Links to pages on this website:
 

You are currently on the Technical Information page  of the 
Antiox Brew Website for Proreduct Fermented Antioxidant nutritional supplement liquid beverages. 

Open Letter from My Heart to Visitors

Storage, Suggested Use, Basic Information

Label Information, including Supplement Facts

Sootheox Fermented Sea Salt

How I Got Involved in This Whole Endeavor!

Privacy Notice

Payment Methods Page
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

As of August 13, 2003, the Sootheox (and Quenchox) products are no longer offered for sale, but this information is made available for educational purposes, as many folks have expressed interest in making such brews and elixirs on their own.

Our Sootheox (aka Proreduct) product line consists of five fermented antioxidant-rich nutritional supplement liquids, all fermented via a lactic acid anaerobic reducing (an antioxidative, non-putrefying) process which produces large amounts of antioxidants and other nutrients.  Sootheox (also Proreduct and Quenchox) products contain no significant amounts of alcohol (below 0.5%), and are naturally acidic as a result of lactic-acid fermentation, with an equilibrium pH of 3.7 or below.  Our brews are especially high in lactic acid.

Sootheox and Quenchox brews and elixirs contain no significant amounts of alcohol, and are naturally acidic due to lactic acid fermentation; it is especially high in lactic acid, although some versions of the Golden Bran Kelp Brew may also contain significant and noticeable (to the taste) naturally-occurring fermentation-produced amounts of acetic acid (vinegar), although all of our products contain at least small amounts of acetic acid; often not noticeable to the taste.  No chemical acids are added at any time during brewing; all acids, such as lactic acid, acetic acid, citric acid or malic acid, are produced by the acid-forming bacteria and other microorganisms; the acids consist of primarily lactic acid, a very stable acid from the standpoint of food safety and food preservation.  Equilibrium pH at time of bottling of all our products is always 3.7 or below (usually 3.6 or lower) and will remain at that healthful acidic level for many years. ORP at time of bottling was below +145 (yes, at the low pH), yielding an rH score (hydrogen reducing power score, an antioxidative measure) in the range of 17.6 to 7.6 or even better – the lower the rH, the stronger the antioxidant (reducing) power.

The anaerobic microbial fermentation culture used in creating the Sootheox and Quenchox brews is derived from a customized proprietary parent culture which is traceable to Dr. Higa's Effective Microorganisms, aka EM or EM1 or EM-1. 

Lactic Acid Fermented Products and Relative Safety
These fermented antioxidant brews and elixirs are all the product of lactic acid fermentation, and the final product is naturally high in lactic acid, with a final equilibrium pH below 3.7, and often quite a bit lower. The reason that many regulatory agencies consider naturally fermented lactic acid fermented products which are naturally high in lactic acid, and which have a pH below 4.4, to be extrmely safe is this: the vast majority of  harmful or "nasty" bacteria, which could produce illness or toxins (which then might produce illness), cannot live in a reductive (antioxidative) and acidic environment, thus making lactic-acid fermented foods the safest food category known to humankind. Most importantly, the nasty varieties of clostridium botulinum, which can cause botulinism, probably the most harmful kind of food posioning, cannot survive in acidic environments.  Most regulatory agencies consider a pH of 4.4 or 4.5 to be the cutoff point for safety of lactic acid fermented foods: if a food has a final equilibrium pH below 4.4, then it is considered to be in a very safe category of foods.  Our fermented antioxidant brews and elixirs all have a final equilibrium pH of below 3.7, and usually lower, so they more than meet that definition of lactic acid fermented foods which are naturally acidic. There are plenty of other beneficial organisms, including the lactic acid bacteria, yeasts, and PNSBs which make up the fermentative culture, which survive in the acidic environment quite well, however, and indeed, keep fermenting the stuff further...

Presence of Simple Primitive Antioxidants Known as the Hydride Ion
The fermentation process employed to create these brews produces copious amounts of the primeval negative hydrogen ion antioxidant, also known as the hydride ion, "H-", "H-minus", or the  “H-minus ion”, the most primitive and basic ancient antioxidant found on Earth, which existed in the ancient “primordial soup” even before life evolved on Earth.  The copious presence of the negative hydrogen ion antioxidant in these nutritional supplement beverages has been demonstrated repeatedly by studies of the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of the fermenting brews, and of a related measure,called the relativh hydrogen, or rH score, derived from an equation which exxamines ORP and pH.  Further, the existence in the brews of large quantities of the primitive hydride ion antioxidants and also of higher-order biochemical antioxidant species derived from it have been confirmed by proprietary nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) studies conducted by a noted scientist who is a colleague of the author. The primeval hydride antioxidant, also known as the negative hydrogen ion, is also the same type of antioxidant found in so-called alkaline ionized water (aka electrolyzed reduced water, aka ERW) and in the commercially-available powerful antioxidant nutritional supplement known as Megahydrin and also marketed under the name Active H-, and “Active H minus”.
 
 
 

Biochemical processes in our bodies are a balance of oxidative and reducing (also called antioxidant) activities. Unfortunately, in our modern era, due equally to our polluted environment, our lifestyles, our diet and the quality of our drinking water, the oxidative processes far overwhelm the reducing or antioxidant processes.  This oxidative stress has been shown to lead to disease and accelerated aging. 

