Andrew Norton Webber – Pissy Attitude.

Over the last few days, I have been embroiled in a bewildering debate about distilled water. I knew that there existed something of a distillation cult, but I had underestimated how deep the rabbit hole went. This blog post is an adaptation of a (very long) Facebook comment I posted as a response to a friend of a friend. He sells water distillation equipment, and seems utterly convinced that drinking distilled water (one gallon a day) will change your life in just one week by “cleaning out” all the terrible minerals in your body. I posted a link to Randy Johnson’s great website, which is the most detailed and comprehensive resource I’ve found on the subject of distilled water and the various opposing health claims that are made for and against it. Check out the section on distilled water, which unfortunately, my debating opponent didn’t find impressive enough to read.

In response, he directed me towards a character called Andrew Norton Webber,  whom he cited as the reason why he got started with distilled water. Since then, I’ve been doing some delving into the swirling vortex of pseudoscience that is Andrew Norton Webber’s brain. The majority of what follows is based on the first third of a three-hour interview he did – you can find it here or, alternatively,  just search for him on YouTube – he’s quite prolific. I want to make this clear before I begin: as I unpick the arguments laid out by him in the making of his case for distilled water (remember I listened to him for a whole hour), you may begin to think – why are you wasting your time on this?

Well, for one thing, he has garnered a non-trivial following. His videos have been seen by tens of thousands, and his name appears all over the “alternative” web. He presents himself as an expert, and speaks with such confidence that many will have been, and continue to be, tempted to use his existence as confirmation of false ideas that they’d like to be true (who wouldn’t be glad if distilled water were a cure-all), on the basis of a few clicks around his website, or a couple of minutes on YouTube. I think Facebook makes it clear just how gullible some people are, and just how seducable people are by names with a few thousand followers (we know, we get it all the time 😉 ).

It is my belief (and sincere hope) that most of the people who cite him and follow his advice won’t have actually realised how mind-frazzlingly incoherent and weird it all gets when you scratch beneath the surface. The over-all purpose of this note is not to berate or mock Andrew Norton Webber. As I wrote it I deleted and re-phrased things continuously in an active effort to soften the tone. But, as you will see, it turns out to be impossible to unpick his claims without automatically exposing the (I’m afraid) dumb-founding absurdities that constitute them. The main purpose of this note is to provide a reality-check for people like the person to whom it, in its original form, it was written to. For people who aren’t “retards” (as much as this word is thrown about as a means to dismiss people as not worth engaging with) and, whom, in any case, if indeed they were, wouldn’t therefore somehow “deserve” to just be left alone to fester in their own stupidity. If one of my friends came out with the kind of stuff we’re about to discuss (I do have some quite bizarre friends), I’d be just as blunt and forthright as I am in this article. I’d reckon that was a darn-sight more respectful than just looking the other way and letting them get on with it. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the highest possible respect I could pay to Andrew Norton Webber is the time and effort I have spent critically appraising his ideas, as an Oxford-educated English lass. Right, glad that’s out of the way.

Before we begin on the topic of distilled water pseudoscience and its (I now know) intimately related companion, urine pseudoscience (which is more common than you think, by the way), let it be known that in the third of the three-hour interview I’ve so far had the stomach to listen to, Norton Webber reveals himself to be a shining example of crank magnetism, proudly buying into chemtrail woo and antivaccionationism, believing that chemotherapy is purely a money-making ploy that does not save or prolong lives, trading in erroneous chemotherapy treatment statistics and painting all “mainstream” doctors and academics as deceitful and money-grabbing. He is under the impression that GMOs are akin to poison, reels off unfounded notions about the pineal gland (a pseudoscience favourite), is a germ-theory denialist, anti-fluoride conspiracy theorist, homeopathy-enthusiast and all-round conspiracy sponge. He also argues that cooked food has “lost its fuel” – that putting cooked food in your body is like burning gasoline before putting it in the car. (This audacious false analogy is topped off with the labelling of all cooked food as “pure death”.) He states as a given that cataracts, artery plaques, arthritis (and disease in general) are just “mineral deposits”. This is one of the (incorrect) assumptions upon which he bases his assertion that drinking distilled water (or urine) can free humans of disease. He also thinks that the kidneys filter 1000 litres of water. Wiki says 180.  And with full certainty, he asserts that a combination of bathing your tongue in urine after suffering allergic reactions (but not using any drugs) and drinking your own urine on a daily will “completely erase” all allergies (ie. Nut allergy-sufferers: throw away your epi-pens), and provide a full-proof antidote to *any* poison. Yes, that’s right, ANY poison.

Now that we’ve broken the urinary ice, I’ll be frank: Norton Webber is obsessed with drinking pee, which he says can cure any disease. He says one can (and seems convinced that indeed one really ought to) continuously cycle one’s urine, forever – “never taking water or food”. Within 3-5 days, Norton Webber claims, your urine, when cycled through you like this, will become “rainwater-clear”. I’ll just give you a moment to consider that. Now, to truly believe this necessitates one of two things: EITHER a complete and utter lack of understanding of elementary physiology, anatomy, chemistry or evolutionary theory, OR an astronomically bold rejection of science in its entirety – because the idea that we can sustain ourselves with our own urine (and be better off for it) is squarely at odds with each of them, on so many levels. If you keep drinking your urine, the water content will get ever-lower, as it is used by your body for metabolism, and evaporated in the form of perspiration. The pee will get further and further from “rainwater-clear”, and this behaviour will pretty quickly kill you.

No doubt Norton Webber would claim the latter of these two things – that he rejects, rather than fails to understand, science. Indeed, he does, superficially, reject science. His package is ostensibly anti-science. No doubt he would retort to scientific objection to the factual basis of his claims by saying that he doesn’t trust science anyway: his explanations and theory wouldn’t be accepted by doctors and those from “institutions”, because these people want to hide the truth and feed us misinformation. In fact, he advises that everyone cast all subtlety of thought out of the window and resolve to always look in exactly the opposite way to the one in which a given “institution” is directing you, because that’s where the truth will be. He refers to “collegitis”, which he says,

collegitisyz2“sets in when you have been to so much college that you only believe things which come out of ‘accredited’ institutions, corporations, brick and mortar buildings and silly white coats”.

But in actual fact, though he might like to reply that he rejects science, this retort is off-limits to him. His whole arsenal of assertions and claims revolves around ‘sciency-ness’ – a continual bastardisation of actual science  – ie. science that comes from a vast lineage of… institutions and… colleges. He discusses concepts such as “vaccines”, “blood pressure”, “cholesterol”, “hydrogen bonding” etc, etc, all of which came to be understood and labelled and explained by science.

