The Rise of Medicium (Part 2 of 3)
The Birth of a New Element
The Announcement
A few weeks ago, whispers began circulating through the tech world about a new element — Medicium, symbol Mc. Early reports described it as a breakthrough material for stabilizing next-generation microchips. Engineers claimed that a microscopic layer of Medicium enhanced signal integrity between devices and the central coordination systems that now manage everything from traffic grids to hospital networks.
Nothing sensational, nothing mystical — just the calm confidence of scientific progress. The scientific tone is familiar: a new element, a promising material, another quiet leap forward. The kind of discovery expected to slip into textbooks, training manuals, and engineering curricula.
Most people have no reason to question it. A new element on the periodic table is rare but not unprecedented. Scientists discover things. Committees verify them. The chart updates. The public accepts the news and moves on. If you missed my first article, start here:
The Beginning of A Square
New elements are not voted into existence by the public. They are approved by a small joint committee run by two professional unions, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. A short list of senior physicists and chemists is appointed by those unions to review the data from candidate laboratories and decide whether the evidence is “good enough” for a new square on the chart. Their criteria and final reports are published, but their internal discussions, conflicts of interest, and rejections are not.
The laboratories that supply the data are not independent. They are large national or international facilities funded by governments and strategic programs. Recent heavy elements have been claimed by places such as RIKEN in Japan, the GSI Helmholtz Centre in Germany, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, and United States national laboratories such as Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore. These sites are financed by ministries of science, energy, and, often, defense, and they sit within the same infrastructure that develops nuclear technologies, weapons research, and supercomputing for national security and industry partners.
There is nothing neutral about this process. The same states and corporations that fund high-energy physics and weapons programs also fund the machines that “discover” and create new elements, and they sit on the committees that approve their own results. When laboratories from different countries compete over who discovered a new element first, it is treated as a matter of national prestige. The periodic table becomes less a list of what exists in nature and more a scoreboard for which alliance controls the apparatus that defines it, and profits from it.
Spinning the Mc Story
Let’s take a closer look at exactly how we get a coveted square on the biblical chart. The material that will eventually be called Medicium surfaced during routine contract work in a small lab that handled research for chip and data companies. A chemist there had been asked to evaluate whether anything useful could be recovered from industrial surplus byproducts. He concentrated his work on desalination brine, processed degraded plastics, combined the fractions, and ran the mixtures through pressure filtration and controlled-potential electrolysis.
During one of these runs, a thin metallic layer formed on the cathode. It didn’t match anything in their reference files. When measured, the electrical response was unusually clean and stable. Prototype chips coated with the layer showed slightly more consistent behavior during testing. The team repeated the process under narrower conditions. The signature held.
The results were forwarded to the companies funding the project, and additional labs were asked to try the same steps. Once the data stabilized, the administrative machinery began. Measurements were refined. Proposed values were drafted. The committees responsible for reviewing new entries received the reports. The name Medicium, the symbol Mc, and a provisional placement on the periodic table were included. None of this was public. The table appeared unchanged while the evaluations moved quietly forward. No one on the committee needs to declare or even state if they have a conflict of interest for winning the square. A conflict of interest is assumed.
Medicium costs nothing at the source. Its value came from the refining process and the patents attached to it, which was enough to pique the industry’s interest. Supply negotiations began before the element had a public name. New squares on the periodic table are not theoretical. They are economic opportunities measured in millions and billions.
From there, the narrative split. Within technology circles, Medicium was treated as a promising material for chip stability. In wellness spaces, small claims began circulating about trace appearances in plants and dairy. Both paths advanced smoothly under the same assumption: if a substance is headed toward the periodic table, it must be legitimate and potentially profitable.
This is where the problem begins.
What Counts as an Element
The periodic table reinforces the belief that squares are found in nature by presenting every entry in the same neutral format, as if each square reflects something found in living systems. But this assumption collapses the moment you look at how the system actually works.
