Back in February 2017, I had a Troll that calls herself "Clair Mala" (We believe it is a fake name) contact me regarding Lyme-N. She said her good friend used Lyme-N and admitted her health improved and she felt better although her friend did not 'feel' totally "cured". In other words, her friend had permanent tissue damage from having had Lyme Disease for so long, something that I have discussed in previous posts. Claire was irate about the fact that Lyme-N costs $3800 and that seems to be the premise for the beginning of her downward spiral of nutty emails to me.
She told me that she sent off a Lyme-N sample to have it tested using a Mass Spectrometer test and said that results came back as plain iodine. She set out to convince me that Lyme-N was nothing more than plain iodine that you buy over the counter at a drug store. I knew that was not the case, simply because I talk with the scientist that created Lyme-N and trust him implicitly. She said was going to tell the world that everyone could just buy it on Amazon and nebulize regular iodine. I warned her that she is not a scientist or a doctor and it was not wise to be giving people medical advice. I also told her that it was dangerous and irresponsible to go about telling people something that is a lie. Lyme-N is NOT plain iodine, her MS test results were wrong. She would not listen. She was demanding, accusatory, rude and asked a lot of questions. In spite of all this, I continued to answer her questions and tried to have an adult conversation with her, using reason and logic.
When she could not convince me to believe that her Mass Spectrometer test results were correct, she called me names, said I believed in Fairy Dust, said I was insane, said I was "not a real person", said there was no scientist behind Lyme-N, said anyone believing Lyme-N was an "idiot", said she was going to post all over the internet and "tell the police". Her behavior was childish, demanding, erratic, bipolar, then apologetic, then back to angry......I saved all her emails to me. Finally, our tumultuous relationship came to a very welcome end with me tell her I was the happiest insane idiot on the planet that had ever been cured of Lyme Disease. :) I had clearly been wasting my time.
At the time, I did talk to Lyme-N's creator, GG, on the phone about "Claire's" claims. While there is iodine in Lyme-N (that is obvious by just looking at it!) there is so much more to it and it is not possible to detect the ligands using a Mass Spectrometer, and in fact, from what I recall, the MS process destroys those ligands so vital to Lyme-N's effectiveness. Simply put, nobody can recreate or detect all the elements in the special formula that is Lyme-N.
Fast forward to yesterday when I was contacted by GG and Jeanne making me aware that indeed, Crazy Claire has followed through with her threats to post all over the internet telling people that Lyme-N is the same as plain iodine and to nebulize plain iodine instead because it's cheaper.
In response, GG did a write up regarding the shortcomings and limited capabilities of Mass Spectrometer testing, outlining why the MS test was not even used correctly and is not capable of detecting all the elements in Lyme-N in Clair's failed attempt to discover it's chemical make-up. He is concerned that Claire's claims could harm others and he wants to make it very clear that in no way would he ever tell anyone to nebulize plain otc iodine. He said it could be very dangerous and does not want Lyme-N to be associated with Claire's lies and the possible harm others may come to if they follow her advice.
Frankly, unless you are a scientist and familiar with Mass Spectrometer testing, you probably won't understand much of it, but that is what I love about his write up. To me, the write up itself makes clear that someone like GG is gifted with a natural ability to understand complex scientific processes and chemical interactions unlike the average person. Only someone like him would be able to create a wonderful product that can kill spirochetes in our bodies and at the same time, do no harm to the rest of our tissues, and in fact, heal and improve the surrounding tissues. It's pretty miraculous.
Below is the write up that GG prepared and asked me to share in response to Claire's erroneous claims:
Retention Time
The amount of time that a compound is retained in the GC column is known as the retention time. The technician should measure retention time from the sample injection until the compound elutes from the column. The retention time can aid in differentiating between some compounds. However, retention time is not a reliable factor to determine the identity of a compound. If two samples do not have equal retention times, those samples are not the same substance. However, identical retention times for two samples only indicate a possibility that the samples are the same substance. Potentially thousands of chemicals may have the same retention time, peak shape, and detector response. For example, under certain conditions, DDT has the same retention time as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). Some believe that environmental testing showed erroneously high amounts of DDT. GC instruments showed only one peak for what is believed to be a mixture of DDT and PCBs. This experimental data led to the banning of DDT in the U.S. Bluntly, GC is "(O)ne of the quickest ways of getting the wrong answer in qualitative analysis."