Science is not some collection of answers from which we can select the ones we like and leave the rest. Science is a method of inquiry, and it is the method – the way we get to the answers – that makes something scientific. Not the jargon. Science does not demand unconditional trust (unlike Norton Webber and chums do) – indeed, science can only progress because people keep on questioning – but if you want to disagree with it, you must disagree using more science. That means you must disagree with the method, rather than simply reject the answers. If Andrew Norton Webber disagrees with the methods used to establish pretty much everything we know about the human body, including all the physics and chemistry that this entails, then what the bleedin’eck is he doing basing his “truth” on the very concepts established via these very methods? Add to this the fact that he fails to provide even one demonstration of his understanding of any of science’s methods (something he would have to possess in order to reject them – you’d expect him to be showing it off, not hiding it), and it starts to look verrrrrrry close to 100% certain that Andrew Norton Webber is… frontin’, girl. Derision of doctors, scientists and the “mainstream”, along with a sleazy, pseudo-maverick narrative, are used as a decoy and quasi-justification for his lack of knowledge (of the kind that one would acquire through long, hard hours of genuine study, usually via institutions).

As I asked about Ty Bollinger in a previous blog post, if Norton Webber doesn’t trust science and its chronic sufferers of collegitis, why on earth does he enjoin his readers to trust that these scientific concepts he keeps referring to and using to build his case, from science’s institutions, aren’t just deep layers of conspiracy construction, designed to function as a believable framework for all the lies “they” tell us, and that he so valiantly challenges? Perhaps it’s because, in reality, these science terms and concepts function as a convenient conceptual framework for readers to slot his lies (or delusions, or both, depending on your interpretation) neatly into. It makes them easily remembered and spreadable. One thing’s for sure: whenever we see such selective inconsistency, we know the motivation is something other than truth.

At this point, I feel I should stress again that tragic though his position is, and deserving of our sympathy though he surely is, Norton Webber is setting himself up in a position that squarely demands criticism. He is giving out not just medical advice but extreme medical advice which, given that it’s also the wrong advice, is dangerous. To give you a particularly good example of why he needs to be firmly challenged:

“We all have the most terrible times trying to quit our addictions, and I don’t care whether it’s smoking, drinking, eating lobsters every night or whatever your fancy is. Don’t try to quit those. That’s too hard. Just…add a NEW addiction. Add the gallon a day. Everything else from there will follow. You see, misery loves company. And when you’re full of garbage, there’s three layers of trash that happen inside the body, if you exist without cleaning it on a regular basis, which is basically the degradation we’re witnessing in society… is human bodies, or machines, that have never been cleaned. First a layer of dirt forms, and then there’s bugs, that start to live in the dirt, and then there’s parasites that start to live off the bugs. So, if you don’t clean those out, people just become totally wasted. They just become broken down machines. It’s like buying a car, and driving it out of the lot, without ever giving it oil. Oil is the lubricant to an engine – to a mechanical engine. Water is the lubricant, and the cleaner, to a human engine. The body.”

I’ll leave you to ruminate on that. I don’t know about you, but I find the undertones of religious purity, and guilty shame at our filth-accumulating bodies, particularly unsavoury.

Now seems a good moment to ask: whence cometh Norton Webber’s penchant for piss?

The, Bible, of course! He quotes this bit: “Drink water from your own cistern, fresh* water from your own well”, as is the custom for “urine therapy” proponents. He believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Do you, friend-of-a-friend? He is on record as saying “Don’t take the stories from the Bible as allegories. The Bible is truth”. Are you a Young Earth Creationist, like him? Surely not. [I never come across YECs in England.]

Incidentally, it seems more likely that “god” is recommending fidelity here, not piss-drinking, as those words are immediately followed by these ones: “Should your springs be dispersed abroad, /Streams of water in the streets? /Let them be yours alone /And not for strangers with you./Let your fountain be blessed /And rejoice in the wife of your youth. /As a loving hind and a graceful doe,/Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;/Be intoxicated always with her love.”

*In the King James bible, it’s “running water from your own well”, not “fresh water from your own well.”

So, how does drinking pee relate to drinking distilled water? Well, Norton Webber asserts that “the effects (of drinking urine and distilled water) are exactly the same. “It’s not just urine that is the miracle cleanser for the body” – the very reason urine is able to cleanse and heal and allow you live for hundreds of years like Moses and other Biblical characters is because of its distilled water content. In other words, “it’s not urine per se, it’s the pure water within it”. Let’s just be clear that (leaving aside that this contradicts one of his earlier assertions that the reason urine is good for you is probably because of its ammonia content), this makes … no sense. The defining feature of distilled water is that it contains no solutes. Urine is full of solutes – urea, chloride, sodium, potassium, creatinine and others. If we can temporarily suspend stringency just enough to entertain the idea that the “distilled water content” of urine is what constitutes the “vital force” that allows it to de-age you, there’s still the problem that continuously looping it directly would be like the opposite of the distilling process – your urine would contain less and less of this “vitality”, and more and more solutes.

Still on the same outbreath, Norton Webber seems to extend the argument another step – from urine to fruit , implying that you can get the same benefits from drinking fresh (NEVER pasteurised) juice. He seems to be implying, in his own, curiously jumbled way, that it’s the distilled water content of fruit juice that makes it good for you, just like it’s this that makes urine good for you. (Why not just stick with the fruit juice, then?) In this strange moment, he seems to imply that the “vital force” that is destroyed through cooking is in fact the distilled water content. I find it hard to think of a comment to include at this point.

His jumbled misunderstanding of water potential and osmosis (along with other vague bits and bobs) is what seems to lead him (and others) to the conclusion that distilled water can “clean” the body. Theoretically, the extra osmotic pressure applied by distilled water to a solute-containing solution the other side of a semi-permeable membrane allows it to absorb more particles from this solution via a type of diffusion process called osmosis and, in Webber’s world, thus “clean the body” when ingested. But the extra ‘sucking power’, (referred to as water potential) imparted to distilled water is only proportional to the quantity of particles removed from the water in the first place by distillation. Comparing distilled water to tap water becomes a pointless affair when you then compare how either will look when mixed with the contents of your stomach, which contains comparatively enormous quantities of solutes even when empty. It’s a drop-in-the-ocean scenario. Furthermore, even if distilled water were able to absorb significant quantities of substances from your body through the stomach walls (perhaps if one drank huge quantities and stopped eating), this absorption wouldn’t be specific to “bad” chemicals – it would absorb a proportionate quantity of important solutes – ones that are there as a result of millions of years of evolution, and ones that are pushed in pill-form by supplement marketers. (In fact, this flipside is the idea onto which our old friend Dr. Mercola has latched, and from which he constructs his fear-mongering about drinking distilled water, that, according to him “leaches” your body of important minerals. EARLY DEATH FROM DRINKING DISTILLED WATER is the way one character from the anti-distilled-water lobby puts it. See Randy’s page on distilled water for reasons not to take the fear-mongers’ bate on this.)