In modern chemistry, you can find almost anything if you look for a chemical signature. Instruments are designed to search for patterns they were trained to detect. When a signal’s trace appears, the instrument names it. When the signal repeats, the lab classifies it. With enough filters, acids, temperatures, and solvents, any mixture can be stripped down until a measurement stabilizes. That measurement creation becomes the “thing.”
This approach tells you nothing about nature. It tells you everything about the apparatus and the chemical soup.
Nature does not separate itself. Nothing in the living world exists in isolation. You cannot take the sun, dismantle it into discrete parts, and declare that one specific wavelength is the “active ingredient” to health and vitality. There is no active ingredient. The health of sunlight comes from the total synergistic field — the shifting spectrum, the timing, the angle, the warmth, the billions of photons interacting with skin, water, at least 36 different hormones reacting simultaneously, with the earth vibrating beneath your feet. Thousands of reactions are happening at once. None of them can be extracted, bottled, or reverse-engineered into a therapy. But they want you to think they can.
Human beings have spent decades trying to disprove this, insisting that nature can be hacked, streamlined, optimized, or improved. It has never worked. Not once.
Synthetic vitamins were supposed to replace food. They produced imbalances, deficiencies, and chronic illness. Supplements concentrated from industrial chemistry were supposed to “support wellness.” They destabilized metabolism and created entire categories of side effects. Countries with the most medication, vaccination, and supplementation are the sickest populations on the planet — with rising childhood disease, infertility, metabolic collapse, and mental health disorders.
Biohacking followed the same pattern. Red lights, cold plunges, laser masks, blue blockers, grounding beds, all presented as substitutes for the simplest interaction with the actual world. You do not need a $2000 panel to access red light. You have the sunrise. You do not need a grounding mat made in a plastics factory. You have the earth. You do not need a clinic to simulate a circadian rhythm. You have the moonlight.
People stand under artificial lights trying to mimic something that already exists freely every morning. They lie on engineered mats trying to recreate the part of nature they could access barefoot. They ingest concentrates and isolates because someone extracted a pattern from a living system and declared it the magic elixir.
There is no secret. There is only true nature.
Real medicine is simple.
Real medicine is the whole.
Real medicine cannot be broken into parts without losing its true essence. The body doesn’t understand anything that is created in a lab.
Step outside in the early light. Take your shoes off. Walk. Listen to birds. Watch the bees move through the clover. Feel your breath harmonize with the wind and your heart with the coyote. Nothing is isolated. Nothing is extracted. Everything is synchronous. That is why it works.
The periodic table pretends that reality functions as separate pieces. Chemistry pretends that if you find a pattern inside a dismantled material, you have found something fundamental. But nature never offered its pieces. Humans created them through reduction, force, and interpretation. The system reflects the for-profit tools, not the truth.
This is the crux of the problem — and the foundation for everything that comes next.
From Earth to Element to Product
To understand how an element ends up in a pill, a powder, or a public health guideline, you have to see the stages it passes through. Each step moves further away from nature and deeper into industry. Most people never notice this transition because they only encounter the final product — packaged, named, and presented as if it came directly from the earth.
The first stage is the earth itself.
In the natural world, minerals show up only in tiny, buffered traces. They flow through soil, seawater, plants, and living bodies as part of larger biological systems. Nothing exists alone, and nothing acts alone. Nature holds everything in balance because everything is connected.
The second stage is the lab.
This is where disassembly begins. A material is burned, dissolved, filtered, or evaporated until the living context disappears. What remains is not nature, but the leftover chemical that survived the separation. If that pattern repeats, it becomes a measurement. If the measurement stabilizes, it becomes a classification. That classification is then given a name, a symbol, and a square on the periodic table.
The third stage is the product.