Proper scientific practice requires that the GC technician compare the spectral output with a known standard sample of the suspected substance. The standard sample must be analyzed with the same instrument, under the same conditions, immediately before and immediately after analyzing the unknown specimen. If the resulting three spectral outputs do not agree, the technician cannot make a reliable identification of the specimen based on the GC analysis. With any ligand a mixture of antagonist chemistry’s instantly released by the GCMS making new chemistry and changing the original compound. This would keep you from ever manufacturing the parent mass desired chemistry.
If a portion of the specimen leaks back out of the septum, the amount of the specimen is not recorded. This event makes any eventual quantitative result erroneous. If air should leak into the injection port through a worn septum, the oxygen and water contained in air may skew the results. Any oxygen may react with the specimen components. If this happens, the GC instrument will provide results indicating the presence of this unintended reaction product, instead of the original compounds present in the specimen vial. Any water in the column adversely affects the GC instrument's ability to separate components. We are well over 90% water with both Lyme-N and Novum!
If advance notice of GC testing is available, an adverse party should observe the procedure. If a retained consultant or the knowledgeable attorney observes the technician's use of the GC instrument, important information can be recorded. The technician's preparation of the specimen and the subsequent injection can be observed for errors or malfunctioning equipment. The observer should record the instrument's make, model, serial number, injection temperature, column temperature, carrier gas flow rates and pressure, identify the type of detector used, and observe any manipulation of the data by use of a computer. Ensure that the technician properly starts measuring the time at injection and records the time of elution. Any discrepancy in the time will produce an erroneous retention time. If the procedure cannot be observed, the adverse party should seek all pertinent information (experimental conditions, measurements, instrument identification) and hard copy output.
Analysis of Output
Each substance has a characteristic mass spectrum under particular controlled conditions. A technician can identify a specimen by comparing the specimen's mass spectrum with known compounds. Quantitative analysis is possible by measuring the relative intensities of the mass spectra.
Usually a mass spectrum will display a peak for the unfragmented molecule of the specimen. This is commonly the greatest mass detected, called the "parent mass." Like the picture on a puzzle box, the parent mass is used to fit the pieces together from the other peaks in the mass spectrum. The parent mass reveals the mass of the molecule while the other peaks indicate the molecule's structure.
Determining the parent peak and consequently the molecular mass of the specimen is the most difficult part of MS analysis. Identifying the parent mass is outside the scope of this article. Assuming that a technician can correctly determine the molecular mass, the technician makes an educated guess of the specimen's identity and compares the mass spectrum to reference spectra for confirmation. The mass spectra for larger molecules containing carbon are complicated and require tedious calculations that are subject to error. Computers are commonly used for spectral analysis.
Parent Mass = sample you are testing
Finding the correct parent peak in the mass spectra may be difficult. Finding the parent peak helps to determine the parent mass, which should lead to determining the specimen's molecular mass. For high molecular mass compounds, like drugs and body fluids, a parent peak is often not observed. This makes qualitative identification difficult. A special type of MS, chemical ionization MS, reduces the likelihood of missing the parent mass.
Technician's Skills
As in the puzzle analogy, knowing the shape of a piece of the molecule helps to join the pieces together. To determine the specimen's molecular structure before fragmentation, the technician needs to employ skill and art to determine the molecular structure from mass spectra patterns. Computers and databases can assist, but a human expert is necessary to distinguish between likely and unlikely answers. Alone, a computer cannot determine molecular structures as well as a competent human. This causes the weight of MS evidence to depend greatly on the technician's qualifications and proficiency with MS spectrum analysis.
