In defence of Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and structured water: When saying “might” is a crime

They didn’t attack Joe Ladapo because he was reckless. They attacked him because a calm, credible authority suggested water quality matters, threatening an entire business model built on sickness.

The Ladapo “scandal”

Florida’s Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo possesses an impressive combination of personality traits, a rare mix of kindness, intelligence, objectivity, courage, and determination. He’s one of the most impressive people I have encountered during the covid pandemic. And with those traits, it should surprise no one that he was, and remains, one of the most publicly attacked and denigrated public figures in the US.

In short, during the covid pandemic, though he was Surgeon General at that time as well, he recommended citizens against taking the covid vaccines due to an increase in heart failure he noticed in the vaccinated population. He wrote an ample online analysis at that time. He also sent an open letter to FDA and CDC asking them to consider the side effects of the vaccine. Dr. Joseph Ladapo also recommended against wearing the masks as he considered they will not help during the pandemic, but do more harm. Lastly, he made national news in September 2025 when he announced a plan to remove all vaccine mandates from state law. His aim is that for all vaccination, parents, not school or doctors, will be the ones to decide if and what vaccines are to be given to the children.

There’s a quote commonly credited to George Orwell, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” If that line ever needed a modern case study, Joe Ladapo is it.

Now, although I run a fairly popular Substack page, as much as I would want to, if I had to write a post every time one of my “brothers in arms” was targeted by corporatized, government-captured media propaganda, I’d be posting every single day (and probably twice a day).

And it would still be pointless, because any rebuttal of mine would never reach the same eyeballs as the hit pieces pumped through NYT, Washington Post, Gizmodo, Yahoo, Fox, and the rest of the narrative-enforcement apparatus.

But the latest attack on Joe made me both furious and laugh out loud. This time, they went after him for talking about water.

The crime: Saying “might”

Check out this clown-show of an article that a friend sent me:

It’s funny how even the most obvious propaganda headline still “gets” you for a split second. That’s what propaganda is designed to do: insert thoughts into your consciousness before reason catches up.

While reading the article, I was shocked to learn that Joe’s high crime was a single sentence in a tweet: “Drinking structured water might offer more advantages.”

Might. That’s it. No product, no claims, no prescriptions, no certainty. Just a cautious statement acknowledging biological plausibility. Apparently, that now qualifies as “peddling.”

But here’s where the article crossed from laughable into enraging: the author didn’t just attack Joe. He attacked the very idea that water can be structured, or that it might have biological effects. My rage turned from what they were doing to Joe to what they were doing to upstream physiology.

The position the Gizmodo journalist was tasked with presenting was not scepticism. It was deliberately feigned ignorance.

Why this attack on upstream physiology matters

Water organizing itself into structure is not a fringe belief. It is documented across physical chemistry, membrane biology, biophysics, and agricultural physiology. Interfacial water, hydration layers, charge separation, and non-random molecular organization near mineral and biological surfaces are taught concepts, not mysticism.

And the real-world data are even harder to dismiss because I literally just published a post compiling veterinary and agricultural studies showing improved outcomes like growth, fertility, metabolic efficiency, stress tolerance (even sperm production), when animals drink structured or beneficially modified water. Not humans. Animals. Where variables are controlled, and outcomes are measured directly. Animals don’t placebo. They don’t comply. They don’t read Twitter. They just respond. Which is exactly why that literature is so threatening.

Credentialism as a weapon

The article sneers: “2026 is already looking to be filled with plenty of crank science.”

“Structured water isn’t something that really exists, according to actual scientists.”

The propaganda machine is therefore inferring that Joe is not an “actual scientist.” Let’s pause.

Joe Ladapo is an MD from Harvard Medical School, holds a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard, served as an FDA staff fellow, is Florida’s Surgeon General, and is a full Professor at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

But not an “actual scientist,” apparently. That was the funniest part.

To make Joe look foolish, the journalist had to reach across the planet to find a suitably credentialed critic, pulling in a chemist from New South Wales to dismiss structured water as “nebulous.”

Even that quote accidentally concedes the point: “…….at its most scientifically plausible, it describes unusual properties of water near an interface.”

That is structured water.

Pattern recognition: The Kory scale

The article then recycled Joe’s previous covid positions, that were cautious, evidence-based, and repeatedly vindicated by time, and closed with the now mandatory flourish: anti-science zealot.

This is how modern propaganda works. You don’t debate the claim. You delegitimize the messenger, collapse nuance, and warn readers not to think.

But why attack something as banal-sounding as water?

To understand what was really behind that article, it is imperative that we revisit the central thesis of the Kory Scale: That the efficacy of any proposed therapy should be scored in direct proportion to the degree, breadth, and viciousness of the attacks generated from pharma-media and the “medical establishment.”

They are scared of structured water!