Antioxidants, such as the antioxidants found in Sootheox and Quenchox (aka Proreduct) beverages, help to restore the balance of oxidative and reducing processes.  The organisms which ferment these brews normally produce a large number of  “live-food” antioxidants and nutrients, some of which (ALA, COQ10, chlorophylls, beta-glucans, carotenoids, indoles (remember the anti-cancer stuff in broccoli?), octacosanol, DMSO, butryrates (the potent antioxidant found in raw butter), lycopene, vitamin B-12, canthaxanthin, zeaxanthin, glutathione, etc.) would cost a small fortune at a nutritional supplement store. The 

The three purple phototrophic anaerobic organisms found in the Sootheox  fermentation culture (derived from Dr. Higa's Effective Microorganisms, aka EM or EM1) are capable of producing hydrogen in anaerobic conditions, and they  seem to contribute to the production of the primeval hydrogen ion (hydride) antioxidant species during fermentation (as is found in MegaHydrin antioxidant supplement and also in so-called "alkaline ionized" electrolyzed reduced water, aka ERW), and all seem to contain and to produce a wide range of more complex biochemical antioxidants and related nutrient substances when performing anaerobic fermentaion.  A quick review of the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature shows that these organisms, when fermenting foodstuffs anaerobically, tend to produce any or all of the following: vitamin C, lots of B vitamins, antivirals, bacteriochlorophyll, carotenoids (incl. lycopenes, zeaxanthin and a novel purple carotenoid called rhodobacterioxanthin), cobalamin (aka vitamin B12), retinols (related to vitamin A), peroxidase species, oxidoreductase species, reductase enzyme species, methionine side chain species, quinones, ubiquinone (aka coenzyme Q10), flavonoids,  superoxide dismutase species (aka SOD), catalase-peroxidase species (powerful antioxidants), dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO, a powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory), alpha lipoic acid (ALA or lipoic acid), tocopherols (aka vitamin E),  glutathione, alpha and beta glucans (immune-boosting, antioxidant and anti-diabetic), indoles (remember the anti-cancer antioxidants found in cruciferous veggies?), octacosanol, 3-hydroxybutyrate and other related hydroxybutyrates (antioxidants and energy substances for mitochondria), powerful isothiocyanate antioxidants,  inositol, and (likely) enantiomers which may be potent anti-diabetic and antioxidant factors, and (likely) quercetin. 

Each of our brews are not only fermented anaerobically by these special organisms, but each brew contains at least three or more of the following starting foodstuffs which are then fermented and digested anaerobically by the organisms: molasses, barley malt extract syrup, bran, kelp, grape juice, cherry juice and blueberry juice.  Each of these foodstuffs, particularly the molases, barley malt, the fruit juices and bran, are loaded with antioxidants and other vital nutrients even prior to fermentation, and the anaerobic reductive fermentation process simply intensifies the antioxidant activity and bioavailability of the resultant brew.
 

go back to top of page and table of contents

Popularity of Soil Based Organisms (SBOs) as Probiotics 
As has already been mentioned on a previous page on this site about fermented products throughut history and related products, researchers in the human intestinal probiotic field started embracing soil-based organisms starting in the late 1970's and continuing well into the 80s and 90s, boing well beyond the lactic acid bacteria found in early intestinal probiotics. This work eventually led to the development and marketing of at least four different combinations of soil based organisms, or "SBOs", as they came to be called, as probiotics.  Indeed, one combination became so popular that the developer and manufacturer trademarked the name Homeostatic Soil Organisms, or HSOs, for this culture.  Well, the truth is that these researchers examined only a small percentage of commonly-occurring SBOs, and a number of other promising candidates were likely missed. 

Another Lesser-known Group of Soil Based Beneficial Organisms
One group of soil-based organisms (SBOs) which was not included in these first few "waves" of soil-based probiotic products was the phototrophic (photosynthetic) purple non-sulfur bacteria, also known as PNSB. These bacteria, consisting of  the Rhodobacter, Rhodospeudomonas and Rhodospirillum (some authors write Rhodospirillium) families, are a benign and incredibly ubiquitous group of bacteria, and are found almost everywhere:

• in soil, especially the soil near the roots of plants
• on the leaves of most land-based plants
• in pond and stream water
• in mud and sediment at the bottom of  ponds, streams 
• along ocean shores and in salt-water marshes
• on the skins of, and within the gut of, fish from ponds and streams
• in rainwater
• in naturally-occurring occurring snow, ice and icicles
• in aged (ripened) and fermented cheeses  (for one interesting, if brief, citation about this, see the article about microorganisms in cheeses authored by Miloslav Kaláb of the Department of  Food Engineering at Lund University in Sweden, at  http://distans.livstek.lth.se:2080/foodmi.htm )
• due to their ubiquity and toxin-removal abilities in ponds and other bodies of water, these organisms are often the primary species in commercially-available probiotic treatments for aquariums (fresh and salt-water), artificial ponds, Koi ponds, ornamental fish ponds, and commercial aquaculture (e.g., fish farming and shrimp farming)
• due to their ability to digest toxins and odors, these organisms are often the primary species in commercially-available treatments for barns, horse (equine) stalls, and even in odor-management air sprays for livestock barns. 

