Return to Website

WaterCure2 Message Forum

Welcome to our forum. Feel free to post a message, read responses to your mesages, and reply to those responses. Find answers to your questions and talk to other people with whom you have subjects in common.  You can even do a search for those subjects.

Malicious attacks will be made against this site as free solutions to highly profitable problems upset people who depend upon these problems for their income.


All slanderous or malicious comments have been deleted. Any person so doing in the future will be blocked from further posts. Good is anything that brings people together and that is what we are all about. The water cure work has been dedicated "To our Creator, with awe, humility and love." F. Batmanghelidj, M.D. We are all children of God and that is how the owners of this site will treat each and everyone that comes here.


Two TV news specials have been done by PBS & CBS TV (nominated for an Emmy) affiliates which have drawn huge ratings. Click here so you can truly appreciate the enormity of the watercure discovery. Click here and you will also see the testimonials that aired 12,000 times in 2004 that are astonishing people everywhere.  Feel free to copy and share them. Complete scientific info is available at

The forum is designed for people to post comments about the hydration cure.  If you can't get the vital help you need from each other or if you need help, coaching or advise in properly using hydration/water cure, please DO NOT post it here in this forum.  INSTEAD, please use the link on our web page or here to "CONTACT US" -  and ask about coaching help.  Once you are happy with the results, please post them on the forum.

Forum: WaterCure2 Message Forum
Start a New Topic 
Where exactly is the scientific proof??

I am a med student and came across this website. During our education we are studying how to evaluate if a scientific study is accurate or if we need to find other scientist and read their work also to see if things are really reliable. So I would be happy to know of a link to follow so I can read the study of patients and how many got cured and how many did not.
I hope I get an answer on this as it seems interesting. Lots of the fact on the website seem more like a couple of people mailing with Bob Butts and told them they where cured. Human beings are not 100% genetically identical. All diseases cant logically be cured with the same standard diet.

Re: Where exactly is the scientific proof??

Here is some info that is related to what you just posted...His research changed my life for sure.
His motto is science above opinion...
He wrote the book The Hidden Story Of Cancer...shocking...I had colon cancer in 07...thank god I found his send me your email and will send you what I have written and learned..