Once a substance has a symbol and a classification, it becomes a tool. The isolated laboratory version can be packaged, flavored, fortified, encapsulated, or added to water supplies and foods. Companies call it natural because the original source was natural, even though every step after extraction stripped it further from anything alive. Just like I have pointed out in countless articles, from iodine to methylene blue to baby aspirin.
This is how calcium becomes an antacid, fluoride becomes a tap water additive, chlorine becomes a plastic and disinfectant, aluminum becomes a filler and medical ingredient, and iodine becomes a fortifier and surgical cleaner. By the time these substances reach the human body, they behave nothing like their original whole forms once found in nature. They are concentrated isolates that never existed in the real world.
Fluoride is one of the clearest examples of how a toxic industrial byproduct can be reframed as a public health requirement once a profitable narrative is attached to it. The claim that fluoride “prevents cavities” was never the starting point. It was the sales pitch. The material itself came from a very different place.
Large volumes of fluoride waste were generated by aluminum smelting and phosphate fertilizer production. These operations produced fluoride compounds that were corrosive, reactive, and expensive to contain. Disposal carries long-term liability. In the early records, these compounds were classified as toxins and used as rodenticides because they disrupted basic biological functions. There was nothing gentle about fluoride. It was effective precisely because it was poisonous.
The shift happened when the industry recognized an opportunity:
If fluoride could be reframed as a dental benefit, the disposal problem would disappear. Instead of paying to store hazardous waste, companies could sell it. Just like DMSO. Cities could be billed for a material that previously required strict containment. Public health agencies could promote it without ever explaining its origins.
This has always been the pattern:
First comes the surplus, then comes the story.
The public never saw the industrial steps behind fluoride. They saw a simple slogan about cavities and a familiar square on the periodic table, which made fluoride look like a natural component of our planet. Most people assumed that meant it belonged in drinking water and inside the human body. They never saw the difference between the clean symbol on the chart and the industrial fluorosilicates added to municipal systems.
Fluoride taught industry an important lesson.
If a substance is cheap, abundant, or difficult to dispose of, it can be turned into a health product as long as the right institutions repeat the same message. The narrative does not need to reflect nature. It only needs to sound authoritative.
Now that the pattern is visible, we can see how any laboratory isolate can be guided along the same path toward wellness culture.
The Periodic Table as a Branding Tool
After an element is added, an entire support system forms around it. Research funding, patents, production standards, textbooks, curriculum, regulatory language, and health guidelines are anchored in that small square. Markets grow around it. Once these structures are in place, questioning the element becomes almost impossible because too many institutions depend on the stability of that entry. And once an industry is formed? It never goes away.
This is why industrial compounds can move into public health programs with so little resistance. They are the public health, the government, and the corporate-run country.
Understanding this clears the way for the next point. The power of the periodic table is not that it reflects the natural world. Its power lies in organizing industrial outcomes in a format the public is trained to trust.
What about Atomic Structure?
None of this is observed directly. Atomic structure is inferred from instruments that already assume the model they claim to confirm. Every tool requires calibration. Every calibration relies on reference standards built from the same theory being tested. The result is a closed loop in which the measurements validate the assumptions, and the assumptions define what counts as a valid measurement. Basically, fancy icing on a rotten cake.
No one has ever seen a proton. No one has ever watched an electron orbit anything. Neutrons do not exist in free form outside extremely controlled conditions. Atomic diagrams are illustrations created from equations. They explain the model, not the natural world.
High-energy experiments do not reveal particles. They reveal patterns produced by machines. Those patterns are interpreted according to the theory the machine was built to support. A different theory would yield a different interpretation of the same data.
Once the reader understands this, the claims about air, water, and elemental “building blocks” can be examined without assuming the model is correct simply because it has been repeated.
Why Atoms, Protons, and Neutrons May Not Exist As Described
Each element is presented as a fixed mass. Specific numbers of protons and neutrons. Electrons orbiting in clean layers. The drawings become as factual as anything in science can be.