The idea that urine is good for us because of its distilled water content takes the invalidity of Webber’s philosophy/theory/approach (whatever, they all sound far too noble) to new heights. It is a fundamental inconsistency – a most fatal flaw in his theory. And, of course, it betrays, from another angle, the gaping holes in Webber’s grasp of science. To be rainwater-clear about this: the man advocating distilled water doesn’t actually know what constitutes distilled water.

Leaving all this aside (which seems a perverse thing to do, but no matter), where is this “evidence” that is said to exist to support the claim that distilled water “cleans” the body? Or, for the even more specific assertion, that the quantity of a gallon must be consumed for it to work? Where does Norton Webber get this information or that figure from? As I hope to have convinced you, there is no scientific plausibility working in his favour here.

My hunch is that of the people who find themselves on the fence about Norton Webber’s theory, those who decide to go and do some “research” on whether distilled water completely rids all humans of disease and is the answer to everything, (instead of just listening on until they’re convinced) tend to get sidetracked by “detox” chit-chat. “Information” on detox is everywhere. They kick themselves as it occurs to them that drinking distilled water or urine must be a cure-all, like Norton Webber says it is, because after all, detox is a thing. But detox is another deeply pseudoscientific idea – an ingenious marketing label though, my word. It is a formidable type of pseudoscience, because it sits atop the extraordinarily symbolically-rich concept of purity. “Cleaning” the body and/or the soul is a motif found deeply embedded in religions and mystical traditions throughout history and cross-culturally. This religious metaphor functions whether consciously or not as another means for Norton Webber to dodge the gaps in his knowledge about the very things he claims to be so clued up on, fogging up the picture with mystical smoke and mirrors.

Extraordinary claims, it must be remembered, require extraordinary evidence, with the burden of proof being, as always, on the claimant. Testimonials and anecdotes, despite incessant proclamations of their existence by subscribers and preachers, can’t count. (Indeed, testimonials are a well-recognised pseudoscience red flag.) There are plenty of explanations (aside from that little thing called “fibbing”) as to why people may perceive a certain behaviour as benefiting them. Regression to the mean, placebo, cognitive dissonance, and confusing correlation with causation are some examples – mix these up and pour over an underlying anti-science clique, and you have a recipe for unreliable testimony.

My debating opponent directs me to a page from Andrew Norton Webber’s website, “aquariusthewaterbearer.com”, that lists “doctors” and “experts” who supposedly have had “the courage to tell the truth about distilled water”. As I was fully expecting, it is wholly untrustworthy. I’ve looked up the first 14 entries. They each fall into one of three categories: 1) words of quacks and pseudoexperts who promote distilled water; 2) words that can only be found in copies of the actual document I am trying to verify; (ie, that can’t be independently confirmed and are therefore likely to be made up) and 3) words that are taken out of context and don’t specifically make a case for the health benefits of distilled water. Of course, as we’ve already seen, this is irrelevant because testimonies don’t count as evidence. The fact that someone is a doctor does not absolve them of burden of proof – they should face the same scrutiny as Norton Webber.

Furthermore, a few hundred testimonials is actually fairly unimpressive. Norton Webber has a downloadable .pdf  which apparently contains “500+ testimonials. Full book in progress”. There are billions of people in the world. If someone really had found a free, miracle cure for… everything; something that could “reverse the ageing process” and cure all disease, my best bet says that more people would be on board – news would have spread farer and wider, quicker. (Also, I’d wager that Norton Webber would look in far better shape – he cites Annette Larkins, who is apparently 70 years old but looks very young, as “living proof” that following a raw food diet and drinking distilled water reverses ageing. What about all the living disproof then? Why are there not many more like Larkins? This ability to ignore the misses and take note only of the hits is yet another signature of pseudoscience – known as “selective thinking”, or “confirmation bias”.

The idea that “nobody would benefit from funding” studies to show that distilled water has health benefits”, an idea proposed in the debate, is potentially misleading.  True, there is no incentive to spend money on such a study because, as I’ve touched on (and on which thousands more words could be written), there is a complete lack of any prior scientific basis upon which to suspect that drinking urine or distilled water could possibly have any of the health benefits that people like Norton Webber say it has. However, if the idea did have any prior scientific plausibility then of course there would be incentive to fund studies on it. From a mercenary perspective, huge savings could be made across the board  (speaking as someone with a free national health service) if it turned out that such a simple intervention could improve health and save lives.

The notion that Big Pharma is deliberately keeping us ill is untenable from every angle. It’s also massively insulting to all the thousands of people whose ongoing scientific research is dedicated to understanding the molecular intricacies of individual diseases in the quest to make ill people better. In teaching the New World Order conspiracy as truth, Norton Webber is dismissing the humanity and dedication of huge numbers of people, conveying their intentions to improve and save lives as cold, callous deception – without anything but imagination to back up his dismissal. This is called “slander”.

For the New World Order to be true, necessarily, every student of medicine (and anyone else associated with institutions) would have to be deeply ensconced in a vast web of lies; leading brilliantly well juggled double-lives, all in exchange for dirty Pharma payouts. As someone with many friends in medicine, some of whom I studied with at university, I find the perpetuation of this wild and capricious speculation as THE TRUTH not only absurd but supremely irresponsible, outrageous, and conceited.

And let’s not forget, either, that scientists don’t all work for pharmaceutical companies, and not only that but are fundamentally driven by reputation (associated with making significant contributions to science).The achievement every scientist seeks is the privilege of putting her or his name next to a revolutionary insight, especially if it means humanity benefits directly from such an insight. If distilled water (or urine) were a miracle cure, this would have been shown to be true, and the research group responsible would benefit through reputation – the currency of good science. There are such things as rich scientists. There are also such things as sponsors who want to have revolutionary scientists as their pin-ups. If I am a scientist and I demonstrate, using a well-designed study and good statistics, that distilled water has the benefits that Norton Webber and co. say it does (ie, that it can essentially cure all of mankind’s problems), my reputation as a scientist sky-rockets, and I probably make a fair bit of money in the process and as a result. But there’s no point in investing not just money but time and effort into a project one is confident will not bear fruit. For the record, sure, Pharma companies have a lot to answer for. Ben Goldacre is one of their fiercest critics. His book, “Bad Pharma”, is extremely revealing and unfavourable. I recommend it highly. The reality really is worth talking about and challenging, but it is a far cry from the kind of world that Norton Webber thinks we’re living in. If we want to build a good case against something, as Goldacre does, we need to do it reasonably, with evidence – not with recycled fictions and rumours.