The Perfect Ten— 10 Years in 10 Pages:
A decade of work by Prof. Brian Peskin
The world’s leading physiologic EFA expert — Prof. Brian Peskin
Prof. Brian Peskin is a world-leading scientist specializing in parent EFAs — termed
PEOs — and their direct relationship to both cancer and cardiovascular disease.
While advancing the scientific understanding of the role of essential fatty acids in
the body's metabolic pathways, he has concurrently developed a means for
alleviating cancer's prime cause, as postulated by Nobel Prize-winner Otto Warburg,
M.D., Ph.D., by increasing cellular oxygenation (The Hidden Story of Cancer, www.pinnaclepress.
com). Amazingly, there is a fundamental cancer / heart disease connection, whereby the
same physiologic solution solves both conditions. This information will lead to a new
understanding of how to treat and prevent both cancer and heart disease. The basis for Peskin’s
current work, grounded strictly in state-of-the-art science — in particular, physiology — can be
found in his seminal work and peer-reviewed medical journal articles. Clinical physicians
throughout the world have validated Prof. Peskin’s EFA recommendations. In the most exciting
development to date, Brian’s theoretical conclusions were recently and completely validated in
a physiological experiment by precise instrumentation capable of measuring arterial
compliance. This experiment (IOWA study) provided the first conclusive clinical proof and
validation of Prof. Peskin's theory. Peskin Pharmaceuticals has a patent pending on the
medicament that embodies this development.
What is a Parent Essential Oil (PEO)?
There are only two (2) essential fatty acids, LA (parent omega-6) and ALA (parent omega-3).
They MUST come from food. To work properly, they MUST be NOT heated, chemically
unprocessed, organically raised and processed to guarantee full physiologic functionality.
Fast foods use adulterated, non-functional EFAs that can no longer be termed a fully functional
parent essential oils. All other EFAs excluding ALA and LA are correctly termed EFA
“derivatives.” This includes the most common derivatives such as AA, DHA, EPA, etc. What is
not understood by most physicians is that derivatives are made in the body, from the parent
EFAs, on an “as needed” basis in extremely limited quantities. Consumption of derivatives from
food is therefore not necessary, yet fish oil consists entirely of DHA and EPA in suprapharmacological
OVERDOSES, thereby overdosing the patient and causing damage instead of
health. Few, if any, physicians ask to see the “normal standard” values of physiologic
DHA/EPA amounts in tissue and plasma compared to the parent PEO amounts in tissue and
plasma. When they discover the truth of how little DHA and EPA there should be in relation to
how much they’ve been administering, physicians are shocked and dismayed that they have
been (unknowingly) harming their patients, and wish to correct their recommendation to Peskin
Protocol PEOs (as per the above physician testimonials). Peskin Protocol PEOs are a (patentpending)
plant-based proprietary formulation unlike any in the world and can be obtained
organically from precise mixtures of sunflower, safflower, pumpkin, and evening primrose
seed oils and coconut oil.
IOWA (Investigating Oils With respect to Arterial blockage) Study
This is the first study using photoplethysmography to detail the differences in arterial flexibility
between subjects taking PEOs and those taking fish oil. The results were staggering and
shocking for those unfamiliar with Peskin’s work. IOWA is the first study conclusively proving
the INFERIORITY of fish oil to PEOs as regards cardiovascular protection.
The IOWA study (whose testing center is in Des Moines, Iowa) is run under the direction of
Prof. Peskin (of Houston, Texas) in conjunction with renowned interventional cardiologist
David Sim, M.D. (of Boise, Idaho).
Long-term PEO supplementation in patients presenting with a broad spectrum of maladies
resulted in: 35 subjects, 13 male and 22 female, aged 35-75. The median age was 62 years old.
These volunteers were supplemented with plant-based essential fatty acids of the Peskin
Protocol formulation for a period of 3 months to 48 months.
The median duration of use was 24 months. Half of the subjects used the PEO formulation for
less than 24 months and half used it for more than 24 months. Twenty-five of the subjects
improved their arterial flexibility. That’s a stunning 73% effectiveness (absolute — not
relative). The average improvement was a 9 year decrease in biological arterial age, making
their effective age younger than their physical age.
What is outstanding is the NNT (number needed to treat to see an effect in just one person) was
1.4. Pharma considers an NNT of less than 50 a good result for the effectiveness of their drugs.
For example, for statins, the NNT to “prevent” one cardiovascular event is >80. That means
more than 80 people would need to take a statin to see a single positive outcome. In contrast,
just 1.4 people taking parent essential oils are required to see a positive outcome in 1 person.
The statistical significance of the study, according to Alex Kiss, PhD, a statistician who has
worked as consultant to the National Institute of Health (NIH) and is co-author of numerous
peer-reviewed medical journal papers, including New England Journal of Medicine and Cancer, is
extremely high (99.85%), compared to most studies, which come in at only 95%. This study is 30
times more accurate than the average clinical study. That means the results can’t be due to
chance or error. The mean (average) arterial (biological) age of the subjects dropped over 8.8
years — making each of them in effect a younger patient!
Predictable failure of fish oil
In a completely different group of subjects, fifteen (15) subjects (7 males and 8 females aged 46-
74, average age was 60 years old) were consuming fish oil supplements for at least 6 months
prior to switching to PEOs. Baseline analysis was performed prior to switching to PEOs. After
an average time duration of PEO use of only 3.5 months, another scan was performed. Thirteen
(13) of the 15 patients improved. That’s an 87% effectiveness rate, a NNT of only 1.2, and a
reduction in biological arterial age of 11.1 years, measured by standard population samples.
One subject remained unchanged, and one subject worsened (by a mere 1 year, which is
statistically irrelevant). The statistical significance was 99.99%. CONCLUSION: you can take
this result “to the bank.”
It gets even more exciting. In subjects with high cholesterol, simply replacing their fish oil with
PEOs improved 6 of the patients. Here the NNT to improve the vascular system in those with
high cholesterol was an incredible 1.2. One subject with both diabetes and high cholesterol
improved. Again, statins would need more than 80 people treated to effect one less
cardiovascular event, an NNT of 80 (at best, as some studies show statins have an NNT of 300+).
In two patients on statins, both improved their arterial flexibility by 20 years with the PEO
formulation. Here, we have a group of people across all walks of life – no special groups were