Research on Products Fermented with EM Organisms
Numerous research articles from across the world have shown that the EM organisms, whether they are anaerobically digesting foodstuffs or waste, or even toxic waste, produce copious amounts of a wide variety of antioxidants and other powerful nutrients (from a human viewpoint, that is!). The antioxidants seem to be produced by all three groups of  organisms found in the EM culture, the lactic acid bacteria, the yeasts, and the phototrophic (meaning that they can perform photosynthesis when needed; they contain a primitive kind of chlorophyll) purple non-sulfur bacteria known as Rhodobacter (aka Rhodopseudomonas.) The first two groups of organisms have been common to foods fermented by humans for many thousands of years, and are quite well-known. The latter group of organisms was likely part and parcel of most early fermentative cultures in the earlier history of humankind.

The Rodobacter and Rhodopseudomonas purple bacteria are lesser known, but extremely ubquitous.  They are very common soil organisms, existing especially in the soil near the roots of plants (including crop plants), and also in the mud in ponds and coastal shorelines.  It has been speculated that our ancestors and pre-ancestors in Paleolithic and earlier times ingested plenty of organisms from all three groups daily, which would have continually inoculated their GI tracts with the organisms, if only from the soil clinging to vegetables and root vegetables.  Further, a number of cultures drank water from ponds and slow-moving streams, which would again have continually inoculated them with the purple bacteria. A number of cultures have preserved meat by burying it deep in soil or in the mud under (cold-weather) ponds; which provided one more avenue for ingestion of such organisms by our ancestors.  Most of also have also heard of the legendary fermented aged Chinese "Hundred Year" or "Hundred Day" eggs, which were traditionally prepared by burying duck eggs in a mixture of soil, ashes and salt for anywhere from a hundred days to many years, to allow them to ferment anaerobically.  The Chinese culture is rife with legends of the supposed restorative and health-giving power of such aged fermented eggs; a cursory inspection of the facts demonstrates that some of the more dominant organisms fermenting the eggs would have been the Rhodobacter and Rhodopseudomonas purple non-sulfur soil bacteria.  With the modern advent of processed foods, overemphasis on cleanliness, cleaning produce and other foodstuffs, and sterility, most Westerners nowadays are likely exposed to only very low levels of these purple-red phototrophic organisms, in contrast to our ancestors. 

However, it is these purple phototrophic organisms which are really the heart of the microbial fermentative culture used in fermenting our antioxidant brews, and numerous scientific studies have shown that these organisms, even when working alone, can digest a wide variety of foods, wastes and toxins, and produce good levels of protein and high levels of antioxidants and other nutrients as a result.  Incidentally, these same Rhodobacter purple organisms are widely marketed in a number of commercial microbial "probiotic" products and used as beneficial microbial cultures for high-end aquarium keepers (both private and zoo aquariums), and particularly in aquaculture for fish farming, shrimp farming, and even care of ornamental fish such as Koi, since they so beneficially affect the environment of the fish (or shrimp), decrease waste odors, and increase health and production of the fish and shrimp. A number of similar microbial probiotic products, all containing PNSBs, are commercially marketed to the livestock and equine markets for treatment of bedding, litter, waste, waste lagoons, and even for spraying in the air in livestock facilities and horse barns for odor management. 

Please note that all wild bluebery juice concentrate, cherry juice concentrate and pomegranate juice concentrate used in our brews (for example, the Amber Molasses Mineral varieties) comes only from Brownwood Acres Farms. I recommend their juice concentrates highly!
 

As of August 13, 2003, the Sootheox (and Quenchox) products are no longer offered for sale, but this information is made available for educational purposes, as many folks have expressed interest in making such brews, elixirs and products on their own, and several existing vendors of nutritional products have expressed an interest in starting to brew and market their own line of such products. 

Yes, I do still occasionally sell products to fellow researchers.  If you are a bona-fide researcher and wish to purchase some brews, please first contact me via phone or e-mail, and, if the transaction is okayed, you may then use the product/ordering/price table on the Products Page and the link to the payment page to be also found on that page as well. 

A Look at Quantitative Testing for Specific Antioxidants
I have long been tempted to try to offer some kind of scale or score of the quantities of various antioxidants present in these brews, as measured by an outside independent third-party testing laboratory.  This would allow a customer or researcher to see at a glance some of the antioxidants peresnt, along with their quantities, and could allow comparing among the brews and also allow comparing them to other nutritional supplement products, at least with regards to antioxidant power; there are obviously other nutrients in these brews as well.  However, I have avoided giving into this temptation to report quantitative amounts for specific antioxidants for several reasons:

1) the amount of live-food antioxidants in a live brewed fermented product such as this can vary considerably from batch to batch, and also over time

2) testing by independent outside laboratories for the presence and quantities of specific antioxidants (e.g., vitamin C, vitamin E, alpha lipoic acid, COQ10, SOD, DMSO) is usually quite difficult and very expensive. For example, a single test by an independent testing lab of just one sample from one batch or one brew for presence and quantity of just one antioxidant component, such as vitamin C, could cost from $250 to $2,400 per test

3) per the above, testing even one sample from one batch each of perhaps six different brews and elixirs for a number of antioxidants could be very expensive, on the order of $15,000 to $360,000, and testing samples from each batch would multiply that expense astronomically. Worse, a number of these single-antioxidant quantitative tests are often notoriously unreliable or inaccurate, primarily because they either cannot detect or detect only poorly related antioxidant substances which are only slightly different than the substance the test was designed for, such as variant forms of vitamin E or vitamin C, which may still be highly effective antioxidants. 