The Vitamin D parallel

Vitamin D is literally the conductor of the orchestra that is our immune system (and other systems). Vitamin D supplementation (and K2 and magnesium), at the right doses and frequency, tuned to achieve optimal levels, is one of the best defences against literally any disease. “They” know this.

Thus, their decades-long injection of studies into the medical literature aimed at showing that Vitamin D supplementation (at anaemic and infrequent doses) has zero efficacy in treating or preventing any disease. For every study of reasonable dosing that manages to get published, they will then inject two, larger, “more rigorous” (manipulated) studies of low-dose, short-term, infrequently delivered Vitamin D that contradict any beneficial findings.

“They” then buy the professional medical societies, allowing “them” control of the treatment guideline committees, lowering what is considered a “normal” to the absolute lowest possible level.

I used to be afraid to say this, for fear of sounding like a tin-hat conspiracy theorist, but, based on now 5 years of fighting the pharmaceutical industry, I will state objectively, and fully; “they” do this to keep us as unhealthy and/or sick as possible, so that we become more voracious consumers of pharmaceuticals and sophisticated, immensely expensive health treatments. Period.

Just one example; if the population were to achieve and maintain truly optimal Vitamin D levels (at least 50, I like mine over 100), the biggest bear of them all, the cancer industry, would undergo a massive downturn. And that’s just cancer; the markets for literally every disease and specialty would be affected.

Know that in human antiquity, vitamin D levels were far higher than what is considered “normal” today. Multiple lines of evidence, from studies of modern hunter-gatherer populations living traditional outdoor lifestyles, to physiologic modelling of sun exposure at equatorial and temperate latitudes, consistently place ancestral serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the range of 40-70 ng/mL, with many people likely spending substantial portions of the year above 60 ng/mL.

These levels were achieved naturally through daily, full-body sun exposure without sunscreen, indoor confinement, or seasonal light deprivation imposed by modern living.

By contrast, contemporary populations in industrialized societies cluster around 15-30 ng/mL, with anything above 20 ng/mL now labelled “sufficient”, not because it reflects optimal immune, metabolic, or endocrine function. In other words, modern “normal” vitamin D levels are not a biological baseline; they are a deficiency threshold rebranded as adequacy.

Are they doing it again? Structured water as the next threat

We are going to start with an example of the increasingly pervasive propaganda tool, from Australia, no less:

AAP FactCheck – Structured water health claims are false

A fact-check from the Australian Associated Press states that claims about “structured” or “hexagonal” water having superior health benefits are false, noting “there’s no such element as structured water” according to expert chemists.

Quote: “Structured water……. has far superior health benefits than regular water. This is false. There’s no such element as structured water.” – AAP FactCheck, quoting chemistry experts.

Vitarx – Marketing myth and lack of evidence

The Vitarx health site calls structured water (including H₃O₂) a marketing myth, stating that bulk water isn’t a stable form you can buy, and that any purported health benefits lack strong human evidence.

Quote: “Structured water or H₃O₂ is not a real, stable form of water – this concept is a marketing myth, not science……. Most chemists and biologists say there’s insufficient evidence to prove structured water offers any special health benefits.” – Vitarx.

Wikipedia on hexagonal water – Marketing scam

Wikipedia’s entry on hexagonal water (another term for structured water) describes it explicitly as a marketing scam, not a scientifically substantiated health product.

Quote: “Hexagonal water……. is a term used in a marketing scam that claims the ability to create a certain configuration of water that is better for the body……. the hoax……. despite the reality that this compound is neither water nor stable.” – Wikipedia.

What “structured water” actually is (and isn’t)

Based on the work of Gerald Pollack at the University of Washington, a man considered to be the world’s expert in the study of structured water (a term for which he uses “exclusion zone” water), the test he used to define water as “structured,” was an Ultraviolet Absorption analysis using a UV spectrometer.

EZ water in Pollack’s framework is associated with an optical absorption peak near ~270 nm in UV-Vis spectroscopy. This peak is considered a marker of altered water structure at hydrophilic interfaces, unlike that of ordinary bulk water. The absolute magnitude of the absorbance peak can vary with conditions and is not a fixed number, but its presence and reproducibility are the relevant finding.

Although Pollack’s work has received the most attention, he was not a “discoverer” of structured water; others had been structuring water and studying its effects on humans and animals decades before him. Shimanishi knew his minerals structured the water, and he called it “activated oxygen water”. Others, such as Lorenzen, in patent filings for his water structuring method in the early 1990’s, defined structured water with ¹⁷O Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) linewidth, finding that ordinary water shows a broad ¹⁷O NMR resonance (≈115-140 Hz depending on purity), while the patented “microclustered water” consistently showed narrower linewidths, often 25-70 Hz, with 60-70 Hz preferred.

The claim was that narrower linewidths indicate: reduced rotational freedom, more uniform molecular environments and longer hydrogen-bond organization.

