The Forgotten Visionaries on Minerals, Water, and Health
Although there is no such thing as too many minerals (your body largely takes what it needs and dumps the rest), I felt you needed time to reflect and “re-charge” (pun absolutely intended)
Know this post also appears as Chapter 8 in the Table of Contents of “From Volcanoes to Vitality”.
The Pull of Medical History
Throughout my career, as I repeatedly dove into researching transformative therapies, I developed a deep appreciation for the history of medicine, in that I loved reading academic papers from 100 to 150 years ago—the sheer depth of knowledge always amazed me.
How did they know so much back then? With such primitive scientific tools?
What they uncovered through simple, careful clinical observation was often nothing short of profound. And what fascinated me most was the prescience of early visionaries.
Every time a treatment or practice eventually proved transformative, there was always—somewhere in the archives—a lone, often ignored voice calling out decades earlier for its potential value.
Of course, the darker side of that realization is harder to ignore: the countless visionary physicians and researchers whose insights were dismissed, discredited, or deliberately silenced.
But let’s not go there just yet—I’m trying to stay on my best, most positive behavior here.
This chapter highlights the people who saw the “bigger picture” around trace minerals and purified, structured water before most. From soil scientists to Nobel Prize–winning chemists, all tried to show the world that missing trace minerals—silent and unseen—were shaping everything from crop yields to chronic disease.
Note From the Author: The Visionaries I Overlooked
This chapter was written weeks ago, and only after it appeared on Substack did some readers point out that I had failed to acknowledge earlier contributors in this field (or worse, appeared to have plagiarized their ideas).
To my surprise, I discovered that some of the arguments I had made were not novel. Strangely, I felt both humbled and validated. I had arrived at these conclusions (or more accurately, gathered the most recent and robust scientific data to support them) without knowing others had done similar work before me.
The truth is, I never set out to write this book, nor did I enter mineral science with any systematic research plan. Instead, my journey began with an introduction to Shimanishi’s extraction of a historically unique, primordial mineral complex.
I first learned of it through interactions with a colleague, Kacper Postawski. Then, as I began researching and trying to understand it, I quickly became overwhelmed by its potential to massively impact the health of soils, plants, animals, and humans.
Thus, I started “backwards,” driven by the one skill I’ve ever felt made me somewhat unique, as suggested in the Preface.
From that spark of inspiration, I followed random gems of knowledge — Elmer Heinrich’s “The Untold Truth” — and countless nudges towards subject areas from mineral experts like Matt Bakos.
Only after readers commented did I realize I had reached conclusions others had already articulated.
So, let me take a moment to humbly acknowledge scientists like Forrest Nielsen, Walter Mertz, and Bruce Ames, who long ago argued that many “non-essential” minerals are, in fact, essential—and that even minor deficiencies can disrupt biology.
Most relevant is Albert Earl Carter’s The Miracles of Minerals, written over 30 years ago, insisting that human physiology relies on far more elements than textbooks admit.
Thus, I am not claiming to be a visionary or a pioneer. My contribution is narrower, but I believe it is historically unique: despite a century of research into mineral depletion and trace-element physiology, no major scientist, researcher, or author has ever written about Shimanishi’s discovery.
How did that happen? As far as I can explain it, it is because Shimanishi worked in another world; not only did he live and work in Japan, but his focus was on patents rather than medical journals, and on industrial testing rather than academic conferences.
His primary focus was on deploying his minerals in agricultural and water treatment applications.
Thus, little is known of its benefits to health outside a tiny circle of practitioners, one of whom you will meet later in the book, Dr. Hisatake Nojima, who wrote five books about his use of Shimanishi’s minerals in his practice, one of which was translated into English and can be found on Amazon.
Thus, knowledge of his minerals in medicine is held by only a precious few, with no published studies of their health benefits. As a result, the one mineral technology capable of delivering dense, bioactive ionic sulfates— with global implications for water, soil, and human health—has remained invisible to the very medical and nutritional communities searching for such a solution.
I believe mine is the first work to pull Shimanishi’s breakthrough out of obscurity and into the light of science and medicine. However, this discovery did not come from me; it came to me, and then through me. At least, that is my sense of everything that brought me to this point.