Alternatives in the Interim: "Macro" or "Total" Antioxidative Scores
However, in the interim I have continued to search for some kind of inexpensive and reasonable test or score which would at least express the relative antioxidant power of these brews, if not the levels of specific antioxidants. Such a test score would at least allow some comparison among the brews and allow comparing them to other nutritional supplement products in the limited realm of antioxidant power.  There are several single-score, or global or macro measures of overall antioxidative activity of foods and other substances which have appeared repeatedly in the scientific literature over the past decade.  Each of these assays or tests yields a single score for a food product (or other substance) which gives some idea of it's overall antioxidant activity or power, yet without trying to name or quantify any individual antioxidants present.  The two most well-known candidate scores for measuring antioxidant "power" are the ORAC (or "Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity") and FRAP (for "Ferric-Feducing Activity of Plasma") scores.  Each yields a single score, usually expressed as a value per gram or per 100 grams or per liter, which may then be compared to the scores derived for other products. Of these two tests, by far the most well-known, widely-accepted and commonly-used in the foods and nutritional supplements world is the ORAC assay.  However, although it is the best-known single score for antioxidant activity, and even though the ORAC assay has been touted by some authors (and some websites) as a true and comprehensive total antioxidant score, it really is not ideal by any means, but rather offers both some marked advantages along with some notable disadvantages. Each will be be briefly visited and discussed below.

Here are the advantages of the ORAC assay:

• the test score will reflect the antioxidant activity of any and all antioxidants in the liquid, whether they are known or unknown, named or unnamed.
• the ORAC assay does not bother to try to measure presence or absence of individual antioxidants (a task which is difficult and very expensive), but rather, it measures total antioxidant reactivity (against one type of oxidative redical known as the peroxyl radical) of any and all substances present in the liquid, whether known or unknown, and even those as yet unknown to, and unnamed by, modern science.
• the ORAC assay is not particularly expensive, and often costs well under $400. 
• the test is quick and simple
• the assay is offered by a number of commercial independent testing laboratories in the USA and around the world
• the turnaround time on a test is quick, on the order of a week or less
• as with any "single-score" "total antioxidant" measure, the score is seductive, because it allows a vendor to offer a single score on their label (or on their website) which purports to state the minimum antioxidant-power value per gram (or per 100 grams pr per liter) of a food or nutritonal supplement product. This is obviously simple, clean, clear and neat, or at least it appears so at first glance.....

• despite the fact that it is sometimes touted as a "Total Antioxidatve Power" score, the ORAC assay can only measure one particular type of antioxidative activity, namely the ability of antioxidants to quench or neutralize only one specific type of oxidizing free radical (aka “reactive oxygen species”, or ROS) known as the peroxy (e.g., as found in peroxide) radical. Thus, the ORAC score offers only a partial picture of the true antioxidant power of an antioxidant or mixture of antioxidants, since some will have little or no activity against peroxides but great quenching activity against other oxidizing free radical species commonly found in the body such as superoxides, triplet oxygen, singlet oxygen, the hydroxyl or nitroxy radicals, and others. Indeed, some highly powerful and effective antioxidants show no activity at all against peroxide radicals (in other words, they are not peroxide-specific), but show great activity against other types of oxidant free radicals, and such antioxidants would score extremely poorly on an ORAC assay. Two excellent examples of such antioxidants (and in reality there are plenty more) are: 
• the carotenoid family of antioxidants, which includes beta carotene, lycopene, canthaxanthxin and zeaxanthin, among others, and which are found extensively in strongly-colored fruits and vegetables, and in some shellfish. Most carotenoids show little activity against the peroxy radical.
• the simple hydride family of antioxidants, also known as the negative hydrogen ion, or hydride ion, which is a primitive and primeval hydrogen antioxidant which existed on earth even before life evolved, and which may be found in fresh raw fruits and vegetables, raw meats, and in some natural and unprocessed sources of water (such as some deep wells, some high-altitude mountain wells, and glacial runoff water.) The hydride antioxidant may also be found in so-called “alkaline ionized water” (more accurately described as “electrolyzed reduced water” or ERW) produced by commercial countertop devices known as water ionizers, and also in some nutritional supplements such as MegaHydrin or Active H-; the latter yield only a very modest score on the ORAC assay.
Most of the members of the two antioxidant families cited above show little or no antioxidant activity against peroxide radicals, but show strong antioxidant activity against other oxidizing free radicals, including singlet oxygen and the superoxide radical. (note: some later off-shoots of the ORAC Assay, known as ORACHO also look at one additional oxidant radical, the hydroxyl radical, as well, but this hardly solves the deficiency which has been briefly addressed here.)
• The ORAC score derived from the ORAC assay shows only antioxidant activity in liquids in a test tube (in vitro), rather than within complex living biological systems within the body.  The problem here is that some substances or foodstuffs may show great ORAC scores in test tube measures, but may perform poorly in the body due to poor bioavailability, and vice versa. Turmeric (a spice) is a great example of this. Biochemists have been known to wax poetic over the massive and incredible antioxidant power of turmeric, at least as assayed in a test tube in the laboratory, but eventually learned that the antioxidants in turmeric, mostly curcuminoids, exhibited poor bioavailability in the body (indeed, this is why some vendors of fermented antioxidant beverages offer fermented turmeric products, as the fermentation can drastically increase the bioavailability of the antioxidants and other beneficial substances in turmeric and even potentiate them into more powerful forms.
• a number of incorrect or invalid, and usually inflated, ORAC scores for common fruits and vegetables are now in circulation, due to faulty methods of testing or faulty interpretation and reporting, or both. 
• the original ORAC assay method, called the B-PE method (for beta-phycoerythrin, a reagent), has been largely discredited in the scientific literature in the past few years as being inaccurate and yielding poor repeatability. Many of the original advocates in the antioxidant field of the ORAC B-PE Assay, including Dr. Guohua Cao, a USDA research scientist) now recommend a more sophisticated ORAC assay, called the ORAC FL method, where the "FL" stands for fluorescein, a fluorescent reagent used in the test. The newer ORAC FL method yields an ORAC score ranging from 95% to about 400% (4X) of the older ORAC score, and, on average, yields a score which is about 120% to 200% of the score from the older ORAC B-PE method.
• Unfortunately, the vast majority of ORAC assay scores to be found on the web and in the scientific literature for various foodstuffs, including fruits, vegetables, juices and supplements, were produced using the older ORAC B-PE method. 
• Indeed, most of the ORAC scores to be found in the literature and on the Internet are from a set of ORAC scores published by the USDA in the late 1990's, all derived using the ORAC B-PE method. There has also been some confusion in interpretation of the USDA scores, with some companies and authors reporting scores for freeze-dried (concentrated) samples as scores for fresh samples, resulting in inflated scores, and with others repoting the score in units per 100 grams (or even 65 or 6 grams) rather than the standard score which is reported in ORAC units per gram.
• bottom line: as with any of the putative "single score" "total antioxidant" assays, the older ORAC B-PE assay and the newer ORAC FL assay may offer a single score, but they hardly offer a true picture of total antioxidative ability