In all, Norton Webber’s profile could function nicely as an illustration of practically every item included in Carl Sagan’s baloney detection kit which, if you haven’t read through, I would recommend as well. There are copies of it hosted at various places – here’s one.

Webber flies all the red flags of pseudoscience. His worldview is based on deep and fervently defended disconnectivity between what in reality are inextricably interlocked areas of this human life. He lives in a bubble – he thinks he is open-minded but in fact, he is anything but.  His mind has had to contort itself so much to house such a catastrophically illogical construct that he can in a single moment both condemn cooking because “no animals cook their food before eating it”, and endorse “continuously looping your own water”. (Incidentally, the Bible makes what would certainly appear to be references to cooked food, in the form of feasts and bread. Since god’s been (in his interpretation) so explicit about the wonders of drinking urine, you’d expect him to mention somewhere that cooking literally kills your food, turning it into “pure death”.)

Usually, when I say things like this, the comments that follow are along the lines of “science doesn’t have the answers to everything”. So, just to put it out there, I know it doesn’t. In the words of Dara O’Brien, “if it did, it would stop.” But just because it doesn’t have the answers to everything doesn’t mean that one can fill in the gaps with mumbo-jumbo. In any case – on this particular subject, science happens to know an awful lot. Andrew Norton Webber’s videos have been seen by tens of thousands of people.

*      *      *      *

In case you were wondering, my debate opponent called me judgemental and made some personal slurs on my character. He wouldn’t accept that testimonials don’t count, and he said that it was irrelevant whether the quotes from that list were genuine or not.

download (1)Finally, he said this: “We all have opinions – until we know. Then we don’t have opinions anymore. I am offering you a chance to have KNOWING  and not an opinion”, which was accompanied by the amusing illustration opposite.

LOL!

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Andrew Norton Webber – Pissy Attitude.

  1. Great article, thanks! I would have found it equally difficult to keep out any biased opinions relating to the utter quackery this man so consistently proposes! It frustrates me also, as I enjoy debating, and also try my hardest (with little or no real education from a…’god’ forbid…institution) to seek the truth of the matter, rather than accept something convenient, that happens to align with whatever social or political views I hold, that not everyone uses scientific method or grounds to criticise or justify or simply understand the things which they learn about. Ideology is useless though I suppose. You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think, eh!

      1. i agree with you..the proof is in the pudding,just look at the lack of grey hair for a 47 year old(Andrew Weber) as well as his clear skin and youthful appearance verses these so called real doctors with their greyish hair and lack of vital vibrant energy(almost walking dead energy) they AKA-(“official doctors”…lol) cant handle a simple truth because they cant come to terms that they wasted most of their life in medical school being brainwashed by the sacred cow(AMA)….simple truths OUT WEIGH comprehensive bull shit….ps another guy you might want to check out is Gary Null(garynull.com) he also speaks alot of truth about alternative medicine and its many benefits…he is a vegetarian in his early 70s and JUICES ALOT has no grey hair,clear skin, sharp mind the opposite of these so called medical doctors.. pj

  2. If what Andrew Norton Webber has to share with people does not ‘resonate’ with you, then leave it alone and go about your business conferring with the colleagues that you are comfortable with. Perhaps your angst with him might be redirected at, oh, let’s see…., what could we choose? Manufacturers of methamphetamine? Or, how about Child sex slave traffickers? The list could become enormous with REAL and LEGITIMATE issues that you could choose to occupy your time and energy lashing out against. Get Over Yourself…..

    1. The reason I wrote this is not because it “does not resonate” with me. It’s because I think that the serious health claims he makes are deeply unethical, for the reasons I gave in the post.

      My angst doesn’t need to be redirected, thanks. I choose what things I speak out against, and sex trafficking happens to be one of them, incidentally, along with capital punishment and theocracy.

      There is always something “worse” than any given thing one can think of. If we were always having to “redirect” our disapproval towards things that are worse than what we currently campaign against, then important things (like quackery) would get ignored, and this would be far from desirable.

      This is a “REAL and LEGITIMATE” issue – A.N.W. is making bogus claims that not only serve to spread misinformation and confusion, but have the potential to cause actual damage to people’s health. Flippantly telling people not to bother giving up smoking, for instance, is a very serious misdeed.

      You know nothing about the things I choose to occupy my time and energy lashing out against. You’ve skimmed through one of my articles and then made a patently unsophisticated judgement that you nonetheless deem prescient enough to waste my time with. You get over yourself.

      1. Perhaps you could let your audience know who you are. I for one, have a bit of a problem with those like yourself who carry an enormous torch for your own personal theories and opinions whether ‘educated’, or no, and then choose to remain anonymous. That in itself doesn’t much lean toward credibility.

        At least Mr. Webber is “all in” with what he is obviously a proponent of. He bears his name, his face… pretty much his entire soul, for what he believes. As far as your accusation of him promoting smoking, is it possible that you may have taken what he was explaining out of context? Might serve you to go back and listen to the interview again. Nowhere in the interview did he promote smoking. He was simply relaying the nearly miraculous fact that the man had regenerated lungs from the cleansing power of drinking distilled water. Would you mind posting in a reply which interview that you are referring to?

        ….and by the way, I didn’t accuse you of “wasting” your time. That was Your Statement..

      2. I didn’t say anything about wasting time either. I don’t know where you’re getting that from.

        Who I am is entirely irrelevant to the argument, which is simply that giving medical advice based on whimsy rather than physiology and medical science is shamelessly unethical.

        Being “all in” doesn’t change this. To give an analogy, racial persecution is shamelessly unethical too and no matter how passionately somebody “believes” it, no matter how willingly they give their “entire soul” to support the cause, this won’t make it any less unethical or any less deserving of strong opposition.

        Well done for demonstrating that you didn’t read my article (and yet still deigned to criticise it). I didn’t take what he said out of context; I directly quoted him. Perhaps *you* should go and actually listen to the interview (linked to within the article), because you clearly haven’t, otherwise you would have heard him saying, unambiguously, that as long as you drink distilled water every day, there’s no need to give up smoking or tackle any of your addictions. Alternatively, just scroll down my blog post until you see the long, obvious quote.

        Incidentally, and this is discussed in the article too, testimonials (such as Andrew NW’s claims that someone’s lungs regenerated after he started drinking distilled water) are NOT reliable. A lot of people simply lie to promote a cause. Beyond that, there are problems with interpreting causality, regression to the mean, mistaken diagnosis, etc. The bottom line is that there is NO scientific plausibility for distilled water having any physiological effect on the body, something I explain in detail through discussion of osmosis and the stomach.

