from the Slovaki government, because I'm affiliated there, to do research on heart transplantation in pigs. Because this is something we're going to, they immediately apply to clinical use.

Tyler: This is where our funds come from, form government grants.

Alex: Exactly. Every study we're doing is coming from a grant here, or a university or a hospital that's funding it themselves. Some of the teams that are doing trials on this, I've offered to donate extra money for more measurements, and they said, we don't need it. Just send us a product.

Alex: It's predominantly publicly funded. Research going on with hydrogen, by research teams, professors, clinicians that are truly interested in it, and want to study it.


Tyler: Yeah. We can always use money, but I think sometimes, we actually don't want to take the money. For me personally, for example, because we want to be so sure that we don't subconsciously or consciously bias anything, as well as ... We want to get more grants, and we don't want ... There could just be some concerns, during some earlier stages, and that's why some of the groups that we work with, of course, yeah, let's take ... We can match. The government will actually give us more money if we can get some funds to match that.

Alex: One thing I want to address and ask you about, it is a huge challenge for the public to understand, for the marketers to understand, even for the scientists to understand, the constantly changing story as we're gathering more evidence. First, it was the antioxidant, selective antioxidant fact. I know there's been a lot of talk about altering gene expression. Has the story changed at all recently? Is there something I am behind on?

Tyler: Changing stories is

Alex: Which isn't a bad thing. That means we're understanding it better. Tyler: Yeah. It's also subjective. What does that mean.

Alex: It's hard for marketers and it's hard for public to follow along, but it's great for science.

Tyler: That's probably the biggest story. That's probably the biggest story that's been hanging. Dr. Oto would say, the story has never changed. Now, read his paper. It actually doesn't talk exclusively about radical scavenging that's doing this and that. He's said many times that it has these other effects.

Tyler: In some people's mind, the story hasn't necessarily changed, but the people's perception of what the story is and understanding, has changed. Of course, there's changes. As we get more information, because we understand, okay, it's the signal modulator, we have alterations in gene expression. I think if we wanted to add another paradigm, and it's a position that I'm championing

Alex: Championing.

Tyler: Yeah, championing. Yeah, sorry. I don't even drink. Anyways. I think that it would be that hydrogen is more of a hormedic molecule. It's actually, because there's no toxic

Alex: It could be in the same instance as H2S, could have potential benefits for anti-aging [crosstalk 01:09:06]

Tyler: Yeah, hydrogen sulfide, extremely lethal at high doses, but in very small amounts, it's very good.

Alex: Nitric oxide is a free radical.


Tyler: Yeah. Of course, that's critical for our vasodilation and normal cell proliferation and so on.

Tyler: Yeah. Hydrogen gas, because we don't see the toxic effects even at very, very high concentrations

Alex: Even at 1000 times the dose of what we're delivering, that could be used in deep sea diving. There's no toxic effects, correct? [crosstalk 01:09:36]

Tyler: Yeah, that at least haven't been reported. We have to be careful, we can't say there are no toxic effects. What does that mean? Really, what we're saying, there have not been any reported. We've looked for them, we looked for all the critical markers. This has been [inaudible 01:09:48] from 1940s, looking at markers in humans.

Alex: For our listeners, I like comparing science as we gather more data, and increase our understanding, how the story changes, it's similar to reading good philosophy or good literature, or watching a great complex TV show. Every time you reread it or rewatch it, you take something more out of it, and you understand the perspective of the author. We can look at the data, the raw data, like the author. We're not understanding it in the beginning, and the more we collect, the more we reread it, with the new data available

Tyler: The new information. That's what makes it interesting, because we can now look at the original data, because the data should still stand. The data should always be how it is. Now, we can go back 10 years later with a new understanding, and reanalyze the data in view of what we understand now

Alex: And the picture becomes [crosstalk 01:10:42]

Tyler: Some of the paradoxes start making sense, sometimes more paradoxes emerge. Anyway, it's ...

Alex: Going deeper down the rabbit hole, so to speak.

Tyler: Yeah.

Alex: All right. Tyler, thank you again so much

Tyler: Sure. Yeah. It was my pleasure.

Alex: Great talking with you, and I hope everyone enjoyed our talk

1 Response

Karl H. Asenbaum
Karl H. Asenbaum

March 25, 2019

… and the Oscar goes to: Russel Crowe and Brad Pitt in the roles of hydrogen pioneers Alex Tarnava & Tyler Le Baron. Best science thriller of the year 2019. With a special gas mix the actors are diving deeper than ever in the dangerous jungle of radical oxidants and antioxidants that can be even worser radicals. A movie full of passion for true science. No more hiding of scientific data and results, if the results do not fit in the sponsors concept. Critical, political and just in time. The most actual update about what is going on in the research adventure right now: They are fighting for truth about the “gas of life”.

Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.