I’m assuming that ‘hydrogen infusion’ (e.g. Turapur machine) is ‘different’ from using machines (e.g. the John Ellis Machine) that change the hydrogen ‘bond angle.’ Are these two different machines/approaches creating a very different health outcome? Is one superior to the other or is it best to have a combination? What is an ideal dose regimen for this?

These two approaches are quite different in the end result. The hydrogen suffusion is to provide antioxidant activity which has a broad health-promoting benefit in many cells and tissues of the body. Oxidative damage is a general scourge that undermines growth, promotes aging, and causes decline in function over time of tissues and organs because this is an ongoing problem with so many chemical reactions going on to facilitate oxidative damage. There is a need for a constant supply of antioxidant activity to counteract this. That is why the recommendation is to have portions of water at regular intervals throughout the day because the cells continue functioning at a steady rate and generating free radicals and such that require scavenging. Water with the altered and more ideal hydrogen bond angle will have a general supportive function to help the body run in an optimal fashion. This supports the best function of water as a solvent in carrying not only the myriad chemical substances involved with cellular metabolism, as well as the cell signaling molecules elaborated by cells that must be transported via diffusion among the tissues, or carried by the bloodstream to distant targets. All of the transport function of water as the medium for this will be benefited if a high percentage of the water has this hydrogen bond angle alteration. It is a question of optimizing health and well-being of the body by having greater power available both for healing as well as generating energy for useful work. All will run more smoothly with this novel water as a high percentage of the body content. This can only be achieved through having a steady supply available. Any other water will dilute the percentage present having the novel bond angle, so there are trade‑offs here as the preparation of the altered water will destroy the novel life forms, so it would be advantageous to include both, but have a greater ratio of the water with the novel bond angle in terms of the overall water intake—so a ratio of one-third natural water containing novel life forms and two-thirds having the altered bond angle could work very nicely. The novel life forms will build up even if present in only meager numbers whereas the percentage of water having the novel bond angle will be high enough to make a material difference in bodily function and promote longevity.