        My article is *not* based on “personal theories and opinions” – it’s based on science. Unlike those of Andrew Norton Webber.

    2. Bobbie, as an example of the tripe Webber preaches, take common table salt, sodium chloride. This is a mineral or what Webber calls an “inorganic mineral”. I have no idea what an organic mineral is but perhaps you could give me a couple of examples.

      According to Webber the body does not absorb “inorganic minerals”. If that were indeed the case then I should be able to drink as much salt-laden sea water as I could force down without any adverse effects (other than an overwhelming urge to vomit) because, filtered of fish, it comprises only distilled water and “inorganic minerals”. Webber tells me that distilled water is good for me and “inorganic minerals” pass straight through so I conclude that I should suffer no harm. But, against Webber, experience teaches us that sea water quickly and dangerously dehydrates the body and too much salt in our diet raises blood pressure. To reduce blood pressure I limit both my salt intake and reading Webber’s silly opinions.

      Prove me wrong. Try drinking a gallon of sea water a day for a month and see what happens. P.S. What hymns would you like at your funeral?

  3. It’s a shame you don’t ɦave a donate button! Ӏ’d mօst certainly
    donate to Һis fantastic blog! I suppose fօr now
    і’ll settle for bookmaking ɑnԀ adding үoսr RSS feed
    to my Gooogle account. ӏ look forward to brand neew updates аnԀ will talk abοut thjis blog աith mу Facebook grօup.
    Chat soon!

  4. You actually sound so dumb it’s embarrassing!
    I was cringing as I read your totally brainwashed views about it all.
    Take off your blinkers and try things before you slate them.
    Anyone can learn things buy reading books but is what’s written the truth? I believe that so many of or so called Science and medical books are there to enslave, manipulate, brainwash and keep you in fear.There’s a bunch of Psycopaths struggling to keep us all controlled for their gain.
    If you need a little more proof that these kind of pure lies exist in books just read the Bible.I rest my case.Or are you really going to make me laugh and come back with something about the Bible being full of the truth.

    1. Funny you should say that, since Andrew Norton Webber is a Bible fanatic. If you had read my article properly you would have noticed this quote from him: “Don’t take the stories from the Bible as allegories. The Bible is truth.”

      I’m interested to hear which science/medical books you know of that are there “to enslave, manipulate, brainwash and keep you in fear” – none of those things are science.

      As I point out, also in the article, “no doubt Norton Webber would claim that he rejects, rather than fails to understand, science. [ie – because it’s all “just” books] Indeed, he does, superficially, reject science. His package is ostensibly anti-science. No doubt he would retort to scientific objection to the factual basis of his claims by saying that he doesn’t trust science anyway: his explanations and theory wouldn’t be accepted by doctors and those from “institutions”, because these people want to hide the truth and feed us misinformation [misinformation or “manipulation”, to use your words, that they put in BOOKS]. In fact, he advises that everyone cast all subtlety of thought out of the window and resolve to always look in exactly the opposite way to the one in which a given “institution” is directing you, because that’s where the truth will be. He refers to “collegitis”, which he says “sets in when you have been to so much college that you only believe things which come out of ‘accredited’ institutions, corporations, brick and mortar buildings and silly white coats”.

      But in actual fact, though he might like to reply that he rejects science, this retort is off-limits to him. His whole arsenal of assertions and claims revolves around ‘sciency-ness’ – a continual bastardisation of actual science – ie. science that comes from a vast lineage of… institutions and… colleges. He discusses concepts such as “vaccines”, “blood pressure”, “cholesterol”, “hydrogen bonding” etc, etc, all of which came to be understood and labelled and explained by science.

      Science is not some collection of answers from which we can select the ones we like and leave the rest. Science is a method of inquiry, and it is the method – the way we get to the answers – that makes something scientific. Not the jargon. Science does not demand unconditional trust (unlike Norton Webber and chums do) – indeed, science can only progress because people keep on questioning – but if you want to disagree with it, you must disagree using more science. That means you must disagree with the method, rather than simply reject the answers. If Andrew Norton Webber disagrees with the methods used to establish pretty much everything we know about the human body, including all the physics and chemistry that this entails, then what the bleedin’eck is he doing basing his “truth” on the very concepts established via these very methods? Add to this the fact that he fails to provide even one demonstration of his understanding of any of science’s methods (something he would have to possess in order to reject them – you’d expect him to be showing it off, not hiding it), and it starts to look verrrrrrry close to 100% certain that Andrew Norton Webber is… frontin’, girl. Derision of doctors, scientists and the “mainstream”, along with a sleazy, pseudo-maverick narrative, are used as a decoy and quasi-justification for his lack of knowledge (of the kind that one would acquire through long, hard hours of genuine study, usually via institutions).”

      You’ll need to come up with something better than “you sound dumb”.

  5. I’m not the same person as Bobbie above.

    You rubbish Urine therapy without having tried it, and without research. There are medical references in Marie Christie’s book. John Armstrong wrote Water of Life, he cured thousands. It is recorded people can live on urine alone for long periods, they have in survival situations, where there is no food or water and they have lived. There are examples in John Armstrong’s book.
    I found urine therapy myself, before I found Andrew Norton Webber. I saved my tooth with it, which would have otherwise been extracted. I have turned around a dental medical emergency 3 times, now I know better than to get them in the first place. In just the last couple of days a woman who has suffered in pain for two years and been to two ear, nose and throat specialists with no relief, has had pain relief by urine. You don’t know what you’re talking about! You’re letting your aversion and prejudice get in the way of learning. You know nothing, you have no experience in it and you are spouting off as if you have something worthwhile to say. I love the way this urine therapy is only available to the privileged few. It’s in front of many but few can partake. It is not available to the arrogant! It is a true magic, that you have to earn to be able to use. See, you haven’t got the key to it, you think you’re smart! Some have meat and cannot eat, some can eat but have no meat, but we have meat and we can eat and so the Lord be thank it! Meat = knowledge of efficacy of urine therapy. You cannot eat!
    Do you know it’s an ancient cure? No, you don’t, you did not research or you would have found that. You silly arrogant prejudiced pseudo-journalist! rkpagani@gmail.com
    On Facebook: Bobbi Pagani.

    1. I’ve addressed everything you’ve just said in the article.

      Testimonies and anecdotes are not science. Marie Christie is not a scientist. Doesn’t sound to me as if you read my article, or perhaps you just didn’t pay enough attention. I’ll have a debate with you if you can pinpoint things I actually say, and then explain with good logical flow why they are incorrect. Your comment above does not directly deal with anything I say – it simply says “you’re wrong, I’m telling you so”.