Despite the caveats offered above, I decided in June 2003 to at least take a look at the ORAC B-PE and ORAC FL scores for one or two of my brews, to get some idea of how they performed on the ORAC scales. I sent samples of two of my brews for ORAC testing using the older (and more inexpensive) ORAC B-PE method, and eventually sent a sample of one of the same brews to the independent laboratory which pioneered the use of the newer and more accurate ORAC FL assay. Details below.... However, to fully understand the scores can take some explaining, and so, if you have little patience for details, then you may wish to skip the next section!

Original Method ORAC (B-PE) Scores for Two Brews
As noted above, I eventually decided to have two of my brews tested via the older ORAC B-PE method, just to "have a look". However, aside from the known problems of the ORAC method, and even moreso of the ORAC B-PE method, I had an additional concern that prompted me to resolve to review the results cautiously.  I already knew from oxidation reduction potential (ORP) studies, relative hdyrogen studies (rH), and NMR studies of the brews at various stages of fermentation that the brews are rich in antioxidants of the simpler hydride species, and often rich as well in carotenoids, and it is known that these antioxidants are not specific against the peroxy radical, which is the oxidative radical used in the ORAC assay.  In fact, in my cover letter of 6/23/2003 to Genox Corporation which accompanied the samples I submitted to them, I wrote:

"... I am enclosing two samples for ORAC Assays. The samples are each aqueous (water-based) solutions, and each is a fermented liquid antioxidant nutritional supplement, the product of an antioxidative anaerobic fermentation with special soil-based organisms and lactic acid bacteria. I already happen to know from NMR studies of these products and some ORAC tests of related products that some of the antioxidants (particularly the hydrides) in these brews are not specific against the peroxide ion, but rather much more so against the superoxide ion, singlet oxygen, triplet oxygen and the hydroxyl and nitroxy ions, so it will be very interesting to see the results of the peroxy-oriented ORAC assay!..."

ORAC B-PE Results
In mid-June 2003, I sent samples of my two most popular Sootheox fermented antioxidant brews to Genox Corporation, an independent third-party antioxidant testing laboratory in Baltimore, Maryland which offers the older (but more inexpensive) ORAC B-PE assay.  I sent samples from current batches of the following two brews:

• Amber Molasses Mineral Brew, usually fermented for at least 21 to 28 days
• Golden Bran Kelp Brew, containing bran and kelp as well as sugar sources, and fermented for at least 44 days, and usually 60 to 90 days

How do these scores compare to ORAC (B-PE method) scores for other foodstuffs and supplements? Well, the ORAC B-PE scores, also in ORAC units per gram, for some common high-ORAC foods/supplements follow, all derived from published USDA figures:

dried prunes  67.7
dried raisins  28.30
blueberries 22.34
spinach  21.0
kale   17.7
(Amber Molasses Brew 7.50)
red grapes  7.39
cherries  6.70
carrots  5.0
(Golden Bran Kelp Brew 3.96)

Despite the fact that the scientist/lab director at Genox was impresed with both ORAC scores, and particularly with the higher ORAC score from the Amber Molasses brew, I was not strongly impressed. Frankly, I have had a number reasons over the past 6 months to strongly suspect that these fermented brews (along with some similar fermented products which may be purchased from other producers/venodors or fermented at home) have, among other things, very strong antioxidant properties, and despite the strongly positive coments made by the lab director at Genox, the ORAC score results confirmed for me my suspicion that the ORAC score (at least the ORAC B-PE version) is not a great indicator of those antioxidant properties.  On the other hand, I feel that I wasted nothing by having Genox perform these tests. At the least, I can derive from these scores some impressive minimum ORAC (B-PE value) scores per gram of liquid which I can list on the labels of these two brews, and I also now have some convenient baseline scores from the ORAC (peroxy) method to use as comparisons for possible future studies. However, if I were looking for proof, via the ORAC B-PE scores, of some massive and incredible antioxidant properties of the brews, then I must say with all sincerity that the ORAC B-PE scores which were found do not reflect such massive or incredible properties, which, frankly, is what I suspected I would find when I submitted the samples to the lab, given the limitations of the ORAC assay (and even moreso of the ORAC B-PE assay), but rather reflect simply strong scores.