used and no particular groups were excluded. Using fish oil, the biological mean (arithmetic
average) arterial biological age was 49. After using PEO, it fell to 38 — 11 years YOUNGER.
CONCLUSION: compared to PEOs, fish oil worsens the cardiovascular system.
Fish oil (and krill oil) don't work in clinical practice
(despite most everyone saying they do)
Sometimes, ingrained beliefs, even those without scientific foundation, are hard to change.
has occurred with many other nutritional supplements once in the limelight, there is little, if
any, scientific validity to fish oil and krill oil’s miraculous claims. It is simply another case of
“finance masquerading as science”— in this case, developing new markets for fish — and of
medicine’s long history of mistakes and wrong recommendations. Making money is fine when
you truly help people, but not when you harm them, even unknowingly. Results consisting of
mere “associations,” and “studies“ conducted without valid experiments in which only one
variable is changed at a time are meaningless. That’s why the recommendations from most
“studies” are later reversed and withdrawn, which leaves the lay public confused.
In sharp contrast, the IOWA study is definitive and remarkable in proving PEOs increase
arterial compliance (flexibility). When physicians hear of IOWA, they realize this information
is irrefutable because these results, unlike those of other “studies,” are not open to
interpretation; the machine output of photoplethysmography is akin to measuring one’s weight
with a scale. IOWA’s landmark results afford a unique and significant opportunity.
Melatonin was hailed decades ago as a “wonder supplement,” then faded into obscurity
because its benefits were never based on science. IOWA’s results are based solely on science and
the positive results are predicted theoretically. These results, like gravity, are here to stay.
Fish oil supplements were an initial attempt at correcting EFA deficiencies due to the
widespread consumption of processed foods, but its constituents are far from being correct
physiologically for most tissue. In fact, contrary to helping patients, fish oil is harmful for
most patients. With today’s state-of-the-art science spearheaded by Prof. Peskin, we can move
far beyond fish oil and significantly improve patient outcomes. PEOs’ significant positive
effects in increasing cardiovascular compliance (increased arterial flexibility) compared to
fish oil — IOWA study — resulted in an 11.1-year biological age improvement (a younger
patient). The following is a representative sampling of international physicians using Peskin
Protocol PEOs instead of fish oil:
“Having implemented EFA supplementation for over 25
years, clinical results were mediocre until I began using the
Peskin Protocol. Dr. Rudin’s work with flax oil was important
but lacked clinical effectiveness; likewise with Horrobin
regarding GLA from Borage, Black Currant, and Evening
Primrose oils. Unlike the studies suggested, fish oil, too, was
disappointing. Finally, I read The Hidden Story of Cancer,
which introduces the Peskin Protocol. Once implemented, I
experienced clinical success. Although Brian’s book deals
extensively, but not exclusively, with cancer prevention,
utilizing his protocol I have seen positive results
(dermatological, cardiovascular, pediatric, and neurological)
in over 100 of my patients.”
Abram Ber, M.D., Homeopathy (Phoenix/Scottsdale, AZ)
“As a practicing cardiologist, I have a strong interest in both
the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease. As
Brian details, the paramount discovery by Otto Warburg
regarding oxygenation must also be considered the most
important physiologic discovery in the cardiovascular disease
arena. Brian has advanced the basic science principles of
Warburg into a practical, cost-effective formula – the Peskin
Protocol – for patient care utilizing an increased scientific
understanding of Omega-6 and Omega-3 essential fatty acid
ratios. For those patients in my practice, and others I am
aware of (hundreds) willing to embrace these basic
principles, I have seen clinical improvement and success
without adverse effects. Brian Peskin, in my opinion, has
diligently and carefully “teased out” from the available,
published scientific data base the links necessary to explain,
understand, and help combat the most prominent
cardiovascular state faced by patients.”
David Sim, M.D., Interventional Cardiologist (Boise, ID)
“I have been using the Peskin Protocol EFAs for the last five
months. I have had excellent reports from patients.
Previously, I was recommending fish oil to almost all my
patients. Some improved, specifically those with joint pains
and heart disease. However, I did not see any improvement
in my diabetic / HTN patients or those w/dermatologic
problems. In fact, the latter group actually got worse. These
patients had eczematous type rashes and psoriasis. After
reviewing Brian’s data regarding the concentration ratios of
parent Omega-6 to parent Omega-3 in various tissues, it all
made sense – five out of six (83%) of my worst dermatologic
cases showed good to very good improvement in as little as
three months with Peskin Protocol. Just taking Omega-3
alone (flax or fish oil) without regard to the appropriate
balance can adversely affect diabetic patients. This was
proven in two of my patients. These patients kept meticulous
effect of diet on their glucose levels. Without changing their
diets, they noticed significant elevations in the glucose levels
after Omega-3 fatty acids for three to four months; one
patient had an increase of 40 points. After starting the YES
balanced blend of parent Omega-6 and -3, not only did their
BS normalize to more normal values, but they felt better
overall and both commented that their energy level
improved. Use of the Peskin Protocol in clinical practice has
made a strong believer out of me, and I will continue to
recommend this product to ALL my patients and refer them
to Peskin’s research for more information.”
Angelo A. Della Pietra, M.D., D.O., Family and Integrative
Medicine (Poughkeepsie, New York)
“I had been taking high-dose fish oil for many years in an
attempt to prevent C-V disease and retard inflammation.
However, I noticed that my fasting blood sugars were always
in the high range (100-115) and measurements of oxidative
stress also reflected high levels. No one could explain it since
my hemoglobin a1c always stayed low. Since switching to
the parent EFAs (PEOs), as recommended in The Hidden
Story of Cancer, my FBS came down to 84. My lipids also
looked better than ever. I think many of our colleagues do
not appreciate the dangers of high dose fish oil. Derivative
EFAs like fish oil easily oxidize, and although some surrogate
markers may improve, the final cost is still unknown. Thanks
so very much for your book.”
A4M Fellowship physician Ira L Goodman, M.D., Ophthalmic
Surgeon (retired), Holistic Medicine
Brian’s accomplishment
only elegant
missing link
This knowledge
Brian N. Vonk, M.D., Board certified: Internist, Cardiologist,
and Radiologist (Norfolk, Nebraska)