      1. I would say that an actual first hand account out-ways science any day. It is a direct human encounter with the supposed water or urine and it cured the person. What more proof does one need. I can testify from drinking distilled water, that my blood pressure has went down to normal in about two months with no drugs. My mind is no longer foggy from fluoride, and my skin has better color and never scales in the winter any more. My lower back pain is gone also. Need more proof? I am 53 and I bet I can out work your ass any day of the week. I have more energy than most 20 year olds after starting distilled water. My energy level went up on day three.

  6. Well good on you for posting my post!
    I cannot be bothered proving it to you, do your own research! I’ve given you some starting points. It has worked wonders for me, saved my life, and my teeth. I know from personal experience it works and is amazing. So do others who have used it, that’s why they give it names like the Water of Life. I am privileged. You have missed out- rotten luck for you! Have a root canal and later get arthritis from it if you get a tooth problem, instead of learning. Stay closed minded, I don’t care if you do. I have no confidence in the system you believe in- the germ based medical system- I’m calling that because it seems to have a belief germs are bad. If you would properly research though, you would find that there is medical literature on the efficacy of urine. That it isn’t used is tragic.

  7. Ps Whether Marie Christie is a scientist is irrelevant. I did not claim she was. I said there are medical references in her book. That is references to work I suppose by scientists.
    Secondly, proof by scientists is important to you but not to me, because I am not using that system. It may be of interest to me, but my personal experience carries the most weight with me . I see that system is not too good at healing, usually harms and so I reject it.

    1. Saying “there’s some book by some woman that has medical references” is clearly irrelevant too.

      If you steer away from science then you steer away from accuracy. Science is a method. It is the method that produced the computer you are using. You can’t pick and choose which answers you like, because science isn’t a collection of answers, it’s a collection of *methods* for finding answers.

      I’ve already explained that anecdotes and testimonials are not evidence. That’s fine if you want to do something that has piles of evidence stacked against it – I’m not saying you shouldn’t. But your experiences do not count as evidence.

    2. Saying “there’s some book by some woman that has medical references” is clearly irrelevant too.

      If you steer away from science then you steer away from accuracy. Science is a method. It is the method that produced the computer you are using. You can’t pick and choose which answers you like, because science isn’t a collection of answers, it’s a method.

      I’ve already explained that anecdotes and testimonials are not evidence. That’s fine if you want to do something that has piles of evidence stacked against it – I’m not saying you shouldn’t. But your experiences do not count as evidence.

  8. Hello, thank you for writing this article. I know Andrew Norton Webber very well. I won’t go into details on how I know him because reasons (like him finding this and figuring out who I am)
    I just want you to know that finding your blog and reading it is kind of like a breath of fresh air for me.

    Andrew is a very very strange person. He became deeply immersed in the New Age movement and has never been the same since. In general he is a very nice guy and I think he really does believe all this nonsense. He is not a scummy person trying to swindle or scam people into anything, he’s just a sad guy stuck in a world of fear. I’m not defending him, just trying to add perspective.
    Anyways, I am not at all very well versed in the world of science, but I know for a fact that Andrew has no scientific background of any sort. He is an artist who got sucked into the new age movement like I said and has “researched” many different aspects of it. I was sucked into this for a time also, however some things just rubbed me the wrong way and I became very skeptical. Talking with him about urine and water and whatever flavor of the month conspiracy just becomes impossible. Sometimes I honestly started to feel I was the crazy just for poking holes in his logic. I have come to realize that even though he may be a nice person and have good intentions it doesn’t cancel out all the harmful things he could potentially be perpetuating. Even though I wish I could somehow make him realize this, I can’t. So thank you for writing this article. It’s pretty much everything I have ever wanted to say to him (except better) and I hope he reads it even though he won’t like it or understand or even change his mind. It just makes me feel better.

    1. Hi there,

      Thanks so much for your comment – it means a lot to me to hear that somebody has benefited from my article. It sounds like a very sad situation to be in – I’ve had a few friends whom I’ve discovered have gone off the rails with New Age stuff, but nothing this severe.

      I’m sure he is a well-meaning person. However, just as you said, in spreading misinformation, one spreads a potential for danger, especially when the misinformation is related to human physiology and health.

      I really hope he come to eventually – but unfortunately, these kinds of beliefs die hard.

      All the best – do keep in touch and check our our Facebook page – we post about critical thinking, reason and science daily: https://www.facebook.com/hatepseudoscience

      1. Hi
        I’m sure you are well meaning. All true scientists acknowledge that our understanding of reality (what we can call ‘science’ or ‘the study of the natural world’) is limited and incomplete. What often surprises me is how many people who would label themselves as ‘scientific’ show a lack of humility in the face of this undeniable state of affairs.
        Our knowledge and understanding is always expanding and changing.
        I admire your logic for the most part and reading the above comments you dissect the often irrational and emotional statements of ‘believers’ very well.
        I think Andrew probably is guilty of some degree of pseudo-science in the way that he rationalises and sets forth his ideas. The fundamentals of his argument however are based on direct observation and experience and this ultimately is the only true measure.
        I have been aware of urine therapy for many years and one year ago began to practice.
        I understand that you think personal testimonies are irrelevant and unscientific. That is only the case if you are looking prove something. Indeed they prove nothing, but then science can never actually prove anything either. The best it can do is provide working models and modify those in light of new data.
        So once we throw out the notion of proof we are left with what? Observation.
        I fasted for 7 days on urine alone. Immediately i was cured of painful neck-ache that had lasted for 6 years. It is still gone 7 months later. A small benign tumour on my leg that had been there for 20 years disappeared. My nails which would always break and tear became tough. These are my observations. They prove nothing but they are evidence.

      2. It’s fine for you to do whatever you do. There are big problems with personal testimony, however, as I know you’ve acknowledged, and it is very easy to misinterpret things and infer cause and effect where there was none. I don’t object to people trying things, or to people suggesting that others try them. If Andrew had simply said “hey, I tried this, for some reason it seemed to work for me, why don’t you give it a go”, then that would be fine. But, as I’ve explained in my post, he goes *much, much* further than this. I won’t bother to list the ways he oversteps the mark by an enormous amount, because I’ve already done so. Thank you for commenting in a civil manner.

    2. @CRIMINALSCUM
      “I won’t go into details on how I know him because reasons (like him finding this and figuring out who I am)”

      You are full of it, and a liar.

      And @hatepseudoscience
      What are you thinking you are saving people somehow?? Nonsense!