Next, I submitted a sample of Amber Molasses Brew (from the same batch which had been submitted to Genox a week or so earlier) to Brunswick Labs for ORAC FL testing, as I had evidence from earlier antioxidant tests in my lab and elsewhere which suggested that a number of the antioxidants in my brews were ones which are under-reported in the ORAC B-PE assay due to flaws in the method, but which are reported well in the ORAC FL assay.  Thus, I expected the ORAC FL score to be quite a bit higher than that yielded by the ORAC B-PE method.

The Newer ORAC FL Score for the Amber Molasses Brew
(Note: I wil also be reporting more such scores for my other brews and even for simplar products on the market in the future, as my budget allows!  In late June 2003, I sent a sample of my Amber Molasses Mineral brew, the brew which had performed highest on the ORAC B-PE assay at Genox a week earlier, to Brunswick Labs in Massachussets for an ORAC FL assay. As recounted above, this is a more accurate assay, and it often yields an ORAC score for a sample which is 20% to 400% higher than that produced by an ORAC B-PE assay for the same substance; however, it is also quite a bit more expensive. Moreover, the results are more accurate, robust and repeatable, and the existing database of ORAC FL scores for other foodstuffs is much more trustworthy and resaonable than that found in the literature for the ORAC B-PE score.

Results are reported below.  Although Brunswick Labs reported the scores in uMol of Trolox equivalent (microMole of Trolox equivalent) per liter, I have converted them to the more customary and meaningful score of uMol of Trolox equivalent per gram.
 

Please note that the ORAC score reported (above) with the newer ORAC FL method is 3.53 times higher than the score for the same brew reported earlier using the older ORAC B-PE method. The wide difference in results is simply due to the well-known fact that the older B-PE method accidentally destroys some of the antioxidants (especially some anthocyanins and polypohenols) in a sample, thus yielding abnormally low results, while  the ORAC FL measure does not harm those antioxidants, and thus yields a more accurate and realistic score for those liquids or substances containing large amounts of anthocyanins and polyphenols.

How do these scores compare to ORAC FL scores for other foodstuffs and supplements? Well, the ORAC FL scores, also in ORAC units per gram, for some common high-ORAC foods/supplements follow, all derived from tables and charts published by Brunswick Labs: 

kale   37.0
cultivated blueberries  32.0
(Amber Molasses Brew  26.5)
strawberries  26.0
spinach  24.0
dried raisins  21.0
cherries  21.0
red grapes  11.0
carrots  5.0

ORAC HO OR ORACHO
The limitations of the ORAC assays are apparent from the discussions above. Brunswick Labs has recently validated, and now offers, a similar ORAC-type measure which looks at total antioxidant activity against the hydroxy radical, and thye call this the ORAC HO assay. However, the test has been in use for such a short time and at so few labs that there is no good and broad database of ORAC HO values for common foods and supplements. While the ORAC HO is a single-score assay which I would eventually like to have run for all my brews, I have not prioritized such a series of tests due to the cost and the lack of a good database for other products.

FRAP (Ferric-reduction Antioxidant Assay or Procedure)
This test looks at total antioxidant activity of a substance in reducing the ferric form of iron to a more reduced state, and studies have shown that the resultant scores for variuos foods and supplements show little correlation with ORAC scores for the same products, indicating that the FRAP measure truly measures along a different reducing (antioxidant) dimension than the peroxy dimension used in the ORAC assay. While there currently exists a small published database of values for some common foods and suplements usnig FRAP, it it very limited. Thus, I cannot justify the expense of such assays at this time (about $200 per sample.)

Brunswick Singlet Oxygen Antioxidant Score 
The director of Brunswick Labs has reported to me in July 2003 that they have been working on developing a robust and accurate single-score antioxidant assay for total antoixidant activity against the singlet-oxygen radical, and that development and validation may be nearing completion, thus possibly allowing them to release the test soon and to start offering assays using the method. There has been quite a bit of interest in the development of such a measure, particularly among the carotenoid trade associations and large vendors of products high in carotenoids, since most carotenoids score poorly, if at all, on the ORAC assay, since most carotenoids are not specific against the peroxy radical. To me, this test is particularly promising, as all indications are that it often measures antioxidant activity of antioxidants which do not perform well on the ORAC assay; the carotenoids mentioned earlier are only one of a number of antioxidants which do not score well (or at all) on the ORAC assay.

Rust Removal by EM Brews and Other Nutritional Antioxidants
Background
The products of oxidation in the world of metals are often referred to as "rust", particularly if the oxidized metal is iron or steel (which contains iron.)  Many authors and speakers in the nutritional world have borrowed that useful word from the world of simple metals chemistry, and have drawn the analogy that the various toxic products of oxidative radicals (also called "reactive oxygen species", or ROS) in our bodies are a kind of biological "rust", and that antioxidants help to prevent the formation of such rust and also help to break down "rust" deposits in our bodies left behind by earlier assualts from oxidative radicals. Looking more deeply into the analogy, it is true that a moderate number of nutritional antioxidants often found in foods and nutritional supplements will remove rust from rusty metal, and some will do so to such an extreme extent that much of the orignal luster (aka shine or "shininess") of the metal's surface will be restored simply by soaking the rusty metal in such an antioxidant. Now, at this juncture, you probably have guessed where I am going with this....
Yes, I am planning, as you read further down the page, to show you photos of "pre-rusted" nails and other rusty surfaces which have been nearly totally cleaned and restored to their original luster (or, as the British say, lustre) by EM brews and other nutritional antioxidants, in contrast to rusty objects which were soaked in water or in antioxidants which do not happen to dissolve rust.