Science states that nothing alive can exist unless three material conditions are met: carbon, water, and minerals. Carbon provides the scaffolding of life, minerals provide coordination and regulation, and water is the medium that allows both to interact. Without water, carbon cannot assemble into living structures, and minerals cannot move, signal, or participate in biology. Access to water is not just essential to life; it is the condition that makes life possible at all.

Long before hydrogen bonding or electrical gradients were understood, civilizations recognized that different waters produced different effects on the body, the land, and the consciousness. Springs were distinguished from stagnant sources. Certain waters were sought for healing, fertility, and longevity. These traditions lacked modern chemistry, but they were observing something real: water is not biologically neutral.

Two simple facts make this unavoidable.

• Water without minerals is biologically inert.
• Minerals without water are biologically inert.

Water and minerals cannot be considered separate biological entities. The old habit of listing three material foundations of life, carbon, water, and minerals, is actually wrong. To be scientifically accurate, that list collapses to two: carbon and water, but only if the water is “real water,” meaning mineralized water.

Water is not just a liquid. It only supports life when it functions as a medium, carrying minerals. Without them, water cannot coordinate chemistry, carry charge, or support living systems.

Where can “naturally formed” structured water be found?

As Gerald Pollack has stated publicly, the only places on Earth where naturally persistent structured water has been observed are near hydrothermal vents and in natural sulphate-rich springs.

There is only one meaningful commonality between those environments, and it is that the minerals found there are bound with sulphur, specifically in dissolved sulphate species. Thus, I will refer primarily to sulphate going forward, because it is the most stable, soluble, and widely bioavailable aqueous form, and therefore the most biologically relevant in drinking water.

Sulphate is required for water organization because water organizes around stable charge separation, and sulphate is biology’s primary mineral for managing protons, electrons, and interfacial charge without collapsing gradients. This is why sulphate-rich environments can support persistent electrical organization in water while devices cannot.

This fact is virtually unmentioned by those making claims about structured water. The result is widespread confusion paired with confident but baseless assertions, leaving the field wide open to scepticism, ridicule, and journalistic attack.

The core insight – “Mineral sulphate coherence”

It’s not about “structured water.” It’s about water maintaining electrical sulphated mineral coherence through ionic mineral content.

Water cannot hold structure on its own. Hydrogen bonds form and break trillions of times per second. Any apparent ordering is temporary and collapses the moment the influence is removed. Water cannot store energy, hold charge, or maintain order independently. When people say “the water is structured,” what they usually mean is that something external briefly aligned the molecules. That is not structure, and it is not coherence.

Sulphated mineral coherence in water is about function: continuous ionic movement, stable charge exchange, and buffered electrical gradients. That only exists when sulphated mineral ions are present to support that exchange. This is what turns water from a passive solvent into an active conductive medium.

Pristine, natural spring water moves through sulphated mineral strata, where it acquires ionic species, develops conductivity, and establishes redox balance. That is why it remains stable after bottling and supports biological systems without devices. Nothing is “locking” the water into shape. The sulphated mineral ions keep it coherent.

How we quietly replaced a living medium with an industrial solvent

For most of human history, people drank water that moved slowly through rock, soil, and living systems before ever reaching the mouth.

Springs, seeps, rivers, and shallow wells delivered water that was sulphated mineral-bearing, microbially mediated, and conditioned by prolonged contact with stone, clay, and organic matter. Water chemistry was shaped jointly by geology and biology, not by industrial optimization. There was no chlorination, no aggressive filtration, no plastic piping, and no mandate to prioritize sterility over physiology. That water was not “pure” by modern regulatory standards, but it was often biologically legible as sulphated mineral coherent water.

Today, water is engineered for distribution, shelf life, and liability reduction. Municipal treatment prioritizes pathogen elimination, corrosion control, and chemical stability across miles of pipe. What reaches the tap is often chemically clean but, again, biologically thin: low in calcium and magnesium, high in residual disinfectants, prone to inducing diuresis, and poorly buffered at the cellular level. The goal is uniformity and safety, not biological compatibility.

If journalists simply wanted to attack Joe Ladapo, they had hundreds of his actions and statements to choose from. Instead, they went after a single, cautious sentence about the potential benefits of structured water. Joe is dangerous precisely because he’s careful. He didn’t claim certainty. He said might. And a cautious statement from a credible authority invites thought.

Thought is the one aspect they don’t want you engaging in.

So yes, they invented a scandal around a Surgeon General acknowledging possibility. And in doing so, they revealed the real scandal: a media system so captured that it now mocks upstream physiology like structured water while calling itself “pro-science.”

Gizmodo pursues to convince you that structured water doesn’t matter. And when the media mocks fundamentals like this, it’s not because it is irrelevant. It’s because structured water is dangerous for the Big Pharma and the “elite” ruling this planet.

Author: Pierre Kory, MD, MPA

 

yogaesoteric
January 29, 2026