      “Thanks so much for your comment – it means a lot to me to hear that somebody has benefited from my article. It sounds like a very sad situation to be in – I’ve had a few friends whom I’ve discovered have gone off the rails with New Age stuff, but nothing this severe.”

      Andrew Norton Weber talks about drinking distilled water and urine therapy…
      BOTH have a long history, much longer than your blog…

      “However, just as you said, in spreading misinformation, one spreads a potential for danger, especially when the misinformation is related to human physiology and health. ”

      hahahaha so you are some kind of expert in “physiology and health”.

      @hatepseudoscience
      “Randy Johnson’s great website, which is the most detailed and comprehensive resource I’ve found on the subject of distilled water and the various opposing health claims that are made for and against it. ”

      Gee thanks for posting some website that is
      ” the most detailed and comprehensive resource I’ve found”

      PLEASE get over yourself….

      ps. you probably won’t post this because you censor your blog comments….

    1. “Randy Johnson’s great website, which is the most detailed and comprehensive resource I’ve found on the subject of distilled water and the various opposing health claims that are made for and against it.”

      This one claims to be an “authority”, check it out…
      http://www.distilledwaterauthority.com/

      from the site
      “The fact remains that Dr. Charles Mayo, in addition to every doctor at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic, recommends distilled water to all their patients for its
      purity;
      ability to cleanse the body;
      ability to dissolve and flush impurities, including plaque, kidney and gall stones; and
      for its superior hydrating properties.”

      Seems legit…

      1. Peter – I published the cyber-nook distilled water page you referenced, and I am always interested in gaining new accurate, verifiable information. I reviewed the distilledwaterauthority site you mentioned above, and there are several claims made for which I have never seen any published supporting evidence . Please enlighten me.

        Claim 1: Distilled water’s alleged ability to cleanse the body, dissolve and flush impurities, including plaque, kidney and gall stones, and distilled water’s superior hydrating properties.

        Question 1: I have seen no evidence to indicate distilled water does any of these things better than regular water.
        ————————-
        Claim 2: Years of research by major medical schools and universities have determined that mineral-free drinking water, such as distilled and reverse osmosis can be directly responsible for a healthier and longer life.

        Question 2: Please provide links to actual published research results from these major medical schools and universities. I have looked and been unable to find any of these publications – where are they hiding?
        ————————-
        Claim 3: Our bodies need trace minerals — organic mineral, not inorganic minerals (suspended dirt). Inorganic mineral contributes to gall stones, kidney stones and plaque build-up in our bodies. Any truly educated scientist and nutritionist knows we get our minerals from food, not water. Also – Only chelated minerals can be utilized by our bodies. That means it is a mineral that is attached by a bond at two points by the ligand, making it “fully reacted and bonded.”

        Question 3: Please describe exactly how chelated minerals are used by the body since all minerals are absorbed as individual ions – in other words they are NOT bound to other molecules – that’s the purpose of digestion, to reduce the complex molecules (including chelates) we eat to individual ions and small molecules that can be absorbed, http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/smallgut/absorb_minerals.html. None of the biochemical texts I read show minerals absorbed along with the ligand. According to one article I read, ”In theory, ‘chelated’ minerals may be better absorbed. Because they are sitting inside an amino acid ‘claw,’ they are protected from substances in foods that can bind them. But, it may not be worth the extra cost. Chelated calcium, for example, is absorbed only 5-10% better than ordinary calcium, but it costs five times as much.” Although we do get most of our minerals from food, the body will absorb mineral ions from water in exactly the same way as mineral ions dissolved from food will be absorbed – Any truly educated scientist and nutritionist knows this.

        Don’t get me wrong – distillation is the most effective way to remove contaminants from water, but most municipal water has contaminants that are effectively removed by filtration, and most distillers would be completely ineffective during an emergency where municipal water and electricity are both unavailable and water has to be treated. A high quality filter and a bit of bleach would give you a chance to have safe water while your friends are looking for a live electrical socket to get their distiller running.

        I very much respect the goal of this website to provide accurate information and expose and dispel the myths of pseudoscience and wishful thinking.

      1. I’m stopped approving comments that completely fail to address any actual point made in the article they are objecting to, because it means that in order to respond, I have to waste my time writing things I’ve already written, in the articles they are commenting on, and in the comments, to other people who have done the same (just written knee-jerk responses or insults). This is boring. I am happy to respond to actual comments making actual points. Many of you fail to do this. Sometimes I find the patience, sometimes I don’t.

  9. My God! What an article!
    Andrew Norton Webber is first of all the gentlest of souls I ever came across. Reading this you would think he is a moron. Second of all, Urine is the best nectar you can intake, the more you drink it the purest it gets, I know not what science have to say about this, I just know from my own piss that this is true. Where to begin?!! Nowhere, apparently. You really bashed a gentle giving soul into bits. Good for you girl, good for science. Good for everyone who is sick and dying and have noone else to turn to. Now, reading this, they will stay away from Urine. Good job, congrats.

    1. As I said in response to an earlier comment, I have no problem with making a casual recommendation – I have a problem with the active misinformation that ANW disseminates, the one about not needing to give up smoking so long as you drink urine being a particularly awful example. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Andrew is a very gentle and nice chap when he’s interacting on a social level. But when he spreads lies about things he doesn’t understand, being “nice” on all other accounts just isn’t enough.

  10. You ought to be ashamed of yourself! Your childish use of the word “retard” and calling people stupid is offensive and non-professional.

    1. You missed my point. The reason the word “retards” has quote marks around it is because it represents a *disapproval* of calling people retards and using this as a justification to ignore them. To illustrate: people have often said to me “why do you waste your time? These people are just retards”. I was saying that this post was for people who *aren’t*, in fact, “retards”, but who have just been taken in by pseudoscience. I finish the sentiment by saying that, even if they *were* “retards”, that shouldn’t mean we should just let them “fester in their own stupidity.” In other words, we should try and snap them out of it. I will try and clear up the sentence – perhaps it wasn’t clear enough. On another note, I think that saying “you ought to be ashamed of yourself” is offensive – you could have put your point in a constructive way, which you should have done really, to avoid hypocrisy. On yet another note, this isn’t a professional site. It’s a personal blog.

  11. lol what a vile attack on a age old knowledge who you working for the dark side that who spreading your disinfo on pure water and pee juicing get a grip and stop keeping folks from the simple truth you are what you eat and drink change that and you change your health simple this blog needs removing as it is rubbish

  12. Peter – I am the Randy Johnson who published the cyber-nook distilled water page you referenced, and I am always interested in gaining new accurate, verifiable information. I reviewed the distilledwaterauthority site you mentioned above, and there are several claims made for which I have never seen any published supporting evidence. Please enlighten me.