Caveats
Before, I proceed further, however, I wish to strongly stress several points:

• There are plenty of good strong nutritional antioxidants which will not remove rust from rusty metal simply because their chemistry is not specific for that kind of task (in chemical terms, the available or apparent reducing potential in millivolts is not high enough to destroy the rust), and yet they remain wonderful and helpful and beneficial nutritional antoxidants when ingested by living beings.
• Conversely, there are some substances in the world which will remove rust from rusty metal and which are not at all healthful to put in our bodies or to place on our skin. This category includes some very powerful commercial rust removers and also some commercial/industrial antioxidants which are way too harsh to be ingested in our bodies (and, in some cases, too harsh to even contact ths skin).  For example, one class of such chemicals would be the metal hydrides, such as calcium hydride or lithium hydride; each is way too harsh and toxic to be ingested or placed on the skin.
• Just as with any other laboratory test, such as the ORAC peroxy, ORAC HO, FRAP and other laboratory antioxidant tests discussed in the section above, any rust-removal tests are exactly that: tests done in a laboratory. In the scientific research world, such tests are called "in vitro", to signify that they are happening in the laboratory and not in the body. Results observed in the laboratory in a test tube are not always transferrable or applicable to what would happen in the body, and vice versa. Yes, they may be, but there are no guarantees.

Next, I divided the rusty nails (only a few of which are shown in the image above) into a number of groups, each of which would be tested or treated under varying experimental treatment conditions for 9 hours and then carefully dried (usng no rubbing):

• Control Group #1 -- to be exposed to air.
• Control Group #2 -- to be soaked in plain tap water
• Experimental Group #1 -- to be soaked in a solution of Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) dissolved in water (at the rate of 2 grams of ascorbic acid per 236 ml. [e.g. 8 ounces] of water)
• Experimental Group #2 --to be soaked in a 50/50 mix of Amber Molasses Mineral Brew and tap water
• Experimental Group #3 -- to be soaked in a solution of a commonly available dietary suppment antioxidant, water-soluble, dissolved in water (the specific antioxidant will remain un-named because the failure of the antioxidant to remove rust from rusty metal in a lab test does not at all detract from the value of this antioxidant in human nutrition, and I refuse to allow sloppy readers or sloppy thinkers to jump to such a hasty conclusion...)
• Experimental Group #4 -- to be soaked in a solution of another commonly available dietary suppment antioxidant, water-soluble, dissolved in water (the specific antioxidant will remain un-named because the failure of the antioxidant to remove rust from rusty metal in a lab test does not at all detract from the value of this antioxidant in human nutrition, and I refuse to allow sloppy readers or sloppy thinkers to jump to such a hasty conclusion...)
• Experimental Group #5 -- to be soaked in a solution of yet another a commonly available dietary suppment antioxidant, water-soluble, dissolved in water (the specific antioxidant will remain un-named because the failure of the antioxidant to remove rust from rusty metal in a lab test does not at all detract from the value of this antioxidant in human nutrition, and I refuse to allow sloppy readers or sloppy thinkers to jump to such a hasty conclusion...)

Review of Results
The two control groups of nails, as expected, showed tremendous amounts of rust. 
The nails in the first two experimental treatment goups, consisting of Vitamin C and Amber Molasses brew, showed nearly perfect rust removal and about 85% restoration of luster, with the only exceptions being a few spots where nails were touching each other during soaking, thus occluding circulation of the liquid, and thus preventing full rust removal.
The nails in experimental treatment groups numbered from 3 through 5 (various nutritional antioxidnts commonly available on the market) did not show any rust removal, and instead, displayed an appearance vey similar to the still-rusty nails in Control Group #2, which had been soaked in water. The names of specific antioxidants used in Experimantal Groups #3, #4 and #5  will not be revealed because the failure of the antioxidant to remove rust from rusty metal in a lab test does not at all detract from the value of this antioxidant in human nutrition, and I refuse to allow sloppy readers or sloppy thinkers, or over-eager vendors of competing products, to jump to such a hasty conclusion adn therefore spread ill-founded rumors.

Here is a close-up of the two experimental treatment groups (Vitamin C and Amber Molases Brew) which showed nearly-complete removal of rust from the nails:

 

Results of a Simple Test Using a Rusty Baking Pan
In early July 2003, I  took a very rusty steel baking pan and, placing in on a moderate slant, exposed the bottom two-thirds to a 50/50 solution of Amber Molasses Brew, while leaving approximately the top one-third exposed to air. The pan was soaked/exposed for 9 hours, after which the pan was lightly rinsed and dried carefully without rubbing. The results are shown visually in the image displayed below:
 

As is likely obvious from the photo above, the suufrace of the pan was not even, and thus, the line of demarcation between the tratment area (lower region, soaked in test solution) and the untreated area (exposed to air, top third) is seen as an uneven horizontal line across the pan. However, it is quite clear from the image that the untreated part of the pan remained quite rusty, while the lower, treated part exhibited almost complete removal of rust and restoration of luster. 
 