No person has ever seen a real proton. No one has observed electrons orbiting anything. Atomic diagrams are videos and illustrations, not photographs. In modern science, the atom serves as a mathematical placeholder, not a visible object in nature.
Particle accelerators do not show particles. They display light patterns that researchers interpret as signatures of theoretical entities. The machine is designed around a model. The data is interpreted through that model. A different model would generate a different interpretation of the same signals.
Even mainstream physics admits this. Particles are not seen. They are inferred. The proton exists because the theory requires a positive component. The neutron exists because the theory requires a particle with mass but no charge. These are solutions to equations that yield a specific answer. Back to Neil and his pouty smirk. They make up the numbers and the names so the other things add up and spit out the information they are after. It’s only complicated if you are coming in from the front end. They start with the answer and reverse engineer it. Way more simple and makes them look way more clever than they are.
If protons and neutrons cannot be verified without using the assumptions that define them, they are not natural findings. They are constructed definitions. And if the atom is defined rather than discovered, the periodic table is not a map but a list of experiments.
This allows the next point to stand. If the atomic model is interpretive rather than direct, then claims such as water being hydrogen and oxygen, or air being nitrogen and oxygen, rely entirely on a framework that may not reflect the actual world. They reflect interpretations created inside controlled experiments.
The Case Against Oxygen As A Separate Gas
Air behaves as a primary substance. Oxygen as a separate element has never been observed in nature without the use of instruments that first assume it exists. Does anyone else see a problem with that? How do I know the tooth belongs to a T-Rex, if I have never seen a T-Rex?
Every device that claims to isolate oxygen begins with air. It filters, chills, or compresses air and then labels the remainder according to built-in expectations. The device does not locate oxygen. An oxygen concentrator does not create oxygen or extract a pure component. It removes moisture or density from the air. The remainder is still air. Calling it oxygen is a labeling choice, not a direct discovery.
No tool measures oxygen itself. Dissolved oxygen meters rely on pH changes. Pulse oximeters rely on light absorption patterns. Industrial sensors rely on shifts in heat or optical behavior. All require calibration. Calibration instructs the machine what the signal is supposed to represent. The detection of oxygen is an interpretation imposed on the data. Just like we don’t need any more data after the laws of density, but for some reason, we have to believe in gravity. But where is the profit in that? We have become lost in a world of interpretation. We must beLIEve the interpreters. And like my friend Ann mentioned in my last article, I don’t have the credentials to have a conversation with her. And I now know why. Those of us who were not indoctrinated into the cult of science ask too many pesky questions they can’t answer.
If that interpretation is removed, the observation is straightforward. Instruments detect changes in air, not a separate gas.
Combustion experiments use the same loop. A flame behaves differently in different air conditions. This is labeled as evidence of oxygen, but the observation is simply that fuel interacts differently with denser or drier air.
Biology is described as using oxygen, yet no one has collected pure oxygen from a plant without introducing external chemicals, salts, or indicators. Plants transform air and release modified air. They do not produce isolated gases in open nature.
Water follows the same pattern. No one has created new water from hydrogen and oxygen alone. Demonstrations rely on atmospheric moisture or altered setups. Electrolysis requires additives because pure water does not conduct as predicted by theory. The additives break down first, not the water.
Air and water behave as fundamental base elements. They do not break down into smaller components outside of chemically forced interpretations. They do not assemble from components outside laboratory frameworks. They exist as complete materials.
If they cannot be broken down into the parts predicted by the model, and cannot be constructed from the parts the model requires, they are not mixtures or compounds. They are primary.
This conclusion positions the next step in Article 3.
And disrupts then entire industry built on a flimsy house of cards. If air and water are primary substances, and if most entries on the periodic table come from laboratory procedures rather than nature, then the stories we are given are not for our benefit. But for the industries.
The time of self righteous, arrogant cult leaders of science is over.
Absolutely brilliant… I love the way your mind translates our world!!!
THANK YOU!