Crucial Factors
MS analysis is highly reliable if the instrument is of sufficient resolution and the technician's interpretation of the results is competent. While some factors rarely affect MS analysis, some factors are absolutely essential for the use of reliable MS evidence. In all cases a technician must process a standard sample containing a verified composition identical to the presumed contents of the collected specimen. This standard sample must be processed under identical conditions, both before and after processing the collected specimen . Any identification based on output from the collected specimen that does not match the standard sample is inconclusive.
You only use a GCMS when you know what the exact compounds are and you test to match them and you still get false positives & false negative. No one on earth knows what the exact chemistry is but me so you cannot use a GCMS to back engineer our chemistry!!!! With a ligand added to the GCMS it would be all but destroyed upon adding it to the device and you could never compound the parent ligand by analysis what was destroyed by the GCMS. These devices as long as I have used them for registration can only detect a match to an exact compound you already know. It is been compared to a jigsaw puzzle with the picture on the box already in your hand, now you match your GCMS results with what your known picture is an in chemistry you don’t get a picture in advance by having the exact compound unless you have a dry technical sample which you don’t any hydrogen, oxygen, anything in the air from the room cannot be in sample you are testing. Even under ideal conditions like a GCMS clean room you get outliers. Bottom line you cannot take any sample of even a pure technical and reproduce it using a GCMS you can only confirm you have copied it if you know the flow chart that it was made from. There are many processes in the manufacturing process that one needs to know to make a correct compounded chemistry. If you don’t you can only at best make a possible match but it may not act like the parent sample because of a different flow chart that had effects that you cannot detect using a GCMS or any other testing device. You can make fried chicken but it is not KFC. KFC may use a pressure cooker at different unknown pressures on the raw ingredients and soak the raw chicken in double distilled water for 4.5 hrs. before frying chicken under fluxing temperatures till done. All the finished chicken may look the same and test the same but not taste the same because of the flow charts are different. GCMS don’t mirror your parent product in chemistry effectiveness.
Some problems with GC/MS originate in improper conditions in the GC portion of the analysis. If the GC instrument does not separate the specimen's compounds completely, the MS feed is impure. This usually results in background "noise" in the mass spectrum. If the carrier gas in the GC process is not correctly deflected from entering the MS instrument, similar contamination may occur.
Also, the MS portion suffers from the inexact practice of interpreting mass spectra. An analyst must correlate computer calculations with system conditions. The typical memory bank for MS identification contains about 5000 spectra for a particular group of compounds. Even if a competent analyst could find conclusive results pointing to one substance out of 5000 substances, this does not rule out the remaining over 200,000 known existing chemicals. For the 5000-spectra memory bank, the typical computer result is limited to as many as six possible identifications.
In one instance, erroneous GC/MS results may have been responsible for a criminal defendant receiving a death sentence. John Brown killed a police officer and wounded two bar patrons in a shoot-out on June 7, 1980 in Garden Grove, California. Mr. Brown's diminished capacity defense to capital murder relied on the assertion that Mr. Brown was under the influence of narcotics at the time of the shooting. The prosecution introduced GC/MS evidence that showed Mr. Brown's blood to be free of narcotics. The California Supreme Court overturned the jury's death sentence because the prosecution never introduced evidence from a radioactive immunoassay ("RIA") test that detected phencyclidine (PCP) in Mr. Brown's blood. Obviously, an example like this demonstrates that analytical evidence, including GC/MS, should always be confirmed with another reliable technique.
A more advanced analytical method is MS/MS, a tandem series of instruments, which has the advantage of increased sensitivity. One court states that MS/MS analysis has never produced a false positive in the FBI laboratory. However, MS/MS is not widely used yet as the instrument's cost is prohibitive.
AND AFTER ALL OF THIS YOU HAVE THE LIGAND CONSTRUCTION THAT ONLY I THE INVENTOR KNOWS!!! (SMILE) GG"