 

Luckily, reporting quantitaive levels of minerals and trace elements is far more reasonable, accurate, and affordable than the task of trying to report antioxidants or antioxidant activity. Further, it is easier to control and manage the mineral content from batch to batch, and the really appealing fact is that testing for all common minerals and elements, including trace elements, costs only about $90 per test, and each test delivers exact quantities (usually in parts per million) for over 80 elements. Thus, this is a very reasonable and affordable test, and the turnaround time is one week or less in most cases.  As soon as I can afford the time and funds, I plan to have mineral/element assays performed on all of my brews. Once I have the results in hand, I will report them, at least in brief, on this website.

This is a much trickier one! Yes, many folks in the alternative health and nutrition worlds seem to agree that some elements can exist in an "alternate" form sometimes known as ormus or monatomic, which seems to yield interesteng and noticeable nutritional properties. And, yes, it is true that a number of folks, including some of the customers who have purchased and sampled my research brews, have asserted that these fermented antioxidant beverages and some others cultured with the same microorganisms are rich in monatomic elements. However, let me be blunt in statng my opinion on this matter, and this is only my opinion:

• I feel that there is a lot of hype and nonsense in the monatomic element world, along with lots of inflated claims of benefits. The field, in my estimation, is in far better shape than it was 6 years ago, but I feel that there is still a lot of pseudo-science and hype out there in this realm.
• there is no known and available and affordable laboratory test which can be performed by a thrid-party independent lab and which can repeatedly and reliably and accurately identify monatomic elements or which can yield quantitative results (exact amounts) of such elements. Yes, there have been many folks and companies who have claimed to have such tests and to have results from such tests, but I take all this with a big grain of salt.

As of August 13, 2003, the Sootheox (and Quenchox) products are no longer offered for sale, but this information is made available for educational purposes, as many folks have expressed interest in making such brews, elixirs and products on their own, and several existing vendors of nutritional products have expressed an interest in starting to brew and market their own line of such products. 
 

No claims are made for ability of this product to prevent, heal or treat any disease state.

All information is presented for informational and educational purposes only.  Label, flyer and website information have not been reviewed nor approved by the FDA. 

No claims are made for ability of this product to prevent, heal or treat any disease state.
 

go back to top of page and table of contents

As of August 13, 2003, the Sootheox (and Quenchox) products are no longer offered for sale, but this information is made available for educational purposes, as many folks have expressed interest in making such brews, elixirs and products on their own, and several existing vendors of nutritional products have expressed an interest in starting to brew and market their own line of such products. 

Sootheox (aka Proreduct or Quenchox) Brews contain no significant amounts of alcohol, but do contain healthful lactic acid and are naturally acidic.  pH for all versions of Sootheox (also Proreduct and Quenchox) Brews and Elixirs, at time of bottling, was 3.7 or below and will remain at that healthful acidic level for many years. ORP at time of bottling was below +145 at the low pH, yielding an rH (reducing power) in the range of 17.6 to 7.6 or even better (the lower the rH, the stronger the reducing power.)

go back to top of page and table of contents

As of August 13, 2003, the Sootheox (and Quenchox) products are no longer offered for sale, but this information is made available for educational purposes, as many folks have expressed interest in making such brews and elixirs on their own.
 
 

"EM•1®", "EMRO USA Effective Microorganisms™", "ProEM-1®" and the logo(s) or symbol(s) appearing immediately below are trademarked names and symbols belonging to EMRO USA. 

EM-1® may be a trademarked name belonging to EM Research Organization Japan (EMRO Japan).

EM-X® may be a trademarked name belonging to EM Research Organization Japan (EMRO Japan) or Tropical Plant Research Institute (TPRI) in Okinawa.

"Biosa™", "Vita Biosa™", "Terra Biosa™", "Pet Biosa™" and the logo(s) or symbol(s) appearing immediately below are trademarked names and symbols belonging to Biosa Denmark.

"Fervita™" and the logo(s) or symbol(s) appearing immediately below are trademarked names and symbols belonging to Fervita™ Systems.

"Beneficial Microbes (BM)™" and "BM Ecology™" and any logo(s) or symbol(s) appearing below may be trademarked names belonging to Crown Biotech and Crown Organics in Australia.

"BM-Technology", "BIOAAB", "BIOPRIDE", "BIOVET", "BIOCONTROL" and any  logo(s) or symbol(s) appearing immediately below may be trademarked names and symbols belonging to Nature Farming Research & Development Foundation in Pakistan.

"Lanox™" and any  logo(s) or symbol(s) appearing immediately below are trademarked names and symbols belonging to Lanox-Korea and M21 Environmental Technology Inc., aka Fermented Antioxidants Research.

"Complex Fermented Microorganisms™", "Stuff for Food Dregs", "Time•X™", " Time-X™" and any  logo(s) or symbol(s) appearing immediately below are trademarked names and symbols belonging to Senong Co., Ltd.

Vinny Pinto
Frederick, Maryland (no, this is NOT a complete mailing address!)
phone 301-694-1249

e-mail: vinny@mindspring.com

website: http://www.antioxbrew.com
 

go back to top of page and table of contents

No claims are made for ability of this product to prevent, heal or treat any disease state.

All information is presented for informational and educational purposes only.  Label, flyer and website information have not been reviewed nor approved by the FDA. 

A privacy notice, about the Traffic Analyzer for this web site and privacy.