So, hang in and hold on. First, we’ll pay tribute to some of the visionaries who came before. Then, on Saturday—after a few days of well-earned minion rest—we’ll cross the threshold into the frontier that Shimanishi opened.
Early Trailblazers of Broad Mineral Repletion
Elmer Heinrich, author of “The Untold Truth,” is one such visionary. Let’s start with a compelling excerpt from his book:
Many movies have been made about the migration of the American settlers in the early 1800s. We all know they had to cross the Great Plains of the United States. What we don’t know or realize is that few of these people settled in one place for an extended period.
Every few years, they would have to pick up and move. They’d start a small farm in the Midwest, such as Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, or Nebraska, with a milk cow, a couple of pigs, maybe some sheep, and a few children. After a few years, Dad would always be constipated, and the cow would quit giving milk (Ed: short answer – magnesium depletion).
Cucumber, tomato, and other farm crops would not grow, so they would almost starve. If they were lucky enough to make it through the winter, they’d load all their belongings into a covered wagon and move west with the milk cow in tow. When they found a suitable place, they started another farm.
In a few years, both Mom and Pop would be constipated all the time. The crops, cucumbers, and tomatoes would quit growing, and the cow would again quit giving milk. And, if they survived the winter, they’d load everything in a wagon and move farther west again.
Soil Depletion and “Bottomland Advantage”
What was the problem? Heinrich explained it as soil mineral depletion. Crops and plant growth removed too many minerals from the soil due to continuous year-to-year planting and inadequate fertilization—unless they were lucky enough to own a piece of bottomland near a river.
What was the deal with “bottomland?” Well, when the farms in those areas flooded, new topsoil, silt, and additional minerals from miles upstream were deposited. Thus, the “fertilizer” came to them during the flood.
As a result, if they had “bottomland,” they didn’t have to move!
The above made me recall a conversation I had with AMD about their “The Importance Of Healthy Bowel Movements” post. In that post, AMD stated that 15% of people who suffer from constipation are felt to have an “idiopathic” cause (i.e., unknown).
I now argue that the “unknown cause” involves trace mineral deficiencies (or major minerals such as magnesium).
Commercial Fertilizer and the Limits of “NPK”
Paraphrasing from Heinrich again:
Commercial fertilizers were introduced in 1908. Was the soil depletion problem solved? Not by a long shot! Study any commercial fertilizer by reviewing the ingredients listed on the package. You will see nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK), and most times, nothing more.
It’s a known fact that you can raise most crops and plants with the little nutrients still in the soil and NPK. Most farmers never fertilize with more than 4 minerals.
Why is that? Well, obtaining more than 4 to 6 minerals would be nearly impossible. Secondly, if they were obtainable and if farmers attempted to put that many back into the soil, they would soon be bankrupt.
We now understand that, along with NPK, no more than 12 or 13 minerals in the soil are required to raise large, red, juicy tomatoes.
Still, many times if you were blindfolded while eating, you would have trouble identifying the tomatoes due to a lack of taste. The lack of taste is due to a lack of minerals that cause a lack of “Brix” which is a lack of sugar.
This lack of minerals is the reason you would have to eat four carrots today to get the same amount of minerals as one carrot supplied 60 years ago. Soil depletion is the only reason today’s plants contain no more than 16 to 20 minerals on average, compared to more than 70 minerals thousands of years ago.
Stephen Whiting, PhD
Another historical account comes from this essay written by Stephen Whiting, PhD, where he states that:
The concept of re-fertilizing with NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus and potash or potassium) has been in vogue for decades yet there is overwhelming evidence to show that while this nutrient combination produces higher yield per acre, the plants grown on those soils are weak and subject to attack by varieties of pests which then have to be controlled with potentially harmful chemicals.
This is a key point: poorly mineralized plants are robbed of their natural ability to withstand pests, while plants raised in a mineral-rich environment often require near nil exogenous pesticides.
Dr. Weston A. Price
In his pioneer work entitled Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Weston A. Price discussed the issue of NPK fertilization and the dangers to higher forms of animals—including man—living on plants produced with limited nutrients. Already in the 1940’s, he was warning of the differences between truly healthy plants and those raised on NPK.