Stephen Cavallino, M.D., Emergency Physician, Prolotherapy
Specialist, (Reggio Emilia, Italy)
How and why PEOs work when omega-3 derivative fish oil doesn't work?
Physiology is the prime science utilized to determine the correct tissue amounts of parent
omega-6, parent omega-3, and their derivatives. Once these values are known, biochemistry
may then be utilized. Fortunately, these physiologic values have already been determined,
making it immediately obvious why fish oil can’t possibly work as claimed because, aside from
the brain and nervous system, the body has little use for DHA/EPA. The prime issue that
everyone overlooks is that the body can easily support the brain and nervous system with
adequate parent PEOs without the risk of overdosing on EPA/DHA. There is a maximum of
<2% natural conversion of ALA to DHA and less than a mere 0.3% into EPA. Even babies
adequately convert PEOs into derivatives. These physiologic facts have been obscured. Parent
PEOs are much more significant as compared to derivatives, and no one until now has focused
on them. The tables below exemplify key tissue physiology:
With all the focus on omega-3 fatty acids today, it is significant to note that the free fatty acids in
human plasma ordinarily are composed of about 15% LA (linoleic acid, parent omega-6) and
just 1% of ALA (alpha linolenic acid, parent omega-3), a 15:1 ratio with just 2% DHA
(docosahexaenoic acid). Cholesterol esters and plasma phospholipids have ratios of 100:1 in
favor of parent omega-6. Physicians need to know these important and critical facts.
Amounts of EPA/DHA in fish oil
As a representative example, Nordic Naturals®, a well-known brand of fish oil, contains 325 mg
of EPA and 225 mg of DHA, with insignificant amounts of other omega-3 derivatives. The
company recommends 2 capsules each day for a total of 650 mg EPA and 450 mg DHA each
day. Three grams of PEOs per day is the general prophylactic dosage. Therefore the amount of
parent omega-3 (ALA) is approximately 1,000 mg. Given that 2% maximum of this would be
converted into the omega-3 derivative DHA, that would mean the body would naturally convert
only 20 mg to DHA. Contrast this to the fish oil dosage of 450 mg, i.e., a DHA pharmacologic
overdose by a factor of 20! EPA overdose is even worse, as only 0.26% of ALA is normally
converted. Of the 1,000 mg of ALA in Peskin Protocol PEOs, just 2.6 mg is converted, whereas
the fish oil supplement provides 650 mg or a 250-fold pharmacological overdose of EPA. This is
analogous to giving the patient 250 aspirin tablets — you would kill him! Krill oil has less of the
overdose amounts (approximately 130 mg EPA and 70 mg DHA per capsule) but it is still quite
harmful. Given these facts, is it any wonder that fish oil categorically fails in experimental tests?
No, of course not. Recommending these pharmacological overloads without compensating
PEOs or omega-6 based derivatives is even worse, because of the gross disparity between the
omega-6 and omega-3 series derivatives. Fish oil is harmful to most patients and the IOWA
study proves its enormous NEGATIVE effect in the cardiovascular area.
Photoplethysmography (PTG) / Digital Pulse Analysis (DPA) and why I trust it
Photoplethysmography (PTG) is a noninvasive method to measure arterial compliance
(flexibility). Processing of this waveform by digital pulse analysis (DPA) affords clinicians a
superb diagnostic tool. “Hardening of the arteries” is a prime cause of heart disease. Therefore,
reversing or eliminating hardening of the arteries leads to significantly less patient heart
disease. A digital pulse analyzer (DPA) can measure arterial flexibility. This device is simple.
You put your finger in a plastic clip. It emits a soft laser light into your fingernail, much like an
oxygen analysis with the common pulse oximeter. The waveform it reads is an incredibly
accurate measure of the elasticity (or stiffness) of both your large (aorta) and small arteries of
the cardiovascular system. Arterial rigidity is a direct reflection of arterial damage and
arteriosclerosis. Computer software analysis allows simple and precise computation of the
speed and volumes of the blood along with the associated waveforms over time.
Mathematically, second derivatives (a tool of calculus) of the PTG waveforms are then taken to
produce another waveform termed an accelerated plethysmograph (APG). This output is
compared with outputs of known population values so it is easy to provide a “biological age” of
the arteries based on already scanned populations. Supplementation with PEOs resulted in
substantial improvement in arterial flexibility — i.e., a younger patient.
Flax, krill, and coconut oils … Aren’t they good?
Flax oil contains much more parent omega-3 than omega-6 — a backwards-physiologic ratio. Krill oil
is in the same category as fish oil. Furthermore, no human would ever naturally eat krill, as it is
a food for whales,