    Claim 1: Distilled water’s alleged ability to cleanse the body, dissolve and flush impurities, including plaque, kidney and gall stones, and distilled water’s superior hydrating properties.

    Question 1: I have seen no evidence to indicate distilled water does any of these things better than regular water.

    Claim 2: Years of research by major medical schools and universities have determined that mineral-free drinking water, such as distilled and reverse osmosis can be directly responsible for a healthier and longer life.

    Question 2: Please provide links to actual published research results from these major medical schools and universities. I have looked and been unable to find any of these publications – where are they hiding?

    Claim 3: Our bodies need trace minerals — organic mineral, not inorganic minerals (suspended dirt). Inorganic mineral contributes to gall stones, kidney stones and plaque build-up in our bodies. Any truly educated scientist and nutritionist knows we get our minerals from food, not water. Also – Only chelated minerals can be utilized by our bodies. That means it is a mineral that is attached by a bond at two points by the ligand, making it “fully reacted and bonded.”

    Question 3: Please describe exactly how chelated minerals are used by the body since all minerals are absorbed as individual ions – in other words they are NOT bound to other molecules – that’s the purpose of digestion, to reduce the complex molecules (including chelates) we eat to individual ions and small molecules that can be absorbed, http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/smallgut/absorb_minerals.html.
    None of the biochemical texts I read show minerals absorbed along with the ligand. According to one article, ”In theory, ‘chelated’ minerals may be better absorbed. Because they are sitting inside an amino acid ‘claw,’ they are protected from substances in foods that can bind them. But, it may not be worth the extra cost. Chelated calcium, for example, is absorbed only 5-10% better than ordinary calcium, but it costs five times as much.” Although we do get most of our minerals from food, the body will absorb mineral ions from water in exactly the same way as mineral ions dissolved from food will be absorbed – Any truly educated scientist and nutritionist knows this.

    Finally you mention the alleged ‘fact’ that “Dr. Charles Mayo, in addition to every doctor at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic, recommends distilled water to all their patients.” Do you have an official statement from the Mayo Clinic to support that claim? I searched the health tips on their website, and drinking distilled water did not seem to be mentioned.

    Don’t get me wrong – distillation is the most effective way to remove most harmful contaminants from water, but most municipal water has contaminants that are effectively removed by filtration. Since most home distillers require electricity, they would be completely ineffective during an emergency where municipal water and electricity are both unavailable and water has to be treated. A high quality solid block activated carbon filter and a bit of bleach would give you a chance to have safe water while your friends are looking for a live electrical socket to distill their water.

    I very much respect the goal of Emily-Rose and her US compatriot to provide accurate information and expose and dispel the myths of pseudoscience and wishful thinking.

  13. I’ve been listening to ANW for over two years now, and met him in Sacramento Nov 2013. Way more importantly, I have had personal experience with distilled waterS (plural to include OURON or urine, plant waters and sky waters) for over two years now… But since personal testimony doesn’t qualify as “evidence” to you (means “obvious to the eye or mind) I wonder how this comment is going to proceed. Since you paint such a menagerie of words, this may just be a waste of my time, but I like to write anyway.

    For such a hater of pseudoscience, you’d think an article like this would have lots of references to direct quotes from your “science” god, not just the use of “quotation marks” to make it sound good… You know, those science quotes you like so much? Instead you post some cheesy article (no offense Randy) that only presents the usual “there is no scientific evidence to support….” blah, blah, well duh, they would never release that information IF they did study it… lol. But there is plenty of “science”, they just don’t study talk about the particulars and make the “connections”. Man’s body is such a mystery, they know only a fraction of whats there or how it does or why…

    FIRST of all, in order to be pushing “pseudo-science” one must claim to be a “scientist”. Andrew Norton Webber has never once claimed to be a scientist – he has been called an “independent researcher” by some. Here perhaps you could read his bio for yourself on his web page: http://www.andrewnortonwebber.com/about/
    The words he uses are: “Artist, intuitive, free thinker, lecturer, health researcher” and he ends that same page with these words:
    “He is giving his opinion based upon his independent research.”

    This all part of the story though, you on one side of the fence balking “pseudo-science” and wee over here drinking our piss and rubbing our body with it saying LOOK here, I’ve had this experience, this disease or pain or ailment whatever has disappeared after I start drinking PURE waters that cleans the body..,.. Observable physical and psychological phenomenon of a highly spiritual nature that “science” will always refuse to admit to, since that would be counterproductive to their materialistic busine$$ plans…

    AS this article is not about exposing some fraud, this sounds a lot like Babylon running scared and fighting hard to scare people away from PURE H20, which is what “distilled water” is closest to…

    Andrew’s claims are completely outlandish (strange and contrary to mainstream), yes, but there are these certain effects that have been observed in my body and mind as a result of drinking OURON (Greek for “urine”) and pure distilled water… for over two years now. Many have drank their urine over a decade or more… and they report excellent health and looking 25 in their 40’s… since they changed their entire life and thinking…

    So, why, or how do you think personal testimony is not valid “evidence”???

    I was not going to spend time on this comment, since I figure it wouldn’t be approved, nor will a reply be easy.. I had fun anyway…

  14. I think the title of your blog and article says it all, really.. “hate” and “pissy’ and “fucking”.. you sound like someone somewhat imbalanced.. may I suggest you try following some of his advice re: diet and you may actually have some peace, happiness and wisdom you will want to share? Thanks

  15. Excellent debunking of ANW’s unhinged rantings. I’m a chemist but wouldn’t have the time and dedication to do it, I mean, where to start?

    ANW is pseudoscience personified. His whole use of language is designed to reel in those who can’t tell a mineral nutrient from an enzyme and who tend to be proud of their ignorance. Actual, evidence based knowledge is then rejected as ‘elitist’ or by means of truisms like ‘science doesn’t know everything’ (as if that’s proof alternative theories do know the rest of it). It’s extremely difficult to get through to people who don’t actually understand what is evidence and confuse it with ‘testimonials’ or personal experience.

    And, yes, ANW is a walking talking insult to hundreds of thousands of scientists who work diligently in good faith.

  16. I was one of those gullible idiots that resonated with Webber’s crap. I paid for it. I was so sick after a few months of ingesting a gallon of distilled water a day. I had diluted my electrolites so much, especially from not ingesting any sodium because that was the devil too. I heard of others with the same issues but they all just said it was “detox”. I’m sure I was demineralized too, most of my hair fell out, my skin lost all elasticity and is wrinkled and paper thin now, I developed kidney pain probably from the sheer volume of liquid. After two years since, I’m doing much better but still recovering from it.
    I will never again trust pseudoscience bullshit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s