Dr. Gary Price Todd
As referenced above, Dr. Gary Price Todd was another visionary—both a physician and researcher—who emphasized the critical role of mineral nutrition in human and animal health. He is noted for his assertion, “Sick soil causes sick plants, which causes sick animals, and ultimately sick human beings.”
He highlighted how mineral depletion in soils leads to poor health outcomes across species. Dr. Todd extensively researched mineral deficiencies, particularly the link between trace minerals in the soil and a wide spectrum of diseases in both humans and animals.
He argued that the lack of essential minerals in farm and garden soils directly contributes to mineral deficiencies in the diet, which in turn is “the root of all disease.”
“Essential.” There is that word again.
Todd’s work contributed to awareness that restoring soil mineral content is foundational for improving food nutrient quality and preventing chronic disease.
He also used nutritional supplements and mineral-based therapies in clinical practice and reported observing marked improvements in patient health, including vision. His research and clinical insights reinforced the importance of minerals for optimal well-being, immune function, and disease prevention.
Linus Pauling
Now it is time to bring in Linus Pauling—literally one of my favorite scientists in history. Why? Let’s start with the fact that he was the only person in history to win two unshared Nobel Prizes, one for Chemistry (1954) and one for Peace (1962).
Although “he fundamentally changed the understanding of chemical bonding and molecular structure, established quantum chemistry, the concept of orbital hybridization, and the first accurate electronegativity scale,” that is not why he is my favorite!
And it’s also not because he published over 1,200 papers and books, shaping multiple fields including chemistry, crystallography, protein chemistry, biochemistry, medicine, and public health policy.
So then why is he my favorite you ask? It’s because Pauling was also the first major scientist to advocate for IV vitamin C as a therapeutic, opening new possibilities in oncology, integrative medicine, (and for Paul Marik and me), sepsis!
Another reason I particularly liked him (or strongly identified with him) is that his reputation was also unfairly tarnished because of his advocacy for IV Vitamin C. You see, Paul Marik’s and my reputations also took a big hit just before Covid (Paul’s more than mine because he was 100X more famous).
Why, you ask? Because of our research and advocacy for IV Vitamin C in severe sepsis/septic shock.
That “hit job” actually occurred the first time Paul and I met in person—at a globally watched critical care conference in Belfast, Ireland, in January 2020 (as if that day in Science was not bad enough, we had no idea what was coming next).
The conference showcase was going to be the announcement of the results of the first “high-quality” RCT of IV Vitamin C in sepsis. The whole field of critical care was watching because it was either going to validate or invalidate “the great Paul Marik’s” landmark “observational” study, which showed an immense mortality reduction in his patients.
However, what is now to me unsurprising (although it was an absolutely devastating shock to us then), the trial was “negative” (no real significant impacts on anything).
However, what was immediately and abundantly clear to us was that they didn’t give the IVC until around 30 hours into septic shock—well after ICU admission (in Paul’s study, they started it within hours of arrival to the ER, well before the ICU).
My recently published research at the time (which Paul used at the conference to defend himself, albeit to no avail) showed that the mortality benefit of IVC in septic shock disappears after 12 hours from the patient’s arrival to the ER.
At that stage of our career development, we attributed their trial design to stupidity and ignorance. Now, don’t ask.
If you think that was bad, do you want to know what they did to poor Linus after his death? He went through something eerily similar. After publicly championing the life-saving potential of vitamin C in cancer, like with Paul’s claim of its life-saving properties in sepsis, “rigorous” studies were done to validate Pauling’s claims.
Two large Mayo Clinic trials—published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1979 and 1985— tested the “high-dose” vitamin C that Pauling had advocated.
Here’s the kicker: although “high dose” was in the title, oddly, the word “oral” was missing (because that is what both trials tested).
They didn’t test high-dose intravenous vitamin C, the form Pauling had actually advocated—they tested high-dose oral vitamin C.
And they did it twice.
This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here pierrekorymedicalmusings.com
Header image: GeologyPage