Most of the krill catch is used for aquaculture and aquarium
feeds, as bait in sport fishing, or in the pharmaceutical industry. Coconut oil is not unhealthful,
but contains very few PEOs (<10%); it is fine to use for cooking, frying, etc.
Why do so many promote krill/fish oil?
They are simply wrong. Also, significant financial interests may be in play. Krill is cheap.
Financial benefit is fine IF and ONLY IF the science is correct. In this case it is tragically
incorrect, and the science supports the direct opposite of fish oil’s “opinions and opinionated
studies.” Widespread mistakes are nothing new in the fields of science and medicine. As the
brilliant Galileo stated back in the 1600s: “In
Also, as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman brilliantly stated, “It does not make
any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees
with real-life results, it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” The IOWA study proves how wrong
everyone is concerning fish oil and cardiovascular protection. State-­of-­the-­art
How long to see results and what objective results can I expect to see in my
Positive results of PEO supplementation often occur very quickly in patients, sometimes within
a few days. However, for significant results to manifest, allow patients 3-4 months daily use, as
this is the timeframe that tissues require to incorporate a significant amount of PEOs. Fully
solving a PEO deficiency can take 12 to 18 months. If a patient has been taking fish oil, allow
them sufficient time to see and feel improvements of at least 3 months. Example of physiologic
areas of improvement are included below, and also included in the “MacPhail and Sommerfeld”
The Missing Link: EFA “Oxygen Magnets”

Re: Where exactly is the scientific proof??

Hello Harry,

I have a lesion in my colon that may now have turned into cancer. I will not allow surgery, chemo or rad. I just found this website and would love to be able to talk with you about how you got rid of your cancer, once and for all :)

Thank you,